Conspiracy Theorists: Where do weigh in on Julian Assange?

[blindboyard]

From the BBC:

*31 August 2010

Mr Assange is questioned by police for about an hour in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him, according to his lawyer at the time, Leif Silbersky. The activist denies the charges. *

So it’s not like they haven’t been able to talk to him about the charges. Even a month after that he was still applying for residency in Sweden. Only a month after he was turned down for residency does the prosecutor, not the original prosecutor who said “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape”, but the one who overrode her to reopen the investigation, start complaining that Assange isn’t available for questioning, having left the country. Even then he could have been questioned by anyone going to England, or he offered to speak via video link.

I don’t necessarily think there was a conspiracy, even Assange’s official argument ni court boils down to the prosecutor in Sweden hating men and not following proper procedure, but there’s a couple of things thast point to possible political influence, one is the original prosecutor dismissing the allegation of rape and saying the other allegation wasn’t sufficient for an arrest warrant, only to be overruled by higher ups who decided on an international witch-hunt. That’s a big turnaround from the Swedish authorities, with them admitting it’s unusual for a prosecutor to be overruled in that way. So maybe. The other thing is our own dead Supreme Court ruling, unanimously no less, to extradite, despite this requiring them to categorise the prosecutor in Sweden as a judicial authority, which under English law it isn’t. The law isn’t meant to allow these international arrest warrants to be issued by prosecutors, see, only your impartial judgey types. So to find a unanimous decision by the Court, which has been notoriously open to political influence since becoming the Supreme Court rather than the old Law Lords, which quite obviously violates the law is suspicious.

@Wakinyan

As a Swede, I can assure you that this country is genuinely suprised by this conspiracy theory; to us (generally speaking) it is plain dumb. The crime Assange is accused for is a crime in most European countries, it absolutely not a “Special Swedish Femininist Law”. According to the accusation (if I remember correctly), Assange had sex with one girl while she was still asleep, that is, without her consent, which she felt uncomfortable with. The other I believe was having sex with a girl without condom, which she insisted he’d use; and when checking for HIV and such, the doctor she was talking to insisted she should tell the police. I don’t remember the details, but the point is that this is a crime in most European countries, England included. So he has to be brought to Sweden to stand charges.

That’s certainly not what Assange’s lawyers say, and there doesn’t seem to be any dispute at all that what he did would have been perfectly legal in England, or any other civilised country.

Regardless of whether it’s a conspiracy or not, non-Swedes seem pretty unanimous in believing Sweden to have the crazy sex laws, whether lawyers or feminists or whatever. The Saudi Arabia of feminism, as Assange said.

I assure you it’s not illegal to have sex without a condom in England, even if the woman requests you wear one. She can have sex with you regardless, she can refuse to, but she can’t have sex with you then report you to the police. Try wearing a cap.

[Martin_Hyde]

So you’re saying that Assange must be innocent because his lawyer’s version of the events wouldn’t be a crime in the UK? Well I don’t know why we even have trials if we can just presume a defendant’s lawyer will always give the ironclad facts about any case. Your point is basically irrelevant, the EU probably has special extradition law but even under customary extradition treaties the country considering extradition generally only has to find some low evidentiary burden has been satisfied to extradite the person. This is to prevent gross miscarriages of justice in which someone is being charged of a crime there is no evidence they committed. It sounds like Assange has eyewitnesses who have presented evidence against him which would more than satisfied most extradition treaty requirements. The extraditing country doesn’t have to try the case, that isn’t the point of extradition agreements. If Assange had sex with an unconscious woman that is rape. If a woman consented to sex with a condom and he covertly removed the condom I don’t know the statutory crime that would generally be considered but I’m also pretty sure it is a crime in most Western countries. Your point about the woman having the option to decline to have sex with him when he removed the condom is only relevant if she actually knee he had removed the condom. That is a matter for a fact finder to determine, not Assange’s lawyer.

[Shade]

I don’t know the details, but I suspect something like:

• Assange did some not-ok things to the women he was with
• Political pressure was exerted to make a big deal of it, even though many people normally wouldn’t have cared as much if someone else did it (even if they should have)

I don’t know how far the political pressure went – whether it was just “was widely reported in the news rather than ignored” or if it was prosecuted more forcefully in Sweden than it would otherwise have been.

[Northern_Piper]

@blindboyard

That’s certainly not what Assange’s lawyers say, and there doesn’t seem to be any dispute at all that what he did would have been perfectly legal in England, or any other civilised country.

Having sex with a sleeping woman without her consent is not “perfectly legal” in the UK or any other civilised country. That is one of the allegations that Assange is facing. If proven, it’s rape.

[grude]

It is hilarious to see posters here argue the minutia of this case and use terms like Sweden being the Saudi Arabia of feminism and speculating on the definition of rape and hey maybe Assange drugged her?

DON’T YOU SEE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED, THEY WON!

[Mijin]

@Northern_Piper

Having sex with a sleeping woman without her consent is not “perfectly legal” in the UK or any other civilised country. That is one of the allegations that Assange is facing. If proven, it’s rape.

