Assange fights extradition in court Julian Assange's lawyers are in court now to fight his extradition to Sweden by arguing that prosecutors have failed to follow correct procedures. Swedish authorities want to question Assange in relation to alleged sex offences. But his defence solicitors claim that prosecutors must charge him with an offence, and therefore …
What I was talking about was the fact that the defense used statements from two talking heads who are not currently representing anyone but themselves. Posturing for the next Presidential campaign. (Two potential Republican conservative candidates).
So the defense argument fails on that ground.
The fact that there hasn't been a charge by the US also makes the issue of the death penalty a moot point.
Or the fact that the US hasn't used the death penalty in an espionage case since the end of WWII.
Or the fact that if the US does charge Assange, they will agree to take the death penalty off the table so that they *can* extradite him.
Didn't miss any of that.
With respect to your comment...
The DoJ hasn't made that statement. What you read was an unidentified source has stated that they haven't found enough evidence to tie Julian to the theft of documents. Yet. It wasn't an official statement.
>>"The DoJ hasn't made that statement. What you read was an unidentified source has stated that they haven't found enough evidence to tie Julian to the theft of documents. Yet. It wasn't an official statement."
There's an interesting issue here, which I'm wondering about, which would seem interesting irrespective of the facts of Assange's links (or *lack* of links) with Manning.
How would a lack of forensic evidence for a link between two people play out in a court?
If I claimed [rightly or wrongly] to have been in touch with (and encouraged by) famous person X before collecting information to pass to them, but they denied it, would it be necessary to have physical evidence of such a connection to justify charging the famous person with conspiracy and putting them on trial?
If the alleged communications were truly untraceable long enough after the event, if I claimed I knew I was talking to the actual person, might I have a chance of convincing a jury?
I *could*, for example, claim that I knew I really was talking to the actual person because they identified themselves to me by telling me something only that person could know, like some specific detail of something they were planning to say publicly in future, or some particular combination of word[s] and gesture[s] they would make at a press conference, etc.
If it's possible to get a conviction in a more normal case where one person claims another person they knew and met face to face was conspiring with them but the other denied it, why would it be impossible to get a conviction where the communication was electronic, but there actually were *potential* ways that someone could have verified to some extent they had been communicating with the correct person?
If there was no exact evidence as to times of alleged communication, unless the accused person had some very comprehensive alibis for long relevant stretches of time, or could provide comprehensive logs of any communication traffic they could possibly have been a party to, it may be difficult to disprove the claims.
Would it be legally permitted for someone to be accused on the basis of claims of such interaction?
Would the *possibility* that I'd only ever been in touch with someone who had the trust of the accused person be enough to make my evidence legally useless or inadmissible?
The point I was trying to make is that it would be incorrect to assume that the DoJ has given up on their investigation. At the time of the statement, it was unknown by the unnamed person, who was quoted, that such a link exists. That is to say that the 'knowledgeable source' had no specific knowledge.
The statement made was not an official statement representing the DoJ.
Having said that... Manning could have been cooperating with people. Even if no direct link could be found... Manning could make a statement that Assange helped him. It would be up to the courts/jury to determine the veracity of the statement and judge accordingly.
>>"The point I was trying to make is that it would be incorrect to assume that the DoJ has given up on their investigation"
Quite.
They may have decided they'll never find proof of communication, they may hope but have failed to find anything yet, or they may have found something they're keeping quiet about.
The newspaper story could be made up by the paper, disinformation or accurate.
However, the issue just got me wondering whether it would even in theory be possible to prosecute someone in the /absence/ of forensic evidence of communication, but only on the word of an alleged conspirator, even if the people involved had never physically met.
"However, the issue just got me wondering whether it would even in theory be possible to prosecute someone in the /absence/ of forensic evidence of communication, but only on the word of an alleged conspirator, even if the people involved had never physically met."
The short answer is yes.
In a case where you lack a body, you can still have a murder trial where an informant confesses to the act and implicates another where they detail how they destroyed the evidence.
In those types of cases which there is circumstantial evidence, you can go to trial and let the judge/jury sort out the truth.
So if Manning were to talk and give enough detailed statements that would link him to Assange and there is enough evidence that makes his statements credible, then Assange could be charged. Again, its up to the jury to determine how strong the circumstantial evidence is....
