Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-rape.amp.html

He's unlikely to come out of the embassy yet due to a bail violation, so who knows what's going to happen next. Will the US let him walk free?

Herzlos wrote:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-rape.amp.html

He's unlikely to come out of the embassy yet due to a bail violation, so who knows what's going to happen next. Will the US let him walk free?

I would urge caution when talking about the USA, not because we shouldn't talk about the US angle, but if it looks like a US politics thread, then the Mods will be all over us like a cheap suit

That being said, from the America angle, Assange didn't actually leak the material, he published it. That is a very clear distinction, and if you're familiar with that famous SCOTUS case: New York Times Vs. United States, back in the Pentagon Papers days, that distinction is made clear.

So what can the USA charge him with? Why aren't they going after the New York Times who also published some of the WikiLeaks material? Is it because of the 1st amendment?

A lot of unanswered questions remain unanswered.

Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock

He wasn't cleared of rape charges they were dropped, which isn't the same thing. Sweden basically said that they would need him there and they didn't think he would ever be there so saw no point in keeping it up. The charges could come back up if that changed. The title of the thread is wrong.

 IGtR= wrote:
Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock

When charges are cleared there is no case to answer for. If society doesnt accept that then justice is impossible, as implication of guilt cannot be washed away without trial and not all accusations end in trial.

Assange should be set free.

 Orlanth wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock

When charges are cleared there is no case to answer for. If society doesnt accept that then justice is impossible, as implication of guilt cannot be washed away without trial and not all accusations end in trial.

Assange should be set free.

Exactly this.

However, unlike a trial, charges can be laid again after they have been dropped.

UK still has a bone to pick about jumping bail and breaking our law.

And if we arrest him he ain't getting no bail a second time round.

He still thinks the law doesn't apply to him. He needs educating.

 Orlanth wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock

When charges are cleared there is no case to answer for. If society doesnt accept that then justice is impossible, as implication of guilt cannot be washed away without trial and not all accusations end in trial.

Assange should be set free.

Assange has been free since he started hiding in an embassy.

 jhe90 wrote:
UK still has a bone to pick about jumping bail and breaking our law.

And if we arrest him he ain't getting no bail a second time round.

Is this really the issue you are focusing on? He's a valid political asylum seeker.

I'm no fan, but from a legal point of view this mess makes no sense. Given his openness to cooperation with Swedish investigators, both at the time and more recently, there's no real basis for insisting on extradition. Extradition on these trumped up charges is being used as a political tool, not a criminal justice one. 12 million has been spent on the police presence at the Ecuadorian Embassy and other effort over this period. The UK Government should be embarrassed for it's part in this, rather than still chomping at the bit.

No.

He's a coward hiding from serious accusations on the flimsiest of premises.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
He still thinks the law doesn't apply to him. He needs educating.

Pretty much this.

Reckons he can do as he pleases, because reasons.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
UK still has a bone to pick about jumping bail and breaking our law.

And if we arrest him he ain't getting no bail a second time round.

Is this really the issue you are focusing on? He's a valid political asylum seeker.

I'm no fan, but from a legal point of view this mess makes no sense. Given his openness to cooperation with Swedish investigators, both at the time and more recently, there's no real basis for insisting on extradition. Extradition on these trumped up charges is being used as a political tool, not a criminal justice one. 12 million has been spent on the police presence at the Ecuadorian Embassy and other effort over this period. The UK Government should be embarrassed for it's part in this, rather than still chomping at the bit.

France felt he wasn't a "valid political asylum seeker".

Let's be frank here. He's said he's "open to cooperation with Swedish investigators", but at virtually every turn he's said one thing while doing another.

IMO, a lot of people are letting their personal view of Assange cloud the facts here.

Let's look at these facts, and I've been following this case very closely.

The original prosecutor from Stockholm decided that Assange had no case to answer, but under Swedish law, another prosecutor, Ny, decided to take up the case. This is allowed under Swedish law.

Ny has a background of being linked to various feminist causes and or groups. Nothing wrong with that, but I would argue that as a motive for pursuing this case.

A European arrest warrant was issued, and Assange ended up in London, taking refuge in that embassay. It's important to note that at this stage, Asssange hadn't been charged with anything...

Ecuador lobbied hard to have Swedish police come over and interview Assange in London. Ecuador more or less rolled out the red carpet. Nothing happened. Months passed. Ecuador protested to the Swedish government, and eventually, the Swedish supreme court forced Ny to put up or shut up.

Assange was interviewed and was charged with nothing. The case was dropped.

The UK has taken the unusual step of accepting a European arrest warrant only if it is signed off by a court in future.

That is UK law. Make of that what you will.

I could also mention the uN tribunal that ruled in Assange's favour.

In short, this has been a kangaroo court from start to finish, and I say that as no great fan of Assange.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
UK still has a bone to pick about jumping bail and breaking our law.

And if we arrest him he ain't getting no bail a second time round.

Is this really the issue you are focusing on? He's a valid political asylum seeker.

I'm no fan, but from a legal point of view this mess makes no sense. Given his openness to cooperation with Swedish investigators, both at the time and more recently, there's no real basis for insisting on extradition. Extradition on these trumped up charges is being used as a political tool, not a criminal justice one. 12 million has been spent on the police presence at the Ecuadorian Embassy and other effort over this period. The UK Government should be embarrassed for it's part in this, rather than still chomping at the bit.

Who broke bail law in the United Kingdom.
Even if the other charges are dropped, that one he did comit, given his friends and all likely get a fine at most given how soft uk legal system is.
Worst he loses abit of cash...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
IMO, a lot of people are letting their personal view of Assange cloud the facts here.

Let's look at these facts, and I've been following this case very closely.

Clearly not if you think that it's just people "letting their personal view of Assange cloud the facts here".

The original prosecutor from Stockholm decided that Assange had no case to answer, but under Swedish law, another prosecutor, Ny, decided to take up the case. This is allowed under Swedish law.

Ny has a background of being linked to various feminist causes and or groups. Nothing wrong with that, but I would argue that as a motive for pursuing this case.

A European arrest warrant was issued, and Assange ended up in London, taking refuge in that embassay. It's important to note that at this stage, Asssange hadn't been charged with anything...

Ecuador lobbied hard to have Swedish police come over and interview Assange in London. Ecuador more or less rolled out the red carpet. Nothing happened. Months passed. Ecuador protested to the Swedish government, and eventually, the Swedish supreme court forced Ny to put up or shut up.

Wrong.

She made the argument that under Swedish law, she could not engage in a video interview of a suspect to take testimony over such a serious matter as sexual assault. She first made that argument in 2010.
In 2015, she changed her stance after having receiving criticism from other Swedish law practitioners.

Assange was interviewed and was charged with nothing. The case was dropped.

Wrong again.
Assange was interviewed in 2016, after the three lesser charges had their statute of limitations expire(two counts of sexual molestation and one count of unlawful coercion) because the Swedish prosecutor was never able to interview Assange.

The final charge of "lesser degree rape" has its statute of limitations expire in 2018.

Also, please note, that the announcement made was not that Assange was cleared of rape charges or anything like that. The arrest warrant for him was revoked. A specific statement was even made that "We are not making any pronouncement about guilt".

If he shows his head in Sweden before 2020, all bets are off however.

The UK has taken the unusual step of accepting a European arrest warrant only if it is signed off by a court in future.

That is UK law. Make of that what you will.

I could also mention the uN tribunal that ruled in Assange's favour.

So what?

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is what "ruled in Assange's favour". They tried to claim that this was a violation of Assange's human rights by the UK and Sweden, which is preposterous as he chose to evade arrest.

In short, this has been a kangaroo court from start to finish, and I say that as no great fan of Assange.

I don't think kangaroo court means what you think it means...

I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?


Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.

The US angle is also interesting. Assange's explanation for hiding out in an embassay for years has always been that America would try and haul him back to the USA, if the Swedes put the handcuffs on him.

There has been a lot of talk in the newspapers that Obama had charges secretly drawn up against Assange.

Last month, however, Jeff Sessions, who works for you know how, let the cat out of the bag when he talked about charging Assange. This is newspaper talk, but reportedly, a secret grand jury has already been assembled to take the charges forward...

This is unusual, given that wikileaks revelations about the Clinton campaign actually helped Trump, but Assange has said that Trump will pursue him as Trump needs to be seen to be his own man on this.

But what would they charge Assange with? Wikileaks didn't steal or leak the material, only published it, as did the New York times, and we know from the Pentagon Papers SCOTUS case (New York Times Vs. United States) that newspapers and groups like wikileaks have the protection of the 1st amendment, if they publish leaked material that is in the public interest, which it was...

I could be wrong on the legal side of things, but what could the USA charge Assange with?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?


Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.

The case more or less boiled down to it being Assange's word against the word of the lady in question. That's a hard case to prove one way or another for any court of law.

We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.

Replying to your first part.

For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?

@Kanluwen, Assange has been sitting in an embassay for years, Ecuador has lobbied hard to have Swedish police come to London, made every effort to accomodate their needs, and nothing happened for months.

Does that not strike you as unusual?

As for the UN judgement, that was the first time ever that the UK and Sweden failed to adhere to a ruling from that particular branch of the UN, even though previously they agreed to abide by its ruling. Again, does that not strike you as unusual?

As for the change in UK law with regard to only accepting a European arrest warrant from a judge, the rational given was that higher standards are needed to satisfy a court, rather than a prosecutor.

Again, does that not strike you as being unusual, that the UK would make this change as a result of the Assange case?

I try and keep an open mind, but I'm smelling a lot of horsegak from this case. Something doesn't add up.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The US angle is also interesting. Assange's explanation for hiding out in an embassay for years has always been that America would try and haul him back to the USA, if the Swedes put the handcuffs on him.

He also claimed that he has a child in France that the mother cut contact with him over "death threats" when he tried to seek political asylum there.
He also claimed that a "state party" had cut his internet access during the U.S. elections; neglecting to mention that it was Ecuador doing so because of the allegations of Russian tampering/targeted leaks utilizing WikiLeaks.

There has been a lot of talk in the newspapers that Obama had charges secretly drawn up against Assange.

There's also been a lot of talk in the newspapers about how Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim.

Last month, however, Jeff Sessions, who works for you know how, let the cat out of the bag when he talked about charging Assange. This is newspaper talk, but reportedly, a secret grand jury has already been assembled to take the charges forward...

This is unusual, given that wikileaks revelations about the Clinton campaign actually helped Trump, but Assange has said that Trump will pursue him as Trump needs to be seen to be his own man on this.

But what would they charge Assange with? Wikileaks didn't steal or leak the material, only published it, as did the New York times, and we know from the Pentagon Papers SCOTUS case (New York Times Vs. United States) that newspapers and groups like wikileaks have the protection of the 1st amendment, if they publish leaked material that is in the public interest, which it was...

I could be wrong on the legal side of things, but what could the USA charge Assange with?

Nothing. Which is why it kept being the case that Obama kept flat-out saying he wouldn't charge Assange and that the lunacy of Sweden extraditing him to the US to face espionage charges was just that.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?


Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.

The case more or less boiled down to it being Assange's word against the word of the lady in question. That's a hard case to prove one way or another for any court of law.

Sure, but it's rather telling that Assange's "word" against the word of the lady in question is that she's unreliable since she founded Gothenburg's largest lesbian nightclub.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.

Replying to your first part.

For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?

I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Kanluwen, Assange has been sitting in an embassay for years, Ecuador has lobbied hard to have Swedish police come to London, made every effort to accomodate their needs, and nothing happened for months.

Does that not strike you as unusual?

Nope. Because for all you know the Ecuadorian embassy's "accommodations" were that you can talk to him but only for X amount of time and we can request you to leave at any point in time.

As for the UN judgement, that was the first time ever that the UK and Sweden failed to adhere to a ruling from that particular branch of the UN, even though previously they agreed to abide by its ruling. Again, does that not strike you as unusual?

Again, no.

This was willful incarceration for all intents and purposes. Assange CHOSE to skip out on his bail. He CHOSE to seek asylum at an embassy.
It's no different than any other individual who chooses to flee pursuit.

As for the change in UK law with regard to only accepting a European arrest warrant from a judge, the rational given was that higher standards are needed to satisfy a court, rather than a prosecutor.

Again, does that not strike you as being unusual, that the UK would make this change as a result of the Assange case?

No, because you generally don't have arrest warrants being issued by prosecutors. They get issued by the courts.

I try and keep an open mind, but I'm smelling a lot of horsegak from this case. Something doesn't add up.

You clearly don't try to keep an open mind. You've spent so long constantly ranting about CIA conspiracies that you're failing to see the forest for the trees.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The US angle is also interesting. Assange's explanation for hiding out in an embassay for years has always been that America would try and haul him back to the USA, if the Swedes put the handcuffs on him.

He also claimed that he has a child in France that the mother cut contact with him over "death threats" when he tried to seek political asylum there.
He also claimed that a "state party" had cut his internet access during the U.S. elections; neglecting to mention that it was Ecuador doing so because of the allegations of Russian tampering/targeted leaks utilizing WikiLeaks.

There has been a lot of talk in the newspapers that Obama had charges secretly drawn up against Assange.

There's also been a lot of talk in the newspapers about how Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim.

Last month, however, Jeff Sessions, who works for you know how, let the cat out of the bag when he talked about charging Assange. This is newspaper talk, but reportedly, a secret grand jury has already been assembled to take the charges forward...

This is unusual, given that wikileaks revelations about the Clinton campaign actually helped Trump, but Assange has said that Trump will pursue him as Trump needs to be seen to be his own man on this.

But what would they charge Assange with? Wikileaks didn't steal or leak the material, only published it, as did the New York times, and we know from the Pentagon Papers SCOTUS case (New York Times Vs. United States) that newspapers and groups like wikileaks have the protection of the 1st amendment, if they publish leaked material that is in the public interest, which it was...

I could be wrong on the legal side of things, but what could the USA charge Assange with?

Nothing. Which is why it kept being the case that Obama kept flat-out saying he wouldn't charge Assange and that the lunacy of Sweden extraditing him to the US to face espionage charges was just that.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?


Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.

The case more or less boiled down to it being Assange's word against the word of the lady in question. That's a hard case to prove one way or another for any court of law.

Sure, but it's rather telling that Assange's "word" against the word of the lady in question is that she's unreliable since she founded Gothenburg's largest lesbian nightclub.

You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.

She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.

She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.

That's not why he made the allegation...

The documentary where that allegation was made, he tries to paint her as a woman who sleeps around.

Also, I find it hilarious that you neglect to mention that Assange made an "offer" to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency that he would agree to extradition to the U.S. for the "investigation into his professional work".

Chelsea Manning is now free, having had her sentence commuted.
But where's Assange? Hrrmmmmh...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.

Replying to your first part.

For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?

I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.

I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.

She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.

That's not why he made the allegation...

The documentary where that allegation was made, he tries to paint her as a woman who sleeps around.

Also, I find it hilarious that you neglect to mention that Assange made an "offer" to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency that he would agree to extradition to the U.S. for the "investigation into his professional work".

Chelsea Manning is now free, having had her sentence commuted.
But where's Assange? Hrrmmmmh...

When Jeff Sessions, the average Joe from Texas, says that Assange could be charged, we ignore him.

When Jeff Sessions, the high ranking member of the Trump administration, says that Assange could be charged under US law, we have no reason to doubt him. Sessions' comments are a matter of public record.

So when Assange says he thinks the USA is out to get him, I have no reason to doubt Assange, in light of Sessions' comments.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.

Replying to your first part.

For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?

I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.

I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.

From what I can recall, there were a couple of allegations relating to this:
a) He removed the condom during sex and finished on one of the women in question, without informing her of it.
b) He pretended to put it on, never actually doing so, and just having at it knowing the woman was too heavily intoxicated to protest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.

She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.

That's not why he made the allegation...

The documentary where that allegation was made, he tries to paint her as a woman who sleeps around.

Also, I find it hilarious that you neglect to mention that Assange made an "offer" to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency that he would agree to extradition to the U.S. for the "investigation into his professional work".

Chelsea Manning is now free, having had her sentence commuted.
But where's Assange? Hrrmmmmh...

When Jeff Sessions, the average Joe from Texas, says that Assange could be charged, we ignore him.

When Jeff Sessions, the high ranking member of the Trump administration, says that Assange could be charged under US law, we have no reason to doubt him. Sessions' comments are a matter of public record.

So when Assange says he thinks the USA is out to get him, I have no reason to doubt Assange, in light of Sessions' comments.

Sorry, what was Jeff Sessions' role in the Obama administration?

What Jeff Sessions, the lawn gnome gone renegade, says now is irrelevant to the actual timeframe of the Swedish investigation and original leaks and the lunacy that Assange peddled then.

Sessions' comments, while a matter of public record, also had effectively no merit while he was just a representative of his state.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.

Replying to your first part.

For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?

I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.

I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.

This is the point that a lot of people have made: we don't know what really happened because ultimately, the case boils down to Assange's word against the word of the lady in question, which as you know, is hard for any court to prove guilt or innocence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.

Replying to your first part.

For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?

I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.

I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.

This is the point that a lot of people have made: we don't know what really happened because ultimately, the case boils down to Assange's word against the word of the lady in question, which as you know, is hard for any court to prove guilt or innocence.

Which is why those cases tend to be, y'know, heavily investigated?

It says a lot about your attitude towards this case that you're giving credence to the man who literally reneged on his word(that's what paying bail is...) and instead fled to an embassy to avoid charges in a "he said, she said".

@Kanluwen.

Yeah, Sessions was obviously not part of the Obama team, but then why would Sessions talk about going after Assange, the man who helped his boss win the White House?

It is obvious to me, that Sessions is picking up the baton from the Obama days and is going after Assange. Policy has been known to pass from POTUS to POTUS.

Vietnam passed from JFK to Johnson to Nixon. There is historical precedent for what Sessions is doing, and he wouldn't be doing it unless Trump gave him the green light.