Skip to main content

View Diary: Watch Julian Assange Vaporize TIME's Credibility in ABC - Stephanopoulos 'Grilling' - LOL! (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not charged with anything (15+ / 0-)

    Rather than blockquote a lot of text, for those interested in reviewing the whole Assange matter please follow the BBC link below:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

    "WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY FOX NEWS IS JOURNALISM"

    by FakeNews on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:27:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's all a matter of translation, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, ljm, AnnetteK, 207wickedgood

      and all irrelevant.

      To put it plainly, Assange nor anyone else will ever be "charged" by Sweden because the Swedish legal system does not use English terms.  This may sound like nitpicking but it's precisely the issue.  

      There are two Swedish terms in question here: a person can be "anklagad" and they can be "åtalad".  If you look them up in a Swedish dictionary, you'll see that they both can be translated as "charged" or "indicted".  Because "indicted" in English seems to carry a sense of being further along in the process, I generally translate anklagad as "charged" and åtalad as "indicted".

      A person who is formally anklagad can be arrested (and have a warrant issued by a judge for their arrest).  And indeed, they have the right to challenge their warrant in a court, and even appeal that decision.  The one thing it doesn't due that being "charged" does is lead directly to a trial.  The status that leads to trial is being "åtalad".  Indeed, once åtalad, a trial must begin within two weeks.  As a consequence, it cannot be done in absentia.

      Assange is anklagad but not åtalad.  A judge issued a warrant for his arrest.  He appealed to the Svea Court of Appeals.  The court heard all of the evidence and testimony from Assange's attorney.  The court found probable cause that Assange committed 1 count of rape, one count of unlawful sexual coersion, and two counts of molestation.  Assange appealed to the supreme court and lost there too.  Note that this is all independent of his losses in the British court system.

      Since Assange cannot be tried in absentia, he cannot be åtalad.  However, in a sworn statement to the British lower court, the Swedish prosecutor has written that barring anything Assange says in his questioning that changes her view that he should be prosecuted, an indictment will be filed with the court immediately thereafter (that is, he is to be åtalad), and that he is not sought merely for information to assist in their inquiries.

      To put it plainly, he is "charged" to the maximum extent physically possible at this stage, and thus using this argument as a defense of him is meaningless.  Quite to the contrary, he's had an unusually high level of judicial review of his case so far, and at every last stage, it's been damning of him.

      •  Aren't you tired of toting that battleaxe? (5+ / 0-)

        Assange is no saint, granted. Damn few people are saints. BUT that does not mean he has nothing of value to say.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:05:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rei, since you're into legal terminology (0+ / 0-)

        You'll be happy to know that the prosecution must prove Zimmerman's case was NOT self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

        I bring this up because I know consistency in the law is important to you.

        On the Assange case, I think all reasonable people who aren't tainted by politics believe he should got back and face the legal system of where he's accused.

        Please proceed, Governor.

        by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 07:15:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And your reference is? (0+ / 0-)

          Mine that self-defense claims are affirmative defences and are analyzed by a preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence standard is "America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System", David Neubauer, 2005.  And I can get you about 50 more if that's not enough.

          •  Here's just one. (0+ / 0-)

            I'll post more when I get home if you like. I'm on my iPhone.

            http://legalinsurrection.com/...

            Where the government does enter the picture in a self-defense scenario, of course, is after the fact.  Examining events in hindsight they seek to determine whether the use of force did, in fact, adhere to all five legal principles of self-defense.  If they can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any single one of those principles has been violated, the defendant’s right to claim self defense disappears.

            Please proceed, Governor.

            by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:26:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a rather offhand statement (0+ / 0-)

              rather than a direct statement focusing on the standard on which it's evaluated.