HTH
-G
PS. While the above is true, unless there was enough credible evidence that taken on face value to be true, Assange would have a field day in a counter suit for prosecutorial misconduct. IANAL nor do I play one on TV.
Actually that was the case I was referring.
I mean, when was the last time the A-Bomb was dropped in war time?
(WWII) and it was based on their work during WWII on the Manhattan project right?
So since I'm a bit cloudy on my history... when did the Rosenbergs start spying for the Russians?
;-)
>>"but on the whole this guy has revolutionized (i.e. restored) the role of the media,"
By doing what?
Before Assange, people could leak things directly to the media, or to other leaks websites.
What Assange has really done is publicised/marketed the idea of leaking more widely, so many people would think first of wikileaks.
That may well be a positive achievement, but even then, much of the credit goes to the people who previously gave the information that allowed wikileaks to attract increasing attention.
>>"Give him his noble prize, keep him the heck out of the US."
In terms of Nobel prizes, it would be like giving Henry Ford one for inventing the motor car.
Hmm I dunno if it's that cut & dry.
The thing is, you can't give a Nobel to everyone involved, there has to be a representative (no Nobels for Anonymous then!). We could argue that Wikileaks, like the media, is just a conduit, but you'll not find many forms of media that consistently argue for the truth. Sure we've had leaks for as long as there've been secrets; the meat here isn't in the leaks alone but the whole picture - not least the fact that someone has got the balls to stand up and moon the most powerful government on the planet.
And it's not the invention of the car that's important, it's who takes it and transforms it into something truly needed. I'm pretty sure if you invented a car that runs off small talk, you'd be well in for a Nobel Prize. That said, the Nobel's pretty useless since Obama got his.
>>"We could argue that Wikileaks, like the media, is just a conduit, but you'll not find many forms of media that consistently argue for the truth."
Well, Assange doesn't seem to be interested in propagating the *whole* truth, otherwise he wouldn't long-delay releasing things in what seems to come close to blackmail.
>>"...not least the fact that someone has got the balls to stand up and moon the most powerful government on the planet"
Yeah - it's not as if any *real* journalists have ever published things which embarrassed the US government, is it.
>>"And it's not the invention of the car that's important, it's who takes it and transforms it into something truly needed."
I just don't see that taking something that already exists and making it more well known necessarily qualifies someone for sainthood, especially if they're not exactly living hand to mouth while doing it.
The fact is that the stuff that media companies published, they could perfectly well have published without wikileaks having been there as an intermediary.
Wikileaks may provide an easier anonymous channel for people to use, but there'd be nothing stopping someone from mailing CDs or memory sticks with incriminating files on to one or more regular media outlets, if there was something they were really desperate to get published.
Some people do need to get some perspective and realise that information has long been leaked to and published by various media organisations.
The changes in technology over time mean that (absent a sensible internal control system) it can now be rather easier for information to be copied and moved around than it was decades ago - I could copy any number of documents onto a tiny memory card which would be very easy to carry out of a building, whereas previously I might have had to spend hours risking discovery while using a photocopier and then trying to get the paper out.
Leaking now can often be far easier to do in bulk than it used to be, and that would be true with or without Julian.
Fair points.
As I say, 'I dunno'. Not quite on the fence, but definitely I don't see that there's a clear picture of all the facts. Which is a wee bit ironic given the subject.
I do think Wikileaks is more than simple 'another' outlet though. As you say there's no shortage of terrific journalism and sure enough they get their own share of awards and recognition, but the media outlets as we know them are flawed and, frankly I don't think people take the media seriously enough (wonder why?).
Wikileaks doesn't suffer the stigma of the mainstream media. As long as it keeps up it's credibility then it's something for shifty people to fear. Well, it should be, but as you say; we still only get to see what they decide we should, and the veracity of that withers with each edit. Which we all hear about from, the mainstream media...
Anyway, back to my Pig Farming for Idiots book...:)
>>"but the media outlets as we know them are flawed and, frankly I don't think people take the media seriously enough (wonder why?)."
Seems to me that the bulk release of diplomatic trivia stuff from Wikileaks if anything made Wikileaks seem rather less serious.
True, much was parrotted by the regular media, though arguably that was part of a process where Wikileaks itself (and its promises of future juicy stuff) became a large part of the story.
Personally, I'd have had rather more respect for Wikileaks if it had just released stuff which seemed non-trivial.
