Julian Assange sex claims not a crime in Latin America –Ecuador president

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, has said Julian Assange should respond to the sexual assault allegations made against him by two Swedish women, even though the case would not in his view constitute criminal behaviour in Latin America.

His remarks are likely to add to the controversy surrounding the WikiLeaks founder but they also hint at a possible avenue for a compromise in the diplomatic row caused by Ecuador's recent decision to grant asylum to Assange at its London embassy.

In the latest in a series of strident comments, Correa accused the British government of hypocrisy and said he was prepared for the standoff to last indefinitely even if it risked a loss of UK business and public support.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/22/ecuador-president-assange-sweden-sex

[msanthrope]

1. And this helps Assange, how? Correa tries to jail journalists

that correctly report on the 600 million in contracts his brother got from Ecuador**....but rape isn't a crime there????

What Assange is accused of constitutes a crime in both Sweden, and the UK--as the British court at Belmarsh noted in their findings of fact.

Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lists the circumstances in which the complainant is taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the complainant consented. Also the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. Where a section 75 evidential presumption arises there is no question of the issue being removed from the jury. The circumstances in which evidential presumptions about concerned apply include:

2(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act.

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


**Here are reports that detail Correa's press abuses....

http://ww4report.com/node/10851

http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session13/EC/JS1_UPR_ECU_S13_2012_JointSubmission1_E.pdf

[tama]

3. Re Correa

"6. President Correa himself lodged a criminal complaint against three executives and an editor of
the Guayaquil-based newspaper El Universo in March 2011 in connection with an opinion piece
that referred to the president as “the dictator.” The author, opinion editor Emilio Palacio, alleged
that President Correa had ordered troops to fire “without warning” at a hospital even though it
was “full of civilians and innocent people” during a violent labor standoff with national police in
September 2010. In that standoff, police officers angered by planned pay cuts effectively
barricaded Correa in a hospital for about 12 hours, prompting the government to summon troops
to the scene. The nationwide police protests—which led to three fatalities, dozens of injuries, and
the shutdown of airports and highways—also marked a low point in government restrictions on
the news media. At the height of the crisis, the communications secretary ordered broadcasters to
halt their own news reports and carry only state news programming for about six hours."

Others call the "violent labor standoff" a failed coup attempt. Paraguay and Honduras coups did not fail, alas. The police were on payroll of US embassy and Correa wanted to stop the practice of foreign government paying for police. The bank owned pro-coup media called the President of Ecuador, surrounded in hospital where he was being treated by armed and violent police on US payroll, a murderer, when armed forces did not join the coup attempt but protected the President of the country. Correa sued for libel, won the case in court, and pardoned the criminals who were free all the time and didn't spend any time in jail. This was enough to show what your pdf was made of, I didn't bother to read further.

In most countries politicians can and do sue for libel e.g. when they are accused of corruption by media. Something similar happened also here in Finland. Media relying on unnamed source accused Finnish PM of corruption, the source was ready to come public if the case went to court. PM denied the charges, refused to sue for libel, and resigned shortly after. Most people would have preferred PM suing and the case going to court so truth would have come out.

Freedom of press does not mean right to slander anyone, even politicians, with impunity, even if many in US and generally in corporate media seem to believe so. The court has not given it's verdict on the libel charge, yet you have the gall to say that the accusation in the book is correct. Just because you hate Assange and Correa.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "Freedom of press does not mean right to slander anyone, even politicians, with impunity"

Actually, yes it does. Since when have governments ever been fair arbiters of what constitutes slander against the government? If Romney is elected does he get do decide if Rachel Maddow slanders him?

[hack89]

12. By your standard DU would have been shut down and Skinner arrested years ago

the vitriol directed at Bush was vicious (and well deserved.)

[tama]

29. Got me thinking

If I was journalist in US and accused Obama of being a murderer because of the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens, I would certainly hope that they could and would sue me for libel. So that the issue would get public legal scrutiny and not just silent approval.

[hack89]

31. I would prefer that the First Admendment not be weakened for political purposes.

journalist and citizens have the right to call the president a murderer - he is just a president after all and not a king.

