|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Isn't that for the UK courts to decide? I remember when Assange agreed to go to Sweden if we could guarantee that he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Our government couldn't do that since it's a juridical matter and not for them to decide. So many people on reddit failed to understand that, and still do, and saw the lack of guarantee as evidence of Sweden being a US puppy.
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
I assume he means symbolically say Britain opposes it rather than, actually do anything
|
On April 12 2019 14:43 Wombat_NI wrote:
I assume he means symbolically say Britain opposes it rather than, actually do anything
I'd imagine he's calling for something between the Former president of Ecuador and US media. Though as the story's gone on and some of the legal folks have seen what the US is charging and their presented evidence thus far they are becoming more critical/skeptical.
I'd find it hard to believe they'd have taken him out of the Embassy if they didn't think they could get him to the US, but with the current leaders of the UK and US, I'm less sure they thought this through as would be typical.
|
On April 12 2019 14:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 14:43 Wombat_NI wrote:
I assume he means symbolically say Britain opposes it rather than, actually do anything I'd imagine he's calling for something between the Former president of Ecuador and US media. Though as the story's gone on and some of the legal folks have seen what the US is charging and their presented evidence thus far they are becoming more critical/skeptical. I'd find it hard to believe they'd have taken him out of the Embassy if they didn't think they could get him to the US, but with the current leaders of the UK and US, I'm less sure they thought this through as would be typical.
Well, they took him out of the embassy because Ecuador changed their policy and denied him asylum, essentially telling the UK: come and get him. I don't think there was much planning regarding the timing involved.
If he gets extradited for the hacking charges, can he later be charged with espionage, treason and all the other stuff the US was previously threatening him with? Or is his extradition just for hacking, and the UK would request guarantees that it won't be changed?
Because in all honesty, hacking charges seem fairly reasonable at first sight. He may not personally have penetrated the Pentagon network, but he definitely profited from the results.
|
On April 12 2019 15:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 14:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 14:43 Wombat_NI wrote:
I assume he means symbolically say Britain opposes it rather than, actually do anything I'd imagine he's calling for something between the Former president of Ecuador and US media. Though as the story's gone on and some of the legal folks have seen what the US is charging and their presented evidence thus far they are becoming more critical/skeptical. I'd find it hard to believe they'd have taken him out of the Embassy if they didn't think they could get him to the US, but with the current leaders of the UK and US, I'm less sure they thought this through as would be typical. Well, they took him out of the embassy because Ecuador changed their policy and denied him asylum, essentially telling the UK: come and get him. I don't think there was much planning regarding the timing involved. If he gets extradited for the hacking charges, can he later be charged with espionage, treason and all the other stuff the US was previously threatening him with? Or is his extradition just for hacking, and the UK would request guarantees that it won't be changed? Because in all honesty, hacking charges seem fairly reasonable at first sight. He may not personally have penetrated the Pentagon network, but he definitely profited from the results.
I'd meant that typically Ecuador wouldn't have done this without communicating to the relevant governments it was coming. Likewise the US and UK would have pressured them not to if they didn't have a plan for what to do when they took custody and attempted extradition.
As to the profits, lots of people profited reporting those documents. If that's the offense, most of western media is guilty.
|
According to a lawyer specialized in extradition cases on Sky News, he can only be charged with what he was extradited for. The US can't pile on additional charges at a later stage. Then again, who can stop them.
|
On April 12 2019 15:38 Longshank wrote:
According to a lawyer specialized in extradition cases on Sky News, he can only be charged with what he was extradited for. The US can't pile on additional charges at a later stage. Then again, who can stop them.
Like the US cares about due process.. the guy will be thrown into gitmo and never seen again.
|
On April 12 2019 16:19 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 15:38 Longshank wrote:
According to a lawyer specialized in extradition cases on Sky News, he can only be charged with what he was extradited for. The US can't pile on additional charges at a later stage. Then again, who can stop them. Like the US cares about due process.. the guy will be thrown into gitmo and never seen again.
And then the UK will write a sternly worded letter that they really don't like it that the US ignored extradition treaties, and that they are really angry about this (and do nothing at all otherwise, proving to the US that they can do whatever they want)
|
Also I think Sweden withdrew the arrest warrant on him in 2017, meaning that the one US issued now has priority even if the prosecutors in Sweden would like to charge him for that 2010 rape case again. So UK either has to extradite him to US or decline to so at all (which I think it should, on the basis that in the US case seems quite politically motivated). Anyways it seems highly unlikely that he will ever have to go to Sweden to face the rape charges, unfortunately.
|
I keep seeing people claiming that the Sweden dropped the charges because there was no case, which does not seem to be accurate in any way. They closed the case because they felt it wasn't likely they were ever going to be able to extradite Assange.
