why is there no wikileaks thread?

D

droid

Guest
If it's just that they didn't use one in the first place, how on earth is that his 'fault' any more than hers? And something you can be legally charged with? The mind boggles.

He should get one of these for the next time he has a hot date:

Afaik the act was in progress when the condom was either removed or broken in either case.

Fair enough. I guess the ladies were just trying to avoid any sticky-leaks!

BOOM BOOM BOOM!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

crackerjack

Well-known member
He was charged, the charges were dropped.

Now theyre back again. The allegation is that he either failed to wear, or took off/broke a condom during consensual sex. It all seems extremely dodgy.
His lawyer on C4 News now. Apparently still no charges, he's just wanted for questioning and the lawyer who's revived the case is a right-wing politician.

This is barely a pretence of proper legal proceedings.
 

you

Well-known member
I cannot believe this shit - gibsonian.

More than one person, in more than one country is being seriously leaned on here.

Following from the guardian:

The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, who is wanted in Sweden over claims he sexually assaulted two women, was in Wandsworth prison tonight after a judge refused him bail at an extradition hearing in London. The 39-year-old Australian, who denies the allegations, was driven away in a white prison van after an extraordinary one-hour hearing at City of Westminster magistrates court. The district judge, Howard Riddle, ruled there was a risk Assange would fail to surrender if granted bail.

Despite Jemima Khan, former wife of Pakistan cricketer Imran Khan, the campaigning journalist John Pilger, the British film director Ken Loach and others offering to stand surety totalling £180,000, the judge said Assange's "weak community ties" in the UK, and his "means and ability" to abscond, were "substantial grounds" for refusing bail.

He was remanded until 14 December, when the case can be reviewed at the same court. His legal team said he would again apply for bail at that hearing.

The move against Assange came on a day when increasing pressure was brought to bear in the US on companies and organisations with ties to WikiLeaks.

As Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, urged businesses to sever their ties with the website, Visa suspended all donations through its credit card.

Asked about the New York Times's role in publishing the leaked cables, Lieberman told Fox news the newspaper "has committed at least an act of bad citizenship. Whether they have committed a crime I think bears very intensive inquiry".

Assange, wearing a black suit and open-necked white shirt, stood in the glass-panelled dock as more than 50 journalists from around the world packed into the well and more than 20 supporters and friends crammed into the public gallery. Outside, the pavement was swallowed up as more photographers and camera crew jostled with angry protesters gathered at the building's main entrance.

After the ruling – with supporters waving A4 printouts reading "Character Assassination" and "Protect Free Speech" – his solicitor, Mark Stephens, emerged on to the court's steps to claim the prosecution was "politically motivated" and pledged that WikiLeaks would not be cowed. Assange was entitled to a high court appeal, he said, adding the judge was "impressed" with the number of people prepared to "stand up" on his client's behalf. "[Those supporters] were but the tip of the iceberg," he said. "This is going to go viral. Many people believe Mr Assange to be innocent, myself included. Many people believe that this prosecution is politically motivated."

Pilger, who told the judge he did know Assange and had "very high regard for him", said outside court: "Sweden should be ashamed. This is not justice – this is outrageous."

Assange was arrested by appointment at a London police station at 9.20am after a European arrest warrant was received by the Metropolitan police extradition unit yesterday. He appeared in court at 2pm, where he spoke to confirm his name and date of birth and to tell the court: "I do not consent to my extradition."

There was confusion when he initially refused to give an address except a Post Office box number. When told this was unacceptable, his lawyer, John Jones, read out an address at 177 Grantham Street, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Assange is wanted in connection with four allegations including of rape and molestation.

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish prosecutors, said the first involved complainant A, who said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

Lindfield argued there was a "high risk of flight" because of Assange's "lifestyle, connections and potential assets".

He had access to funds, through PayPal donations to the WikiLeaks website, had a "network of international contacts", lived a "nomadic" lifestyle, and spent his time in "hiding", she said. The court later heard that for the past three weeks he had been staying at a UK address, and before then had spent two months living at the Frontline media club in Paddington.

There was no record of him entering the UK in the first place. He had displayed an unwillingness to co-operate, refusing to be photographed, fingerprinted or give a DNA sample on arrest, she added.

No details were given about the strength of evidence, with Lindfield saying it "is not a factor in relation to bail". She also opposed bail for reasons of his personal safety, saying if granted "any number of unstable persons could take it upon themselves to cause him serious harm".

"This is someone, simply put, to whom no conditions, even the most stringent conditions, could be imposed that would ensure he surrendered to the jurisdiction of this court," she said.

John Jones said the case must be "shorn of all political and media hysteria" associated with WikiLeaks.

Assange was of previous good character, and had voluntarily handed himself in to Kentish Town police station in London. His refusal to be photographed, fingerprinted or give a DNA sample was on legal advice.

He had stayed in Sweden for 40 days after the allegations were made to answer the charges and only left the country after being given "express permission" by the Swedish prosecutor.

Since he had arrived in the UK he had "consistently agreed to talk to the Swedish authorities". His defence fund had been frozen, and he would also be "instantly recognised" if he tried to leave the country, said Jones.

"He resists extradition as it is disproportionate to extradite someone under these circumstances. There has been every indication that the point of this warrant is to get him back for questioning."

The judge said the warrant did state it was for prosecution.