[tama]

33. Of course they have the right

What you are saying that public figures should not respond with legal action when accused of being murderers and criminals - so that truth be out. With this precedent, if Congress is unwilling to impeach, POTUS has liberty to order assassination of anyone it wants.

The "malicious intent" of US means that if also Obama wanted to clear his name and honour against accusations of being a murderer and criminal, he could do so in court of law, but chooses not to. Because by the look of it, he's guilty as hell, together with rest of the government and the whole political system.

[hack89]

34. The government has enough coercive power over the public - it does not need more.

I am not willing to weaken a Constitutional right for any reason. Once a right is weakened it is never restored.

Why don't we strengthen the public's right to sue the President? Lets take away some of his power instead.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. You're quite wrong; in the US at least...

Actual malice is required to sue for libel or slander; see New York Times v Sullivan:

Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice"--that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html

In the UK, there's the "fair comment" defence:

f a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment.

The courts have said that whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on or what may happen to them or to others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment.

The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. If he or she is unable to do so, then the defence will fail. As with justification, the defendant does not to have to prove the truth of every fact provided the comment was fair in relation to those facts which are proved.

Fair does not mean reasonable, but signifies the absence of malice. The views expressed can be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided they are honestly held. If the claimant can show that the publication was made maliciously, the defence of fair comment will not succeed.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/defences-to-a-claim-of-defamation.html

So no, politicians cannot sue for defamation because someone calls them corrupt. Not in free countries, anyway.

[tama]

17. To all three respondants

Finnish law exempts politicians and other public figures from using libel charges against criticism of their work over "what is generally acceptable". But extraordinary claims, e.g. claims of criminal conduct, can be sued, as the Finnish PM's case shows - he could have sued the Finnish State TV, but chose not to. He did sue his ex who published a book about their relation, in regards to his private life, not public role.

I should add that there were many corruption accusations at that time and quite many ended up in police investigations and criminal procedures and convictions. PM was investigated but not charged, because the issue investigated had gone old, and people and media would have preferred him to sue State TV's claims based on unnamed informant, so that more of the whole mess would have become public.

So, in Finland as imagine in most countries, the public figure doctrine (part of government transparency principle) is followed and various practical versions of it. In US the treshold is "malicious intent", other countries have other tresholds, but most or all have signed the Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

*

As for Ecuador, I have nothing against factual criticism of it's laws which it deserves, but I'm also not a big fan of the "post-colonial arrogance" of the current wave of anti-Ecuador slander.

[msanthrope]

40. Is Finland at issue here? No? Then, Finnish law is irrelevant. nt

[msanthrope]

39. So one can prosecute a journalist for writing things that displease the Executive, but

one cannot interview a journalist for sex crimes he is accused of???

Oh, what a tangled web...

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. He's not trying to help Assange. He's trying to help himself

[msanthrope]

36. Of course he is--he did three prosecutions of journalists, and each

ended more disastrously than the last....the last, of course, alienating the indigenous people's press.

[happyslug]

28. You missed the Important Paragraph, the TEST the Judge was using

As was said by Auld LJ in Norris: “It is immaterial whether dishonesty was a necessary
constituent of the offence in the United States constituted by the conduct there, if the conduct alleged included acts or omissions capable of amounting to dishonesty here”. In cases where a dual criminality must be shown, there is no requirement to identify or specify in terms the relevant mens rea. It is sufficient if it can be inferred by the court from the conduct that is spelt out in the warrant, and further information where appropriate.

This is the key paragraph, it leads the Judge to accepts everything in the Arrest Warrant as true (Which he should do), that is NOT a finding that the accusations are true, but a finding that Sweden has made such accusations and as such issued a valid Warrant.

Furthermore my Comment was to Correa and Ecuador's law, which it appears to have a stricter definition of Rape. This has been a problem in the US, Rape has been given a very strict definition, thus most states have additional sexual crimes to handle cases that do NOT meet the definition of Rape.

