UK on the verge of committing an act of war...

Page 3 of 6 [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Aug 2012, 12:32 pm

Cornflake wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.
IIRC, while he was in Sweden he was pulled in for questioning but no charges were made, so the case was dropped and he was allowed to leave.


Then why does Sweden want to question him further if they totally dropped the case and he was free to go?


_________________
We won't go back.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

20 Aug 2012, 12:34 pm

Cornflake wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.
IIRC, while he was in Sweden he was pulled in for questioning but no charges were made, so the case was dropped and he was allowed to leave.


I believe the investigation was still in its preliminary stages, and still is.

Does the fact that the case was dropped at first (before charges could be made) make the subsequent request for arrest invalid? I'm not knowledgeable on legal issues like this.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 12:35 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
(1)I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.


I apologize and feel the same way I have no intentions to that effect. Maybe this is why they choose sex charges rather than shoplifting.

Sweden refuses to question him until he is Sweden they have a warrant for his questioning not his arrest.
If they question him in Britain they can not extradite him ( and then give him to the U.S.)


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 12:35 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.
IIRC, while he was in Sweden he was pulled in for questioning but no charges were made, so the case was dropped and he was allowed to leave.


Then why does Sweden want to question him further if they totally dropped the case and he was free to go?


Because the U.S. told them to.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

20 Aug 2012, 12:38 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I am pretty sure there is only one definition of the word rape.
Statutory rape already refers to sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior. So even if the person fully consented, legally they were raped.
Clearly this is entirely different to someone being grabbed and having sex forced on them and I think there are similar technicalities involved with the charges made by Sweden.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Aug 2012, 12:41 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.
IIRC, while he was in Sweden he was pulled in for questioning but no charges were made, so the case was dropped and he was allowed to leave.


Then why does Sweden want to question him further if they totally dropped the case and he was free to go?


Because the U.S. told them to.


Evidence? I mean it could be but do you have any sort of proof or are you theorizing?


_________________
We won't go back.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 12:42 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well since it mentions the wanted to question him about allegations of rape....I have to say if he is in fact guilty of rape or sexual assault, maybe i do wish the U.S justice system on him. I mean sorry if I am not exactly empathetic about a possible rapist being 'afraid of being deported to the U.S.'

too bad it does not say for sure if he did or did not commit such crimes. Because I am kind of stuck between 'ha ha he got away with leaking the documents or whatever.' to 'I hope bad things happen to him.' Him possibly being a rapist kind of ruins his legendary internet hacker status that his supporters seem to think he has.


The rape definition used in Sweden to charge Assange would not be criminal in the U.S.
He had sex with women without using a condom and lying about being monogamous.
This is bad behavior but he is not even being accused of what we in the U.S. calls rape.


Well I highly doubt rape or sexual assult in Sweden is defined as having sex without a condom and lying about being monogamous...but I will go look it up. I am pretty sure there is only one definition of the word rape.

[ad hom deleted]

Good idea. there are lots of definitions of rape from Consensual sex with a 20 year old in Tunisia to the violent rape.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Aug 2012, 12:47 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
they have not interfered in the internal affairs of that State… they have not acted actively. they have not invited him. they have not urged him to do so.

it was assange who seeked their help… they act upon this persons questions… rightfully and correct.

so no vienna convention is broken or violated here.


These statements are all either incorrect, or irrelevant.

Educador has, most certainly, "acted actively (sic)." Assange is not a member of the Ecuadorian mission (and could not be made a member without the agreement of the Foreign Office) and does not, therefore, have any right be be in the Ecuadorian embassy, unless the Embassy has either expressly conferred that right upon him, for failed to evict him from the premises. In either event, the embassy, knowing that he is sought by the authorities of the United Kingdom has acted to prevent his arrest by those authorities.

It does not matter one whit whether Ecuador's action was taken on its own initiative, or upon the application of Mr. Assange. The fact remains that he is a person upon whom the United Kingdom has not conferred diplomatic immunity who is being withheld from lawful execution of British law by the immunity of the premises of the embassy.

It is irrelevant that they acted upon Assange's request for asylum. The grant of extraterritorial asylum does not--except in the handful of countries who recognize it--grant any legal protection from the state in which the country granting asylum has acted extraterritorially. The Ecuadorians can perfectly legally issue him with a visa, and can perfectly legally declare that they will accept him as a permanent resident upon arrival in Ecuador. But none of that is relevant to the question of frustrating the execution of English law on British soil.

And the Vienna Convention has most certainly been violated. Not only does the convention not include any reference to diplomatic asylum, its inclusion was deliberately excluded. Latin American countries have had an explicity legal recognition of diplimatic asylum since 1928 (or 1939, depending upon which authorities you follow) and a customary observance of it before that. But no country outside Latin America has ever accepted that there is any such legal status nor that an embassy or consulate can be used for the purpose of providing asylum within the territory of the receiving state, and an attempt by South American countries to include such a doctrine in the 1961 convention was explicitly rejected.

The uses to which a country may put its embassy are limited, and when country acts outside those limits it is in violation of the Convention, and it presents the receiving state with ample legal justification to exercise its sovereignty. (Though naturally the political justification is a vastly different calculus).

Quote:
if the UK won't play by the rules, then it can be seen as an act of war in worst case.


