He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she
slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously
expressed wishes, before arguing that because she
subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of
intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as
consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to
have held a woman down against her will during a sexual
encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant]
was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she]
felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina
directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a
condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze
her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she]
tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had
stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her
legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without
using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since
she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this
could end badly.”
The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events.
Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.
Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.
The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense of Assange.
But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid.
The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be given in Sweden.
'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.'
It is not only the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims plus an attempt by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the prosecutions alleged facts.
This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday.
Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.
I don't even think that question matters. The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange? If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't. The suggestion that Sweden is so corrupt that it can't handle basic criminal law is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. No evidence has been presented to support it, at all.
The rest of the argument is to my ears just fever talk. Some US muckity muck said Assange should be killed? Ok. I won't vote for that moron. There are also US politicians who believe we should have nuked Iraq. There was never any real risk that we we going to fire nuclear weapons at a 3rd world country. Random politicians say all sorts of idiotic things. Thankfully, they cannot suspend criminal law as a result.
Of course it matters. If the answer to the question you were asked - and evaded - is yes, then the answer to your question is pretty much automatically no.
The suggestion that Sweden can't handle basic criminal law when they have political motivations for their actions has been well demonstrated by the fact that Swedish police have in the past violated Swedish law and international treaties by handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA without due process. In fact, without any process at all. In order for them to be shipped off to be tortured.
I don't begrudge you your right to care about this stuff, but I don't. At all. If there's a legitimate rape charge leveled in Sweden against Assange, or the Dalai Lama, or bassist Roman Glyck of 80s hair metal sensation Jackyl, I think extradition is a reasonable course of action.
So all China needs is for a Chinese woman to claim the Dalai Lama raped her in China, and China can demand the Dalai Lama be extradited to China! Brilliant!
You are just circling around now. If the rape charge is politically motivated, then it is not legitimate. So the question of whether or not this case is politically motivated remain.
Of course this is ignoring the fact there is no rape charge as of yet.
Whether or not the rape investigation is politically motivated or not is irrelevant, it must still be investigated. And part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
In reality, the investigation will most likely be dropped since they don't seem to have any evidence and it's their words against his.
> part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
If this is politically motivated, Sweden wants Assange in their jurisdiction to extradite him -- which seems plausible given that Sweden refuses to interview Assange over phone or in the UK. Does that seem normal to you? To have a suspect extradited for "interviewing"?
> The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange?
No that's not the question, because 1) Assange has not been charged with anything and 2) Sweden has been offered the chance to question him in the UK (as they did in a murder case involving a trip to Serbia for questioning), or alternatively question him in Sweden, but guarantee that he will not be extradited to a third country. That they've refused all offers is a clear indication that their primary motive is not quick resolution of this particular case.
> If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't.
The UK denied an extradition request for the Chilean dictator Pinochet, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of public record. "'If they can' the UK 'must' honor its extradition treaty" is a statement that doesn't seem to say much at all.
Also, considering this situation involves the West's most famous dissident, it is important to consider all actions and irregularities in a more considered light. The issuing of the Interpol notice was highly irregular, Sweden's actions were highly political, and the Supreme Court's final consideration of the legality of the request was found to be wrong by the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law:
The Supreme Court wrongly, and without any analysis, assumed that VCLT Article 31(3)(b) is applicable in the interpretation of secondary European acts such as the Framework Decision. It also neglected to look into the interpretative rules of the EU. The result was a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court. [1]
Does a law journal's opinion take legal precedence over the final decision of a Supreme court? Of course not. Does Assange's status as a Western dissident absolve him from any transgressions? Of course not. But the totality of these highly irregular and unusual actions demonstrate a clear pattern of political persecution. The naive political / legal reduction of this case that some undertake just seems like wilful ignorance.
Is absolutely matters. If Sweden picks and chooses which rapists to prosecute based on how wanted they are in the US then they have 0 credibility. Beyond that, I imagine if Ecuador allowed him to be extradited to Sweden he would immediately be extradited to the US, which is why the logic that he is being extradited for rape charges is ridiculous. This is the most blatantly politically motivated thing I've ever seen. How people are naive enough to consider every possibility except for that kind of amazes me.
It shouldn't matter Consider the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape allegetaion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn). It was widely claimed that Sarkozy was behind this, it was public lynching for the presidential candidate, etc. Although this may or may not be true, the question remains: Did he or did he not engage in nonconsensual sexual acts with the hotel maid. The political motivation is irrelevant in this regard, and should be investigated and discussed separately.
I don't know the particulars of the rape allegations against Assange (nor do I care); however, automatically dismissing them because of hos other involvements seems to me wrong.
