Earlier quoted context omitted.
He needs to face justice one way or another.
You mean he should get a compensation?
In a just world: Yes.
Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
361–370 of 396 posts
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amy Goodman hosts a show on NPR, a U.S. government news station. She is literally a mouthpiece for Trump and the U.S. government.
RT is owned and primarily funded by the Russian government. NPR receives around 2% of its funding from the US government.
Also, as per Wikipedia:
"Democracy Now Productions, the independent nonprofit organization which produces Democracy Now!, is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations and does not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting or government funding."
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes. We knew that already too. The US already wanted to apprehend him while he was walking around London before his Embassy period so it's clearly not a snatch & grab situation. He's not been officially charged with a crime in the US yet either so extradition isn't an issue.
> > > > > do secret charges exist? > > > > The best info we have is from Comey's testimony which says 'maybe' and they want to arrest him > > > It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that. > > and they want to arrest him > Well yes. We knew that already too. Anything else that we already know you would like to add?
Nah. Given you've already devolved into misquoting and misrepresentation, I'm pretty sure we're done here.
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was Assange's claim, but there are two women in Sweden who say that he sexually victimized them. The details of their claims have been out for a while: IIRC they had consensual sex with him, and later that night he had nonconsensual sex with them. It seems Sweden (rightly) takes sexual assault much more seriously than some other jurisdictions.
He had consensual sex with them. The sex only became nonconsensual retroactively when they learned about one another. Which is frankly, bullshit.
In the west, whether a sex act is consentual or not depends on the whims of the prosecutor and the courts.
It is the go-to method of imprisoning problematic males, because the burden of proof is so negligible.
If the female at any point decides that she felt like she was raped, then the male will go to prison. Very convenient, as it allows a sword of Damocles to be held over the head of any man who dares have sexual relations in a western country. Of course, this is just the beginning [1], and the law is working tirelessly to incarcerate males for the impudent act of heterosexual intercourse.
Of course, these matters are well outside the scope of discussion on HN, so I will leave it at that. We wouldn't want our young entrepreneurs asking the wrong sort of questions now would we?
1. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-e...
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. I mean, when you get in so deep, you can't just back off anymore. Also, the background isn't know. Those victims could be agents or be threatened by some governments.
Oh yeah, the whole government smear campaign theory. That a state could only muster "might have had quasi-consensual sex and not worn a condom". That was the best they could come up with in a setup?
Best? No. All they needed to get what they wanted? Absolutely. Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough.
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. I think there are one or two other possible charges but both are also unlikely to succeed. As long as they can make his life a living hell though (long trial, loss of freedoms until found innocent) that would hopefully (from the USG perspective) discourage other leakers.
> AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do? Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply? If we should comply with this for the US, surely we sh…
Have you not heard of Kim Dotcom? He's battling extradition to the USA despite never having set foot in the country nor registered a business there.
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amy Goodman hosts a show on NPR, a U.S. government news station. She is literally a mouthpiece for Trump and the U.S. government.
RT is owned and primarily funded by the Russian government. NPR receives around 2% of its funding from the US government.
You're right. I should give you the benefit of the doubt and make the real argument, which is that if a government provides a platform for you to make commentary, it does not necessarily mean you are a shill for that government; rather it means that the things you want to say, a government is supportive of.
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any sources for how the interview took place? And any indication that it was unfair? (I'm pretty sure Sweden would have refused to do it if they were unhappy with the process.) I don't know who asked the questions, or what the procedure was, but I read the Swedish prosecutor's statement issued today and they do not mention the London interview being an issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... >It was established that the interview would be conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor, with Isgren and a police officer present. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/14/date-set-quest... >According to Assange's lawyer, the "shape" of the questions was still being discussed a week before the scheduled interview. https://www.theguardian.com/media/201…
Thanks. Your original comment took issue with the statement that Assange was indeed interviewed in London by Swedish prosecutors. You said "This is simply not true." The issue for you seems to be that that the questions being put to Assange weren't actually put to him by Swedish prosecutors directly. Even though they were the Swedish prosecutors' questions being put to him. That doesn't sound like a huge issue to me, and I don't see why it should discount the interview. Especially as the Swedish prosecutors themselves have not taken issue with this aspect of the interview. It seems this was procedure they agreed to.
Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one of the fundamentals of the Swedish legal system, you can't be sentenced in your absence or at least not without being heard
That does not limit the amount of evidence that can be collected.
It does not but it limits the possibility to prosecute which is what the prosecutor came to terms with, at least according to her comments on the Swedish evening news. Basically the statue of limitations for this crime is 10 years, it's now been 7 and there is no resolution in sight so it's basically just a waste of time and money. Embarrassing if you ask me but that's the way it is.