And this seems unprecedented. It probably shouldn't be. But, I would't be surprised if worse allegations had been made and no one in any country tried to get an extradition for the accused. What I don't get is why would you actually need an extradition for questioning. Don't we have the technology to question someone where they are rather than where you would like them to be. I mean if that is all it is. Any way I said it before I think it stinks. I think he may have violated a law, but it isn't in a way that usually gets international attention.

Why not?

There are international protocols for that sort of thing in civil matters. Maybe they could do it in a criminal matter too.

They had the opportunity to question him for a full year while he was under house arrest in London.

They didn't take him up on the offer. All they had to do was promise they wouldn't extradite him to the U.S., but oddly, they adamantly refused to make such a promise. Hmmmmmm...

The two women never accused him of rape, or sexual assault. All they wanted was for him to take a test for possible STDs, because they'd had sex without using condoms.

It was other people who decided they'd been raped. Why?

as necessary. The smear mongers know what an emotional subject rape is so they toss the word around in order to get the maximum impact. However I'm happy to see so many people all over the world refusing to accept these allegations and recognizing the fact that the women never accused him of rape. It's despicable though to use such a serious subject for political purposes.

I notice too that the same people screaming 'rape, we have to get him' have zero to say about the war crimes revealed where Iraqi Women were actually raped, tortured and abused.

Not a single word on their behalf, in fact these same people who claim so much outrage in this case, want us to forget and 'move on' from those barbaric crimes against innocent women. And even after the Zaguba report which named named, one of which was Gen. Sanchez, not only was nothing done to bring justice to those women, Zaguba was fired and Sanchez was awarded a medal. So I don't think the US has too much sympathy for rape victims at all. This newfound 'concern' is quite remarkable.

Even with their strongest, most emotionally-charged arguments, those claiming this is the norm, justifiable or appropriate are weak on their face.

It has the intended effect of discrediting Assange but the effect is created from an unseen source. Rape means women will dislike him, as will many men.

His association with Ecuador, a "human rights violator," and his "participation" in the decline of Wikileaks are two lesser examples.

It is even perpetuated here, in a relatively unsophisticated form.

Didn't you know, there is no astroturfing, propagandizing or consensus-manipulation on DU. That's a conspiracy theory!

I forgot. Thanks for setting me straight!!

Posters are not permitted to call out the astroturfers as such. However, IIRC, it is permissible to point out that 65K posts involves a lot of posting during working hours.

and calmed me down somewhat.

As Naomi Wolff points out : a 'rape' investigation unprecedented especially under Sweden's apparently dreadful chauvinist record on the treatment of victims plus:

a prosecutor (after the chief prosecutor dropped the matter), a Prime Minster, a corporate lawyer for the alleged victims (instead of separate criminal lawyers)...all from the same right wing law firm advised by Karl Rove and who have participated in rendition.

combined with an active campaign (even on DU) to present Assange as a 'fool, rapist, egotist etc etc and so on"...

and the rock solid evidence of the treatment of Bradley Manning...

This duck walks and talks like a conspiracy.

The non-existant astroturfers get very offended when accused of such. Even when its true.

If a high tally on the posts suggests you are being paid, I would like to know where my paycheck is. I think my tally is quite respectable, but no pay.

All I know is the non-existant astroturfers, propagandizers, and psy-opsers on DU are offended when asked if they're paid. Even if its true.

not all that accurately). I often make grammatical and typing errors because I type fast and don't proofread much.

What makes me wonder is the posts that look positively professional. How does anyone achieve that perfection without staff or at least a proofreader of some sort. Spellcheck is not nearly enough.

since the non-existent astroturfers get offended easily and alert on posts.

They refused to sign the investigators report, and refused to participate in prosecution.

So, given that Sweden could question Assange at the embassy (there is precedent), yet refuse to do so...
And given that Sweden insists on him returning to Swedish soil...
And given that Sweden's case is shakey...
And given that Sweden refuses to promise not to hand him over to the US...
And given that Sweden has a history of being complicit with the US on extraordinary rendition and torture...
And given that the US desires to shut him up...
And given that a US prosecution would go up in flames before any civilian court...