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
On April 13 2019 01:38 Plansix wrote:
I keep seeing people claiming that the Sweden dropped the charges because there was no case, which does not seem to be accurate in any way. They closed the case because they felt it wasn't likely they were ever going to be able to extradite Assange.
Correct, it's absolutely not accurate at all. Not sure why this has proliferated, it's not just something you find by some googling, it is basically amongst the absolute first things you see. Granted there's a degree of personalisation of search results, but still.
For example this when I re-googled today, which is actually a development from yesterday anyway.
www.bbc.co.uk
|
On April 13 2019 02:34 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 01:38 Plansix wrote:
I keep seeing people claiming that the Sweden dropped the charges because there was no case, which does not seem to be accurate in any way. They closed the case because they felt it wasn't likely they were ever going to be able to extradite Assange. Correct, it's absolutely not accurate at all. Not sure why this has proliferated, it's not just something you find by some googling, it is basically amongst the absolute first things you see. Granted there's a degree of personalisation of search results, but still. For example this when I re-googled today, which is actually a development from yesterday anyway. www.bbc.co.uk
It is more or less accurate actually. He was charged with 3 things. Sexual harrasment, sexual misconduct and rape.
The two minor charges ran out of their statue of limitations. Rape has a much longer period before it ”runs out” but the prosecutor dropped the case. Theoretically it could be reopened.
The police investigation has ”leaked” however and it is pretty clear that getting him convicted for rape should be nearly impossible given the laws during that period. The other two charges maybe could have stuck but not rape.
As such I dont think any prosecutor is so keen on putting him on trial and getting legally mauled for it. It would look incredibly bad. If there is no chance of getting him to Sweden I could see them picking up the case but otherwise not. Better to paint him as a possible rapist for the end of time than clearing him and making the public question what you were doing. Especially if you send him to the US after he is cleared.
The UK would probably prefer to extradite to Sweden first though.
|
United States44190 Posts
On April 12 2019 19:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 16:19 solidbebe wrote:On April 12 2019 15:38 Longshank wrote:
According to a lawyer specialized in extradition cases on Sky News, he can only be charged with what he was extradited for. The US can't pile on additional charges at a later stage. Then again, who can stop them. Like the US cares about due process.. the guy will be thrown into gitmo and never seen again. And then the UK will write a sternly worded letter that they really don't like it that the US ignored extradition treaties, and that they are really angry about this (and do nothing at all otherwise, proving to the US that they can do whatever they want)
The US never actually ratified the extradition treaty he’s being extradited under because it was a reciprocal treaty and they didn’t want to do their part.
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
On April 13 2019 05:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 02:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 01:38 Plansix wrote:
I keep seeing people claiming that the Sweden dropped the charges because there was no case, which does not seem to be accurate in any way. They closed the case because they felt it wasn't likely they were ever going to be able to extradite Assange. Correct, it's absolutely not accurate at all. Not sure why this has proliferated, it's not just something you find by some googling, it is basically amongst the absolute first things you see. Granted there's a degree of personalisation of search results, but still. For example this when I re-googled today, which is actually a development from yesterday anyway. www.bbc.co.uk It is more or less accurate actually. He was charged with 3 things. Sexual harrasment, sexual misconduct and rape. The two minor charges ran out of their statue of limitations. Rape has a much longer period before it ”runs out” but the prosecutor dropped the case. Theoretically it could be reopened. The police investigation has ”leaked” however and it is pretty clear that getting him convicted for rape should be nearly impossible given the laws during that period. The other two charges maybe could have stuck but not rape. As such I dont think any prosecutor is so keen on putting him on trial and getting legally mauled for it. It would look incredibly bad. If there is no chance of getting him to Sweden I could see them picking up the case but otherwise not. Better to paint him as a possible rapist for the end of time than clearing him and making the public question what you were doing. Especially if you send him to the US after he is cleared. The UK would probably prefer to extradite to Sweden first though.
Well we’re both right in a sense.
It’s generally framed as a ‘the charges were dropped’, not that they were downgraded down the severity scale. I say framed but it’s not usually a framing issue, it’s literally just being wrong.
So Assange did nothing wrong because no charges, ergo the charges when they existed were purely politically motivated.
Rather than what’s actually the case, which is as you said.
The inverse is true as well regarding vague political positions, so I get a lot of flak back from the political left and especially feminists for trying to draw a distinction there of the same kind.
