Jump to content
John Cuthber

Assange Criminal Charges Discussion

Recommended Posts

I don't understand all this fuss about the alleged offence.

For a start, it has no relevance but, more importantly, I can't see how it will ever come to trial.

Here's the basis of the trial

 

Miss X says " I told you to stop when the condom split"

Mr A says " No you didn't."

 

End of case.

No proof of guilt so he gets found not guilty.

Unless they chose to video their activities or something, there is no way that she can win the case.

I know that, so do you and so do all the lawyers.

Why waste the court's time with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand all this fuss about the alleged offence.

For a start, it has no relevance but, more importantly, I can't see how it will ever come to trial.

Here's the basis of the trial

 

Miss X says " I told you to stop when the condom split"

Mr A says " No you didn't."

 

End of case.

No proof of guilt so he gets found not guilty.

Unless they chose to video their activities or something, there is no way that she can win the case.

I know that, so do you and so do all the lawyers.

Why waste the court's time with it?

 

Uh...because we don't "know" any of that. There's a reason we don't try people on MSNBC or the BBC. We try them in courts, for a reason.

 

This is the opposing end of the same issue when some guy gets "off the hook" for something we read or heard on the news and we all say the justice system is screwed. What exactly is the point of courts and justice systems if we're going to hold the local paper or corporate information businesses in higher esteem?

 

Let's just tear all that down and go to a gossip justice system where your guilt or innocence depends on how many news sources are for you or against you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...because we don't "know" any of that. There's a reason we don't try people on MSNBC or the BBC. We try them in courts, for a reason.

 

This is the opposing end of the same issue when some guy gets "off the hook" for something we read or heard on the news and we all say the justice system is screwed. What exactly is the point of courts and justice systems if we're going to hold the local paper or corporate information businesses in higher esteem?

 

Let's just tear all that down and go to a gossip justice system where your guilt or innocence depends on how many news sources are for you or against you...

 

We don't know any of what? The nature of the allegation is apparently widely know.

 

My whole point is that, not only do we not currently know, but that neither we, nor the courts will ever know.

 

It is a fundamental problem with the nature of the offence. If he says "I did nothing wrong" then there is no way to prove otherwise.

It's just one person's word against another's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know any of what? The nature of the allegation is apparently widely know.

 

My whole point is that, not only do we not currently know, but that neither we, nor the courts will ever know.

 

It is a fundamental problem with the nature of the offence. If he says "I did nothing wrong" then there is no way to prove otherwise.

It's just one person's word against another's.

 

You don't know if it was forcible rape with handcuffs and a secret audience on a webcam. You don't know if it was entirely consentual, made up nonsense with a video recording to exonerrate him. You don't know anything, you just have people in the information business spouting out what information they happen to have. You don't know if the whole story has been told, partially, or otherwise. You don't know if there are multiple witnesses or no witnesses.

 

That's what courts and justice systems are for. People are obligated to cooperate with the state, threatened by the state if they are not truthful and etc. No one is obligated to run their trap to some business geek that calls themselves a news source.

 

We determine truth in courts, by using a standard higher than professional gossip broadcasting.

 

For that reason, only hubris and a complete lack of regard for facts, not to mention total disrespect to a crime victim, would lead someone to a conclusion that a trial isn't even necessary because the "news" said so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nature of the allegation is apparently widely know.

 

"a judge threw out the ruling within days due to insufficient evidence"

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nature of the allegation is apparently widely know.

 

Just like it was "widely known" in the anals of american history that black men raped white women every chance they got alone with them. And you're right, trials were rarely invoked for the same reason "waste of time...we know he done it, hang 'em boys".

 

Is that the kind of justice you advocate?

 

John Cuthber; In this case, I totally agree with you. If nothing else, would someone please tell me when any National Policing Force, as placed any ONE person on their MOST wanted list, for Rape, much less alleged sexual harassment, then after consensual sex has begun.

 

I don't have any experience to draw on to answer that question. Why does it matter if Julian Assange gets roasted when Wikileaks is a massive team effort?

 

And this:

 

Swedish prosecutors indicted him in August for the rape of two women, but a judge threw out the ruling within days due to insufficient evidence.

 

...does nothing to support any claims of injustice.

 

As Pangloss as repeated, his ostensible mission statement binds him to the principles contained in it. To be clear, this is not a functional problem (hypocrisy of the person is not a functional problem, but rather a repugnant issue among society), but it does tell us something about his character. While no man is equal to his rhetoric, he isn't even trying...

Edited by ParanoiA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is.

Swedish prosecutors indicted him in August for the rape of two women, but a judge threw out the ruling within days due to insufficient evidence.

 

 

Also, do you understand the difference between "We won't bother with a trial because we believe he is guilty" and

"We won't bother with a trial because there is insufficient evidence?

 

And it still has bugger all to do with the thread.

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, do you understand the difference between "We won't bother with a trial because we believe he is guilty" and

"We won't bother with a trial because there is insufficient evidence?

 

And do you understand the difference between insufficient evidence determined by a state justice system and insufficient evidence determined by Google News?

 

Swedish prosecutors indicted him in August for the rape of two women, but a judge threw out the ruling within days due to insufficient evidence.

 

Yeah, I quoted that one too. Priceless. He hasn't a leg to stand on now. He will continue to lose credibility as long as he holds himself above the same laws and institutions he outs others for breaking.

Edited by ParanoiA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I quoted that one too. Priceless. He hasn't a leg to stand on now. He will continue to lose credibility as long as he holds himself above the same laws and institutions he outs others for breaking.

How is he doing that? He's wanted for questioning, and he's offered himself for questioning to the Swedish prosecutors numerous times. (See the video I posted above.) Now British authorities say they know where he is and they're waiting for Sweden to file the appropriate paperwork. His lawyer is fighting the claims because he believes they are procedurally invalid (i.e. filed improperly), not because Assange is above the rules.

 

We will see, once the Swedish have him for questioning, whether there is sufficient evidence or not. It may be a he said/she said issue (or might not be), but until they get to talk to him, they won't know what he says, so...

 

I think we can all agree that we don't know whether he is guilty or not, that there isn't much information available about the allegations, and that the investigation should continue under the rules. If he is interviewed and insufficient evidence is found to determine he's committed a crime, he should be released. If he is interviewed and evidence is found, he should be prosecuted in the normal way. So, we wait for the Swedes to file the right paperwork and see what happens. Right?

 

Moving on...

 

Would this same controversy occur if Wikileaks released, say, internal bank documents, like they've promised to? Since they're not classified by the government, it's doubtful whether it's considered illegal -- but it could have harmful effects on the bank in question if the documents cause investors to lose confidence in that bank. What would happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in US law (in most states) Assange committed no crime as consent cannot be withdrawn after penetration. So under US law if sexual penetration was consentual, as is apparently the case, then it cannot be withdrawn.

I believe that this is also the case in UK law.

My link

Swedish law may well be different, but I note that the charges do not include rape.

 

Those who keep saying Assange is a rapist seem to be indulging in hypocrisy motivated by distaste at Wikileakes, as his alleged actions are not criminal in the US (except California and a few other states).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is he doing that? He's wanted for questioning, and he's offered himself for questioning to the Swedish prosecutors numerous times. (See the video I posted above.) Now British authorities say they know where he is and they're waiting for Sweden to file the appropriate paperwork. His lawyer is fighting the claims because he believes they are procedurally invalid (i.e. filed improperly), not because Assange is above the rules.

 

How do you fight claims yet offer yourself for questioning? (maybe the answer's in your video link, but I can't view them here).

 

Isn't Wikileaks, itself, an improper procedural for releasing classified US information? Why is it that Assange can claim procedural violations, and then keep his secrets, but the US can't? These are rules that Assange created when he denied the rights of nations to keep their secrets: any refusal to release the information is Corruption.

 

Well fine then...Assange is corrupt. There is no good reason to keep his story to himself - there is no qualifier he can erect to justify keeping his "secret", short of corruption. By his own ostensible principles.

 

This is partly what happens we muddy up definitions of words, like equating state forces as terrorists and so forth. It comes back at you in other directions. In this case, we have a state trying to blow the whistle on a rapist. Same rules apply. All attempts to block the whistleblowing exercise should be suspicious - likes claims of "improper procedure" for filing some documents. Give me a break...if he wanted to share the truth, he'd just go there and do it. Sweden has proven they won't tolerate a lack of evidence by the prosecution. He has no excuse.

 

 

If it were anybody else, I would advise to cooperate as little as possible with their own conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ParanoiA

 

Is your reasoning the same for all legal cases.

Will you condemn Cheney in the same manner when he is disputing an international arrest warrant?

180 million in bribes might appear to be far more serious charges than the ones against Assange.

Bloomberg link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ParanoiA

 

Is your reasoning the same for all legal cases.

Will you condemn Cheney in the same manner when he is disputing an international arrest warrant?

180 million in bribes might appear to be far more serious charges than the ones against Assange.

Bloomberg link

 

See the last sentence of my post.

 

However, with politicians, yeah I'd be highly suspicious of any excuses they use to weasel out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you fight claims yet offer yourself for questioning? (maybe the answer's in your video link, but I can't view them here).

In the video, his lawyer states that Assange made repeated offers to meet with the prosecutors in Sweden, at a Swedish embassy, and by video link. Each time he was rebuffed. Now the Swedes issue a warrant to have him detained for questioning, allegedly without serving him with documents stating what he is accused of, which is apparently against European rules.

 

Assange fights the claims by denying that they are true, but offers to meet the Swedes for questioning.

 

Isn't Wikileaks, itself, an improper procedural for releasing classified US information? Why is it that Assange can claim procedural violations, and then keep his secrets, but the US can't? These are rules that Assange created when he denied the rights of nations to keep their secrets: any refusal to release the information is Corruption.

I think Assange is of the view that leaking already-stolen secrets is protected under the First Amendment, as in New York Times v. United States.

 

I wonder if US lawyers will reach the same conclusion, or if we'll see a warrant out for his arrest soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And do you understand the difference between insufficient evidence determined by a state justice system and insufficient evidence determined by Google News?

 

 

 

Yeah, I quoted that one too. Priceless. He hasn't a leg to stand on now. He will continue to lose credibility as long as he holds himself above the same laws and institutions he outs others for breaking.

The difference is that one of them has happened and the other doesn't matter.

I still doubt this will go to trial simply because (as is sadly all too common in rape cases) there will not be any objective evidence.

 

What evidence is there that he is holding himself above the law anyway?

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What evidence is there that he is holding himself above the law anyway?

 

A pledge to fight any extradition charge and a threat to reveal data without redaction if arrested.

 

I understand that those things have different interpretations, but it is a valid opinion in answer to your question, and right now this is all about opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was innocent I'd fight extradition.

He already offered to answer the questions. They already said there was no evidence. Now suddenly they want to extradite him.

Looks fishy to me. I don't blame him for trying to keep out of it.

 

I haven't seen any details of the " threat to reveal data without redaction if arrested."

Though I believe a lot of the data wasn't redacted because the data's owner - the US govt- didn't redact it.

Incidentally, the worst he can do is tell the truth- what does that tell you about the people he is "threatening"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to realize in this discussion how much radical feminism has changed rape laws almost everywhere in the world from the traditional principles that the defendant is entitled to present every possible defense, that conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that both parties to any case must receive a full hearing. I don't know anything about Swedish law, but I would suspect that it has become quite politically correct by now. In Canadian rape law, for example, the defendant to a rape charge is not even allowed to present his explanation of what happened and why he thought the woman was consenting unless his story conforms in its essentials to her story, since by definition rape is when the man fails to understand whether the woman is really consenting or not. So in one case, R. v. Ewanchuck, where the woman was at many times during sexual interaction with the man consenting or behaving ambiguously, he was nonetheless found guilty of rape because at one point during the act she decided that she didn't really feel that she was consenting, even though she was acting in a way that suggested she was consenting. You see, since the matter is all about what's in the woman's mind, unless the man is a mind-reader, he can be found guilty of rape.

