Skip to main content

Why is Assange worse than a pedophile?

England is threatening to revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status and raid their embassy in order to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, even though Assange has yet to be charged with any crime by Sweden.

Yet no one revoked Switzerland's diplomatic status when they refused to extradite Polanksi - who was convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.

And no one has revoked or threatened to revoke England's diplomatic status for refusing to extradite convicted pedophile Shawn Sullivan to face trial in Minnesota for raping and sexually molesting a 14 year old girl and two 11 year old girls.

What is it that's so special about Assange's alleged rapes of two women that makes them so much worse than the proven rape of one child or the alleged sexual assaults of three other children by a known pedophile?

So let's be clear about what's happening (as I understand it):

1. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden, where he has been accused of rape by two women.

2. He has not been charged with any crime by the Swedish government, because they claim that under their system they need to question Assange before charging him.

3. For reasons that are unclear the Swedish prosecutors have refused to question him by telephone, email, Skype, or in writing; they insist that he must be personally present.

4. They refuse to promise that they will not extradite him to the United States, who Assange fears will charge him with espionage.

5. Assange has taken refuge inside the Ecuadoran embassy in London.

6. The British government is now threatening to revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status - which would be unprecedented - and raid the embassy to seize Assange and extradite him to Sweden.

It's not clear what actually happened in Sweden or whether or not Assange is in fact guilty of assaulting the two women, but it is possible. He wouldn't be the first political cause celebré to have some nasty clay feet. So I don't have a problem with him facing trial for rape, if there's legitimate cause to charge him. But even if he's a narcissistic, misogynistic sleazebag he's entitled to presumption of innocence and a fair trial, just like Kobe Bryant and any number of other alleged rapists who have been treated better than Mr. Assange. And it's his special status as the Worst Rapist Ever that I'm concerned with.

After all, Roman Polanski has been at large for over 30 years, despite being charged and convicted of drugging and raping an underage girl. There's no presumption of innocence, and there was no possibility of consent. Yet the US did not expel Swiss diplomats or conduct any raids into Swiss territory. Is what Assange may have done so much worse than what Polanski definitely did? How?

I don't buy the Swedish insistence on questioning him in person before charging him. Under US law, Assange can't be required to answer questions that might incriminate him, and if Sweden has no equivalent to the Fifth Amendment, then their otherwise brilliant experiment with democratic socialism is missing a crucial 18th Century keystone. If they have sufficient cause to believe he is guilty, then they should charge him already. If they need testimony from him to decide whether or not to charge him, then they have a weak case. And if they need him to be personally present to answer questions, then I don't for one second believe that they just need more information from him. It's pretty clear that Assange has good reason to fear they intend to extradite him to the United States.

(That intention alone may be in violation of British extradition law; I've read that it "stipulates that a criminal surrendered on demand of a foreign state shall not be tried for any other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is granted", but I have not yet been able to confirm this.)

But more importantly: why is the British government so hellbent on extraditing Assange to Sweden to face questioning to decide whether or not to charge him with rape? Why are they so intent on doing so that they are threatening a sovereign foreign state with removal of their diplomatic status and a police raid on their property? This is essentially an act of war - over an alleged date rapist? Really?

The British claim that "The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offenses and we remain determined to fulfill this obligation." Seem to me they've already lost custody of Assange and thus have already failed in their obligation, if in fact they ever had really one.

Is the British government known for aggressively extraditing accused rapists to other countries? Do they have a history of declaring war against other countries who refuse to hand over suspects in such crimes? We already know that revoking Ecuador's diplomatic status would be "unprecedented", so I think it's safe to say this is not a regular occurrence.

But more disturbingly, the British government is not always so eager to see rape suspects face trial in other countries. Just this past June, the British courts refused to extradite convicted pedophile Shawn Sullivan to stand trial in Minnesota, on the basis that the American justice system has a civil commitment program for sex offenders that is too draconian.

Sullivan is charged with raping a 14 year old girl and sexually assaulting two 11 year old girls in Minnesota in 1994. As proscecutors were preparing the charges he escaped to Ireland, where he sexually assaulted two 12 year old girls, was caught and convicted, and given a suspended sentence.