Others offering surety were Professor Patricia David, and the lawyer Geoffrey Sheen, president of Union Solidarity International, who both said although they did not know Assange they were concerned about human rights. An unnamed relative of Assange offered £80,000.

But judge Riddle said: "The nature and strength of the evidence is not there, this is normal at this stage in proceedings. What we have here is the serious possible allegations against someone with comparatively weak community ties in this country. He has the means and ability to abscond if he wants to and I am satisfied that there are substantial grounds to believe if I granted him bail he would fail to surrender."

Downing Street said Assange's arrest was "a matter for the police" and there had been no ministerial involvement.

A WikiLeaks spokesman, Kristinn Hrafnsson, said it would not stop the release of more secret files. "WikiLeaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before. Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."

Unlike the UK, Swedish rape law is not based on consent but on the aforementioned concept of sexual integrity. There are a number of possible offences against this integrity. Those that involve both penetration and either physical force or a threat of some illegal act, such as violence, are classified as rape. So are assaults on people who are helpless at the time, either as a result of intoxication or severe mental disturbance. The degree of physical force involved need only be very small. It can be enough merely to move the victim's legs apart, according to Gunilla Berglund, at the Swedish ministry of justice. Rape carries a sentence of between two and six years; aggravated rape a sentence of four to 10 years.

An issue concerning Assange's lawyers is the lack of bail in Swedish criminal procedure. Suspects are remanded in custody when legal grounds can be made out for their detention – particularly when they are foreigners who are deemed at risk of absconding.

However, there are strict limits on the timescale for bringing a suspect to trial, with a formal charge required within two weeks of being remanded into custody, and trial one week after that.

The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, dismissed suggestions of a political motive for the rape allegations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-denied-bail

Then, on news night Kirsty asked if the distinction between Assange and Wikileaks was important - 'no', Kirsty pressed and explained that Assange has put 'levers' in place so that information would continue to be released even without Assange being around, if he is not actually releasing such leaks directly himself is it still correct to pursue his punishment? Answer : "well that is in the eye of the beholder" - - - - ho ho ho, says a lot about american democracy or justice notions ( or any political force anywhere for that matter ) - impression I took away is that it doesn't even matter if he's guilty, he's hunted, and he's going to be punished because he's upset people.

Also, the sex crimes are not actually awfully heinous, basically just misunderstandings within consensual sex from what I gather, considering his full co-operation so far such politically driven heavy handedness appears even more conspicuous.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
So, the claim here is that the two women tried to get hold of JA to ask him to get tested for STDs after having unprotected sex with them, purely out of concern for their (and I guess his) wellbeing, and that the public prosecutor got wind of this and decided to prosecute for rape, or molestation, or something.

I guess it's a truism to say that the only people who really know what happened are JA and the two women...it does sound as if he's been a bit of a twat at the very least but it's hard to imagine how he could get anything approaching a fair trial should this come to court.
 

reeltoreel

Well-known member
^^^
damnit

http://studentactivism.net/2010/12/04/julian-assange-condoms-rape-and-sex-by-surprise/

Slate characterizes this as a case in which Swedish prosecutors have confirmed that the sex in each instance was consensual, but are pursuing charges anyway. Their only sources for this claim, though, are two of Assange’s lawyers. And if that wasn’t bad enough, Slate vouches for the lawyers’ analysis in their own account of the incidents, even though it’s clear that whether the sex was consensual is under dispute. (Even the Daily Mail — Slate’s only non-Assange source for their piece — whose own reporting is deeply creepy in many ways, is more honest about the charges than Slate is.)
The Swedish authorities have released details of the allegations against Assange. They claim that he used his body weight to hold one woman down during a non-consensual sexual act, that he had sex with her without using a condom in violation of her “express wish,” and that four days later he ”deliberately molested” her “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity.” The other complainant alleges that he took sexual advantage of her while she was asleep, and that he did not use a condom.
Also - http://studentactivism.net/2010/12/08/guilt-innocence-and-justice-in-the-julian-assange-case/

When a public figure is accused of misconduct, his supporters are often tempted to minimize the charges against him — to say that the accusations are not merely false, but also unserious. But in this case the accusations are serious. Assange may be guilty or he may be innocent, but he is accused of serious crimes.
And - http://feminismandtea.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-by-surprise.html

First of all, let me put this straight: there is no such crime as "sex by surprise" in Sweden. Assange is charged for rape, sexual harassment and duress, and this is, what is called in Swedish legal terms, on "sannolika skäl;" a classification that means that the prosecutor has enough evidence to make her believe it is likely the verdict will be in her favour. There is fairly strong evidence, then, it is not charge pulled out of thin air. "Sex by surprise" or överraskningssex as it would be translated in Swedish is slang for rape. It is a term that is used when speaking about rape, but jokingly, or keeping it light, a word that brings with it positive connotations, which makes the word inappropriate in itself, but it is nevertheless synonymous with rape.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Sensible piece on studentactivism there - justice should be done, though it's hard to see how impartiality can be ensured when so many powerful people are baying for his blood.

I liked:

"Despite what you might have read on the web, for instance, consensual sex without a condom isn’t illegal in Sweden."

You'd hope so, wouldn't you?
 

BareBones

wheezy
it's a shame manning seems to have been forgotten in all of this furore over julian assange. can't believe this treatment of him, it's fucking disgusting....

did anyone see that john pilger doc the other day, "the war you don't see"? very difficult viewing at times...
 
Top