Then it certainly appears the Swedish charges are merely a pretext to hand him over to US, and the US won't risk a civilian trial (with oversight and appeals) under the guise of "national security", so Assange will simply disappear into some US "black ops" hole.

If Assange os charged with any crimes, he deserves a fair legal process in a civilian court. There appears to be a couple people arguing against that... but of course there's no astroturfers on DU.

said he would be glad to go to Sweden if they would guarantee him that they would not turn him over to the US...He also said if they wanted to come there he would be glad to answer their questions..It is about the US wants him and he knows what could happen to him here...just look what has happened to Manning..

What specifically do Swedish rape laws say?

And the lead govt prosecutor advocates a "rape tax" that all men must pay.

Even so, the women say they weren't raped, which should be end of story. If any party is victimizing the women, it appears to be the Swedish govt, who are using the women as political pawns.

From another thread, hack believes the government (and hack plural - hack likes to address themselves as "we&quot gets to strip a woman of her right to control her own authority, to make decisions about their bodies. He believes there will be 'clear evidence" of a crime that will supersede a woman's rights so I've asked him exactly what he means by "clear evidence" since obviously this is the crux of the matter with Sweden.

Would such evidence include being tied up, or hit with a whip? (BDSM). Or how about strangulation? (erotic asphyxiation). Rough sex? Gentle nudging against your lover's leg with your penis to provoke arousal? How about waking up your lover to make love? (is that really rape? Guess you get to decide, not the woman involved).

Really, why do you get to decide which activity is "rape" and what's "lovemaking"? Since you have decided there's a standard of 'clear evidence", go for it. Define "clear evidence" that entitles YOU to decide if that sexual activity is "rape" or consensual sex (and not the parties involved)?

happens every day.

Sheesh, what a farce. It's so damn transparent it's not even funny. Not funny at all.

Sweden sent investigators to Serbia to interview a murder suspect... yet they claim they cant interview Assange except on Swedish soil.

Do I think Assange has acted like a douche at times? Yes.

Do I think he's a criminal? No.

The lengths to which Sweden and the UK have gone to lock up Assange, and the efforts the US has made behind the scenes to make it happen make it obvious that this isn't about a mundane sex crime at all.

The fact that people are using this to attack anyone who thinks Assange should be treated fairly is disgusting. No, supporting Assange doesn't make us misogynistic woman-haters. That insinuation has been repeated over and over to smear anyone who speaks out. It demeans and insults the real victims of sexual assault.

Wikileaks is a great service to the world. He did a great job of promoting it and getting important information out there. He also allowed his persona to distract from the importance of his work. Many of his closest partners have abandoned him.

I appreciate what he did. I applaud his work. As a person, eh, fatal flaws are part of being human.

of the great service that he's done to the world.

Yet, he's "a son-of-a-bitch" in your view because "He has a huge ego"?

Or is he truly "a son-of-a-bitch" because he is in the news and others are piling on?

You sure try to pick strange fights.

a bit bigger than some. Matters not! He and Bradley Manning are my present day heroes, just as Daniel Ellsberg was and still is.

The last thing I want is for Assange to join the ranks of male "Hey, I am a hero, so that excuses what I do" douchebags. Goddess knows that club is way too big, with Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and other people (as well as many too many GOP types to mention). However, it is apparent the rule of law will not be followed here, and there needs to be a third party that can ensure that it is followed.

We certainly do not want the pretense of justice to mask thuggery, the way they tried to use women's rights to justify killing thousands of women in Iraq.

DUer rideronthestorm has presented reams and reams of evidence that neither of the so-called victims has the slightest desire to participate in the prosecution of Julian Assange. That speaks volumes, IMO.

about contacts with US officials about Assange yet today diplomatic cables released show the Ambassador to Washington has been in high level talks requesting to be notified of when Assange is sent (rendered ?) to the US.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

and a whole lot of 'em reposted here.

or embarrass them? That there is likely a couple of very well-paid women who have never even met Julian, saying he was inappropriate with him, because there are people like that? Sexual abuse is the hot-button in our extremely sick society.

