Britain's progressive paper, The Guardian, writes an editorial on Assange.

[pnwmom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-balcony-defence-editorial?INTCMP=SRCH

Amid the estimated 100 protesters, 50 police, a noisy helicopter and rained-on press corps gathered in Knightsbridge on Sunday afternoon, two women were missing. They are referred to as Miss A and Miss W – that is, when they are mentioned at all in the hullabaloo over Julian Assange. Yet Miss A and Miss W are at the heart of this story, however convenient it may be for Mr Assange's supporters to elide them.

After all, it is their allegations that Mr Assange sexually assaulted them two years ago that are the reason why the WikiLeaks founder faces extradition to Sweden. It is to avoid questioning by Swedish prosecutors that Mr Assange battled extradition orders for almost 18 months with the best legal representation money can buy – before finally jumping bail two months ago. It is to avoid being confronted with accusations of rape and sexual assault that Mr Assange is now holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy – and was forced to say his piece from a diplomat's first-floor balcony, for fear of otherwise being collared by the police. Yet to listen to the speechifying from his supporters, you would never have guessed at any of this; their remarks concerned western Europe's "neocon juntas" or the political change sweeping Latin America. And when it was Mr Assange's turn to speak, he allied his struggle with Russian punk protesters Pussy Riot, with the New York Times, and indeed "the revolutionary values" upon which America was founded. This is his traditional method of argument: to conflate a number of causes – big and small, international and individual – into one, so that Mr Assange is WikiLeaks, which is freedom of speech, which holds powerful states to account; and so on, ever upwards. Yet Mr Assange is not facing a show trial over the journalism of WikiLeaks; he is dodging allegations of rape. To confuse the two does no favours to the organisation he created, which has done so much excellent work.

It is commonly accepted that such allegations take a huge toll, with those making them forced to divulge intimate details. In the case of Miss A and Miss W, it is worse. Mr Assange's legal team has referred to the case as a "honeytrap"; and their own lives have been smeared across the web by self-styled followers of WikiLeaks. Imagine enduring nearly two years of that and then watching the man you believe assaulted you addressing an adoring throng on the subject of oppression. His one point that did deserve amplifying was about Bradley Manning. Accused of giving classified material to WikiLeaks, the US private has been locked up without a trial, and subjected to treatment that Hillary Clinton's own spokesman, PJ Crowley termed "counterproductive and stupid" (before being forced to resign).

SNIP

[longship]

1. I just don't know what to think about Julian

There have been arguments on both sides of the issue. Where does one go for unbiased info?

Assange did nothing wrong with Wikileaks, IMHO (Anymore than Ellsberg did).

But the other allegations are serious, if they pan out as valid.

There's so much about this, and much of it biased.

I just do not know where to go on this.

This Guardian piece may help, but they clearly don't know either.

[pnwmom]

2. I think you're right that the truth is very difficult to get at in this case.

Unfortunately, it's possible to do great good in some areas of one's life and evil in others.

My personal opinion is that Assange is being driven by a kind of narcissistic will-to-power. When he applies this to good ends, it yields good results. But in his personal life, it might not. That's often the case with powerful people.

[Zorra]

51. One thing is for sure - falsely accusing someone of sex crimes is one

of the worst things a person can do to another human being.

Anna's 7 Steps To Revenge

'If you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved'

Figure out how you can systematically take revenge.

Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.

Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed.
more

[HiPointDem]

72. So far as the 'rape' case, go to the women's testimony & see if you think it constitutes rape.

here's a summary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1190868

The guardian piece is crap.

Guardian receives funding from the Gates foundation. And gates is thick as thieves with the US intelligence establishment.

[msanthrope]

98. My, this rings a bell. The evil Gates foundation? You mean the vaccine providers? They are out to

get Assange?

[Peace Patriot]

3. The Guardian also publishes propagandistic rightwing crap about the Latin American Left.

This is similar crap--ignoring all the salient facts, including that the two accusing women have now said that Assange did NOT rape them, he is not violent and they do not fear him and they never intended that he be prosecuted; that the first prosecutor dropped the case because it was so flimsy and told Assange he could leave the country; that a second prosecutor was then brought in to revive the charges but HAS NOT FILED ANY CHARGES; that Assange is wanted "for questioning"; that Assange has made himself available for questioning several times, including currently in the Ecuadoran Embassy and the Swedish prosecutor has repeatedly refused to question him; that, having enticed Assange out of Sweden, they then pursued him with an extradition warrant "for questioning," which, if executed, will give the Swedish government custody of Assange (clearly what they were after all along); and that the British government, as they did with the Bush Junta, mass murder in Iraq and torture, is very likely colluding with the U.S. government to bury this journalist very deep, indeed--at least as deep as Bradley Manning.

It is certainly telling that the Guardian, once a great progressive publication, first started failing as a progressive publication about the Latin American Left in the current era. I've been following their coverage for some time and there is only one word for some of it: putrid.

So, frankly, this putrid piece on Assange does not surprise me. It not only leaves out vital information, it is dripping with sarcasm, and, like the Swedish government, is using women's rights in an insulting and demeaning way, to smear a man--and a journalist--who has not been charged with anything! (That's my guess for Karl Rove's contribution as an adviser to the Swedish government--the smear.)

This editorial also contains a damned lie--that Assange "hasn't helped Swedish prosecutors with their inquiries." He stayed in Sweden to be questioned. They let him go. He offered to be questioned in London. They refused. He and the Ecuadoran Embassy have a current invitation to the Swedish prosecutor to question him. They won't do it. So WHO "hasn't helped Swedish prosecutors with their inquiries"? That would be the Swedish prosecutors themselves!

They don't have a case against him and they know it. They want him in custody. And why would they want that for a man whom they haven't charged with a single crime of any kind, whose accusers have basically said he's innocent and who is "innocent until proven guilty"? A man who has also repeatedly agreed to be questioned? Why didn't they arrest him and charge him in Sweden? Hm? Why did they tell him he could leave the country and then hit him with an extradition warrant ("for questioning&quot ? Why has the British government threatened to invade an embassy--in violation of the most basic rules of diplomacy and human rights protocols, causing in international furor--over a man who is not charged with anything?

