British Court Refuses Bail for Assange

WorldDecember 2010 • Views: 24,014

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is now in British custody, and a London court has refused bail — so Assange will probably be in jail for several weeks.

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, gave details of the allegations against Mr Assange.

One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom. Another is that he had unprotected sex with another woman, Miss W, while she was asleep.

Mr Assange, who was accompanied by Australian consular officials, initially refused to say where he lived but eventually gave an address in Australia. …

US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said it was possible the US would make an extradition request for Mr Assange but he said it was premature as the criminal investigation into Wikileaks was still ongoing.

Jump to bottom

110 comments

jamesfirecat Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:17:24am

Huh…. well I guess one way or another we’re likely to see if that “deadman switch” he claims to have set up goes off…

“May you live in interesting times!” —-(Old Chinese curse from what I’ve heard…)

Capitalist Tool Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:18:26am

Of course his bail is refused- such heinous crimes! How dare he not wear a raincoat.

lawhawk Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:21:00am

He’s going to remain in custody at least until December 14, when the next hearing is scheduled. Assange says he’s going to fight extradition, so that next hearing should provide some serious fireworks. The judge said that there was substantial evidence to believe that Assange wouldn’t show up at further hearings, which is why no bail was issued.

The allegations against Assange are as follows:

Gemma Lindfield, acting for Swedish authorities, laid out the four allegations against Assange in court. According to the Press Association report, they were as follows:
* The first complainant, Miss A, was alleged to be victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of Aug. 14 in Stockholm. Assange was accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
* Assange was accused of having “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex without a condom despite her “express wish” that one should be used.
* He was also alleged to have “deliberately molested” Miss A on Aug. 18 “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity.”
* Assange had sex with the second complainant, Miss W, on Aug. 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

So, while most folks will conclude this is some form of payback for the Wikileaks document dump, the charges stem from sexual misconduct in Sweden.

No charges have been proffered against Assange on the document dump, though that could conceivably change as circumstances warrant.

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:21:56am

This case stinks. I wouldn’t mind seeing ~~Blofeld~~ Assange in a deep, dark dungeon somewhere but they need to come up with some kind of legitimate charge.

Political Atheist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:22:08am

He’s lucky to have due process in his favor. Kind of amazing, he gets jailed for sex crimes and threatens blackmail-Get me off this charge or more secrets get revealed. What an astonishing low life thing to do.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:22:18am

He is a very real flight risk. That much is true.

I think this is going to make a bit of a martyr out of him.

I’m going to stay out of this thread, because, frankly, a lot of people’s willingness to belittle the charges made by the Swedish women is irking the hell out of me.

I have no idea whether or not these charges are accurate. Nor does anyone else. That’s why trials exist.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:22:37am

re: #4 Shiplord Kirel

Case in point.

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:23:44am

Sky News on Assange case:

Youtube Video

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:26:36am

He’s probably the worst flight risk since Rudolf Hess, so the effective denial of bail is not an issue.

Political Atheist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:26:52am

re: #4 Shiplord Kirel

Two victims. And breaking that condom promise is how STD’s are spread. Seems a shame to me to think the charges would have been ignored if he had not released all those documents.

As if men could or should just get away with that behavior as not worth enforcing. That’s not right.

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:30:52am

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

Two victims. And breaking that condom promise is how STD’s are spread. Seems a shame to me to think the charges would have been ignored if he had not released all those documents.

As if men could or should just get away with that behavior as not worth enforcing. That’s not right.

Check out the Sky News report. One of the victims is a public advocate of abusing this very law to retaliate against men. This becomes relevant when it is a case of her word against his, since it affects her credibility.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:31:14am

I’m trying to imagine the collective freak out on the right if they made it illegal to refuse to where a condom here in the U.S. LOL!

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:33:16am

re: #12 Dreggas

I’m trying to imagine the collective freak out on the right if they made it illegal to refuse to where a condom here in the U.S. LOL!

It is, if the other party’s consent depends on it.

Political Atheist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:33:23am

re: #12 Dreggas

It is illegal here. In the sense that a woman has the right to insist. Trick her and it’s no longer consensual sex.

No means no.

Capitalist Tool Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:34:24am

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

One woman said the condom broke and the other woman said he didn’t use a condom… both women apparently twittered their conquest(s) for some days before raising a ruckus (after they both discovered that each was sleeping with Assange.)
In the case of the broken condom- how is that a crime?
In the case of the woman still consenting to sex without a condom, how is he alone guilty of a crime… and since when is unprotected sex a crime, even in Trollhatten?

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:35:34am

re: #14 Rightwingconspirator

now see I didn’t know it was illegal to refuse to wear a condom.

Capitalist Tool Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:35:40am

re: #14 Rightwingconspirator

Did he trick her? Was she unaware that he wasn’t using a condom? If so, HOW was she able to remain unaware?