Also lets not get into these legal technicalities to much, much of this is political positioning between Assange and Sweden (along with the UK and the US). More to do with Assange ego about himself then anything else, as I pointed out Assange best course would be to go to Sweden and have the trial, not run all over the world to avoid one and then claim the US is after him.

[msanthrope]

35. I never made the claim that the judge thought the accusations true.

That is to be determined, in Sweden.

I spoke merely to the fact that what Assange is accused of doing is, indeed, a crime in the UK.

[reorg]

37. and you also know very well

that the judge did not test whether the alleged conduct by the accused rises to the accusations. He did not examine any evidence of the case. He did not make any determinations if similar conduct would lead to accusations of rape in the UK.

Correa, however, commented on the case, not on the wording of the brief summary of allegations in the arrest warrant.

Such scenarios HAVE never led to accusations of rape, not in Latin America, not in the UK, not in Sweden.

Which you all know very well, of course, but why not make yet another attempt to confuse and distract those who don't have the time to dig into it, right?

[msanthrope]

44. Yes..he did make the determination that all four offenses are crimes in the UK...

Pages 22 and 23 are devoted to that very subject. Please, READ THE COURT DOCUMENTS!!!!

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

[reorg]

46. and you also know very well

as I said here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1014&pid=204176


His remarks on pages 22 and 23 are truly hilarious. He states:

I have not thought it necessary or desirable to consider extraneous material. I have looked only at the language used in the warrant.

He even consulted the OED, LOL!

[msanthrope]

49. So you admit you were wrong, then? nt

[reorg]

52. your often quoted legal authority bases his "findings" on checking a dictionary

and you continue asking stupid questions?

Is that how you handle your cases? Someone tells you he got robbed, you check the OED what "robbed" means and then decide, okay, let's go to the police I think we have a case.

[msanthrope]

60. Well, I'm not understanding your beef with using a statute of the UK and the OED.

The rape charge was analyzed using the equivalent UK statute, as quoted:

Section 75 of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 lists the circumstances in which the complainant is taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the complainant consented. Also the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. Where a section 75 evidential presumption arises there is no question of the issue being removed from the jury. The circumstances in which evidential presumptions about concerned apply include:
2(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;

(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act.
(There are other circumstances that are not relevant in this case.)

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

Are you seriously having a problem with the OED? Would the use of Black's have been better?

I am suggesting, with respect, that your 'beef' seems to stem from an unfamiliarity with how legal analysis happens.

You might wanna read this article on SCOTUS using dictionaries...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14bar.html

[reorg]

65. your persistance in playing dumb is amazing

The subthread was started with this:

It is sufficient if it can be inferred by the court from the conduct that is spelt out in the warrant, and further information where appropriate.

This is the key paragraph, it leads the Judge to accepts everything in the Arrest Warrant as true (Which he should do)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=203652

Which you certainly don't deny. What's with all the blather?

The court never looked into the evidence, they had no opportunity to "find" anything regarding the facts of the rape allegations.

Well, because if they had looked into the facts, they'd quickly dismissed the case. No charges have ever been brought for letting a condom slip, with or without the "victim" being aware of it.

No charges, nowhere, ever.

As you have yourself proven by not being able to present a sample case.

[msanthrope]

68. Have you dropped the dictonary complaint, then? nt

[reorg]

70. no, but I think a dictionary must have been dropped from above you

probably the entire 3rd edition of the OED, printed version, from very high up.

[msanthrope]

73. Oh, the 3rd won't be done for another 25 years...and I doubt it will be bound. nt

[reorg]

38. Correa does not try to jail journalists

on the contrary, he pardons them:

... the President said he was satisfied because the goals had been achieved and the cases had proved that the law was above “the corrupt press”. He described the legal processes as a lesson for his country and he added: "There is forgiveness, but it is not forgotten."

http://ww4report.com/node/10851

[msanthrope]

42. Yes--he does. He could not catch them, though...one took refuge in an embassy,

(sound familiar?) and the rest fled to Miami. (the El Universo editors)

FYI--let's not forget the other two prosecutions, either. One prosecution was for a book that correctly documented the 600 million in Ks that his brother got from the government, another implicated an indigenous people's journalist.

