Julian Assange

[eFestivals]

Sex while someone is asleep is defo not getting consent and I can see how that could be rape.

oh, definitely.

But in UK law, I believe it would be the case that if the woman involved had no issue with being shagged by someone while she were asleep, then it wouldn't be considered rape.

I'm guessing that in Swedish law that explicit consent is required, rather than there being an implicit consent by the fact that they'd shagged the night before.

[Spindles]

but you're adding 2 and 2 and making 73

it may be that neither of the complainants is completely eliable and the story doesnt seem entirely clear...but to jump from that to concluding that it's all a conspiracy to get him to the US is more than just a tiny leap of faith. And it ignores the fact that it would be easier to get him to the US from the UK than it would be to get him there from Sweden.

Which is why I suspect that the reality here is that he simply wants to avoid facing the music in Sweden. He may also be paranoid and genuinely believe that it's all a ploy to get him to the US, but I suspect that's all in Assange's head

[abdoujaparov]

..and again, leaked documents show that the US wish to charge him with espionage among other crimes. He is considered an enemy of the state and to be assisting enemies of the US, there is actually plenty of evidence that the US would like to get their hands on him, that they have a history of using kidnap, torture and other means illegal under the geneva convention to silence or stop their enemies, that is what this is all about.

[lost]

oh, definitely.

But in UK law, I believe it would be the case that if the woman involved had no issue with being shagged by someone while she were asleep, then it wouldn't be considered rape.

I'm guessing that in Swedish law that explicit consent is required, rather than there being an implicit consent by the fact that they'd shagged the night before.

[metallimuse]

I just find it incredibly unlikely that Hague would threaten to invade the Ecuadorian Embassy on a sexual assault charge.

[Spindles]

The news of the last few days?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19314618

The speech he gave (while we are focussing on whether he was a rapist William Hague sent a letter to the Ecuadorian ambassador threatening exaclty this) contained a statement that on the previous night british police had been on the fire escape of the embassy preparing to do exactly what was threatened, in writing, by our government and that he called in supporters to ensure that this did not happen without being filmed and made public.

That's the point. Everything is a matter of record, which in the end cannot be hidden from, such as the letter from William Hague (which is not what I am sure any sane man would agree is a proportional response to an allegation of a sex offense in a world where we will not enter an embassy for the crime of murder - Libyan embassy example)

[eFestivals]

its illegal in the UK too as per the spectator article on the previous page, rape within marriage is also illegal in the UK the fact that she had consented before wouldn't stand up

the fact that she had consented before wouldn't stand up in English law ONLY if the woman made a complaint of rape about the guy having sex with her while asleep.

The difference between English and Swedish law is (I think) within the need of the woman to complain.

At the end of the day - in a UK legal sense - 'rape' is a "head crime". The act of consensual sex, and rape, is the same (sexual intercourse). How one becomes rape rather than consensual sex is how a person feels about what has happened; if a competent adult doesn't feel that they've been taken advantage of then it cannot be rape.

[lost]

the fact that she had consented before wouldn't stand up in English law ONLY if the woman made a complaint of rape about the guy having sex with her while asleep.

The difference between English and Swedish law is (I think) within the need of the woman to complain.

At the end of the day - in a UK legal sense - 'rape' is a "head crime". The act of consensual sex, and rape, is the same (sexual intercourse). How one becomes rape rather than consensual sex is how a person feels about what has happened; if a competent adult doesn't feel that they've been taken advantage of then it cannot be rape.

Edited August 21, 2012 by lost

[Spindles]

I might have missed it, but I can't see anything in that article that suggests a storming of the embassy was imminent. What was in the letter?

If the cops were on the fire-escape, then that would be not part of the embassy, so they could be waiting to simply arrest Assange?

[LondonTom]

I dont understand why Julian can;'t be a bad guy and the USA/Governments of the world be the slime we all believe them to be anyway?

The truth is though at this very moment, if this was all just a set up to extradite him to the US, Assange would prove himself correct in the public eye if he handed himself over and was moved to the US. That is not going to happen now, so he can either choose to hide under a country who barely have freedom of speech and are using him for their own ends or he can go clear his name and show that the accusations of western governments are true.

