141–150 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, your assumptions are “obvious” and someone else assumptions are just a result of them not thinking seriously? Maybe it is you who should re-think their position?
> Maybe it is you who should re-think their position? Maybe. That's what I offered already. So, can you convince me?
Can someone explain to me why the general public has ”turned” on Assange in the last few years? Is it because Wikileaks revealed those Hillary Clinton emails? And that’s the ”protagonist” party? Or is it the rape accusations initiated in Sweden?
WikiLeak's big coup was cablegate, the main revelations of which boil down to "diplomats are very frank about people when they're not speaking in public." At the same time, Assange seemed to want it to be compared to the Pentagon Papers leak, which revealed that the US military was covering up the course of the Vietnam War. Instead cablegate was a whole lot of quantity over quality, and don't really merit the comparison.
Since then, WikiLeaks has missed out on the big revelations: Snowden's releases, the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, as well as more regionally important leaks such as Lava Jato. There's no trust among leakers that WikiLeaks is a neutral source for divulging information, and the fact that Assange has seemed to have a specifically anti-US tilt which results in him getting cozy with anti-US anti-press-freedom regimes.
Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condo…
And while it doesn't change the ethical and moral landscape around his alleged actions, people should be aware that what he is accused of is not illegal in the US.
Not sure why the legality in the US is material since the act didn't occur in the US, doesn't involve US persons, and the extradition being conducted isn't from or to the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strangely, a Russian diplomatic car didn't come to pick him up from the Ecuadorian embassy.
Yeah because the second Assange had set foot outside the embassy, the UK cops would have arrested him. Even in a car / "diplomatic bag" the UK cops would have the right to search it for Assange, because, well, a smuggled body isn't exactly "articles intended for official use" (per Art. 27 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations).
> The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.
But also part of Article 27
> The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.
So you are stuck in a Catch 22. You suspect the bag doesn’t contain official documents or articles but without searching it you can not be sure.
If you believe the leaked documents they actually planned to smuggle Assange out using this method. https://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-j...
How it’s usually handled is diplomatically. It’s reported to the higher ups, who will search the bag themselves but they can always refuse.
There are cases where a host country has opened diplomatic bags but they usually come with diplomatic protests.
There has been attempts to make Assange a diplomat of a country or two in an attempt to allow home to leave the embassy and leave the UK but the host country has to accept the status of a diplomat (usually done before they enter the country) and the UK government refused to recognise Assange's status still leaving him stuck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, your assumptions are “obvious” and someone else assumptions are just a result of them not thinking seriously? Maybe it is you who should re-think their position?
> Maybe it is you who should re-think their position? Maybe. That's what I offered already. So, can you convince me?
Maybe Assange is innocent. Maybe the allegations are true. We just dont know right now, but neither of these options is obvious right now
> “His attitude is that he is happy to cooperate with Sweden and that he wants to be interviewed and that he wants to clear his name,” Samuelson told Reuters. He spent how many years on both UK soil and then the Ecuadorean embassy to fight these Swedish allegations and now he's "happy to cooperate". He's imprisoned himself all these years for nothing.
As I understood it, he fled to the embassy because he was afraid the Swedish allegations would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US. Now that his UK charges can be used for that, that's no longer an objection.
That makes no sense.
Sweeden does not extradite people for political crimes and espionage is considered a political crime in Sweeden. His chance of being extradited to the US for espionage from Sweeden was extremely low from the start ... and going to the UK out of fear of being extradited to the US makes no sense considering UK and US relations.
> “His attitude is that he is happy to cooperate with Sweden and that he wants to be interviewed and that he wants to clear his name,” Samuelson told Reuters. He spent how many years on both UK soil and then the Ecuadorean embassy to fight these Swedish allegations and now he's "happy to cooperate". He's imprisoned himself all these years for nothing.
As I understood it, he fled to the embassy because he was afraid the Swedish allegations would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US. Now that his UK charges can be used for that, that's no longer an objection.
The other charges are immaterial to extradition to the US except insofar as they might prevent or delay it, though being in jail facing the other charges might make it harder to flee extradition to the US if that request came later.
Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condo…
Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. Even if they had consensual sex previously. Am I misunderstanding your comment?
I mean, if two people have sex and then sleep in the same bed overnight, and one of the two attempts to continue having sex in the morning ... if you wanna call that rape, rape might not even be a moral crime. Just a technical one. It is diluting the word to the point where it is meaningless. In this particular case the lack of a condom is the troubling part, but not exactly the end of the world.
The law doesn't force us to be perfect at every moment through our entire lives. It doesn't even require us to be good people. If there was evidence Assange has somehow physically, emotionally, financially, what have you, affected these women then that would be a better fig leaf than what seems to be happening.
My memory of the facts is that the girls involved weren't worried about it until they found out it was potentially a pattern of behavior with Assange and wanted him tested for STDs.
If he wouldn't take an STD test I can see how that would justify fining him, or arresting him and forcing him to take a test or something. It isn't obvious it justifies an extradition and all the theater we've been watching.
Maybe he just raped a girl. Case closed. No huge conspiracies. Question is, if he gets freed, what will happen then?
I read she never opened a case against him. It was just police officer who did it in her name? I think it's too much misinformation and lies to tell what really happened.
"In the case of most crimes, the prosecutor has what is known as an absolute duty to prosecute.
This means that the prosecutor is obliged to initiate a prosecution if he or she considers there to be sufficient evidence to prove that a crime has been committed and that a certain person has committed it.
This in turn means that not even the victim of the offence can decide what is to happen in connection with the investigations. In other words, there is nothing on the lines of “withdrawing the charges”. The prosecutor must make sure that the crime is investigated, irrespective of the feelings or wishes of those involved.
The reason for this is that society has an interest in ensuring that the perpetrators of the crime are also tried for it. Exceptions are made for certain offences where it may be felt that the interests of the general public in instigating legal proceedings are not strong enough. Examples of such offences are defamation, breach of domiciliary peace and crimes of unlawful appropriation, or stealing, within the family (i.e. theft etc.)."
https://www.aklagare.se/en/the-legal-process/the-role-of-the...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in England and Sweden, it is definitely the case that one cannot consent if one is not conscious, and therefore consent has not been given, therefore an offence has been committed. I believe this is true in the US as well. Consent has to be given prior to each occurrence, and therefore prior consent means nothing about future consent. See, for example, the High Court judgment (linked elsewhere in this thread…
> one cannot consent if one is not conscious would that negate previously established consent? As in "hey if you wanna wake me up tomorrow with sex that would be nice"