              Here, how about the most ironclad kind of reference possible: actual law.  In this case, Ohio's (the first one that I found):

              2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.
               (A) Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.
               (B)
               (1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.
               (2)
               (a) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in, or is a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle.
               (b) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person who uses the defensive force uses it while in a residence or vehicle and the person is unlawfully, and without privilege to be, in that residence or vehicle.
              (3) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section is a rebuttable presumption and may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
              This is hardly unique to Ohio, it's pretty much standard.  Affirmative defenses are not judged by the same standards, and self defense is an affirmative defense.
              •  "Pretty much standard" as in, it depends (0+ / 0-)

                To start, my statement is correct that Zimmerman must be proved to have NOT been defending himself beyond a reasonable doubt.

                Also, your banker statement about self-defense cases in your other thread turned out to be false. You implied it is always the case, which is false.

                The only state I've seen so far that coincides with your claim is Ohio.

                Please proceed, Governor.

                by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:17:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is not correct. (0+ / 0-)

                  Show me law.  Or show me something better than an offhand statement in a document that's not focused on burden of proof standards.  Something scholarly like I've been referencing would be fine.

                  Did you mean "blanket statement"?  And sorry, but saying "turned out to be false" does not make it true.  I'm the only one referencing law and actual documents focused on burden of proof, written by legal scholars, as well as actual laws.

                  At least you're now admitting something.  Are you seriously going to make me go through the legal code of every state in the US?

                  •  No, not every state. (0+ / 0-)

                    How about just Florida for now? I'll do some more digging when I'm at home (I'm on my iPhone hence the typo).

                    And you didn't cite "legal scholars" plural. You cited one book, and as the former prosecutor pointed out, there are tons and tons of books written by credentialed authors - many of whom have fringe opinions (like the guy who wrote that Miranda rights should not apply).

                    I never denied the that some states use the POE standard for self defense. I believe even in Ohio there are special circumstances (like in your own home) where it reverts to beyond a reasonable doubt.

                    Please proceed, Governor.

                    by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:19:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I had an entirely different ref in my previous (0+ / 0-)

                      diary.  Which cited a number of other different people and settled case law.

                      Florida is often cited as having among the strongest standards  on self defense in favor of the defendant in the US with its controversial "Stand your ground" law, which replaced the standard Castle Doctrine there.  Slate has an article about how extreme Florida's law is.  Mother Jones calls it "some of the broadest firearms and self-defense regulations in the nation".  And the hardliners in Florida are trying to go even further.  But even in Florida the jury instructions nonetheless read:

                      If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

                          However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

                      Your eyes are probably immediately fixating on the first part - "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question" - a direct result of Stand Your Ground.  But it's actually the second part that the hardliners in Florida trying to change.  A proposed amendment modifies the second to read:
                      However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
                      As it stands, that part does not exist.  Hence, as it stands, even in Florida, quite likely the most pro-self-defense-claim state in the US, a juror can defend their decision to convict by stating that they are "convinced" that it was not self defense and all of the elements of the charge have been proven. A juror being "convinced" of an argument is a clear and convincing evidence standard.  If the amendment goes through that will no longer fly and the jury instructions will clearly be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but as it stands, those are the jury instructions.

                      Even in the state with "some of the broadest firearms and self-defense regulations in the nation"

                      •  Oh, good lord. (0+ / 0-)

                        First of all Zimmerman's attorney decided NOT to try for a dismissal based on the Stand Your Ground law, so that statute doesn't even apply to his case.

                        You efforts to get me to ignore the fact that REASONABLE DOUBT was the only threshold required for him to walk free... nice try.

                        If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
                        I interpret that to mean if in their consideration of the issue of self-defense they have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, they should find the defendant not guilty.

                        Hey, wait a minute. That's EXACTLY what was said. Amazing.

                        Please proceed, Governor.

                        by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:13:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And also.. (0+ / 0-)

                        GA 3.00.00 Affirmative Defense; Definition; Burden of Proof

                        Here's another one.

                        State: Georgia

                        GEORGIA CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (G.C.J.I. 2003)

                        GA  3.00.00 Affirmative Defense; Definition; Burden of Proof

                        An affirmative defense is a defense that admits the doing of the act charged but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate it. Once the issue of an affirmative defense (except the defense of insanity*) is raised, the burden is on the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

                        O.C.G.A.§~16-l-3, 16-3-28

                        State v. Moore, 237 Ga. 269 (1976)

                        By Andrew Branca, Attorney at Law|January 14th,

                        Please proceed, Governor.

