Skip to main content

View Diary: Julian Assange is Arrogant (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re (0+ / 0-)
    You received a reasonable reply and a logical argument of why the position you had taken would invalidate what you are arguing in the case of Assange
    An argument that was already rebutted when you wrote your post, making it strange that you'd write it at all, and hence my response, "Wow, it's almost like my subsequent post didn't even exist."
    , i.e., that saying that a voluntary sexual act at one point in time would invalidate an accusation of rape for a later sexual act.
    While we're on the subject, please point to me where Sally Hemmings accused Jefferson of rape.

    As stated before you wrote your reply, Jefferson's behavior was morally wrong because of the fact that Hemmings had no right to withdraw consent if she wanted to.  We have no idea whether she ever actually wanted to; the problem is, though it appears it was given willingly in the beginning, the option did not exist.  The modern analogy would be a husband having sex with his sleeping wife - he (or an independent observer) may presume that consent would be given, but because she has no option to refuse to consent, it's illegal.  Perversely, in Jefferson's time, having sex with a person who is no position to deny consent was legal - what was illegal was a white man having sex with a black woman.

    available only because of an illegal and highly prejudicial leak of the police report.  
    By Assange's legal team, I might add (have you seen the leaked report, the original?  The header page is addressed to Björn Hurtig, Assange's attorney, with a note explicitly informing him not to make it public.)  We don't know who on Assange's side did it, but someone on his side did it - either Hurtig or someone he gave the report to - did.  Which was an incredibly scummy move, given all of the deeply personal (and identifying) info in there, down to where the women work, their families, and even one of their email addresses.  The women were basically forced into hiding.  One reported death threats.
    But he has blown your argument away. He has narrowed the case to one of molestation, effectively discounting allegations of rape.
    I watched the speech, he did no such thing "effectively discounting allegations of rape".  And once again, what I wrote stands.  The police report is what it is.  The court which heard all of the evidencebacked it up.  So I repeat my challenge to you: explain how you find it even remotely plausible that consent was given in the SW case (the rape case).
    (Indeed, consistent with that interpretation of Lindskog's statement, the agreed facts established by the UK Supreme Court make it clear that there was serious doubt in the prosecutor's office as to whether any crime had been committed, with a high degree of doubt as to whether anything more than molestation should be charged, and the Svea Court of Appeals pretty much agreed that the prosecutor was wildly overcharging the offense).  
    Where on earth are you getting this stuff?  First off, the Svea Court of Appeals was before the British court hearings; they did not "agree" with the British on anything.  Secondly, the Supreme Court ruling has no "agreed facts" section.  They have a brief outline of the case, #83, which says nothing at all about "serious doubt".  Third, the Svea court upheld four of the five charges.  The only one they didn't uphold was rape in the case of AA.  Two of the three police officers, as well as Ny, felt that rape should be charged in the case of AA, but one of the officers (ironically, the most demonized by Assange's supporters - Krans) did not.  In what manner does finding probable cause on four counts, including one of rape, mean "the prosecutor was wildly overcharging the offense"?

    Are you reading Rixstep or something like that?

    And once again you refuse to reply to another issue my post raised - are you actually defending Finne's running of the case?

    So, who should I believe: a senior Swedish jurist or some random person on the Internet?
    First off, you're making up words for the senior Swedish jurist, so what you're choosing to believe is your own straw man.  Secondly, the real question is, who should you believe, a jurist who's not on the case, or the the investigating officers plus the prosecutor leading the investigation plus the court of law that found probable cause on four counts after reviewing all the evidence, plus the three courts at all levels in an entirely different country which found no fault with the Swedish process?
    People who cannot admit when there are some facts on controversial issues that might challenge their viewpoints are simply tiresome, their arguments utterly contaminated by their ideology.
    Says the person who refuses to answer some very simple questions.

    And lastly - if you're such a Lindskog fan, did you perchance miss the parts about how he talks about how grossly people are misrepresenting the extradition issue?  You know he was talking about people like you, right?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site