Political Atheist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:37:15am

re: #17 Capitalist Tool

They say whilst asleep. It’s all 3rd hand or worse to me, hence the right thing is the magistrate sorts it out.

Political Atheist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:38:00am

re: #16 Dreggas

Not illegal to refuse to wear it, a man can just at that point say no and pass up the encounter.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:38:03am

If the condom broke, or he removed it during sex, and consent was withdrawn, they may well have a case. This whole thing is wildly complicated, I don’t know Swedish law, and it’s all a bit skewed as a result of his other activities.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:45:03am

A propos of nothing, here’s a summer 2010 photo from one the Russian Marches of the Dissenters, taken by chance but pretty symbolic:

Image: _na-marshe.jpg

jamesfirecat Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:45:57am

re: #21 Sergey Romanov

A propos of nothing, here’s a summer 2010 photo from one the Russian Marches of the Dissenters, taken by chance but pretty symbolic:

Image: _na-marshe.jpg

Huh… the woman reminds me of the one from that famous french painting where the woman is waving a flag around near a cannon with no top on….

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:46:19am

re: #22 jamesfirecat

Huh… the woman reminds me of the one from that famous french painting where the woman is waving a flag around near a cannon with no top on…

Marianne.

wrenchwench Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:46:32am

re: #11 Shiplord Kirel

Check out the Sky News report. One of the victims is a public advocate of abusing this very law to retaliate against men. This becomes relevant when it is a case of her word against his, since it affects her credibility.

If that refers to her blog post of Jan. 19, 2010, I don’t think it’s necessarily relevant enough to allow in court, if it were a case in the USA. One of the commenters on that post says it’s just a rip-off of this.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:46:44am

re: #22 jamesfirecat

My thoughts exactly.

iceweasel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:49:20am

Re: condom breaking— the issue isn’t it breaking, but continuing after it breaks when you’ve been asked not to.

Not to get into this really, mostly driving by here— but Jill at feministe has a post up about this.

I’d recommend it. Esp for people who want to get a general idea of the thinking behind the Swedish laws. The US has more of a force based notion basically.

Some thoughts on “sex by surprise”

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:52:31am

And this one is from a very recent pro-Putin “Russian March” organized by Nashi and Stal’:

Image: 5-13.jpg

(The woman on the poster on the ground is Lyudmila Alexeeva.)

Fozzie Bear Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:54:07am

re: #4 Shiplord Kirel

This case stinks. I wouldn’t mind seeing ~~Blofeld~~ Assange in a deep, dark dungeon somewhere but they need to come up with some kind of legitimate charge.

This sentiment right here is one of the biggest reasons we may see Assange in our custody.

We have an atrocious human rights record with prisoners, and we still employ capital punishment. This makes us a very politically unpalatable place to which to extradite people.

Once you get a reputation for torturing your prisoners, it gets harder for more civilized nations to cooperate with us. That’s right, I just called us relatively uncivilized when it comes to our treatment of detainees. It’s the truth.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:54:42am

re: #28 Fozzie Bear

pimf
“… reasons we may NEVER see …”

Flounder Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:55:06am

I doubt Mr. Assange has the wherewithall to break a condom.

Alexzander Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:02:52am

Does anyone seriously contend that these charges are being leveled right now only coincidentally? And that the bail denial only pertains to these charges (that is to say, that the detention is a way of damaging Wikileaks)?

goddamnedfrank Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:03:43am

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

If the condom broke, or he removed it during sex, and consent was withdrawn, they may well have a case. This whole thing is wildly complicated, I don’t know Swedish law, and it’s all a bit skewed as a result of his other activities.

As I understand it the women themselves haven’t actually signed any criminal complaints personally. They went to the police together to ask for “advice” on how to force Assange to submit to an HIV/STD test, and the police officer drew her own conclusions of possible criminality. Under Swedish law you can’t be held liable for filing a false complaint if all you did was ask for advice and the police take it from there.

They went together to a Stockholm police station where they said they were seeking advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Jessica against Assange.

According to one source, Jessica wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Sarah, the seasoned feminist warrior, said she was there merely to support Jessica. But she also gave police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange a week before.

The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the second, concluded that both women were victims: that Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.

Assange continues to insist that he has done nothing wrong, and that his sexual encounters with both women were consensual

It was Friday evening. A duty prosecuting attorney, Maria Kjellstrand, was called.
She agreed that Assange should be sought on suspicion of rape.

The following day, Sarah was questioned again, cementing the allegation of sexual misconduct against Assange. That evening, detectives tried to find him and searched Stockholm’s entertainment district — but to no avail.

By Sunday morning, the news had leaked to the Press. Indeed, it has been suggested that the two women had discussed approaching a tabloid newspaper to maximise Assange’s discomfort. By now, the authorities realised they had a high-profile case on their hands and legal papers were rushed to the weekend home of the chief prosecutor, who dismissed the rape charge.’

