4 ms·

Assange has not been charged with a crime because Swedish law requires him to be present in Sweden before they do so. This is one of 22 comment on this very art

Assange has not been charged with a crime because Swedish law requires him to be present in Sweden before they do so. This is one of 22 comment on this very article--if you're going to charge people with willful ignorance you probably need a more credible position to do so. :) As I understand it both women claim he had sex non-consensually with them - with one he had sex with her while she was asleep, in the other case she insisted he used a condom and he refused, while holding her down with his weight. Both of those sound like rape to me (and that's how the Swedish name for the offense, olaga tvång, is usually translated as I understand it). Assange, by his own words and actions, comes across as quite an unpleasant man. It's not hard to see him fighting his extradition to Sweden as being motivated by him feeling that his conduct in bed with these women was reasonable. It wasn't, and I'm sad (but I guess not surprised) at the misogyny some people defending him display.

vidarh 14y ago
> Assange has not been charged with a crime because Swedish law requires him to be present in Sweden before they do so. He is wanted for arrest to be questioned on suspicion. He has not been interviewed. It would be absolutely shockingly unprecedented even for Sweden if they intend to charge him based on testimony that one prosecutor didn't even believe indicated a crime had taken place, without a formal complaint (see below), without physical evidence and without having conducted an interview to get his side of the story. You seem to try to make it out as if this is just a formality and he's "practically charged", just not technically because they need to wait until he'se there first. If this is just a technicality, then this case stinks to high heaven based on the information that's been disclosed about this case so far. The problem is, if it isn't just a technicality, and they seriously want to do an interview before making a reasoned decision about whether to charge him, they've had several opportunities to do so a long time ago, and refused, in order to spend a year and a half trying to get him into a Swedish jail. In either case something is up. Possibly just the career goals of the prosecutor. But this is not how this plays out for less high profile cases in Scandinavia. Not even in Sweden. > As I understand it both women claim he had sex non-consensually with them As I understand it, both women described something that the police decided to interpret as non-consensual sex without a formal complaint from either of them - an interpretation one of the prosecutors who reviewed the case thought was nonsense. > It wasn't, His behavior has not been proven to be anywhere near the media portrayal of the complaint, nor has the testimony of the women in question been under any kind of serious scrutiny. Maybe it was just like that. Maybe it was worse. Or nothing criminal might have happened. After all the case only still exists because it was in a pretty much unprecedented manner picked up by a second prosecutor known for her hardline views and desire to significantly tighten up Swedish rape laws well beyond anywhere else in Europe after one prosecutor dismissed it on the belief that there had not been any crime. At the same time, one of the women tried to remove tweets that described how she'd had a great time with Assange after the alleged rape, and a blog post describing exactly how to use a similar method of going to the police to describe a situation as a legal method of taking revenge on someone. Assange might very well be guilty, but there are enough bizarre things about this case that if he is innocent, he has every reason to fight this extradition, particularly given his background, out of a concern for the motivations of the prosecution. As such, using his decision to fight extradition as an indicator of what he thinks or doesn't think about what behavior is reasonable or whether or not he is guilty of a crime is flawed.
- hythloday 14y ago
  He has been interviewed, about these events, on the 30th August, by Sthlm police[0]. Swedish law demands that he can only be charged after a second round of questioning after extradition (as I understand it). How many "less high profile" alleged rapists leave the country and then fight extradition? It seems to me obvious that he's being treated unusually because he has behaved unusually. It is not uncommon, especially in cases of this kind, for prosecutions to be brought even in the absence of formal complaints (and sometimes against the express wishes of the victim). That's the nature of criminal actions - you offend against the state, and the state brings the prosecution. It's sometimes absurd but, again, it's not out of the ordinary. Everything I've heard from Assange about his behaviour has been deflective - "the charges are without basis" is the closest he's got to denying it and that sounds like it came from his lawyer. "This has been a very successful smear campaign", "I'm the only victim in this", "it's deeply disturbing that the charges are raised at this time", and that the extradition proceedings to Sweden are "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US". If the often-raised last point is true, why the hell did he APPLY FOR RESIDENCE in Sweden three months before the warrant was issued? [1] The whole thing really seems to me like he knows he did the things he is accused of but he just doesn't think they're crimes or problematic. You're welcome to draw an alternative conclusion, but I don't think there is anything murky in the judicial process. [0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/31/wikileaks-julian-assange-questioned http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/31/wikileaks-julian... [1] http://www.thelocal.se/29684/20101018/ http://www.thelocal.se/29684/20101018/
  - vidarh 14y ago
    You are right, I didn't remember the first interview. He was, though, subsequently told he was free to leave, after the first prosecutor decided there was no case. When he's a new prosecutor well known for her aggressive activism in expanding the scope of rape law then decides to override, there's every reason to be worried, whatever you've done or not done.
    - hythloday 14y ago
okamiueru 14y ago
From what I remember of the case when it transpired. Both women had no problems with having slept with Assange (as expressed through texts and tweets that were removed). It was only when they became aware of each other that they went to the police. And not to a station near the women, but to one where the women knew a friend (though I'm not sure how unreasonable this is, if she had been raped). Also, when someone expresses ulterior motives (revenge, defamation) with regards to a rape accusation (where it often becomes word against word), and also when also having expressed consent to the sex... to later change their minds. You bet I'm suspicious. Also, I was not aware one had to be in Sweden to be charged with a crime. I find that a bit surprising, but I'll take your word for it for now and look into it later.