Well, don't expect the Guardian to ask these questions. I don't know what's happened there but it is tragic, considering how few reliable sources of news and opinion, and how few progressive publications, we have. Strike one more. The Guardian, like so many others, has been compromised.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Wouldn't worry about it too much

Its also our lowest selling newspaper. Those whose only resource is to read it online do little to help their fortunes - its anticpated they've got about four years left before they fold.

[pnwmom]

11. The women's lawyer recently said they still want him investigated for rape, assault, etc.

and that they're "frustrated and disappointed" by Assange seeking asylum.

If the events occurred that the women described, then those events constitute rape, even though the women at first didn't understand the legal meaning of the term in Sweden (and in other countries). Having consensual sex one night, but only on the firm condition that the man uses a condom, does not give the man a free pass the next morning to penetrate a sleeping woman without a condom.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1158960

[treestar]

29. That's interesting, as many DUers are under the impression the women

want to drop it all.

[pnwmom]

33. There appears to be a disinformation campaign underway,

at least on that point.


Here is an interesting exchange. Rider in the Storm posts this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1161719

"One of two women involved told Aftonbladet in an interview published today that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: “It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”

Speaking anonymously, she said each had had voluntary relations with Assange: “The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women.”

Sources close to the woman said that issues arose during the relationships about Assange’s willingness to use condoms."



But it turns out that these quotes were lifted out of context. Bodhi BloodWave responded with a translation which is quite enlightening. It is here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021156700#post79

[HiPointDem]

81. there's a lot of disinformation going around. the quotes weren't lifted out of context, & your

link doesn't make any case for rape.

[leveymg]

105. Disinformation here, there, and in The Guardian, which has become a neocon mouthpiece.

Too bad, I used to love The Guardian when it really was Britain's progressive newspaper before its editors were changed out.

[The Doctor.]

40. So, if a woman assures a man she is on Birth control,

Therefore no need for a condom, it is rape if she is lying.

Fair enough. I'd be fine with seeing her charged.

[pnwmom]

41. It is rape if he penetrates her without the condom she insisted he use.

When consent is conditional and a condition is not met, then there is no consent.

[The Doctor.]

42. Right, and when he gives consent conditional upon her birth control,

and she lied, then there was no consent. Therefore it is rape.

[pnwmom]

43. I guess it would. But that has nothing to do with this case. n/t

[The Doctor.]

44. Actually, in both cases,

it would be called 'detrimental reliance' here in the US.

All sorts of things, weird, strange, messy, HUMAN things happen during and around sex. We have so many taboos and so few good protocols that NO ONE can expect to have an 'issue free' encounter with someone they do not know dearly. (Yeah, I went there by accident)

But once she let him inside of her without a condom, that might just equate to 'consent'.

If she says 'no' because there is no condom, then lets him without further protest, I'll grant that he crossed a line, but it's a line she allowed him to cross for some other reason. Saying that she was not a party to the negotiations the entire time is the accusation of forcible rape.

So was she a party to 'negotiating' the experience or not?

[pnwmom]

45. But she did NOT let him inside her without a condom.

Miss W. says she consented to having sex with him at night, but only after they argued about a condom and he finally agreed to and did use one.

But in the morning she woke up to find him in her and on top of her -- therefore, he had penetrated her while she was asleep. This in itself was rape. But he also hadn't used a condom -- even though he knew she required one. So that was another violation.

Once she realized the situation, she didn't fight him off -- but that doesn't mean he had her consent. He had already raped her when he penetrated her while she was asleep.

[The Doctor.]

46. Yes, I have been taken advantage of while unconscious.

While I did not personally complain, I agree that it is over the line to do so.

She didn't stop him, you say?

Why not?

[pnwmom]

49. He had already raped her by then, so this is beside the point.

Or are you suggesting that what she alleges Assange did wasn't "legitimate rape" because she didn't fight back?

I don't remember exactly what she said, but it was to the effect that (after all their arguing the night before) the effort to stop him after finding him inside her wasn't worth it.

Women are often told that if they are being raped, one option is just to go along with it, in order to avoid more violence from the rapist. So the fact that she chose not to fight him after he'd penetrated her doesn't mean anything.

(I'm guessing that you weren't "taken advantage of" by someone you barely knew, as she was. And who took advantage of you without using the protection you required. But I'm sorry if you were.)

[reorg]

54. it wasn't so bad as to warrant stopping the ongoing shag

but now it is bad enough to send him to prison for several years?

And what the hell are you now making up about "more" violence? When did violence ever occur in this encounter?

[pnwmom]

63. A rape isn't a shag. If what she alleges actually happened to her, it was rape.

It doesn't have to be "bad enough" by your standard, as long as it met the criminal standard. Did he penetrate her without her consent? Yes or no.

The violence was in penetrating her -- a woman he barely knew -- while she was asleep, and without the condom she'd insisted on. You can't be a woman or you wouldn't ask this question.

[reorg]

68. please continue

if at all, in reply to this post, thanks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1190768

[The Doctor.]

62. Oh.... so because she was 'already raped', there was no reason to tell him to stop?

Funny.... the few times a woman was taking advantage of me while I slept, I remember having the choice whether to tell them to stop.

Why didn't THIS woman do so?

Meanwhile, you seem to be retreating to the 'violence' meme that says every sexual encounter is 'rape'. So after he was inside of her, you're saying that she was conditioned by Swedish society to 'let it happen'?

Really?

How about this little shocker: She enjoyed it, so she didn't tell him to stop?

Are you saying that when women took advantage of me while I was sleeping, I was automatically raped? Or will you admit that, on the occasions where I did not ask them to stop, I gave tacit consent?

[pnwmom]

65. She didn't enjoy it -- she said it was the worst sex she'd ever had.

She just didn't understand that it was worse than that . . . that the circumstances fit the criteria of legal rape.

I didn't say that "every sexual encounter is rape." I said that any non-consensual encounter could fit the legal definition of rape.

This isn't about YOU or your encounters with girlfriends. This is about a woman who woke up to find a large man -- whom she barely knew -- raping her and decided not to fight him. The power difference is critical here. I don't understand why any intelligent, reasonable person wouldn't understand this.

This whole discussion (not just with you, but other men on other threads, too) has been very eye-opening. The Akins of the world aren't limited to the Rethug party.

[The Doctor.]

76. You've revealed your double standard.

It's okay for women to take advantage of sleeping men, but not the other way around.... got it.

The suggestion that I am anything like Akin because I deal with parity or equality has earned you a place on my ignore list.

I hate sexists of any stripe. You are no exception.

Good bye.

[pnwmom]

77. That's not what I said and you know it. I already said I was sorry if you'd been raped.

But the circumstances must have been very different in your case, or you wouldn't be so intent on minimizing what happened to these women.

[HiPointDem]

83. what a crock. she "finally" consented? she let him unzip her pants etc. at her workplace the 1st

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 07:30 AM - Edit history (1)

day she met him -- while watching a film with her work colleagues in the audience.

Two days later she brought him to her flat and they immediately got into bed. no long drawn out "finally". they didn't 'argue' about a condom, or at least she didn't tell the police they 'argued'.

She had sex with him 3-4 times that night (she's not sure). The second to the last time the condom was only on the head of his penis and she didn't complain either.

she bought him breakfast, joked about the name of their potential child, walked him to the station and asked him if he'd call her again. by her own admission to the police.

some 'rape'.


Chronology:

1. She had previously spoken to the other 'victim' by phone & volunteered for assange's lecture. The other woman supposedly never got back to her, but she went an hour early for some reason & the other woman asked her to go out & buy assange a computer cable, which she did. After hearing his lecture she stayed after to talk to him, had lunch with him & others, went with him to buy computer cables, then invited him to her workplace (a museum). By then they were already behaving flirtatiously with each other.

2. They went to the museum, her WORKPLACE, then to the museum cinema, where they watched a film and:

"In the darkness of the cinema he started kissing her. A few latecomers arrived and sat behind them and so they moved to a row at the back. Julian continued kissing her, touched her breasts under her jumper, undid her bra, unbuttoned her pants, caressed her buttocks, and sucked her nipples. He muttered about the armrest being in the way. She was sitting in his lap when the lights went on and he tried to put her bra back on. She thought it embarrassing to sit there in view of her colleagues who she knew could have seen it all."

3. He had to go to some event and they parted. "She asked him if they'd meet again. He said of course they would, they'd meet after the crayfish party." He leaves a message on her phone that night telling her to call him. She calls him at 23:15 and says she wants to go to bed. He's apparently miffed, for she calls him twice the next day and he doesn't answer.

4. Monday she tells her workmates he didn't return her calls. Her workmates tell her "Julian felt dumped and therefore hadn't rung back so that the ball was in her court."

(One has to ask, how do her workmates know this? Very incestuous world.)

5. They eventually get together that evening (Mon night) & she brings him back to her flat, paying his transportation costs herself ($10).

6. They fool around a long time but he can't maintain an erection. He wants to sleep and she feels rejected. He sleeps and she texts her friends.

7. "She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex. She'd earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex." They fall asleep again.

There is no 'argument' in her testimony. Just 'reluctantly'.

8. "They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she's not really sure."

9. She gives him juice and water and goes out to get him breakfast (reluctantly, according to her, as she says she didn't want to leave him alone in her flat). "When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She'd already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone."

10. "They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be."

11. "They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her.

She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'.

She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long."

It was not "too late" to tell him to stop, regardless of whether he was already in her or not, he hadn't ejaculated & since it was morning and there were no alcohol or drugs involved & they'd already been up and had breakfast, doubtful she was sleeping very heavily and doubtful if he'd done much of anything.

She'd already allowed him to have sex with a condom placed "only on the head" of his penis -- which is a condom that is improperly placed. Why?

12. After they were done "She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he'd have to pay her student loans....She asked him how many times he'd had sex but he said he hadn't counted. He also said he'd had a HIV test three months earlier and he'd had sex with a girl afterwards and that girl had also taken a HIV test and wasn't infected... When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she'd have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they'd name the baby Afghanistan."

15. "Then they rode her bicycle to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they parted he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he'd ring her and he said he would."

http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml

[woo me with science]

90. Thank you. These bullshit arguments grow very tiresome.

But the constant, repetitive bludgeoning of DU with these distortions and misrepresentations in thread after thread after thread says volumes about how desperately important the need to spin public perception of this incident is considered to be.

[Bonobo]

47. And is it rape if she wakes up and keeps happily fucking?

A sexual relationship is not like ordering a thousand units of widgets. Sometimes, things are more exciting left unsaid.

If she woke up and kept fucking, it seems a reasonable assumption that she didn't have a problem with it especially since they had had sex the night before too.

[pnwmom]

50. She didn't "keep happily fucking," according to her consistent report.

She woke up to find him inside her and decided -- after all their arguing the night before -- that it wasn't worth the effort to make him stop.

That is a decision rape victims make every day. Some fight back and others decide they're better off if they just get it over with.

But then there are other people, the Akins of the world, who say it is only a "legitimate rape" if the man is a stranger in a dark alley and the woman fights back.

As to Assange's particular case, he KNEW that she'd insisted strongly on a condom, so he had no reason to think that her consent the night before gave him a free pass to inserting himself inside her, with no condom, while she slept the next morning.

[Bonobo]

52. I just don't think this is as clear cut as you seem to want to make it.

People that have sex with each other and then sleep, presumably naked (if penetration was so easy I must presume she was not wearing anything) can reasonably expect that they will be touched during the night. When you surrender your consciousness willingly and not by means of a drug or alcohol, it reflects to me a general level of trust.

Should he have to wake her up, for example, if he wants to touch her buttocks in such a situation? Would such a touch imply sexual assault since he had not negotiated to be allowed to do that?

To me, the fact that she woke up and continued is an indicator that it was not rape. This is NOT to say, and not to be meant to be compared with the issue of a rape where the woman does not fight back because she is afraid or because she thinks she needs to just get it over with... but I will grant you that this phrase "just get it over with" is one which is complex. Yes, undoubtedly women engage in sex lots of times, as men do sometimes, in ways that could be described as just "wanting to get it over with". But that is not always indicative of rape as I am sure you would agree. It could indicate lack of interest, sleepiness, indifference, desire to please one's partner, or yes, a desire to see an unwelcome assault end.

But to me, the last one I listed just doesn't sound like it fits the bill. Could it be possible? Yes, I will stipulate that it IS possible, but it sure is blurry.