One of the victims, the one who went to the police station only to offer support, has a blog entry where she lays out a 7 step guideline for seeking legal revenge on someone who cheats on or dumps her.

Step 3: “For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.”

Step 4: “Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him. Use your imagination!”

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:07:46am

re: #28 Fozzie Bear

This sentiment right here is one of the biggest reasons we may see Assange in our custody.

We have an atrocious human rights record with prisoners, and we still employ capital punishment. This makes us a very politically unpalatable place to which to extradite people.

Once you get a reputation for torturing your prisoners, it gets harder for more civilized nations to cooperate with us. That’s right, I just called us relatively uncivilized when it comes to our treatment of detainees. It’s the truth.

Sweden does extradite to the United States in cases that involve regular criminal courts and extraditable offenses. Off-the-cuff statements about popular opinion are not a factor in this. The death penalty and Gitmo-style extra-legal detention would presumably not apply to Assange. What we (the US) don’t have is an extraditable case or (apparently) a case of any kind.

Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:09:38am

re: #33 Shiplord Kirel

What we (the US) don’t have is an extraditable case or (apparently) a case of any kind.

Not yet but I suspect we’ll know for sure in a couple weeks. They’re working on it.

lawhawk Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:10:25am

re: #28 Fozzie Bear

That can be a concern, but countries dealing with extradition (ie those having reciprocal extradition) typically will allow extradition in cases where death penalty does not apply. That includes EU countries.

Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:11:08am

OT: I just decided to block out two entire IP ranges used by the company Ubiquity Server Solutions, because there’s a ridiculous amount of referrer spam coming from a lot of different IPs in these CIDRs.

deny from 173.208.60.0/22
deny from 69.147.224.0/19

A Google search shows that the company has been the subject of many spam complaints:

google.com

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:13:14am

re: #36 Charles

BTW, Charles, do you have any plans to block Tor servers? I ask because I use Tor to browse from work, but my guess would be that stalkers can also use Tor for their aims, so I wonder.

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:15:54am

re: #26 iceweasel

Re: condom breaking— the issue isn’t it breaking, but continuing after it breaks when you’ve been asked not to.

Not to get into this really, mostly driving by here— but Jill at feministe has a post up about this.

I’d recommend it. Esp for people who want to get a general idea of the thinking behind the Swedish laws. The US has more of a force based notion basically.

Some thoughts on “sex by surprise”

Good post.

wrenchwench Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:16:05am

re: #32 goddamnedfrank

See #24 about the blog post. What do you think?

jamesfirecat Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:16:43am

re: #38 Buck

Good post.

Glad to see you post something I can agree on you with!

Fozzie Bear Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:17:11am

re: #26 iceweasel

There’s some pretty serious misandry on that site. There’s good information there, but it’s hard to get past the enraged bitterness of the tone there.

SpaceJesus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:17:14am

Reading up on the background of these charges and the accusers, this whole thing looks like pure bullshit.

Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:18:11am

I see a lot more love for Assange here that I would expect. It’s been a while since we’ve had an LGF poll but I’d be afraid to see the results on this topic.

goddamnedfrank Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:18:49am

re: #26 iceweasel

Re: condom breaking— the issue isn’t it breaking, but continuing after it breaks when you’ve been asked not to.

Not to get into this really, mostly driving by here— but Jill at feministe has a post up about this.

I’d recommend it. Esp for people who want to get a general idea of the thinking behind the Swedish laws. The US has more of a force based notion basically.

Some thoughts on “sex by surprise”

I agree, but it works both ways, my ex wife got pregnant (not by me and after the divorce) because of a condom she admitted quite proudly to sabotaging herself. The dude is financially responsible for a kid now, hope he really wanted one.

wrenchwench Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:19:14am

re: #43 Killgore Trout

I see a lot more love for Assange here that I would expect. It’s been a while since we’ve had an LGF poll but I’d be afraid to see the results on this topic.

Ron Paul!

sizzleRI Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:19:57am

re: #2 Capitalist Tool

How dare a woman not be able to define consent for herself. Or be awake for that matter. What a bitch.

Enlino Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:20:15am

Seriously though, if you honestly believe that the charges are genuine, and that this arrest isn’t all about wikileaks, then I don’t know what to tell you. Why do you think the US wants extradition? This is a pretty blatant case of “find charges against this person we don’t like”

jamesfirecat Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:20:21am

re: #43 Killgore Trout

I see a lot more love for Assange here that I would expect. It’s been a while since we’ve had an LGF poll but I’d be afraid to see the results on this topic.

Depends how do you define “Love”?

I don’t care for what he did much either, but this entire thing does have an Al Capone on tax evasion quality to it.