This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer where he is stipulating to the statements provided by the prosecution for the purposes of an extradition hearing where the court will view the evidence as favorable as reasonable to the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyers presentation of the prosecutions claims followed by his attempt at making the claim there is no case even if the facts are entirely as alleged by the opposing party.
Presenting this as Assange's lawyers somehow agreeing that these are the facts is misleading at best. His lawyer goes on to specifically state that for the purposes of the hearing it is irrelevant whether or not Assange agrees with this version of events.
I don't think that's entirely true, but it's perhaps more true than not. I addressed it upthread.
The only issue being litigated in this thread and in UK court is "is this rape charge so ridiculous that the UK should refuse to honor its extradition treaty with Sweden over it". I don't see any reasonable argument for that assertion here.
Sweden is not an Orwellian dystopia. It's an especially enlightened and socially conscious state, even (perhaps especially) compared to the US.
It's a country that have admitted to having handed political asylum seekers over to the CIA so they could ship them back to the regime they were fleeing in order for them to be tortured.
While it did cause an uproar, it took a couple of months before Swedish military intelligence uncovered that illegal CIA rendition were still ongoing, with the involvement of Swedish airport staff.
Sweden has an extensive history of various services violating Swedish law in order to bend over for the US behind the scenes.
No, we are not an Orwellian dystopia. But we have still helped CIA to deport and torture by proxy totally innocent innocent asylum seekers. If I were Assange I would not wish to gamble on that not happening again.
Now, before you downvote me, as I see some 'enlightened' readers already have, consider whether a male would get a fair trial in Sweden on any sexual accusation.
Is this not 'radical feminism'? Is it not also kind of insane? Don't shoot the messenger.
She goes to a shelter for battered women and complains that they don't like the men who battered them, and maybe don't want to risk being battered again-- she calls this extremism. I call it once burned.
Burning Ken Dolls in front of a camera is not journalism.
Comments
Here's the testimony from Assange's own lawyers:
He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
That's rape.
You are grossly misrepresenting this.
The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events.
Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.
Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.
The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense of Assange.
But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid.
The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be given in Sweden.
I covered this when I wrote:
'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.'
It is not only the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims plus an attempt by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the prosecutions alleged facts.
That's a highly significant constraint.
This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday.
Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.
A chance in hell for being extradited for rape? Yes. There is.
For the record, do you believe this fiasco isn't politically motivated?
I don't even think that question matters. The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange? If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't. The suggestion that Sweden is so corrupt that it can't handle basic criminal law is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. No evidence has been presented to support it, at all.
The rest of the argument is to my ears just fever talk. Some US muckity muck said Assange should be killed? Ok. I won't vote for that moron. There are also US politicians who believe we should have nuked Iraq. There was never any real risk that we we going to fire nuclear weapons at a 3rd world country. Random politicians say all sorts of idiotic things. Thankfully, they cannot suspend criminal law as a result.
Of course it matters. If the answer to the question you were asked - and evaded - is yes, then the answer to your question is pretty much automatically no.
The suggestion that Sweden can't handle basic criminal law when they have political motivations for their actions has been well demonstrated by the fact that Swedish police have in the past violated Swedish law and international treaties by handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA without due process. In fact, without any process at all. In order for them to be shipped off to be tortured.
How many of these people faced charges?
I don't begrudge you your right to care about this stuff, but I don't. At all. If there's a legitimate rape charge leveled in Sweden against Assange, or the Dalai Lama, or bassist Roman Glyck of 80s hair metal sensation Jackyl, I think extradition is a reasonable course of action.
So all China needs is for a Chinese woman to claim the Dalai Lama raped her in China, and China can demand the Dalai Lama be extradited to China! Brilliant!
You are just circling around now. If the rape charge is politically motivated, then it is not legitimate. So the question of whether or not this case is politically motivated remain.
Of course this is ignoring the fact there is no rape charge as of yet.
Whether or not the rape investigation is politically motivated or not is irrelevant, it must still be investigated. And part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
In reality, the investigation will most likely be dropped since they don't seem to have any evidence and it's their words against his.
> part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
If this is politically motivated, Sweden wants Assange in their jurisdiction to extradite him -- which seems plausible given that Sweden refuses to interview Assange over phone or in the UK. Does that seem normal to you? To have a suspect extradited for "interviewing"?
There can be a legitimate rape charge that has been grabbed for use by political forces, which is what I see has happened.
Precisely.
Politically convenient rather than politically motivated I suspect.
> The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange?
No that's not the question, because 1) Assange has not been charged with anything and 2) Sweden has been offered the chance to question him in the UK (as they did in a murder case involving a trip to Serbia for questioning), or alternatively question him in Sweden, but guarantee that he will not be extradited to a third country. That they've refused all offers is a clear indication that their primary motive is not quick resolution of this particular case.