My personal position is that Assange was at least plausibly, to the point of meriting a trial guilty of some kind of sexual misconduct, but that it would open him up to extradition and punishment by the US to potential degrees way, way above that, and of potentially unfair/disproportionate degrees. And that also people who agree with what he does would overlook his poor personal behaviour and just ascribe it to conspiracy regardless of the facts of the case.
Which tbh isn’t a particularly intelligent or amazingly well-informed position, I’m not special for having it at all, it just seems on balance pretty likely, or plausibly arguable.
But yet a vague position I’ve basically got unending flak for on most political spaces I espouse it, outside of the political sub-forum of a StarCraft space.
|
On April 13 2019 10:17 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 05:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 13 2019 02:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 01:38 Plansix wrote:
I keep seeing people claiming that the Sweden dropped the charges because there was no case, which does not seem to be accurate in any way. They closed the case because they felt it wasn't likely they were ever going to be able to extradite Assange. Correct, it's absolutely not accurate at all. Not sure why this has proliferated, it's not just something you find by some googling, it is basically amongst the absolute first things you see. Granted there's a degree of personalisation of search results, but still. For example this when I re-googled today, which is actually a development from yesterday anyway. www.bbc.co.uk It is more or less accurate actually. He was charged with 3 things. Sexual harrasment, sexual misconduct and rape. The two minor charges ran out of their statue of limitations. Rape has a much longer period before it ”runs out” but the prosecutor dropped the case. Theoretically it could be reopened. The police investigation has ”leaked” however and it is pretty clear that getting him convicted for rape should be nearly impossible given the laws during that period. The other two charges maybe could have stuck but not rape. As such I dont think any prosecutor is so keen on putting him on trial and getting legally mauled for it. It would look incredibly bad. If there is no chance of getting him to Sweden I could see them picking up the case but otherwise not. Better to paint him as a possible rapist for the end of time than clearing him and making the public question what you were doing. Especially if you send him to the US after he is cleared. The UK would probably prefer to extradite to Sweden first though. Well we’re both right in a sense. It’s generally framed as a ‘the charges were dropped’, not that they were downgraded down the severity scale. I say framed but it’s not usually a framing issue, it’s literally just being wrong. So Assange did nothing wrong because no charges, ergo the charges when they existed were purely politically motivated. Rather than what’s actually the case, which is as you said. The inverse is true as well regarding vague political positions, so I get a lot of flak back from the political left and especially feminists for trying to draw a distinction there of the same kind. My personal position is that Assange was at least plausibly, to the point of meriting a trial guilty of some kind of sexual misconduct, but that it would open him up to extradition and punishment by the US to potential degrees way, way above that, and of potentially unfair/disproportionate degrees. And that also people who agree with what he does would overlook his poor personal behaviour and just ascribe it to conspiracy regardless of the facts of the case. Which tbh isn’t a particularly intelligent or amazingly well-informed position, I’m not special for having it at all, it just seems on balance pretty likely, or plausibly arguable. But yet a vague position I’ve basically got unending flak for on most political spaces I espouse it, outside of the political sub-forum of a StarCraft space.
I agree 100 % with you actually. Assange is an asshole when it comes to women (but not a rapist) and the prosecution misshandled the case incredibly badly by also charging him with rape and thinking they could completly disregard his political persona. Both can be true at the same time.
|
On April 13 2019 15:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 10:17 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 05:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 13 2019 02:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 01:38 Plansix wrote:
I keep seeing people claiming that the Sweden dropped the charges because there was no case, which does not seem to be accurate in any way. They closed the case because they felt it wasn't likely they were ever going to be able to extradite Assange. Correct, it's absolutely not accurate at all. Not sure why this has proliferated, it's not just something you find by some googling, it is basically amongst the absolute first things you see. Granted there's a degree of personalisation of search results, but still. For example this when I re-googled today, which is actually a development from yesterday anyway. www.bbc.co.uk It is more or less accurate actually. He was charged with 3 things. Sexual harrasment, sexual misconduct and rape. The two minor charges ran out of their statue of limitations. Rape has a much longer period before it ”runs out” but the prosecutor dropped the case. Theoretically it could be reopened. The police investigation has ”leaked” however and it is pretty clear that getting him convicted for rape should be nearly impossible given the laws during that period. The other two charges maybe could have stuck but not rape. As such I dont think any prosecutor is so keen on putting him on trial and getting legally mauled for it. It would look incredibly bad. If there is no chance of getting him to Sweden I could see them picking up the case but otherwise not. Better to paint him as a possible rapist for the end of time than clearing him and making the public question what you were doing. Especially if you send him to the US after he is cleared. The UK would probably prefer to extradite to Sweden first though. Well we’re both right in a sense. It’s generally framed as a ‘the charges were dropped’, not that they were downgraded down the severity scale. I say framed but it’s not usually a framing issue, it’s literally just being wrong. So Assange did nothing wrong because no charges, ergo the charges when they existed were purely politically motivated. Rather than what’s actually the case, which is as you said. The inverse is true as well regarding vague political positions, so I get a lot of flak back from the political left and especially feminists for trying to draw a distinction there of the same kind. My personal position is that Assange was at least plausibly, to the point of meriting a trial guilty of some kind of sexual misconduct, but that it would open him up to extradition and punishment by the US to potential degrees way, way above that, and of potentially unfair/disproportionate degrees. And that also people who agree with what he does would overlook his poor personal behaviour and just ascribe it to conspiracy regardless of the facts of the case. Which tbh isn’t a particularly intelligent or amazingly well-informed position, I’m not special for having it at all, it just seems on balance pretty likely, or plausibly arguable. But yet a vague position I’ve basically got unending flak for on most political spaces I espouse it, outside of the political sub-forum of a StarCraft space. I agree 100 % with you actually. Assange is an asshole when it comes to women (but not a rapist) and the prosecution misshandled the case incredibly badly by also charging him with rape and thinking they could completly disregard his political persona. Both can be true at the same time.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he enter her unprotected while she was asleep and she had previously insisted on using a condom when they had sex? I also think it's commendable they did disregard his political persona. Whether or not you raped someone shouldn't depend on number of twitter followers.