And the British government is more concerned with protecting this piece of shit from the American justice system than they are with ensuring that Assange does not disappear into the same black hole that Bradley Manning has been languishing in.

Remember, as far as anyone knows Assange did not steal state secrets. He just published them, which is no different from what the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers. Yet he believes the US government intends to extradite him from Sweden and charge him with espionage, and it's not at all an unreasonable belief.

Rape is an awful thing, and if he committed rape he should face justice. Assange may well be a creep, and he may also be a rapist. But I don't understand what mysterious, mystical quality makes his rapes - which may not have even happened - so much worse than the rapes of a convicted pedophile that the British government is willing to sever diplomatic relations with another country over them.

Unless Assange is right to fear extradition.

(updated: I buried the lede.)

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But of course the point of your diary that he (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, Christin

    shouldn't face any punishment for any crimes he may or may not have committed b/c there were other people in the world who did commit crimes and were not punished for them.

    •  You clearly didn't read the diary. (7+ / 0-)
      Rape is an awful thing, and if he committed rape he should face justice.
      I'm pointing out the double standard of aggressively expediting an alleged date rapist while refusing to expedite a known pedophile. The country in question is the same in both cases, but the standard applied is very different, and justice should be consistent if it is going to be considered justice and not simply might-makes-right.

      Of course, the point of your comment is that you support pedophilia. See how that works?

      Bradley Manning 2012

      by chase on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 02:59:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I saw that. But you are saying that he should not (0+ / 0-)

        be punished in any way no matter what he did. B/c he won't be if he goes to Ecuador.

        •  You keep saying that (9+ / 1-)

          Even though it's not true; repeating it won't change that fact.

          If you're going to continue to comment based on imaginary things in your own head instead of what was actually said, then please take your intellectual dishonesty somewhere else and fuck off, because I'm done responding to your noise.

          Bradley Manning 2012

          by chase on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:14:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You can't HR (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Horace Boothroyd III

          which someone you are conversing with. That's a basic rule.

          One boy against the Stock Market all Wall Street ascream. --Allen Ginsberg, "Elegy Ché Guévara"

          by Anak on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:13:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

            I did tell them to fuck off, so I suppose they can.

            But I don't appreciate the efforts of posters to derail threads with endless blasts of noise. Deliberately and disingenuously misconstruing a diarist's statements just to get them tied up in endless arguments about what they did or did not really say is in fact trolling. And trolls can fuck off, especially the ones defending pedophiles.

            Bradley Manning 2012

            by chase on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 05:12:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, I could have HRed you, but that's (0+ / 0-)

              because I wasn't in discussion with you. It's one of the clearest HR rules there is on this site not to HR those you are engaged with.

              One boy against the Stock Market all Wall Street ascream. --Allen Ginsberg, "Elegy Ché Guévara"

              by Anak on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 05:28:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps you can address (0+ / 0-)

              the point of fact that I lay out in my post which specifically rebut your points in your diatribe.

              You might also like to include in your explanation why you are comparing a European Arrest Warrant, which the UK s obliged by EU treaties to enforce with an extradition request by the US government. The former can only be challenged if there is a error in procedure negating its legality - something the UK Supreme Court has ruled on twice. The latter can be much more easily challenged on Human Rights grounds up to and including in the European Court of Human Rights and could be indefinitely delayed or refused by the Home Secretary.

              Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

              by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:35:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the perspective (4+ / 0-)

    There was simply so much insanity in twigg's post earlier today. Truly disappointing to see the number of users ready to judge Assange even before charges are made, far less before a trial.

    Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

    by ask on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 02:56:37 PM PDT

    •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

      There were many, including me, pointing out the facts of the situation and I will point out basic flaws in this diary.