I don’t think rape is seriously on the table. The allegations concern whether he initiated consensual sex the second time with one of the women without a condom (when earlier she had required him to wear a condom), and in the other case whether he deliberately tore a condom (!) during consensual sex.

There may be a crime there, but I don’t think most legal systems would call it rape. We wouldn’t say a woman claiming she is on the pill, when really she intends to get pregnant, is a rapist.

And I remain convinced that this case would be unlikely to be pursued, certainly with this vigour, if it was just Joe Schmoe.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Mijin

And I remain convinced that this case would be unlikely to be pursued, certainly with this vigour, if it was just Joe Schmoe.

That’s true of lots of high-profile defendants, though, and it’s just an artifact of celebrity. It doesn’t have to lead to an international conspiracy.

[blindboyard]

@Martin_Hyde

So you’re saying that Assange must be innocent because his lawyer’s version of the events wouldn’t be a crime in the UK? Well I don’t know why we even have trials if we can just presume a defendant’s lawyer will always give the ironclad facts about any case.

I linked to several neutral personages agreeing with him, and he certainly seems to be correct, to a layman.

Your point is basically irrelevant, the EU probably has special extradition law but even under customary extradition treaties the country considering extradition generally only has to find some low evidentiary burden has been satisfied to extradite the person. This is to prevent gross miscarriages of justice in which someone is being charged of a crime there is no evidence they committed.

Due to EU arrangements they only have to show that the warrant was properly issued, which in this case it wasn’t. The Supreme Court therefore ignored the law passed by Parliament and instead used the French language version which apparently is more ambiguous.

It sounds like Assange has eyewitnesses who have presented evidence against him which would more than satisfied most extradition treaty requirements. The extraditing country doesn’t have to try the case, that isn’t the point of extradition agreements.

Previously most UK extradition agreements required a prima facie case and that the crime also be illegal in this country, which I believe is a standard.

If Assange had sex with an unconscious woman that is rape. If a woman consented to sex with a condom and he covertly removed the condom I don’t know the statutory crime that would generally be considered but I’m also pretty sure it is a crime in most Western countries.

But he didn’t do any of those things. Doesn’t even seem to be accused of those things. Arguably with the unconscious woman, as it looks like she says she consented as soon as she woke up.

Your point about the woman having the option to decline to have sex with him when he removed the condom is only relevant if she actually knee he had removed the condom. That is a matter for a fact finder to determine, not Assange’s lawyer.

IT would be if it was going to trial, rather than just be a harrssment campaign.

[blindboyard]

@Shade

I don’t know the details, but I suspect something like:

• Assange did some not-ok things to the women he was with
• Political pressure was exerted to make a big deal of it, even though many people normally wouldn’t have cared as much if someone else did it (even if they should have)

I don’t know how far the political pressure went – whether it was just “was widely reported in the news rather than ignored” or if it was prosecuted more forcefully in Sweden than it would otherwise have been.

I don’t think it was ever going to be ignored, a controversial public figure being accused of sexual misconduct. Clinton was accused of less and the media still made a fuss. Although there was a rape allegation against Dubya and no-one paid any attention.

Nor do I even think he did anything wrong. He was only accused after the women he’d had sex with found out about each other. In fact his main accuser threw a party in his honour after he allegedly raped her, then when he had her younger associate she told a journalist, and only after that went to the police. Even then it was to consult with the police over getting an HIV test from Assange, not to accuse him of rape. That, combined with the fact that Miss A is a radical feminist, supporter of the international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles and wrote an internet guide to getting revenge on former lovers seem to make her an unreliable source.

The specific allegations are that he “unlawfully coerced” a woman by laying on top of her “in a sexual manner”, during a time when he was in a consensual sexual relationship with that woman. He’s also accused of molesting that same woman by pushing his erect penis against her and of having sex with her without a condom after she had insisted that he wear one. She not saying that she didn’t consent to the sex, only that she insisted on a condom and he refused. He didn’t wear one and remove it, he didn’t intentionally tear one. This is Miss A, aka Anna Ardin.

The other girl said he had sex with her while she was asleep, but she consented to continue when she awoke and then made him breakfast, and that this occured while they were in a sexual relationship, which is why they were in bed together in the first place.

The initial allegations were dismissed as not being rape by the senior prosecutor, and as not serious enough to warrant an arrest warrant.

So, maybe there was a political conspiracy, maybe Miss A was recruited to honey-trap Assange, maybe by the CIA given her support for Carriles, but I don’t think so. I think she’s just a vengeful and unpleasant person, this Miss A, and the other girl is her young and impressionable side-kick. I think A was vengeful at being snubbed for a younger girl and went to a journalist, who told her they needed a police action to report on due to concerns over defamation and it escalated from there.

There was a thread here sometime ago about the possibility of consenting to sex while asleep, but I don’t remember the details. It’s not something I’d do, but if the girl didn’t mind when she woke up I don’t see the problem, and that’s easily the most troubling allegation, and is fundamentally unprovable.