[pnwmom]

53. I disagree that a nightie would be much of a barrier to a man raping a sleeping woman.

And it's perfectly possible that alcohol was involved -- maybe that's part of the evidence, I don't know. And finally, at the point she decided to get it over with he had ALREADY penetrated her without a condom -- as he knew she required -- while she was unconscious. The rape had already taken place. How she behaved afterwards, how much she fought or didn't fight, doesn't matter. When she was awake and conscious, she insisted on a condom, and he didn't like that. (She said that.) So next time he entered her with no condom while she was asleep. This IS rape.

The prosecutor in Sweden also doesn't seem to think the legal situation is blurry. She says the facts fit the charge of rape.

The legal system there does things in a different order than we do, which has made Americans confused about where in the process they are. Americans want to know why he isn't charged already -- why they're trying to extradite him before he's charged.

But that's the normal procedure in Sweden. First they investigate, then they arrest -- and only after arrest can they charge. They can't arrest him in the UK, so they have to have him extradited so they can arrest him in Sweden, interview him, and then proceed to charge him.

[reorg]

55. but she didn't realize she was "raped"

there was never any allegation about violence, and it was only:

"When she talked with her friends afterwards, she understood that she was the victim of a crime."

[pnwmom]

56. She knew what he had done to her but she didn't know that Swedish rape laws

would apply to what he had done to her. Just as many people here don't seem to understand.

This has happened to countless women before. Besides not being conversant with the legal technicalities of criminal law, a woman who has been raped can find it difficult to process what has happened to her, to be able to accept it and not blame herself.

I'm not saying that Assange IS guilty. I'm saying that he shouldn't be off the hook merely because he's a high profile person and that the women's behavior is not inconsistent with having been raped.

[reorg]

58. so what exactly had he done to her IYO?

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

Up until this point:

"They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be. They dozed off ..."

??? Anything? Or was everything dandy up to this round?

But then, a few minutes later ...

"... and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long."

the horrible experience of being tricked into contact without condom turned her life upside down all of a sudden?

[pnwmom]

71. He raped her at the moment "she awoke and felt him penetrating her."

That was it. A large man, a man she barely knew, was on top of her and inside her without her permission and without a condom. She felt helpless, probably blamed herself for being so stupid that she had trusted him, and gave up.

The fact that she "didn't have the energy to tell him one more time" and "she had gone on and on about condoms all night long" just confirms how unwelcome this penetration was, and that he was perfectly aware that he DID NOT HAVE HER CONSENT TO PENETRATE HER.

Thanks for providing the quote so I didn't have to look for it again.

Word to the wise: if you treat women you don't know well as Assange does, then you could wind up facing charges someday, too.

[reorg]

74. you should take creative writing classes n/t

[pnwmom]

78. You might benefit from some logic classes. n/t

[HiPointDem]

106. she kept fucking, and then they joked about what to name the kid. then she walked him to

the train station and asked him if he was going to call her again.

not the way i'd treat my rapist.

[reorg]

57. thanks for the reminder

if I am quick maybe I can get some justice before the statute of limitations runs out. Somehow I always felt I needed to get back at the rapist who did this to me what you describe.

How was I supposed to trust a woman ever again? Naturally, due to the threat of violence that emanates from such rapists I have always hesitated to notify the police. Therefore, thank you, thank you, thank you for recognizing my pain. I feel so relieved already.

(Don't know where to find these icons that seem to be necessary sometimes ...)

[The Doctor.]

64. Your post is nonsensical.

I'll remind you. You are responding to a post about women lying to men about being on birth control and how that is, in essence, 'Detrimental Reliance'.

Your post has nothing to do with that at all. Please feel free to re-examine the relevant post and re-post your point.


Whatever that might be.

[reorg]

66. What, are you saying that women lying about birth control

are not rapists just as the men are who are deceiving their partners about the condom?

I thought it was general knowledge by now, at least here at DU, that if you don't consent to non-protection, you get a shot at the deceiver being convicted for rape, nothing less.

Could be wrong, though, who knows.

[Overseas]

67. Thank you. K&R.

[redqueen]

104. THANK YOU!

[Fumesucker]

4. Interesting that the piece will not have comments enabled until Monday morning..

Is that standard practice with Guardian editorials?

[dipsydoodle]

7. Although this was picked up online

its probably part of the Monday morning newspaper edition and that may expain why.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Yes - they don't want to spend too much on paying their moderators overnight

I've seen it with several editorials or comment pieces that are likely to be controversial or heavily-commented.

[riderinthestorm]

6. Well that's not what the women themselves said... "voluntary relations" being the key phrase

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab


It was published in Swedish and has been virtually ignored by western media. Here's a snippet from the article

"One of two women involved told Aftonbladet in an interview published today that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: “It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”

Speaking anonymously, she said each had had voluntary relations with Assange: “The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women.”

Sources close to the woman said that issues arose during the relationships about Assange’s willingness to use condoms."


You do know the "liberal" New York Times also supported the Bush wars as well don't you? Why do you think editorial pages are lumped with the opinion columns? Because their opinions and often wrong.

[pnwmom]

8. That woman wasn't speaking for them both. And just because a couple has "voluntary relations"

one night -- on condition the man uses the condom -- doesn't give the man a free pass the next morning, to do whatever he likes (with a sleeping partner) without a condom.

[riderinthestorm]

10. The article doesn't break it down into one night good, another night bad. It says BOTH

had voluntary relations.

If it were clearly stipulated that the sex in the evening was not-rape, and the next morning was rape, please do provide some documentation. While I'm less interested in what their celebrity lawyer says, I'd very much like to hear what the women involved specifically have to say on this topic.

[pnwmom]

15. It says both women had had voluntary relations, not that neither one of them were ever raped.

You can have voluntary sex one night but that doesn't mean you can't get raped the next morning.

Assange spent the night at at least one woman's house and she has said all along that she had sex voluntarily one night -- but only after they argued about him using a condom and he finally agreed to do it. And then the next morning, she woke up to find him inside her. And when he got out of bed, she was shocked to see that he wasn't using a condom because she'd been so clear about that the night before.

I'll see if I can find that again, but I read it long ago.

Edit to add: I just found this account in The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

SNIP

Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her.

_________________________________________________________________________

Assange, as we know, disputes her account. This is what investigations are supposed to determine -- who is telling the truth.

[NashvilleLefty]

30. If you read the statements by the women - it was RAPE.

In the case of the first woman, he literally tore off her clothes. she kept insisting on a condom, and he kept forcing himself on her. She finally acquiesced, but only because he kept forcing himself on her. This was RAPE.

In the case of the second woman, she insisted on a condom. When she did not acquiesce, he lost interest and fell asleep. She woke up to him inside of her without a condom. This was far from consensual. It was RAPE.

Whether or not the things he did with WikiLeaks was good or bad I will not argue here. But, in the case of these 2 women if they are telling the truth it was RAPE.

[msanthrope]

102. Of course it was....but rape apologia for 'lefties' is nothing new at DU. Polanski, DSK,

Assange....it's the same posters, making excuses.

[HiPointDem]

111. oh, brother. she acquiesed AFTER HE ASKED HER WHAT WAS WRONG & SHE TOLD HIM SHE

WANTED HIM TO WEAR A CONDOM. SO HE PUT ON A CONDOM AND THEY HAD CONSENSUAL SEX.
She allowed him to keep staying at her flat for days afterward.

You've totally misrepresented the testimony. either you didn't read it or you're deliberately misrepresenting it.

In the case of the second woman, they made out for hours but he couldn't keep an erection, probably because he was so exhausted from all his speaking engagements and meetings -- they didn't get to her flat until very late.

After he'd slept awhile they had sex THREE TIMES. WITH A CONDOM. The third time, however, the condom was just on the head of his penis, not the shaft. She knew it BUT SHE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.

they dozed, she woke up to find him penetrating him and "IMMEDIATELY" said "are you wearing anything? you better not have HIV".

But she "couldn't be bothered" to tell him to stop, to put on a condom.

she was not UNCONSCIOUS. She was sleeping, dozing, a light sleep as they'd just eaten breakfast and gone back to bed. She woke up at the beginning of the initiation of sex, after she'd already had sex with him three times, once with an improperly placed condom.

afterwards she walked him to the station and asked him if he'd call her again.

[reorg]

114. let me tell you this

The way you distort these events definitely constitutes libel and slander.

You are lucky you and Assange are not in Ecuador.

You'd be in jail in no time and it would be completely justified.

Your friends here would be, of course, yammering and wailing about the justice system that prosecutes such lies.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Actually it is what the women themselves said

the article you linked to says:

In both cases, it is about what began as consensual sex but subsequently led to abuse.

&quot The second woman) wanted to notify for rape. I gave my story as a testimony to her story and to support her."

(The woman quoted would be "Miss A"; the second woman she speaks of would be "Miss W", who alleged that Assange penetrated her while she was sleeping.)

[Aerows]

23. Would he get a fair trial and a fair sentence

even if he was guilty?

If he got extradited to the US or anywhere else, the answer that anyone with a mind would say is no.

You are pushing a person that has no hope for justice to appeal to the justice system unless they are guaranteed they won't be an extrajudicial prisoner - for something they may or may not have done, but simply for something they may or may not have known.

At this point, he can't even face his "accusers" because if he does, he'll never see the light of day. That isn't a fair trial. That's a threat of execution, and the only people that don't see it want to get their hands on a person that released some incendiary documents that exposed the ugliness that the citizens of countries paying for wars need to see. We pay for this shit after all.

Some of us are sick as hell of war, because we live in a country that could stop having them if we wanted to do so, and we have seen too many come home wounded.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. I'm sorry, but your questions are absurd

This is a criminal prosecution, not a political one.

He is accused of rape.

Under Sweden's civil law system, the case against him has progressed to a point where his presence in Sweden is required for an interrogation before a magistrate prior to preferment of charges.

If he is tried, there is a chance he will be acquitted. If he is not acquitted, he will probably face at most six years in a Swedish prison (with time off for good behaviour).

There is zero chance Assange will be an "extrajudicial prisoner"; if the US wanted to extradite him it would be easier to do so from the UK, they had ample opportunity, it has not happened. US extradition treaties don't cover the extradition of persons accused of political crimes.

[treestar]

31. Exactly over and over they keep insisting

that the big bad US wants him and will kill him without trial and yet only Sweden will turn him over.

[jeff47]

36. There's also the little tidbit that Assange hasn't broken US law.

US can't extradite Assange without a law being broken.

Publishing classified information is not illegal. The SCOTUS ruled that is protected by the first amendment in the Pentagon Papers case. It's the leaking that is illegal, not the publishing.

Now, that doesn't mean the US can't do something extra-judicial, but as you said that would have been done from the UK. Waiting for Sweden makes no sense.

[SidDithers]

9. DU rec...nt

Sid

[marmar]

12. When did the Guardian get assigned its status as "Britain's Progressive Paper" ???

It's marginally center-left, as is the Independent.

[pnwmom]

19. Compared to our papers it is progressive. Which major paper in Britain

is more progressive, would you say?

[marmar]

21. The Daily Mirror

nt

[pnwmom]

22. LOL. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid. And it's never seemed progressive to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mirror

[marmar]

25. The Mirror is pro-worker populist......

The Guardian is a neoliberal corporate paper with a soft spot for the environment.

[pnwmom]

26. Yeah, whatever. It's a tabloid. Its headline story today

is about how someone named Cheryl Lloyd stormed off a stage after someone threw a bottle of urine at her.

[marmar]

32. It's a tabloid with a circulation about 5x that of the Guardian.

nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. And it was edited for many years by Piers Morgan

during which 2 of its reporters were jailed for hyping shares they secretly owned (as did Morgan, but he somehow got off with a slap on the wrist rather than a prosecution), and he was sacked after it published fake photos of British soldiers urinating on Iraqi prisoners (it turned out to have been staged outside Iraq). For many years, it was owned by the crook Robert Maxwell. It's still owned by a for-profit company (Trinity Mirror), while The Guardian is owned by a no-for-profit trust - the Scott Trust.

Really, no-one in Britain would call the Mirror more progressive than The Guardian. It's the left wing tabloid, but it's not that left wing.

[pnwmom]

59. Is the National Enquirer respectable because it has a large circulation? n/t

[dsc]

13. I have been pretty much anti Assange on this whole episode until lately

and I find some very problematic behavior on the part of Sweden and the UK. I find it beyond hard to believe that the UK would risk invading an embassy for just a run of the mill rape case. I also find it very suspicious that Sweden won't rule out extradition to the US. The US routinely rules out the death penalty in cases to get extradition from European countries.

[jeff47]

37. Ruling out extradition is the same as issuing a pardon for another country

Sweden can't know if Assange has, say, raped women in the US (before anyone goes off, it's an example. No information that he has). So if they promise not to extradite, then Assange can break any US law he wants and Sweden will cover for him.

On the other hand, promising not to seek the death penalty still leaves life in prison.....also known as the very slow death penalty.

I'm having trouble coming up with two situations that are more different while still having the word "extradition" in them.

[dsc]

38. that is nothing short of absurd

Assange is not a US citizen so unless he is on US soil then US law for pretty much any crime has no jurisdiction.

[jeff47]

39. First, he has been in the US before

Last edited Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

So its at least theoretically possible that he broke US law while physically in the US.

Second, technology means you can commit a crime while not being physically present. For example, a host of bank fraud laws only require the bank to be in the US, not the perpetrator. In those cases, the crime is considered to have occurred in the bank's computers, not where the criminal is manipulating their computers. Anti-stalking laws and a host of other laws behave the same way.

Basically, promising not to extradite is utterly unheard of among western nations for a host of diplomatic reasons.

Look, it's utterly silly for Assange to demand it - he hasn't broken any US laws so he can't be extradited to the US. And if the US wanted Assange it would be MUCH easier to extradite or "rendition" him from the UK.

But it's a fantastic story to spin if you want to avoid rape charges.

[pnwmom]

61. Have you figured out why, if the US wants Assange, they didn't just try to extradite him

from the UK? We have an extradition agreement with the UK. But if he gets extradited now to Sweden, and the US wants to extradite him later, it would have to get approval from both the UK and Sweden.

[ananda]

17. The Guardian has turned ..

Over the last year it has gone corporate rightwing.

[Aerows]

18. In most cases, I'd believe the worst about Assange

In this case, due to witness testimony (the women themselves), I tend to believe Assange is the target of politics.

Beyond that, though, I do not believe, in good conscience, that he would receive a fair trial on the charges he is being brought up on. That is my number one problem. Whether he is guilty of them or not, I do not believe that he would receive fair representation, simply because he could be revoked the right to trial in the US and he isn't a US citizen, which makes it even more unlikely that he would receive fair treatment.

These women deserve fair treatment, and fair trial, but so does Julian Assange. If he cannot be assured that, then he is doing the only thing he can do. If you cannot grant a fair trial, then it amounts to execution or at least, political execution.

It is up to the Swedish government to allow these ladies to have a fair trial by guaranteeing that Assange will be tried in their country and given punishment, if found guilty, according to their laws. If they cannot prevent extradition, then they are not guaranteeing Assange a fair trial, because he has been accused of nothing in the US.

[pnwmom]

20. What about this woman's testimony would lead you to believe that this

is a political prosecution? If this were a "honey trap" as Assange alleges, then why wouldn't the woman's handlers make up a better story than this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

SNIP

Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Personally I'm inclined to believe the allegations against Assange

because they have the ring of truth. Why admit to consensual intercourse and then a nonconsensual act after? If it were a setup it seems like it would be much easier to say something like "we went out for drinks and returned to my flat intoxicated, he slept on the sofa and I woke up in the morning to find him penetrating me".

[pnwmom]

28. Exactly. The situation sounds as confusing and mixed-up as ordinary life tends to be.

And this is what investigations (and later, sometimes, trials) are for.

[eShirl]

34. k&r

[frazzled]

48. A mere 100 people

This gets a lot of attention, but in reality, very few people in the real world care about this guy.

PS: The Guardian has had its own relations with him, and they know his character. They didn't want to have unprotected relations with him, either, after getting to know him.

[hifiguy]

60. If the Swedes would agree not to extradite Assange to the US

there would be no defensible reason for him not to go back to Sweden.

I think that Assange currently has an entirely rational belief that he will be never be seen alive again if he goes back to Sweden at this point.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

69. making such a promise tho would break with international law

as well as not carrying any legal weight in the case the US were to make extradition request since its an independent Swedish court who makes the final decision and not the government.

I wouldn't be to surprised that the main reason Assange asks for such an reassurance is because he knows its impossible to grant(while making him sound reasonable to those who support him)

[HiPointDem]

70. The "progressive" Guardian now gets funding from the Gates Foundation.

And that article is a case study in misdirection.

"sexual assault" implies violence. There was none.

"rape" implies violence, force, or exploitation of an incapacitated person. There was none.

The entire case is this:

Woman one: after boarding assange at her apartment & having sex with him multiple times, a woman with previous connections to the intelligence establishment thought that maybe assange had purposefully broken a condom he was using during one instance of intercourse.

Woman two: after having a make-out session in a theater the first day she met assange (during which she allowed him to suck her breasts, unzip her pants, etc, etc), a day or so later she had sex with assange three or four times on a single day/night. At her request he used a condom until the 3rd/4th time (she's not sure how many times).

On that occasion he put the condom only on the head of his penis and she allowed him to use it like that without comment.

Then the same night she woke up to find him attempting to have sex again without a condom. Rather than telling him to put one on or get out of her apartment, she said, "You better not have HIV". He said "Of course not".

After sex she told him if she got pregnant, he'd have to pay her student loans. They joked around about naming the baby "Afghanistan". She made him breakfast & asked him if he'd call her again.

Within days, the two women got together, compared notes, and went to the police, allegedly to see if they could get assange to take an hiv test.

Woman two did not sign the statement she gave to the police. She left during the interview because she became upset when she found out assange had been arrested.

Six days later the police attempted to change the details of her interview but the police computer saved both versions.

The Guardian write-up is ridiculous if you've read the women's testimonies -- and so is your attempt to use this allegedly "progressive" paper (funded by the Gates Foundation & Bill Gates, who's also teaming with the NYC police to institute a total surveillance system and more and more appears to have lots of spooky connections) -- to pump up the phony assange rape case.

it's not about rape, and the propaganda is getting old.

[pnwmom]

73. Woman 1 said he used his weight to hold her down and his leg to force her legs open.

And Woman 2 said he penetrated her while she was unconscious. Being unconscious is being incapacitated.

Doesn't sound non-violent to me.

Are you really unaware that make-out sessions don't give a man permission to force himself on a woman later? Or that sex at night with a condom doesn't give a man a free pass to force himself on a woman without a condom while she's sleeping?

Amazing the length that Assange groupies will go to, to defend their hero.

[HiPointDem]

75. read their original police testimony.

When they sat and drank tea Assange began caressing her leg. In answer to a question Anna says Assange earlier in the evening had not made any physical approaches save now which Anna initially welcomed. But it felt 'uncomfortable from the get-go' as Assange was rough and impatient.

According to Anna, 'everything happened so fast'. He ripped off her clothes and in conjunction with this pulled at and broke her necklace. Anna tried to put some clothes back on again because things were going too fast and it felt uncomfortable but Assange immediately took her clothes off again.

Anna says that she thought she actually didn't want to go any further but it was too late to say 'stop' to Assange when she'd 'gone along with it this far'. She thought she 'could blame herself'. So she let Assange fully undress her.

Then they lay in the bed. Anna was on her back and Assange was on top of her. Anna thought Assange wanted to immediately put his penis in her vagina which she didn't want as he didn't have a condom on. So she tried to twist her hips to the side and squeeze her legs together to prevent a penetration.

Anna tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange stopped her from doing by holding her arms and prying open her legs and trying nevertheless to penetrate her with his penis without a condom.

Anna says that in the end she was ready to cry because she was pinned and couldn't reach a condom and thought 'this might not end well'. In answer to a question Anna says Assange must have known she was trying to reach for a condom and he was holding her arms to stop her.

Assange asked after a while what Anna was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her.

Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him.

Anna felt a huge unexpressed reluctance from Assange to using a condom which led to her getting the feeling he didn't put on the condom she'd given him. She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange's penis to check if he'd really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought 'hope it's over soon'.

Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.

After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn't have semen in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices.

Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broken the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn't look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. She says that even the bed sheets used on that occasion are most likely still in her hamper.

Anna says she and Assange didn't have any more sex. Yet Assange went on living with her up to and including Friday 20 August. According to Anna Assange made sexual overtures every day after that evening when they'd had sex. For example by touching her breasts. Anna rebuffed Assange on all these occasions and Assange accepted it.

http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,02.shtml


Not quite the way you & the rest of the crowd are portraying it. The woman never once said "stop". Assange himself had to ask her what the deal was, and when she finally told him, he put on a condom & she allowed him to continue.

What she didn't tell the police is that she took pictures of him sleeping in her bed & texted friends to say how awesome it was to have this famous person in her bed (per police interview with said friend).

Not rape.

[msanthrope]

99. Um...that's not the sex act the rape charge is based on. Your sex act took place on 14 August.

The sex act that gives rise to the rape charge on the EAW took place on the 17th of August.

4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

It really says something when the 'hero' of Wikileaks has multiple criminal sexual offenses to sort through.....

[HiPointDem]

107. woman A is the political secretary and press representative of a faction of sweden's social

democratic party. she has friends in very high places and is no shrinking violet.

she organized a flotilla to gaza. she's traveled widely and reportedly has intelligence contacts, including connections to us intelligence.

if she felt it was so "violent," why didn't she say so at the time & why did she continue sex once he put on a condom?

why did she allow him to keep LIVING IN HER APARTMENT FOR DAYS? She wasn't his prisoner, she was going to work and he was going to his appointments. She could have locked him out at any time, she could have called the police -- BUT SHE DIDN'T.


Woman 2 was not "unconscious". they had just had breakfast together and were dozing. she told the police she awoke to find herself being penetrated and "IMMEDIATELY" asked "are you wearing anything? you better not have HIV". but she "couldn't be bothered" to say "stop". She let him continue to ejaculation and then they joked together about what to name the baby.

she went to the station with him to see him off and asked him if he was going to call her again.

[AntiFascist]

79. Here's what John Pilger says about The Guardian...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism

Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover, has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. On 20 August, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian editorial putting the paper’s latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press’s predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate and honourable, independent journalism doth fade.

[eridani]

80. "It is to avoid questioning by Swedish prosecutors" BULLSHIT!!

It is to avoid being extradited to the US, ferchrissakes.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

82. bullcrap, the chances of being extradited to the US from sweden is HARDER then from the UK since he

would be able to contest the extradition in both Sweden AND the UK, both countries would have to accept the extradition request for it to happen compared to only the UK if done now. Also Sweden will not extradite for political crimes(or if there is a chance for the death penalty)

[HiPointDem]

86. won't extradite for political crimes? what?

Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery were two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

The forced repatriation was criticised because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers.

Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. There are strong allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations. Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners. Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military tribunal. He was finally released from prison on August 9, 2011. The process was not considered fair, and there is doubt as to the men's guilt.

Sweden alleges that the two men had been involved in acts of terrorism, but no basis for such beliefs have been disclosed.

When pressed by reporters, Swedish authorities mentioned alleged earlier convictions in Egypt, but these allegations turned out to be patently wrong. As a complicating factor, the decision was made at cabinet level, by Foreign Affairs minister Anna Lindh, who was murdered in 2003, before the scandal broke loose.

This handling was later condemned and found illegal by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. The United Nation's Human Rights Committee found the deportation of Alzery a breach of Sweden's obligations under the international treaties that Sweden has entered into.

In January 2009 it was claimed that the United States had threatened to impose trade barriers on the European Union if the two men were not transferred. Reporter Eva Franchell, friend of the deceased Foreign minister Anna Lindh, witness to her murder, and at an earlier stage her press secretary, published a book about Lindh where she described the difficulties surrounding the repatriation decision, as well as the participation of other politicians who allegedly later conveniently shove the responsibility over to the deceased Lindh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

[eridani]

87. So the Swedish government has refused to promise no extradition because why? n/t

[randome]

91. Because they aspire to give no one a free pass.

Assange does not deserve some kind of 'carte blanche' card that frees him of the consequences of his actions.

[HiPointDem]

94. you guys just make shit up.

[eridani]

96. Actually he does deserve a promise of no extradition

Being tried in Sweden is a piece of cake compared to being sent to one of our torture camps. And yes, he should answer charges in Sweden, but avoiding US torture should be a priority.

[randome]

109. Torture, never. On that we're agreed.

But why does Assange rate any special treatment about extradition? He is nobody special. Why not issue carte blanche to every American so none of us ever need to answer for crimes committed in other countries.

Regardless of what one thinks of Assange's innocence or guilt, no one should get special treatment. I mean that for the idiotic 'diplomatic immunity', as well, but I doubt that will ever change.

[eridani]

115. It isn't "special treatment" to say that a crime committed in Sweden--

--can be dealt with entirely in Sweden, with no extradition to the US required. If you commit a crime in Japan, is it "special treatment" if you don't think that South Korea has a right to extradite you to the US or China?

[randome]

120. I agree, deal with Swedish crimes in Sweden.

I don't see how Sweden could extradite someone to the U.S. since he isn't a Swedish citizen. That's why I see this entire malarky about Assange's 'fear' to be just that -self-serving malarky.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

116. because international law on extradition requests

require each request to be judged on its own merits. a blanket promise not to extradite would be the total opposite of that.

Also any such promise by the Swedish government would hold no legal weight as its not the government making the decision on the extradition request but an independent Swedish court

[eridani]

117. Extradition is SUPPOSED to apply only to crimes committed in the country--

--requesting the extradition. By what right does the US demand extradition to the US for a crime committed in Sweden?

[randome]

119. They don't have that right. They aren't demanding it.

Where is their extradition demand?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

121. The US hasn't demanded any such extradition request that i am aware off

[JDPriestly]

84. If the women feel so deeply that they were assaulted, perhaps they

could change the public opinion about Assange by speaking out.

After all, the young American soldier who was assaulted and raped in Iraq was able to awaken public awareness of her problem by not only speaking out but testifying in front of Congress.

As i understand them from reading portions of the legal documents, the charges against Assange would be extremely difficult to prove. The evidence is simply he said, she said. If that is all they have, then the decision will come down to which of the parties is more believable. If Sweden adopts a standard of proof similar to our beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, Assange is likely to win.

Whether Assange should win or lose, one side or the other will view the decision as unjust.

And then there is the problem that, until reasonable suspicion is established, Assange could be interrogated without a lawyer and held without bail. Apparently, Sweden does not insure the rights that American defendants enjoy.

http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Sweden

The lack of any discussion about the evidence against Assange beyond the statement of one of the two women to the police summarized in a legal document of allegations casts doubt on the legitimacy of the accusation.

Assange's case is not like other cases. Assange is a controversial journalist, a pioneer in internet journalism and research, who has made information public that is embarrassing to people in high places and not just in our government. That changes everything.

The Guardian piece is apparently opinion -- and I don't value the opinion of the author as much as I value my own. Sorry.

[randome]

88. Yes, because women in general enjoy talking about their assaults in public.

[HiPointDem]

93. they weren't assaulted. by their own testimony.

[randome]

95. Use your own description, I don't care.

But you seem to imply that because their allegations are difficult to prove, Sweden should simply drop it and say, "Tough shit" to the women.

[HiPointDem]

97. no, i clearly say: according to the statements they themselves made to police, there was no

"assault".

nothing to do with "difficult to prove".

there were no fucking "assaults" no matter how you spin it.

quit pretending it's about women.

it's really disgusting.

[msanthrope]

100. Upthread, you are confusing dates of sex acts....the sex act of August 17th got him the rape charge

but you don't seem willing to post the details about that night. You keep posting about a different crime victim.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

118. that seems to be one of the tactics some here on DU uses to defend Assange

swapping back and forth between the women in their arguments as if both women were the same

[msanthrope]

122. Indeed. The deliberate misinformation rings a bell. nt

[Vattel]

85. The bottom line

is that if the woman in question is not lying, Assange penetrated her while she slept without wearing a condom even though she had made it clear to him that she didn't want to have sex with him unless he wore a condom. If this allegation is true, his behavior was a serious violation of that woman's rights and he should be punished for it. Whether that behavior is "rape" in some ordinary nonlegal sense of the word is irrelevant.

[randome]

89. The Guardian? That 1% rag? They never loved Julian the way we do.

[HiPointDem]

92. Funded by the gates foundation, whose namesake is teaming with nypd to institute the total

surveillance city in new york.

[msanthrope]

101. Really? Now the Gates foundation is out to get him? I thought is was the CIA. nt

[HiPointDem]

103. boy, 'ignored' is chasing me across this board. glad i don't have to read anything 'ignored' has

to say.

[randome]

108. What, you're ignoring yourself now?

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. So anyone who talks to Gates is now a paraiah too?

Should that apply to using his operating system as well?

Here's what The Guardian is doing with the Gates Foundation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development

Are you saying a website about global development newsmeans that The Guardian is now a neocon evil tool?

[HiPointDem]

112. i'm saying the guardian is no pure "progressive" paper. the op wants to put a halo on the guardian

with that label, thinking people will believe a 'progressive' paper must be mouthing the 'progressive' line.

but the guardian doesn't hew a strictly progressive line. depends on the topic and the interests involved. gates funding is only one example of conflicts on interest.

[asjr]

113. I must be crazy to chime in on the war of Assange but

I have wondered how all this became relevant. Trying to come to some kind of answer I think back and wonder if Manning, evidently being computer savvy, happened upon Wikileaks quite by accident and started publishing its contents. The USA, upset by this blamed Manning and thought to get Assange by asking Sweden for help by using sexual encounters Assange had with Swedish women to call for extradition to Sweden. I imagine a lot of money was involved. Assange doesn't look the type to have to rape any woman. Not all women would agree but that is how I saw it. Meantime Manning has been put on the "rack" and "tortured" by the USA, not for hacking but for being treasonous. And I thought we didn't do torture. And what I really do not understand is why, after cooperating with Assange, is the UK after his skin. After all this is over I wonder who will do the screen play for the movie and when it will be on the screen. I am trying to decide who will play Assange, Manning, etc. I will probably be 6 ft under by the time it comes around so I will not worry about it anymore.