> If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't.
The UK denied an extradition request for the Chilean dictator Pinochet, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of public record. "'If they can' the UK 'must' honor its extradition treaty" is a statement that doesn't seem to say much at all.
Also, considering this situation involves the West's most famous dissident, it is important to consider all actions and irregularities in a more considered light. The issuing of the Interpol notice was highly irregular, Sweden's actions were highly political, and the Supreme Court's final consideration of the legality of the request was found to be wrong by the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law:
The Supreme Court wrongly, and without any analysis, assumed that VCLT Article 31(3)(b) is applicable in the interpretation of secondary European acts such as the Framework Decision. It also neglected to look into the interpretative rules of the EU. The result was a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court. [1]
Does a law journal's opinion take legal precedence over the final decision of a Supreme court? Of course not. Does Assange's status as a Western dissident absolve him from any transgressions? Of course not. But the totality of these highly irregular and unusual actions demonstrate a clear pattern of political persecution. The naive political / legal reduction of this case that some undertake just seems like wilful ignorance.
[1] http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&vi...
Is absolutely matters. If Sweden picks and chooses which rapists to prosecute based on how wanted they are in the US then they have 0 credibility. Beyond that, I imagine if Ecuador allowed him to be extradited to Sweden he would immediately be extradited to the US, which is why the logic that he is being extradited for rape charges is ridiculous. This is the most blatantly politically motivated thing I've ever seen. How people are naive enough to consider every possibility except for that kind of amazes me.
It shouldn't matter Consider the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape allegetaion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn). It was widely claimed that Sarkozy was behind this, it was public lynching for the presidential candidate, etc. Although this may or may not be true, the question remains: Did he or did he not engage in nonconsensual sexual acts with the hotel maid. The political motivation is irrelevant in this regard, and should be investigated and discussed separately.
I don't know the particulars of the rape allegations against Assange (nor do I care); however, automatically dismissing them because of hos other involvements seems to me wrong.
sources?
Right here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-e...
This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer.
It does lose the context of the lawyer continuing on that Assange eventually did find and use a condom.
This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer where he is stipulating to the statements provided by the prosecution for the purposes of an extradition hearing where the court will view the evidence as favorable as reasonable to the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyers presentation of the prosecutions claims followed by his attempt at making the claim there is no case even if the facts are entirely as alleged by the opposing party.
Presenting this as Assange's lawyers somehow agreeing that these are the facts is misleading at best. His lawyer goes on to specifically state that for the purposes of the hearing it is irrelevant whether or not Assange agrees with this version of events.
I don't think that's entirely true, but it's perhaps more true than not. I addressed it upthread.
The only issue being litigated in this thread and in UK court is "is this rape charge so ridiculous that the UK should refuse to honor its extradition treaty with Sweden over it". I don't see any reasonable argument for that assertion here.
Sweden is not an Orwellian dystopia. It's an especially enlightened and socially conscious state, even (perhaps especially) compared to the US.
It's a country that have admitted to having handed political asylum seekers over to the CIA so they could ship them back to the regime they were fleeing in order for them to be tortured.
While it did cause an uproar, it took a couple of months before Swedish military intelligence uncovered that illegal CIA rendition were still ongoing, with the involvement of Swedish airport staff.
Sweden has an extensive history of various services violating Swedish law in order to bend over for the US behind the scenes.
No, we are not an Orwellian dystopia. But we have still helped CIA to deport and torture by proxy totally innocent innocent asylum seekers. If I were Assange I would not wish to gamble on that not happening again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
I beg to differ. Sweden is thought by many especially enlightened people to be case study in radical feminist insanity.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-...
"Radical feminist insanity". Here's where I get off this train. Have fun, all.
The Gender War is a two hour documentary by journalist Evin Rubar, about radical feminism and its influence on Swedish politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U&list=PL849AE3...
Now, before you downvote me, as I see some 'enlightened' readers already have, consider whether a male would get a fair trial in Sweden on any sexual accusation.
Is this not 'radical feminism'? Is it not also kind of insane? Don't shoot the messenger.
She goes to a shelter for battered women and complains that they don't like the men who battered them, and maybe don't want to risk being battered again-- she calls this extremism. I call it once burned.
Burning Ken Dolls in front of a camera is not journalism.
See this page on Swedish rape laws. In Sweden you are guilty until proven innocent in cases of alleged rape.
http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html
Still being downvoted, no reasons given. How about a link from the feminist section of Slate?
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_s...
Insane? Radical? You decide!
Oh? No SCUM for you? Bye!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM