Assange Criminal Charges Discussion

[jackson33]

Aside: the European union is (by design) not the United States of Europe. Each country has sovereignty. So, yeah, they have to ask for extradition, and yeah we can have different laws on rape. [/Quote]

 

Dak, so you are not being mislead on US Law; Our 50 States have near the same sovereignty under the Constitution as do you EU has. Most every issue we talk about on this forum, is IN FACT falls under State jurisdiction, including "what constitutes rape". I know of NO US State, that would prosecute any person on what's been said and it's questionable if any State would extradite a person to ANOTHER STATE, based on these facts, yes extradition it's up to the State Courts whether to or not extradite, even to a foreign country. Both States and the Federal can request extradition from other Nations.

 

IMO; The game being played here is leverage by Eric Holder, US Attorney General, politically motivated and with the desire Assange be mooted, made insignificant from the Wikileaks program. Holder or the Administration, has a great deal more leverage over Sweden, than England and wouldn't dare try to extradite Assange from England, however possibly it could be achieved through Sweden, based on some made up espionage charge. I don't think there is any way, he could or would be convicted in the US, of what's been done so far, but in the two, three year process it would take and the possible threat to release uncensored documents, additional charges would be added, one charge at a time (new trial), so long as Holder is AG or until the Administration ends.

 

Marat while your correct on extradition, the sovereignty of the States is NOT a "clumsy legal procedure"...IMO.

[John Cuthber]

I think he was referring to extradition as clumsy (which it is IMO)

[Mr Skeptic]

Incidentally, the fact that two women have complained about him isn't legally important either. Unless they were both present at the same time and corroborate one another's stories.

Being accused by one party is not evidence of guilt of a crime against a second party.

If anything this publicity means that Asange cannot expect a fair trial- the jury who try him for the alleged actions against miss A will have heard in the press that he was accused of broadly similar actions against miss B.

This will prejudice them (legally) against him.

His lawyer can reasonably demand that he is tried in the first case by a jury who are not aware of the allegations of the second case.

 

Or, they could try him without a jury (as is done in Sweden).

 

And if it comes to trial, the other woman involved will be relevant for a different reason: they only complained to the police after they found out about each other's relationship, but before that gave good indications of having no problem with him.

[Dak]

Dak, so you are not being mislead on US Law; Our 50 States have near the same sovereignty under the Constitution as do you EU has. Most every issue we talk about on this forum, is IN FACT falls under State jurisdiction, including "what constitutes rape". I know of NO US State, that would prosecute any person on what's been said and it's questionable if any State would extradite a person to ANOTHER STATE, based on these facts, yes extradition it's up to the State Courts whether to or not extradite, even to a foreign country. Both States and the Federal can request extradition from other Nations.

 

Ah, thanks. Didn't know it was like that for the biggies like rape, tho it makes sense now you say it.

 

If someone commits a crime and flees the state, can't you issue a nation-wide warrant, valid in each state, and also allowing the FBI to get involved?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ah, thanks. Didn't know it was like that for the biggies like rape, tho it makes sense now you say it.

 

If someone commits a crime and flees the state, can't you issue a nation-wide warrant, valid in each state, and also allowing the FBI to get involved?

 

States will arrest people on behalf of other states, yes. The FBI becomes involved in cross-state kidnappings or cases where crimes were committed across state lines.

[Pangloss]

The law varies between states, in most US states Assange's alleged actions were legal. Different sovereign countries having differences in their legal systems, how can this be a surprise?

The US also requires extradition between its internal states, so why is it a surprise that the sovereign countries that make up the EU require extradition?

 

I suppose you're right there. My mistake.

 

 

No-one here is doing that.

 

I disagree, and that's an opinion either way, so you can't really speak for everyone.

 

 

But, i'm sorry, trying to label what he's doing as 'ethical' and then say that he has to act ethically in every single way or he's somehow 'wrong' is far too broad. I mean, by that stance rapists can't object to child molestation, paedophiles can't object to genocide, adulterors can't object to gay marriage for any reason, and (assuming he's guilty) rapists can't object to government corruption.