When the chorus against the prosecutions became to loud to ignore, Correa dropped them.

[struggle4progress]

2. "... You're bragging that rape is not illegal in the country you are in charge of? That's not good,

seriously. There is no such thing as 'this guy would be a great guy if he hadn't raped those women' ..."
Ecuadorian President Correa Now Bragging About Rape Being Legal in Ecuador
Posted by Audrey Ference on Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM
http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2012/08/22/ecuadorian-president-correa-now-bragging-about-rape-being-legal-in-ecuador

[happyslug]

4. No, President Correa says what Assange is accussed of is NOT rape in Ecuador (Or even in Britain)

http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2010/12/05/wikileaks-julian-assange-rape-charge-for-not-using-condoms/

Personally, Assange would be better off going to Sweden and getting this charge addresses, then fighting it. Yes, the CIA wants him, but if he is acquitted of the Rape Charge, it will still be hard for the US to extradite him. Assange is making a big deal about the US wanting him due to his leaking of the Pentagon E-mails, but it seems to be more his own ego then reality.

Now, that I have address my opinion this is more a product of Assange ego then any real fears, lets look at the actual Rape charge,

No one disputes Assange had consensual sex with two women while in Sweden. The issue is his refusal have an AIDS Test done after the condom he was using split, was rape? Apparently under Swedish law that comes under Rape, but in most other countries it does not for the sex was still consensual. That is what President Correa is saying, the actual act Assange did was NOT rape under Ecuadorian law.

Know, what Assange did was a side issue in the British extradition case. In an extradition case a person can be extradited for an act, while a crime in the country requesting the extradition, is NOT a crime in the country being asked to extradite the defendant. Now, some countries (and some extradition treaties) permit countries to refuse to extradite people for acts that would NOT be crimes in the country be asked to extradite the defendant, most countries will defer to the country requesting the extradition for that country has the evidence including witnesses to the alleged crime. It is easier to transport one defendant to the country where the crime occurred, then the evidence and witnesses to the country where the defendant is in. That is all Britain's court ruled on, Sweden is the place of the alleged crime, where the witnesses are, where any other evidence is, and thus the best place to weigh that evidence.

I bring this up for I am defending Correa's statement, NOT the action of Assange. Correa's statement is what Assange did was NOT rape in most countries of the world. This has been accepted by Britain as to British law (And then dismissed as irrelevant for the crime did not occur in Britain but Sweden). It is also true in the US, i.e. if a condom breaks during consensual sex, that is NOT rape. As of right now, that is all Assange is accused of doing and based on that set of facts, Correa's statement is true.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Nonsense. Sweden has obviously made a deal with the US.

He will be convicted of "rape" and the European MSM will dub him a sex fiend and Sweden will then ship him to the US. Someone in Sweden has been paid off.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Obviously.

All right-thinking people know this.

[struggle4progress]

7. Wow! Lots and lots of bullshit there! Let's just deal with the dual-criminality issue: the claim

"In an extradition case a person can be extradited for an act, while a crime in the country requesting the extradition, is NOT a crime in the country being asked to extradite the defendant" is flat-out nonsense in this case

Dual-criminality is a very common requirement in extradition treaties. The UK absolutely will not extradite anyone when the alleged crime is not a crime in the UK. A precisely parallel statement holds for Sweden

Assange, in fact, argued in UK court that the complaints against him in Sweden did not involve acts that the UK could recognize as criminal. And if he had prevailed on that point, he would not be hiding out in the embassy today, because the UK courts would have ruled against the Swedish warrant. But the courts carefully examined the Swedish allegations and found that one of the Swedish complaints was a complaint of behavior that most definitely would be considered rape in the UK