If that would have been going against a 'principle' of releasing everything, that'd make me wonder about the value of the principle.
Though it does seem like the trivia release may have been fuelled more by a desire to cause maximum annoyance to the US government than a desire to meaningfully inform people.
"Yeah - it's not as if any *real* journalists have ever published things which embarrassed the US government, is it."
I think the interesting thing about Wikileaks is not so much that it exposes major, headline-grabbing corruption scandals in powerful organisations, but that it shows the everyday behaviour and attitudes of the people who control those organisations. Beneath the public evasions, back-slapping and general insincerity lie thousands of cables showing what they really think behind closed doors.
Very little of it actually surprises us, but a lot of it gives we ordinary folk some quite powerful sticks with which we can berate those who, with varying degrees of deceit, control our lives. We little 'uns can now keep an eye on Big Brother. And I think the style of Wikileaks enables us to do this more effectively than conventional investigative journalism can.
Instead of ordinary folk walking in fear of being overheard by the Fat Controllers, it could now become the other way round.
>>"Beneath the public evasions, back-slapping and general insincerity lie thousands of cables showing what they really think behind closed doors."
You don't think people already knew that diplomacy involves a serious element of behind-closed-doors stuff?
>>"but a lot of it gives we ordinary folk some quite powerful sticks with which we can berate those who, with varying degrees of deceit, control our lives."
How does knowing all kinds of bears-shit-in-woods stuff like 'people think Berlusconi is vain' help anyone control anything?
>>"We little 'uns can now keep an eye on Big Brother."
You're expecting that leaks of trivia will continue at the same rate even after Manning gets made an example of, and despite the obvious possibility of identifying leakers being made easier in future?
Or that people would actually pay a huge amount of attention to Bulk Trivia Pt 2?
I'm waiting to see the sea change in democracy that the release of the trivia causes.
Actually it is cut and dry.
Wikileaks likes to consider itself a 'whistle blower' website. That is that a 'whistle blower' is actually whistle blowing a criminal activity.
We look at Wikileaks, What criminal activity had they actually outed?
No War Crimes.
No criminal activity by diplomats.
Just information to try and embarrass the US Government.
So in their leaks, have they created peace or have they created a situation for more war and strife?
Only time will tell.
"They have fuck all to do with Truth or Freedom of Speech or Whistleblowing.
What does that leave? Why could they possibly want all this attention?"
It has already been noted that there is some risk here that St Julian of Assange may be an attention whore. However the truth is probably more complex, as the nick 'Mendax' might indicate; Jules appears to think himself a 'noble liar', and this might explain why he acts as though he is an authoritatively good man doing the right thing; his hx appears to indicate that he will have studied Plato's Republic.
It seems to me likely that he extrapolated from Plato's 'noble lie' or 'magnificent myth' argument. This is concordant with his attempts to be autocratic WRT Wikileaks, and that appears to be confirmed by the existence of a splinter organisation that regards Wikileaks as being too much driven by and 'about' one man, St. Jules.
Jules may have dropped out but he didn't drop out.
(...)
No War Crimes.
No criminal activity by diplomats.
Just information to try and embarrass the US Government.
So in their leaks, have they created peace or have they created a situation for more war and strife?
Only time will tell.
(...)
The only saying of yours I agree with.
(The rest make me believe you don't understand that individual rights should be upheld, what individual rights are, and that Swedes could have saved time & money by taking a flight to question Assange, or using teleconference as some judges have done in the past, I distinctly remember a spanish judge questioning a London resident from Spain). Extradition for questioning? Bollocks!
Going back to your post, one would expect better from a whistleblowing site.... I'd like to see chinese secret documents as well...now that would be interesting!!
BTW providing chosen excerpts of information to WikiLeaks should be any information agency's next move...ahh they just don't make manipulators like they used to.
>>"and that Swedes could have saved time & money by taking a flight to question Assange.."
I guess LOT comes down to what was really said when he left.
If he was actually told that any future contact could be by video, or that the Swedes would visit him, that'd be one thing.
If he agreed to come back if asked, or if he was told 'we may need to speak to you in future', or if he gave the impression he'd be back fairly soon anyway, it'd be another matter.
The thing is, the more I hear, the less I believe I could trust Julian when it comes to what was said, and I'm not sure I'd trust any of his lawyers either.
