Assange's asylum bid blasted by lawyer of sex accusers

[struggle4progress]

June 22, 2012

JULIAN ASSANGE'S decision to seek asylum in Ecuador is ''a tragedy'' for the two women who have accused him of sexual assault in Sweden, their lawyer has said.

Claes Borgstrom, who represents the two unnamed women with whom the WikiLeaks founder had sex in Stockholm in August 2010, said the women were frustrated and disappointed by Mr Assange's decision to seek asylum rather than face investigation in Sweden over claims of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

''They are disappointed, but they are getting used to this by now,'' said Mr Borgstrom, who has represented the women throughout Mr Assange's sequence of appeals against extradition in the British courts.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''They know that all they can do is wait. I have told them I am not sure, but I think he will still be extradited - it is a tragedy for the women ...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/assanges-asylum-bid-blasted-by-lawyer-of-sex-accusers-20120621-20r1m.html

[ananda]

1. I call BS on the "rape" charges.

This Wikileaks flap is a tragedy all right.. for human rights and our right
to know.

[struggle4progress]

2. I'm certain the Swedes will appreciate your proposal to improve their criminal justice system

with the help of your infallible ESP, once you explain your abilities to them

[Lionessa]

10. The Swedes have never charged him with a crime. If he'd committed one don't you think

they should charge him before he's extradited? Conversely, if he's suspected of committing a crime and the evidence is enough to extradite him shouldn't they have enough to charge him?

It doesn't take ESP to see this is likely entirely bogus and simply a way to get Assange to Sweden where they'll hand him over to the USA without further ado.

[hifiguy]

14. Bingo.

This is an elaborate charade to get rid of Assange. Dollars to donuts that it one could truly scratch the surface one would find more spooks than in the Halloween Haunted House.

[randome]

17. It takes a very large conspiracy theory to maintain this point of view.

It requires the Swedish government and judiciary, the U.K. government, the Australian government and the U.S. government all conspiring to...wait for it...make bogus sex charges so they can delay 'getting' Assange for 2 years.

Uh...no.

[Lionessa]

20. No it doesn't, and I have to ask, if Sweden wanted to extradite you for an INVESTIGATION,

when you are more than willing to deal with them from your current position, would you begin to think things might be a bit fishy?

I certainly would. You seem to forget, he's never been charged with anything.

[randome]

22. As has been said elsewhere, second-guessing the extradition order that was coordinated...

...by both Sweden and the U.K. seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

If the U.K. government did not think it was a valid extradition request, then they are part of the conspiracy. If they are part of the conspiracy, why 'conspire' to delay Assange's delivery to the U.S. by two years?

In addition, Australia apparently thinks it's a valid request because they decided not to get involved with one of their own citizens.

I'm sure Assange, any day now, will release into the wild his 'doomsday' decryption key that will topple governments world wide.

His actions are those of a guilty man. Not someone who is in fear of his life.

Wikileaks is cool. Assange is not.

[struggle4progress]

18. I consider that courts in Sweden, the UK, and the EU can better determine the scope

and status of warrants there, than you or I can

For the last year and a half, the UK courts have been sifting through the practices and precedents of this matter, and I see at present no reason to believe them to have been careless or hasty or unfair in their review

[jwirr]

35. Absolutely. There is good reason to believe that he is being punished for wikileaks and nothing else

[hifiguy]

39. ^THIS^ nt

[warrprayer]

3. totally agree

With any luck at all, Mr. Assange is ALREADY in Ecuador.

[ananda]

5. At the least, Assange should receive asylum.

The Swedish so-called "rape" charge is totally bogus.

Not only would an extradition be wrong on the criminal justice level,
but it would also be a real blow to any efforts to redress the loss
of human rights and our right to know, further giving governments
even more latitude in horrible and secretive practices.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Not being raped is also a human right and until the investigation is closed

the "right to know" you keep trumpeting will be frustrated.

[struggle4progress]

8. You don't think a person should be able to escape extradition for a sexual offense investigation,

even when the person claims to have scary thoughts about being put to death in a third country, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the extradition and which hasn't even charged him?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. If he was so scared Sweden (Sweden? Really?) would kill him why was he partying in Sweden?

It sounds like he's just crying.

[Lionessa]

13. He's not afraid Sweden will kill him, he's afraid they will without further ado hand him over to USA

Apparently Sweden is one of our "buddies" in the extraordinary renditions and such, so he has reason to be concerned.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. And how did it come to light Sweden participated in ExRend?

[Lionessa]

19. Who cares how it came to light in regards to this?

They are not requesting extradition based on anything coming to light about their participation in extraordinary rendition, are they?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. It seems germane to me.

Everyone is running around flapping their arms saying potential victims of a serial rapist have to just lay back, relax and take one for the team based on some absurd notion that going to Sweden would be too dangerous for an accused serial rapist because Sweden supposedly participated in Ex Rend.

So my question remains: how did the information that Sweden participates in Ex Rend come to light?

Oh, let's just skip the pretenses, shall we? It was revealed on WikiLeaks -- but you already knew that. So now what I'm being asked to accept is that the person who revealed Sweden participated in Ex Rend went to Sweden knowing this fact.

Assange is not afraid of Sweden. Assange is afraid of letting the facts fall where they may which is ironic/hypocritical considering the entire premise of his celebrity status.

Moreover, this sad excuse for ignoring an alleged serial rapist is even weaker when we consider Assange was in Britain fighting extradition. Supposedly the UK was Bush's lapdog for every threat Assange supporters fantasize about to protecct their celebrity worship. If any place would accomodate a snatch-and-grab I'd think the UK would be right behind the US in biggest bogeyman. And yet, there is Assange, milling about on the streets, in court, surrounded by police, begging to stay in the UK.

Enough of the sorry excuse making. These women deserve closure.

[Lionessa]

11. Extradition for an investigation? Wtf is that? Seems one should need to be charged, not just

investigated.

IIRC he has offered to be interrogated in England by the Swedes, but they refuse.

What say you about that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I say Sweden has it's own criminal law processes

and the UK Supreme Court is OK with that. Why should women who may well be the victims of a serial rapist be denied a chance to have this settled?

[warrprayer]

7. If I'm not mistaken

the "rape" charge is actually over a condom breaking. The whole thing is a totally transparent attempt to get Assange in U.S. custody. And from seeing the treatment Bradley Manning recieved, we know exactly what he can expect. I call bullshit.

[Robb]

24. You are mistaken.

It's also about someone saying "no" and sex continuing. Assange should face his accusers.

[frylock]

50. then they should fucking charge him with a crime

[Robb]

52. Distinction without a difference.

Time and again the question of Assange "not being charged" is raised. Well, that all depends on how you translate the term. If you mean that being charged is the same as being prosecuted, then the answer is that Mr Assange is NOT charged.

If, on the other hand, the term is meant as a mandatory prelude to being prosecuted, then yes, Mr Assange is charged. This does not mean that he WILL be prosecuted.

There is no such thing as being charged in Swedish law. There is however a formal step that must be taken before a prosecutor can _ as in the case of Mr Assange _ reguest a court to remand a person. This is the notification of a suspicion of crime. There are two levels of suspicion, reasonable and probable, the latter being the more serious level.

Mr Assange is "on probable grounds" a suspect of a crime that carries at least one year in prison (four years is usual for "standard rape" in Sweden) That is why the District Court of Stockholm remanded him (in absentia) and why the Svea Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-embassy-live?mobile-redirect=false

[warrprayer]

51. That must be

why they tortured Bradley Manning.

[hifiguy]

4. This whole thing has stunk to high heaven

from the beginning. Remind me again what Assange has been convicted of. Oh, that's right, absolutely nothing.

[Lionessa]

12. Not only not convicted, not even charged yet.

[Robb]

26. Absurd distinction. They cannot charge him in absentia.

[Lionessa]

28. Why not? They can't convict him, but they could in fact charge him with a crime.

Unless Sweden is way different than anywhere else I've heard of.

Some places even do allow for convictions in absentia.

[Robb]

31. Swedish law.

I recommend this succinct comment at the Guardian site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-embassy-live?commentpage=3#comment-16713294

[Robb]

32. To add:

is no such thing as being charged in Swedish law. There is however a formal step that must be taken before a prosecutor can _ as in the case of Mr Assange _ reguest a court to remand a person. This is the notification of a suspicion of crime. There are two levels of suspicion, reasonable and probable, the latter being the more serious level.

Mr Assange is "on probable grounds" a suspect of a crime that carries at least one year in prison (four years is usual for "standard rape" in Sweden) That is why the District Court of Stockholm remanded him (in absentia) and why the Svea Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.

[Lionessa]

34. Please note that it says "normally", clearly the circumstances aren't normal,

it also says "most" which implies an ability to adapt.

Assange has a legitimate concern, he's offered to be interrogated in England, they should adapt.

[Robb]

36. Perhaps they could convene parliament and change the law for Assange.

[Lionessa]

37. It doesn't say "law," it says "normally". Deal with it rather than hype your garbage.

[Robb]

38. I didn't intend to offend you personally.

If I did, I apologize.

But the fact remains there is a legal construct as substantive as formal charges already in place.

[FarCenter]

21. He was most likely set up in a "honey trap". Is Anna Ardin still in Sweden?

[randome]

23. A 'honey trap' that delayed his extradition for 2 years. Not likely.

Any allegation about sexual misconduct needs to be investigated under normal channels. Apparently Sweden is not 'normal' according to our way of thinking. But Sweden, Australia and the U.K. apparently think there is enough to the allegations that the extradition request was ordered.

[Lionessa]

29. You suugest that 2 years was somehow a great delay. He's been under house arrest essentially.

How is that not already a form of imprisonment?

[randome]

30. Didn't stop him from taking a walk to the Ecuadorian embassy, did it?

[struggle4progress]

42. He's been out on 240 thousand pound bail while he contested his extradition;

part of his bail condition has been that he remain physically at a particular location overnight

I'm beginning to suspect the average Assange supporter today is too driven by ideological considerations to be able to discern the distinction, between this and actual imprisonment

[hifiguy]

27. The honey trap is one of the oldest ploys in spookdom.

It probably goes back to the Babylonians and the ancient Egyptians. No reason to think it is not possible or, more likely, probable in this case.

Who knows what kinds of pressures are being brought to bear through various diplomatic (read spook) channels to keep this case moving. Assange is just a little too high profile to be stuck with a umbrella loaded with a ricin pellet like Georgi Markov was.

Ask who would benefit from getting rid of Assange. That is always the only relevant question in cases like this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. And rape is one of the oldest ploys of serial rapists

If Assange is so scared of Sweden he shouldn't have gone to Sweden in the first place. And if he's so scared of a shadowy spooks then why was he in the UK in court surrounded by police begging to stay in the UK. Isn't the UK Bush's lapdog.

Enough of this absurd crap.

[FarCenter]

40. False accusations of rape go back to at least Potiphar's wife.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. So do assumptions that the woman lies.

One would have thought progressives would have progressed beyond such things.

[apocalypsehow]

43. Exactly. I don't know whether Assange is guilty or not, but I think he should

return to Sweden to face these accusations. I hope he's not, but I don't know.

And yet we have so-called "progressives" smearing the accusers (potential victims), engaging in all sorts of hysterical hyperbole about how if returns to Sweden he'll be put to death, and making some of the most ridiculous excuses for him not to return and face his accusers, and usually employing weasel terms like "apparently," "probably," and "maybe," all of which translates to "we're talking out of our ass."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. Everyone is presumed innocent except the potential victims.

[randome]

45. To be fair, it all depends on whether they are 'good' victims or 'bad' ones.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. *grunt*

You know what saddens me? I don't even think the apologists consider the victims enough to label them good or bad. To them the only thing that matters is Assange being left free. WikiLeaks would not fold if Assange had crimes to account for; it's established itself quite well. So really the only thing working for Assange is celebrity status -- the same thing propping-up the Kardashians.

The women? No. They don't matter and if you make too big a deal about them, if you draw too much attention to them, they'll be labeled government paid whores. "Shut-up or you'll get another one!" they explained.

[hifiguy]

47. One would also think that progressives would realize

how obvious it is that the Powers That Be would have every reason in the world to set up and railroad Assange. Remember Daniel Ellsberg by any chance? Whistleblowers are dangerous to TPTB and the MIC.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Oh cut the juvenile crap already

"Some government did something bad one time so women can be raped with impunity." You'd be a laughingstock for that tripe if it weren't so damn pathetic and tragic.

[hifiguy]

49. You really couldn't miss the point any more completely, could you?

What the blue hell your post is supposed to be saying is beyond me. Palinesque word salad. My posts have been quite clear.

Setting someone up in a compromising sexual situation is an old trick of spy agencies. Do you question that fact?

The Russians and Americans did it constantly during the Cold War through schemes sometimes simple and sometimes complex. Do you question that fact?

There are plenty of powerful people who would like Julian Assange to disappear because he has revealed embarrassing truths. Do you question that fact?

Jeebus, if you can't see those basic truths you are the laughingstock.

[warrprayer]

53. Ex C.I.A. employees

never lie.