[abdoujaparov]

The news of the last few days?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19314618

The speech he gave (while we are focussing on whether he was a rapist William Hague sent a letter to the Ecuadorian ambassador threatening exaclty this) contained a statement that on the previous night british police had been on the fire escape of the embassy preparing to do exactly what was threatened, in writing, by our government and that he called in supporters to ensure that this did not happen without being filmed and made public.

That's the point. Everything is a matter of record, which in the end cannot be hidden from, such as the letter from William Hague (which is not what I am sure any sane man would agree is a proportional response to an allegation of a sex offense in a world where we will not enter an embassy for the crime of murder - Libyan embassy example)

[grumpyhack]

..and that is likely to be our saving grace. I don't think anyone would suggest that every journalist at every organisation is in on some global conspiracy led by a cabal of men in a darkened room. What is being suggested is that some very rich and powerful people have control of some of the largest news organisations on the planet and they are dictating the agenda, that by doing so they are ensuring that we hear about what they want us to hear about and that mass opinion is controlled as a result. .

[Spindles]

You're hoping that what you're saying will possibly change some peoples minds, yet you're giving every indication that nothing will change yours

[Purple Monkey]

I am completely in agreement with Spindles here.

If you don't trust the 'conspiracy theories', then why would you then trust a bunch of outlets and institutions pretty well known for their lies and corruption? It's pretty terrifying how much power things like the TV has on people; the unconditional trust it can muster is truly incredible.

It's safest to not trust a damn thing. We are balls deep in the Disinformation Age.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Purple Monkey

[abdoujaparov]

I am completely in agreement with Spindles here.

If you don't trust the 'conspiracy theories', then why would you then trust a bunch of outlets and institutions pretty well known for their lies and corruption? It's pretty terrifying how much power things like the TV has on people; the unconditional trust it can muster is truly incredible.

It's safest to not trust a damn thing. We are balls deep in the Disinformation Age.

[kaosmark2]

He claims he doesn't believe he'll get a fair trial. It might be a way to avoid being brought to justice, it might be justified. There's governments after him and he's acting as the figurehead of an organisation that leaks government information.

The main reason I'm suspicious of the charges is they seem to have been dropped, and then re-established after Wikileaks got huge. Still, I don't see how it's impossible that the charges are genuine. Regardless, I'd want him to get a fair trial, but I think there's plenty of reasons he might not.

Yeah, that is why I would prefer he went to Sweden also, as I say, then the truth would out.

In the end it is going to, at least that is something. I'm someone who is never afraid to admit when I was wrong (I voted for Tony Blair, I voted for Nick Clegg, clearly I make mistakes, sometimes because there is a total absence of a choice that can be made that is not a mistake in one form or antoher) but mostly, as I say, I've been proven right by history in what I am willing to post on the internet and when posting always do so in the firm knowledge that everything I have said has become a matter of record.

I'm certainly not stating I'm a fan of Assange, just a supporter of the organisation he represents and cynical about the reasons behind these accusations and the potential outcome.

Thanks for keeping it civil, it's not always possible for some and all too often a political discussion on an internet forum can dissolve into either insult or someone looking to find insult.

[Spindles]

I am not going to change my mind because, after 41 years, every thing I have seen and experienced has led me to the conclusions I have drawn.

The letter from Hague stated that British Foreign Office had the right to revoke the embassy's diplomatic status under the UK's Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987. This was in the link I posted when you asked what evidence there was that such a threat was made, I'm not sure where you have drawn from that the conclusion that I am unaware of it's content. I don't have the letter to hand, but that was what it stated, that the british government could, if they chose, revoke diplomatic status of the embassy and therefore go in and arrest him.

Similarly others have stated that there was no threat. The letter IS the threat, the contents are stated on just about every news source on the planet. Not word for word, just that our government told them that they had the right to do something never done in the history of diplomacy, which would effectively be tearing up the geneva convention.

Assange claimed (and I have no way to confirm whether this is true, nor have I claimed such) that an attempt to enter was made the night before the speech. This content in the speech has not been focussed on, surely there must be record one way or another to disprove this? I find it odd that no one is asking THAT question.