                        by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:38:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  As referenced, (0+ / 0-)

                          Oh, so now the plan IS to go through all 50 states?

                          Sorry, but I have a life.  And I also have references that say my view is the standard and yours is the exception.  References, plural.  

                          Hey, wait a minute. That's EXACTLY what was said. Amazing
                          Great job reading only half the instructions.  No, clearly you're right and the amendment to change the instructions is being added for the fun of it, rather than them wanting to change, you know, how the .jury is supposed to decide cases. Because that'd be too obvious!
                          •  You're entering into the realm of insanity. (0+ / 0-)

                            Let's look at the whole statement.

                            If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

                                However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

                            In the first paragraph the threshold has already been established, if there's a reasonable doubt it was self-defense - not guilty.

                            Now you argue that in the second paragraph, because he only said "convinced" of guilt, that it's implied to be less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

                            How can the threshold simultaneously be innocent if there's a reasonable doubt it was self-defense, but at the same time guilty if they're persuaded to any level less than beyond a reasonable doubt? It's impossible.

                            That's like saying, "if there's a 2% chance it was self-defense you must find the defendant not guilty, but if you're 51% convinced it was not self-defense you find him guilty.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:37:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Aw, to heck with that, here you go. (0+ / 0-)

                          Supreme Court: Walton v. Arizona: aggravating circumstances can be subjected to different guidelines than beyond a reasonable doubt.

                          United States v. Urrego-Linares: The government bears the burden of proof on aggrevating factors that increase the sentence from a base case, the defendant on those which decrease it, with a preponderance view.

                          Texas: Affirmative defenses are measured by a preponderance of evidence.

                          New York: Same

                          California: “Self-defense being an affirmative defense, it must, in a civil action, be established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.”

                          There's the feds and over a quarter of the US population.  Your turn, that should keep you busy for a bit.

                          •  Whoops, wrong link for CA. (0+ / 0-)

                            Meh, I'm too tired to look up the right one.  We'll call it three states so far, not four, and I'll check CA again later.  Your turn.

                          •  Let's look at them. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's possible Texas does NOT consider self-defense to be an affirmative defense, considering you're allowed to KILL someone for stealing your neighbor's property. I looked up the statute for self-defense in Texas, and it doesn't specify what level of persuasion is required.

                            California.
                            “Self-defense being an affirmative defense, it must, in a civil action, be established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Bartosh v. Banning

                            In a civil action preponderance of evidence is the standard. That's not criminal.

                            New York, same thing as Texas.
                              2.  When  a defense declared by statute to be an "affirmative defense"
                              is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing  such
                              defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

                            Which New York statute specifies self-defense as an affirmative defense? It may be, as I said, states differ.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:25:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Flog your dead horse much. (4+ / 0-)

        Assange would have to be a mental defective to return to face the trumped-up-CIA-connected charges.

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by bobdevo on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:04:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Citation? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          artmartin

          It's good form when you're giving an entirely speculative opinion to quality statements as.

          Please proceed, Governor.

          by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:14:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you could state your question (6+ / 0-)

            in English it would be helpful.  As for a cite .... CLICK HERE

            One of the women accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

            Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called “sex by surprise” or “unexpected sex.”

            ... both Ardin and Sofia Wilén, the second accuser, sent SMS messages and tweets boasting of their conquests [having sex with Assange] following the alleged “rapes.”

            “In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the ‘crime’ and tweeted to her followers that she is with the ‘the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!’”

            “The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape,” Catlin said.

            Ardin has also published a seven step guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends.

            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by bobdevo on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:54:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Heavy Mettle

              "Click here" and...

              The address isn't valid

                        The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded.

                Web addresses are usually written like
                  http://www.example.com/
                Make sure that you're using forward slashes (i.e.
                  /).

