How will Assange be punished for attempting to advance democracy?

[hypewaders]

What charge?

Rape.

OMG!

You haven't been following this thread very closely, have you.

He has not been charged yet.

It is impossible to formally charge him in a strict legal sense, until he responds to the warrant. I don't think it is beyond your understanding that "charge" is a term that is used beyond the context of a courtroom (omg) in the sense of allegations of blame.

So let me see if I get this straight.

Yay!

You keep saying he needs to face the charges of rape...

Yes!

...and then you say that "it is impossible to formally charge him in the strict legal sense, until he responds to the warrant"..

Yes! We're on a roll here, Bells!

Frankly, the mind boggles..

No, that's your mind re-evaluating what you've been thinking all along.

He hasn't been charged with anything yet...

...and is wanted for questioning.

Yes!

The one time he was charged with rape, the courts in Sweden as well as the prosecutor dropped the charges due to the complete lack of evidence

Yes! Thank you Bells, I love you.

and that evidence has not changed now..

I still love you, but you don't know that.

Sweden can very well charge him with rape if they see fit...

They want him for questioning. I suspect they may want DNA too. I don't buy the conspiracy theories that he's going to be tortured in Egypt or tried under the Espionage Act in the USA as part of a Swedish plot- there's just not evidence of anything that extraordinary. If the Swedish, UK, and US governments are all that nefarious, and if they personified this phenomenon in Julian Assange as much as Assange apparently does, then they would most likely just have the Mossad kill him.

To me, this is a lot like the conspiracy theories that the manned moon landings were faked, or airliners and highly-skilled Saudi pilots did not carry out 9-11: The conspiracy theories entail a vastness and complexity of conspiracy that goes far beyond the levels of effort, secrecy, compartmentalization, and casts of conspirators for the simpler explanations: Things happened mostly the way that we were told. Does this mean that authorities never lie to us? Of course not. But ginormous conspiracies involving large numbers of conspirators are hard to keep going, especially under the sort of scrutiny that the topic of this thread is getting.

...and yet [Swedish prosecutors] have not seen fit [to charge Assange] and instead have attempted to extradite him...

with you so far, even though the language isn't technically accurate (but I know what you mean here)- Agreed...

...[Sweden has] attempted to extradite him after information about their complicit relationship with the US was made public by Wikileaks, for quesetioning?

Correct, but that is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Even after he had previously turned himself in for quesitoning when he had been previously charged (during the time of the previous document dump)

How precisely do you define "the time of the previous document dump?
How are you sure that this establishes a link?

...and the charges were subsequently dropped when the court threw it out

Do you admit the possibility of further evidence being uncovered in the interim?

and the prosecution stated there was no evidence of rape...

That was then. Why are you convinced that the case remained static, with no new evidence revealed?

So which is it?

I doubt if it's any of the above: I don't beleve that the timing convincingly proves that there is no valid case. I do not believe that it is impossible for new evidence to have emerged.



My assertion that Assange should "answer the charges" does not mean to infer that formal charges have been made in court; "Assange should answer the Swedish warrant for questioning with regard to allegations of rape" is technically more correct, but "answer the charges" is a little more handy when playing round-and-round in circular superficial questioning such as I am patiently enduring here in hopes of finding some understanding between us.

How many times does he have to answer those charges?

If (God forbid) you or someone you care deeply for were raped, would you be satisfied with this degree of legal accountability on the part of an attacker that you could identify and accuse?

He has answered them already.

Not to the satisfaction of the Prosecutor.

[Assange] was questioned by then already in Sweden and then the charges were dropped after the Swedish courts threw it out due to lack of evidence.

Citation and a UK judicial (not Assange representative) source please, Bells- I challenge that rationale, [that no evidence may have emerged over time].

Mr Justice Duncan Ouseley agreed with a decision by City of Westminister magistrates court earlier in the week to release Assange on strict conditions: £200,000 cash deposit, with a further £40,000 guaranteed in two sureties of £20,000, and strict conditions on his movement.

Assange stood in a dark grey suit in the dock as Ouseley began hearing an appeal by British prosecutors acting on behalf of Sweden.

There was an early sign that the day would go in Assange's favour when Ouseley said: "The history of the way it [the case] has been dealt with by the Swedish prosecutors would give Mr Assange some basis that he might be acquitted following a trial."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-wikileaks

​

So go to trial!!! If that was true, why should Assange not get an acquittal and move on? What's wrong with this picture, Bells?

In short, there was no basis before and still no basis now..

You don't know that Bells, and you have not provided here any information exposing a conspiracy, impeaching the Swedish warrant, or proving the absence of new evidence or testimony.


The whole world knows the outline of the charges- well, at least those who take charges of rape seriously in any context.

You mean the charges that don't really exist because "it is impossible to formally charge him in a strict legal sense"?

Evidence; testimony.

Those charges?

No, new evidence meriting further investigation, Bells.

Me thinks it's time you stopped reading the gossip mags.

For example?


[Allegations are] That Assange had sex with two Swedish women without their consent. Bail is routinely set in proportion to a client's ability to pay; the purpose of bail is to see a suspect in court.

And yet, previously, there was no evidence of a crime of rape having been committed.. And again.. that evidence remains the same.

You do not know that the evidence is unchanged, Bells- You have not shown us why we should assume this.