Personally, if *I* was in Swedish law enforcement/investigation, unless I'd explicitly told someone wanting to leave the country that they'd never have a need to return (which I doubt I'd do), I'd expect them to come to me rather than have me go to them, and I wouldn't make an exception for anyone, especially not someone famous.
I wouldn't want to be stuck in future with having to either keep people in the country in case I ever wanted to speak to them again, or risk having them leave, possibly ending up with me having to charge them before I'd finished an investigation or needing me to follow them wherever they'd chosen to go.
And for all the people crying 'Conspiracy!', if the Swedes did come here, interview him and then charge him, would that really make you the least bit happier?
Before wikileaks starting spouting off, the South Koreans generally believed that if North Korea started imploding, or started a war with the south, China would come to the rescue to ensure it's ally would'nt go down the toilet.
Thanks to wikileaks everyone now knows China does'nt really care who runs Korea so long as they are friendly enough to China.
So the next time North Korea rattles its sabers, the south will go 'yeah f**k off ,have some 155mm artillery rounds to take with you' thus resulting in another Korean war with all the suffering and death that will involve.
Instead of the previous 'dont do that, have a food shipment' policy the south used to use
I find it hard to imagine any North or South Korean leaders believing anything the Chinese said or implied about anything. It seems to me that an awful lot of these leaks have simply confirmed what the peasants have always known about the masters - that they uniformly lie, cheat and ruthlessly manipulate in order to get what they want.
Naively publishing a huge volume of US Classified material of which he has no clue of what is in it deserves a prize in what category?
Prize plum?
Or prehaps you were referring to his self-publicising and revenue generation?
Prize for Entrepeneural Endeavour...
No - then maybe it was for his success in convincing the vast majority of Register commenters that naively publishing confidential information is a victory for Freedom Of Speech and Assange is somehow a good person?
Woolly-thinking Prize.
If someone asks me to nominate someone for a Nobel Prize , I'll vote for someone who knows what they are doing, aren't doing it for money, and doesn't dupe the public or try to ride on an unspecific anti-American sentiment whilst actually hurting virtually all the countries that *aren't* US.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for espionage in 1953. U.S.Code does still have the death penalty on the books for espionage (not sure if/when that was changed), but only in times of war. Assange is too high profile I think to be renditioned, and if the US took action, the backlash would likely be more breaches of security.
The irony of this is when dealing with classified information, copies are at the same level, and need to be registered and safeguarded. Someone seriously screwed the pooch here on the security side. The data released shows a lack of compartmentalization, which I think is the rush for DHS to get their grubbies on intel data to legitimize themselves. In the name of security, the basics were disregarded, and now nobody can use USB drives in the DoD. Now they probably won't allow DVD's either.
The US (although I can't speak for my fellow americans) would best be served if he were allowed to slink away, and not be martyred in the process physically, or legally.
Sorry I couldn't remember the exact dates of the espionage and the trial. It was post WW2 concerning the bomb. I believe the gravity of the crime did justify the death sentence. (Sorry, I really do fear the bomb getting in to the wrong hands, especially in today's world.)
With respect to Assange.
He's a little twat who think's he's a big man for thumbing his nose at the US.
He's not on trial for anything to do with the leaks... yet. The DoJ is still investigating.
If charged, they would have to extradite him under the condition of removing the death penalty.
I think that the investigation should play out.
If Manning talks and they do find enough evidence... then Assange should face trial. (He could potentially face trial in his homeland of Australia too btw... )
But lets get back to what we have in front of us.
Assange's lawyers attempted a hail marry.
The response by Sweden pretty much shoots them down.
With respect to this whole US death penalty thing... The Swedes in writing would not hand over Assange unless the death penalty is off the table. They said so in writing.
(See: http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Julian%20Assange%20Case%20Papers/Judicial%20Authority%20materials/Skeleton%20Reply%20of%20the%20Swedish%20DPP.ashx)
Its actually a good read.
While I do agree with your assessment that we should let this guy crawl back under his rock... unfortunately, when he waived his undersized manhood at the US... he made it necessary to respond.
He's lucky that its the US and not Russia. They don't care what the world thinks...
"If Manning talks and they do find enough evidence..."
The last I heard from Manning is he was being held in solitary confinement, without almost any access to the outside world, without clothes or furniture in his cell, being controlled by cameras 24/7* and awakened by a siren at random intervals. With this treatment, in a few months more Manning won't only talk, he'll say whatever they tell him to say. He'd confess to murdering Kennedy and having caused the Credit Crunch, if asked.