      Polanski was not on US soil when the Swiss refused to hand him over. Assange is not in Ecuador, he is in a first floor apartment, apparently the size of a tennis court (source BBC Newsnight) in a block next to Harrods department store. Flat 3B has diplomatic priviledges as the embassy of Ecuador. It is UK soil (well the flat below sits on British soil to be precise) and is not the sovereign territory of any other nation, the same way all embassies everywhere remain the territory of the host country

      Diplomatic relations are bi-lateral and this status can change unilaterally. The 1987 Act quoted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in their letter to the Ecuadorians has never been challenged as contrary to the Vienna conventions and indeed goes beyond it by setting out that after breaking off relations, the status of the embassy can be revoked by giving seven day's notice. There was never any threat to "storm"  the embassy today.

      As for the rush to judgement, what about those who were perfectly prepared to convict the two women of perjury in their defense of Assange?

      It is interesting that this diary mentions another alleged rapist whose extradition to the USA was refused. (I note this diarist has no problem apparently convicting him before trial) Given the apparent facts of that case as set out, extradition becomes impossible because of his Article 3 rights under the European Declaration of Human Rights. That very same article is regularly applied by both the UK and Sweden to require the US to guarantee that capital punishment will not be sought. Another extradition request is currently blocked by the UK in the case of a computer hacker the US claims to hae endangered security but who has mental disabilities. Any imprisonment would constitute  a cruel and unusual punshment according to his supporters but this has been rejected by the ECHR. The Home Secretary has yet to sign the order and has agreed to look at further Article 3 arguments.

      Assange would have exactly the same right to challenge an extradition request from the USA to either the UK or Sweden. His claimed fear that he would face execution is either a straw man or paranoia. Indeed he would quite likely succeed in a claim that treatment similar to Bradley's  would breach Article 3 rights.

      He could take this through the courts of whichever EU country the USA wished to make the still hypothetical extradition request to. If that failed, he could appeal further to the various levels of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) up to its Grand Chamber. Indeed, Assange cou;d have appealed the two decisions of the UK Supreme Court that the European Arrest warrant was valid to test his claim of a well-founded fear that it was a device to enable Sweden to conspire with the USA to facilitate his illegal extradition.

      Finally, I would point out that Assange had applied for residency in Sweden because of its extensive laws protecting journalists and whistle blowers. He now chooses to be sheltered by a country whose President prosecuted a journalist and three newspaper executives for insulting him, resulting in their being ordered to pay US$40million to him as "compensation" and getting three year's imprisonment. Human Rights Watch further report:

      In order to rebut media criticism the government has also used a provision of the broadcasting legislation that obliges private broadcasters to interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as “cadenas.” According to an independent group, between January 2007 and May 2011, there were 1,025 cadenas totaling 151 hours of broadcasting time, many of which included attacks on government critics and only interrupted the program of the journalist that the cadena was criticizing.

      Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

      by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:34:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's an accurate description of your comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        1. I never equated Polanski with Assange - quite the opposite, in fact, as I consider Polanski's case more serious than Assange's, yet you'd never know it from the international reaction - so your laundry list of irrelevant facts is just noise.

        2. The 1987 act has never been invoked, either. The fact that this is being raised as a serious possibility only emphasizes the highly unusual nature of this situation.

        3. I never used the word "storm" or said that it would happen today. Your whole argument is a series of straw men.

        4. Nor did I say anything about perjury or the credibility of Assange's accusers. Did you just copy and paste this from somewhere else?

        5. I didn't convict Sullivan, the Irish courts did. He's a convicted pedophile. That's a fact. He's accused of raping or molesting three underage American girls. That's also a fact. Note that I specifically referred to those charges as "alleged sexual assaults". It's possible he's innocent of those particular crimes. But he's still a convicted pedophile. With, not so incidentally, a wife who works for the Ministry of Justice.

        6. Being able to challenge extradition isn't something that would inspire any confidence in me. Sweden has been found guilty of assisting the US by renditioning prisoners in violation of international law and refuses to promise they will not extradite Assange to the US. Planes can be rerouted, too. I don't blame Assange for being suspicious, I would be too.

        7. His application for residency in Sweden and his seeking asylum with Ecuador are ironic. They're also beside the point.