 

And values-based politicians can't object to anything on moral grounds if they're found to be immoral themselves. Just the way politics goes sometimes. It's not just conservatives, of course -- John Edwards cheating on his cancer-striken wife leaps to mind (she passed away today).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And values-based politicians can't object to anything on moral grounds if they're found to be immoral themselves.

Yes they can.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

 

Interesting article about the accusations, the accusers, and the Internet response:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange

[Pangloss]

Incidentally, the fact that two women have complained about him isn't legally important either. Unless they were both present at the same time and corroborate one another's stories.

Being accused by one party is not evidence of guilt of a crime against a second party.

 

Yes it is. More than one report lends credibility to each reported case. It's compelling, probative and relevant. It's valid circumstantial evidence. I wouldn't convict on that alone, personally, but I'm not a lawyer or prosecutor or judge, or even a citizen of Sweden, but I don't think you are either, so we'll have to wait and see what's valid in their court system.

 

 

If anything this publicity means that Asange cannot expect a fair trial- the jury who try him for the alleged actions against miss A will have heard in the press that he was accused of broadly similar actions against miss B.

This will prejudice them (legally) against him.

His lawyer can reasonably demand that he is tried in the first case by a jury who are not aware of the allegations of the second case.

 

He certainly can. But such arguments lead to changes of venue, not dismissals. Even famous cases have to be adjudicated.

 

Yes they can.

 

And so can Julian Assange continue to expound the virtues of good government even if he's convicted on a rape charge.

[jackson33]

The last I heard Assange attorney had not seen the Swedish extradition order, however he will be a guest on the Judge Napolitano Show (Freedom Watch Show), 8PM ET, Fox Business Channel, tonight. If there is anything relevant, I'll try and drop a post.

 

Anyway here is another angle, the case may be taking.;

 

APPARENTLY having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for Rape [/Quote]

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/swedens-reputation-is-on-trial-in-julian-assange-case/story-e6frfhqf-1225965772832

 

If plausible under there law, then failure to use a condom would be a felony.

 

Another angle brought up tonight on the Beck Show, Fox News Channel, supported in this same link, claimed the two so called victims, Sophia Wilen and Anna Ardin, were in collusion. Wilen after having had felony sex, introduced Arden to Assange, at a PARTY she hosted to HONOR Assange, the sex act came before the party. I don't know Swedish Law, but in the US collusion to destroy another person character for personal gain, is also a felony and would be an automatic dismissal of charges in most cases. The same link also seems to validate this opinion;

 

Both women boasted of their of their respective celebrity conquests on internet posts and mobile phones texts after the intimacy they would now see him destroyed for. [/Quote]

[Marat]

There is also a U.S. federal rape statute independent of the state criminal code definitions of rape.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I approve of his not receiving bail. He's not exactly Osama bin Laden, and while it could be argued that he is a flight risk, as some were pointing out earlier it could be seen another way (hiding from the media, etc). And it doesn't seem to me that the current evidence support not being allowed parole. That seems like more a case of "let's hold on to him in case the Americans want him".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Who knew? Glenn Beck is on Assange's side:

 

http://tv.gawker.com/5708677/julian-assanges-sex-life-as-explained-by-glenn-beck

 

We have no way of knowing whether the story he tells is entirely true -- it's based off of a few details that have leaked, some online investigations, and rumors -- but Mr Beck sure has fun with it.

[jackson33]

CR; Glenn Beck does NOT openly support Assange's Wikileaks releases*, only indicating somethings wrong (not right) with the legal scenario, I described in my last post (which came from him), this thread. Judge Napolitano on the other hand is an ardent supporter of Assanges/Wikileaks rights, to publish anything he has legally received, properly done and believes that has been done.

 

* He should be as he also has a Web site, encouraging "whistle blower" evolvement and has made great use of material sent him, on his nightly show.

