5 ms·

Here's the testimony from Assange's own lawyers: He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously

by lizzard 14y ago

Here's the testimony from Assange's own lawyers: He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual. In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.” That's rape.

tomp 14y ago
sources?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Right here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-e... This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer. It does lose the context of the lawyer continuing on that Assange eventually did find and use a condom.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer where he is stipulating to the statements provided by the prosecution for the purposes of an extradition hearing where the court will view the evidence as favorable as reasonable to the prosecution. In other words, this is Assange's lawyers presentation of the prosecutions claims followed by his attempt at making the claim there is no case even if the facts are entirely as alleged by the opposing party. Presenting this as Assange's lawyers somehow agreeing that these are the facts is misleading at best. His lawyer goes on to specifically state that for the purposes of the hearing it is irrelevant whether or not Assange agrees with this version of events.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I don't think that's entirely true, but it's perhaps more true than not. I addressed it upthread. The only issue being litigated in this thread and in UK court is "is this rape charge so ridiculous that the UK should refuse to honor its extradition treaty with Sweden over it". I don't see any reasonable argument for that assertion here. Sweden is not an Orwellian dystopia. It's an especially enlightened and socially conscious state, even (perhaps especially) compared to the US.
      - vidarh 14y ago
        It's a country that have admitted to having handed political asylum seekers over to the CIA so they could ship them back to the regime they were fleeing in order for them to be tortured. While it did cause an uproar, it took a couple of months before Swedish military intelligence uncovered that illegal CIA rendition were still ongoing, with the involvement of Swedish airport staff. Sweden has an extensive history of various services violating Swedish law in order to bend over for the US behind the scenes.
      - nacker 14y ago
        I beg to differ. Sweden is thought by many especially enlightened people to be case study in radical feminist insanity. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-radfem-conquest-of-sweden/ http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-...
        tptacek 14y ago
        "Radical feminist insanity". Here's where I get off this train. Have fun, all.
        nacker 14y ago
        Oh? No SCUM for you? Bye! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ryguytilidie 14y ago
This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday. Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.
- tptacek 14y ago
  A chance in hell for being extradited for rape? Yes. There is.
  - smokeyj 14y ago
    For the record, do you believe this fiasco isn't politically motivated?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I don't even think that question matters. The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange? If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't. The suggestion that Sweden is so corrupt that it can't handle basic criminal law is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. No evidence has been presented to support it, at all. The rest of the argument is to my ears just fever talk. Some US muckity muck said Assange should be killed? Ok. I won't vote for that moron. There are also US politicians who believe we should have nuked Iraq. There was never any real risk that we we going to fire nuclear weapons at a 3rd world country. Random politicians say all sorts of idiotic things. Thankfully, they cannot suspend criminal law as a result.
      - vidarh 14y ago
        Of course it matters. If the answer to the question you were asked - and evaded - is yes, then the answer to your question is pretty much automatically no. The suggestion that Sweden can't handle basic criminal law when they have political motivations for their actions has been well demonstrated by the fact that Swedish police have in the past violated Swedish law and international treaties by handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA without due process. In fact, without any process at all. In order for them to be shipped off to be tortured. How many of these people faced charges?
vidarh 14y ago
You are grossly misrepresenting this. The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events. Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution. In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph. Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense of Assange. But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid. The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be given in Sweden.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    I covered this when I wrote: 'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.' It is not only the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims plus an attempt by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the prosecutions alleged facts. That's a highly significant constraint.

by lizzard 14y ago

tomp 14y ago

sources?

tptacek 14y ago
Right here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-e... This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer. It does lose the context of the lawyer continuing on that Assange eventually did find and use a condom.
- vidarh 14y ago
  This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer where he is stipulating to the statements provided by the prosecution for the purposes of an extradition hearing where the court will view the evidence as favorable as reasonable to the prosecution. In other words, this is Assange's lawyers presentation of the prosecutions claims followed by his attempt at making the claim there is no case even if the facts are entirely as alleged by the opposing party. Presenting this as Assange's lawyers somehow agreeing that these are the facts is misleading at best. His lawyer goes on to specifically state that for the purposes of the hearing it is irrelevant whether or not Assange agrees with this version of events.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I don't think that's entirely true, but it's perhaps more true than not. I addressed it upthread. The only issue being litigated in this thread and in UK court is "is this rape charge so ridiculous that the UK should refuse to honor its extradition treaty with Sweden over it". I don't see any reasonable argument for that assertion here. Sweden is not an Orwellian dystopia. It's an especially enlightened and socially conscious state, even (perhaps especially) compared to the US.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      It's a country that have admitted to having handed political asylum seekers over to the CIA so they could ship them back to the regime they were fleeing in order for them to be tortured. While it did cause an uproar, it took a couple of months before Swedish military intelligence uncovered that illegal CIA rendition were still ongoing, with the involvement of Swedish airport staff. Sweden has an extensive history of various services violating Swedish law in order to bend over for the US behind the scenes.
    - nacker 14y ago
      I beg to differ. Sweden is thought by many especially enlightened people to be case study in radical feminist insanity. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-radfem-conquest-of-sweden/ http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-...
      - tptacek 14y ago
        "Radical feminist insanity". Here's where I get off this train. Have fun, all.
        nacker 14y ago
        Oh? No SCUM for you? Bye! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ryguytilidie 14y ago

This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday. Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.

tptacek 14y ago
A chance in hell for being extradited for rape? Yes. There is.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  For the record, do you believe this fiasco isn't politically motivated?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I don't even think that question matters. The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange? If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't. The suggestion that Sweden is so corrupt that it can't handle basic criminal law is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. No evidence has been presented to support it, at all. The rest of the argument is to my ears just fever talk. Some US muckity muck said Assange should be killed? Ok. I won't vote for that moron. There are also US politicians who believe we should have nuked Iraq. There was never any real risk that we we going to fire nuclear weapons at a 3rd world country. Random politicians say all sorts of idiotic things. Thankfully, they cannot suspend criminal law as a result.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      Of course it matters. If the answer to the question you were asked - and evaded - is yes, then the answer to your question is pretty much automatically no. The suggestion that Sweden can't handle basic criminal law when they have political motivations for their actions has been well demonstrated by the fact that Swedish police have in the past violated Swedish law and international treaties by handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA without due process. In fact, without any process at all. In order for them to be shipped off to be tortured. How many of these people faced charges?

vidarh 14y ago

You are grossly misrepresenting this. The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events. Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution. In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph. Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.

tptacek 14y ago
The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense of Assange. But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid. The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be given in Sweden.
- vidarh 14y ago
  I covered this when I wrote: 'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.' It is not only the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims plus an attempt by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the prosecutions alleged facts. That's a highly significant constraint.