And put your hats back on. Unwind all of the tapes playing in your heads about me somehow not believing rape victims or victims of abuse etc. etc. etc. I was sexually abused as a child and am sensitive to claims of abuse. This case is different. Please stop spreading the enemy's LIE. If I'm somehow wrong here, I will create a post in GD saying as much. Hold me to it. Their willingness to say they'd storm the Ecuadoran embassy, which would be a genuine act of war, get that, WAR, to get Julian out of the country to answer questions...just questions...how far would and will they go? Goes to motive. I've seen enough shit thrown at Occupy by the powers that be over the last eleven months by all mainstream media to know they are monsters and will say and do what they have to in order to maintain their illusions and Kontrol. Julian is just another symptom of their evil. Judge them, not him.

"If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who doing the oppression." -Malcolm X

snip; Daniel Elsberg talking with Asange lawyers:

So I think that—in fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasn’t been made as clear what might be waiting for him as I think one can conjecture. The new National Defense Authorization Act—and I’m a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional. But on its face, that act could be used against Julian Assange or Bradley Manning, if he weren’t already in military custody. Julian Assange, although a civilian, and not an American civilian at that, would seem to me, a layman, to be clearly subject to the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, putting in military detention for suspicion of giving aid to an enemy, which he’s certainly been accused of by high American officials. I don’t see why he couldn’t be put in indefinite contention, without even the charges that I faced 40 years ago for doing the exact same things that he did.

AMY GOODMAN: The record of President Obama on whistle blowers: six whistle blowers charged under the Obama administration, more than in all—under the administrations of all past presidents combined, Dan Ellsberg?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Twice as many. Twice as many as all past presidents. There was a total of three under past presidents, one each. I was the first ever charged with those charges. Obama has brought six such charges. And apparently his grand jury in Virginia is seeking at least a seventh, and perhaps more, against Assange and others. Twice as many as all previous.



http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/daniel_ellsberg_i_congratulate_ecuador_for

If the US charges him, indicts him, and presents a properly executed warrant for extradition, Sweden is bound to extradite under treaty obligations. With exceptions:

He'll be whisked off by American authorities, with a pre-authorized extradition order. Bank on it.

He won't even see the inside of a Swedish police station, let alone a courtroom.

So is there even going to be justice on these sexual misconduct charges? No.

why go through the whole farce of extradition to Sweden in the first place? Why not extradite him from the UK while he was free on bail pending the outcome of his Swedish extradition hearing? It makes no sense whatever.

they discuss Assange. It is not necessary to be flippant about how rape victims in general respond to things or feel after being raped when discussing this case.

No one needs to say, "Rape victims would never . .. therefore they weren't raped" when discussing this case.

But, it is not worth, nor does it ever call for, international arrest warrants and threats to storm embassies.

threats to storm embassies. Even the "victims" are not interested in prosecuting Assange. If he needs to be questioned, question him. This isn't about questioning him, though. This is about getting their hands on him so that he can be held indefinitely. Only a fool would believe that Assange would get either a fair trial or a fair sentence if he hands himself over without the guarantee that he will not be extradited. Whatever character flaws Assange has, apparently he's no fool.

The most the victims wanted was for him to be tested for STD's. The women themselves refused to collaborate on the "rape charges" that the investigators pushed. Guilt or innocence is really neither here nor there in this situation, because that's not really the issue - he's already said he'd hand himself over for questioning if he would be guaranteed not to be extradited. If he's guilty, fine he should be punished, but neither you nor I know what happened because we weren't there. The real issue is the refusal to guarantee that Assange won't be disappeared, stashed in GITMO for the rest of his life and/or "interrogated" by torture.

though Julian in his drama would like to suggest that.

However the victims cannot back out in the US system and maybe not in the Swedish system. That's too common in this type of case.

This situation does warrant that Julian immediately do the HIV tests they wanted. How can a so-called "hero" refuse to do this unless he gets something he wants?

Allegations of sexual assault, just allegations no charges, are not reason to issue international arrest warrants or to storm embassies. Actual charges aren't reason enough, either.

