Julian Assange

[Rabbie]

[quote user="nomoss"][quote user="Rabbie"]

The alleged offence in Sweden hinges on the fact that the woman only consented to protected sex and found out too late that Assange was not using a condom. That is regarded as non-consensual sex under Swedish law.

So this is not rape as defined by UK law but is regarded as rape in Sweden.

[/quote]

 

So the UK is willing to extradite him to Sweden against his will to be questioned regarding an allegation of an act that would not be an offence in the UK.

 

[/quote]The UK courts have decided that he should be extradited to Sweden. I am not a lawyer so I don't know whether the alleged offence is an offence in the UK. Assange has a team of competent lawyers so if it was not legal I am sure they would have prevented the extradition order.

[Gardener]

These are the allegations against Assange- its not just about not using a condom.

Unlawful coercion

On 13-14 August 2010, in home of the injured party [A] 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 while lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

Sexual molestation (1)

On 13-14 August 2010, in home of the injured party [A] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. 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, consummated sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

Sexual molestation (2)

On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [A] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity; that is, lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party 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 integrity.

The Rape allegation fulfils the rape criteria in the UK though in a slightly different context maybe in that he did not seek permission before engaging in intercourse as she was asleep.

[nomoss]

How did he get into her house after August 14?

[idun]

This now makes no sense at all.

As far as I was aware she let him stay at her appt. Surely if he had been starting anything inappropriate she would have given him his marching orders.

 

Now I know that we are not all the same, but IF someone was in my home and they had already been acting inappropriately, I would have heard every last noise during the night. I would not have slept other than, as the expression goes, with one eye open and my bedroom door would have been locked.

I truly do not understand any of this now.

 

[Gardener]

I don't know the circumstances how he was allowed into the alleged victim's house a second time, but even allowing for bad judgement on the part of the alleged victim in allowing him in, if he she awoke to find him having sex with her that she had not consented to, that is rape.

The womens judgement may be questionable etc but it is whether Assange committed any criminal wrongdoing that the legal system is interested in.

[Quillan]

Catching up on some of the posts after a 'fast and furious' couple of weeks so excuse my entering in to this thread a bit late.

I think perhaps reading the transcript of Mr Assanges speech from the Embassy yesterday has changed my opinion a little. I believed him to be quite correct in his concern about being extradited to the US which is clearly after 'his blood' for publishing the leaks and transcripts that he did. I think that some of the emails and letters released concerning peoples thoughts about those it was carrying out diplomatic dialog showed exactly how bad the arrogance of the US government is.

All that aside there are allegations concerning his activities in Sweden who have obviously applied for extradition so he can be interviewed with the possibility of a criminal trial. Rape and/or attempted rape is the most heinous of crimes and one would think that an innocent person would jump at the opportunity to clear their name.

Having read the transcript of his speech there is sadly no mention of Sweden and these alleged criminal activities which in my opinion show how little respect the man has for his alleged crimes and those alleged victims especially as he claims to be a victim himself.

Therefore whilst I was a big supporter of him and his brave attempt to show the world what really is in the back of politicians and ambassadors minds he has acted in a dishonorable way. I also find it very upsetting that this man attempt to discredit the UK police and government by lying about an attempt to covertly enter the Embassy, thus breaking the Vienna Convention, by the UK police force. There is no way that the UK police force would flout that convention and that the UK government be so stupid as to approve such a raid. By doing so it would be saying that it has the right to enter any embassy and would quickly find that it has no friends as one embassy after another closes and the ambassadors returned to their respective countries. It would also give the green light to any state or country in which we have an embassy for that state or countries police force to enter and do what it will.

It is my impression that this man is now suffering from mental illness and requires help.

If you wish to read the transcript I include a link below.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/full-transcript-of-julian-assanges-speech-outside-ecuadors-london-embassy-8061466.html

 

[nomoss]

[quote user="Gardener"]I don't know the circumstances how he was allowed into the alleged victim's house a second time,[/quote]

Business is business, I imagine.