Assange has a considerable legal defense fund at his disposal. Whether that fund was intended by most donors for defense against charges of sexual predation is debatable.

You have proof of that of course? Because you know, all his bank accounts have been frozen and all..

No, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you as you go in circles (you do recall this don't you?) - all Assange's / WL's bank accounts have not been frozen- some (not all) donations were shut down, but anyone serious about donating to WL and Assange's legal defense can easily circumvent those hiccups through dierect accounts. Donations have not been cut off, and all WL accounts have not been frozen. Lawyers are busily working and getting paid. Now you can say that's not WL/Assange assets at work, but he's getting a lot more help than Braqdley Manning. Pro bono legal work for a suspect with millions on ice is still about the money: "Frozen" money isn't liquid, but it isn't out of the reach of forward-looking contracts, either.

I'll grant that many WL accounts are frozen, but this does not mean they do not provide credit, or that Assange does not have sources of legal funds adequate to defend himself from the allegations in Sweden.

The Swedish prosecutor has categorically stated that the only way Assange can be extradited to the USA is if the UK says so- whether or not Assange faces charges in Sweden.

Terrorism charges have nothing to do with the UK...

Yes they do, Bells: As I have shown you with quoted official Swedish reference, Sweden does not have the authority to extradite Assange to the USA without UK say-so.

And knowing Sweden's history in rendition, I really would not trust them too much.

It is not reasonable to expect that Sweden will collaborate or contribute in special rendition of Assange because of the legal precedent: Sweden doesn't do special renditions any more. Swedes hate it, and they put the smack-down on their government for it. Times have changed considerably in terms of European countries (incliding Sweden) cooperating in special rendition over the past few years- they don't like it, and it isn't easy for foreign governments to pressure them into it- especially in a case in which terrorism and islamophobia do not enter in.

As for his accounts not being frozen:

If, as seems likely, Julian Assange walks free from the high court tomorrow, his triumph will be a brief one. As well as a looming extradition battle with Sweden, he faces a familiar headache known to defendants everywhere: how to pay his lawyers? Since his dramatic arrest last week, and incarceration in Wandsworth jail, Assange's legal bill has been growing.

In theory, the founder of WikiLeaks is sitting on a pile of cash. But currently all his bank accounts are frozen. And his legal costs are separate from donations to WikiLeaks, which since October 2009 have reached €900,000 (£770,000).

Today Assange's lawyers said they were trying to organise a legal defence fund to pay for his bills, including ones he is likely to incur in his extradition hearing in February.

Asked whether Assange has any cash at all, his solicitor Jennifer Robinson said today: "No. We have a huge amount of supporters [willing to donate money] but have nowhere to pay it."


(Source)
​

Now unless you have proof that states his accounts aren't frozen, I'd suggest you stop here and now.

I'm sorry Bells, but Assange has backers (mentioned in your reference but not in your quote who are keeping him well afloat. Assange was able to raise a substantial bond with his "frozen" assets. Now, (with your tactics I must emphasize) I don't agree with the freezing of WL accounts and donation portals, but understand that these are not at the instigation of Sweden. Although I'll agree with you (if you see it this way) that there are elements of conspiracy in Washington's influence on world banks, it's a stretch to suggest that Sweden is behind account holds, or that Assange is financially crippled from mounting what has thus far been a quite vigorous evasion and defense from the allegations.



The charge is rape. Let's please get the basics straight.

What charge?

OMG!

You haven't been following this thread very closely, have you.

And the US doesn't want him for rape.

Yes! This is true, Bells.

He has not been charged yet. He is wanted for questioning in regards to the rape allegations. He hasn't been charged yet...

So what charge of rape are you going on about?

...You don't know if they are talking about the rape charge or terrorism charges, which the US keeps calling him a terrorist and Sweden, we know, has backroom deals with the US in regards to any terrorist investigations..

...You don't know if they are talking about the rape charge or terrorism charges...

This is with reference to the (careful Bells OMG!) rape charges.

...the US doesn't want him for rape.

Agreed, Bells.

It would be simpler to concoct and carry out a conspiracy to do away with Assange right where he is, rather than involving the courts of one of the most avid free-speech nations on the planet. This conspiracy theory is no better substantiated than the average 9-11 "truther" hokum.

Tell Mohammed al-Zari that. He was one we know of whom they handed over to the US and kept it all undocumented - you know, to avoid all Parliamentary scrutiny and all..

I know we're just talking past each other, so this is a good place to let it be: I don't see compelling reason to expect Assange to get the special-rendition enemy-combatant treatment. You don't accept the reasons why i don't think that authorities could get away with it. I think that theory would have made a bit more sense months or even a year or two ago, before Sweden had owned up to and officially repudiated special renditions, and before there was so much public attention on Assange. Pulling it off now is about as plausible and feasible as the theory of a "chemtrail" agenda. Sympathy with WikiLeaks and free speech does not necessitate buying into this sort of thing without good reason. I suspect that beliefs in sensational unknowns may be part of a cult of sensationalism that serves as a replacement for what becomes, in situations of much squaring-off into camps of belief, a determined rebellion against the discomforting drudgery of reason and critical thinking- easier to just take up all of the cries of conspiracy of "our side", throw it out, and see what sticks. If anyone challenges such impulses, then talk fast and don't let them corner you about unsettling things like facts; change the subject; fisk; declare it's all connected in one big conspiracy; anyone disagreeing must be on the wrong side of all of us.