        None of what you said undermines the point of this diary. Much of what you said isn't even pertinent. That's a standard tactic when you can't address the substance of the argument, but all you've done is reduce the signal to noise ratio.

        The Assange case is being handled much more aggressively than other rape extradition cases. That's inarguable. Nothing you've said explains why.

        Bradley Manning 2012

        by chase on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:20:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What drivel (0+ / 0-)

        I've seen you around before and won't waste any time engaging with you.

        Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

        by ask on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 12:28:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "magical rapes?" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lib Dem FoP, Christin

    that alone is HR'able.

    •  I'll get my smelling salts. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They somehow are far worse, far weightier than the rapes of children, even though there's no proof yet that they even existed. Sufficiently worse to cause a significant international incident over. Sounds pretty magical to me. If that offends the Magicians Guild, you can always complain about it in your newsletter.

      Bradley Manning 2012

      by chase on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 05:07:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Elsewhere, it's even being said that the embassy (6+ / 0-)

    offered to let Swedish investigators interview him in person, 'face to face' at the embassy, and they refused.

  •  You're missing a very critical piece of the puzzle (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lib Dem FoP

    in your assessment.

    It's not a result of the crime he's charged with that is making Britain take this so seriously.  It's that it endangers Britain's relationship with Sweden.  If Britain rolls over and let's this happen without fighting hard, Sweden's trust in Britain will be gone.  

    I certainly question whether the charges against Assange aren't politically motivated and I strongly doubt that he'd be able to get a fair trial in Sweden or elsewhere.  However, I can't blame Britain for being extremely upset over this ploy of his.  They could have kept him in jail the entire time this thing was playing out.  They didn't and now they have egg on their face.  They're not going to accept that scenario willingly.

    This whole situation is a far cry from Polanski and it actually makes no sense to try and compare the two - although you did make a laudable effort.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:18:15 PM PDT

    •  It's more than relations (0+ / 0-)

      The UK has EU treaty obligations to comply with European Arrest Warrants. Assange had exhausted all possible challenges to its validity available in the UK up to and including the Supreme Court.

      As you say, he was not imprisoned put up by a friend for a year who now faces having to surrender the part of Assange's bail he agreed to cover.

      Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

      by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:43:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What about Britain's relationship with Ecuador? (0+ / 0-)

      Do you think Switzerland didn't have an important relationship with the US - arguably much more important? Nor did the UK worry too much about how the US felt about their refusal to extradite Sullivan. Why is Sweden more important than Ecuador or the US?

      The whole situation is indeed a far cry from Polanski. In one case a country refused for decades to extradite a convicted child rapist. In the other case a country is aggressively eager to extradite an alleged date rapist. Not the same thing at all, but why is the difference so topsy-turvy?

      Bradley Manning 2012

      by chase on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 12:00:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can't you accomplish your task... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lib Dem FoP

    ...without leaving yourself open to some pretty obvious and damning rebuttals?

    Mitt Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:21:01 PM PDT

  •  This is disturbing (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    susakinovember, ask, codairem, Anak, chase, johnel

    The Swedish investigation is suspect all the way around. It appears that Assange complied with the police from the start. If I was a victim of this type of crime, I would be furious with my country for NOT promising to extradite him to the United States and holding up the legal process. Also, I'm not sure this is exactly about a rape charge from rereading these articles.

    The case was dismissed last week by Eva Finne, chief prosecutor in Stockholm, who overruled a lower-ranked prosecutor and said there was no reason to suspect that Assange, an Australian citizen, had raped a Swedish woman who had reported him to police.

    The woman's lawyer appealed against the decision. Director of public prosecution Marianne Ny decided to reopen the case, saying new information had come in on Tuesday. "We went through all the case material again, including what came in, and that's when I made my decision," [to reopen the case] Ny told The Associated Press by phone. She declined to say what information she had received or whether Assange, who was questioned by investigators on Monday, would be arrested. An arrest warrant issued on 20 August was withdrawn within 24 hours.