The claim -- "... what Assange did was NOT rape in most countries of the world. This has been accepted by Britain as to British law (And then dismissed as irrelevant for the crime did not occur in Britain but Sweden)" -- involves a lot of fiction. Correa may have made such a statement and may believe it. But the UK courts have not accepted that view of the charges and British law. The UK courts have found exactly the opposite: at least one of Swedish allegations against Assange DOES INDEED correspond to the crime of rape under UK law. And the rest ("dismissed as irrelevant for the crime did not occur in Britain but Sweden") is similarly another hallucination advanced as fact by an Assange supporter: such a "dismissal" simply never happened in the court

[tama]

18. Lots of confusion

1. Correa is obviously speaking about the only charge that Assange has been interviewed about by Swedish police, AA's claim about him destroying a condome on purpose, which he denies, or that a concome broke at all. Assange was not interviewed about anything that SW may have or may not have said, apparently because she had not signed the police description of police interview that has been made public, and on which the whole hulabaloo is founded. So

2. the claim of penetrating a sleeping person (without a condom) is not being, to my understanding, discussed by Correa in regard to Ecuador's law or British or any law.

[struggle4progress]

20. YOU CANNOT BE EXTRADITED FROM THE UK FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A CRIME IN THE UK

The poster to whom I replied immediately upthread was claiming that Assange would be extradited from the UK for something that was not a crime in the UK, and made the further false claim that the UK had dismissed the objection on the grounds that the crime was committed in Sweden

[tama]

21. Why are you yelling at me? nt

[reorg]

24. yes you can

the court in the UK did NOT look at the evidence of what actually happened, they did NOT examine whether the summary of allegations appropriately reflected the available testimony. Which they would in any ordinary extradition case.

When it comes to the European Arrest Warrant, the UK cannot and will not and did not look into evidence.

The Swedes ticked "rape" in the form, and that compelled the UK to extradite.

Regardless how the Swedes define rape, or whether the UK have different definitions, the UK has to comply when the Swedes call it rape in an European Arrest Warrant. It is as easy as that. It doesn't matter one bit if the actions alleged would be considered rape in the UK.


None of that even matters in this case, of course, since the alleged actions do not constitute the crime of rape even in Sweden. Unless they're out to get you for extraneous reasons.

[happyslug]

25. Under the Euopean Arrest Warrant, which applies to Britian, yes you can.

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

Double criminality is a feature of international extradition law by which states may refuse to extradite fugitives if the conduct which is alleged to have constituted a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition would not have resulted in the committal of a criminal offence in the state being asked to effect the extradition.

Under the EAW Framework Decision, the requirement for double criminality is removed for a wide range of categories of crimes, and made a discretionary rather than a compulsory ground for a refusal to extradite for offences not falling within those categories.

The categories within which are as follows:

participation in a criminal organisation,
terrorism,
trafficking in human beings,
sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
corruption,
fraud, including fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union,
laundering of the proceeds of crime,
counterfeiting currency,
computer-related crime,
environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
murder, grievous bodily injury,
illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
racism and xenophobia,
organised or armed robbery,
illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
swindling,
racketeering and extortion,
counterfeiting and piracy of products,
forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
forgery of means of payment,
illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
trafficking in stolen vehicles,
rape,
arson,
crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
unlawful seizure of aircraft or ships, and
sabotage.

The Framework Decision is silent as to whether secondary participation in, or an attempt to commit, an offence of the kind listed here itself excluded from the requirement for correspondence.

Another issue which has arisen is the accuracy of a description of an offence as being in a category exempt from the requirement for correspondence, and whether the executing judicial authority is required to accept the issuing judicial authority's classification as definitive.

Basically, the mere fact what Assange did would NOT be rape in Britain, does NOT prevent him from being extradited under the European Arrest Warrant system. In fact the dispute decided by the UK Supreme Court was that an arrest order issued by a Swedish Prosecutor (The norm in Sweden) was the same as an Arrest Warrant signed by a Judge in the UK. The Court ruled it did under the 2003 Act.

This was implemented by the Extradition Act of 2003, Actual Text of the Act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents

Rape is listed as 28 under the "European Framework List.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/schedule/2

Who can be extradited for a crime that is NOT a crime in the UK is handle by Section 64 of the act:

64 Extradition offences: person not sentenced for offence

(1)This section applies in relation to conduct of a person if—
(a)he is accused in a category 1 territory of the commission of an offence constituted by the conduct, or
(b)he is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction by a court in a category 1 territory of an offence constituted by the conduct and he has not been sentenced for the offence.