That said Al actually committed tax evasion, and if Assange did what he is accused of he should pay the penalty for it regardless of what toher actions he has taken part in…

Walter L. Newton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:20:30am

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

There’s some pretty serious misandry on that site. There’s good information there, but it’s hard to get past the enraged bitterness of the tone there.

What in that article didn’t you agree with?

wrenchwench Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:20:33am

re: #42 SpaceJesus

Reading up on the background of these charges and the accusers, this whole thing looks like pure bullshit.

What are you reading?

SpaceJesus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:20:47am

I don’t like him that much, but there are certain narrow things that endear him to me a little bit.

Locker Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:20:54am

re: #36 Charles

Read one of the articles on top of the google link you provided and found that one guy had some success by addressing their concerns with Ubiquity. Not that I’m suggesting you do anything, just sharing.

cogdogblog.com

UPDATE June 20, 2010 I have to say this has been a fascinating experience (follow the comment threads below); and am going to have to modify my initial assertions that Ubiquity Servers are “coddling” spammers; that as written more out of emotion than knowledge.

In fact, since I sent them my log data, I have seen no more spam from their clients (or as it appears, their clients’ clients’ clients’ clients’ clients.

It seems that this is a problem from a lot of hosting sites so I figure if you get one who actually cares and will take action, that’s not a bad thing. Just passing along what I found.

iceweasel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:22:11am

re: #38 Buck

Good post.

I think she makes a lot of good points about the way this is being covered:

Whether withdrawal of consent is what actually happened here is impossible to tell, so I’m not suggesting that Assange is a rapist or that these charges are 100% definitely on-point; I have no idea. But neither do the commentators who are saying that Assange did nothing more than have sex without a condom. And it’s important to counter the “haha sex by surprise those crazy Swedes” media narrative with the fact that actually, non-consensual sex is assault and should be recognized as such by law.

[…]

I’m not particularly interested in debating What Assange Did or Whether Assange Is A Rapist, and I’d appreciate it if we could steer clear of that in the comments section. Rather, I’m interested in pushing back on the primary media narrative about this case, which is that women lie and exaggerate about rape, and will call even the littlest thing — a broken condom! — rape if they’re permitted to under a too-liberal feminist legal system. In fact, there are lots of good reasons to support consent-based sexual assault laws, and to recognize that consent goes far beyond “yes you can put that in here now.” It’s a shame that the shoddy, sensationalist reporting on this case have muddied those waters.

I don’t think enough is known yet about Assange and what happened there, but these are general issues worth thinking about.

Back later— have fun lizards!

Walter L. Newton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:22:50am

re: #47 Enlino

Seriously though, if you honestly believe that the charges are genuine, and that this arrest isn’t all about wikileaks, then I don’t know what to tell you. Why do you think the US wants extradition? This is a pretty blatant case of “find charges against this person we don’t like”

Well… you have this whole case.. signed, sealed and delivered. What are your “facts” that lead you to this ultimate answer?

wrenchwench Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:22:57am

re: #47 Enlino

Seriously though, if you honestly believe that the charges are genuine, and that this arrest isn’t all about wikileaks, then I don’t know what to tell you. Why do you think the US wants extradition? This is a pretty blatant case of “find charges against this person we don’t like”

What if I believe the charges might be genuine, and that it is not up to me to make that determination?

S'latch Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:23:10am

Julian Assange is so creepy, if it were a crime, he would be guilty of first-degree premeditated creeping me out.

jamesfirecat Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:24:03am

re: #56 Lawrence Schmerel

Julian Assange is so creepy, if it were a crime, he would be guilty of first-degree premeditated creeping me out.

Youtube Video

SpaceJesus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:24:09am

re: #50 wrenchwench

some articles from the past few days and also from talking to swedish friend about what’s being said on swedish radio about this.

iceweasel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:24:16am

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

There’s some pretty serious misandry on that site. There’s good information there, but it’s hard to get past the enraged bitterness of the tone there.

I don’t read the comments. I haven’t noticed ‘misandry’ there personally. Certainly not in the piece i linked, which is the only one I’m currently prepared to discuss..but alas, even that will have to be later. Ciao for now!

Varek Raith Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:24:29am

re: #47 Enlino

What bullshit.

Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:24:30am

re: #52 Locker

Yeah, I saw that - but I also note a pattern going back years of all kinds of ‘bottom-feeding’ spam coming from Ubiquity. Trackback spam, comment spam, referrer spam, etc.

I can’t really judge whether they’re allowing it to happen or not, but it’s clear there’s a recurring problem with the company.

wrenchwench Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:25:43am

re: #58 SpaceJesus

some articles from the past few days and also from talking to swedish friend about what’s being said on swedish radio about this.

Did you see the link in my #24? Thoughts?