 

[Bells]

Tthere is no evidence that the counter-terrorism activities concealed had any applicability whatsoever to the Assange's personal case in Sweden: That insinuation comes from Assange and his legal team.

With good reason. With a history of that kind of behaviour and with even your VP calling him a terrorist.. I think they have the grounds to make the accusations.

You're pissy because you don't like him ..

I think that comparing Assange's plight with that of Mohammed al-Zari is a stretch. As I mentioned before, if such protocols had been in use concerning Assange he would already have taken that ride.

Maybe for you. But for the majority who have been following his closely, it is not a stretch at all, especially with the history of Sweden doing backroom deals with the US to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny.. al Zari was in Sweden as a refugee.. They handed him over under the cover of night to the US.. Do you honestly think it's that far fetched for him to be concerned..

No, as I have already noted, Assange is not a likely candidate for Special Rendition, and certainly not in the context of the rape case in Sweden.

The man has divulged massive amounts of secret documents Hype. What do you think?

Yes, I understand how these men were mistreated. I do not think that Assange is in similar danger, because his visibility and the circumstances of his arrest are very different, now that Sweden has been through a national scandal over special rendition at U.S. behest, and now that a chastened Swedish government has

Because the US is good and all?

Again, how gullible are you?

I don't think you're comparing comparable cases here, in terms of how Sweden is likely to handle Assange. I would further argue that with what has been learned of special renditions in Sweden, it is unlikely that Sweden will be party to any similar abductions and extra-judicial abuse of terrorist suspects at the behest of the United States in the future. The notion that Assange is in danger of being treated like an obscure Arab terrorism suspect is facetious.

What we have seen of Sweden thus far when it comes to Assange, it does not bode well for the future. You don't know what the hell Sweden are doing because they have a history of backroom deals with the US to keep it out of the public eye.

Do you think because he's white and famous he can't simply be handed over?

Not in handling a case remotely comparable to the Assange warrant.

I beg to differ.

It reeks of being a US lapdog.

Sweden is not a nation likely to repeat the mistakes they once made under the cover of a War on Terrorism that has been discredited there, in a much more highly-visible case like Assange's, that is about rape and not political terrorism.

You don't consider the timing for both the accusations to be dubious?

The very same allegation that they could not prove before.. that there was no evidence in the last document dump and then they do another doc dump and it crops up again.. You don't find that dubious at all?

And I submit for your objective consideration that Sweden has been facing up to the excesses and injustices of the "War on Terror" that they were party to, and that Sweden is in fact out in front of the UK in terms of putting the mentality that led to the injustices you claim are likely to be repeated in the name of Assange's rape investigation warrant.

That conspiracy theory is very tenuous considering that in the USA the government is having very great difficulty, in spite of massive motive and effort, in making a viable legal case against Assange.

And you are too trusting and too biased.

There is no valid legal case against Assange and his rape allegation. There wasn't before and there isn't now. They haven't even charged him, which you'd think they would considering the effort that went into the extradition..

Yes they do, Bells- especially now that Swedish courts and government have admitted past injustices concerning terrorism suspects, and awarded damages. Assange is in a very different situation than the abductees of years past in the War on Terror.

They didn't admit to it freely. They were dragged kicking and screaming to it and then, surprise, new document dump that is cablegate and we see that the 'friends with benefit' scheme between the two countries has been going on for a while..

You seem to have all this trust in Sweden, clutching at it like one would clutch at straw and they have frankly done nothing to earn your trust.. quite the contrary.

You are not quoting legal precedent here. This was not a Swedish court. You may as well say that Assange must not answer the Swedish Warrant because of Zimbabwean notions of precedence in law. This note is foolish, Bells.

Huh?

He was handed over by the Swedish Government to face that trial and torture. I think it is your blind faith and refusal to actually see what's going on that is foolish.

Biden says many stupid things, but his thoughtless remarks do not govern Swedish law. Unless US courts can construct a case for charging Assange, and unless the UK will order Assange extradited to the US, Assange is in no jeopardy of extradition to the USA from Sweden.

Do you actually think, that the UK, US's ally would refuse to hand over someone the US claims is a terrorist? How many have they handed over in the past? And as for Biden.. That's your excuse?


That's all you can come up with?

I think it matters if Assange is a sexual predator: If so, then he should be punished sufficiently to deter the behavior. I think it matters if Assange is innocent of the charges: If so, then we can move on with substantive investigations instead of insinuations of a conspiracy to frame him (if such evidence ever arises).

You don't like him. You seem to be overly biased towards him. You keep harping about his treatment of women and now call him a sexual predator. You refuse to acknowledge that these very allegations were thrown out of a Swedish court last year (mid 2010)and dropped by the Swedish Prosecutor because as they stated, there did not appear to have been a crime committed (ie. no rape). Then we get cablegate and out of nowhere the rape allegations resurface and they reopen the case?

This thread is about Assange's legal problems.

This thread is about how he would be punished for the document dump. It seems a rape charge is that punishment for the moment.

