I think the plan is fairly simple: to clear his name by showing these absurd trumped-up charges for what they are, the machiavellian machinations of the US via a disturbingly compliant Swedish legal system.
I'm not inclined to believe anything regarding Wikileaks or Assange. I'm sure more than a few people have seen those tweets and some Twitter crawlers/indexers have them stored somewhere. We'll see how it plays out, no need to speculate at this point.
Wow, a conspiracy theory that would make sense. The US government finds the leak in may, knows wiki leaks has it. Knows that they'll not be able to directly attack the organization on free speech grounds so they create a character assignation plot and create a rape plot.
I think the plan is fairly simple: to clear his name by showing these absurd trumped-up charges for what they are, the machiavellian machinations of the US via a disturbingly compliant Swedish legal system.
I'm sorry, but there is simply _nothing_ he could ever say to them that would make those charges go away. How is the name clearing supposed to happen?
> If he's not guilty, then he's got nothing to hide.
This assumes the other side plays fair. This assumes that the judge and jury will be rational. This assumes that it's really about sexual assault, and not about politics.
Have you ever seen a rape trial? They're not known for being level-headed.
Yes, normally it is. In this case the definition of 'rape' has apparently been stretched well beyond the breaking point, to where the victim will throw a party for the perp only to go to the police several days later after colluding with another victim. Let's just say that I find the charge sufficiently heavy that I would expect the bar for being charged with this crime to be considerably higher than what is seen so far.
And that's totally besides my views on wikileaks, Julian Assange or anything else.
Wikipedia: "it is alleged that while having consensual sex his condom broke and he either did not disclose the breakage to his partner or continued after his partner asked him to stop."
"Continued after his partner asked him to stop" is rape by definition. "Did not disclose the breakage to his partner" may not technically be rape, but I'm comfortable characterizing it as sexual assault. In either case, it sounds like an allegation worth prosecuting--and that's totally besides my views on Wikileaks, Julian Assange, or anything else.
Which has the actual charges in it there was a second occasion with the same lady, this stretches credulity I believe, one count of rape with one person according to this definition I could believe, but two are at a minimum a little strange and would require some pretty fancy footwork to be explained away. Especially with the victim throwing a party for the perp between the two occasions.
The fact that the witnesses colluded and that Assange apparently was at their places at their invitation and that he undoubtedly was not aware of any of these laws and that at least one of the women definitely was (and tweeted all over the place about it) makes this all very sordid (pardon the pun) indeed and not nearly as clear-cut as you might think at first glance.
Personally I think Julian Assange is an idiot for behaving like this while knowing he's under the microscope but given that the flesh is weak and that these women apparently only decided to go to the police after comparing notes makes the whole thing something that may have been harder to avoid than it looks.
The case is so shaky that one Swedish prosecutor already overruled another and dropped it only to have it revived again without knowledge or consent of the victims.
...is not in the least bit suspicious, if you know anything about the psychology of rape survivors. Believe it or not, most people who have been through that situation don't really want to relive it over and over again throughout a prolonged trial. (Conversely, it's pretty easy to psychologically pressure a rape survivor into not pressing charges, or into dropping charges.) One of the only things that will actually motivate a survivor to press charges is if they discover their rapist attacked someone else, because then it's a pattern of behavior and one feels responsible to come forward so he won't rape anyone else.
If you want to go with the conspiracy theory that the CIA bribed two Swedish women to file false charges against Julian Assange just to stop Wikileaks, that's up to you. Frankly, I think that's in the same realm of plausibility as the idea that Julian Assange just happens to be a rapist. And, more to the point, this kind of uncertainty is exactly why we have trials to begin with.
> If you want to go with the conspiracy theory that the CIA bribed two Swedish women to file false charges against Julian Assange just to stop Wikileaks, that's up to you.
Have you ever seen a rape trial? They're not known for being level-headed.
This isn't exactly to the detriment of Assange. It's easy to get away with rape if you're willing to completely tar your victim's reputation. And if you're a popular public figure, your fans will completely go along with this. Just ask Kobe.
EDIT: Although, Swedish culture might be different in this respect.
Come on, really? So suddenly, because it's Assange, the justice system will conspire against him. He has a world of sympathizers...this thread is proof of that.
The prosecution's case has several puzzling flaws - so obvious! Come on!! Those are NOT the reactions to rape and sexual assault. However, sorry, I do think the recent release endangers people's lives in wars.
Unless they actually charge him with something in Sweden -- which I believe is actually a requirement for this sort of warrant to be issued -- they won't be able to move him to Sweden.
Hopefully sanity doesn't desert the British legal system as well.
Spoken by someone who doesn't know the British legal system well at all. The lack of sanity in the system is breathtakingly clear. We recently convicted someone for making a joke via Twitter, and he didn't have the resources of a government(s?) behind the conviction:
The British legal system is extremely thorough, but excrutiatingly slow. The problem with this approach to justice is that we tend hand people off to foreign governments and then it's too late to recall them. Lessons be will learned, no individual blame will be attached, and Assange will be ruined.
If I take the high-profile “rape” trials I know about as a guide (mere allegations, scant or no evidence, a hungry press and tons of lawyers) this could take a long, long while with much opportunity for Assange to say whatever he wants and a lot of pressure for all involved parties. It’s not as though Sweden can lock him up and throw away the keys. He is relatively safe in British or Swedish custody, if anything were to happen to him the respective governments would get massive problems and there would be no plausible deniability.
"Assange has also said that he declined to return to Sweden to face prosecutors because he feared he would not receive a fair trial, and prosecutors had requested that he be held in solitary confinement and incommunicado."
Not only has there been nothing resembling an "age of democracy" in modern times, but Julian Assange doesn't stand for democracy in any way, shape, or form.
He has indeed demonstrated that modern technology combined with antiquated practice can enable a single person to control our institutions for his own purposes.
Not really sure how that got mistaken with democracy. Let's use our words carefully and precisely. Did you mean the "age of free speech"?
A possible blunder. This is way bigger than McKinnon and he had to fight tooth and nail. If Assange is not extradited to Sweden there is a good chance he will be sent to the US (maybe as an enemy combatant).
If you are officially accused of being a terrorist (or aiding a terrorist organisation) by the states, they can hold you indefinitely. The UK can hold you as well without reason for a specified period as well (90 days?).
The UK has very little to gain from his release and much to lose - it will injure US/UK relations.
I think (hope) there would be a fairly strong backlash against any suggestion that he is to be extradited to the US on anything associated with terrorism.
He's Australian - I can't see how he could be extradited to the US for treason.
[Edit: On second thoughts I think I'm expecting a bit too much rational behavior from our legal system, they'd probably extradite him if he was accused of shooting Abraham Lincoln]
You cannot be held for 90 days in the UK. That was where the previous government tried to get to, but they were blocked. It currently stands that you can be held for 28 days without trial, and the government have to renew that every 6 months.