    Ny added that "it's not entirely uncommon" that such reversals take place in Sweden, in particular regarding allegations of sex crimes. She also decided that another complaint against Assange should be investigated on suspicion of "sexual coercion and sexual molestation". That overruled a previous decision to only investigate the case as "molestation," which is not a sex crime under Swedish law.

    Sweden reopens investigation into rape claim against Julian Assange

    Leif Silbersky said police questioned Assange in Stockholm for about an hour last night and formally told him of the allegations against him.

    Silbersky said his client denied the accusations and hoped the prosecutor would drop the case.

    Police started investigating Assange this month after two Swedish women accused him of rape and molestation, but the prosecutor later closed the rape investigation.

    Molestation is not a sex crime under Swedish law, but covers offences such as reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact. It can result in fines or up to a year in prison.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange questioned by police

    FYI, Democracy Now! covered this story this morning Ecuador Grants Julian Assange Asylum; U.S. Seen as "Hidden Hand" Behind U.K. Threat to Raid Embassy

    Your perspective is an interesting one. Thanks for submitting your thoughts.

    •  I mean NOT promising to prevent extradition (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  What (0+ / 0-)

        has that to do with the validity of the European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden and which was the sole question the UK courts had to consider?

        Once the Supreme Court had ruled it valid, extradition to the other EU country is automatic.

        Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

        by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:45:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So how does this trump (0+ / 0-)

          the UK's presumed treaty obligations to Ecuador?  I mean, I don't know about them, but I'm pretty sure they would have worked something about not invading their embassies or into them.

          Face it -- Sweden doesn't want Assange extradited because he allegedly might have committed what they consider a relatively minor crime -- something which he hasn't been charged with yet and which, at most, could result in 'fines and up to a year in prison.'  When you consider the fact that the Swedes won't promise to not extradite him to the US, it makes it obvious that this whole molestation charge thing is just a premise to get him out of the UK so that the Swedes can extradite him to the US for entirely undeserved trial -- or just to be vanished into some extraordinary rendition hole.

          You don't precipitate a major international incident -- and threatening to raid the Ecuadorian embassy sure as hell counts as such -- over the equivalent of a minor assault charge or a DUI or some other type of common (and relatively minor, as defined by the law) criminality.  It's just not worth it.  I mean, if I was caught with a full ounce of pot on me I'd face more criminal penalties than Assange is up against -- or rather, would be up against, if he were charged with a crime, which he is not.

          In my opinion, Ecuador is entirely in the right to grant asylum to Assange in order to prevent the rather predictable abuses he would suffer if he were extradited to the US.  If the Swedes truly wanted to question him, they have been granted the opportunity to do so, or they could affirm that they would not extradite him to the US.

          •  The total threat (0+ / 0-)

            was to break off diplomatic relations. The small apartment would cease to be an embassy at the end of 7 days. At that point all protections would end. The police could then enter flat 3b in order to arrest a bail absconder who they know is present. Actually the letter was rather less a threat than a position statement after 2 months  behind the scenes negotiations.

            The details of any evidence and its veracity are irrelevant. The only matter for the UK courts was whether the European Arrest Warrant is valid and complies with the requirements set out in the relevant law and treaty.

            Until he skipped bail, Assange was not liable to prosecution under English law and the courts were deciding on a dispute between Assange and Sweden.

            Assange argued that the EAW was invalid but lost that case in the UK Supreme Court. The police - who are not an agency of the elected administration in the UK - requested he surrender his bail, which is when he went to ground. Ecuador's actions were hostile to the UK's interests in that it prevented the country fulfilling its treaty obligations to a fellow EU member state.  

            The rape and other charges had to be sufficiently serious to trigger an EAW. The merits or otherwise of any evidence is irrelevant to whether the courts order the execution of the EAW. He was not being tried in the UK. The only court cases so far have been initiated by him to mount the challenge. That is why the case is listed as "Assange vs the Swedish Prosecution Authorities"

            Assange in failing to comply with the bail conditions laid down by the courts -which are also independent of the government - has now committed an offence under the Bail Act and is liable for immediate arrest under that.

            Frankly the Crown Prosecution Service is unlikely to pursue a case if only because being holed up in two tiny rooms in a small apartment is punishment enough. Also in reality the government is unlikely to do anything until Assange gives up or the Ecuadorians no longer want to use him as a figleaf to cover up their abuses of journalists and broadcasters.

            Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

            by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:54:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Leagal Beagle (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not.

          I'm addressing the issue that if the crime he is accused of is true (my understanding is failure to use a condom in an otherwise consensual act) and if I was the victim, I would be upset about the political and legal drama that has unfolded.

          From the link in my comment, this started with the women inquiring if they could force him to be tested for STDs. Anyone would want to know if they were exposed for health reasons. If he carries the AIDS virus, that is a serious injury (death sentence). Do the women have their answer to that question?

          It is reported that Assange is willing to cooperate with Sweden's legal process if they would guarantee that they do not hand him over to the US. He has offered to cooperate in a way that does not expose himself to the bounty that the US has put on him.

          In my mind, the fact that Sweden will not give any assurances on the extradition matter, justice is only being delayed for these women and Assange for that matter. I'm sure that if the allegations are false, Assange would like to get his name cleared ASAP.

          Obviously, there is a lot more going on here beyond determining whether Assange used a condom as requested and if he has STDs. I see an international political circus to put a stop to someone who provides transparency and free speech in the world.

          This is how I see it.

          I'm not especially qualified to offer anything beyond a personal opinion coming from life experience. I can speak confidently that some men do have a problem with using condoms and that is a huge health issue. I have an interest in that part of the story and all I see is the political circus getting in the way of that discussion.

  •  Thanks for the clearest encapsulation yet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for what is going on.

  •  Well, I doubt most of us are shocked that politcs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    comes into play in situations like this. All in all, it seems quite obvious the various parties are interested and concerned about more than a rape case when it comes to Julian, despite their reluctance to admit it.

  •  Know the players! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This sitehas a wealth of information about the case in meticulous detail. Not only can you find particular info about the case and all the official documents related to it, but you also get a dimension of the whole case not even touched by the MSM.

    I recommend reading all the tabs, but pay particular attention to the one titled "gender politics" and the one titled "Duckpond" The link here for duckpond is an example of the duckpond and it's manifestation in the tabloid press in Sweden.

    Anna Ardin

    She is Assange's accuser. She arranged the conference that Assange attended. She invited the Pirate Party, a rival political party (She's a Social Democrat and ran for office in 2010). She offered her home to Assange while he was in Sweden, saying she would be away. Then she showed up  there and seduced him and bragged about it to two witnesses the next day at a party she threw for Assange---allegedly after he raped her.

    Read every article on this google page. Anna Ardin has ties to the CIA that pre-date any involvement with Assange. In addition to be being a radical feminist (read the "gender politics" article in the first link) she is also a member of The Brotherhood, a Christian activist group.

    The other woman, Sofia Wilen, is kind of a naive star struck woman who idolized both Assange and Ardin. Read about the details of the interactions between these people in the first link. Wilen declined to go along with this whole thing after Ardin manipulated her to go to the police.

    I think it is very possible that Ardin is an intelligence contractor and that she had two targets: Assange and the Pirate Party.

    How did The Assange case become revived?

    Duckpond and gender politics and the 7,000 strong network of radical feminists that Anna Ardin belongs to.

    One last thing: There are no charges. I have not discovered yet how an extradition request was implemented without a court order, or how that transformed into a red notice to Interpol.

    Anna Ardin has some influence, surely, but that still doesn't explain why the British High Court turned the rule of law into a mockery by asserting that a prosecutor is a "judicial authority" contrary to law in Sweden, Britain, Europe, and the US, and then used that assertion to reject Assange's appeals.

    •  Oh dear (0+ / 0-)

      Again you repeat

      the British High Court turned the rule of law into a mockery by asserting that a prosecutor is a "judicial authority" contrary to law in Sweden, Britain, Europe, and the US, and then used that assertion to reject Assange's appeals.
      I am glad you have such extensive knowledge of US, English (not British although the Supreme Court does cover all three legal systems in the UK) and Swedish law together with the several other juresdictions in Europe. By the way, are you limited to the 25 other members of the EU or do you also include the other countries in the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights?