Bells, this is the sort of leading questions that amount to trolling in my opinion. You know that the allegations are about forced sex without a woman's consent.

Here you are changing subject again, and I consider this trolling as well. It is very difficult for any readers to wade through this sort of drive-by questioning. It is also very difficult for me to answer in context, and I suspect that this is a game of rope-a-dope, and not a sincere examination of what I'm expressing here.

As I have pointed out (repeatedly without your acknowledgement) WikiLeaks is in structural turmoil, and WikiLeaks mission is in continual compromise as a direct result of Assange's personal issues.

The allegation is about having sex with them without wearing a condom..

And you'll have to excuse me if I am sarcastic.. but really.. what's been going on in this thread.. I can either respond with sarcasm or really let rip.

I have made no such assertions, as you are suggesting here. If you are not going to read my posts with comprehension, or if you wish to mischaracterize them to such an unrecognizeable extent, please don't post here. I've not disrespected you in this way.

I'll repeat my earlier request:
Could you elaborate on "people such as myself" please in a PM?
You're casting a lot of off-topic aspersions on me here, but won't talk them over with me in private. Why is that, Bells? Because what followed here in your post amounts to blatant ad-hominem and trolling, I'll invite you to discuss what I'm skipping of your above post in private channels.

I have been clear about it Hype. I am curious as to why you are so intent on gossip.. You have accused me of trolling repeatedly when I have been on topic and querying your words in this thread.

You are biased about this. YOu have been attempting to direct the thread where you want it to go and then calling people trolls when anyone disagrees with you.. and that's the most minor of the things here Hype.

You do not know what evidence the Swedish prosecution has gathered.

It's the same as the last time he actually was charged with rape.. And the evidence, as advised by the prosecutor then, did not warrant or show that a crime had been committed. Nothing has changed. The allegation is exactly the same. There is no new evidence. They don't even have evidence to charge him and immediately tried to extradite him for questioning.. As Strawdog put it, so well:

I would not trust the Swedish authorities either way. Bail of 300 000+ quid for alleged condom rebellion is a dead giveaway as to the existence of an agenda.


[URL="http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2670268&postcount=165"](Post 165)​

​

That's quite a sweeping assertion there, Bells. I challenge it.

Challenge what? That what you linked had the appearances of gossip?

You are attempting to dismiss all that I have offered you as unprofessional work of zealots. You are also attempting to turn around a point on which we agree (and that I have well indicated throughout this thread) that Assange's personal problems are distracting from issues with even wider implications than these charges of rape.

I'm sorry, you deem the sordid and intricate descriptions of how he entered her, etc, and repeated obsession with his sex life is not unprofessional?

Either do not understand my posts, or do not wish to. Please do not comment on my remarks if you are not willing to review your comprehension of them when repeatedly asked politely.


If we persist in trollish appeals to emotion over Assange's being accused of rape, we cannot go very deep in this discussion. The place for getting to the bottom of this is in court, and the time is now.

What are you going to do Hype? Give me repeated infractions? Oh wait.. you can't. So you continue to accuse me of trolling for daring to question your bias in this case and why you are so intent on ignoring the fact that this is simply dodgy, for lack of a better term?

It never made it to court the first time. They threw it out because there was no evidence a crime had been committed. How many fucking times do you want him to be charged or accused of the same crime?

I mean what's a good number for you Hype? 2? 3? Or possibly 5?

We do not know why there has been a reversal, except for assurances from the Prosecutor that the warrant is not politically motivated.

Right.. because Governments are trustworthy and never ever fuck up.. Oh wait.. that's right.. the very country that participated in rendition and with evidence of backroom deals to avoid any public or parliamentary scrutiny.. you're taking her word for it? Her assurances were vague in the extreme. The warrant has every indication of being politically motivated. Do you know why? The timing and the zeal they are going after him - without charging him mind you - for failing to put on a fucking condom.

The mind boggles..

None of that has been shown to have anything to do with the Swedish Prosecutor's agenda, or mine for that matter.

More ad-hominem trolling, and ignoring of my discussion with you ensued from this point in your above post. Skipping on down...

Are you god damn kidding me?

The warrant and the timing and the zealous attempt to extradite him - after they've been found out of doing unsanctioned deals with the US in regards to terrorism - when the US has been bleating on TV about how he's a terrorist - and again you accuse me of trolling?

I challenge that: Please drop the ad-hominems, and let's get back on topic, Bells.

And please stop accusing people of trolling because they disagree with you.

And since it seems that the rest of your post has so much of it, it's not worth discussing the very same points with you again since you accuse anyone who dared disagree with you of trolling.

 

[hypewaders]

Gotta go- here's a related perspective, better expressed than I have managed here:

politicsusa.com: Why Progressives are Wrong about Julian Assange

 

[Bells]

Gotta go- here's a related perspective, better expressed than I have managed here:

politicsusa.com: Why Progressives are Wrong about Julian Assange

In response to that, I'd like to cite Mr John Pilger.. I would imagine you know who he is? Anywho..

