31–38 of 38 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts and policemen don't make decisions based on interviews with the press, or what some internet commenter thinks is a crime or not. There's a reason trials exist, to find out if a crime was committed or not. Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. From what I've read it's pretty hard to convict people using the existing rape laws in Sweden, sin…
I think you missed my point. My point is that a crime was not committed, based on the present facts. The law itself criminalizes a non-crime. I'm not saying trials are unnecessary, I'm pointing out there isn't any dispute on the basic facts of the case. In almost every trial there is- the prosecution says he did it, the defendant says he didn't. Here both sides say the same thing about what happened. IT is the law th…
There is a reason we have criminal trials: it is to allow for the exposition of all of the facts of the case, not just the ones selectively released by the prosecution or defense.
And, based on my reading of the facts currently available, it sounds like Assange may have been guilty of rape by fraud, if he misled either of the women about why he was not using protection.
As to your final, comment: even a cursory glance at the news will suggest how ridiculously untrue it is. Laws, even those that have been on the books without issue for decades, are regularly challenged by defendants in the U.S. The trial court then holds a hearing on the law itself. Only after the challenge to the law has been resolved does the case proceed to trial on the substantive issues.
Small cited section from the article: "You only need to look at the way that Red Notices are used around the world. Red Notices are normally the preserve of terrorists and dictators. The president of Syria does not have a Red Notice alert. Gaddafi in Libya, at the same time Julian's arrest warrant was issued, was not subject to a Red Notice but an Orange Notice. It was an incredibly... it was incredibly unusual that…
Syria is not a member of Interpol, nor is he currently detained by any member of Interpol. The same was true of Gaddafi. Consequently, no Red Notice would be issued for either of them.
Note also that Julian Assange's crime is not just sexual assault. His crime also consists of attempting to flee to avoid arrest. Flight will trigger an interpol notice regardless of the underlying crime.
Just read the article (it takes about 30 minutes). This was the best account that I've read of the entire situation and has now educated me on to the "dragnet" that surrounds Julian Assange. The TL;DR summary is that everything points to Sweden having being coerced at every juncture (by the US), and the Swedish police failing constantly. ---------------- I'd never actually been clear on what the "sexual assault/rape/…
A "Red Notice" is just an Interpol request for a member country to issue an arrest warrant for a person wanted in another member country, with the expectation that the person will be extradited to the country seeking the arrest. (Interpol does not have the power to issue arrest warrants on its own.)
Just read the article (it takes about 30 minutes). This was the best account that I've read of the entire situation and has now educated me on to the "dragnet" that surrounds Julian Assange. The TL;DR summary is that everything points to Sweden having being coerced at every juncture (by the US), and the Swedish police failing constantly. ---------------- I'd never actually been clear on what the "sexual assault/rape/…
> Eventually, it was also upgraded to a "Red Notice". To put it into context, a red notice for such a trivial charge with a previously willful and responsive person is unusual. A "Red Notice" is just an Interpol request for a member country to issue an arrest warrant for a person wanted in another member country, with the expectation that the person will be extradited to the country seeking the arrest. (Interpol does…
The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
Courts and policemen don't make decisions based on interviews with the press, or what some internet commenter thinks is a crime or not. There's a reason trials exist, to find out if a crime was committed or not. Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. From what I've read it's pretty hard to convict people using the existing rape laws in Sweden, sin…
Assange thinks he will be convicted of a crime. He thinks he will end up being imprisoned for the rest of his life in the United States for releasing secrets.
The issue is not Swedish rape laws, it is Swedish extradition laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts and policemen don't make decisions based on interviews with the press, or what some internet commenter thinks is a crime or not. There's a reason trials exist, to find out if a crime was committed or not. Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. From what I've read it's pretty hard to convict people using the existing rape laws in Sweden, sin…
> Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. Assange thinks he will be convicted of a crime. He thinks he will end up being imprisoned for the rest of his life in the United States for releasing secrets. The issue is not Swedish rape laws, it is Swedish extradition laws.
Agreed. And that's what we should be discussing, not the rape laws.