 

So if Sweden has a rape law provision like that, then Mr. Wikileaks and his leaking condom won't have a chance of defeating even the flimsiest case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was innocent I'd fight extradition.

 

And probably if you were guilty, too.

 

 

He already offered to answer the questions.

 

Yup, both innocent and guilty people do that, too.

 

 

Looks fishy to me. I don't blame him for trying to keep out of it.

 

So much for justice.

 

 

I haven't seen any details of the " threat to reveal data without redaction if arrested."

 

They're being deliberately cagey about it, saying only that if "something happens" they'll spring the password. It's an encrypted file that's already out there, actually -- available for download since July, what I read.

 

 

Incidentally, the worst he can do is tell the truth- what does that tell you about the people he is "threatening"?

 

You mean like the names of Iraqi informants they're currently redacting? Yeah, I guess they're not really that important. The public has a right to know the truth!

 

-------

 

It's important to realize in this discussion how much radical feminism has changed rape laws almost everywhere in the world

 

I don't think it's "radical feminism" to say that no means no, and apparently 86% of the members of this forum who have voted in this poll so far agree.

 

 

from the traditional principles that the defendant is entitled to present every possible defense, that conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that both parties to any case must receive a full hearing.

 

Uh, he hasn't been denied any of those things.

 

 

I don't know anything about Swedish law, but I would suspect that it has become quite politically correct by now. In Canadian rape law, for example, the defendant to a rape charge is not even allowed to present his explanation of what happened and why he thought the woman was consenting unless his story conforms in its essentials to her story, since by definition rape is when the man fails to understand whether the woman is really consenting or not. So in one case, R. v. Ewanchuck, where the woman was at many times during sexual interaction with the man consenting or behaving ambiguously, he was nonetheless found guilty of rape because at one point during the act she decided that she didn't really feel that she was consenting, even though she was acting in a way that suggested she was consenting. You see, since the matter is all about what's in the woman's mind, unless the man is a mind-reader, he can be found guilty of rape.

 

Source, or it didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Had the trial been held by Judge and Jury, the most that the Supreme Court of Canada could have done was to rule a mistrial because the Judge had erred in law by instructing the jury as to the defense of "implied consent"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One stupid legal decision in Canada has very little to do with the case in hand.

Well it is interesting. It seems to go against Dawkins' famous evaluation of the merits of trial by judge or by judge and jury.

 

"Should I be charged with a serious crime here’s how I want to be tried. If I know myself to be guilty, I’ll go with the loose cannon of a jury, the more ignorant, prejudiced and capricious the better. But if I am innocent, and the ideal of multiple independent decision-takers is unavailable, please give me a judge."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One stupid legal decision in Canada has very little to do with the case in hand.

 

I agree. For example, the allegations are coming from more than one woman, which adds credibility to the charge.

 

I was just looking at some of the details of who the allegations are coming from, and I have to say it would be pretty odd to suggest a conspiracy theory here. The second woman who came forward is a member of the Swedish Association of Christian Social Democrats, and hosted an Assange fundraiser. (source)

 

Swedish socialists conspiring with foreign government officials embarrassed by leaked documents? Doesn't really sound like a good theory to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that both sides look unlikely.

Look at the Swedish authorities' actions.

After deciding that there was no evidence they issue an international arrest warrant- very weird.

On the other hand, as you say the two women look unlikely conspirators.

 

However I stand by my observation that, in the absence of any other evidence, this case is unlikely to go to court and even less likely to bring a conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.