As for the evidence... electronic evidence is extremely easy to forfeit.
* In most of the West we would call this treatment TORTURE.
You just don't seem to get it.
Manning isn't a civilian, he's in the military. The military have harsher rules, and by military, I don't just mean the US military but all of the military around the world. Military justice is much harder than their civilian laws and justice of their respective countries.
Manning is being kept within the guidelines of the law.
As to his conditions... you seem to think you know a lot more than you do.
Manning was put on suicide watch until it was deemed he wasn't a threat to himself.
Oh there's more...
"Manning isn't a civilian, he's in the military. The military have harsher rules..."
So it's OK to torture them?
"Manning was put on suicide watch until it was deemed he wasn't a threat to himself"
And that 'suicide watch' thingy consists mainly in a treatment that seems devised to destroy his sanity? Could you please explain us how awakening him with a freaking siren at random intervals helps prevent his suicide? And the lack of clothes? Paper clothes have been used in this kind of situations for years.
Actually, he couldn't. The Australian government has already been chastised by the Solicitor General for saying "he should be charged", all legal advice to date supporting the contrary opinion that nothing he has done in the operation of Wikileaks (that is so far known) is in contravention of any Australian law.
"Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for espionage in 1953."
That was then and this is now. In the 57 years between now and then there have been quite a few US spy cases, and I'd like you please to enumerate the number of executions that have taken place in respect of these cases?
What's that you say? Speak up? 'None' you say?
Thought so. Besides, the Americans are still scratching their heads. They can't top him because he's not running free in the open. So nasty accidents involving the Assange/Wikileaks Borgia mobile, and no Georgy Markov type umbrellas, or better yet no HIV infected honey traps. Damn, the CIA really farked up there didn't they? They could have arranged something really neat, in the form of a suicide honey trap, infected with stuff that would kill both her and him within days. Ebola perhaps, not to be mistaken for e-Bola.
Perhaps he could have gone skating on a pond with weakened ice. The CIA really have screwed up in arranging for all of these legal hearings. It makes sense to take these people out with extreme prejudice, but in innocuous and innovative ways. Umm, "Bit like the Equaliser, really" ;-)
Only to 'rethink' *months* later after the US spat out its dummy over Wikileaks?
C'mon US of A, show some of that "freedom" and "democracy" that you're always trying to spread in oil-rich countries.... ahem... I mean societies repressed by dictators, communists and other evil.
Choose your poison :
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
~Adolph Hitler
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
~George Orwell
>>"So why did the Swedish Public Prosecutor dismiss the 'case' first time round?"
>>"Only to 'rethink' *months* later after the US spat out its dummy over Wikileaks?"
Pity that's not true.
After the first quick assessment of the case there was an initial arrest warrant, which was quickly rescinded after a longer look by a second prosecutor (though still within 24 hours of the start),
Then a third prosecutor was appointed who had a different opinion to the second one on the possibility of rape charges, but that happened about a week later, not '*months* later'.
>>Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
>>~Adolph Hitler
Indeed.
How's that working out for you?
Julian Assange has clearly upset a lot of powerful people by revealing dubious actions on their parts to the peasants, information that arguably the peasants who pay their wages should have a right to know. Whatever the truth of the rape allegation (and it sounds very dubious to me*), or the legal technicalities of the extradition, or the likeability or otherwise of Mr Assange, I think we need to be very careful about allowing him to be manipulated into the clutches of a mob that is baying for his blood, for no reason I can see other than to shut him up and extract vengeance. There are good reasons for making extradition quite difficult.
* Woman spends night with man - wakes up with penis inside her !?
"Whatever the truth of the rape allegation (and it sounds very dubious to me*)[...]
* Woman spends night with man - wakes up with penis inside her !?"
(What follows has "Allegedly" in front of unproven matters) The agreement was to use contraception and, in Swedish law, it is rape to do otherwise. There would thus have been some form of trust on the woman's part and, if all of this is correct, there would appear to have been a breach of said trust.
If this is the case it follows closely that this man, whose apparently poor sexual hygiene and general hygiene have also been discussed and has been noted by Swedish police, is not at all trustworthy.