 

Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck, a frequent critic of the mainstream news media, has launched his own news site, The Blaze. The site appears to be modeled after The Huffington Post and not surprisingly, features stories with a conservative bent about some of Beck's favorite issues, such as faith, terrorism, the imam behind the planned Islamic community center in New York City and Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday.[/Quote]

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/glenn-beck-launches-conservati.html

 

 

I'm not sure I approve of his not receiving bail. He's not exactly Osama bin Laden, and while it could be argued that he is a flight risk, as some were pointing out earlier it could be seen another way (hiding from the media, etc). And it doesn't seem to me that the current evidence support not being allowed parole. That seems like more a case of "let's hold on to him in case the Americans want him". [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; As explained by Napolitano, the UK Judge has no idea what the Swedish charges are, at least from the extradition request and has requested the "charges". He is being held with out bond until those charges are given and explained by Swedish authorities. I believe there is a follow up bond hearing next Tuesday and unless those charges are offered and qualify, he believes Assange will be released or offered bail.

 

By the way, there was nothing new from Mark Stevens (Assange Lawyer) last night on Freedom Watch....

Edited December 8, 2010 by jackson33

[John Cuthber]

If half of what is said here is true then it just got a bit more interesting

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Sex-accusers-bragged-about-conquest/articleshow/7068149.cms

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Bail has been granted and the extradition hearing will be January 11.

 

http://www.guardian....sange-wikileaks

 

I expect we'll see announcements from Assange as soon as his lawyers have come up with the money and he's released.

[jackson33]

It's been my understanding they have had any bail money needed all along well above the request 317K US$, however the Swedish Authorities have appealed the release, which could take up to another 48 hours, to settle.

 

What still puzzles me is that if they now have the Swiss charges and they are as has been suggested (surprise sex), under British law extradition is NOT required, in the first place, if NOT illegal in the UK. Think your article covered this..

[imatfaal]

Jackson - although Geoffrey Robertson argued the fact that these alleged offences are not in fact rape under English law this was merely a tactic in the bail hearing. Although I am not really au fait with the European Arrest Warrant I believe that the need for a serious Criminal offence (which would be a serious criminal offence within extraditing country) and prima facie evidence of that offence are no longer strictly required.

 

From the EuComm website describing the European Arrest Warrant - EAW

"Simpler procedures: The dual criminality principle - which means that both the country requesting extradition and the country that should arrest and return the alleged criminal, recognize and accept that what he or she is alleged to have done, is a crime - is abolished for 32 serious categories of offences. "

The list of examples they give does not include rape - but I would think that both rape and sexual assault are included.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Finally, the details of the charges against the Wikileaks founder have been leaked:

 

http://www.guardian....-assange-sweden

 

The allegations centre on a 10-day period after Assange flew into Stockholm on Wednesday 11 August. One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip to Sweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.

 

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

 

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

 

Assange's lawyers respond:

 

"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

[ParanoiA]

Who knew? Glenn Beck is on Assange's side:

 

http://tv.gawker.com/5708677/julian-assanges-sex-life-as-explained-by-glenn-beck

 

We have no way of knowing whether the story he tells is entirely true -- it's based off of a few details that have leaked, some online investigations, and rumors -- but Mr Beck sure has fun with it.

 

Judge Napolitano and Shepherd Smith are on Assange's side as well. Actually, everytime I tune into Freedom Watch the judge says something about the unfair campaign against Assange.

 

And I have to say, my mind is changing on the subject. Probably just more crystalized, actually. I still believe that, morally, he's responsible for lives he puts in danger by the release of confidential information. If people die as a result of it, their blood is on his hands as much as anyone else in the document smuggling chain.

 

But I'm guilty of focusing on the messenger too. And, now I'm really not sure where to stand on government agents releasing government secrets. It almost appears to be an ends-justify-the-means necessity. If the government is colluding against the interests and principles of the people, then leaking such evidence is heroic and exactly what we want. If the government is operating in the interest of its people in compliance with our national principles, then leaking strategic "secrets" is treason and is a valid national security threat.