On 9 December, the Guardian published a long, supine interview by Amelia Gentleman with Claes Borgström, the "highly respected Swedish lawyer". In fact, Borgström is foremost a politician, a powerful member of the Social Democratic Party. He intervened in the Assange case only when the senior prosecutor in Stockholm dismissed the "rape" allegation as based on "no evidence". In Gentleman's Guardian article, an anonymous source whispers to us that Assange's "behaviour towards women . . . was going to get him into trouble". This smear was taken up by Brooks in the paper that same day. Ken Loach and I and others on "the left" are "shoulder to shoulder" with the misogynists and "conspiracy theorists". To hell with journalistic inquiry. Ignorance and prejudice rule.

The Australian barrister James Catlin, who acted for Assange in October, says that both women in the case told prosecutors that they consented to have sex with Assange. Following the "crime", one of the women threw a party in honour of Assange. When Borgström was asked why he was representing the women, as both denied rape, he said: "Yes, but they are not lawyers." Catlin describes the Swedish justice system as "a laughing stock". For three months, Assange and his lawyers have pleaded with the Swedish authorities to let them see the prosecution case. This was denied until 18 November, when the first official document arrived - in the Swedish language, contrary to European law.

Assange still has not been charged with anything. He has never been a "fugitive". He sought and got permission to leave Sweden, and the British police have known his whereabouts since his arrival in this country. This did not stop a London magistrate on 7 December ignoring seven sureties and sending him to solitary confinement in Wandsworth Prison.


(Source)
​

 

[Gustav]

one of sci's most important no no's is that mods do not moderate threads they participate in. hype has repeatedly flouted this convention both here and elsewhere. he is unfit and should either resign or be removed from his post

there has been a clear pattern of misconduct spanning at least two threads as attested by at least 5 individuals...bells, gustav, cptbork, quad and geoffp, which by sci's standards is a fairly overwhelming consensus.

we do not sanction for a difference of opinion or any particular interpretation. all we can do as a response is to challenge it while allowing it to stand without being subjected to censure and penalties.

what is paramount is the welfare of sci, the community and the freedom of expression.

you don't like? well here is a fervent plea....fuck off

 

[Gustav]

the staunchest, most radical feminists i have encountered has been right here in sci and they are........men!

/giggle

hahaha
good one buddy
its also strange how sci's female contingent, all potential victims mind you, express their solidarity....

The rape accusations came soon after the last document dump.

Convenient, isn't it?

If it was rape that is, you know how women tend to make up stories like this to get attention.

So why did they send exculpatory texts and ooze about him to their friends? What strange women!

These are educated women are they not? Sam's right the appeal to look at them as victims places real victims of rape in a bad light.

hahaha
what would they know anyway.

 

[quadraphonics]

its also strange how sci's female contingent, all potential victims mind you, express their solidarity....

The thing about -isms is that the in-group gets to pick its battles and trade on their credibility accordingly. The out-group has to stay on one sidewalk or the other, or they get run over.

But on the other hand, if the in-group fails to refill its gas tank with credibility now and again, there ceases to be any traffic to speak of, and the road becomes more like a tailgate party for whoever wants to show up.

 

[Gustav]

another woman, a swede, throws in her two cents.....

US bloggers, twitterers, night show hosts and feminists have taken on the #Assange case and declared it a date rape, the accusing women, rape victims, and that we still live in a rape society. The accusors Ardin and Wilen are helpless victims, who without having a chance to defend themselves in media are described as tools of CIA, and hysterical and while the women are being smeared, Assange and his lawyers can speak freely.

Obviously most of us that have followed the case from the beginning and have bothered to read all documents in the case in Swedish have another opinion about the women, the case and Assange's role. The exceptions are the feminists who have another agenda than many average Swedes who believe in legal justice and gender equality.

Let me give you a background and some viewpoints from a Swedish woman, myself, who has followed the case for many reasons, one is that my family knows the Ardin family and I grew up on Gotland, went to the same high school and university as Anna Ardin and just cannot understand her behaviour and I think her actions have caused damage to the gender equality debate and progress. I just cannot understand why a feminist, professional, employed as press secretary and paid to coordinate Assange's visit in Sweden, would go to bed with him in the first place, then proudly indicate that she had a special relationship with him and at the same time tell her friends that he was the worst lover she had and later go to the police and accuse him of rape? Who is the victim here?

The Assange case has some interesting parallells to the biggest legal scandal in Swedish justice history, the Thomas Quick case.

Thomas Quick was acquitted of a murder when chief prosecutor Eva Finne decided to drop the case because there was not enough technical evidence to convict Quick. Quick was convicted of eight murders most of the convictions were based on his confessions. He recently retracted all his confessions and together with his lawyer plan to appeal the remaining seven murder convictions. Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the case in English. Claes Borgstrom was Thomas Quick's defense lawyer and has been heavily critizised for being passive and not doing a good job defending his client while raking in millions of kronor from the state and making himself a name by defending an alleged serial killer.

The fact that Eva Finne threw out the case due to lack of evidence is an obvious blow to Claes Borgstrom's competence and motives as a defense lawyer and to many it looks like more than a coincidence that after Eva Finne dropped the rape charges against Assange, Claes Borgstrom gets involved and his friend and colleague Marianne Ny re-opens the case. Another question I ask myself is why Ardin and Wilen, I know at least that Ardin is a well educated, updated, professional woman, would like to be represented by Claes Borgstrom considering his track record with the Quick case. Did they get some sorts of promises from him that they would win the case and possibly get a huge settlement and instant fame?