vidarh 14y ago

> Assange has not been charged with a crime because Swedish law requires him to be present in Sweden before they do so. He is wanted for arrest to be questioned on suspicion. He has not been interviewed. It would be absolutely shockingly unprecedented even for Sweden if they intend to charge him based on testimony that one prosecutor didn't even believe indicated a crime had taken place, without a formal complaint (see below), without physical evidence and without having conducted an interview to get his side of the story. You seem to try to make it out as if this is just a formality and he's "practically charged", just not technically because they need to wait until he'se there first. If this is just a technicality, then this case stinks to high heaven based on the information that's been disclosed about this case so far. The problem is, if it isn't just a technicality, and they seriously want to do an interview before making a reasoned decision about whether to charge him, they've had several opportunities to do so a long time ago, and refused, in order to spend a year and a half trying to get him into a Swedish jail. In either case something is up. Possibly just the career goals of the prosecutor. But this is not how this plays out for less high profile cases in Scandinavia. Not even in Sweden. > As I understand it both women claim he had sex non-consensually with them As I understand it, both women described something that the police decided to interpret as non-consensual sex without a formal complaint from either of them - an interpretation one of the prosecutors who reviewed the case thought was nonsense. > It wasn't, His behavior has not been proven to be anywhere near the media portrayal of the complaint, nor has the testimony of the women in question been under any kind of serious scrutiny. Maybe it was just like that. Maybe it was worse. Or nothing criminal might have happened. After all the case only still exists because it was in a pretty much unprecedented manner picked up by a second prosecutor known for her hardline views and desire to significantly tighten up Swedish rape laws well beyond anywhere else in Europe after one prosecutor dismissed it on the belief that there had not been any crime. At the same time, one of the women tried to remove tweets that described how she'd had a great time with Assange after the alleged rape, and a blog post describing exactly how to use a similar method of going to the police to describe a situation as a legal method of taking revenge on someone. Assange might very well be guilty, but there are enough bizarre things about this case that if he is innocent, he has every reason to fight this extradition, particularly given his background, out of a concern for the motivations of the prosecution. As such, using his decision to fight extradition as an indicator of what he thinks or doesn't think about what behavior is reasonable or whether or not he is guilty of a crime is flawed.

hythloday 14y ago
He has been interviewed, about these events, on the 30th August, by Sthlm police[0]. Swedish law demands that he can only be charged after a second round of questioning after extradition (as I understand it). How many "less high profile" alleged rapists leave the country and then fight extradition? It seems to me obvious that he's being treated unusually because he has behaved unusually. It is not uncommon, especially in cases of this kind, for prosecutions to be brought even in the absence of formal complaints (and sometimes against the express wishes of the victim). That's the nature of criminal actions - you offend against the state, and the state brings the prosecution. It's sometimes absurd but, again, it's not out of the ordinary. Everything I've heard from Assange about his behaviour has been deflective - "the charges are without basis" is the closest he's got to denying it and that sounds like it came from his lawyer. "This has been a very successful smear campaign", "I'm the only victim in this", "it's deeply disturbing that the charges are raised at this time", and that the extradition proceedings to Sweden are "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US". If the often-raised last point is true, why the hell did he APPLY FOR RESIDENCE in Sweden three months before the warrant was issued? [1] The whole thing really seems to me like he knows he did the things he is accused of but he just doesn't think they're crimes or problematic. You're welcome to draw an alternative conclusion, but I don't think there is anything murky in the judicial process. [0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/31/wikileaks-julian-assange-questioned http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/31/wikileaks-julian... [1] http://www.thelocal.se/29684/20101018/ http://www.thelocal.se/29684/20101018/
- vidarh 14y ago
  You are right, I didn't remember the first interview. He was, though, subsequently told he was free to leave, after the first prosecutor decided there was no case. When he's a new prosecutor well known for her aggressive activism in expanding the scope of rape law then decides to override, there's every reason to be worried, whatever you've done or not done.
  - hythloday 14y ago

okamiueru 14y ago

From what I remember of the case when it transpired. Both women had no problems with having slept with Assange (as expressed through texts and tweets that were removed). It was only when they became aware of each other that they went to the police. And not to a station near the women, but to one where the women knew a friend (though I'm not sure how unreasonable this is, if she had been raped). Also, when someone expresses ulterior motives (revenge, defamation) with regards to a rape accusation (where it often becomes word against word), and also when also having expressed consent to the sex... to later change their minds. You bet I'm suspicious. Also, I was not aware one had to be in Sweden to be charged with a crime. I find that a bit surprising, but I'll take your word for it for now and look into it later.