 

I also remain ambivalent about commenting on legal charges. The media doesn't have the same access to all of the information state investigators have, nor do they possess the same charge and authority; the legal accountability and duty to truth and justice - things the profit motivated media cannot match. It is foolish to debate details of these charges outside of the context of speculation.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/assange-begins-mansion-arrest-but-his-source-feels-the-heat-2163607.html

 

Apparently prosecutors are seeking a plea deal with Bradley Manning in which he agrees to implicate Assange as a co-conspirator. Manning has been in solitary confinement for seven months now.

[Mr Skeptic]

http://www.independe...at-2163607.html

 

Apparently prosecutors are seeking a plea deal with Bradley Manning in which he agrees to implicate Assange as a co-conspirator. Manning has been in solitary confinement for seven months now.

 

Some interesting bits from your link:

Officials at the US Justice Department, who are under acute pressure to prosecute, privately acknowledge that a conviction against Mr Assange would be extremely difficult if he was simply the passive recipient of the material disseminated by Private Manning. Any evidence that he had actively facilitated the leak, however, would make extradition and a successful case much more feasible.

 

...

The authorities had initially stated that Manning was being kept in solitary confinement for his own safety. Friends like Mr House now believe it is being done for punitive purposes and to exert pressure on his vulnerablities.

 

Mr House said: "As time passed and his suicide watch was lifted, to no effect, it became clear that his time in solitary - and his lack of a pillow, sheets, the freedom to exercise, or the ability to view televised current events - were enacted as a means of punishment rather than a means of safety."

 

 

...

 

 

Mr House claimed that friends of Private Manning have become apprehensive of speaking up for him because of systematic harassment by law enforcement agencies. Mr House, 23, said that he and his girlfriend were detained for questioning by Homeland Security officials on their return from a holiday in Mexico and all electronic items in their possession seized.

 

 

 

 

I suppose similar stuff happens all the time, but it's still a bit fishy.

 

 

 

[jackson33]

I suppose similar stuff happens all the time, but it's still a bit fishy.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic, it would be impossible for me to disagree with your premise, having lived through most of J. Edger Hoover's reign of the FBI and all the conspiracy theories that were credited to his actions. What's different today, are the means communications can out performed crisis management control, which in fact Assange is part of. Add the following link, maybe Michael Moore's contribution to the bail money and IMO the real story yet to come out, George Sorros and several on his supported activist groups involvement. I'm not sure Bianca Jaggar being at the bail hearing, was coincidental.

 

Yesterday Alexander Cockburn reminded us of the news Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett broke at Counterpunch in September. Julian Assange’s chief accuser in Sweden has a significant history of work with anti-Castro groups, at least one of which is US funded and openly supported by a former CIA agent convicted in the mass murder of seventy three Cubans on an airliner he was involved in blowing up.

 

Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here.[/Quote]

 

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/

 

Apparently prosecutors are seeking a plea deal with Bradley Manning in which he agrees to implicate Assange as a co-conspirator. Manning has been in solitary confinement for seven months now. [/Quote]

 

CP; IMO, it doesn't matter whether they can connect Assange's involvement to the original release or not. All the DoJ, Eric Holder or the Administration are trying to do is get Assange off the nightly news programs by any means possible. Somehow get him extradited to the US, claim he can be held with out bail while investigating Espionage Charges, tying him up for years. It could work. What's worse, reversing swansont's thought, how many NEW laws or regulation can be placed on the general public in the name of "National Security".

 

And I have to say, my mind is changing on the subject. Probably just more crystallized, actually. I still believe that, morally, he's responsible for lives he puts in danger by the release of confidential information. If people die as a result of it, their blood is on his hands as much as anyone else in the document smuggling chain.[/Quote]

 

 

ParinoiA; You have no idea how hard it is for me to align myself with people like Sorros, Moore and other apparent haters of America or its Government, but when I think of all the diabolical plans that could be created, hatched and imposed on the States/People, I have to hope someone in the know would step up and spill the beans (blow the whistle). Then as in this case, where a million people or more have access to Secret Files (opposed to Top Secret), why is it not then plausible any interested person, should not also have access. Determining access to files are based on "need to know" and I can't imagine media in THIS country, not having that access. Which founder was it that said, if given a choice between a Government or Free Press, would choose the free press (paraphrasing).