The Thomas Quick case has shown Swedes that there are some grave problems with the Swedish legal system where a chief prosecutor can use almost any means to prove his or her case, we now know how the chief prosecutor of the Thomas Quick case, abused his powers to get the convictions and that several others, possibly even the defense lawyer Claes Borgstrom, cooperated with the chief prosecutor to get the convictions. Few doubt that Quick will be acquitted of the other seven murders. Obviously this is a very, very bad situation where we now know that eight murderers are still free an might have murdered and murder again. And another question arise, how many innocent people do we have in Swedish prisons?

Interestingly enough Hogsta Domstolen, the Supreme Court and final instance in civil and criminal cases, published a verdict in an alleged child rape case yesterday. The convicted rapist was acquitted after having spent four years in prison on a conviction based on the story of his son. The accused had divorced his son's and other three children's mother and for some time the son had lived with his father and he claimed that during that period he was sexually abused by his father and on the allegations made by the son the father was convicted of child rape. The Supreme Court writes amongst other things "for a conviction in a sexual crime case, the court must, like in other criminal cases, prove beyond doubt, in the investigation presented, that the accused is guilty." The Court makes some conclusions as well that will serve as guidelines for the lower courts in sexual criminal cases like this when a case is based solely on someones words: "In this case, as in many sexual cases, the judgement of the trustworthiness of the accuser is central......possible alternative explanations to the accusor's actions before and during the trial shall be considered....The fact that the accusor is considered more trustworthy than the accused is obviously not enough for a conviction....The fact that a person and his/her story appear as trustworthy does not mean that the information is correct. It might be connected with the fact that for some reason, the person is convinced that he/she tells the truth, eventhough the information can be partly based on imagination, confusion or suggestion, other external effects on the memory....further, the actions of the accusor immediately after the alleged crime and his/her general behaviour...special considerations must be taken to indications that the accusor's information can be less credible due, for example, possible personal hostilities between the accusor and the accused, that the accusor might need a reason to explain a relation to his/her family, or that the accusor might have other reasons to make untruthful allegations against the accused. Also the temptation that might exist within certain accusors to get a settlement shall be considered."

This verdict and the conclusions made by the Supreme Court is an attempt to protect the real victims of sexual assaults as well as the falsely accused and to assure that the Swedish legal system is not abused for personal vendettas.

This verdict and its conclusions indicate, at least to me, that Marianne Ny hasn't got enough for a trial in the Assange case and that Assange has no reason to go to Sweden to answer her questions.

The leaked documents from the investigation of the case shows that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen didn't seem to be traumatised after the alleged sexual abuse, Anna Ardin claimed in August that Assange had not been violent to her and she did not feel threatened by him, only that he had a lousy way with women, that combined with her friend's testimony that Anna Ardin claimed that he was a lousy lover, indicates that she, before she talked to Sofia Wilen, showed no signs of having been sexually assaulted, in later interrogations, she claims that she was thinking to herself while having sex with Assange, "I do hope this is over soon". Sofia Wilen seems to be more concerned about having contracted an SDT than anything else, and the prosecutor then made a rape case out of having consensual sex without a condom and the fact that Assange might have had sex with Wilen while she was napping or half awake as she said in interrogations. One lesson learned from above, men cannot read thoughts and maybe not body language from women they hardly know, so if you want someone to stop, say no. Do we need to ask our governments every time we think or felt we were abused, is this the system we want?

I do not think this case should be compared to date-rapes or to be used by feminists and others to claim that "the absolute epidemic of rape and sexual assault that we face in this society has become that much clearer to me, the list of women I know who are rape survivors has become much, much longer since I posted it on Saturday" writes journalist Sady Doyle on her blog tigerbeatdown.com

Jeeez, "rape survivor" now she is trying to surf on the whole "I am a breast cancer survivor" industry here in the US to get the attention. Yes, there are plenty of rape victims in the world and some do not survive to tell her story some do.

More from tigerbeatdown.com

"We made it clear that journalists - men and women - who do this, who minimize and misrepresent those claims, who leak those names, who endanger those women, are going to face consequences. And those consequences might be bigger than anything they've ever seen before; bigger than anything they had any reason to expect."

Full blown American shock- jock rethoric. We need a debate and we need to dare to look at rape accusations from both sides, had the Swedish police and the Swedish prosecutor not leaked the first interview protocols with Ardin and Wilen to the tabloid Expressen, that decided to publish the name of the accused as he was famous, of course, it became of public interest who accused Assange. Remember that one of the sharpest and best female prosceutors in Sweden, who had to guts to stand up to the male mafia that run the Thomas Quick case into a legal disaster, dismissed the alleged rape accusations. Let the debate go on and show some respect to both sides.

So far nothing impressive from the US bloggers, twitters etc, more than cheap tricks to get 15 minutes of fame.​

 

[Gustav]

....But on the other hand, if the in-group fails to refill its gas tank with credibility now and again,.....

/arf

bells dear
you sputtering around on fumes?

ok look
you are in a safe place
do you or do you not, want to have assange's babies?
are you or are you not, insanely jealous of the two swedish....bitches?

:bugeye:

 

[hypewaders]

This is off-topic, but merits a sidebar. I won't "feed the troll" here further. As I have tried to do for hours Gustav- You can discuss this with me like a gentleman in Private Messages- There is no need to further derail this thread.

one of sci's most important no no's is that mods do not moderate threads they participate in.

