Skip to main content

View Diary: "We'll Tell You What The News Is. The News Is What We Say It Is!" (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  First off, to state the obvious... (0+ / 0-)

    we are talking about Swedish law.  Which is in Swedish.  Meaning that he, nor anyone else, will ever be "charged" by Sweden.  One can be "anklagad" or "åtalad", but not "charged".  Because that's an English word.

    Assange is anklagad, but not åtalad.  What does this mean?  For a person to be anklagad, first the prosecutor's office has to find probable cause that they committed the crime.  Then a judge has to sign off on it.  It gives them the right to arrest the person who's been anklagad, request their extradition, and everything else of that manner generally done with a person who's charged.  The anklagad individual has the right to appeal the decision in a court of law, having all of the evidence heard, their attorney testify, etc.  And even to appeal the decision of their appeal.  Assange did both, by the way, and lost both times, with both courts finding probable cause that he did, in fact, commit the crime he's anklagad for.

    The only thing that being "anklagad" doesn't do that the English equivalent "charged" does is have the person go to trial.  The Swedish term for that is "åtalad".  Once åtalad, the trial must begin within two weeks.  It is impossible for assange to be åtalad when he is not in Swedish custody, as he cannot be tried in absentia.

    What conclusions can one draw from this?

    1) While it's not an exact match for our system, it's pretty close.  A good translation of the two terms would be "anklagad=charged" and "åtalad=indicted".  

    2) The process cannot be moved any further up the chain without Assange surrendering himself.  Thus it could be well said that "Assange is charged to the maximum extent permissable by Swedish law"

    3) Assange's case has already undergone dramatically more judicial review (one court granting the warrants, one doing the appeal, one reviewing the appeal, and three British courts analyzing the Swedish process) than 99% of people who are charged in the US.

    Lastly, I leave you with the official sworn statement of the prosecutor:

    Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter.  It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
    •  Really, show me the trial date he failed (0+ / 0-)

      to show up for. Playing pedantics using Swedish law does not change the fact the Assange is not refusing to stand trial.
       You obviously believe Assange is guilty of something, I on the other hand believe in innocence until proven guilty, and yes I also believe this entire affair is bogus.
       I'm also not Julian Assanges biggest fan, I think he's an arrogant ass, but I believe in what Wikileaks was trying and still is trying to achieve, Assange's ego became a problem.

      Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture

      by nezzclay on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:21:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To reiterate: (0+ / 0-)

        There can be no trial without him being åtalad.  He cannot be åtalad in absentia.  Hence arguing that he should be treated as though he did nothing wrong because there has been no trial is circular logic.  The maximum legally possible against him in Sweden has been done.  There cannot be anything else done until he surrenders himself to Swedish custody, and the prosecutor has, in a sworn statement, stated intent to advance the process (indict / åtala him) upon his surrender to Swedish custody.

        What more could you possibly ask for?

        " You obviously believe Assange is guilty of something"

        I believe precisely what multiple courts of law have found: that there is probable cause that he committed one count of rape, one count of unlawful sexual coersion, and two counts of molestation.  Which is, BTW, fully in line with his history.

        "and yes I also believe this entire affair is bogus."

        Great for you for declaring two women lying sluts despite what the judicial system says.  You'd fit in well in Steubenville.

        •  OK I come to Kos to be civil. (0+ / 0-)

          You just accused me of calling 2 women lying sluts, of which I did no such thing. The rest of your statement is again tied in semantics of what he could or could not be charged with.
           Before I finish, I want to let you know that after your tactics of trying to put foul words in my mouth, I'm done communicating with you.
            Good day.

          Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture

          by nezzclay on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:29:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then: (0+ / 0-)

            Please explain  you reconcile:

            1) The fact that two women have accused him of rape, and he has admitted to sleeping with them.
            2) ""and yes I also believe this entire affair is bogus."
            3) " I did no such thing" (re: calling them lying sluts)

            How is saying that the charges from two women who Assange slept with who says he rape him are "a bogus affair" not saying they're lying sluts?  Please elaborate.

            Don't get offended at that which you argue when someone presents it back at you in plain language.  Saying a rape case brought by two women is bogus is calling them lying sluts, period.  And this is exactly what Steubenville was about.

          •  In short, if the mirror reflects darkly on you, (0+ / 0-)

            don't blame the mirror.  Look at yourself.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site