              Please proceed, Governor.

              by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 09:43:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  try this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Heavy Mettle

                link - or learn how to use google.

                I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                by bobdevo on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 09:54:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This one is a stretch. (0+ / 0-)

                  It starts with a 6-degrees of separation association.

                  While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White), a feminist anti-Castro group.

                  Professor Michael Seltzer pointed out that the group is led by Carlos Alberto Montaner who is reportedly connected to the CIA.

                  So she, as a feminist, worked with a feminist anti-Castro group who is "reportedly" led by someone connected to the CIA? To which they link the following.

                  http://machetera.wordpress.com/...

                  However, this summer, we saw a controversy arise between Montaner and an unknown Cuban academic living in Denver, named Arturo López.  This fact in itself would be of little interest were it not that for the first time, the prominent anti-Castro man (Montaner) clearly admitted his access to information that at the least was confidential, hinting at specialized services, probably those of the CIA.
                  Neither of these sources are mainstream, but even at face value saying his accuser is "connected to the CIA" is dubious at best.

                  Please proceed, Governor.

                  by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 10:12:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So? As much of a stretch as Clapper (0+ / 0-)

                    perjuring himself under oath when asked point blank if NSA collected data of American citizens and answering: No.

                    How's that indictment coming?

                    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                    by bobdevo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:12:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm sorry, but with this whole (0+ / 0-)

                      six degrees of separation nonsense you can prove anything.

                      All we have to do is connect the dots and we can find out who's behind this
                      conspiracy.  Let's see.... AA is involved in the same political
                      party as politician and actor Gert Fylking... who voiced a vehicle in the
                      Swedish version of the Pixar movie "Cars"... which was written by Dan
                      Fogelman... who also wrote "Crazy, Stupid Love", starring... Kevin Bacon!
                      My god, Kevin Bacon is behind all this!

                      Amazing how you can prove essentially anything you want when you do what
                      that original article did

                      I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that it's relevant that AA wrote articles for a cuban magazine, which was run by a group, which was connected to another group, which was connected to a guy, that some professor says is connected to another guy, which a wordpress blog says is a CIA agent - and that she worked for a women's rights group in cuba, which once held a parade in Florida, where a guy who blew up a plane marched beside Celene Dion - needs to get their head examined.  You can do that sort of stuff with pretty much anyone on the planet.  Hey, guess what?  You're right now talking part on a forum where you're talking with a former US congressman's niece.  YOU'RE A CIA AGENT NOW!

                    •  Red Herring! (0+ / 0-)

                      That's a whopper of one.

            •  Given that your whole (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              artmartin

              six degrees of separation game was addressed elsewhere, as for the rest:

              Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called “sex by surprise” or “unexpected sex.”
              False.  The official filed charges against Assange are 1x rape (#4), 1x unlawful sexual coersion (#1), and 2x molestation (#2 and #3).  Three courts in the UK, up to and including the Supreme Court, have ruled that the charges against him would be their equivalent crimes in the UK.

              The source of this myth are that the prosecutor when speaking with the press merely used the word "överraskningssex".  It was Assange's attorney who pretended that was something he was charged with (it is not, and does not exist in the penal code), rather than just a word.  Överraskningssex is a Swedish euphemism for rape.  Yes, it's a compound word, and the components of the compound word are "surprise" and "sex".  But you can't just break down compound words that way, any more than if someone said the word "grandmother" and you reacted, "Oh my god, she's so haughty, she thinks her mother is grander than everyone else's!"

              ... both Ardin and Sofia Wilén, the second accuser, sent SMS messages and tweets boasting of their conquests [having sex with Assange] following the alleged “rapes.”
              False.  There is no support for this SMS claim anywhere in the police report, and a damned lot to contradict it.  
              “In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the ‘crime’ and tweeted to her followers that she is with the ‘the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!’”
              First off, people, plural.  She was at a party of political activists, of whom Assange was only one.  Two, AA wasn't raped.  There are no rape charges concerning AA (the rape charge is concerning SW, who does not have a twitter account, and instead had a right proper freakout after the event in question), and AA denies being raped.  Three, please tell me, how does a rape victim need to behave in public to really have been raped - you know, "legitimate rape".  Because I'd love to hear this one - give me  script, full of stuff about how victims immediately come to terms with what happened, run immediately to the police crying and bloodied, and never smile again or go out in public - and if they do otherwise, why, they're just lying sluts.  Please, do tell me how victims have to behave for it to be "rape-rape"!  Because in my case, not only did I not tell the police, I even let my rapist walk me to my car and even waited for him when he stopped to pee on the street.  Why?  Hell if I know, I was in bloody shock, I didn't exactly have "get raped" at the top of my TODO list for that night.  I've known women - plural - who've outright dated their rapist afterward, just to try to make it seem less like rape.  So go on, tell me, how does a victim need to behave in public for it to be legitimate?
              The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors.
              False.  There is absolutely nothing in the police report or the public statements of the prosecutors along these lines.

              Quite to the countrary, here's the rundown thusfar.  Of the three investigating officers, two (Wassgren and Gehlin) wanted him investigated for what would eventually be five charges (2x rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation), and one (Krans) wanted him for four (1x rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation). The first prosecutor (Finne) first wanted him investigated for five, then reduced it to what would become three. An appeal from one of the victims was reviewed and found with merit (not unusual in Sweden, there's a strong victims' rights process), and a new prosecutor (Ny) was brought in, and the investigation resumed for all five. A judge charged / anklagad him on all five counts. The Svea Court of Appeals held a full hearing - including a review of all evidence and testimony from Assange's attorney - and found probable cause for four. The Supreme Court upheld the four. The British lower court heard Assange's appeal (arguing malicious prosecution, flaws in the Swedish process, and an invalid EAW)and ruled against him on all counts, as well as ruling that what he's charged with would likewise be their equivalent crimes in the UK. The case was heard by the British high court, which also ruled against him on all counts. And again, the British supreme court heard the case, and ruled against him on all counts.

              So if the evidence is all so incredibly acquitting, is EVERYONE in on the conspiracy?

              Ardin has also published a seven step guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends.
              1) The "guide" from many years back was about how to break up your ex and his new girlfriend without doing anything wrong or illegal, and was hardly applicable here.

              2) The first step was basically "don't".

              3) Really, the new standard in rape trials is everything you've ever written on the internet?  How well do you think you'd fare if someone looked over everything you've ever written looking for anything that would reflect negatively on you, and used that as grounds to declare that any crime against you was henceforth invalid?  Here, really want to play this game?  Then I guess Assange's statements where he declared himself a chauvanist and his writings on his blog as to how he's a god to women and how womens' brains can't do math and all sorts of creepy stalker-ish behavior are fair game, right?  Never mind the actual reports of stalking against the guy before he got famous, the accusations of sexual aggression from him even from other whistleblowers, the statements of dozens of people who knew him accusing him of a fathering obsession and misogynistic attitudes and sexual aggression, no never mind all that.  Because one person involved the case once wrote a blog entry about how to break up and ex boyfriend and his new girlfriend, why that means that she henceforth became Unrapeable By Anyone, with the absolute defense of her old blog entry!

              5) Once again, a reminder: The rape charge is unrelated to AA.  It relates to SW.

              •  Oh, and I forgot to mention. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                artmartin

                There's testimony to what AA said at the party, in case you're curious.  KB testified to the police that at the party (wherein AA made that tweet, above), AA had told her about the sex with Julian, describing that it was unpleasant and he had had pinned her down and it had been violent.  This is, FYI, the source of the first charge against Assange, Unlawful Sexual Coersion (it's not rape or attempted rape because he did stop after she curled up into a ball and nearly started crying - however, you cannot just pin someone down and try to pry their legs open against their will and just assume their resistance is some sort of sex game).  The "condom" charge that everyone focuses on regarding AA is merely for molestation, as is one event where, after she had told him not to, he stripped naked and pressed his genitals up against her.