Would you please quote the rule, Gustav?

hype has repeatedly flouted this convention both here and elsewhere. he is unfit and should either resign or be removed from his post

We'll put it to the test- I'm accountable here.

there has been a clear pattern of misconduct spanning at least two threads as attested by at least 5 individuals...bells, gustav, cptbork, quad and geoffp, which by sci's standards is a fairly overwhelming consensus.

Thanks for letting us in on the agenda, Gustav.

we do not sanction for a difference of opinion or any particular interpretation.

You were flagged for flaming, insulting a fellow member, and off-topic posting.

all we can do as a response is to challenge it while allowing it to stand without being subjected to censure and penalties.

If you don't flame, insult other members, and make aggravated off-topic posts, interfere with the volunteers who police the forum, or violate other forum rules, then you will not receive warnings and infractions.

what is paramount is the welfare of sci, the community and the freedom of expression.

Thank you- That's what this is all about in my view as well.

you don't like? well here is a fervent plea....fuck off

I'm sorry that you feel that way, Gustav.

 

[StrawDog]

The charge is rape. Let's please get the basics straight.

In most countries continuing the act of consensual intercourse with a shredded tyre does not constitute rape. But yes, granted, under Swedish law, its rape.

Mistrust of authority is not grounds for immunity. Bail is routinely set in proportion to a client's ability to pay; the purpose of bail is to see a suspect in court, without harsh terms of pre-trial confinement.

Hype, I understand your position and its perfectly reasonable. Given the actual allegations, I remain skeptical and as I mentioned my gut feel o` dometer is red lining.

I also appreciate your position on Assange`s integrity, or the present dubiousness thereof, as the spokesperson for what is a vitally important outlet for transparency and accountability. I have wrestled with this point for a while, and for credibilities sake, yes perhaps he should do the right thing and go to Sweden to clear himself. Sadly, I do not believe the agents of the dark side have the slightest interest in doing the right thing, thus I believe right now, that its in his own interest to stay put.

David Kelly may have been assassinated. David Kelly was not taken up in the Special Rendition dragnet that some assert is behind Assange's legal problems in Sweden. Sweden is not threatening (nor likely) to take part in the assassination of Julian Assange in this matter, and that insinuation is extreme and without basis. An assassination plot requires no legal considerations such as Sweden is taking; nor Special Rendition.

That was a cynical jest on my part Hype and not intended as an insinuation. I agree that celebrity pale males, or just the general run of the mill person of non Middle Eastern appearance, do not just fall off the face of the planet.

As I have repeatedly pointed out here, the Swedish prosecutor has categorically stated that the only way Assange can be extradited to the USA is if the UK says so- whether or not Assange faces charges in Sweden. There are at least as many and precautions, that may be expected to be at least as effective in terms of Assange's personal safety in cooperating with Swedish authorities, and the argument that his present accommodations are most secure as as facetious the similar argument that Assange lived "in hiding" for fear of abduction or worse prior to arrest.

And as I mentioned, your logic is perfectly sound. I simply do not trust the system. Do you honestly believe the Swedish authorities would have pursued this intense legal onslaught if the perp was a lesser individual of absolutely no note?

 

[Gustav]

Would you please quote the rule, Gustav?

why? you cannot figure out the merits and rationale behind such a "convention"? you are clearly unfit

We'll put it to the test- I'm accountable here.

no need, just step the fuck down

You were flagged for flaming, insulting a fellow member, and off-topic posting.

i am not contesting the moderation just the timing and motivation
why dont you prove your impartiality by flagging every single post in this thread that can be deemed offtopic and infract accordingly? would you like me to present them in my next post? you are a moderator of em&j, yes?

/snicker

you should not have ignored quad's admonition.......

Moderators are not peers of regular users - they enjoy an asymmetric power relationship, tilted in their favor. To have moderators openly discuss what should be done about you - even if they decide "nothing" - is necessarily an act of intimidation, doubly so when it takes place in the OG subforum, and in a thread dedicated to posting policy and guidelines. The fact that you decided to let him keep his lunch money today doesn't disqualify you and Fraggle as bullies.

And if you didn't already understand that stuff, then your plainly unfit to moderate, for that reason alone.

goddamn disingenuous noob

What are you going to do Hype? Give me repeated infractions? Oh wait.. you can't. So you continue to accuse me of trolling for daring to question your bias in this case

/arf

 

[Gustav]

And as I mentioned, your logic is perfectly sound.

meaningless garbage
try starting off with faulty premises and see where "perfectly sound logic" takes you

 

[StrawDog]

now
what do you think would be the consequences if he did vanish into guantanamo? if manning testified about a conspiracy? if gillard had her way?

you think the street will riot? or move on to the next news cycle?

Sadly, given the fickle age we live in, we would move on to the next news cycle, contrived or other. :m:

 

[quadraphonics]

In most countries continuing the act of consensual intercourse with a shredded tyre does not constitute rape.

It does if the fuckee tells you to stop, or had conditioned said consent on the proper usage of a condom to begin with.

as the spokesperson for what is a vitally important outlet for transparency and accountability.