You've posted a lot of sense, and not to mention the case has not been proven one way or the other, but even as someone who generally despises Assange there is no logical step from a man's behaviour in bed as to his general character.
At least I hope not, otherwise we're all in trouble. ;)
"You've posted a lot of sense, and not to mention the case has not been proven one way or the other, but even as someone who generally despises Assange there is no logical step from a man's behaviour in bed as to his general character.
At least I hope not, otherwise we're all in trouble. ;)"
As I've regularly and consistently noted there are precedents in the histories of career criminals. His multiple infractions in an Australian jurisdiction, resulting in 24 charges including
1) stealing passwords from US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon;
2) for hacking computers at two universities;
3) hacking computers at two telecommunications companies;
4) hacking computers to monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into *his* criminal activities.
for which he was convicted and sentenced, but on the basis of forgiving reasoning that had absolutely nothing to do with due process and a psychiatric evaluation.
As if immediately to demonstrate his insightlessness and thereby the poverty of the lenient sentencing handed down, after sentencing he said to the judge "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution". (This misspelling caused me to experience déjà vu, as Mike Tyson said he'd been done a 'misjustice'...)
His rootless childhood, by accounts spent avoiding a stalking father, leaving him to the indisciplined educational principles of his mother who saw no use for state schools, these things appear to have contributed strongly to his lack of sense of what is right and what is wrong.
As if to confirm this, in his insightless Radio 4 performance he avoided the issue, saying his accusers had got themselves in a 'tizzy' about unprotected sex. A tizzy? I do hope that counsel for extradition have borne this material in mind as they argue in favour of extradition; it appears to show a complete lack of insight and empathy into his alleged victims' plight. A tizzy indeed by 'god'.
If he is guilty of rape as outlined, and the reports of his behaviour during and after are accurate (including hygiene) then there are many consistencies here.
His behaviour shows a consistent theme (not conforming to rule following, which is typical of a number of psychopathological disorders) and, aside from the fact that his behaviour in bed and simultaneous poor sexual hygiene is alleged to be serious (which is backed up by his insightless comments on the matter on a national news programme), I would say that the theme of not following normative and legal values of rule following probably touch almost everything in his behaviour; it is a root psychological function.
In response to your point, the man does indeed appear to be eminently avoidable and unsupportable. If the allegation proves true, crimes of sexual assault are very serious and depend on a fundamental flaw in the functioning of a human being, and the lack of empathy frequently involved is chillingly present in psychopaths.
Should the allegations prove correct, the behaviour may well in substantial part stem from a lack of emphasis on learning to behave co-operatively and sensitively with others and, as I type these words, I remember that the 16 year old mother of his child flew when the police approached him on his misdeeds, that she called their son a 'monster' (public self report by son), and that son, father and grandfather appear to have these traits in common. This seems to suggest more than mere phenotypical causes of behaviour, but genotypical ones also
So, tell me about your fears again. As you do remember that he intends to generate cash from his memoirs, from a pay wall and that he already has a salary in excess of £80,000, in contrast to the £15,000 Manning received for his defence, and of his recent reaction to losing control over his intended source of revenue, 'his' material, the leaked files.
"Assange's lawyers also claim that his privacy rights have been breached because extracts of the prosecution file have been made available to the media."
But according to what I'd read the documents seem to have leaked from the defence side. Kind of an interesting argument isn't it, leak your own personal info and then claim the prosecution in invalid because your privacy has been breached. If that works then nobody needs ever be extradited again.
Just to focus on one issue -- of the four allegations [not criminal charges] on the Swedish EAW-sheet [ http://alturl.com/3n85m ], the most serious [potential 4-yr stretch] and probably only one IMHO for which JA could possibly be extradited, is the offence of RAPE - defined by Swedish Penal Code [ http://alturl.com/y8udt ] as:
~~~~~~~~~
Chapter 6: Section 1
Para.1: A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
Para.2: This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.
Para.3: If, in view of the circumstances associated with the crime, a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed for rape.
~~~~~~~~~/law
The facts alleged in Ny's EAW to constitute the offence are recited, under 'Description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed', at page 4, point 4 as, "Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state" - in other words, the Prosecutrix has cut'n'pasted from Para.2 an edited legal definition of the offence into a box supposed to contain a description of actual events ... which may seem a harmless cart-before-the-horsing mishap to some, but actually indicates the abuse of dishonestly fitting the facts around the law to secure an extradition/conviction, a point reinforced by the knowledge that in other EAW cases before British courts, these details on facts relating to alleged offences can run to several pages of text.