Gus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:26:22am

re: #47 Enlino

Seriously though, if you honestly believe that the charges are genuine, and that this arrest isn’t all about wikileaks, then I don’t know what to tell you. Why do you think the US wants extradition? This is a pretty blatant case of “find charges against this person we don’t like”

Try reading it again:

US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said it was possible the US would make an extradition request for Mr Assange but he said it was premature as the criminal investigation into Wikileaks was still ongoing.

sizzleRI Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:26:34am

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

If you think that is serious misandry…well I have some other sites to recommend. Feministe is mild in comparison.

schnapp Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:26:42am

The guy clearly has an anti-western agenda.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:28:12am

re: #65 schnapp

No. He clearly has an agenda. That this agenda is specifically anti-Western is not at all “clear”.

Varek Raith Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:28:36am

re: #65 schnapp

The guy clearly has an anti-western agenda.

It’s not anti western as much is it’s just plain anti government.
To him, every government secret is a conspiracy of devious intent.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:29:21am

re: #67 Varek Raith

It’s not anti western as much is it’s just plain anti government.
To him, every government secret is a conspiracy of devious intent.

This. The word ‘anarchist’ has been thrown around here for a good reason.

iceweasel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:30:22am

re: #44 goddamnedfrank

I agree, but it works both ways, my ex wife got pregnant (not by me and after the divorce) because of a condom she admitted quite proudly to sabotaging herself. The dude is financially responsible for a kid now, hope he really wanted one.

Yeah, I have to read more about this notion of consent and legal systems that take consent rather than force more seriously— one of the first things that occurred to me, actually, was to wonder if there was redress for men if women sabotaged birth control, and they were in agreement that birth control was to be used.

Anyway, I don’t know much about it yet myself but I’ve noticed some of the discussions of this getting heated, and I thought it might be helpful and interesting to think about the background issues here rather than the specifics of assange. I’ll be back later.

good to see you, frank. take care.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:30:41am

re: #49 Walter L. Newton

What in that article didn’t you agree with?

I was clicking around to different articles, and while the articles were, on the balance, well written and reasoned, many of the comments were horrifying. I’ll give the authors their due, however.

I should know better than to read comments anyway.

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:31:10am

re: #53 iceweasel

I think she makes a lot of good points about the way this is being covered:

[…]

I don’t think enough is known yet about Assange and what happened there, but these are general issues worth thinking about.

Back later— have fun lizards!

I just think every single detail about this guy, his life, the charges, his credit report, all his bank statements and credit card statements should be released immediately so that we can all know more about him.

I am sure he would not mind.

Gus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:32:22am

re: #43 Killgore Trout

I see a lot more love for Assange here that I would expect. It’s been a while since we’ve had an LGF poll but I’d be afraid to see the results on this topic.

Yeah, well, apparently Assange’s anti-Israel buddies that showed up today to bail him out didn’t seem to make a big splash in the previous thread.

SpaceJesus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:33:44am

re: #62 wrenchwench

Yeah I heard about that one. There’s other interesting stuff too, like the accusers text message history

ErikJ76 Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:35:02am

re: #26 iceweasel

Re: condom breaking— the issue isn’t it breaking, but continuing after it breaks when you’ve been asked not to.

Not to get into this really, mostly driving by here— but Jill at feministe has a post up about this.

I’d recommend it. Esp for people who want to get a general idea of the thinking behind the Swedish laws. The US has more of a force based notion basically.

Some thoughts on “sex by surprise”

As a Swede, I’d just like to point out what Jill’s post lack. Any quoting of any actual Swedish laws. Anyone looking to get a correct idea about it probably should google for it….

Gus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:36:22am

Julian Assange

Moonbat Friends - Check
Moonbat Ideas - Check
Moonbat Rhetoric - Check

It’s a moonbat!

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:38:13am

re: #75 Gus 802

You state it as if it were a sudden discovery rather than an obvious fact. :-)

researchok Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:38:19am

re: #75 Gus 802

Julian Assange

Moonbat Friends - Check
Moonbat Ideas - Check
Moonbat Rhetoric - Check

It’s a moonbat!

Is that a t shirt with a big red bullseye you are wearing?
/

chandsolo Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:41:14am

re: #71 Buck

Ah, but by that logic aren’t you opening yourself to the same scrutiny you want for Assange. Ya’ know for the sake karmic balance. Oops, I just opened up myself the same sort of retaliation for having a revenge fantasy about your revenge fantasy. Shrug.

reloadingisnotahobby Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:41:32am

Unprotected sex?
She insisted he wear a condom…
Yet they still had sex….
Is that against the law?
…And WTF is it even reported for?
If she stuggled it would RAPE!!

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:41:55am

re: #75 Gus 802

Julian Assange

Moonbat Friends - Check
Moonbat Ideas - Check
Moonbat Rhetoric - Check

It’s a moonbat!

It may be disreputable, distasteful, and ill-advised to be a moonbat, but it is not illegal.
//

Enlino Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:42:55am

re: #63 Gus 802

Well, yes. My point was that the arrest is all about wikileaks, the charges are just an excuse.

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:44:09am

re: #78 chan

Ah, but by that logic aren’t you opening yourself to the same scrutiny you want for Assange. Ya’ know for the sake karmic balance. Oops, I just opened up myself the same sort of retaliation for having a revenge fantasy about your revenge fantasy. Shrug.

Live by the sword….

Gus Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:45:13am

re: #81 Enlino

Well, yes. My point was that the arrest is all about wikileaks, the charges are just an excuse.

He’s under arrest at this time for charges originating from Sweden and not the USA. There have been no charges filed against Assange from the USA at this time.

iceweasel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:46:56am

re: #74 ErikJ76

As a Swede, I’d just like to point out what Jill’s post lack. Any quoting of any actual Swedish laws. Anyone looking to get a correct idea about it probably should google for it…

That’s because it’s a post about the theoretical underpinnings of legal systems that take consent seriously.

Elsewhere, I see we’re in for a round of “haha the condom broke silly wimmins call that rape” so—- off to make dinner.

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:48:35am

The Swedish courts can do as they will with this case. I really have no opinion on the factuality of the charges, but I will not take any joy in seeing Assange locked up over it, any more than I would if the Russian mafia shot him down on the streets.
It has nothing to do with the uproar over wikileaks, it has a good chance of giving Assange a major batch of martyr cookies, and, naturally, it is heaven’s gift to conspiracy theorists.

chandsolo Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:53:23am

re: #82 Buck

Live by the sword…

Yes, but where does it end?

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:03:16pm

What we have:

1) Two women, who consulted with each other after discovering that they had sex with the same man within a matter of day, go to the police to “seek advice” on what to do.

2) Assange denies that anything not consensual happens

3) The first prosecutor decides that this is rape by Swedish legal definition, issues a warrant which is almost immediately squashed by a senior prosecutor who says that if anything the charges rise to sexual molestation (for which the maximal penalty is a fine of less than 1000 dollars). But the whole thing is leaked to the Swedish press and from now on Assange is a “rapist”.

4) A new prosecutor - in another jurisdicton in Sweden (Gothenburg) takes up the case on request of the 2 women and their lawyer and says it may very well be rape, but for THREE WEEKS refuses to meet with Assange who wants to clear his name which now is associated with rape in the internet). Despite several pleas of Assange, details of the allegations are repeatedly leaked to the Swedish press.

5) After three weeks Assange calls the prosecutor and tells her that he wants to leave Sweden and whether he is free to go. She says yes, he is free to go.

6) After Assange’s arrival in the UK the Swedish prosecutor issues a Swedish arrest warrant. Assange is unwilling to return to Sweden

7) The Swedish prosecutor tells Interpol to put a “red alert” on Assange but needs three version of her international warrant to get it right.

8) Assange wants to know what the exact charges in that warrant actually are but this is refused.

9) Assange voluntarily turns himself in. He’s never been a fugitive but bail is denied although the judge wants to see evidence of the allegations. Quite obviously the only “evidence” provided is what the 2 women claim.

goddamnedfrank Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:09:04pm

re: #39 wrenchwench

See #24 about the blog post. What do you think?

I think it’s absolutely relevant in court, was written recently (this year, prior to the allegations), and goes to establish pattern and credibility. It also fits the fact that they went to the police seeking advice only, with her there for support only, which apparently shields her from direct repercussions if it turns out to be a false charge.

re: #42 SpaceJesus

Reading up on the background of these charges and the accusers, this whole thing looks like pure bullshit.

Careful now, Obdicut will lose all respect for you, and he’s got an incredibly inflated sense of what his respect is worth.

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:50:57pm

re: #86 chan

Yes, but where does it end?

It ends when people start behaving within the bounds and rules for society.

He knew Wikileaks was going to operate outside of the law. He imagined that OTHERS were operating outside the rules, and he made the decision to be outside of the law, and expose them.

He might have thought that he would be thought of as Robin Hood, and maybe he will. But for now the Sheriff has him.

I, of course think it is telling who comes to his rescue with bail money. KEN LOACH, famous anti semite.

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:53:36pm

re: #87 Mark Winter

I would have liked you to go back a but further with your time line. You actually left out the alleged crime. I think your time line, in order to not seem biased, should probably start there.

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:55:47pm

re: #83 Gus 802

He’s under arrest at this time for charges originating from Sweden and not the USA. There have been no charges filed against Assange from the USA at this time.

True…. Paging Eric Holder! Eric Holder please call the front desk!

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:14:37pm

re: #90 Buck

No. I’m just giving the timeline of things we know.
Right now we have 6 versions of the alleged crime.

2 given by the women with no other evidence than their story.
1 by Assange, that nothing not-consensual happened
3 different versions of three different Swedish prosecutors.

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:19:11pm

re: #89 Buck

He knew Wikileaks was going to operate outside of the law. He imagined that OTHERS were operating outside the rules, and he made the decision to be outside of the law, and expose them.

Free media cannot and have never functioned without relying on sources that tell you confidential, secret and even top secret info. That’s why they are journalists, not PR hacks.

Wikileaks may do less editing but what they do is not outside the law.

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:46:20pm

re: #93 Mark Winter

Free media cannot and have never functioned without relying on sources that tell you confidential, secret and even top secret info. That’s why they are journalists, not PR hacks.

Wikileaks may do less editing but what they do is not outside the law.

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787

wikileaks is not a newspaper. They might try and call themselves journalists, and pretend now that they have been caught that they are journalists, but they are not.

With a Free Press comes responsibility. Just try and publish copyrighted material just because you disagree with the owners POV.

chandsolo Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:53:28pm

re: #89 Buck

It ends when people start behaving within the bounds and rules for society.

He knew Wikileaks was going to operate outside of the law. He imagined that OTHERS were operating outside the rules, and he made the decision to be outside of the law, and expose them.

He might have thought that he would be thought of as Robin Hood, and maybe he will. But for now the Sheriff has him.

I, of course think it is telling who comes to his rescue with bail money. KEN LOACH, famous anti semite.

I am in no way defending Assange or Wikileaks. My interest in your comment was the concept of revenge and the nature of those that call for it as a way to even scales. I think that emotions cloud judgment when suggesting Inferno just deserts. As per proper behavior, wouldn’t you agree then that revenge fantasies have no place inside the bounds and rules for society?

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:57:32pm

re: #95 chan

. As per proper behavior, wouldn’t you agree then that revenge fantasies have no place inside the bounds and rules for society?

What revenge fantasies? Assange believes that there should be no secrets, that information should be free…. Maybe it is just OTHERS secrets, OTHERS information.

I am offended by your characterization of my point. You trivialize it by calling it revenge or a fantasy, it is not.

Usually refered to as anyways Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:06:30pm

re: #94 Buck

wikileaks is not a newspaper. They might try and call themselves journalists, and pretend now that they have been caught that they are journalists, but they are not.

With a Free Press comes responsibility. Just try and publish copyrighted material just because you disagree with the owners POV.

Are you suggesting only newspapers have journalists?
Are you suggesting blogs do not or can not be journalists?
Who determines what a journalist is?
Does the NYT have journalists?

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:13:48pm

re: #97 ozbloke

Are you suggesting only newspapers have journalists?
Are you suggesting blogs do not or can not be journalists?
Who determines what a journalist is?
Does the NYT have journalists?

I used the word newspaper, because YOU did.

Fine, journalists have responsibilities. Just try and publish copyrighted material just because you disagree with the owners POV.

If you want to ignore the “responsibilities” and “publish copyrighted material” parts of my post go ahead. BUT they are the important parts. Not the word newspaper.

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:17:55pm

re: #94 Buck

wikileaks is not a newspaper. They might try and call themselves journalists, and pretend now that they have been caught that they are journalists, but they are not.

With a Free Press comes responsibility. Just try and publish copyrighted material just because you disagree with the owners POV.

Just for the record, Assange is a fully accredited journalist and has even received media prizes. Just saying. Btw documentation is a vital part of journalism.

Responsibility? WL ONLY publishes cables that have been vetted by the 5 newspapers they collaborate with. As a matter of fact the NYT publishes them BEFORE WL does. And sensitive names are edited out.

The material is not copyrighted. U.S. government papers are Public Domain.

100

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:22:29pm

re: #99 Mark Winter

Just for the record, Assange is a fully accredited journalist and has even received media prizes. Just saying. Btw documentation is a vital part of journalism.

Responsibility? WL ONLY publishes cables that have been vetted by the 5 newspapers they collaborate with. As a matter of fact the NYT publishes them BEFORE WL does. And sensitive names are edited out.

The material is not copyrighted. U.S. government papers are Public Domain.

hmmm Is US government papers the only papers they have published? Are you saying that everything wikileaks has published has been vetted by the 5 newspapers? Everything?

Sure are you?

101

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:29:51pm

re: #100 Buck

hmmm Is US government papers the only papers they have published? Are you saying that everything wikileaks has published has been vetted by the 5 newspapers? Everything?

Sure are you?

Are you saying that publishing papers from a bank that demonstrate criminal fraud must not happen because those papers are “copyrighted”?

102

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:34:11pm

Another example

n September 2006, commodities giant Trafigura commissioned an internal report about a toxic dumping incident in the Ivory Coast,which (according to the United Nations) affected 108,000 people. The document, called the Minton Report, names various harmful chemicals “likely to be present” in the waste and notes that some of them “may cause harm at some distance”. The report states that potential health effects include “burns to the skin, eyes and lungs, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of consciousness and death”, and suggests that the high number of reported casualties is “consistent with there having been a significant release of hydrogen sulphide gas”.

