How do you now it is BS?
The case was closed and re-opened if I'm not mistaken especially because it was Assange. I'm also quite sure Ecuador wouldn't wanna shelter a rapist.
So given the dynamics at play, it's safe to assume that there's more than a rape charge at stake.
Only if it plans on handing him over. So, no. If anything it's a wonderful gesture from Ecuador that puts the country in WORSE bargaining position with the US.
>Ecuador isn't some bastion of liberty
It never helped establish dictatorships in other countries, so it has that going for it.
I, like I. F. Stone, also don't start from a middle-class-apolitical assumption that the police are always good guys and governments don't lie and frame people, especially when it comes to activists.
Could I be wrong? Sure, but I don't think so.
In the sixties/seventies Sweden had a far more radical/left wing government most of the period than it has ever had since. First under Tage Erlander (social democrat; "founder" of large parts of the Swedish welfare system) and his successor, Olof Palme, which was even more left wing.
Olof Palme's harsh criticism of the Vietnam war was indeed a watershed moment in making criticism of the US involvement in Vietnam politically acceptable in Europe and in particular in the Scandinavian countries.
But Sweden has never been as left wing again as it was up until Palme was assassinated.
[1]the only possible upside from a conspirator's point of view of having the allegation be so borderline the Swedish authorities showed reluctance to move forward with prosecution is that it seems to have provoked some of Assange's more outspoken supporters into endorsing embarrassingly misogynist sentiments.
But that does not mean that I can't at the same time think the prosecution is acting in bizarre manners in this case and that something does not add up, though I don't think it's necessarily down to US involvement.
My guess is that yes, there was a dispute, or at least the women had regrets, and that Ny saw an opportunity to further her own political agenda and grabbed it. No prior conspiracy required - just two badly treated women coupled with a prosecutor who saw an opportunity to score some political points.
At the same time I think Assange genuinely fears that there is US involvement, and that this fear has in part been fuelled by the way Ny has acted in this case.
Of course this is total speculation.
And of course, the lack of a conspiracy does not rule out that US authorities might take advantage if they get the opportunity, but in the meantime having Assange holed up in his embassy would seem like it'd also likely suit them just fine. They know where he is, and his reputation has taken a serious hit.
You'd be surprised. In Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America (that I know of) there are tons of examples (that were later exposed in court and press) of governments doing it (framing people or lying) in exactly a vague and convoluted manner, and with extreme crudeness and arrogance.
One of the accusers is Anna Ardin... read up on her.
She's a Jihadi-apologising nut job and an left-wing extremist from "Tro och Solidaritet" which does propaganda for Muslim Brotherhood.
Her close friends from MMRK (Swedish CAGE) have been downplaying ISIS rape on children as "American propaganda" until founder Fathima Doubakhil deleted her tweets when Mehmet Kaplan "ISIS are freedom-fighters" got elected in the last election.
Yeah I am aware of the concept "Victim Blaming" but Wikileaks has been tough on Muslim Brotherhood which gives Ardin an angle.
She's a scumbag, regardless of Assanges alleged crime.
However Assange is not the innocent person that some people want him to be either.
Source?
And if Assagne is guilty or not, I can't tell. I hope the court leaves out their personalties and opinions, otherwise both are doomed.
However, for what I remember, the rape accusations are ridiculous (though sound for the Swedish law). The alleged rape victim voluntarily hosted Assange in her house and her bed for days after the the alleged rape had happened. The Swedish law appears to be calling rape what in sane countries is just called regret and second thought.
Second, you can have consensual sex one time and then rape the second.
Sure, you can have consensual sex before and rape after. It's the definition of rape that makes me doubtful in this case. You can't decide a sexual intercourse was actually rape some days after the fact; a rape should involve physical coercion or heavy psychological abuse. The rapist and the victim generally don't part in good terms as apparently happened in this case.
This isn't the test in pretty much any European country at the very least. All that is required is generally the absence of consent for the specific act. If she has said "no" or had diminished capacity to object or consent (e.g. been drunk or asleep), then you generally don't have consent.
In this case part of the allegation is in one instance that the woman was "half asleep" (potentially unable to provide consent, though in this case the defence will want to question exactly what is meant by "half asleep" in the statement), and secondly that consent had previously given for intercourse with a condom and that it been made very clear to Assange there was no consent to sex without a condom, but that Assange allegedly intentionally sabotaged a condom (if he did, then that would be a crime in a whole range of countries).
If those allegations are true as they have been presented, then it would be some form of sexual offence pretty much everywhere, whether rape or sexual assault.
Of course we don't know if they are true, or even if they accurately represents what the women told police.
> You can't decide a sexual intercourse was actually rape some days after the fact;
No, but you can decide you need to report it days after the fact. While a delay in reporting a rape is often used as an argument by the defence in rape cases, it is fairly common for rape victims to take their times to come forward.
More importantly in this case the alleged victims allegedly did not report a rape but went to police to ask if they could compel an STI test, and the police started a rape investigation on the basis that the details as described by the women allegedly meets the standard of sexual offences under Swedish law.
> The rapist and the victim generally don't part in good terms as apparently happened in this case.
Victims often continue to live with rapists for years. Or date them. Or work with them. To those around them it can often perfectly well look like they're on good terms. This is part of the reason why rapes are so hard to prosecute, because so often it devolves to a "he said, she said" where the way the victim have acted is hard to understand for juries.
Assange may very well be not guilty, but I don't think any of this remotely rules out that he might be guilty.
Also keep in mind that a UK judge too agreed that assuming that the allegations are as described by the Swedish prosecutor, and that these allegations are true it would be a crime in the UK too.
So what the prosecutors allege certainly goes beyond regret and second thought. Whether or not the prosecutors can substantiate those allegations in any way, is another matter.