5 ms·

A lot of maybes and no proof. If the women had been sexually assaulted, and if these assumptions are to be taken seriously (e.g. that they are not easily intimi

by eyko 12y ago

A lot of maybes and no proof. If the women had been sexually assaulted, and if these assumptions are to be taken seriously (e.g. that they are not easily intimidated by exterior circumstances) then much of what happened after the alleged rape would make no sense whatsoever (their friendly behaviour, their tweets, their comments with other friends/witnesses). In fact, there is so much that has been put into question that it's ridiculous how the swedish government even took the case seriously. And let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape and he's only wanted for questioning. I believe that this is what they are saying because it's impossible to justify any other stance based on the lack of evidence...

cmdkeen 12y ago
Except the case went to the UK Supreme Court and the extradition was found to be justified. The English legal system has a very good track record of standing up to the government so unless you're suggesting that they too have somehow "been got at" as well... Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets I do love the blind belief that Assange is the victim of a highly successful multi-government conspiracy over a number of years.
- atlantic 12y ago
  > Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets How do you come to the conclusion that governments are poor at keeping secrets? There have been relatively few leaks of consequence, and governments have done a great job of making an example of the people doing the leaking. Manning is in prison, Snowden is in exile, Assange is locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Serious journalists like Greenwald have to base themselves in third-world countries. So while governments are perhaps mediocre at protecting data, they can certainly go after anybody who places it in the public domain, and this fear effect is a much stronger deterrent than anything else they could do.
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    Greenwald seems to base himself there for publicity purposes. No-one else from the New York Times has moved, the Guardian is still firmly based in the UK.
dagw 12y ago
let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to trial.
- contingencies 12y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement for custody before questioning and Sweden along with other European nations have a frequent history of using remote questioning via video conference or telephone. The prosecutor in this case has just refused to do that, for no legally stated reason except further slurs such as she considers him a 'flight risk' (even though he received permission to leave Sweden, and the case has already been thrown out of court once, and at this point it's blatantly clear that it's a politically motivated case with no chance of a fair trial). The prosecutor is, in fact, in breach of Sweden's own rules which require a speedy and fair trial with the minimum assertion of guilt on the party being questioned.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    You're wrong. "Questioning" is an awkward translation and does not mean what you think it means. It has been debated to death in all those Assange threads. Please read the article in New Statesman that another poster helpfully linked to somewhere in this thread.
    - contingencies 12y ago
      I note that you have a personal interest in Sweden and are German. I am glad that you are able to tell me about what questioning means in English. Thanks for telling me I'm wrong, and to go and look up why. That was really useful and added a lot to the conversation. Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): Even though Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some, including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a fugitive on the run. In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge. I wonder if you will read it? http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

by eyko 12y ago

cmdkeen 12y ago

Except the case went to the UK Supreme Court and the extradition was found to be justified. The English legal system has a very good track record of standing up to the government so unless you're suggesting that they too have somehow "been got at" as well... Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets I do love the blind belief that Assange is the victim of a highly successful multi-government conspiracy over a number of years.

atlantic 12y ago
> Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets How do you come to the conclusion that governments are poor at keeping secrets? There have been relatively few leaks of consequence, and governments have done a great job of making an example of the people doing the leaking. Manning is in prison, Snowden is in exile, Assange is locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Serious journalists like Greenwald have to base themselves in third-world countries. So while governments are perhaps mediocre at protecting data, they can certainly go after anybody who places it in the public domain, and this fear effect is a much stronger deterrent than anything else they could do.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  Greenwald seems to base himself there for publicity purposes. No-one else from the New York Times has moved, the Guardian is still firmly based in the UK.

dagw 12y ago

let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to trial.

contingencies 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement for custody before questioning and Sweden along with other European nations have a frequent history of using remote questioning via video conference or telephone. The prosecutor in this case has just refused to do that, for no legally stated reason except further slurs such as she considers him a 'flight risk' (even though he received permission to leave Sweden, and the case has already been thrown out of court once, and at this point it's blatantly clear that it's a politically motivated case with no chance of a fair trial). The prosecutor is, in fact, in breach of Sweden's own rules which require a speedy and fair trial with the minimum assertion of guilt on the party being questioned.
- Tomte 12y ago
  You're wrong. "Questioning" is an awkward translation and does not mean what you think it means. It has been debated to death in all those Assange threads. Please read the article in New Statesman that another poster helpfully linked to somewhere in this thread.
  - contingencies 12y ago
    I note that you have a personal interest in Sweden and are German. I am glad that you are able to tell me about what questioning means in English. Thanks for telling me I'm wrong, and to go and look up why. That was really useful and added a lot to the conversation. Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): Even though Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some, including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a fugitive on the run. In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge. I wonder if you will read it? http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html