[nomoss]

[quote user="Quillan"]

.................. I also find it very upsetting that this man attempt to discredit the UK police and government by lying about an attempt to covertly enter the Embassy, thus breaking the Vienna Convention, by the UK police force. There is no way that the UK police force would flout that convention and that the UK government be so stupid as to approve such a raid.............................[/quote]

Your support of and trust in the UK police and government is touching.

Let's see what happens.....

[Hoddy]

I can't be alone in finding it ironic that Assange is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy since that country doesn't have a great record on press freedom.

I wonder why his high profile celebrity backers seem so quiet lately ?

I think that Sweden is one of the places in the world where he is most likely to get a fair trial. He hasn't even been charged with anything yet.

Hoddy

[Clair]

[quote user="nomoss"]...Let's see what happens.....[/quote]

The only way he can step out of the embassy without being arrested is for him to have diplomatic status.

He's have to take Ecuadorian nationality and be appointed as a diplomat "to the Court of St James".

He gains diplomatic status and walks out of the embassy, giving the UK government no possibility to arrest and deport him.

Everybody saves face.

Problem over.

[Quillan]

[quote user="nomoss"][quote user="Quillan"]

.................. I also find it very upsetting that this man attempt to discredit the UK police and government by lying about an attempt to covertly enter the Embassy, thus breaking the Vienna Convention, by the UK police force. There is no way that the UK police force would flout that convention and that the UK government be so stupid as to approve such a raid.............................[/quote]

Your support of and trust in the UK police and government is touching.

Let's see what happens.....

[/quote]

That's not a touch of sarcasm by chance. [:P] They wouldn't do it because of the implications for British embassies around the world, such an invasion of a states country would effectively be an act of war and there are plenty of countries who would take the opportunity to close our embassies and throw our diplomats out of their country (Argentina jumps to mind straight away). In short it is just not worth even considering such an action for such an unimportant person.

There has been no confirmation of any raid in any newspaper throughout the world, what has happened is there is a large police force present to arrest Assange the minute he sets foot on UK soil.

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="Clair"][quote user="nomoss"]...Let's see what happens.....[/quote]

The only way he can step out of the embassy without being arrested is for him to have diplomatic status.
He's have to take Ecuadorian nationality and be appointed as a diplomat "to the Court of St James".
He gains diplomatic status and walks out of the embassy, giving the UK government no possibility to arrest and deport him.
Everybody saves face.
Problem over.


[/quote] The only person the problem is over for is Assange as he has evaded justice. The victims still have a problem because justice has not been done, the Swedish still have a problem as they have not brought someone to justice and the British have a problem because they have failed in their legal duty. So, the problem is not over.

[Quillan]

Exactly.

[Gardener]

There were a number of things I didn't like about his seech not least his attempting to make mileage out of the fact he hasn't seen his children and that they will be together soon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/julian-assange-children-kids-wikileaks_n_822136.html

[NickP]

Watching Mr. Assange's speech, I thought it was the most sanctimonious arrogant message I've seen for a long time. Forget the Swedish interest, forget the rights and wrongs of American politics, divulging state secrets is surely wrong. Change the law if i'ts wrong but do it legally. As for Ecuador

I love that a country that suppresses freedom of speech, backs this man.

[Quillan]

Some of the stuff he 'leaked' I don't have a problem with especially when it shows the hypocrisy of one or two of the countries involved. It just shows, what we all suspected, that whilst some countries smile at others and publicly exhaled them behind their backs that are taking the micky, calling them all sorts of names and worse undermining them politically in their own country. Other stuff, well providing it did not lead to the murder of individuals, it is not a real problem. Indeed he (Assange) can't be called a traitor as a traitor is "someone who betrays his (her) country by committing treason". The only 'traitor' may be Bradley Manning if he did indeed pass on 'state secrets' although that is to be confirmed should he ever receive a fair trial which I doubt. Innocent until proven guilty comes to mind or perhaps the US has other secrets that he may mention and cause embarrassment at any trial that may take place thus their reluctance to have one. For many years now I am of the opinion that a particular country with whom the UK has a 'special relationship' is probably one of the most aggressive and oppressive in the world in its foreign policy resulting in hundreds and thousands of illegal deaths.