Why is WikiLeaks, in particular, vitally important - above and beyond the manifold other, similar leak sites around today? What exactly would a conviction of Assange cost us, in such terms?

the agents of the dark side

I see you have constructed a new light saber. Your skills are complete. Indeed you are powerful as the Emperor has foreseen.

its in his own interest to stay put.

Assange's "own interest" is not the issue.

Just as it may be in the interest of an innocent party to avoid politicized prosecution, it is in the "own interest" of a guilty rapist not to get caught and punished, no? Or of any criminal to get away with crimes. So Assange's self-interest is an irrelevancy.

The entire point of a criminal justice system is squaring such interests with one another, and with the general interests of society. An end which is pointedly not serviced by the advancement of politicized excuses for avoiding the justice system.

I simply do not trust the system.

A reasonable enough position, I suppose.

But why do you trust Assange, or WikiLeaks, or whoever else?

Do you honestly believe the Swedish authorities would have pursued this intense legal onslaught if the perp was a lesser individual of absolutely no note?

Hard to say - first you'd have to account for the fact that none of us would ever hear about such a prosecution in the first place. It's not like Swedish jurisprudence regularly makes international news, so we really have no way of guaging what is the normal level of prosecutorial vigor there.

It may be unfair that public figures and celebrities generally get subjected to greater legal scrutiny. But there are countervailing effects of celebrity that motivate this to begin with (how many posts have you dedicated to skepticism of any other rape charges in Sweden? How many organizations worldwide help out with their legal defense and advocacy?). And anyway, prosecuting the guilty isn't really unfair to begin with - what's unfair is that non-famous criminals often stand better odds of escaping justice.

 

[quadraphonics]

Sadly, given the fickle age we live in, we would move on to the next news cycle, contrived or other. :m:

And which various leak organizations would have their due chance of influencing, with or without Assange's participation, no?

 

[StrawDog]

meaningless garbage
try starting off with faulty premises and see where "perfectly sound logic" takes you

Its far from a faulty premise. Try getting your head around things and out of the dark space it presently occupies. :m:

 

[Gustav]

Its far from a faulty premise.

i see.
then what to purpose do you provide these clauses.......

.......I simply do not trust the system. Do you honestly believe the Swedish authorities would have pursued this intense legal onslaught if the perp was a lesser individual of absolutely no note?............Sadly, I do not believe the agents of the dark side have the slightest interest in doing the right thing, thus I believe right now, that its in his own interest to stay put.................Given the actual allegations, I remain skeptical and as I mentioned my gut feel o` dometer is red lining.

..?

 

[StrawDog]

It does if the fuckee tells you to stop, or had conditioned said consent on the proper usage of a condom to begin with.

And post coitus, blow out or not, the f@ckee throws a party in the f@ckers honour. I have never come across (pardon the pun) a violated victim throwing a party in honour of her rapist. What the hell?

Why is WikiLeaks, in particular, vitally important - above and beyond the manifold other, similar leak sites around today? What exactly would a conviction of Assange cost us, in such terms?

Wikileaks is obviously important in context of this thread. I am all for this type of information sharing whoever they may be. I welcome Openleaks with anticipation. Hopefully more will follow.

I see you have constructed a new light saber. Your skills are complete. Indeed you are powerful as the Emperor has foreseen.

Touche. You are indeed astute.

Assange's "own interest" is not the issue.

Of course it is. Would you throw yourself to the wolves?

Just as it may be in the interest of an innocent party to avoid politicized prosecution, it is in the "own interest" of a guilty rapist not to get caught and punished, no? Or of any criminal to get away with crimes. So Assange's self-interest is an irrelevancy.

Let it be noted, I am not, nor have I ever said, Assange is innocent of alleged sexual misconduct. I, and the public in general, do not yet have all the facts around the allegations, nor their consequences. All in this regard will no doubt be revealed in the fullness of time.

The entire point of a criminal justice system is squaring such interests with one another, and with the general interests of society. An end which is pointedly not serviced by the advancement of politicized excuses for avoiding the justice system.

Yet a brief review of this extraordinary situation is clearly indicative that political pressure is overwhelmingly apparent. Government officials have used the term assassination. Et tu, Brute?

But why do you trust Assange, or WikiLeaks, or whoever else?

I never said I trust either. IMO Assange has plenty human failings, including a rampant libido, which I believe he should better control. I have often wondered whether Wikileaks is a front for the dark forces? :m:

Hard to say - first you'd have to account for the fact that none of us would ever hear about such a prosecution in the first place. It's not like Swedish jurisprudence regularly makes international news, so we really have no way of guaging what is the normal level of prosecutorial vigor there.

Fair enough. Gut feel?

It may be unfair that public figures and celebrities generally get subjected to greater legal scrutiny. But there are countervailing effects of celebrity that motivate this to begin with (how many posts have you dedicated to skepticism of any other rape charges in Sweden? How many organizations worldwide help out with their legal defense and advocacy?).

Well said.

And anyway, prosecuting the guilty isn't really unfair to begin with - what's unfair is that non-famous criminals often stand better odds of escaping justice.

Yes, of course, and a valid point.

 

[StrawDog]

And which various leak organizations would have their due chance of influencing, with or without Assange's participation, no?

We are waiting for the BIG one. A revelation that is too BIG to ignore, even by the complicit media. :m: