[deleted for naming the alleged victim]

Good for Salma. Hopefully, the few civilised people who have not alrerady done so, will now desert Galloway’s ill-named “Respect” vanity-project.

Which way will Rees, German and ‘Counterfire’ jump?

Good for Salma!

Will other decent people who still remain in Respect now follow suit?

Will German and Rees and ‘Counterfire’ now break with this reactionary asshole?

“I hereby confess I am guilty of sexual abuse and rape of my wife. I’ve ransacked my memory this past month and calculated that there have been 75 cases of sexual abuse in our 38 years of marriage. In all cases it’s about the condom coming loose without my pointing it out to my partner. Most of the time I didn’t even notice it myself.

And the past few months I’ve realised I’ve raped my wife perhaps 100 times through completed sex – often without a condom, but when she was half asleep.

I wish at the same time to file charges against my wife for sexual assault and sexual coercion. We’ve gone together through dozens of cases where she’s taken a firm grip of my arms and held onto me. And even if I didn’t say ‘no’, I very often felt helpless – I couldn’t extricate myself from her iron grip even if I liked the rest of what she did.

More times than I can count she wanted to but I didn’t. Most often things ended with me going along with it because I felt pressured and more or less forced.”

http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110109,01.shtml

should comment 1 be naming the complainant? I think not!

Pagar

Your attempt at satire would bear more weight if it actually resembled the allegations against Assange.

Good for her. I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion she was far too sensible for that shower.

So can we assume that Respect will now remove GG as their candidate?
Can there be any other resolution for any party with genuine aspirations?

Kudos to Salma for standing up for principle.

The next question is whether RESPECT will demand a retraction from the Baathist pimp, and if they’ll throw him out of the party if he refuses to do so.

THE ONLY THING THIS PROVES IS Salma Yaqoob IS NOT FIT TO LEAD THE PARTY…!!

“As a politician and as a woman” WRONG!! YOU HAVE ALREADY demonstrated on BOTH counts you are NOT being OBjective but totally SUBjective!

“As a politician” means “I’m afraid it would be political suicide for me to agree with George and am worried I’ll lose the femaloe voters”

NEITHER Politician nor Woman has any bearing on the LEGALITY of the situation.

Consensual sex was had. You, I, we ALL may think he was a cad to do so with different women inside three days and to do so without protection (it appears) but NO LAW was broken. A journalist becomes involved and suddenly the situation becomes an attempt to extort. THEN the YANKS become involved and rape claims become a means to get him into custody whence he can be whisked away to a centre for “Questioning” AKA waterboarding Etc in the hands of the Yanks – wonder which off-shore centre they’ll use THIS time

The Brits (Haig et al) are showing themselves to be spineless, and licking Obama’s bum on the subject of this, Syria and any number of other matters

GEORGE IS RIGHT and he at least has the @@s to stand up and be counted and does not think about his seat, voters, Etc – he says what his conscience thinks and trusts his voters to accept he speaks what he thinks

Consensual sex was had. You, I, we ALL may think he was a cad to do so with different women inside three days and to do so without protection (it appears) but NO LAW was broken.

You are incorrect, if events occurred as described by the alleged victim.

“the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. … It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

THEN the YANKS become involved and rape claims become a means to get him into custody whence he can be whisked away to a centre for “Questioning” AKA waterboarding Etc in the hands of the Yanks – wonder which off-shore centre they’ll use THIS time

If they really want to do that wouldn’t they have done that already?

unless THAT’s what THEY want US to THINK!

pagar, I’m pretty surprised by your position on this.

I’m prepared to accept pagar’s confession he’s a rapist.

“Consensual sex was had” – irrelevant. If you have consensual sex at 11pm and nonconsensual sex at 1am, the “consensual” bit doesn’t nullify the “nonconsensual”.

It’s perplexing that so many of Assange’s defenders are so obtuse about what the allegations actually ARE against him. They include (1) holding a woman down and attempting to spread her legs and penetrate her *by force* when she didn’t want to have unprotected sex, (2) deliberately breaking the condom after she consented to sex with a condom, and (3) initiating unprotected sex with a sleeping woman after she’d made it clear that she would ONLY consent to sex with a condom.

Well done Salma Yaqoob, and thanks for supporting her line, Sunny, when a lot of people seem to have taken leave of their senses and basic decency.

@8,

Whatever else Galloway is, he’s the biggest star in the Respect firmament, and frankly without him they’re not much of a party.

@14: They include (1) holding a woman down and attempting to spread her legs and penetrate her *by force* when she didn’t want to have unprotected sex, (2) deliberately breaking the condom after she consented to sex with a condom, and (3) initiating unprotected sex with a sleeping woman after she’d made it clear that she would ONLY consent to sex with a condom.

As you say, these acts would constitute rape in English law, and I daresay, in the court of public opinion.

[Galloway] went on to say that those who disagreed with him would delight the Pentagon.

On this Galloway is surely right.

I don’t know whether Assange is a rapist. I do know the USA are out to get him, and to eliminate him by any means possible — if not by killing him then by so damaging his reputation that he is no longer effective, or by having him banged up for a long time.

“if not by killing him then by so damaging his reputation that he is no longer effective”

Particularly devious of them to get him to jump bail rather than clear his name.

@19: Particularly devious of them to get him to jump bail rather than clear his name

AFAICT, jumping bail has not significantly reduced his public standing.

“jumping bail has not significantly reduced his public standing.”

Certainly not amongst his fanclub.

Salma should leave Respect and start her own party. She’s too intelligent to hang around with a dolt like Galloway.

@ Shatterface

I’m prepared to accept pagar’s confession he’s a rapist.

I’m many things but not that. I was quoting a satirical article by Olle Andersson.

But the LC rape screamers really need to get their heads out of the sand. Assange goes to Stockholm to make a speech and is offered the apartment of the woman who’s name cannot be written here because Sunny wants to play a stupid game. She was not supposed to be staying there.

She shows up and has sex with him. We can never know the precise details of what transpired but she now alleges that she was raped or, at least, that the sex was disappointing and to some degree non consensual.

The following evening, Assange is offered a different bed for the night but she insists he stays at her apartment and has sex with him again. If we accept that rape is an appalling trauma, which it clearly is, why did she so obviously want to repeat the traumatic experience?

Answer. Because she wasn’t raped!!!

@ UK Liberty

I’m pretty surprised at your position on this.

Why are you supporting the instruments of the state with their shoddy spin on the rule of law in what is a clear attempt to shut down freedom of expression?

thank you pagar, (assuming that mentioning your name is allowed)

regards Riley

pagar,

@ UK Liberty

I’m pretty surprised at your position on this.

Why are you supporting the instruments of the state with their shoddy spin on the rule of law in what is a clear attempt to shut down freedom of expression?

I’m not doing that. My position is better expressed by David Allen Green:
(specifically The Way Forward section)
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

thank you for the link ukliberty, found in the comments

Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange
by Naomi Wolf

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

[14] ‘deliberately breaking the condom after she consented to sex with a condom’ – the condom sabotage part of the story is deeply problematic (if we accept a purported copy of the police interview which like many other leaks associated with this story surfaced on the web)

In any event it is claimed – ‘X’ is convinced that when he withdrew from her the first time, Assange deliberately broke the condom at its tip and then continued copulating to ejaculation. To my question ‘X’ replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see’.

How on earth did assange manage to surreptitiously sabotage the end of the condom (without using scissors, for example). More to the point how can the complainant not be certain she has the contaminated condom at home (she says, she will check ‘to see’) especially given that the first assault took place a full week before the first police interview.

I mean where does one stored a partially filled condom (the mind boggles) and why was it not actually brought to the police station for forensic testing given that the two complainants had already met up a few days before going to the police to discuss what had happened (with issues about condoms being central to their concerns).

Even if we do accept the woman’s version of events at face value – how would somebody react knowing they had made a dreadful decision to have sex with somebody who was a violent condom tamperer just hours after meeting them?
Not too many people would say by celebrating at a crayfish party while sending out complimentary tweets before later deleting them, that’s for sure.

@ pagar

“Answer. Because she wasn’t raped!!!”

There’s a complication here. As far as I understand it, Assange is accused of sleeping with her once with consent, then sleeping with her again where no consent could have been obtained as she was asleep (with the condom issue thrown in too).

Now, being asleep means no consent (unless she’d specifically told him it was ok to initiate sex while she was asleep) and no consent means rape. But probably a lot of the time that this happens, the woman doesn’t consider it rape. So from a real-world standpoint, it’s rape if the woman says it is. It’s hard to see how we could get around that without either effectively legalising some forms of rape, or jailing people for behaviour that their partner didn’t object to.

ASSUMING all the above is true, that a) makes Galloway flat wrong but b) leaves open the possibility that she didn’t mind at the time, got pissed off for other reasons, went to the police and was told “You realise what you just described was rape?”

Riley,

Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange
by Naomi Wolf

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

Ask Sweden to produce ANY other police report in which any action was taken in a situation in which there is no stated lack of consent or threat of force. Police simply won’t act on a complaint if there is no indication of a lack of consent, or of consent in the face of violence. The Assange transcripts, in contrast to any typical sex crime report, are a set of transcripts in which neither of the women has indicated a lack of consent.

That simply isn’t true. Read the transcripts, read the three UK court decisions. I can understand disputing the truth of the women’s account, whether something occurred or did not occur; I do not understand how one can dispute the meaning of what they said. And as I say, three UK courts have agreed that what is alleged amounts to rape because of absence of consent.

2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.

The transcripts seem to indicate that the police processed the two accusers’ complaints together.

In the document I have, which is the one that Assange’s supporters keep linking to, one woman’s interview is dated 20 August and the other woman’s interview 21 August.

3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.

Well, I have no idea either way about that. The testimony they receive seems relevant to the case.

4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.

Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney.

So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.

I don’t understand the problem here. And there is no evidence the Swedish courts have objected to it.

And again there is no evidence Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden, Sweden would have to seek the UK’s permission to extradite him if they did receive an extradition request, and if the UK will bend over for the USA as easily as people say, why wouldn’t the US just try to extradite him from the UK? It just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Plus, Assange would be entitled to fight his extradition from Sweden, just as he has fought his extradition to Sweden – and I think lawyers are saying the US-Sweden treaty is a bit more strict than the US-UK treaty.

5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.

No attorney–and certainly no high-powered attorney– would want to represent two women claiming to have been victimized by the same man, for the reasons above: the second woman’s testimony could be weaker than the other one’s, thus lessening the lawyer’s chances of success.

There also is a danger that the judge may well object to the potential cross-contamination of the women’s stories.

Again, the only reason why a lawyer would thus weaken his own clients’ cases us that s/he does not expect the case to come to trial.

This seems a really weak, fantastical argument. Why would a lawyer deliberately weaken his own case?

6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.

I don’t know anything about their lawyer.

7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.

I don’t know anything about this or the allegations made by the author related to this.

8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.

The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to the US media. The only people who have access to those documents are police, prosecutors and the attorneys.

Well, they shouldn’t have been, but they were, so we have to deal with that.

ukliberty: outside of peoples names what we are avoiding here is the word ‘conspiracy’

Well, now the Respect gang know the kind of douchebag they’ve made common cause with, will they throw him out? if so, perhaps they should also call in an accountant to have a look at the books – given Gorgeous George’s record, he’s probably cleaned out the party’s accounts already.

pagar – I’ll remind you of this thread next time you talk about ‘innocent before proven guilty’ – because that is also about letting due process take its place instead of mob justice. But clearly – you’re a fucking expert in Swedish law and a top judge qualified to pass judgement on these matters. Right?

@ Chaise

Assange is accused of sleeping with her once with consent, then sleeping with her again where no consent could have been obtained as she was asleep

Throughout my extensive and varied sex life, I have never started or completed a sex act when my partner was asleep- either before during or at the end of it. Now I’m prepared to accept that that my technique as a lover is exceptional but I’m not sure that explains it.

What’s your experience?

But probably a lot of the time that this happens, the woman doesn’t consider it rape.

The women didn’t believe they had been raped- it was their lawyer and the police who explained that, as they were not legally trained, they were not qualified to make that judgement.

FFS

@ ukliberty

Actually, I agree with your general standpoint around due process- but only where laws are well founded. That does not apply to such as the Swedish sex laws where, for example, it is illegal to pay a prostitute and rape laws are based around the presumption of guilt.

Nor do I agree with the legitimacy of multi-state enforcement treaties such as the European Arrest Warrant.

[26] if woolf’s assessment is correct it may explain why assange has lost faith in supposedly impartial institutions – put another way, does ANYBODY have an explanation as to why this case has veered so far away from the norm, culminating in an embassy siege, and threats to diplomatic protocols (leaving aside the line of thinking that it is all the fault of one individual).

The legal arguments are;
Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.
Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.
Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.
Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.
A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.
A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.
A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.
Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.

So why on earth should assange feel paranoid?

@ pagar

“Throughout my extensive and varied sex life, I have never started or completed a sex act when my partner was asleep- either before during or at the end of it. Now I’m prepared to accept that that my technique as a lover is exceptional but I’m not sure that explains it.

What’s your experience?”

Likewise, probably excepting the exceptional technique bit. But I imagine that, when this does happen, often the woman feels no inclination to report it and/or doesn’t consider it rape.

“The women didn’t believe they had been raped- it was their lawyer and the police who explained that, as they were not legally trained, they were not qualified to make that judgement.”

Dodgy, I agree. Insofar as it relates to the case, the most relevant factor is whether the woman in question is now calling it rape.

Riley,

30. Riley
ukliberty: outside of peoples names what we are avoiding here is the word ‘conspiracy’

I’m not avoiding the word ‘conspiracy’. I just don’t think the accusation stands up to scrutiny.

Apparently there is a conspiracy between the USA, Sweden and the UK to get Assange to Sweden so that he can then be extradited to the USA. It seems like a lot of trouble when the UK has hardly been difficult about extraditing people to the USA directly or even for that matter facilitating extraordinary rendition (another claim made by Assange supporters about what will happen in Sweden, as if it doesn’t happen anywhere else). Again, why on earth didn’t the USA just file an extradition request with the UK?

Instead, apparently they have corrupted (1) the women and their lawyer, (2) the police, (3) the Director of Public Prosecutions, and (4) possibly the three Swedish courts. All so Assange is returned to Sweden. Then supposedly the USA will file an extradition request with Sweden. Because, you know, they are trying to make it look above board. And to continue to make it look above board, Sweden has to (a) ask the UK’s permission and (b) let Assange appeal all the way to the European Court of Human Rights! er…

Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the USA too. I could claim, with as much evidence as Assange’s conspiracy supporters have (i.e. no evidence), that the USA is conspiring with Ecuador to get Assange extradited from Ecuador if he ever makes it there.

Pagar, if condoms are too big for you try using the fingers from a washing-up glove.

pagar,

But probably a lot of the time that this happens, the woman doesn’t consider it rape.

The women didn’t believe they had been raped- it was their lawyer and the police who explained that, as they were not legally trained, they were not qualified to make that judgement.

FFS

They each made a complaint about his conduct. They apparently did not use the word rape, but one of the complaints describes conduct that would amount to rape, hence the rape element of the investigation. A lot of people don’t understand it’s rape, which is why this argument has been going on and on.

Actually, I agree with your general standpoint around due process- but only where laws are well founded. That does not apply to such as the Swedish sex laws where, for example, …. rape laws are based around the presumption of guilt.

Please cite.

Nor do I agree with the legitimacy of multi-state enforcement treaties such as the European Arrest Warrant.

I have criticisms of the European Arrest Warrant, but AIUI even if it didn’t exist and the old extradition treaty between Sweden and the UK was in place, Assange would face extradition to Sweden.

@ Caise

Insofar as it relates to the case, the most relevant factor is whether the woman in question is now calling it rape.

We don’t know.

All we know is that a radical feminist prosecutor and a lawyer with hard right political associations are calling it that. If I give my friend a gift and the state says that, according to its laws, this constitutes an act of theft, does that make my friend a thief?

ukliberty
forgot one of your points that deserves an answer.
On extradition, Sweden to US, why not UK.

Sweden felt the need to say no extradition where death may be a consequence.

Frankly I think the US would be partisan to that, but remember impressment for him would be Guantanamo , and where the US does not recognise that their activities there are torture, you would be aware others disagree.

I was reminded yesterday by a tweet I saw that another Australian, David Hicks was once ‘resident’ in Guantanamo. Hicks was tortured into plea bargain, where he agreed to the charge of being of ‘material support for terrorism’, whereupon a sentence was agreed to, and eventually he was repatriated to Yatala Prison in his home state of South Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

The UK took a different view on the activities of Guantanamo, and pressed the US for the return of UK citizens imprisoned there. Of course this could present a particular political problem for the UK Govt, who have seemingly already condemned the activities at Guantanamo Bay. But all along UK permission was not required for another extradition from Sweden to the US. Mr Assange is not a UK citizen, once he is off British Territory he is no longer their problem.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-arrest-extradition

Finally, I also see today on twitter that the Australian Govt have set up a mission headed by Ambassador Beazley preparing a ‘contingency plan’ for Assange US extradition. Just where would we be without social media?

https://rt.com/news/australia-ready-assange-extradition-027/

Kind Regards Riley

a&e,

[26] if woolf’s assessment is correct

Well it isn’t wholly correct, is it? I mean, the very first claim, which is the easiest to check, is wrong, so I’m hardly going to put much faith in her later unevidenced claims that are harder to check.

it may explain why assange has lost faith in supposedly impartial institutions – put another way, does ANYBODY have an explanation as to why this case has veered so far away from the norm, culminating in an embassy siege, and threats to diplomatic protocols (leaving aside the line of thinking that it is all the fault of one individual).

Yes, it’s veered away from the norm because of who he is: no-one else being investigated for sexual offences who has had an extradition request filed against them is the leader of WikiLeaks or similar.

and I don’t think anyone who fought extradition and lost then sought asylum in a foreign embassy.

[28] ‘But probably a lot of the time that this happens, the woman doesn’t consider it rape’ – as when couples initiate sex when one or the other is half awake during nocturnal hours – I mean is there ANY couple who have not done this (once they have been together for long enough).

In the assange case explicit consent is alleged not to have been obtained but neither was assange asked to stop by the woman once she realised what has happening – anyway according to the Woolf item @26 it seems there are yet more incriminating tweets, ‘There is one point at which Miss W asserts she was asleep – in which case it would indeed have been illegal to have sex with her – but her deleted tweets show that she was not asleep, and subsequent discussion indicates consent’.

So, to ask again, is it just possible that Prosector Ny does indeed have an agenda – an agenda casting the two women as little more than a convenient vehicle to get to assange?
Remember the british court was essentially asked to consider if the EAW was correctly issued, and equivalence (i.e. that the accusations amounted to crimes in the UK as well as sweden) – the british court was not asked to consider the quality of the evidence.

Given that the evidence looks flakey, and never included specific allegations of rape allied to the fact the swedish authorities seem to be acting in a highly atypical fashion one can’t help wondering if the intervention of multiple states (if we accept the US is somehow lurking in the background) amounts to something slightly more than blind hysteria amongst assangists.

ukliberty

The conspiracy I speak of was between the two ladies. With whom it appears that a number of electronic communications were made, and for which some were later erased. The tweets by MsX for instance were later recovered by some clever individual. Likely just another convenience for a seemingly ‘lively’ prosecution.

I think another potential issue arises, as MsX has vanished off the planet, if she is deemed material to the prosecutions case, Assange could find himself remanded in what could turn out to be a very long process.

Kind Regards Riley

@ 39 pagar

“If I give my friend a gift and the state says that, according to its laws, this constitutes an act of theft, does that make my friend a thief?”

Yes. You’re free to disagree with the law though.

@UKL

Please cite.

“Presumption of innocence does not apply in rape cases in Sweden. This because the feminists complained too few ‘rapists’ were being convicted because there was no evidence. They successfully pressured Sweden’s supreme court to issue ‘guidelines’ to the lower courts to sidestep presumption of innocence in rape cases, ensuring they can still convict (even without evidence) as long as the woman’s story is plausible and there is no obvious reason to suspect she’s made the whole thing up.”

http://rixstep.com/1/20101119,00.shtml

@ Chaise

You’re free to disagree with the law though.

Thanks for that…….

pagar,

If I give my friend a gift and the state says that, according to its laws, this constitutes an act of theft, does that make my friend a thief?

A fair analogy would be,

Complainant: “My friend took something from me without my permission and won’t give it back.”

Police: “That’s theft.”

Some people on the internet: “it can’t be theft because the complainant didn’t use the word theft.”

[47] Some people on the internet: “it can’t be theft because the complainant didn’t use the word theft.” – don’t forget to add, unless you happen to be an enemy of american hawks in which case unprecedented divergence from standard practices becomes the order of the day.

@ 46 pagar

“Thanks for that…….”

Not sure what your point is. You asked a factual question, I gave an answer. If the law considered accepting gifts to be theft, then your friend would be a thief for accepting the gift, and it’s up to you whether you blame the law or your friend.

You seem to be holding me to account for the logical conclusion to a scenario that you invented, and that was tangental to the conversation in the first place.

[47] Some people on the internet: “it can’t be theft because the complainant didn’t use the word theft.” – don’t forget to add, unless you happen to be an enemy of american hawks in which case unprecedented divergence from standard practices becomes the order of the day.

I’m struggling to understand your point, but as you are one the people on the internet who seems to think a crime hasn’t happened if the complainant doesn’t use the specific word for the offence, I’m not surprised!

45/pagar: Okay, now please cite an official site. One which doesn’t contain such ridiculous statements as
“Sweden is the country of goddess/warrior legend Mother Svea. Sweden is a functional matriarchy.”
or
“The current feminist movement in Sweden is not traditional feminism but a new type: a ‘communist feminism’ where the individual is disregarded.
… or state things like
“Sweden has one of the highest official rape levels in the world, lagging only behind South Africa.”
as if there’s any international valid correlation between “reported rape” and “occurred rape”. (Note also that the Swedish reported level, while high, is only slightly higher than the UK reported level, and both are considerably lower than the UK British Crime Survey estimated level, so it’s not as if either level is implausible)

Seriously, if that’s what you think is an acceptable standard of citation, then let me just put together a quick page that says that actually the USA want Assange so that they can award him the Congressional Medal of Freedom, Ecuador is the Saudi Arabia of featherweight boxing, Sweden is best known for its ornamental ducks, which it uses to distract investigators from the fact that it’s been faking its birth/death records since the end of WW2, and Wikileaks is actually run by the CIA black ops division for controlled leaks to deniably discredit people who object to their budget.

Note that, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, any move by Sweden to remove the presumption of innocence would be in breach of Article 6 (part 2) and so challengeable in the European courts. If it’s real there are presumably some court cases in which the government of Sweden has been challenged in said courts on those grounds.

Indeed, if it’s real, as a breach of the ECHR, it would be grounds for a Swedish trial to be considered unfair, and the principle of the EAW to be invalid. Therefore, it would be grounds not to extradite. Therefore, one would have expected one of Assange’s highly-paid legal teams to raise this matter at either the extradition hearing or one of the appeals. A startling omission by them, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, if they’d mentioned it, and it was true, it would have been an excellent ground for non-extradition. But, somehow, despite it apparently being well known, the lawyers didn’t mention it. Odd that. Or are all of Assange’s lawyers in on the conspiracy too, perhaps?

Vile woman. Still snubbing British war heroes?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12368253

How can anyone ‘indifferent’ to the Taliban can claim to care about rape and such – ridiculous. She is only saying this because she knows George has let the cat out of the bag when it comes to a great many of Assanges lefty supporters.

a&e,

28] ‘But probably a lot of the time that this happens, the woman doesn’t consider it rape’ – as when couples initiate sex when one or the other is half awake during nocturnal hours – I mean is there ANY couple who have not done this (once they have been together for long enough).

Why do you ignore the essence of the complaint in this case, which is that (allegedly) consent was predicated on condom use, but a condom was not used and Assange could not have reasonable belief there was consent to sex without a condom? The woman might not have complained to the police if he had used a condom. Couples who have “been together long enough” will have established what is acceptable and what is unacceptable conduct. A complaint might be resolved with a ticking off or being sent to the sofa or a spare room for a few days. At the other end of the scale, someone might complain to the police. If someone makes clear that certain conduct is seriously unacceptable but the other person engages in that conduct the complaint should not to be taken lightly just because they previously engaged in consensual sex!

In the assange case explicit consent is alleged not to have been obtained but neither was assange asked to stop by the woman once she realised what has happening

126. The gravamen of Mr Assange’ s argument is that the description of the offence by the Prosecutor does not set out the continuum of events and the context, but seeks to isolate one aspect. That continuum and context showed that she agreed to sexual intercourse when she realised what was happening; it cannot therefore be alleged that he did not have a reasonable belief in consent. We accept Ms Montgomery’s observations about how far it would be right to see what happened afterwards as consensual rather than reluctant submission. But the fact of protected sexual intercourse on other occasions cannot show that she was, or that Mr Assange could reasonably have believed that she was, in her sleep consenting to unprotected intercourse. The fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her. Once awake she was deciding whether to let him go on doing what he had started. However ,strong>it is clear that she is saying that she would rather he had not started at all and had not consented. The prosecution case on rape is or includes the start of sexual intercourse: its references to “consummation” cannot in context be confined to its conclusion or to ejaculation. It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html (my emphasis)

I thought you claimed you had read that judgement?

Given that the evidence looks flakey, and never included specific allegations of rape

This latter bit has been raised by you recently and I recall answering it. You did not respond. I ask again: if someone describes conduct that if it occurred would amount to rape, but she does not use the word rape, does that mean rape did not occur?

cim,

Indeed, if it’s real, as a breach of the ECHR, it would be grounds for a Swedish trial to be considered unfair, and the principle of the EAW to be invalid. Therefore, it would be grounds not to extradite. Therefore, one would have expected one of Assange’s highly-paid legal teams to raise this matter at either the extradition hearing or one of the appeals. A startling omission by them, wouldn’t you agree?

Exactly. Hopefully pagar has contacted them about this to attempt a lastminute appeal. What a serious thing to overlook.

I mean, if they’d mentioned it, and it was true, it would have been an excellent ground for non-extradition. But, somehow, despite it apparently being well known, the lawyers didn’t mention it. Odd that. Or are all of Assange’s lawyers in on the conspiracy too, perhaps?

Everyone’s in on it. A&e and pagar et al are in on it, it’s obvious: they keep making comments that make his supporters look like weirdos.

@ 52 tory

“Vile woman. Still snubbing British war heroes?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12368253”

Shorely you mean “Vile people. Still making up ridiculous shit about a woman who has the gall to be anti-war”? People can shout “She would of cheered a terrorist!” all they like, but it doesn’t make it true.

“How can anyone ‘indifferent’ to the Taliban can claim to care about rape and such – ridiculous.”

Where does it say she’s indifferent? You’ve provided a source that not only shows the “vile” woman you speak of being bullied by hawks, but that doesn’t even support your own claims.

52/56

thats an enormously brave and selfless thing Croucher did, more the province of a VC than a GC. I always say if you cant stand behind the army, try standing in front of it

Kind Regards Riley

pagar,

http://rixstep.com/1/20101119,00.shtml

Reeeeally? Come on, I thought you would post something authoritative, like a law or judgement or study, not a page full of ad homs by “a constellation of programmers and support staff”.

[50] ‘I’m struggling to understand your point, but as you are one the people on the internet who seems to think a crime hasn’t happened if the complainant doesn’t use the specific word for the offence’ – you really are hard work sometimes.

I am not suggesting that an offence has not been committed because the women did not use the word rape – I am just saying that neither women made this specific allegation, and the absence of such language on the back of growing doubts about their version of events is significant (such as possibly saving yet not being sure if you have a stored a condom in your flat which contains the alleged offenders ejeculate)

A swedish legal expert has cast major doubts about the prospect of assange ever being able to receive justice, as well as expressing dismay at the catalogue of gaffes that have marred the swedish investigation so far.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem

@55

1. She *did* snub a war hero. Read it again, stop deflecting this time. Or are you claiming she didn’t? She didn’t stand and clap, like everyone else, because she was tired then? By the way, the guy in question jumped on top of a Taliban grenade. Wonder why she was so pissed?

2. From the horses mouth:

“Whatever we might think of them, the Taliban have been consistent in saying that if foreign troops were withdrawn, they would stop fighting. They have outlined preconditions for a negotiated settlement. These include the offer of a ceasefire, replacing Western troops with a peace keeping force drawn from Muslim countries, a transitional government…”

They made the trains run on time! Indifferent to the Taliban? Absolutely. The only ‘murderers’ she protests against are British soldiers.

@ 59 tory

“1. She *did* snub a war hero. Read it again, stop deflecting this time. Or are you claiming she didn’t? She didn’t stand and clap, like everyone else, because she was tired then?”

I didn’t say she didn’t. I said that, in your own source, the people attacking her were far worse.

“By the way, the guy in question jumped on top of a Taliban grenade. Wonder why she was so pissed? ”

Given she’s against the war, probably she was pissed that he was having grenades thrown at him in the first place. Or maybe she didn’t want to cheer someone who possibly killed people for a living.

Regardless, it’s going pretty far to call her “vile” for sitting it out on moral grounds, especially when your souce is full of people being genuinely vile. And it feeds into this general hawk tactic of “suck up to the military or we’ll demonise you in the media!”

“2. From the horses mouth:

“Whatever we might think of them, the Taliban have been consistent in saying that if foreign troops were withdrawn, they would stop fighting. They have outlined preconditions for a negotiated settlement. These include the offer of a ceasefire, replacing Western troops with a peace keeping force drawn from Muslim countries, a transitional government…”

They made the trains run on time! Indifferent to the Taliban? Absolutely. The only ‘murderers’ she protests against are British soldiers.”

So when you put “indifferent” in quotes, implying that she said it, you were in fact making it up? The above doesn’t show indifference; you’re morally condemning factual statements. Should she lie about the Taliban to prove she doesn’t like them? Are the options that you have to either be a propagandist or a terrorist sympathiser?

Incidentally, what’s your motivation in reading so much into so little?

“Incidentally, what’s your motivation in reading so much into so little?”

I dislike policians who show contempt to British soldiers. Outside leftyblogworld, you would find 99% of people agree with me.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with the story – she did snub him. All the other stuff about ‘hawks’ is your problem, not mine.

a&e,

I am not suggesting that an offence has not been committed because the women did not use the word rape – I am just saying that neither women made this specific allegation, and the absence of such language on the back of growing doubts about their version of events is significant

But it isn’t significant. Three UK courts have decided that the conduct described if it occurred would amount to rape. Think about the theft analogy I wrote in reply to pagar.

(such as possibly saving yet not being sure if you have a stored a condom in your flat which contains the alleged offenders ejeculate)

Well, issues like that are properly for the criminal court in Sweden to consider. It will hear both sides of the case and consider the credibility of the alleged victims and the alleged offender. It isn’t an impediment to Assange being extradited to Sweden.

@ 62 tory

“I dislike policians who show contempt to British soldiers. Outside leftyblogworld, you would find 99% of people agree with me. ”

Ah, made-up numbers and appeals to majority. The stuff of debatorial legend.

“Once again, there is nothing wrong with the story – she did snub him.”

I said that your false claim was that she is indifferent to the Taliban, not that she snubbed him. But I guess it’s easier to answer easy non-existent questions than challenging hard ones.

“All the other stuff about ‘hawks’ is your problem, not mine.”

You don’t want to talk about it. Gotcha.

Oh, and way to avoid answering my questions, Tory. You’re a paragon of intellectual honesty, you.

a&e,

A swedish legal expert has cast major doubts about the prospect of assange ever being able to receive justice, as well as expressing dismay at the catalogue of gaffes that have marred the swedish investigation so far.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem

As you have read the decision from Westminster Magistrates’ Court you are undoubtedly aware it heard Alhem give live evidence.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

Unfortunately the paragraphs aren’t numbered but the first appearance of his name is in the sentence “Sven-Eric Alhem gave evidence the next day”. Some pertinent quotes:

In cross-examination he said his understanding of the steps taken to interview Mr Assange comes from what he was told by Mr Hurtig, [Assange’s] Swedish defence lawyer [who is later described by the magistrate as an “unreliable witness”, and what he has read. … He had not read the documentation put before the Stockholm District Court and the [Svea] Court of Appeal. He had not seen the statements of Mr Hurtig or Ms Ny. … There is nothing wrong with the EAW issued for Mr Assange. If it was the case that it was not possible to hold the interrogation hearing with the suspect earlier then he too, when he was a prosecutor, would have issued the the evidential question as to the steps taken to interview Mr Assange is relevant and that he should have seen the relevant documentation before expressing his view. However even if Ms Ny’s account, which he heard in court today for the first time, is correct then that does not change his view that an interrogation should have taken place in England. He made it clear that the statement of Ms Ny does not correspond with the information he had been given by Mr Hurtig. Ms Ny “is allowed to seek an EAW – there is no doubt about that”. On the account given by Ms Ny it would have been a reasonable reaction to apply for an EAW. “Certainly, I would have done the same myself”.

To be fair to Alhem,
Overall I was left with the impression of a sincere witness doing his best to help the court. He relied on Mr Hurtig for his information as to the attempts made to interview Mr Assange. His strongest criticism was based on the information that no attempt had been made to interview the suspect while he was still in Sweden. However, even on Ms Ny’s account he was critical of the decision not to arrange an interview in the UK.

Later on,
15. … [Mr Hurtig’s] statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way. …
16. Nevertheless, even on the true facts some important conclusions of Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem (for example that Mutual Legal Assistance was a more proportionate response than issuing an EAW) remain.
….
Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case.
…
Mr Alhem expressly made no judgement on Ms Ny.
….
Sven-Eric Alhem emphasised the imperative for an early interview with the suspect of a rape allegation. He said that if it was not possible to hold an early interrogation hearing than he too would have issued an EAW. Again his expert opinion is based on facts that in the event were wrongly stated. He had not been told of the efforts made by Ms Ny to arrange an interview in September. He told me that on the account given by Ms Ny it would have been a reasonable reaction to apply for EAW. He too is not an expert on extradition, but it appears he has direct experience of the role of a prosecutor in Sweden.
…
There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen.

There is more in the decision but I think those are the key points.

Certainly the defence was unable to persuade the three UK courts of a real risk of an unfair trial.

Worth highlighting: “his expert opinion is based on facts that in the event were wrongly stated. [by Assange’s lawyer iiuc] “

[53] ‘A complaint might be resolved with a ticking off or being sent to the sofa or a spare room for a few days’ – as opposed to heavy handed use of a EAW or surrounding the embassy of a small country, dear oh dear, double standards, eh.

By the way I have read the judgements, in fact it’s virtually impossible not have done so given that you keep cutting and pasting them every 5 minutes, although it is somewhat disappointing when somebody can’t distinguish between accepting these findings as the word of god rather than questioning them in the light of an investigation that is the very definition of incompetence, or allegations about additional material (not contained in the judgements) which allows for entirely different conclusions (such as deleted tweets saying she wasn’t asleep).

And since you mention condoms do you think there is any rational explanation as to why one of the complainants believed assange tore the end of a condom (without ever examining it herself ) then being unable to remember with any certainty if she had stored it in her flat for a week.

You continue to make silly, and inaccurate attributions toward me (the latest concerning comments about an appeal to ECHR) – I have never mentioned the ECHR – I have said the handling of the case has been a monumental disaster from start to finish but since nobody has yet to say so in a judgement I expect you have little to say about it?

Anyway, most of this debate is academic now – none of the protagonists have a chance of a fair trial whatever happens.

[66] ‘Worth highlighting: “his expert opinion is based on facts that in the event were wrongly stated. [by Assange’s lawyer iiuc] “ – well, lets start at the beginning – are you denying that allegations (that assange had committed a sex crime) was not leaked by the authorities at the very outset?

Such an inappropriate disclosure was bound to foster a climate akin to a witch hunt (given assanges notoriety) rather than a professional and even handed investigation.

The whole thing went tits up from day 1.
What followed in its wake was equally unappetising – the police couldn’t even follow basic procedures like tape recording all of the protagonists rather than just some of them – Ny herself had stipulated such as approach (taping of interviews) should be adopted as standard operating procedure.

a&e

in fact it’s virtually impossible not have done so given that you keep cutting and pasting them every 5 minutes,

I do that because you and others keep raising issues the courts have already answered, and some months ago at that, but you and they keep raising these issues as if they are novel points and ignoring the judgements and quotes from the judgements.

Example: this latest thing about Alhem, where you supply his expert opinion that you presumably endorse (otherwise why post it?), which was dealt with by the magistrate in February 2011 at the original extradition hearing, the key point being Alhem’s “expert opinion is based on facts that in the event were wrongly stated” by Assange’s lawyer, and actually Alhem now (or did in February 2011 at least) thinks “there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case” despite any criticisms remaining about how the authorities have handled it.

And since you mention condoms do you think there is any rational explanation as to why one of the complainants believed assange tore the end of a condom (without ever examining it herself ) then being unable to remember with any certainty if she had stored it in her flat for a week.

I’m sure I’ve said before in reply to you that things like this are for the Swedish criminal court to consider and they may well consider that they harm the credibility of the complainant such that Assange can’t be convicted of that particular offence. And if they do that, it will be fine with me. But we can’t get to that point, can we, because Assange is not submitting himself to due process.

a&e,

[66] ‘Worth highlighting: “his expert opinion is based on facts that in the event were wrongly stated. [by Assange’s lawyer iiuc] “ – well, lets start at the beginning – are you denying that allegations (that assange had committed a sex crime) was not leaked by the authorities at the very outset?

What makes you think I deny such a thing? I don’t recall expressing any opinion on the leak except that it shouldn’t have happened.

And again the leaks are something else that Westminster Magistrates’ Court considered in February 2011.

All we know is that a radical feminist prosecutor and a lawyer with hard right political associations are calling it that. If I give my friend a gift and the state says that, according to its laws, this constitutes an act of theft, does that make my friend a thief?

Depends if that gift is your penis and if the friend is asleep.

@ukl

Think about the theft analogy I wrote in reply to pagar.

Here’s a better analogy.

Advice seeker: “I had consensual sex with someone and the last time we did it he didn’t use a condom. Can I make him have an STD test.”

Police: “Did he tell you he wasn’t wearing a condom?”

Advice seeker: “Only after we started”

Police: “That’s rape”

Advice seekers friend: “When I had sex with him, the condom broke and at one point he held my arms.”

Police: “That’s rape too.”

Some people on the internet: “No, it’s not.”

For more see http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

“We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.
Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.”

LOL…

In other words:

“You can say what you like, as long as it’s what WE like”…

Idiots.

[69] Alhem’s opinions are almost irrelevant in the context of the UK hearing – the hearing was to largely establish if the EAW had been correctly issued, and equivalence of offences – the court ruled as it did, in effect saying if Ny thinks there is a case then this is good enough for us.

As you know the british court did not have to concern itself with testing either the quality of the evidence, or the catalogue of gaffes already committed by the swedish authorities – so to be clear my reference to Alhem’s assessment is more to do with an overall sense that something has gone badly wrong with the handling of this case (by the swedes) rather than the UK’s judgement regarding the EAW.

Now, none of this would been necessary if the first woman had simply approached the authorities after the first alleged offence stating in unambiguous terms that she had been raped, and it would have been a near open and shut case had the second woman approached the police independently in the wake of her sexual ordeal – but neither did, instead meeting up with each other to compare notes, before finally approaching police albeit with assange’s used condom fermenting for a week at some unspecified place in the first woman’s flat.

Now I’m sure you can understand why eyebrows were raised even further when stories of deleted tweets and texts began to emerge, allegedly because they are said to be incriminating, at odds with the women’s version of events, and even malicious.

I suspect one of two courses of action by the swedes would have circumvented 99% of the conspiracy theories – first of all they could have properly investigated the allegations and made an early decision to HOLD and charge assange if there was any substance to them – but having failed to do that (and we can only speculate why given that they were potentially dealing with a two-time sex offender) the swedes could have interviewed assange in london or via video link especially since the case is based on little more than a he-said, she-said sort of stuff.

There is a way to introduce a ” double criminality ” element to the European arrest Warrant in order to legally refuse an extradition request. All the court hearing the request has to do is to compel the state who are seeking extradition to convert the potential sentence facing the accused into a comparable sentence that they would face n the UK. If they can’t because it would not be an offence in the UK, that re-introduces double criminality. The problem for the Assange groupies and their desire to try the case on the internet is the Assange allegations would be an offence under existing UK laws. Therefore, there are no valid reasons for a UK court refusing a request to surrender him to Sweden. Moreover, it would be questionable whether it would be appropriate for a UK court to try and use a backdoor double criminality to the EAW for someone who is not a UK national.

It is perfectly valid to question whether we should have the EAW at all. However, that is a different issue to the reality that it does exist. Given that it does exist, I can’t see any grounds why Assange would not be extradited to Sweden to face his accusers.

a&ecn #68:

are you denying that allegations (that assange had committed a sex crime) was not leaked by the authorities at the very outset?

Well, for what it’s worth, the allegations were obviously leaked at the outset; but I understand that it is far from clear who leaked them. I’ve seen suggestions that the copies that hit the media had the same copy markings as those served on Assange; can someone else verify this?

@a&e3cn contd:

Well, here’s one report:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/wikileaks-sweden/

Note this passage:

The documents appear to consist of pretrial discovery material that prosecutors provided to Assange’s Stockholm lawyer Björn Hurtig last year, which Hurtig subsequently faxed to the office of Assange’s British attorney Mark Stephens. The documents begin with a Nov. 23 cover letter addressed to Stephens’ co-counsel, in which Hurtig advises: “Please note that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else.”

Since only Hurtig and Stephens were privy to the fax, the obvious assessment is that either Stephens or Hurtig leaked the documents. Not the authorities.

pagar @37, that’s yet another false analogy. It’s false, because it doesn’t resemble what is alleged to have occurred.

…and for pagar, a bit of advice, since you appear to have problems with complicated concepts like conditional consent.

1 No means no;
2 If the woman underneath you is trying to keep her legs together and your penis out of her vagina, it is safest to assume that she is saying no;
3 If she says “Yes, if…”, she means “No, unless…” – see 1 above
4 If she’s asleep, and said “no, unless…” before she went to sleep, it is safest to assume that she hasn’t changed her mind whilst asleep.

[76] The Expressen headline the first day after allegations about Assange became known was “Assange hunted for rape in Sweden” – a precursor of things to come perhaps?

It has also been reported that one of the complainants outed herself to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the complaints were “not orchestrated by the Pentagon” but prompted by “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women and a problem taking no for an answer.”

Any prospect of confidentiality was blown out of the water from the very beginning, but at this stage we cannot blame either assange or assange’s legal team for these disclosures.

I am absolutely satisfied that no such comments will have any impact on the decisions of the courts, either here or in Sweden. I know that there will be three lay judges in any trial in Sweden. Despite the suggestion that they are selected because of their political allegiances, there is simply no reason to believe that they will not deal with the case on the evidence before them. Any earlier impression of the merits of the case, whether favourable or unfavourable to this defendant, will play no part. In this jurisdiction we have ample experience of defendants who have been vilified and yet acquitted.
…
If there have been any irregularities within the Swedish system, then the right place for these to be examined and remedied is the Swedish trial process. Sweden is a member of the European Union and has undertaken to abide by ECHR obligations. None of these points raised by the defence establishes an abuse of process.
…
For the sake of completeness, I add that none of the accusations made against the conduct of Ms Ny comes close to establishing impropriety on her behalf.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

I don’t think the leaks and comments were mentioned in the subsequent hearings.

a&e,

but at this stage we cannot blame either assange or assange’s legal team for these disclosures.

But you’ve been very critical of the authorities for their disclosures, haven’t you?

[82] ‘But you’ve been very critical of the authorities for their disclosures, haven’t you?’ – is that unreasonable when professionals cannot adhere to even basic professional standards, such as appreciating the importance of confidentiality while preliminary investigations are being carried out – I mean what else can they expect, compliments?

The police have certainly not covered themselves in glory, for example according to pagar’s entertaining link @ 72 BOTH women were present when the first interviews took place (although as you pointed out earlier each statement had a different date on it).

The interviewing officer was a friend of one of the complainants to boot.

Is there is anything I can say that would allow to accept the possibility assange has not been treated like the next man?

@a&ecn #80:

Stop changing the subject; the claim, from you, was that the authorities leaked the documents. The evidence is otherwise.

Any evidence that the authorities leaked the charge before Assange did?

[84] ‘Any evidence that the authorities leaked the charge before Assange did?’ – this from the ozzie tv investigation.

ANDREW FOWLER: The Prosecutor’s Office might not have contacted Assange but within hours they let the whole of Sweden know what was going on – leaking to the Expressen Tabloid the statements of the two women. The newspaper front page read: “Assange hunted for rape in Sweden”.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Julian wakes up the following morning to read the newspapers to hear that he’s wanted for double rape and he’s absolutely shocked.

THOMAS MATTSSON: Two of our reporters had information about Julian Assange, and we also had a confirmation from the prosecutor which confirmed on record that there was a police investigation against Julian Assange.

ANDREW FOWLER: It was now the case took a strange twist. Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement.

During the interview he expressed his fears that anything he said would end up in the tabloid newspaper Expressen. The interviewing police officer said: “I’m not going to leak anything.” The interview was leaked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqNR376L4rU

@84. Robin Levett: “Any evidence that the authorities leaked the charge before Assange did?”

Further to Robin’s comment, why would anyone leak the identities of the two women? If, as vulgarly accused, the women are flakey witnesses, it would not be beneficial for the investigators to name them.

@73. Leftie idiots: “We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space. Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.”

Sunny and helpers operate by those rules.

Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted. Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments abound — the rules are about giving space for discourse and recognising that people get excited. The rules do not say that abusive, sarcastic or silly comments *will* be deleted.

The only occasions when my comments were deleted delivered me from embarrassment.

@a&ecn #85:

Two of our reporters had information about Julian Assange, and we also had a confirmation from the prosecutor which confirmed on record that there was a police investigation against Julian Assange.

So the prosecutor confirmed information that two of Expressen’s reporters already had. Where did they get the information?

And this doesn’t support the claim that the women’s statements had been leaked.

@ 87 Charlieman

To be fair, the LC rules show a definite tendency to be used more stringently against those who Sunny doesn’t like. (Not a personal whinge: I don’t imagine Sunny likes me, but the only times I’ve seen my posts disappear is when I’ve been arguing with a troll and Sunny has understandably wiped the whole conversation).

But to be fair also, he’s not exactly heavy-handed. For a site owned by one guy, LC is unusually open to dissenting opinion. Sunny’s obviously more interested in running a forum than a list of yes-men, and more power to him for that.

[88] ‘So the prosecutor confirmed information that two of Expressen’s reporters already had’ – yes, a breach of procedure – the correct response would have been to withhold specific details – once confirmed by the prosector the expressen was in a much stronger position to run the story.

What bit of this are you disputing?

85. Robin Levett

yes they named their investigation a ‘rape investigation’

@a&ecn #91:

Oh, dear; you seem to have missed my question. Here it is again:

“So the prosecutor confirmed information that two of Expressen’s reporters already had. Where did they get the information?”

And you still haven’t provided support for your claim that the prosecutors office leaked the women’s statements..

[93] ‘And you still haven’t provided support for your claim that the prosecutors office leaked the women’s statements’ – I never claimed they did.

We do know that the first prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand is being investigated by the swedish Due process organisation, Rättssäkerhetsorganisationen for her part in confirming confidential information to the expressen.
http://www.thelocal.se/28556/20100824/

Irrespective of the source the case started very badly due to this obvious breach of standards.

Given that those handling the case from day 1 had to be investigated for incompetence it seems to me rather odd that you are making unsubstantiated allegations that assange or his team was the source of the leak – what evidence do you have that they did, and why are you so reticent about the prosecutors faux pas – maybe your reticence is driven by the fact it does not fit in with your preferred interpretation of this case?

[93] just to add – what did assange have to gain by outing himself through sweden’s version of ‘the sun’ as a creepy sex offender?

[93] ‘And you still haven’t provided support for your claim that the prosecutors office leaked the women’s statements’ – I never claimed they did.

Not explicitly, in plain language, as I recall, but certainly it’s been a reasonable inference one could make from your comments.

e.g. in this very thread:

“Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so. So why on earth should assange feel paranoid?”

“are you denying that allegations (that assange had committed a sex crime) was not leaked by the authorities at the very outset?”

elsewhere:

“Why would Rättssäkerhetsorganisationen be investigating Kjellstrand if assange’s team were responsible for the first and decisive leak?”

“Mind you if the befuddled Swedes had stuck to ANY sort of process, rather than concentrating on regular leaks to the MSM”

a&e,

[93] just to add – what did assange have to gain by outing himself through sweden’s version of ‘the sun’ as a creepy sex offender?

Well that’s easy: it makes the case look like a witch-hunt and the prosecutors corrupt, doesn’t it? After all, it’s something you yourself find “significant” and of great concern.

Anyway, it might not have been his decision. It might have been done behind his back.

I can think of one person with access to the files who a UK court has said was deliberately dishonest.

Of course, that chap might be in on it with the CIA!

[97] oh, so we are back to inaccurate attributions are we?

The fact that Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand made an inappropriate disclosures to ‘sun’ type churnos is now a matter of public record, one that has led to some sort of investigation by sweden’s ‘Due process organisation’ – not that you are interested in this.

The concerns you allude are those pertaining to an entirely dseparate matter, Prosectors Finne’s decision to drop the rape charge, not Kiellstrand’s gaffe with expressen.

Now since you want to speculate about the source of the tip off how about the female police officer who conducted the interviews, and who happened to be a FRIEND of one of the complainants – certainly no cause for concern there then, when police mates are conducting the investigation eh?
Or maybe it bothers you just a teeny bit that apart from a friend conducting interviews it was also with a fellow witness present while questions were being asked – oh, and with the tape switched.

Perhaps the next bit is worth quoting at length ‘That evening there had been a lavish crayfish party at Harpsund Slott, the Prime Minister’s summer residence. Harpsund is a fabulous place, and every important guest of the Swedish government has visited it: from Nikita Khrushchev to Angela Merkel. Besides the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, there were present several politicians and political journalists, among them Niklas Svensson, a political journalist for Expressen. Svensson was fired from Expressen in 2006 for hacking into an opposition party computer and stealing an important document, the party strategic paper for elections. Later he was reinstalled and rewarded for his strong political sympathies for the ruling right-wing (and very pro-American) coalition.

That night Svensson received a message on his cell phone describing the double complaint against Julian, although we know that at the time there was still only one reluctant statement. We don’t know whether or not he shared the good news with the ministers and Ambassadors at the party, but I don’t see how he could have contained himself. The elections were scheduled in thee weeks’ time, and the government was eager to placate the Americans, upset at Julian’s new Swedish base of operations. Svensson called the police and the prosecutor, and they confirmed the news as an official press release from the police department’.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

Still, I expect none of this will make one bit of difference to your position, although it is very daring of you to deviate from your usual cut & paste style of debate, while at the same time making exciting observations about the CIA – one would have to be a grade A lunatic to think the CIA could possibly become involved in a dirty tricks campaign against somebody perceived as threatening american security neither would they seek to influence right wing elements within the swedish security forces, I mean that’s a given.

you want to know who leaked to the press? the women did

“Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

Kind Regards Riley

tbh a&e, I’m just having fun with you now. I mean, you can’t even seem to remember what you wrote only hours before.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

Spotted a couple of flaws with that just scanning it when pagar posted it, so I can’t really be bothered with it to be honest.

Perhaps the next bit is worth quoting at length [quote] … t is very daring of you to deviate from your usual cut & paste style of debate

tremendous!

It’s pretty obvious the CIA hired a group of Swedish hardcore lesbian feminists to infliltrate the Swedish police and prosecutor’s office and Wikileaks in Sweden to discredit Assange in case he ever visited. When Assange visited the honeypot was opened. He had his wicked manly way with the feminist Wikileaks volunteers who later contacted the feminist police and feminist prosecutors. A super-feminist lawyer was ostensibly hired to protect the women’s interests – of course he knew about the plan from the start. Little did Assange know his own lawyer was part of the plot. This guy leaked pre-trial discovery material to the press and the internet to make it look to the casual observer as if the prosecution did it but serious investigators would realise it was Assange’s team wot dunnit. This meant Assange was not only accused of serious sexual offences but it also looked as if he was trying to set up the prosecution and an unfair trial. The plan worked better than the CIA ever imagined: WikiLeaks supporters were split down the middle in their support (or lack of it) for their tarnished hero and Assange fled to the country of bad teeth where he would languish for a couple of years fighting extradition to Sweden. He would also fall out with the Guardian, Private Eye, Canongate the book publisher and his English lawyer about remuneration, and ultimately end up gaining asylum in a small foreign embassy belonging to a country about which Amnesty International said, “quite why, out of all the countries in the world, Assange chose to seek sanctuary in Ecuador is beyond irony.”

‘quite why, out of all the countries in the world, Assange chose to seek sanctuary in Ecuador is beyond irony.”

Multiple Choice Exam, Choose One Option

Your name is Julian Assange, you want to be taken to:

A. Sweden where I will be extradited to the US to be tortured and/or executed

B. Some sunny South American situation, never mind the politics

Riley,

‘quite why, out of all the countries in the world, Assange chose to seek sanctuary in Ecuador is beyond irony.”

Multiple Choice Exam, Choose One Option

Your name is Julian Assange, you want to be taken to:

A. Sweden where I will be extradited to the US to be tortured and/or executed

Another point already addressed multiple times here. Once again:

1. Sweden won’t extradite him to US if there is a risk of torture or execution. There are other safeguards already pointed out here and at
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

2. And to pre-empt you saying, “what about rendition” or some unlawful / extra-judicial means of getting to the USA, well, that’s outside the law so the point is moot, they could do that from anywhere, including Ecuador.

3. The USA hasn’t sought Assange’s extradition from the UK or Sweden.

4. On the execution point, the USA is capable of killing people outside the USA.

5. Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the USA.

6. Why come to the UK in the first place if you are worried about extradition to the USA?

It just doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny.

Riley,

you want to know who leaked to the press? the women did

“Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.”

How do people know about the texts? Genuine question.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape.

Any article about the issue that starts with that sentence cannot possibly claim to be authoritative / serious.

1. Sweden won’t extradite him to US if there is a risk of torture or execution. There are other safeguards already pointed out here and at
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Thats a bit of a rag piece really, it skims details that can be challenged, however
THE US suggests their activities in Guantanamo Bay Are not torture, therefore they could extradite anyway. The charge would be designed to be non committal that Sweden could abide. Sweden has renditioned to torture before for the CIA, so the pretext is already there.

2. And to pre-empt you saying, “what about rendition” or some unlawful / extra-judicial means of getting to the USA, well, that’s outside the law so the point is moot, they could do that from anywhere, including Ecuador.

Ecuador already believe Assange to be at risk by the statements coming out of US politicians and would suggest the extradition REQUEST was politically motivated. Under the terms of extradition it is nullified. Sweden OTOH seem motivated otherwise
allisonkilkenny.com/2010/12/the-brave-armchair-generals-calling-for-julian-assanges-criminalization/

3. The USA hasn’t sought Assange’s extradition from the UK or Sweden.

Thats like saying Assange isnt charged in Sweden. As we speak for whatever reason the Govt of Australia are preparing a contingency should he be extradited to the US. Perhaps they know something you dont. The US will wait until Assange is off the reservation in the UK to allow the UK to let him go (given their history on Guantanamo)

4. On the execution point, the USA is capable of killing people outside the USA.

Thats illegal, just like torture is illegal. Notice they choose were people are renditioned to for torture, that wouldn’t be Sweden whom have a history of complying with US wishes on rendition to torture. IOW people are taken from Sweden by the US for purposes of torture, not the other way around. In that sense the US gets around the law.

5. Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the USA.

you already said that, and there are ways out of it where countries are so obviously not adherent with the wishes US.

6. Why come to the UK in the first place if you are worried about extradition to the USA?

Because the UK has a history of pulling people out of Guantanamo Bay, it would be a public expression against their previous stance to knowingly allow him to be taken there. Once out of the UK the US will press Sweden to extradite on some non death sentence charge

It just doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny.

casual perhaps
close focus, probably
which BTW, you didnt choose A or B
people ask simple questions and deserve simple answers
are we there yet ?

105 Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape.

Any article about the issue that starts with that sentence cannot possibly claim to be authoritative / serious.

theyre journalists not experts in Swedish Law, just as we arent. Theyre relating to the law as it stands in Australia, which exerts no such criminality.

the flavour of the texts from one of the women at least are well known
the same occurred over the twitter messages that were deleted, nominally ‘half asleep’ not ‘asleep’ as it appeared in the prosecution documents. The tweets were deleted from her account, but unfortunately for they were discovered on other tweet records

Thats a clear case of tampering with evidence,
why would someone feel the need to do that ?

all over the place there are issues with this case
yet you seem to think it an almost open and shut affair

this man has been tried and prosecuted in various writings on the web. He is alluded to sub judice as a byword for RAPE as though he has been convicted and is criminally guilty. Now some of these people are beginning to cover their tracks from what they have said, and already tweets are beginning to ‘vanish’.

For those people I have one simple message
its too late

riley, I don’t dispute that the USA has been known to operate ‘outside the law’ – I have criticised them for doing that on LC – but again, if they are prepared to do that with Assange it doesn’t matter where in the world he goes.

Thats a bit of a rag piece really, it skims details that can be challenged, however

Well, you say that but David Allen Green is a respected liberal lawyer, so…

THE US suggests their activities in Guantanamo Bay Are not torture, therefore they could extradite anyway. The charge would be designed to be non committal that Sweden could abide. Sweden has renditioned to torture before for the CIA, so the pretext is already there.

You seem to be conflating “extradition” with “extraordinary rendition” (not to mention how they get people to Gitmo), which makes it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You also rely on the Swedish courts and the European Court of Human Rights approving of the extradition to the USA. Assange would undoubtedly appeal and if there is a real risk of breach of his Convention rights he would not be extradited.

3. The USA hasn’t sought Assange’s extradition from the UK or Sweden.

Thats like saying Assange isnt charged in Sweden.

In what sense?

Struggling to parse your response to point 4.

Riley,

“Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape.”

Any article about the issue that starts with that sentence cannot possibly claim to be authoritative / serious.

theyre journalists not experts in Swedish Law, just as we arent. Theyre relating to the law as it stands in Australia, which exerts no such criminality.

The guy who wrote the article was “Melbourne barrister James D. Catlin, who acted for Julian Assange in London in October”.

If you or he do not understand the rape allegation you really ought to be quiet. Of course it’s quite possible he does Catlin does understand the allegation but instead chooses to mislead his audience.

4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

iow, no consent absent condom; he allegedly had no reasonable belief in consent. That is the allegation. The allegation isn’t, “we had consensual sex without a condom”. There allegedly wasn’t consent. Hence an allegation of rape. Understand?

the flavour of the texts from one of the women at least are well known the same occurred over the twitter messages that were deleted, nominally ‘half asleep’ not ‘asleep’ as it appeared in the prosecution documents. The tweets were deleted from her account, but unfortunately for they were discovered on other tweet records

Thats a clear case of tampering with evidence, why would someone feel the need to do that ?

I have no idea. It’s something for the criminal court in Sweden to consider.

all over the place there are issues with this case
yet you seem to think it an almost open and shut affair

Um, no. My position, as I’ve made clear on LC in plain English, is that Assange is innocent unless proved guilty. I have never said or implied he is guilty. But these are serious allegations and three Swedish courts say there is a case to answer. He has appealed to them and lost and appealed against extradition in the UK and lost. He has had some of the best legal representation. Due process has been observed and it’s time for him to return to Sweden, just like any Joe Bloggs would have to.

ukliberty: “6. Why come to the UK in the first place if you are worried about extradition to the USA?”

Well, quite. In addition:
7. Why come to Sweden, discuss with prominent local figures and Wikileaks supporters the possibility of hosting Wikileaks servers within the country to protect them from US interference, stay for several weeks attending various public speaking engagements and parties, and submit an application for permanent residence if you are even more worried about extradition from there to the USA.

I think cim has said pretty much the following, but I just saw it and thought it worth quoting:

The central [conspiracy] allegation is that the USA is using these proceedings to extradite him and subject him to a trial for treason, where he is at risk of being subjected to the death penalty.

Looking solely at what is the incontrovertible legal situation, this is what you have to be alleging if you want to make this story stick:

The United States, in order to prosecute an Australian national with a view to subjecting him to the death penalty, has persuaded two individuals to accuse him of a crime that is notoriously difficult to prove, in order to get him extradited from a country with a very US-friendly extradition treaty, to another country with much stronger protections against extraditions to the USA. This extraditing country is legally unable to extradite him to the USA if he faces the death penalty. This is done using a legal mechanism that then requires both countries to approve his extradition to the USA. This is to be done using a legal framework that has already taken the best part of two years with no end in sight, with multiple legal obstacles along the way in both the past and future.

Alternatively, they have done this to engage in extraordinary rendition of a man with a gargantuan media profile, and without regard to the major diplomatic outcry this would cause from the UK, Sweden, Australia, the EU and the rest of the world.

This is to be done in preference to:

Extraditing him directly from the UK;
Waiting for a man with a reputation for being itinerant to walk into a friendlier jurisdiction; or
Waiting for him to settle in Sweden before commencing proceedings.

http://garrulouslaw.com/2012/08/assange-case-theories.html

@99. the a&e charge nurse, a&e recommends this story:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

Thankfully nobody has followed up on it non-critically. The author is Israel Shamir, a source who cannot be described as impartial or reliable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir for an unpleasant taste of the man.

Incidentally, Shamir’s story gratuitously names and slurs the two complainants.

@ UKL

Is the extradition procedure to Sweden designed as part of an international conspiracy to get Assange to Sweden in order that he be more easily extradited to the US?

I think that is most unlikely but, if this were to transpire, would you be prepared to review your position on the moral rectitude of what is happening? Or would you be content that “due process” had been followed so that justifies your position?

Because, it seems to me, it is an insufficient justification, when common sense says that the charges under which the EAW has been issued are trumped up, to have refused to debate their merit, or the allegation that they have been contrived, on the grounds that it is sub judice and “is a matter for the Swedish judicial system to determine.”

In other words, if Assange does end up in Guantanemo, are you prepared to eat the many words you have contributed to these threads?

@100. Riley: “you want to know who leaked to the press? the women did

“Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/”

From the above link: “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. ”

Catlin admits that he doesn’t know the exact wording of the SMS texts but knows that a plan was formed. Hmm…

@113. pagar: “Because, it seems to me, it is an insufficient justification, when common sense says that the charges under which the EAW has been issued are trumped up, to have refused to debate their merit, or the allegation that they have been contrived, on the grounds that it is sub judice and “is a matter for the Swedish judicial system to determine.””

UKL, cim, Robin Levett and I will no doubt adopt slightly different takes on this series of suggestions.

I’ll start off with the statement: “have refused to debate their merit”. There have been 100+ posts on this thread, hundreds elsewhere on LC, in which the moral case and legal validity of the complaints have been discussed.

As I recall, the only example where sub judice has been raised relates to naming of the two complainants. Everything else, including leaked documents, has been treated as fair game for discussion.

@108. ukliberty: “riley, I don’t dispute that the USA has been known to operate ‘outside the law’ – I have criticised them for doing that on LC – but again, if they are prepared to do that with Assange it doesn’t matter where in the world he goes.”

Further to UKL’s comment, I suggest that standing by due process and demanding honesty is the strongest way to defend liberty. The way to address “extraordinary rendition” (aka kidnapping) is to defend legitimate processes, acknowledging that every person should be treated with equal respect.

I sincerely believe that anyone who has been kidnapped and imprisoned should go free, unless and until they are convicted in a court. We are not free when random detention occurs. Counter wise, we are not free when people demand and are delivered special treatment because they are “special”

113 Charlieman
“Catlin admits that he doesn’t know the exact wording of the SMS texts but knows that a plan was formed. Hmm”

Well Im working under some difficulty here, as most sites explicitly mention the names of the accusers,and that it seems is to be avoided on this blog. I hope you can appreciate that problem despite the stupidity of the impost.

So I dont know what to do about ‘linking’, I am happy to do it with permission, but some sites include entire statements from various actors in this case.

I have a number of extracts I think I can present in this I edited out one name to rename [MsA]:

“2. Bjorn Hurtig was briefly allowed to view tweets from the complainants (the tweets were later deleted by [MsA], but then recoveredl. Other messages spoke of revenge and of selling the story of what happened to the tabloids. However, Hurtig was not permitted to take copies of the SMS or show them to Assange. Hurtig was also told by Ny that he should not reveal the content of the messages at the February Hearing. But Hurtig later consulted the Swedish Bar Association, which advised him that he was permitted to reveal these facts at the UK hearing and the SMS was later made available in the public domain.”

So the SMS are out there, and I believe Im actually on the track of them

There are some really intriguing things on the web I have mined today, one is a hypothetical scenario that [MsA] put up on her blog in 2006. It is very long but has a striking resemblance to the run of facts and ideas in this particular case.

Again, Im happy to link, but I might get myself booted off of here and not be able to return or comment further.

what say you people?

Kind Regards Riley

115. Charlieman, by God you better read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

Im not sure you live in the same world. But take the case of David Hicks. Hicks (an ex soldier) was present in Afghanistan when the US went in there, he was operating within the factional complex which makes up the Taliban and opposing forces. He had no time to escape when the US got troops on the ground and was sold to the US (who offered cash for supposed al Qaeda) who transported him to Guantanamo Bay.

Because of the weird way the Au Govt works Hicks was given up to the US without anything but the most basic contact from consular support, same goes for Assange now. Hicks was confined as any terrorist was there in dog kennels, sometimes on bread and water diet for extended periods. During this time Hicks was subject to torture

Hicks was detained there from 2001 until 2007, at which point he was appearing before military commissions. When the commissions break down b/se they are deemed to be unlawful by the constitution, Hicks feels he is at his end. They began torturing him again, the object of which is to get him to relent his claim of innocence, and accept a plea bargain. Of course he does.

On accepting the plea bargain his conditions improve, and a timetable is set for him to be repatriated to Australia to serve out his time in prison for the crime of ‘offering material support for terrorism’. The truth to it is, they wanted his body condition to normalise after a punitive diet, so he wouldn’t look so bad as he was placed into prison ‘care’ in Australia.

Thats the short story to 7 years of terror, and another year in prison not for being much more than an idiot. THAT is the US justice system, THIS and more are what are planned for Assange, and Assange being an Australian would know every detail of this matter.

the contempt of it

Riley

pagar says

“Because, it seems to me, it is an insufficient justification, when common sense says that the charges under which the EAW has been issued are trumped up, to have refused to debate their merit, or the allegation that they have been contrived, on the grounds that it is sub judice and “is a matter for the Swedish judicial system to determine.

Charlieman says

I’ll start off with the statement: “have refused to debate their merit”. There have been 100+ posts on this thread, hundreds elsewhere on LC, in which the moral case and legal validity of the complaints have been discussed.

Yes but when you begin to lose the argument, you have the standard fall back position.

UKL @63 “Well, issues like that are properly for the criminal court in Sweden to consider.”

UKL @70 “I’m sure I’ve said before in reply to you that things like this are for the Swedish criminal court to consider”

UKL @109 “I have no idea. It’s something for the criminal court in Sweden to consider.”

Surely you should either be prepared to discuss the issues around the case and the validity of the extradition or not?

If not, don’t waste our time.

Given Sweden doesnt appear to be competent enough to manage its own prosecutors, the process is so corrupted, that applicants for extradition ought be referred to the International Court of Justice.

Kind Regards Riley

pagar, if there is a conspiracy to use the extradition system and these allegations to get Assange from UK->Sweden->Gitmo then I would say it is an abuse of process (to put it mildly). And obviously that’s a evil thing to do.

In other words, if Assange does end up in Guantanemo, are you prepared to eat the many words you have contributed to these threads?

Yes. I will write on my blog and here, “I was wrong about this” and donate some money to WikiLeaks.

the charges under which the EAW has been issued are trumped up, to have refused to debate their merit, or the allegation that they have been contrived, on the grounds that it is sub judice and “is a matter for the Swedish judicial system to determine.”

I have debated them. There are issues about alleged SMS messages etc that seem (a) unevidenced and (b) a matter for the Swedish court. If you want me to go there, fine – that AFAIK is a claim originating from Hurtig, Assange’s Swedish lawyer who we know is dishonest.

Charlieman,

As I recall, the only example where sub judice has been raised relates to naming of the two complainants. Everything else, including leaked documents, has been treated as fair game for discussion.

Yep. Sunny has a don’t name the alleged victims rule, which is fine by me and I don’t see how it helps to name them anyway. In the court decisions they are referred to by initials, maybe Sunny is ok with that.

I suggest that standing by due process and demanding honesty is the strongest way to defend liberty. The way to address “extraordinary rendition” (aka kidnapping) is to defend legitimate processes, acknowledging that every person should be treated with equal respect.

I sincerely believe that anyone who has been kidnapped and imprisoned should go free, unless and until they are convicted in a court. We are not free when random detention occurs. Counter wise, we are not free when people demand and are delivered special treatment because they are “special”

Well, you put it better than I can.

Riley,

“2. Bjorn Hurtig was briefly allowed to view tweets from the complainants (the tweets were later deleted by [MsA], but then recoveredl.

You’ll forgive me if I take what Hurtig says with a bag of salt.

pagar,

Yes but when you begin to lose the argument, you have the standard fall back position.

[a&e “(such as possibly saving yet not being sure if you have a stored a condom in your flat which contains the alleged offenders ejeculate)”]
UKL @63 “Well, issues like that are properly for the criminal court in Sweden to consider.”

[a&e “And since you mention condoms do you think there is any rational explanation as to why one of the complainants believed assange tore the end of a condom (without ever examining it herself ) then being unable to remember with any certainty if she had stored it in her flat for a week.”]

UKL @70 “I’m sure I’ve said before in reply to you that things like this are for the Swedish criminal court to consider”

[Riley “Thats a clear case of tampering with evidence, why would someone feel the need to do that ?”]
UKL @109 “I have no idea. It’s something for the criminal court in Sweden to consider.”

Surely you should either be prepared to discuss the issues around the case and the validity of the extradition or not?

If not, don’t waste our time.

My replies are to unevidenced claims about the complainants’ alleged “beliefs” and “feelings” about condoms and SMS messages. I don’t see how I can possibly make any reasonable claims either way about them.

It is for the Swedish criminal court to hear such arguments about the quality of the evidence. If Assange submitted to due process he would have an opportunity to test the prosecution’s evidence. “Is it true you texted the other complainant the following message?” etc.

Here you go, if you want to talk about collusion and text messages:

However in this case, the Svea Court of Appeals on 24 November 201 0, considered an appeal made by Mr Assange against an order of the Stockholm District Court made on 18 November 2010 that Mr Assange should be arrested in absentia. Mr Assange’s appeal was advanced on the basis that there was no probable cause for the allegations that the Prosecutor had made against Mr Assange. Amongst the contentions made was an allegation of collusion by the complainants and, in relation to the offence of rape (offence 4), that the complainant had done nothing to make Mr Assange understand that she did not want to have sex with him. The Svea Court of Appeal was provided with a statement by the Prosecutor which set out details of the offences and of the investigation. It was made clear that the complainants had been questioned a number of times and the inconsistencies in their accounts and the comments made by them in text messages which had been relied on by Mr Assange’s Swedish lawyer had been put to them. It explained how the complainants had been in touch with each other and had made the complaints.
The Svea Court of Appeal rejected the appeal on the basis that, given the case report then available, Mr Assange was suspected with probable cause of the four offences and that the arrest was justified. Two days later the EAW was issued by the Prosecutor.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Galloway is right. Once the bedroom door is closed, clearly implying consent, it is not the business of the police and the courts to get involved when the ladies find the experience not to their liking.

Assange and the Swedish ladies involved have every right to fornicate to their heart’s content. But please could they keep the sordid details private.

As a taxpayer I find the amount police and judicial time and money being wasted on this affair quite outrageous.

@ UKL

In other words, if Assange does end up in Guantanemo, are you prepared to eat the many words you have contributed to these threads?

Yes. I will write on my blog and here, “I was wrong about this” and donate some money to WikiLeaks.

I hope you don’t have to and I don’t think you will. But I’m happy with your response.

It is for the Swedish criminal court to hear such arguments about the quality of the evidence. If Assange submitted to due process he would have an opportunity to test the prosecution’s evidence. “Is it true you texted the other complainant the following message?” etc.

Yes, I agree that it would be better if the matter were decided in a court rather than debated endlessly on the net. Provided, of course that the result of the trial is not tainted by the power of the new feminist orthodoxy in Sweden which, if I were Assange, I would be concerned about.

[120] ‘My replies are to unevidenced claims about the complainants’ alleged “beliefs” and “feelings” about condoms and SMS messages’ – the issues cited arise from the women’s own words contained in the leaked police statement.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

What weakens your position, UKL, is that your standard response to all of the peculiarities associated with this case starting with the incontinence of Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand to the rescued condom is that it is a matter for the swedish courts – there is something milibandesque about the frequency with which trot out this rather tiresome phrase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI

Galloway is right. Once the bedroom door is closed, clearly implying consent, it is not the business of the police and the courts to get involved when the ladies find the experience not to their liking.

Dearie me – so once the lady is inside you can do anything to her to your heart’s content in the whole repertoire, whether she likes it or not. So if I lend you a tenner, I have no complaint if you nick my wallet and credit card as well?

I assume you invite your mates around for a share in this all-you-can-eat buffet?

Well this affair is certainly separating the men from the sharks.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n15/theo-tait/dont-wear-yum-yum-yellow

“Larger male sharks have to bite or trap the females to keep them around during courtship; marine biologists can tell when a female has been mating because her skin will be raw or bleeding. The process is so violent that, come the mating season, female nurse sharks will stay in shallow water with their reproductive openings pressed firmly to the sea floor. Otherwise they risk falling prey to roaming bands of males who ‘will take turns inserting their claspers in her’ (the clasper is the shark version of a penis, found in a pair behind the pelvic fins).”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/uk-wikileaks-assange-usa-idUKBRE87L13420120822

(Reuters) – Despite claims by Julian Assange that Washington is plotting to extradite and execute him, U.S. and European government sources say the United States has issued no criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder and has launched no attempt to extradite him.

Moreover, Obama administration officials remain divided over the wisdom of prosecuting Assange, the sources said, and the likelihood of U.S. criminal charges against him is probably receding rather than growing.

. . .

Some U.S. officials have long opposed charging Assange.

One argument is that he is afforded as much protection by the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of press freedom as any mainstream journalist. Another is that filing charges would play into the hands of Assange and his followers, who have been trying to portray him as a free speech and anti-American martyr.

WikiLeaks has been crippled for nearly two years as a result of disputes between Assange and some of his collaborators. It has published no new official U.S. secrets since early 2011.

Instead, it has tried to stay in the public spotlight by re-publishing materials acquired by other groups, such as the computer hacking network Anonymous.

In light of WikiLeaks’ waning influence and Assange’s behaviour, some U.S. and European officials believe that U.S. charges would backfire by rescuing them from irrelevance.

125. Rosie

Thats presumably the same Obama that has lifted suspension on military terror trials at Guantánamo Bay

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/guantanamo-military-terrorism-trials-resume

“Obama also signed an executive order that moved to set into law the already existing practice on Guantánamo of holding detainees indefinitely without charge.”

and the Obama who set up a Grand Jury currently sitting in Alexandria Virginia, for which this documentary team obtained a copy of a subpoena

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
Monday 23rd July 2012
Transcript

ANDREW FOWLER:
“But Ratner thinks that’s not what the United States wants. He’s convinced a Grand Jury is investigating WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Four Corners has obtained a copy of a subpoena from a Grand Jury which is examining evidence for possible charges relating to “conspiracy to communicate or transmit national defence information” and obtaining “information protected from disclosure from national defence”. Critically the subpoena contains the identifying codes “10” and “3793′.”

MICHAEL RATNER:
“There’s a Grand Jury currently sitting in Alexandria Virginia and the Grand Jury’s number – and it’s interesting the Grand Jury’s number is 10 standing for the year it began, GJ which is Grand Jury and then 3793. Three is the Conspiracy Statute in the United States. 793 is the Espionage Statute. So what they’re investigating is 3793: conspiracy to commit espionage.”

“spokesperson Linn Boyd says we are continuing our investigation of WikiLeaks”

https://rt.com/news/australia-ready-assange-extradition-027/
18 August, 2012
“Australia prepping ‘contingency plan’ for Assange US extradition”

faux I say
Executive Summary.
* Wikileaks still under investigation
* Empanelled Investigating WikiLeaks and Julian Assange seeking grounds to charge conspiracy to commit espionage
* GITMO holding detainees indefinitely without charge
* Australian Govt preparing for US extradtion

Kinder Regards Riley

[120] Pagar said – ‘In other words, if Assange does end up in Guantanemo, are you prepared to eat the many words you have contributed to these threads?’
UKL responded – ‘Yes. I will write on my blog and here, “I was wrong about this” and donate some money to WikiLeaks.

How much money will you donate?

By the way – if the women’s claims are found to be malicious – do you think they should go to jail, and if so for how long – oh, and don’t bother looking for the rap sheet so you can cut & paste an answer – you’re on your own for this one?

@ a&E

By the way – if the women’s claims are found to be malicious – do you think they should go to jail, and if so for how long

My understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that the women cannot go to jail whatever happens in the court case.

They went to the police for “advice” thus rather cleverly raising the case without actually making a complaint. They cannot, therefore, be charged with making a malicious complaint- the decision that a crime had been committed that was worth prosecuting was taken by Marianne Ny.

[124] “Larger male sharks have to bite or trap the females to keep them around during courtship; marine biologists can tell when a female has been mating because her skin will be raw or bleeding. The process is so violent that, come the mating season, female nurse sharks will stay in shallow water with their reproductive openings pressed firmly to the sea floor. Otherwise they risk falling prey to roaming bands of males who ‘will take turns inserting their claspers in her’ (the clasper is the shark version of a penis, found in a pair behind the pelvic fins).”

As a matter of interest do female sharks engage in bouts of heavy petting in the cinema and park before taking a male shark back to their flat – it goes without saying they wouldn’t send tweets or texts to other female sharks before deleting them due to their incriminating nature.

a&e,

it goes without saying they wouldn’t send tweets or texts to other female sharks before deleting them due to their incriminating nature.

How do we know about these incriminating texts?

Any news on your thoughts about how pre-trial discovery material issued to the defence found its way on to the internet?

a&e,

[120] Pagar said – ‘In other words, if Assange does end up in Guantanemo, are you prepared to eat the many words you have contributed to these threads?’
UKL responded – ‘Yes. I will write on my blog and here, “I was wrong about this” and donate some money to WikiLeaks.

How much money will you donate?

I don’t know, my income varies. Small comfort to Assange, I know, but it will be of the order of hundreds of pounds.

By the way – if the women’s claims are found to be malicious – do you think they should go to jail, and if so for how long – oh, and don’t bother looking for the rap sheet so you can cut & paste an answer – you’re on your own for this one?

If the women are charged, tried and found guilty of extortion / blackmail (that’s alleged by some Assange supporters, isn’t it?) or the like, they should be punished. Why shouldn’t they be?

[129] ‘How do we know about these incriminating texts?’ – I’m afraid this a ‘jumped the shark moment’ – it takes just a second to google deleted tweets from woman A (dated 14th & 15th August).

I’ll you leave you to copy & paste extracts from the rap sheet – others can draw their own conclusions from the way the case has been handled so far.
There is a lot of info is out there if anybody is interested in looking – commentators like Pilger and Woolf have expressed their concerns (about the bigger picture) far more articulately than I have been able to do so.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism

121. ukliberty

excerpt from your quote

It was made clear that the complainants had been questioned a number of times and the inconsistencies in their accounts and the comments made by them in text messages which had been relied on by Mr Assange’s Swedish lawyer had been put to them. It explained how the complainants had been in touch with each other and had made the complaints.

and it follows …

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as “half asleep” and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail. It was not therefore necessary to set the details of these out. There is, therefore, nothing in the particulars which is neither fair nor accurate.

the nub of this means that bot the SMS and web texts are out there, and I think the demeanour of them is already understood, and when seen in their entirety that the weight of them is not inconsiderable

Kind Regards Riley

a&e,

[129] ‘How do we know about these incriminating texts?’ – I’m afraid this a ‘jumped the shark moment’ – it takes just a second to google deleted tweets from woman A (dated 14th & 15th August).

I was very careful to use the word “texts” not “tweets”. Try again.

There is a lot of info is out there if anybody is interested in looking – commentators like Pilger and Woolf have expressed their concerns (about the bigger picture) far more articulately than I have been able to do so.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism

Their “bigger picture” is based at least in part on a misunderstanding of the details.

For example, Pilger in August 2012 relies on Sven-Erik Alhem’s expert opinion submitted to the extradition hearing in February 2011, which you and I have already discussed. Pilger writes,

According to the former Swedish director of public prosecutions Sven-Erik Alhem, Sweden’s decision to seek the extradition of Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct is “unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate”.

But we know, don’t we, that Alhem’s “expert opinion is based on facts that in the event were wrongly stated” by Assange’s lawyer, Hurtig, and “on the account given by Ms Ny it would have been a reasonable reaction to apply for EAW”. Indeed, “Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

Riley,

I was after what the texts say, their content, their meaning, not whether texts were sent.

I think the demeanour of them is already understood, and when seen in their entirety that the weight of them is not inconsiderable

Oh, you’ve seen the SMS messages have you? How?

[85] ‘Any evidence that the authorities leaked the charge before Assange did?’.

Will this do – ‘Mr Assange had been interviewed about the sexual assault allegations before Ms Ny took over the case. The fact that he was being treated as a suspect was leaked to the press, probably by the first prosecutor and the police.
(summary of the facts found – point 4)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

Now I am tempted to adopt UKLs approach here, and ask in a slightly sneering way if you have actually read the judgement, but I know that you have and it is not always possible to summon up every detail at will from a document containing some 16,185 words

137. ukliberty

Oh, you’ve seen the SMS messages have you? How?

people have seen them, and almost everything about these events has been leaked. Two people in the legal profession have seen them, an Australian Barrister the other Bjorn Hurtig who you choose not to believe.

FWIW I think you are being awkward for the hell of it, And I say this because the changes in statements by [MsA] the deletion of evidence make [MsA] less than an apostle of honesty herself. Even the biggest liars tell the truth at some point so it goes for [MsA] some benefit of doubt,

And in any event the SMS were published on the net and later removed, as has a number of published documents including [MsA] blogs,

http://www.piratpartiet.se/feed-item/swedish-pirate-party-host-new-wikileaks-servers?sms_ss=digg

So for the moment we can only act on the impressions of those who have seen them, these are the sentiments I operate on.

Notwithstanding having had 2 posts of mine removed already, I think you are pushing this image of [MsA] credulity too far. The very document you referred specifically on the terms of text suggests itself that

These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial.

but not enough not to have Assange answer a charge, when they get around to applying one.

I think any reasonable person would see difficulties and issues with this case pre-trial. The Swedes themselves seem unhappy at the performance of some of their own executive, and the operation of laws that after all have the been largely the instigation of the extreme feminist right lobby which [MsA] freely associates herself with. For which by all accounts [MsA] appears to have some experience with in previous cases where she has been the complainant.

Regards Riley

Riley, you appear to be missing the point – I hope it’s not deliberate.

ISTM what you believe about the messages is ultimately based on what Hurtig claims about them. I don’t think Catlin, the Australian barrister who acted for Assange in London, has seen them, actually. I think he too is relying on what Hurtig told him. Here is a pertinent part of the witness statement of Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent, who also acted for Assange in London:

“There is further evidence that the prosecution has refused to diclose to Mr Assange but has permitted his Swedish lawyer to examine. It comprises text messages sent by both complainants shortly before they made their complaint. I am informed by Mr Hurtig that it contains references to revenge, to the desire to obtain a lot of money and to a decision to contact the tabloid newspaper “Expressen” which broke the story after the complaints had been accepted by a deputy prosecutor. This evidence would obviously undermine the prospect of conviction as it shows motivations of malice and desire for financial gain.”

Now, I neither believe nor disbelieve what Hurtig claims. But I will say I’m not inclined to believe him because- well, we’ve been over that before, haven’t we? And IIUC the Swedish courts have considered them so they are clearly insufficient to blow away the reasonable belief a crime was committed.

And in any event the SMS were published on the net and later removed

This isn’t at all convincing that the SMS texts are incriminatory, is it?

So for the moment we can only act on the impressions of those who have seen them, these are the sentiments I operate on.

You’re relying on Hurtig, the “unreliable witness”.

@139. Riley, re SMS messages: “people have seen them, and almost everything about these events has been leaked. Two people in the legal profession have seen them, an Australian Barrister the other Bjorn Hurtig who you choose not to believe.”

As I pointed out @114, the Australian lawyer admitted that he had not seen all of the messages. In the court document linked by a&e @138, Hurtig is described as an unreliable witness.

“I think any reasonable person would see difficulties and issues with this case pre-trial. The Swedes themselves seem unhappy at the performance of some of their own executive…”

Yes, those considerations were mentioned in the court document linked @138. The Senior District Judge weighed up their pros and cons. Regarding lapses in the Swedish process, note that the initial decision not to pursue Assange was overridden, leading to where we are now; that suggests a process that is willing to review its own decisions rather than one with a fixed mind.

“…the operation of laws that after all have the been largely the instigation of the extreme feminist right lobby…”

As noted by the Senior District Judge, the allegations against Assange are ones that would be crimes in the UK. It is therefore irrelevant that the Swedish parliament enacted laws against sexual molestation and rape at “the instigation of the extreme feminist right lobby” given that similar laws exist in the UK.

“For which by all accounts [MsA] appears to have some experience with in previous cases where she has been the complainant.”

That is hearsay.

Riley, you appear to be missing the point – I hope it’s not deliberate.

how dare you, I have proficiently explained the issues with this case, Im continually pursued by the same identical flimsy proposals

Now, I neither believe nor disbelieve what Hurtig claims. But I will say I’m not inclined to believe him because- well, we’ve been over that before, haven’t we? And IIUC the Swedish courts have considered them so they are clearly insufficient to blow away the reasonable belief a crime was committed.

and as I explained “These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial.” – “but not enough not to have Assange answer a charge, when they get around to applying one”

IOW a defeatable case re evidence tampering post complaint. Evidence is subject to Rules of Evidence which she would have been warned of at the time of complaint, presumably effective even in Sweden. If not then it is yet another anominally of due process that the executive and police can be accused of. And where in any event ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ This critically affects the statements of [MsA] and would reasonably have the case thrown out of court anywhere. ‘an unreliable witness/testimony, unsupported by other facts/witnesses’

You’re relying on Hurtig, the “unreliable witness”

again the same circle of repeated argument already dealt with

I can just as easily say [MsA] is an unreliable witness
the documented illegal tampering of evidence,
her conspiracy activity with [MsB] via SMS
a failure to present valid DNA evidence due to the time it took in reporting
a history of sexual crime complaints

this entire sub-judicy case is demeaning to people who have suffered violent rape, and a petulant sham of lawful process which you insist is defendable.

Regards Riley

Riley,

again the same circle of repeated argument already dealt with

But you haven’t dealt with it. You just keep repeating the same allegation. Let’s make it simple. Why do you believe Hurtig, even though he deliberately tried to mislead the court?

I can just as easily say [MsA] is an unreliable witness

Not really the same is it? A UK court says Hurtig is unreliable, and someone on the internet says MsA is unreliable. Hardly the same credibility.

the documented illegal tampering of evidence,
her conspiracy activity with [MsB] via SMS

Um, allegedly. And you only ‘know’ about the SMS because of Hurtig.

a history of sexual crime complaints

So women who have experienced sex crimes are only allowed to complain once? I don’t think you mean to suggest that…

this entire sub-judicy case is demeaning to people who have suffered violent rape,

Have we found the core of your complaint? That this allegation isn’t one of ‘real’ rape? 🙁

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

125. Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as “half asleep” and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep.

note it says “Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages” not ‘alleged inconsistencies in her account and text messages”

this refers to deleted tweets, aka tampering with evidence. Tweets where she claimed against her own evidence that she was asleep, the tweets said ‘half asleep”
clearly this is the inconsistency of which is being spoken, where the panel goes on to suggest

These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail. It was not therefore necessary to set the details of these out. There is, therefore, nothing in the particulars which is neither fair nor accurate.

their words ‘highly relevant at trial’
IOW evidence tampering, inconsistent statements, which is profoundly NOT

Um, allegedly. And you only ‘know’ about the SMS because of Hurtig.

NOT allegedly, these are recognised components of the case to which Hurtig, Australian barrister James Catlin, and the arraigned panel have accepted.

I challenge you to prove these people liars on this point of evidence, for the deception of the complainant are already on the record on exactly this same matter.

If you cannot prove them liars, this particular circle of nonsense you seem so fond of ends right here right now.

141. Charlieman

As I pointed out @114, the Australian lawyer admitted that he had not seen all of the messages. In the court document linked by a&e @138, Hurtig is described as an unreliable witness.

again this circle of argument that allows the complainant to be free of suspicion despite already recognised documented provable evidence tampering, vs a “claim’ of unreliable on the part of Hurtig. This is demonstrable behaviour when it is already recognised that others have seen these SMS, and are troubled by them. Add to that the proven deletion of tweets for which [MsA] is yet to answer from her hideout in the Middle East

these exceptions are noted in 125 here
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Yes, those considerations were mentioned in the court document linked @138. The Senior District Judge weighed up their pros and cons. Regarding lapses in the Swedish process, note that the initial decision not to pursue Assange was overridden, leading to where we are now; that suggests a process that is willing to review its own decisions rather than one with a fixed mind.

thats a complete shortcut to very obvious structural deficiencies in the Swedish system as presented that even by their own rules as operants of legal process the police and executive have made a complete of sham with a litany of errors and mistakes that disadvantage Assange

As noted by the Senior District Judge, the allegations against Assange are ones that would be crimes in the UK. It is therefore irrelevant that the Swedish parliament enacted laws against sexual molestation and rape at “the instigation of the extreme feminist right lobby” given that similar laws exist in the UK.

you edited out the pertinent discussion “These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial” – “but not enough not to have Assange answer a charge”

where they are most certainly NOT irrelevant, they are entirely relevant to this case and how it has been handled. They are irrelevant to having Assange questioned and charged, which is due process

Regards Riley

@113. pagar: “Is the extradition procedure to Sweden designed as part of an international conspiracy to get Assange to Sweden in order that he be more easily extradited to the US?

I think that is most unlikely but, if this were to transpire, would you be prepared to review your position on the moral rectitude of what is happening?”

I’m pleased that you’re not convinced by the international conspiracy theory, pagar.

I don’t believe in it either, of course. I do believe that people facing serious criminal accusations should be extradited, on the arguments presented against Assange (ie to address an accusation that has been reviewed in a UK court with no pre-consent for further extradition). I believe that it is morally right for Assange to go to Sweden to face those accusations.

If Sweden were extradite him to the USA, with or without the consent of the Uk government (who decides?), that would be a different moral question. I guess that I would feel deceived, and I would change my opinion in hindsight, but that would be a pragmatic change: to deny justice in Sweden in order to prevent injustice in the USA.

Given that I do not believe that Assange is threatened by the USA, I believe that he should go to Sweden.

—
It is worth following this hypothetical trail a bit further. WikiLeaks provides (provided?) a drop box for people to send leaks. WikiLeaks displays some of those stories on the internet.

In its earliest days, WikiLeaks just displayed the story; WikiLeaks was analogous to a printer: they did not write the words but converted them into type or pixels. That possibly changed with the Collateral Murder video which was edited, suggesting that WikiLeaks were turning into a publisher. The leaked video was no longer the raw content but had an editorial/journalistic twist.

Things became even more complicated when WikiLeaks partnered with five newspapers with international reputations to publish leaked USA diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks had turned into a press agency. There can be no wonder why WikiLeaks activists felt that they had no idea of what was going on.

Amidst all of this, Assange was flitting around the world in James Bond fashion. He was concealing his identity/location, proclaiming that he sought a safe location for WikiLeaks to host their servers. Meanwhile, five newspapers (based in France, Germany, Spain UK and USA) had copies of the leaked diplomatic comms sitting on servers in those countries.

Journalists working at five respected newspapers had access to the diplomatic comms that WikiLeaks had shared. At the Guardian, Nick Davies and Alan Rusbridger are just as culpable as Assange for publishing that data in the UK, but they seem very relaxed about it.

The Collateral Murder video is still available via YouTube. The Google team seem happy too about the 18,880,722 hits on a video that is not surrounded by advertising.

Only one person is hiding under the bed from the bogeyman.

One person, Bradley Manning, is up to his neck in crap and deserves our sympathy: http://www.bradleymanning.org/

@ Charlieman

One person, Bradley Manning, is up to his neck in crap and deserves our sympathy

Absolutely agreed.

It is difficult to imagine that the horrific treatment of Manning is not designed as a warning to other potential whistle blowers.

By their actions, the US state is shown to be unforgiving and vindictive.

Riley, I didn’t state or imply Catlin lied about the SMS texts. In fact, I said I didn’t think he had seen them, so it seems unreasonable for you to infer I claim he’s lying about them. Nor did I say Hurtig lied about the SMS texts – I said I wasn’t inclined to believe him. Please don’t misrepresent what I say.

My comment @66 gives the reason why I’m not inclined to believe him.

You are still avoiding the point. You do not know what the content of the SMS texts is because you have not seen them. You are relying on what Hurtig has claimed about them. I’m not point scoring here, it’s something I’m genuinely interested in; how stories develop.

@145. Riley: “again this circle of argument that allows the complainant to be free of suspicion despite already recognised documented provable evidence tampering, vs a “claim’ of unreliable on the part of Hurtig. This is demonstrable behaviour when it is already recognised that others have seen these SMS, and are troubled by them.”

Until and unless the SMS text messages are published in full, I cannot form an opinion. I’m not being obtuse; I simply cannot determine anything until I have read them. On a similar basis, my argument is that Hurtig and others are presenting hearsay. In the most generous case, Hurtig describes what he saw when he was unable? disallowed? to take notes.

“Add to that the proven deletion of tweets for which [MsA] is yet to answer from her hideout in the Middle East”

Like Assange, MsA is free to remove herself from press intrusion. Like Assange, MsA has an honourable responsibility to assist the investigation.

As MsA has discovered you can’t delete Tweets immediately — it takes a while for records and caches to overwrite them. Are there any competent translations of the non-deleted Tweets?

“thats a complete shortcut to very obvious structural deficiencies in the Swedish system as presented that even by their own rules as operants of legal process the police and executive have made a complete of sham with a litany of errors and mistakes that disadvantage Assange”

The errors worked both for and against Assange. He was not held on remand, to the benefit of Assange. Interviews were not conducted in a short time frame, for and against Assange. The Swedish authorities did not withhold Assange’s passport.

“…you edited out the pertinent discussion”

Perhaps I did. I also omitted the judge’s statement: “In this country that would amount to rape.”

@147. pagar: “It is difficult to imagine that the horrific treatment of Manning is not designed as a warning to other potential whistle blowers.”

Agreed. Generally, I am unconvinced by the authoritarian right argument that punishment discourages crime. In this case, the treatment of Bradley Manning, I find the threat to be really scary.