On 11 September 2009, Trafigura’s lawyers, Carter-Ruck, obtained a secret “super-injunction”against The Guardian, banning that newspaper from publishing the contents of the document. Trafigura also threatened a number of other media organizations with legal action if they published the report’s contents, including the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and The Chemical Engineer magazine. On 14 September 2009, WikiLeaks posted the report.

On 12 October, Carter-Ruck warned The Guardian against mentioning the content of a parliamentary question that was due to be asked about the report. Instead, the paper published an article stating that they were unable to report on an unspecified question and claiming that the situation appeared to “call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1689 Bill of Rights”. The suppressed details rapidly circulated via the internet and Twitter and, amid uproar, Carter-Ruck agreed the next day to the modification of the injunction before it was challenged in court, permitting The Guardian to reveal the existence of the question and the injunction. The injunction was lifted on 16 October.

en.wikipedia.org

Was Wikileaks wrong?

103

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:45:44pm

re: #102 Mark Winter

Was Wikileaks wrong?

In my opinion, yes. If what you say is true, and a legal judge agreed to an injunction banning that newspaper from publishing the contents of the document. Then the process under the law was broken.

I believe in the law. Could what you describe also been exposed without breaking the law? I am sure it could have been. It might have taken more time, and cost more…. but it would have been within the law.

In the past many here have discussed the use of torture to speed up getting the information from a terrorist that might save lives. I see this as a parallel issue. Allow wikileaks and it’s ‘editors’ the freedom to publish anything they deem as important, and you give them way too much power.

Did everything they published in the past 3 years have the results you make as an example? No. Did innocent people get their personal secrets exposed, despite doing nothing illegal? Yes.

104

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:51:41pm

re: #103 Buck

Did everything they published in the past 3 years have the results you make as an example? No. Did innocent people get their personal secrets exposed, despite doing nothing illegal? Yes.

Did you ever wonder why we know so much about Assange’s two sexual encounters in Sweden? HE didn’t tell us. And he has not been charged with anything yet. He’s just wanted for interrogation.

So why do we know all those spicy details which were published in Swedish newspapers? Who’s been leaking those? The Swedish prosecution.

Oh, but that’s different, huh?

105

Buck Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:58:01pm

re: #104 Mark Winter

Did you ever wonder why we know so much about Assange’s two sexual encounters in Sweden? HE didn’t tell us. And he has not been charged with anything yet. He’s just wanted for interrogation.

So why do we know all those spicy details which were published in Swedish newspapers? Who’s been leaking those? The Swedish prosecution.

Oh, but that’s different, huh?

NOT AT ALL. He should complain. He should apply for an injunction. HE SHOULD GET HIS LAWYERS to get as much protection as they can within the law.

106

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:28:59pm

re: #105 Buck

NOT AT ALL. He should complain. He should apply for an injunction. HE SHOULD GET HIS LAWYERS to get as much protection as they can within the law.

Well anyone is free to do the same with WL. Probably with as much success.

107

Mark Winter Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:34:08pm

Another example. A completely innocent man, El Masri, living in Germany, was hijacked by U.S. forces and secretly flown to Afghanistan where he was tortured. After several months he was released and dumped in the middle of nowhere.

Cables published by Wikileaks discover how the U.S. pressured Germany not to file charges against El Masri’s CIA abductors and torturers.

The U.S. has denied El Masri any legal recourse against his captors and the U.S. government.

You believe in the law, right? Now what?

108

Usually refered to as anyways Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:40:25pm

re: #98 Buck

I used the word newspaper, because YOU did.

Ummm, my #97 was in reply to your #94

My #97 was my first post in this thread!

I think you may need to step back a bit and relax, I fear for your heart rate.

109

Usually refered to as anyways Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:45:16pm

re: #98 Buck

I used the word newspaper, because YOU did.

Fine, journalists have responsibilities. Just try and publish copyrighted material just because you disagree with the owners POV.

If you want to ignore the “responsibilities” and “publish copyrighted material” parts of my post go ahead. BUT they are the important parts. Not the word newspaper.

Fine, if he has done anything illegal, he will be charged for it.

110

srjh Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:10:38pm

I’m pretty ambivalent about Assange and Wikileaks, but it’s pretty clear that he has much less of a reason to hang his head in shame than many of his detractors.

Not having anything done anything illegal, governments are scrambling to get him for something, no matter what that is. Get him for terrorism or treason or something, start an international manhunt over some very fishy charges that were dropped and curiously reopened when he became a headache for some very powerful people. If no-one can find anything illegal that he’s done, just kill him anyway; or kidnap his son to get to him and then kill him.

I fear that once all the Wikileaks dust settles, the collateral damage done to many fundamental Western ideals will be substantial.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

British Court Refuses Bail for Assange

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud