Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

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

    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:

      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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site