I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.
bingo. that's why, in part, this is clearly about something other than the alleged sex incidents. it's pretty obviously about Wikileaks, trying to impede/stop/punish it and him.
The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.
This case was pursued by the prosecutor at the instigation of Swedish police, after a previous prosecutor had initially closed the case stating that there was no indication anything illegal had taken place.
The women in question does not under Swedish law legally have any say in whether or not the case is pursued or not - if a prosecutor believes a crime has taken place, it is their duty to pursue the case in the interest of the state, not on behalf of the women.
(What does make this case stink, though, is that one of the women in question at one point prior to the case against Assange published a blog post about leveraging this exact method to "legally" take revenge against a lover who she found had was involved with someone else)
that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds.
on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed by rude comments. something about the culture and the kind of people it attracts, perhaps an increasingly young male techie demographic, dunno.
Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "all but justifying raping women". That is a serious allegation.
That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification.
Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state this explicitly: I do not approve of the actions as portrayed in that narrative.
To say that it isn't technically rape could mean a few things. It could mean that it's worse than rape or at least equivalent to rape, or it could mean that it's not as bad as rape. But if it's just as bad as rape or even worse, there would be no point to the remark at all, especially in a series of comments meant to defend Assange. Obviously, the intention was to say that this action is something less than rape.
To say that this particular type of rape is something less than rape might not justify it, but it does minimize it in such a way that denies the basic agency, dignity, and human rights of the victim. It's a hideous, misogynistic notion. (That's not a supporting argument, by the way, it's a conclusion.)
Phil, have Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén said the sex was rape?
For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads promoting that Assange is a rapist, that women have accused him of rape, and that he is charged with rape. Yet, despite being requested for citations showing your accusations are factual, you have failed to do so for two years now.
Not at all. I simply think the Swedish justice system should fully process these accusations, and whatever outcome or verdict is reached will simply be whatever it is.
I am dismayed that in many rape cases, it's easier to perform a character assassination on the alleged victims and intimidate them from testifying. I'm worried that people with some sort of political sympathy for Assange due to his work with WikiLeaks will engage in this kind of character assassination and intimidation. Fortunately, the Swedish prosecutors seem to have collected depositions already, so Assange's alleged victims might not have to go through the agony of reliving their experiences on a worldwide stage only to be called liars or sluts, or to be accused of being paid off by the CIA.
Still, there's a very high chance that even if Assange is guilty, he will not be convicted. I simply hope that if he is guilty, he is convicted, and that if he is innocent, that he is not only acquitted but fully exonerated. No innocent man deserves that kind of cloud over his head.
Unfortunately, Assange isn't really helping matters.
> For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads...
You seem to be keeping very close tabs on my activity on HN. If you had an email address in your profile I would ask you about this privately, but you seem determined to retain your pseudonymity, so I will ask publicly. Why exactly are you so interested in my comments in particular?
Your comments on the rape sounded familiar and I looked through past threads on Assange and was surprised to notice that you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape and he has been charged with rape, both which are false. The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape, but I do want to point out that your claims about Assange are bald faced lies and you have an agenda.
It would be one thing if you had heard in passing that the women had accused him of rape and he was being charged with rape and mistakenly thought it was correct. But you have a history of promoting these claims and during this time have not provided evidence either that he has been charged with rape or that either woman has claimed to have been raped. Thus you do know what the facts are, and you are intentionally choosing to lie here. There is nothing innocent about your assertions and your propaganda tactics are far from naive.
Your comments about "rape cases" where people blame the victims, "intimidate them from testifying" and engage in "character assassination" are more of your attempts to falsely promote and assert that these women have said they were raped and that he was been charged with rape, but then adds on a new accusation - there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News! Who here is intimidating them from testifying? Name them! Rape has not been accused by the women or charged, so there is no rape case. There is no character assassination against the women to repeatedly ask you to show your evidence that rape has been charged, or that the women have accused him of rape. Cite specifically the character assassination that has occurred here. Show your evidence. Asking you to provide evidence of your claims is not character assassination against women, nor is it blaming victims, nor is it intimidating witnesses in a trial, and it is absurd rhetoric to claim these things.
droithomme, has Philip Welch ever said your interest in his past comments on this issue was stalking? You have failed for one hour to provide a single citation showing your accusation is factual!
> you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape
It's all me, huh? If Google is to be trusted, the word "rape" has been used to describe the accusations against Assange by over a thousand news sources today alone. I promise you I'm not responsible for that.
> The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape
Now that's just plain bad faith on your part. My interest is in the basic human rights and dignity of all people. Some women get raped, and as a culture we do a bad job of handling it. We do a bad job of handling when men get raped, too.
> your propaganda tactics are far from naive
You give me too much credit, and yet too little at the same time.
> there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News!
I'm not the one spinning conspiracy theories. I'm not the one calling people propaganda artists. I'm not the one who thinks it's all a CIA frame job intended to somehow make it easier to spirit Julian Assange away to Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, it's sadly a common thing for those accused of rape and their supporters to commit character assassination and intimidation against the alleged victims in order to undermine the criminal justice system. I'm far from the first or only person to notice this. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, I'm just disappointed that, as always, these tactics will interfere with the ability of the justice system to decide once and for all whether or not Julian Assange is guilty.
In the Polanski case, his lawyer had arranged a plea bargain, then, later at trial, the judge suddenly reneged without explanation. In the Assange case, he had already been questioned, the allegations were dropped, then suddenly a couple days of media coverage pass and the allegations are reinstated.
Not to imply either is a case of no wrongdoing, but in each case the accused initially faced the allegations, then something changed and scared the accused enough to go on the run.
The victim in the Polanski case has all but forgiven him, but does anyone disagree he would be crazy to ever set foot in the US again? The prosecutors office seems to have a very long memory and an uncanny ability to hold a grudge.
It's his story that, upon extradition to Sweden, the Swedes will turn around and hand him over to the US to be Gitmo'ed with extreme prejudice, but that's all it is thus far: his story. That said, it's certainly plausible; he's mightily pissed off the US government, which does seem to have a habit — particularly lately — of treating people that embarrass it rather less than gently. It would also explain how het-up the Swedes are to have him extradited, and the fact that Britain is willing to violate the Ecuadorian embassy (which, FTR, is not sovereign territory) in order to retrieve him. But idiotically zealous investigation of alleged rape (let alone lesser charges) isn't exactly unheard of, either.
Either way, however much good Assange has done the world by exposing the stuff he and WikiLeaks have exposed, he is an attention-whore, and his motives are pretty broadly suspect. Personally, I'd vastly prefer he not be subject to "extraordinary rendition" — not because of anything he's done, but because I don't think anyone should be shipped off to countries where they "interrogate" with rectally inserted broken beer bottles (to reference just one of the many stories that have bubbled up from that kind of thing). But that's just me.
If he was subject to extraordinary rendition, they'd have him by now. That's the whole point of extraordinary rendition.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how well-protected and cautious he is, and how much cooperation the renditors can get from the local government.
That sounds pretty silly. He was only a couple of hours away by plane, he is surrounded by media. Runs a talk show. Claiming they can't question him is just ridiculous and make them seem like they certainly have other ideas than just simple questioning for not wearing a condom.
If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.
> It outright justifies rape.
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't.
I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake.
Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.
I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally.
That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.
You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.
You seem quite eager to call people misogynists. It sounds to me like you enjoy it.
Someone pointed out at the Guardian's site last night that the warrant presented to the UK courts actually is worded in a very contorted way to claim an allegation on rape on the basis that one of the women was in a "state of sleep" without actually stating whether she was asleep or half asleep and whether or not there's a claim that she was not consenting or unable to consent.
If she was claiming to be "half asleep", which is what has been stated previously in the Swedish press, and aware of what was going on, she might very well have been in position to legally consent, and there's to my knowledge not been a claim in Sweden that this in itself is what gave rise to rape claims, but that the rape claim was predicated on him not using a condom in that instance, despite her previous insistence that he had to.
It could be just an innocent bad wording, but given the rest of this case, and how this curiously misrepresents the claims presented in Sweden, this does seem rather odd. It would have been trivial to precisely express the claims presented in Sweden in unambiguous terms in far fewer words than they used.
These are definitely allegations of sexual assault, and the described behavior treads perilously close to what everyone would agree is rape.
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...
Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women.
There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.
Even if I were to only accept the parts his own lawyers have conceded, the statements do paint the picture of someone who is quite a bit of an asshole. Maybe he is a bit of a misogynist, though I think it's more likely he is "just" a bit narcissistic and didn't really take anyones feelings into account. Add in some paranoia - even if people are after him, he comes across as believing they care more than I think they do.
I just think there are a lot of things about this case that are fishy to the point where there's good reason to be extremely suspicious about the motivations of some of the people involved, even if one discounts the idea of US involvement. He might very well be guilty for what I know, but that still doesn't mean there's nothing weird going on with how the whole situation has been handled.
Secondly, he claims that he will be extradited to the US if he is brought to Sweden. How exactly would he suddenly become more likely to try to flee if they decide to charge him? He is already claiming that going to Sweden means a risk of facing the death penalty in the US.
In that context it seems ludicrous to think that interviewing him and then charging him would somehow increase his resolve try to avoid extradition, or that this has been the case for a very long time.
It is not like he would have considered voluntarily setting foot on Swedish soil from any point over the past year or more. A charge would not have made that more or less likely.
Meanwhile, a formal charge would remove at least some reason to question the motivations of the Swedish prosecutor, and it would make it much harder for Ecuador to justify asylum given that they have publicly used this as part of their process for determining whether or not to give asylum.
As for that. At the moment he is holed up in a small embassy, while the Metropolitan police is outside, waiting for a chance to grab him.
Yet the Swedish police still refuse to interview him, while making up bogus excuses for why they don't. They could have stated the reason you suggest: That if they make the decision to charge him, they want to be able to take him into custody immediately under the circumstances. That reason is still a poor excuse, but they've not even tried to use even that.
If he is a flight risk in his current location, he is a flight risk whether or not they interview or charge him - his only realistic means of escape is if he gets asylum from Ecuador and Ecuador finds a way of getting him on a plane, whether smuggling him in an oversized diplomatic pouch or convincing the UK to give him free passage. Either way, this doesn't become any harder or easier depending on whether or not Swedish authorities interview him.
The Swedish might not be the only ones acting irrationally. But if they're not acting irrationally, it would imply they have a hidden agenda. If their agenda is what they claim it is, then yes, they are acting irrationally. Either alternative is pretty bad.
OK, maybe it's a little irrational that the Swedish prosecutor doesn't want to bend over backwards and do it Assange's way just to humor his paranoid delusions. But it's not suspicious.
Also:
> woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent
By definition that's rape.
I disagree. If the prosecutor has no case, Assange has - rightfully or not - every reason to wonder why they are pursuing him in this manner, and every reason to then worry about what the underlying motivation is. He might be more paranoid than justified in how he interprets it, but if I was in his shoes and a prosecutor acted the way the Swedish prosecutor has in this case, and I knew I hadn't done anything wrong (or thought I hadn't), I'd be worried something was up and be far more concerned about that than a potential Swedish jail sentence.
If the prosecutor actually has a case, Assange presumably knows he did what is claimed, and in that case he would have more reason to believe early on that his "worst case" scenario might be a very short stay in a low security, comfortable Swedish prison - the crimes he is wanted for questioning about have very short sentencing guidelines in Sweden.
In terms of extradition, if I was him I'd not be so concerned about legal, above board extradition. I would be concerned about the fact that Sweden has admitted to, and have been censured by the UN for, having violated their own laws as well as international treaties to participate in rendition arranged by the US of two Egyptians to Egypt where they were subsequently tortured. If they were willing to do that with some relatively low level targets, at the behest of the US, then there is every reason to worry they'd be willing to be "flexible" about giving Assange to the US.
The odds of them taking the political fallout from that in this case might be small, but then this is not just about what Assange might objectively have reason to fear - a lot of it boils down to what his actual, subjective fears are. I see little reason to doubt that Assange personally genuinely fear the US is after him and that he believes he is important enough that given its past history with rendition that Sweden might very well be easy to push into handing over him too.
He might very well make irrational choices because of that fear without there being any implication of guilt behind those choices.
Then again, he might also be guilty and just not want to face it.
Point is, this isn't nearly as clear cut as some would like to think it is.
What's the priority? Question him to find out what happened or bring him to Sweden?
This, ultimately, is why this should be seen as a "non-case" and therefore just an excuse for the US/UK/Swedish government to hassle Assange and therefore Wikileaks.
Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?
We're deep into "if you repeat it often enough people will believe it's true" territory.
Emphasis added. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...
Please note that "having sex with [someone] without [their] consent" is the definition of rape.
1. Neither woman has stated Assange raped her.
2. Assange has not been charged with rape.
Here are some lies:
1. The women state that Assange raped them.
2. Assange has been charged with rape.
Here is the transcript of the interview referenced in the Naomi Wolf attack article that you have cited.
http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jac...