      Perhaps then you could refute the opinion of the High Court judges that in Sweden a prosecutor fulfills the role of a judicial authority. Presumably this was also the subject of part of the appeal by Assange's team at the UK Supreme Court. Perhaps you can quote what they ruled on the matter?

      Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

      by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:57:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me help you (0+ / 0-)

        I'll quote from the press summary (.pdf) issued by the UK Supreme Court but the full judgment is available here.

        The Supreme Court by a majority of 5 to 2 (Lady Hale and Lord Mance dissenting) dismisses the appeal and holds that an EAW issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 warrant issued by a judicial authority within the meaning of section 2(2) and 66 of the 2003 Act.
        Perhaps now you will stop repeating the erroneous statement.

        Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

        by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:07:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I haven't really done the story justice (0+ / 0-)

    There are so many more things.

    For example, Anna Ardin, accuser of Assange, had previous ties to the CIA. That's explosive enough, but read the articles I linked about who those CIA ties were.

    Anti-Castro groups.

    Most people know by now about ALBA, the South American movement, and it's members: Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador!

    Oh, and if you don't know who the Pirate Party are, google that.

    •  All very well (0+ / 0-)

      but these are exactly what should be used to test the veracity of evidence in a Swedish court - or indeed by the prosecuter once she has interviewed Assange as she is required to do before laying charges. If he were to present this as rebuttal to her questioning, it could influence her decision to proceed.

      It is however completely irrelevant to the question of enforcing the European Arrest Warrant and his extradition to Sweden. I presume any prosecution in the UK under the Bail Act will be waived once the police arrest him in London. His several friends who put up the bail seem to think breaching his bail conditions will not render them liable to surrender their surities because he told the police where he was. I fear the may well be over optimistic.

      Continuing on a TV near you; "The Magical Mitt Sorry Tour (Underpants Edit)"

      by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:20:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  couple quick info bits (0+ / 0-)

    just regarding your numbered outline of your understanding of what happened:

    3. For reasons that are unclear the Swedish prosecutors have refused to question him by telephone, email, Skype, or in writing; they insist that he must be personally present.
    According to Swedish law they must carry out the questioning in person, however it does not specify where (iow he doesn't have to be present in Sweden).  The Swedish government has set many precedents of sending their investigators to other countries and carrying out this sort of questioning in other countries, though they have refused to do so in this case
    4. They refuse to promise that they will not extradite him to the United States, who Assange fears will charge him with espionage.
    the UK extradition treaty with the US and Sweden's extradition treaty with the US differ in that the UK version has specific prerequisites and requirements that must be met in every case for extradition to the US to occur, whereas the version the US has with Sweden sets no such requirements and extradition requests are subjectively reviewed on a case by case basis.  (This is most of the basis for the fear that Sweden's americano-centric conservative party currently in power would grant extradition to the US with no argument).  Extraditing someone from UK to Sweden, as both are EU countries, is quite different however, specifically for this case.  There's an EU-wide arrest warrant, and in the Assange case Sweden issuing this European Arrest Warrant isn't much different from, say, a NY court issuing a bench warrant and New Jersey picking up the suspect and handing them over to NY.  

    You later mention this:

    (That intention alone may be in violation of British extradition law; I've read that it "stipulates that a criminal surrendered on demand of a foreign state shall not be tried for any other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is granted", but I have not yet been able to confirm this.)
    I'm unsure of the exact wording, but I do know there is a stipulation like this but it's at the discretion of the UK government to enforce it (if further charges were announced or a further extradition were announced, the UK could formally petition the Swedish government to return Assange to the UK, and Sweden would have to do so); sadly, the UK government have categorically stated they will not do that for the Assange case even if there's a later move for extradition from Sweden to the US.

    Long story short, the Tory and Lib Dem coalition currently in power in the UK could block further extradition to the US if they wanted to - but they don't.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site