(2)The conduct constitutes an extradition offence in relation to the category 1 territory if these conditions are satisfied—
(a)the conduct occurs in the category 1 territory and no part of it occurs in the United Kingdom;
(b)a certificate issued by an appropriate authority of the category 1 territory shows that the conduct falls within the European framework list;
(c)the certificate shows that the conduct is punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 3 years or a greater punishment.

(3)The conduct also constitutes an extradition offence in relation to the category 1 territory if these conditions are satisfied—
(a)the conduct occurs in the category 1 territory;
(b)the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom if it occurred in that part of the United Kingdom;
(c)the conduct is punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 12 months or a greater punishment (however it is described in that law).

Notice subsection 2 of section 64 does NOT require that the crime be a crime in the UK IF the crime is on the "European Framework list" and rape is.

Sub-section 3 of Section 64 does retain the right to refuse extrication if the crime charged is NOT a crime in the UK, but that does NOT apply to any crime (including rape) listed in the "European Framework list".

Category 1, a term used in the Act, applies only to the EU and Gibraltar. Category 2, is for every other country (including the US) that Britain has a treaty with:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/extradition/

[struggle4progress]

26. What the framework did was eliminate constant litigation over minute differences of definition

in cases of serious crime: it did not eliminate the dual criminality standard but the parties agreed that constant re-verification of dual criminality was not required for certain serious offences, such as murder

[struggle4progress]

27. Here is the magistrate discussing the charges in Assange's case:

... As far as offences, 1,2, and 3 are concerned it is argued that these do not constitute extradition offences because the conduct alleged would not amount to an offence against English law. The court must apply the “conduct test” of double criminality. That means the court must consider whether the conduct alleged would amount to an offence under English law as if it had occurred in this jurisdiction. The applicant must establish this proposition to the criminal standard of proof. What must be proved is that the conduct, if it were established, would constitute the extradition offence relied on here ... The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

So it is pointless for the purpose of this case, to argue whether or not the Framework abolishes the dual criminality standard. Assange's lawyers were allowed to argue that the behavior alleged would not qualify in the UK as rape, and the court found that, in fact, the behavior alleged WOULD qualify in the UK as rape. So abstract noise about the dual criminality standard is moot, since the court finds that the dual criminality standard is verifiably satisfied, whether or not verification is required for Framework offenses

[reorg]

32. the court did not find that the behaviour alleged would qualify as rape

The judge simply parsed the wording of the allegation.

Whereas the defence had pointed out that the "conduct test" of dual criminality requires that:

the comparison is between the actual conduct abroad which is alleged against the accused in the warrant, and an appropriate offence under English law. ...

(citing from a court decision: ) ... if the evidence relied upon would, if accepted, nonetheless be insufficient to establish the mental element (in that case, dishonesty) then the “unstartling” result would be an end of the case.

... In order to have the conduct described sufficiently to enable this comparative exercise, section 2(4) of the Act requires the warrant to provide “particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence …

pp 39 f

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48345071/Assange-Skeleton-Argument

IOW had the UK court examined not only the wording of the proscecutor's short summary of the allegations but the alleged actual conduct, the particulars of the circumstances, and found that the evidence relied upon is insufficient to establish lack of consent to sexual intercourse, the result would have been the end of the extradition case under normal circumstances.

However, the UK court did not examine the alleged actual conduct and the particulars of the circumstances. They were not required to do so under the simplified EAW procedure, but the judge made a little show of dismissing the "sophisticated argument" by the defence, making it appear as if he had dealt with it. This was, of course, eagerly picked up upon by the press (and others who struggle against progress) to point out that, "see, the judge even went out of his way to show that the double criminality test applies!!!"