How many international arrest warrants have been issued for questions concerning sexual assault allegations?

And most countries take it ill that someone leaves to evade their justice. Don't we have one out on Roman Polanski? That's why he can't come back to the U.S.

Sexual assault is serious.

Further, Polanski had already pled guilty and fled before the final sentence could be issued. In other words, he had already been convicted and of a much more serious charge, rape of a 13 year old. At any rate, he could not be arrest in France, and Switzerland refused to extradite him.

for people to not be able to escape them by leaving the country?

You are meaning to ask, how serious do charges have to be for governments to follow someone into other countries, including violating embassy sovereignty.

The answer to that question, imo, is when the crime is of international significance, ie war crimes, assassinations, etc.

A country can set up the necessary safeguards to prevent someone charged (again, Assange has not bee charged) from escaping their borders.

And the Swedish govt pursued the charges against the womens wishes, and have illegally released their names and other personal information.

Assange - Consentual sex with two woman, who merely wanted him tested for STDs.

Swedish Govt - Pursuing rape charges against women's claims and wishes. Releasing private information about the women.

Now who is victimizing the women?

It isn't here, either.

People think they can "use" the justice system in that way, but once you press charges, it's not up to you to withdraw them. It's up to the prosecutor.

Any other way would allow people to press charges to use that against people and bargain with dropping the charges. I'm sick of hearing it is "against their wishes." They shouldn't have pressed charges then.

And the sob should get STD tests. Not use them to bargain with.

If I am misquoted as saying that you raped me, and say that it was consensual sex, I think you would likely be the first person saying "She said it wasn't rape."

I say that you brushed my cheek. You are charged with punching me in the face. I say that you didn't. Should you be charged with assault if I say, no, treestar didn't punch me in the face?

If you weren't raped, don't press charges for it and then use that. Did you not read my post? What would happen if people could do that?

They are free to testify that they lied before or whatever, but they don't get to press charges and then control them to be dropped.

If the victim won't particpate then the case will almost certainly be dismissed. Its why the first investigator wouldn't proceed with it since the two women wouldn't agree to charges

I asked you downthread but will ask again, how come you (and the state) get to decide what's crime in sexual relations? Who appointed you the arbiter? If my partner tied me up last night and had his way with me, with my permission, do you get to charge him with assault? How about if I dress up as a prepubescent girl complete with shaved pubes (heh, shout out to the pube thread!) and we pretend he's getting off on having sex with an underage minor - do you get to charge him with sex with an underage minor?

I could go on and on - I have a VERY vivid imagination for sex. I have a whole range of things I'd like you to adjudicate as "sex crime" or consensual sex. Inquiring minds want to know..

That women aren't qualified to make their own decisions, so someone else should make them for them.

Patently ridiculous, and I'm astonished people are arguing that position on DU.

decisions on matters related to their bodies.

Really depressing.

If your partner presses charges against you then the charges take on a life of their own. If your partner did it just to control you for a while, with the idea of dropping them if he/she gets whatever they want, they are sorely mistaken.

People call the cops on each other for minor things and then try to drop it later and find they can't just drop it.

When in Sweden, you have to obey their laws. You can hardly expect sympathy in their courts that you'd like to have sex with sleeping people and you don't think that should be a crime. Well good luck with that or stay out of Sweden.

AFTER Wikileaks published embarrassing diplomatic cables and war crimes evidence against the US.

The women did NOT go to court, they did not press charges. No partner of Assange has pressed rape charges. The Swedish state has decided to do this on their own.

There are few, if any, cases that proceed once the "victim" decides to stop cooperating in general. In this particular case, the women involved would have to be forced onto the stand to testify about their consensual sex - its a public rape, its using them for the most grotesque political stunt, and I'm horrified any DUers believe these women should be slut shamed.

Currently its against the law to strangle someone - but people do it all the time with erotic asphyxiation. Should willing partners be prosecuted for what they've willingly done together? How about whipping someone (consensual BDSM), surely physical assault charges for your husband or wife. So you also believe that you (and the state) get to decide what's consensual in the bedroom and what's rape and you get to tell my partner that my bondage last night was really unlawful restraint, I get to testify against him and throw him in jail eh? Under the guise of obeying the "law" of course....