[toastywombel]

ParinoiA; You have no idea how hard it is for me to align myself with people like Sorros, Moore and other apparent haters of America or its Government, but when I think of all the diabolical plans that could be created, hatched and imposed on the States/People, I have to hope someone in the know would step up and spill the beans (blow the whistle). Then as in this case, where a million people or more have access to Secret Files (opposed to Top Secret), why is it not then plausible any interested person, should not also have access. Determining access to files are based on "need to know" and I can't imagine media in THIS country, not having that access. Which founder was it that said, if given a choice between a Government or Free Press, would choose the free press (paraphrasing).

 

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them."

 

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Edward Carrington.

 

Apparent haters of America and its government?

 

I find it hard to believe this guy hates America's Government

 

"his philanthropic funding includes efforts to promote non-violent democratization in the post-Soviet states. These efforts, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe, occur primarily through the Open Society Institute (OSI) and national Soros Foundations, which sometimes go under other names (such as the Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland). As of 2003, PBS estimated that he had given away a total of $4 billion. The OSI says it has spent about $500 million annually in recent years."

 

Any more than this guy.

 

Anyway, The charges against Assange are hogwash. Furthermore Obama, Holder, or anyone who wants to prosecute Assange for anything along the lines of "espionage" are blatantly warping the law to suppress free speech.

Edited December 25, 2010 by toastywombel

[jackson33]

Anyway, The charges against Assange are hogwash. Furthermore Obama, Holder, or anyone who wants to prosecute Assange for anything along the lines of "espionage" are blatantly warping the law to suppress free speech. [/Quote]

 

toasty; Seems like it's been awhile since I've seen you posting, then as a fellow Texan living in NM, it's a rare pleasure to agree with you, on this issue.

 

 

 

On George Sorros; Without going too far off topic, Sorros has made his money betting against Democratic Societies, the Free Market so to speak and a loyal far left liberal/progressive/socialist and most ALL his charitable work has gone to fit his personal political philosophy, IMO. He has also been convicted of "Insider Trading" which if had been in the US, made him ineligible to make the money he has. Contributing under the disguise of being charitable to promote personal gains or promote personal agenda is simply the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

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

[toastywombel]

toasty; Seems like it's been awhile since I've seen you posting, then as a fellow Texan living in NM, it's a rare pleasure to agree with you, on this issue.

 

Yeah I haven't gotten around to posting much of anything in a while, haven't had the time. But yeah I really think prosecuting Assange is complete B.S. If the United States government doesn't want to have embarrassing foreign affair problems, such as this, maybe they shouldn't have passed a bill that allowed the free-flow of information between nearly every defense/military branch, then maybe a PFC wouldn't of had the opportunity to leak over 200,000 documents. Better yet, how bout the United States government didn't spend loads of our money to do all kinds of espionage like actions around the globe.

 

 

On George Sorros; Without going too far off topic, Sorros has made his money betting against Democratic Societies, the Free Market so to speak and a loyal far left liberal/progressive/socialist and most ALL his charitable work has gone to fit his personal political philosophy, IMO. He has also been convicted of "Insider Trading" which if had been in the US, made him ineligible to make the money he has. Contributing under the disguise of being charitable to promote personal gains or promote personal agenda is simply the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

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

 

Kinda like how the countless members of the Financial Industry bet against everyone's mortgages? How come they aren't Un-American. Instead they are free-marketeers!

 

I am not so much defending Soros as I am pointing out the use of the term 'UnAmerican'. What does that mean? I think it is an extremely vague term, and all to often when someone uses it, they attempt to place themselves in the position of defining what exactly 'American' means, and thats just asinine. Geographical locations should not be used to represent a specific ideology or philosophy.