                The most serious accusation, however, has nothing to do with AA.  It's that after SW spent the entire night repeatedly and explicitly refusing unprotected sex with Julian, he waited until she fell asleep the subsequent morning and then started having unprotected sex with her.  And neither he nor his defense team have offered any sort of remotely plausible defense on this front thusfar.  The police record is full of testimony from many individuals about SW's paranoia about unprotected sex, to the point that she not only didn't let her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years once have unprotected sex with her, but even made him get STD tested nonetheless.  The very morning of the incident (while buying breakfast), SW SMSed and talked with a friend, complaining about how Assange kept trying to have unprotected sex with her despite her saying no, and how mad she was getting at him for that and for bossing her around.  She also ran into her brother, who described her as looking shaken when the topic turned to Assange.  Then she returned home, they ate, and she fell asleep.

                Assange doesn't dispute any of this (and would have quite a hard time doing so), only saying that she woke up and consented.  Which is an absurdity - we're supposed to believe that a person with a lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex who was documented right before she went to sleep being mad at the individual for trying to have unprotected sex with her, suddenly woke up and changed her whole life's attitudes toward it with the person she's mad at?

                Is it any wonder this guy keeps losing court cases?  If he gets to Sweden, he better come up with a much better excuse than that.

              •  I'm also disturbed by the fact (0+ / 0-)

                that that article refers to it with the word crime in quotations.

                Apparently victim-shaming is ok when it helps someone many progressives consider a hero.

            •  You know, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              artmartin, Heavy Mettle

              I feel like if this were an ordinary person accused of rape, and claims like this were made about the people making the rape allegations, it would be called out for what it is: putting the victim on trial.

              Why is it that when it comes to people like Assange, questioning the credibility of the rape accuser is suddenly ok?

              •  All about the person, NOTHING about the issues (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Heavy Mettle

                Deliberate distraction, diversion, and derailment with side helpings of ad hominem and character assassination.

                The US in particular has this bizarre Puritan hangup that anyone who does ANYTHING in the public sphere MUST be purer than new-fallen snow, or nothing that they do is worth anything at all. (It's not unknown elsewhere, but we're far and away the worst about it.)

                It's especially the case when the actions taken are counter to the interests of the Moneyed Power Elite - then, of course, they loose the Hounds of Hell on the poor sonofabitch.

                (No, I don't approve of how Mr. Assange chooses to conduct his private life. But the point is, it's his PRIVATE LIFE

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:23:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not saying his actions are worth nothing. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Heavy Mettle

                  But I feel like I'm seeing an opposite argument made on here, that the stuff he's done with Wikileaks means that the fact that he may have raped someone doesn't matter.

                  And if it's only people like me saying that he has to be pure, then why do his supporters go out of their way to smear the women making the allegations?

                  It reflects poorly on us if we start victim-blaming in a rape case as a way of defending someone like Assange.

                •  And I don't expect my heroes to be pure. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Heavy Mettle

                  I DO expect them to not be rapists.  That's really part of the bare minimum that I expect of someone.  Just don't fucking rape people.  It's really not that hard.

                  •  You misunderstand, I don't think he's a hero (0+ / 0-)

                    I think he's done a massive public service with Wikileaks and is, according to reports, a despicable scumball in private life.

                    But the two things have nothing to do with each other.

                    As an opera buff, I got over that sort of hangup a long time ago. I wouldn't be able to listen to Wagner otherwise. (As conductor Arturo Toscanini said about somebody else, but it's thoroughly applicable: "As a composer I take off my hat to him. As a person I put on ten hats.")

                    If it's
                    Not your body,
                    Then it's
                    Not your choice
                    And it's
                    None of your damn business!

                    by TheOtherMaven on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:31:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  (Computer hiccupped) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Heavy Mettle

                The point is, it's Mr. Assange's PRIVATE LIFE and not germane or related to his public actions regarding Wikileaks.)

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:24:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site