So far as I have seen the United Kingdom has played entirely by the rules. If you can point me to a violation of the Convention or any other international law, I would be pleased to see it.

You should not let your political approval of Assange and his actions to blind you the the legal realities of the case.


_________________
--James


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Aug 2012, 12:48 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I am pretty sure there is only one definition of the word rape.
Statutory rape already refers to sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior. So even if the person fully consented, legally they were raped.
Clearly this is entirely different to someone being grabbed and having sex forced on them and I think there are similar technicalities involved with the charges made by Sweden.


This is the first time staturory rape has been mentioned....so I feel its kind if irrelevant to what I meant as I was talking about specifically the word rape which as we all should know means forcing sex on someone. Staturory rape is kind of a different matter but I wont go into my in depth opinions on that as I am trying to stay on topic.


_________________
We won't go back.


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

20 Aug 2012, 12:50 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
I believe the investigation was still in its preliminary stages, and still is.
Oh it probably is now, but this is more a case of "Charges - the return". It's been dug up and re-hashed after he was allowed to go.

Quote:
Does the fact that the case was dropped at first (before charges could be made) make the subsequent request for arrest invalid? I'm not knowledgeable on legal issues like this.
The point is that there was no case - not that one merely wasn't brought in time; that's why he was allowed to leave Sweden as an entirely innocent man.
Otherwise he would have been arrested for the charges made at the time - except there were none.
So at best, someone screwed up very badly indeed and are now in a position of trying to save face by having to "re-invent" new charges to cover the case, since none were made on the evidence then available - and I don't think anything new has surfaced since.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Aug 2012, 12:51 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
Good idea. there are lots of definitions of rape from Consensual sex with a 20 year old in Tunisia to the violent rape.



I meant the specific definition of the lone word rape....is there another definition of that besides the obvious one?


_________________
We won't go back.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Aug 2012, 12:52 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.


Sweden has an inquisitorial system of criminal justice. Courts undertake investigations in the presence of both prosecutors and defendants, and charges are only laid after a court is satisfied that a case can be made out. (Similar to a grand jury process, but it must be undertaken in the presence of the accused, rather than in secret). So when the Swedish authorities say that he is, "wanted for questioning," that must be understood as questioning within a judicial process, not a police investigation as we would understand it in our Anglo-American, adversarial systems.

He needs to be in a Swedish Court, and I don't know of any bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and Sweden that permits the courts of one to sit within the jurisdiction of the other.


_________________
--James


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

20 Aug 2012, 12:56 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
(1)I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.


I apologize and feel the same way I have no intentions to that effect. Maybe this is why they choose sex charges rather than shoplifting.

Sweden refuses to question him until he is Sweden they have a warrant for his questioning not his arrest.
If they question him in Britain they can not extradite him ( and then give him to the U.S.)


I didn't say that you were dismissing the rape allegations, but it is quite common amongst the blogosphere.

The extradition request is a request for arrest - 'extradition for arrest'. Assange also has an Interpol red notice on him, which means a request for arrest.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Aug 2012, 12:57 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
The rape definition used in Sweden to charge Assange would not be criminal in the U.S.
He had sex with women without using a condom and lying about being monogamous.
This is bad behavior but he is not even being accused of what we in the U.S. calls rape.


I am reasonably certain that fraudulently obtaining the consent of a person to sexual intercourse is a crime in all jurisdictions in the United States. Just as a refresher, the definition of fraud is: 1) uttering a statement that declarant knows or ought properly to know is false; 2) realiance by another party upon that false statement; and 3) harm to the other party as a result of that reliance. It is alleged that he lied about his monogamy; that a woman relied upon that lie and that she consented to sexual intercourse as a result of that reliance. That's a textbook case of fraud.

I am also reasonably certain that persisting in sexual intercourse after the conditions under which consent was obtained have ceased to exist also constitutes a crime in all jurisdictions in the United States. If a woman says, "only with a condom," that means the man must wear a condom, and must stop at the point that this ceases to be the case.

de minimimus non curat lex is not a defence in criminal matters.


_________________
--James


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

20 Aug 2012, 1:01 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I am pretty sure there is only one definition of the word rape.
Statutory rape already refers to sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior. So even if the person fully consented, legally they were raped.
Clearly this is entirely different to someone being grabbed and having sex forced on them and I think there are similar technicalities involved with the charges made by Sweden.
This is the first time staturory rape has been mentioned....so I feel its kind if irrelevant to what I meant as I was talking about specifically the word rape which as we all should know means forcing sex on someone. Staturory rape is kind of a different matter but I wont go into my in depth opinions on that as I am trying to stay on topic.
I mention statutory rape only in response to your statement "I am pretty sure there is only one definition of the word rape". There is not, and that is true for Sweden too.
So when they say "rape", they don't necessarily mean it in the sense that we commonly understand it - in the same way that "statutory rape" doesn't convey that meaning either.


[Edited for typo]


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Last edited by Cornflake on 20 Aug 2012, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

20 Aug 2012, 1:03 pm

it is still her word against his… sorry.

no judge in this world is able to judge this… since no proof can be given. ever.

it is insane that sweden and the UK are making complete fools of them selves over this.

this is one of the most ridiculous cases in the world.

move on. nothing to see here.