[Spindles]

He claims he doesn't believe he'll get a fair trial. It might be a way to avoid being brought to justice, it might be justified. There's governments after him and he's acting as the figurehead of an organisation that leaks government information.

The main reason I'm suspicious of the charges is they seem to have been dropped, and then re-established after Wikileaks got huge. Still, I don't see how it's impossible that the charges are genuine. Regardless, I'd want him to get a fair trial, but I think there's plenty of reasons he might not.

Convenient how you moved from Sedgefield to Sheffield Hallam to vote for the appropriate party leaders....

[Spindles]

Well, the important thing is that you are looking, and thinking. Whatever conclusion you draw. Keep that mind open.

[LondonTom]

Similarly others have stated that there was no threat. The letter IS the threat, the contents are stated on just about every news source on the planet. Not word for word, just that our government told them that they had the right to do something never done in the history of diplomacy, which would effectively be tearing up the geneva convention.

[Spindles]

I'd bet that such a letter has never previously been sent to an embassy. That is certainly the impression that has been given in recent days. Of course, I would be happy to state otherwise when presented with other examples of the UK government making such a threat, perhaps in the case of the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher or maybe the chinese made such a threat recently when the dissident Chen Guangcheng sought protection in the US embassy or, I don't know, any of these examples:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/crate-expectations--assanges-options-20120821-24jwk.html

[eFestivals]

His speech said virtually nothing of any relevance to anyone or anything, apart from promoting his own martyrdom. It's partly because of his speech that I've started to think 'less' of him.

As Private Eye has long been pointing out, he's certainly a flawed person. And it's quite possible that how's he's acting over the Sweden thing is a display of his flaws in action.

But it's also possible that it's not, and he's spot on that they're out to get him - after all, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.

Ultimately, I'm in the same place as abdoujaparov, in that until there's a clear reason for why he'd need to go via Sweden for the USA to abuse him when it can be done direct from the UK at least as easily, I side with the first of those.

[Spindles]

Ultimately, I'm in the same place as abdoujaparov, in that until there's a clear reason for why he'd need to go via Sweden for the USA to abuse him when it can be done direct from the UK at least as easily, I side with the first of those.

[eFestivals]

I'd bet that such a letter has never previously been sent to an embassy. That is certainly the impression that has been given in recent days. Of course, I would be happy to state otherwise when presented with other examples of the UK government making such a threat, perhaps in the case of the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher or maybe the chinese made such a threat recently when the dissident Chen Guangcheng sought protection in the US embassy or, I don't know, any of these examples:

It's a law that was passed as a direct consequence of the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher.

It might well be the case that they've not sent a letter like that previously in the years since the law was passed - but it might also be the case that there's been no clear assistance by a diplomatic mission to someone breaking UK law in those year either.

(I'd guess if letters have been sent, then supposedly 'terrorist states' would be the most likely recipients - Iran, Iraq (in Saddam's time), Korea, Syria, Libya, etc)

It might have been stupid to do it quite so soon from a PR point of view, but ultimately it's right for the UK to use every means open to it in the pursuit of right-minded justice.

And sending the letter doesn't necessarily mean it's an action they'd follow thru on, but making the threat in a gentle manner is a further bit of potential leverage.

As far as the UK law is concerned - and if you remove all thoughts of there being some sort of conspiracy to get him to the USA it's a right-minded law - he is required to be sent to Sweden to answer charges there. It's right that the govt abides by the law.

If anyone is able to show why he needs to go to Sweden to then be taken to the USA I'm all ears .... but until then it looks like he's merely trying to escape the law over some possible wrong-doing.

And anyway, if the facts of the case in Sweden are as Assange claims, then what has he to worry about? It's a case going nowhere.

[Spindles]

I don't know. The problem with George Galloway always seems to be that even though he spends the vast majority of his time promoting some very worthy ideals and has been responsible for some truly brilliant moments (Iraq senate hearing as an example) he is mostly known for coming out with gaffes that only serve to make him look like a bit of a plonker, I know that if I hear his name the first image to hit my brain is him pretending to be a cat.