If, as alleged in the skeleton defence argument [ http://alturl.com/7baio ] at p.46, para.109, Ny has additionally suppressed from the British Court's consideration available evidence of Wilén's subsequent SMS to a friend that this morning-after-the-night-before action occurred while she was "half-asleep" ... that is a [legally] significantly different state of affairs than what is made to appear on the 'upgraded' EAW, which, by design, describes a technical rape in Swedish law if, at the moment of penetration, she was literally sound asleep, even if this were immediately followed by [effective] retroactive consent, mutually whole-hearted Ugandan Negotiation of the Morningwood issue, then brandy and cigars all round.
i.e., saying someone was 'in a helpless state due to being half-asleep' just does not have the same inculpatory effect as 'fully asleep' regarding a presumptive incapacity to consent [an issue in British law, but not, apparently, Swedish], and the attempt in this case to falsely convey the latter impression strongly indicates bad faith [mala fides] and malicious bias on behalf of the Swedish Prosecutrix.
Furthermore, if Wilén's actual complaint that JA failed, after consensual condom-free sex, to submit to an AIDS test has been converted, as it very much appears, into a contrived criminal case in order to coerce him into a procedure he is under no legal obligation to comply with, or any other improper reason, then this is another, more fundamental, abuse of process.
The Swedish Crown Prosecutions Office website describes [ http://alturl.com/njs2m ] the requirement on its Prosecutors to "be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution ... [and] give due consideration to anything that could changes the situation with respect to evidence." As the same standard obviously also applies during the preliminary investigation of allegations [where this case remains in Sweden], Marianne Ny has demonstrated complete disregard for the hefty responsibilities required of her public office and has abused due process, the EAW procedures, the British judicial system and the rights of JA in large measure.
If she set out to make a name for herself in this case, she has undoubtedly succeeded, but looks set to land in roughly the same competence category as the inimitably inept Andrew J. Crossley. The British courts will certainly not be fooled into acceding to such prosecutorial abuse and I predict she will be seeking alternate employment shortly, whilst defending an overwhelming personal libel suit.
Paris, 'cos she'd have made a better fist[ing] of this case!
Reading:
>>"improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state."
don't you think that that covers partial impairment?
If it explicitly mentions unconsciousness *and* sleep, drug influence, etc, that suggests that in the case of drug influence, an impairment less than unconsciousness is still a relevant impairment.
To me, if someone started doing something to a person who was even half asleep that they reckoned they wouldn't get away with if the person was awake, that's taking advantage of someone being sleep impaired.
Yes, it covers any degree of impairment and even the slightest amount is relevant, however, I am not critiquing the provisions of the Swedish law, rather the ways in which their prosecutor has, contrary to official obligation, sought to 'fix' the actual facts of the matter around the law in order to present a distorted picture to the British courts, to improve the chance that an extradition contrary to the interests of justice may proceed smoothly. My contention is that such underhanded tactics should never be allowed to succeed in any self-respecting judicial system.
Your final point is well put and taken as a general principal, but does not accurately reflect the factual situation in this case - regardless of her state of wakefulness when the 'action' started, upon becoming fully aware, she did expressly 'let him continue', which constitutes consent in British law, thus precluding any further discussion of prosecution for rape. In other words, as JA correctly guessed that her consent would promptly follow, no improper advantage was taken.
The Swedes are trying to have him extradited on the mere legal technicality that her somewhat delayed consent does not matter, and are making a very poor job of it.
(...)To me, if someone started doing something to a person who was even half asleep that they reckoned they wouldn't get away with if the person was awake, that's taking advantage of someone being sleep impaired.
What if he could get away if the other person wa awake? Because he might have...and probably thought he could.
If my missus had to wait for me to be fully awake before having an ..errr intercourse she'd be tried for rape in Sweden...it will be better for her that we don't visit Sweden lol
On Radio 4 news; Assange's counsel acknowledged that he had in fact been contacted several times by the Swedish authorities, who said that they had to interview him face to face; to confirm this or not, under close questioning, he consulted his mobile phone records.
Oops.
Another flake chipped away from St Julian Assange's face. I wonder if he is in a 'bit of a tizzy' about that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