[struggle4progress]

41. That's Assange's lawyer's brief: they lost, and I have just quoted from the findings against them

[reorg]

47. yes, and I use it to explain why the "findings" have nothing to do with actual facts

[msanthrope]

43. Um..dude. That's the defense's argument...not the court finding....

in fact, the judge took the trouble to quote the statute that would be applicable in the UK....

Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lists the circumstances in which the complainant is taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the complainant consented. Also the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. Where a section 75 evidential presumption arises there is no question of the issue being removed from the jury. The circumstances in which evidential presumptions about concerned apply include:
2(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act.t"

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

[reorg]

48. the court "finding" was based on consulting a dictionary

not on the actual facts of the case, which was what the defence had demanded.

Fact is that you can't come up with any similar scenario that has ever led to prosecution, let alone a conviction.

Loose the condom, go to jail, LOL!

Not in the entire world. But keep looking for your sample case.

[msanthrope]

50. So you admit you confused the defense argument and the court finding, then? nt

[reorg]

53. you mean you don't understand what the defense actually said?

[msanthrope]

62. No--it's apparent from your questioning that you are unfamiliar

with legal analysis, and who is saying what.

You also seem unfamiliar with how one does legal analysis; in this thread you decry the use of a dictionary.

I suggest you read this article on SCOTUS's use of dictionaries, and assuage your concerns....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14bar.html

[reorg]

66. and you continue to try and distract

with your blather, from the fact that

nowhere, never, have charges of "rape" been brought for a condom that slipped,

and when Assange's defence pointed this out the judge in the UK did not bother to check, he just looked into the dictionary and said "OMG I have found the word rape"!

[msanthrope]

69. A "condom that slipped" does not seem to be in

the EAW. Could you cite where you got that?

[reorg]

71. well, if it didn't slip

he must have been still wearing it, contrary to the allegations.

I guess that resolves the case, then.

[hack89]

13. It is rape in Britain - see post #1. NT

[McCamy Taylor]

5. He is accused of having sex without a condom. That isn't rape in the US.

[hack89]

8. There are four specific charges - perhaps you should read them first?

it is a lot more then sex without a condom.

[reorg]

55. two charges are about one condom, one charge about another condom

and the only one that isn't about a condom is even more ridiculous.

[hack89]

56. "Suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion"

I can understand why you would want ignore those phrases and make it all about condoms.

[reorg]

57. “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape,”

chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, in announcing the withdrawal of the warrant.

http://politicalcrumbs.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/some-sources-for-understanding-the-assange-criminal-charges/

[hack89]

58. Her boss obviously disagreed.

now we can either start weaving elaborate and unlikely conspiracy theories or accept the possibility of a professional disagreement between two Swedish prosecutors.

[reorg]

59. no, he didn't, what makes you think that?

Ms Ny is not "the boss" of Eva Finné, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm.

You don't find it likely that political prosecutions take place?

Against someone who has the gall to continue with embarrassing powerful goverments even after the rape slur was hurled through headlines all over the world?

Someone who doesn't run and hide but continues to be a media presence and even dares to apply for resident status in Sweden after such allegations?

Nooooooohhhh, tooootally unlikely, right, I get it.

[hack89]

61. Since Finne overruled a lower prosecutor who wanted to prosecute for rape

it is not as clear as you wish it was. And let's not forget that Nye got involved because one of the women who accused Assange of rape appealed Finne's decision.

The case was dismissed last week by Eva Finne, chief prosecutor in Stockholm, who overruled a lower-ranked prosecutor and said there was no reason to suspect that Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen, had raped a Swedish woman who had reported him to police.

The woman’s lawyer appealed the decision. Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to reopen the case Wednesday, saying new information had come in on Tuesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/1/rape-probe-against-wikileaks-founder-reopened/

So two out of three prosecutors, including the original prosecutor, thought the law had been broken.

[reorg]

64. Finné did not "overrule" a lower prosecutor

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

the information provided by the Washington Times (interesting sources you have) is inaccurate, I'm afraid.

The prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant was only a stand-in for the weekend, a "duty prosecutor" and she had based her decision on information received over the phone from a police officer.

Actually responsible for the case was the Chief Prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finné, who dismissed the case as soon as she had taken in the available information. It was specifically pointed out at the time by her office that she had MORE INFORMATION available as the stand-in and that this was the reason why the arrest warrant was lifted and the case was dropped.

Ms Ny is not a superior of Ms Finné's. She is assigned to a so-called Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg, whereas Ms Finné is in the regional Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm. Ms Ny re-opened the case only after the scandal lawyer, politician and law partner of the former justice minister Thomas Bödström (the one who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight), Claes Borgström, had requested a review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Borgstr%C3%B6m
http://justice4assange.com/Rule-of-Law.html

So, the first suspicion based on which the arrest warrant was issued came from a police officer.

The prosecutor in charge of the investigation closed the case as soon as she became aware of it, based on examination of the evidence.

And finally, due to pressure from certain circles, the investigation is reopened. We do not know whether Ms Ny does actually believe the law has been broken. For all we know she just formally complies with her duties, following the review request, and investigates.

[hack89]

72. So Ny may have had legitimate reasons for reopening the case.

I don't profess to be an expert on internal Swedish politics but I find it amusing that for Assange supporters all roads seem to converge on an elaborate international conspiracy. I am willing to assume that Ny's motive was benign or reflected her person views on rape. I am curious why it is so hard for Assange supporters to do s

In any case, Assange made that all moot by leaving the country the day before his scheduled interview with Ny. It is hard to reconcile that has an innocent misunderstanding. He dared the Swedish legal system to come get him and they responded with an arrest warrant. Now he has broken British law by defying a court order and jumping bail. So he can spin fantasies of extradition but right now he is nothing more than a common law breaker. This will not have a happy ending with him enjoying freedom in Ecuador.

[Harmony Blue]

15. +1 and the other three charges are questionable at best

based on U.S. law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. I started a thread comparing Akin-Assange because of the birth control/legitmate rape thing

I was told I was crazy because I was fabricating the whole thing. I see now I am not crazy -- though I wish I were.

[ikri]

19. No

Not just without a condom. The accuser had previously agreed to have sex only if he wore a condom, that was consensual and is not in dispute. The accusation is that later, whilst she was asleep, Assange is accused of proceeding to have sex with her without a condom. As she had explicitly stated that she would not consent to sex without a condom and as she was asleep and could not at that point give consent to them having sex without a condom, that would be non-consensual sex.

It would be similar to marital rape, which is a crime in the USA.

[hack89]

11. Correa taking PR lessons from Akens? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. In other news, Mike Tyson just announced that he was moving to Ecuador

[redcap]

30. Naval gazing

Did Assange rape the two consenting women in Sweden? No
Assange fate has been decided the moment he informed the world of the activities of US
Are the US happy for Wikileaks to continue their nafarious activities of disclosing the truth? No
Is Assange destined to jail in the US? Yes
The King is Dead...Long Live the King

[msanthrope]

63. What Navy are we talking about??? nt

[Zorra]

45. Some sources for understanding the Assange criminal charges

http://politicalcrumbs.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/some-sources-for-understanding-the-assange-criminal-charges/

[reorg]

67. Thanks, a good and comprehensive time-line n/t

[Zorra]

74. "Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims."

Julian Assange

[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="blue" size="size" face="face"]When The Power Of Love Overcomes The Love Of Power, The World Will Know Peace[/font]

[msanthrope]

75. Everyone of those linked articles is over a year old, and none reference the actual court documents.

Do you have anything fresher?

FYI--I looked for the court docs on the Wikileaks site. Didn't see 'em. Were you able to find them there?????

[reorg]

76. http://www.swedenversusassange.com

[Jeneral2885]

51. Hat tip

to Mr Assange

Next time you ant to make a speech where you enounter women, do it in Ecuador

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. The alleged crimes were not committed in Ecuador, on the other hand...

UN concerned about extrajudicial killings in Ecuador
Quite an interesting story, especially the police and government response.

And this is a report by Human Rights Watch

World Report 2012: Ecuador

Not a pretty picture.