Riley, I just spotted a possible goalpost move there in your post @144. You know full well we were discussing (eg @143) your claims about incriminatory SMS texts, not inconsistencies in the complainants stories.

[144] the british court did not concern itself with the quality of evidence – once Ny overturned Finne, and Ny’s decision to proceed was backed up by a swedish court, even though the court could not even agree with Ny on the precise nature of the charges it was then simply a matter of technicalities (ensuring the EAW had been correctly issued, equivalence of the allegations, etc).

There have undoubtably been major failings in the handling of this case right from the very outset. So far we have seen prosecutors disagreeing with each other, prosecutors making inappropriate public disclosures and that’s before we get to the police who apart from not understanding the concept of consistency when recording interviews actually allowed a mate of one of the complainants to question her friend (then later tried to tamper with it) allegedly with the second complainant present while the interview was being conducted.

The matter of the tweets and texts, and subsequent attempts to hide them must raise important concerns even amongst the most ardent anti-assangist.

When the alleged crimes took place there were only two people in the room – the complainants have already admitted that no force was ever used, and that both engaged with sex with assange – apart from the possibility of a used condom there is no forensic evidence – assange denies the woman’s version of events.

Will the trial in sweden consist of trying to simply reconstruct a story that occurred 2 years ago – or is it merely a bit of theatre were assange can be found guilty if there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the women had no other reason to tell their version of events in the way that they did.

@152. the a&e charge nurse: “once Ny overturned Finne, and Ny’s decision to proceed was backed up by a swedish court…”

That statement assumes a power relationship regarding Ny’s over ruling of Finne. I was not present at the time, of course, but I can assume that new evidence or a request by one of the complainants’ lawyers to review the case would be more likely.

“So far we have seen prosecutors disagreeing with each other, prosecutors making inappropriate public disclosures and that’s before we get to the police who apart from not understanding the concept of consistency when recording interviews actually allowed a mate of one of the complainants to question her friend (then later tried to tamper with it) allegedly with the second complainant present while the interview was being conducted.”

So what? If your statements are true, the prosecution has compromised a lot of its case. If it is true that a witness was interviewed by a friend, this case is in a complete pickle. Thus, Assange should present his case in court.

“The matter of the tweets and texts, and subsequent attempts to hide them must raise important concerns even amongst the most ardent anti-assangist.”

Nope, I try to stay rational about this, so I cannot judge tweets and SMS texts that have not been published.

“the complainants have already admitted that no force was ever used”

From http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html:
“1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.”

@152. the a&e charge nurse: “Will the trial in sweden consist of trying to simply reconstruct a story that occurred 2 years ago…”

Yes. That is their role. All of the bat shit crazy conspiracy nonsense will be and should be dismissed. I wouldn’t like their jobs.

151 ukliberty

Her statement differed from tweets in that she said half asleep in tweets, and asleep in the statement. The tweets were copied while she was in the process of deleting them. That is to say they were deleted from her twitter acc, but initially not were they had been copied which she remembered later.

Ive seen copies of the tweets, these are widely around the net so thats a certainty. The tweets have a difference between asleep and half asleep in her statement, thats the first inconsistency.
.
I used text flippantly to describe text on the net and text as in SMS. the text in tweets I can be certain about as Ive seen them. The panel could be using either, but remember James Catlin and Hurtig claim that the SMS ‘texts’ that disagreed with statements were deleted from phones, the tweets and those differences came up later.These texts in my country would still be on the server at the telco.

so not a shift in goal posts, the invariable discussion about text used for both text in twitter, and text in place of SMS. Both had changes and deletions

Regards Riley

153. Charlieman
““1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party…”

thats her 2nd statement, non of that was in her earlier statement for the overturned charge. In that statement it was agreed ‘mutual consensual sex’

Kind Regards Riley

148 ukliberty

“Nor did I say Hurtig lied about the SMS texts – I said I wasn’t inclined to believe him. Please don’t misrepresent what I say.”

you are making believing peoples statements a choice issue, Hurtig was not alone in seeing the SMS texts. Does submission 125 discuss texts?

Riley, I’m not interested in tweets at the moment, let’s assume for the sake of argument they exist(ed). I’m talking about the alleged incriminatory SMS texts – I have been very clear about that.

but remember James Catlin and Hurtig claim that the SMS ‘texts’ that disagreed with statements were deleted from phones,

Catlin relied on what Hurtig told him. Catlin hasn’t seen the messages.

you are making believing peoples statements a choice issue, Hurtig was not alone in seeing the SMS texts.

AFAIK, Hurtig is the only member of the defence team who claims to have seen them. Assange’s other lawyers made their claims about what he told them in relation to this. There aren’t only two options about “belief” here, you know. We can (1) believe this unsubstantiated claim, we can (2) disbelieve it, or we can (3) not have a belief either way. You believe this unsubstantiated claim. I don’t have a belief either way. What I want to know is:

what do you know about the content of the SMS texts?
how do you know about the content of the SMS texts?

And to save us some time: I think you know FA about the content of the SMS texts other than what you have read that ultimately can be traced back to Hurtig, the only person on the defence team who has seen them.

Does submission 125 discuss texts?

What is “submission 125”?

A&e,

[144] the british court did not concern itself with the quality of evidence

No, the extradition hearing did not concern itself with the evidence that would be used in the criminal trial. Nothing special to Assange; these are distinct processes.

When the alleged crimes took place there were only two people in the room

As is so often the case when sexual intercourse takes place, consensual or not.

– the complainants have already admitted that no force was ever used,

Fail.

Will the trial in sweden consist of trying to simply reconstruct a story that occurred 2 years ago

As is often the case in rape cases, one person’s word against another’s; nothing special to Assange.

Charlieman,

@152. the a&e charge nurse: “once Ny overturned Finne, and Ny’s decision to proceed was backed up by a swedish court…”

That statement assumes a power relationship regarding Ny’s over ruling of Finne. I was not present at the time, of course, but I can assume that new evidence or a request by one of the complainants’ lawyers to review the case would be more likely.

a&e knows that two events occurred after Finne made her decision to drop the rape element of the investigation and continue with the other complaints:

1. Assange was interviewed; (“new evidence”)
2. The women’s lawyer demanded a review of the decision to drop the rape element of the investigation. (“request by one of the lawyers to review the case”)

Dear Rosie [126],

The ladies didn’t end up in the mortuary, or in A&E. I don’t see why police and judiciary, who are funded by the taxpayer, should get involved in dealing with entirely predictable and relatively minor consequence of promiscuous sexual behaviour.

If Assange and various Swedish lovelies wish to jump into bed, that is their privilege. Just don’t waste the money I pay in tax dealing with the fallout. Assange’s rather boorish behaviour ‘comes’ with the territory.

By the way, you are quite an offensive lady…

‘I assume you invite your mates around for a share in this all-you-can-eat buffet? Well this affair is certainly separating the men from the sharks.’

[159] ‘The women’s lawyer demanded a review of the decision to drop the rape element of the investigation’ – which is interesting because at first neither women actually complained of rape even though a sympathetic female friend conducted the police interviews.

So either one of the women had been raped but didn’t realise it until instructed by her lawyer, or she did know that she had been raped yet forgot to tell her mate during the police interview.

Now it has also been claimed ‘Marianne Ny is a prosecutor in far-away Gothenburg, but Swedish laws allow her to take on any case as long as there is some new development. And lo and behold, under Borgstrom’s guidance new evidence suddenly appeared: ten days after Julian’s arrest and release, woman A carried a soiled condom into a police station. The condom was checked, and the examination came up blank: the condom showed no sign of being used at all. But Marianne Ny did not need a positive result, all she needed was a “new development”; and so she re-opened the case’.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

Of course I blame the unreliable Hurtig.

a&e,

which is interesting because at first neither women actually complained of rape. … So either one of the women had been raped but didn’t realise it until instructed by her lawyer, or she did know that she had been raped yet forgot to tell her mate during the police interview.

🙁 You and I have been through this before @49,51,54,59,63. And we did establish, didn’t we, that even if the word “rape” isn’t used, the conduct alleged – if it occurred as described – could nevertheless amount to rape? (there is only one rape allegation, by the way.)

You have read the pdf that purports to be an English translation of the interviews so you must be aware of what is described to have occurred. The ‘rape allegation’ is clearly that there was no consent to penetrative sex without a condom but penetration occurred absent condom. Do you understand this?

I think this is what happened: Finne thought either (a) that it wasn’t rape or (b) there was a low or likelihood of proving it BRD (if that is their criminal standard of proof). This could be prescient of Assange’s argument in the UK that the “continuum and context [of events] showed that she agreed to sexual intercourse when she realised what was happening; it cannot therefore be alleged that he did not have a reasonable belief in consent.”

(Then the women’s lawyer demanded a review of Finne’s decision.)

But as the High Court said, that is something for the Swedish court to consider if there is a trial. And, “the fact of protected sexual intercourse on other occasions cannot show that she was, or that Mr Assange could reasonably have believed that she was, in her sleep consenting to unprotected intercourse. The fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her. Once awake she was deciding whether to let him go on doing what he had started. However it is clear that she is saying that she would rather he had not started at all and had not consented.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

Yes, sure, everyone’s in on the CIA femininist conspiracy – the prosecution, the Swedish government, the three Swedish courts – we get it, you keep saying it.

[162] ‘Yes, sure, everyone’s in on the CIA femininist conspiracy – the prosecution, the Swedish government, the three Swedish courts – we get it, you keep saying it’ – well not on this occasion actually – my point was the absence of a complaint about rape is all the more significant given that the women colluded with each before presenting their stories to the police.

I assumed since they met, and exchanged details of their encounter with assange before going to the police one or other might have thought, I have been raped, but neither said that this was the case.

In the main it is YOU that keeps attributing CIA conspiracy theories to me on the back of posts making entirely different observations.

Just so we can clear the air – I do not think this was ever a CIA honey trap but once the story broke I suspect the american hawks started attacking on 2 fronts;
[1] exerting whatever influence they could on right wing swedish elements to inflict as much damage as possible on assange through this case (in this respect I honestly believe the women are being used as pawns just as much as assange is).
[2] exploring the possibility of extradition – Robin Levett produced a detailed explanation on another thread as to why this is very unlikely – I do not have enough legal knowledge to know if there any loopholes that might be exploited.

And before you ask for incontrovertible evidence, then no I don’t have any although we can only speculate as to why Ny refused to interview assange in London much sooner in the process – according to one legal expert (Ove Bring) “It would have been possible to go to London directly, many months ago, when he had just arrived there. But now it’s a matter of prestige, and it’s a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system’.

In addition to the UKs jack booted diplomatic efforts it seems the swedish MSM are doing their part to make the chances of an impartial hearing vanishingly small
http://www.friatider.se/the-swedish-media-war-on-assange

Even so Professor Bring says ‘the Ecuadorian decision changes little, since Julian Assange is still in the UK, with British police waiting to seize him and hand him over to the Swedish authorities. But that the most likely scenario is that, after questioning, Assange is released. “If he goes to Sweden, is interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime” – you see there it is again, questions about an unprecedented response despite very questionable evidence’.

And before you ask for incontrovertible evidence,

You miss the point. It’s you that believes [A] (e.g. there are incriminatory SMS texts) and expresses that belief. I neither believe nor disbelieve [A]. I ask for evidence for [A]. I am wondering why you believe [A].

In the main it is YOU that keeps attributing CIA conspiracy theories to me on the back of posts making entirely different observations.

No, I’m taking the piss out of CounterPunch and the like, and the people who think CounterPunch is authoritative. Professors are authoritiative, that’s great.

But that the most likely scenario is that, after questioning, Assange is released. “If he goes to Sweden, is interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime” – you see there it is again, questions about an unprecedented response despite very questionable evidence’.

It wouldn’t be the first time an EAW has been sought and granted under such circumstances (essentially, one person’s word against another’s). It isn’t unprecedented in such terms. This case is only atypical because the man is atypical (famous/infamous, runs something that pokes the USA with a stick) and has done an atypical thing (sought asylum instead of abiding by extradition decisions). If it were Joe Bloggs there would be relatively little criticism (except from people who don’t like the EAW system). Here’s one about events that allegedly occured 19 years(!) before the decision was handed down: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/814.html

I think I’m done with this thread. I’m going outside to enjoy the sun and barbeque. Have a lovely day.

@155. Riley: “Her statement differed from tweets in that she said half asleep in tweets, and asleep in the statement. The tweets were copied while she was in the process of deleting them.”

Any chance of a link to them (English language), please?

@161. the a&e charge nurse

Please don’t cite Counterpunch or the odious Israel Shamir as reliable sources. It is akin to quoting David Icke.

ukl: “I’m going outside to enjoy the sun and barbeque.” Is that a euphemism for strip billiards? 😉

this just in

http://www.friatider.se/the-swedish-media-war-on-assange

Having previously been portrayed as a romantic rebel, Assange has now become the target of what can only be described as a vicious smear campaign. Legal experts commenting on the accusations against Assange, however, have usually been far from convinced that the prosecutor’s case holds water. For example, Ove Bring, professor emeritus of international law, recently stated that the prosecutor would probably have to drop the case against Assange once he has been questioned, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”.

since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”.

Kind Regards, Riley

165. Charlieman

sorry no can do then
its in Swedish, and the subjects name and twitter acc are all over them

Google is your friend

Kind Regards Riley

@ David Cooper

By the way, you are quite an offensive lady…

Good! I meant to come across that way to a creep who calls “rape” i.e. pentetrating someone without their consent merely “rather boorish behaviour”. Since you made the statement that once a woman has got into a bedroom with a bloke then she couldn’t complain about what happened to her, I wondered if there was no line you would draw. Seems there is after all.

@ pagar – the actual particulars of the case can’t be discussed properly as they aren’t known. A trial might just make them more discussable.
(tho’ I understand the trial may be held in secret). My point is about general principles. As far as I can see along with the Creep Cooper there are various others who hold that if a woman has sex with a bloke once she has to continue having it whether she wants to or not. At least Mr Galloway says so, and he’s an MP.

There are other principles which I have gathered from the discussions on this affair:-

– someone who has annoyed the USA is incapable of committing rape;
– someone who has annoyed the USA is allowed to negotiate the terms of how they will face criminal charges;
– there is no crime of rape in Ecuador – the president of Ecuador has said so (as he said what Assange is alleged to have done isn’t a crime there);

All quite eye-opening.

@ David Cooper

Just wanted to say I agree with Rosie here. Your comment @123 is easily the most offensive thing on this entire thread, what with it denying women the right to choose whether to have sex and all that. I didn’t respond when I read it because I assumed you were just a troll looking for a reaction. Had I known you were going to stay on the thread and whine about other posters being “offensive”, I probably would have taken the time to tell you to bugger off back to the Victorian era. So, in closing: bugger off back to the Victorian era.

something that may be of interest: http://palwrange.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/can-julian-assange-be-extradited-from.html

Charlieman,

ukl: “I’m going outside to enjoy the sun and barbeque.” Is that a euphemism for strip billiards?

Sadly it didn’t work out like that, but I’m going to give it another shot today. 🙂

[169] ‘the actual particulars of the case can’t be discussed properly as they aren’t known’ – yet that doesn’t stop you from labeling assange as a rapist, does it?

@25
https://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/08/24/galloway-producer-you-wont-have-to-worry-about-rape/

You then say ‘There are other principles which I have gathered from the discussions on this affair:-
– someone who has annoyed the USA is incapable of committing rape;
– someone who has annoyed the USA is allowed to negotiate the terms of how they will face criminal charges;
– there is no crime of rape in Ecuador’.

Then it seems that you have learnt very little other than exploiting this case as a vehicle to apply generalities rather than specifics.

Innocent until proven guilty, and beyond all reasonable doubt – these are the cornerstone of british law.

We are all free to apply for asylum if we feel politically persecuted.
Commentators will have their own opinions as to whether or not sweden’s highly atypical pursuit of this case (compared to other rape allegations there) and the UKs heavy handed involvement are either proportional or tantamount to persecution.

The swedes had more than enough time to bring assange into custody yet failed to do so (some ridiculous commentators have even gone so far as to blame assange for not doing the cops job for them) – I have said it before, and I will say it again the swede’s are not really concerned about the two complainants, their record on much more cut and dried rape allegations demonstrate something else is afoot.

Even well known rape apologists like naomi woolfe believe something has gone badly wrong here – the number of dissenting voices is too wide and too varied to write them all off as unquestioning assangists.

@170. Chaise Guevara

I am not denying women the right to have sex. I am simply stating that when they do, with consent (and being asleep in bed after making love sounds very like consent), and they find their lover’s subsequent behavior not to their liking, the police and judiciary should not waste their time, and my tax money, acting as some sort of arbitration service.

The ladies involved suffered no injury, apart to their dignity and self regard. Galloway correctly points out that the present state of the law, in which the charge of rape can encompass anything from quality of experience issue to a violent assault, degrades its meaning.

@ 173 David Cooper

Yup, you’re denying the right of women to choose whether to have sex. Let me explain: consenting to have sex ONCE does not mean you have given your partner a licence to sleep with you whenever he/she likes, regardless of whether you want it. This is why marital rape law exists.

And in fact, your post @123 was even more wrong. In that, your requirement for making it not rape was that the bedroom doors were closed. So essentially, you’re saying that if a woman is with a man in a room associated with sex, he has the right to have sex with her whether or not she wants it. You’re saying that the people who raped the OP weren’t rapists, because it happened in a bedroom. It’s possible that the Victorians were actually more advanced that you here, come to think of it.

Oh, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the Assange cases, they are not “quality of experience issues”. He’s not being sued for being a bad lay.

Whoops, wrong thread for my OP reference. But you’re saying that a woman has no right to refuse sex if she’s in a bedroom with a man. And vice versa.

I think David Cooper is wrong here.

But – I do have a question – and it;s about how we educate young women about men.

In her brave confession just now on LC Eliza wrote:

I struggled and tried to say politely that I didn’t want to do this, but he continued to push me down … I didn’t quite believe he wasn’t going to stop.

I just gave up. I don’t have a violent vocabulary and it didn’t occur to me to hit him. He simply wasn’t listening to me. I gave up and thought, “There’s nothing I can do”. I kept repeating “No, please, I don’t want to have sex with you. Stop. Get off me. Please stop.” It made no difference whatsoever.

So I lay there and waited for it to be over.

Her attacker seems to have acted as a likeable fellow (until this point).
He seems to have had little experience of sex, as he was surprised that it had upset Eliza.

So I don’t see him as an exploitative guy. Just inexperienced. And lacking social skills (not listening to her saying stop). I’m not sure if PhD students are in general different in their listening skills ! Maybe depends on subject.

But my point is – (and this is in now way to criticise Eliza or say it was her fault – it was not):

is that her response was not proactive.
It didn’t occur to her to hit him?

So my question – should we educate young women at school about the danger of clumsy, insensitive, inexperienced men: that they may not attempt sex and carry on despite any positive response from you. That they may go direct to penetrative sex without foreplay.

And that girls if you fnd yourself in that position and quiet requests to stop have failed, then what you should do is (for example):

a) shout: loudly – ‘Stop Now’ – a couple of times.
If you are unable to make a loud shout, or if that fails:
b) if you are face up facing him – then use you free arms to strike hard on the side of the head – alternating hands – on the ears! Hard. 4 or 5 times with each hand.
c) if that fails – Aim to hit in the face – aim for his nose and his lips. Hitting his nose from the side will hurt him!

etc.

Now none of that will help if the man proceeds to use more and more force and he is much stronger than the women and is intend on forcing sex against her obvious protests.

But in the case of men who are not evil: such a response may bring the thing to an end.

They say that ‘practise makes perfect’ – so just like in school sex lessons they sometimes ( I hear) have girls put condoms onto fake phalusses: they could equally physically practise what to do: with a life size man-sized doll lying on top of them, and run through the above.

Maybe that practise, and knowing what to do in advance: would young girls be more assertive, and avoid the fatalism of:

* I tried to say politely…
* I didn’t quite believe he wasn’t going to stop.
* I just gave up.
* it didn’t occur to me to hit him.
* I gave up and thought, “There’s nothing I can do”.
* So I lay there and waited for it to be over

Just to be sure I’m not mis-understood:

* I’m not saying it was Eliza’s fault.
* I am saying the fault lies 100% with the PhD Student.

But I am saying – of the rape cases where the women clearly said no verbally but did not hit the man: we can’t be sure what percentage of those men would have stopped if they had been hit.

If it is even just 1% – then educating women how to hit – would be worth it.

George Galloway is a deranged, pro-terrorist, antisemitic maniac. It’s repulsive that he still has any influence/power in anything.

Hi JV

“So my question – should we educate young women at school about the danger of clumsy, insensitive, inexperienced men: that they may not attempt sex and carry on despite any positive response from you. That they may go direct to penetrative sex without foreplay.”

Absolutely. There’s a political problem with this, because some people consider it victim-blaming (i.e. people who don’t understand the concept of blame). But as far as I’m concerned there’s rarely a good reason not to give people information that can help keep them safe.

However…

“But I am saying – of the rape cases where the women clearly said no verbally but did not hit the man: we can’t be sure what percentage of those men would have stopped if they had been hit.

If it is even just 1% – then educating women how to hit – would be worth it.”

Here I disagree. If it was a case of “1% will stop, 99% will carry on as before” then I’d be with you. But it’s not. Some of those 99% will respond with blows of their own. Using violence in defence could make it *worse*. I wouldn’t want to counsel violence until I’d seen some kind of numbers showing it was a good idea.

FWIW, I don’t think you’re coming off as blaming Eliza.

@178. Reality Check: “It’s repulsive that he still has any influence/power in anything.”

I struggle at this point. Galloway is obnoxious to me and I am startled when anyone shows admiration for him. I’d prefer a world where everyone, by independent thought, recognises him as a ****.

Sadly for all, most especially his constituents, he is an MP. If, as a constituency MP, he does good work for his constituents in that role, I reluctantly grant him that bit of power or influence.

Chaise

I understand your point that if the woman punches him on the nose, he may be violent back.

But – thinking of the psyhcology aftermath – would the women be able to recover psychologically quicker if she knows that she had ‘done what she could’ – she had hit the man, and been hit back.

Versus her trying to recover – and having self-recrimination, wondering ‘perhaps I’m to blame – perhaps if I’d hit him he’d have stopped”.

Secondly – if the man uses physical force – it is much easier for the women to go to the police: it would be a much clearer case that she was forced. So she will find it easier to go to the police.
She will naturally feel less likely to want to protect the man if she’s been hit.

So on balance – my view would be the women should support her ‘please stop” words with some use of force.

@ JV

Fair points, and you may be right. But we also have to bear in mind that a) the reciprocating violence may be crippling or lethal, and b) that it may add to the horror of the ordeal.

I really wouldn’t feel comfortable advising people here. It’s situational, for one thing.

JV, Chaise: Given the relative difficulty of proving a rape allegation versus proving an assault allegation, it could turn out to be a really bad idea indeed. I mean sure, it’s still her word against his, but he has a broken nose. Look up the case of Marissa Alexander and Rico Gray, in Florida: she got 20 years in prison, and didn’t even slightly injure her abusive ex-husband who’d broken into her house, for an example of how this sort of approach can go really really wrong.

There’s also, in a practical sense, that we spend most of the education process trying to socialise people into not being violent (and for women especially it’s not generally considered a positive trait); the military, which needs people who can be violent at the drop of a hat, spends quite a bit of time very specifically training that in to soldiers.

Expecting people to then be able to be spontaneously – and effectively – violent is unrealistic. And certainly I can’t imagine a government of any party bringing forward JV’s suggested curriculum addition in the face of the inevitable tabloid outrage – “Not only does the government want to ruin these rapists … erm, upstanding young men’s … lives with a criminal record and years in prison for a minor mistake, it wants to give slighted women carte blanche to beat them up in vigilante actions. It’s political correctness gone mad, I tell you.”

If we’re going to do that much of an overhaul of the education system, against tabloid outrage, then I think a rewrite of the sex and relationships education curriculum to make clear to people how consent works (which can be taught in non-sexual contexts right from the age of 5, of course) and how sexual relationships work might be rather more effective.

I understand it has improved very slightly since I was at school, where there was a fair bit on types of contraception, and on various STDs, but nothing at all on why people might want to have sex, what sorts of behaviour could take place during sex, how to discuss this with your partner(s), recognising coercive and other unpleasant behaviour, any mention of rape, etc. but it’s still pretty useless.

Until you’re in a ‘situation’, no-one knows how they will react to an attack, and how the other party will react to what you do, so it all seems moot really.

Teaching self-defence to women is widely accepted.

So calling this new form ‘self defence against rape’ would be possible – and hard to see how people would object to that.

CIM:
> she got 20 years in prison, and didn’t even slightly injure her abusive ex-husband who’d broken into her house,

Good point – if such self-defence was to be taught in schools, it would be sensible to check what existing law says on ‘reasonable force’ in the situation of attempted rape – and maybe adjust it if necessary.

Oh my gawd groomed whyte woman is running for RESPECT

Vote UKIP, Gay Today – Gone Tommorow
We also love Anderson Breiviek.

JV: Good point – if such self-defence was to be taught in schools, it would be sensible to check what existing law says on ‘reasonable force’ in the situation of attempted rape – and maybe adjust it if necessary.

I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine the situation is: if someone is attempting to rape you, then that is a clear attempt to commit a violent crime against you, and you are entitled to use however much force is necessary to escape the situation. On the other hand, if someone is not attempting to rape you, using that much force could easily end up being ABH and possibly GBH (or manslaughter, in some cases)

Now, given the general low probability of the courts and juries currently believing “X tried to rape me” enough to do anything about it, what are the chances they’ll accept that as a defence in an assault case? A little better, yes, because the requirement of proof is in the other direction. But I doubt good enough in practice when you consider many of these ABH/GBH cases would be brought in situations where the rape would generally have not been reported.

I think a respectful self defence class would be useful for anyone and everyone, not just women, and not just for self defence. But I’m not sure how much difference it would make to the circumstances we are talking about. Until you’re in a situation, you don’t know for sure how you will react. We can all be internet hardmen about it, but there’s nothing quite like a real punch to the face.

JV says,

But – thinking of the psyhcology aftermath – would the women be able to recover psychologically quicker if she knows that she had ‘done what she could’ – she had hit the man, and been hit back.

Versus her trying to recover – and having self-recrimination, wondering ‘perhaps I’m to blame – perhaps if I’d hit him he’d have stopped”.

We can equally speculate about the trauma of being unable to effectively resist regardless of one’s training (for whatever reason).

“Perhaps I’m to blame – if I only I had been stronger / more skilled / paid more attention in class.”

I think cim’s right:

If we’re going to do that much of an overhaul of the education system, against tabloid outrage, then I think a rewrite of the sex and relationships education curriculum to make clear to people how consent works (which can be taught in non-sexual contexts right from the age of 5, of course) and how sexual relationships work might be rather more effective.

differences in perceptions about rape
‘71% of 22-24 year-olds, compared to just 60% of 18-19 year-olds, believe that it is rape when someone continues having sex with a person who is asleep’.

‘Almost a third (30%) say that they assume the person they are intimate with wants to have sex if they have had sex with each other before’.

http://www.thehavens.co.uk/docs/where_is_the_line.pdf

@188. ukliberty: “I think a respectful self defence class would be useful for anyone and everyone, not just women, and not just for self defence.”

No thanks. The essential tools are to reduce confrontation verbally, to get away fast and to make a lot of noise.

Pub bruisers and their like on the street will take you to bits if they get their hands on you. They have been in lots of fights and they know what will hurt you and what will hurt you a lot without killing you. Run, shout and if they catch you grab eyes, ears and the mouth — the bits on the face with lots of nerves and blood.

“We can all be internet hardmen about it, but there’s nothing quite like a real punch to the face.”

Err, yes. And in the case of real world hard men, don’t confront them, and address confrontation verbally, politely. Walking away is not shameful.

You guys can say over and over and over and over that this isn’t rape. It won’t change these facts:

If I ever fall asleep after sex and wake up with my partners penis or hand already jammed into my vagina, I will experience that as a rape. It will be physically painful to me, and mentally absolutely horrifying that they didn’t care to let me decide to participate in sex.
Most men and women actually understand that perfectly well. It’s never happened to me, not with someone I’ve dated for one day and not with someone I’ve dated for two years.

If I ever argue all night that my partner has to use a condom with me, and then wake up with his penis jammed into me without a condom, I’ll be even more horrified. For one thing it erases any doubt I’d have that he knew I was asleep; he was clearly taking advantage of my being unconscious to do something he knew I didn’t want to do. He’s showed me that what I am ok with happening to my body doesn’t matter to him.

And that’s what is so damaging with rape. Robbing you of your sense of right to personhood, to physical integrity. Looking at someone’s face – often someone you thought you could trust – and seeing complete disregard for you as a human being.
If you are ALSO beaten, ALSO kidnapped, ALSO threatened with horrible things or weapons, ALSO fear for your life, that is ADDITIONAL trauma. It makes it much worse. It should be punished much harder (and in Swedish law, it is).

So guys, you can argue all you want, but if you care about a person experiencing a rape, you’ll accept that the above is rape. It shouldn’t matter if it can ever be proven in a court of law – it should matter that it’s making a fellow human being experience something that’s fucking awful.

Be good if one of the many Middle Eastern specialist at LC wrote a piece on Galloway’s views on Syria, in light of his recent comments.

[191] ‘It shouldn’t matter if it can ever be proven in a court of law’ – that’s a very odd remark in the context of this discussion – not least because a court of law (in theory at least) allows a fair hearing for ALL parties on the basis of the evidence.

You may or not have taken an interest in the political backdrop but I will leave you with this report which suggests yet more fishy goings on amongst the swedish authorities – make of it it what you will.

“Julian Assange finally made tracks on 27 September 2010. As is known now, he was followed for every footstep by three separate Swedish intelligence agencies: FRA, MUST, and SÄPO. They tracked him to the Arlanda international airport north of Stockholm and grabbed his backpack as soon as he checked in. (The backpack’s never been recovered.)
And in a curious twist, Marianne Ny’s office issued a warrant for Assange a few hours earlier – at 14:15 to be exact.
And in an even curiouser twist, the ensuing alert didn’t stop Assange from leaving. The alert should have gone right to ‘border and customs’ at the airport, yet no one stopped him, and the spooks made back into town with the backpack”.
http://rixstep.com/1/20120903,00.shtml

An alleged two time sex offender assisted onto the plane by the swedish secret service – up until 27 September 2010 is there anything about the handling of this case that makes any sort of sense?

@193. the a&e charge nurse: “An alleged two time sex offender assisted onto the plane by the swedish secret service – up until 27 September 2010 is there anything about the handling of this case that makes any sort of sense?”

The bit about “assisted onto the plane by the swedish secret service” is fantasy. Aside from that remark, Asange has been treated, perhaps bizarrely and generously by UK law and Swedish law.

Has Assange explained himself to the book publisher who he fucked over for £250,000.

Has Assange explained himself to the guarantors who he fucked over for another £250,000.

@ Charlieman

I have no idea what you’re referring to, but that sounds like the same £250,000, not two different sets of £250,000.

@195. Chaise Guevara: “I have no idea what you’re referring to, but that sounds like the same £250,000, not two different sets of £250,000.”

Assange used £250,000 of guarantors money as bail. Losing that money is in the press this week. Did he ever ask them about what would happen?

Assange took another bunch of money from the publishers, Canongate, for his “authorised” biography. He didn’t deliver a book. He had lots of time to deliver a book, but fell out with the publishers. That sounds about right; he falls out with everyone. In the end, Canongate published a polite Assange biography that has rarely been read but hopefully exists in university libraries as a monument.

In future weeks, a court will determine whether Assange dupes lose the money that they offered as guarantee; others have already lost the bail.

Meanwhile, Canongate, a small publisher, have lost the advance to Assange who does not have the integrity to repay an honest debt. They gambled on a book which nobody will ever read.