I'm sorry but that's disgusting. Humiliating. Degrading. Patronizing. And a sure sign of a patriarchal state.

A Swedish Questioning, or whatever, and the either have not dropped it, or the fact they want to drop it does not stop the system from going on. It makes perfect sense that people should not get to start the legal machinery rolling and then just at their will drop off. There's a reason that's the way that is and I've already explained that.

Many will drop a case if the witness doesn't show up, but they don't have to. For instance I have a stupid relative who while in college pressed charges for assault against some other girl who pressed countercharges against her. They both got subpoenaed to the trial. If you disregard a subpoena, there are penalties for that. They made up and didn't want to go. They wanted to "drop the charges." Found it was not so easy and that the subpoenas didn't just disappear. They were quite indignant. Maybe they learned not to play games with the cops and each other after that.

Of course this point has been made at least 5000 times on DU the last few days....

Sweden has the worst rape prosecution record in Europe. This particular "case" makes a mockery of many, many, many women who really want and need justice. A mockery.

The legal system is only grinding up for the rich and powerful (US). Its a travesty.

in the Swedish system, by somebody. With what do you back up your charge about the "worst rape prosecution record?" What is the worst record? And as has been said 5000 times, it's not even rape. It's some lesser sexual assault.

And it turns out the women do want to prosecute.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1162179

Are you claiming that women are too stupid or somehow unqualified to decide if they're raped or not? Someone has to decide for them? That is a pretty absurd arguement Sweden is making, and you're defending.

You only get to decide before that. Once you start the legal machinery, you don't get to control it.

You think you can call the cops on people and make up a story to get them arrested, then decide later you'll just drop them. Maybe because you got whatever concession you wanted? it does not work that way.

But you'd know that by now if you were actually READING any of the thousands of posts on this in the past few days.

She merely asked the police about getting him to take an STD test. The police ran with the rape scenerio after that. The women refused to sign the police report.

That the Swedish government is the one pursuing this makes it even more suspicious.

So you believe the government gets to strip a woman of her right to control her own authority, to make decisions about their bodies. What would be suitable evidence of a sex crime that supersedes a woman's rights since this is obviously the crux of the matter with Sweden.

Would such evidence include being tied up, or hit with a whip? (BDSM). Or how about strangulation? (erotic asphyxiation). Rough sex? Gentle nudging against your lover's leg with your penis to provoke arousal? How about waking up your lover to make love? (is that really rape? Guess you get to decide, not the woman involved).

Really, why do you get to decide which activity is "rape" and what's "lovemaking"? Please define what entitles YOU to decide if that sexual activity is "rape" or consensual sex (instead of the parties involved)? Obviously Sweden has decided they are some kind of paternal father figure who gets to force these women onto the stand. Have you ever been involved in, or watched a rape trial treestar?
Its humiliating enough for women who are motivated to seek justice for a crime. These women are going to be slut shamed as they must describe every last detail of their consensual sex in public, and then watch their partner, who they had consensual sex with, go to jail.

The High Court here in the UK found that the process was at a point equivalent to Assange having been charged. In the Swedish system charges are not filed at the beginning of the process but late in the process and immediately prior to arrest and trial. See here:

Eighteen months, he spent defending himself against sexual allegations (sex for visas) without any evidence whatsoever. He was a whistleblower.

The government of the USA is pushing this persecution because this man had the AUDACITY to show their dirty corrupt, fucking secrets to the world. This is entirely about silencing him and anyone else who dares to show what filthy, lying, rotten scum they actually are. They will stop at nothing to hide THEIR guilt.

Sure, Blackwater employees gang-raped her and then locked her up in a cargo container for days in Iraq. But really it's not worth making such a fuss over in the US.

Seriously? THAT is what you are arguing?

You are arguing that RAPE is not a big deal if you like what the rapist has done elsewhere

Your OP literally says rape isn't worth creating an international incident.

Cosign every word.