This isn't only some funny "sex without a condom" case. He's charged with holding a woman down and having sex with her
http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...
http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...
What you are referring to is the second women which the case states that "Mr Assange must have known", just before he asked what she was doing in middle of sex. A lovely logical statement if I ever seen one. Maybe he should have known, but that's is not the same as "must have known".
4. Rape On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”
Thanks for the link. I really feel like many people here understate the nature of his accused crimes out of misguided hero worship. The guy can do good things for spreading information and at the same time rape women who believed him to be a friend.
I don't particularly think it is likely the US is involved. I think a more likely scenario is that Marianne Ny - the prosecutor - wanted to use this case for her own goals, and set an example with Assange, and underestimated how his fear of the US would mess the whole thing up.
And from what we've seen so far, the case seems shaky at best: A he-says / she-says where in the case of a trial, the prosecutors may be unable to even produce a signed statement from one of the women; will face a lot of questions regarding the multiple procedural violations; will have to explain the womens attitude to Assange after the alleged offences and so on. The chance of conviction is tiny even without those problems.
You just described every rape case ever that isn't a masked-stranger-in-a-dark-alley attack.
Perhaps not yet, but US authorities will definitely push for extradition, and are likely to get it, once he is in Swedish custody.
I just like poking at the conspiracy nuts and hoping they try to rationalize why a US plot to extradite Assange from the UK involves Sweden at all.
Being pedantic about how Sweden charges suspects will not change the fact that two separate women accused Assange of sexual assaults and Swedish authorities extradited him.
They merely went to the police and asked if it was possible to pressurize him to submit to STD testing.
The accusations of rape are done by an overzealous prosecution office that has hijacked the case later; it seems they have the right to do that. That the office chose to make the accusations augmented by descriptive statements from the two women gives the impression that the two are the accusers. Both (or at least one, supported by the other) have since requested that the issue be dropped.
To see the entire arguments of the prosecution and the defense in today's session, read the liveblog[1] by Falkvinge (now ended, of course).
[1] http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/16/live-detention-lift-hearings...
EDIT: Minor nits.
Looks like an overzealous persecutor found himself in front of an overzealous judge. Combined with the English courts agreeing as well that he be extradited. Quite an international conspiracy!
Or maybe professionals doing their job can see enough evidence exists supporting the accusation that he raped and assaulted women to bring him before a court for trial.
>The two women have not accused Assange of sexual assault. Ever.
The two victims described sex crimes for which the Swedish government has chosen to accuse Assange of committing.
>They merely went to the police and asked if it was possible to pressurize him to submit to STD testing.
If merely walked into a police station and said someone stabbed me with a dirty syringe and I'd really just like to know if he's HIV positive it wouldn't be up to me if the police device to go find him and the prosecutor decides to charge him with assault. Replace dirty syringe with penis.
Victims don't get to dictate justice.
This is perhaps the second most politically persecuted person in the western world, after Snowden. Do you really find it so implausible that his persecution would not be overzealous, especially with a Five Eyes collaborator and Sweden, which has extremely close intelligence ties to the US?
>If merely walked into a police station and said someone stabbed me with a dirty syringe and I'd really just like to know if he's HIV positive it wouldn't be up to me if the police device to go find him and the prosecutor decides to charge him with assault. Replace dirty syringe with penis.
Except that people don't stab others with dirty syringes as often as they have sex with each other, and neither are the two remotely related, so you're comparing apples to oranges. If someone simply asks the police if it is possible to force an HIV test, the police should perhaps obtain a court order to get something such done instead of filing a case of sexual assault.
> Victims don't get to dictate justice.
If a woman feels she was raped/not raped, the only opinion that matters there is hers (from a common decency POV). I do not know what Swedish law says in this regard.
He might also be a rapist, but it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conspiracy angle offhand.
What's really frustrating is watching people conflate Assange with Wikileaks and defend the individual as if he's the organization. It causes people who are skeptical of rapists and cult-of-personality individuals to be made out to be anti-whistleblowers and that's not fair. I think Wikileaks operates best as an anonymous organization and not under the control of a figurehead.
Personally, I think they didn't have to lift a hand. Assange discredited himself, with his own actions. But it's an indisputable fact that Assange is the target of one or more agencies whose job it is to conduct internationally-coordinated plots. If you want to ignore the possibility of foul play that's your choice, but don't pretend that you're standing up for truth and justice by making assumptions.