(EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)
In light of Assange's political activity, and now the astonishing level of CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him appears: 1) awfully convenient, 2) increasingly implausible (i.e. politically trumped up), and of course, 3) not a crime until his guilt is proven.
To look at your logic in the reverse direction, you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime, because it will be a false accusation trumped up by state actors.
That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. Just because it could be the case doesn't mean that it is. It doesn't mean it isn't either, but you can't just assume it is because it is "strikingly convenient".
No, I think he was implying that until he's been successfully using the phrase "a crime that was committed" is premature. It is still alleged.
If you want to know who did say "in light of Assange's political activity this crime is likely not credible" well... that would inconveniently be GCHQ:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange...
>That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny
Straw men usually don't.
Of course it is, Assange never came in for questioning! That's the reason people are arrested: so that they can be charged. Since he evaded arrest, he hasn't been charged. It's absurdly circular logic to suggest that this implies innocence.
You did a little more than imply he was guilty. You directly called him guilty when you used the phrase "a crime was committed".
You are now contradicting yourself by agreeing that the crime was alleged.
(it certainly wasn't directly calling him guilty in any case - people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time without being accused of being the perpetrator of that crime)
Where the crime is known while the criminal is not this is true.
I think the guy could be called one of the biggest assholes. But let's not add to be pile of rubbish and defamation that deliberatley has been amassed regarding this case.
Um, the Supreme Court's view was that under English law what he was accused of would be rape.
Having sex with an unconscious person, even someone asleep, is against the law in some jurisdictions. Really depends on how they define consent (in England's case sleep is "black-letter" lack of consent).
Specific to England: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offenc...
The allegation is not that he had intercourse with someone unconscious.
The allegation is that he re-initiated sexual relations with a coitus partner who was initially asleep and who then woke up, asked about a condom, then later regretted not stopping because of the lack of a condom.
There is a distinct legal difference between non-consensual intercourse with someone drugged or passed out and engaging in petting of a naked person who did the naked-nasty with you a few hours ago to see if they're keen on round 2...
And that right there makes it non-consensual. The law (in England and other jursidictions) specifically mention asleep (amongst other conditions) that render a person unable to consent to sex.
Once Assange stuck his penis into a sleeping woman's vagina means he's guilty.
No, he has never been charged, he is wanted for questioning regarding an accusation of rape. Funny is that he was already questioned for that exact accusation BEFORE he left Sweden, then he was told to return for further questioning.
Also the first prosecutor immediately dropped it, then another prosecutor decided to re-open it, which is very unusual.
As for the actual rape accusation: first they had sex, then the woman says she fell asleep and awoke from him entering her, she asked if he was wearing anything (protection) and he said 'only you'. She stated that she was too tired to argue so they had sex.
Next day they joked about him having to pay her student loans should she get pregnant, and naming the kid 'Afghanistan'. He was to go on a meeting in Stockholm so she gave him a ride down to the train station on her bike, and then paid his ticket since he didn't have any swedish currency. Later after talking with friends, she realized that she had been subjected to a crime and went to the police station.
This is the actual rape allegation (in swedish): https://info.publicintelligence.net/AssangeSexAllegations.pd...
Not to mention the other glaring hole in some of this, those that believe it was a plot, a smear.
Really? A state attempts to destroy someone's character and credibility and the best they can manage in their set-up of him is "may have had 'sleepy sex' with someone while lying about a condom"?
Not much of a smear. Politicians are accused of far worse every day in the US and many times it barely affects their career, if at all.
I realize people like to joke that governments/security/intelligence services are "bozos", but I've never had any patience for the "it was all a smear to destroy him".
Worked like a charm, didn't it?
I remember it being brought up. People immediately believed it. A more serious accusation (say, a murder) wouldn't be so easy to buy.
It was not "trumped up". It was followed up on disproportionately, but let's not pretend there's no substance there.
And it's hard to hold a trial to prove his guilt when he's hiding in an embassy closet.
Or it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden and the police and prosecution wanting to follow their rules and interview him about it.
1) He is not accused of that
2) If we're gonna translate legal charges we should be consistent and honest -- Assange is accused of what the rest of the world calls 'sexual misconduct'
3) This article is showing the intense and continued irregularities in this case that are so large as to be visible from orbit. Even if Assange is guilty as fuck it does not change the verifiable nature of "special" treatment he has received, implying a strong political motive
4) Conspiracy is a collaborative effort to break or subvert the law -- the national governments pissed off at Assange are asserting preferential treatment to support a political end. That's sketchy, and maybe scary, and maybe immoral, but totally legal.
5) US military and top leadership gets egg on face in every paper in the world at the same time, and gets nailed by every diplomat in the world at the same time, and... what? Says 'no biggie' and walks away? ... That is improbable. That would be historically uncharacteristic.
2) Now you're being dishonest with your translation. Julian was accused of "Olaga tvång", "sexuellt ofredande" and "våldtäkt". If you want to translate "sexuellt ofredande" to sexual misconduct I guess that's fine but it seems most news papers translate it to sexual molestation or sexual assault. "Våldtäkt" cannot be translated to anything other than rape.
3-5) This is more conspiracy theories. The only special treatment Assange has gotten is by Ecuador and large part of the internet that claims the US is behind all this.
2) I have read the entire allegation and accordant police reports, på svenska, in the allegers own words. Våldtäkt directly and literally translates to rape, yes. Know of any examples where direct and literal translations don't work? ... You have not understood my point and answered another. His alleged behaviour is described as sexual misconduct for english speakers the world over. This point is brought up many times in this thread and whenever the case is discussed, it's equally disingenuous each time its wilfully conflated.
3-5) I have directly addressed the fallacious use of the word "conspiracy" in this context. I have shown explicit objective facts, including those detailed in this threads article, to articulated a highly unspeculative pattern of behaviour with deep historical precedent and blatant irregularities. You have dismissed that without addressing any of the content or fact and proffered a verifiably untrue assertion in return.
---
You have not read what you have responded to, or not taken the time to think it through.
Seek first to understand, then to shitpost ;)
Not setting that precedent is likely one of the main reasons the UK wasted so much money on policing.