|
On April 13 2019 19:53 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 15:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 13 2019 10:17 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 05:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 13 2019 02:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 01:38 Plansix wrote:
I keep seeing people claiming that the Sweden dropped the charges because there was no case, which does not seem to be accurate in any way. They closed the case because they felt it wasn't likely they were ever going to be able to extradite Assange. Correct, it's absolutely not accurate at all. Not sure why this has proliferated, it's not just something you find by some googling, it is basically amongst the absolute first things you see. Granted there's a degree of personalisation of search results, but still. For example this when I re-googled today, which is actually a development from yesterday anyway. www.bbc.co.uk It is more or less accurate actually. He was charged with 3 things. Sexual harrasment, sexual misconduct and rape. The two minor charges ran out of their statue of limitations. Rape has a much longer period before it ”runs out” but the prosecutor dropped the case. Theoretically it could be reopened. The police investigation has ”leaked” however and it is pretty clear that getting him convicted for rape should be nearly impossible given the laws during that period. The other two charges maybe could have stuck but not rape. As such I dont think any prosecutor is so keen on putting him on trial and getting legally mauled for it. It would look incredibly bad. If there is no chance of getting him to Sweden I could see them picking up the case but otherwise not. Better to paint him as a possible rapist for the end of time than clearing him and making the public question what you were doing. Especially if you send him to the US after he is cleared. The UK would probably prefer to extradite to Sweden first though. Well we’re both right in a sense. It’s generally framed as a ‘the charges were dropped’, not that they were downgraded down the severity scale. I say framed but it’s not usually a framing issue, it’s literally just being wrong. So Assange did nothing wrong because no charges, ergo the charges when they existed were purely politically motivated. Rather than what’s actually the case, which is as you said. The inverse is true as well regarding vague political positions, so I get a lot of flak back from the political left and especially feminists for trying to draw a distinction there of the same kind. My personal position is that Assange was at least plausibly, to the point of meriting a trial guilty of some kind of sexual misconduct, but that it would open him up to extradition and punishment by the US to potential degrees way, way above that, and of potentially unfair/disproportionate degrees. And that also people who agree with what he does would overlook his poor personal behaviour and just ascribe it to conspiracy regardless of the facts of the case. Which tbh isn’t a particularly intelligent or amazingly well-informed position, I’m not special for having it at all, it just seems on balance pretty likely, or plausibly arguable. But yet a vague position I’ve basically got unending flak for on most political spaces I espouse it, outside of the political sub-forum of a StarCraft space. I agree 100 % with you actually. Assange is an asshole when it comes to women (but not a rapist) and the prosecution misshandled the case incredibly badly by also charging him with rape and thinking they could completly disregard his political persona. Both can be true at the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he enter her unprotected while she was asleep and she had previously insisted on using a condom when they had sex? I also think it's commendable they did disregard his political persona. Whether or not you raped someone shouldn't depend on number of twitter followers.
You are right.
However getting horny in the middle of the night and waking the person next to you to whom you are having an active sexual relationship was at the time not considered rape. Nowadays securing consent requires more direct communication, also about things like condoms.
As soon as she noticed she also asked him if he was wearing a condom which he answered truthfully and then she asked him if he had any STD's. After those questions she continued to have sex with him willingly. They also had consensual sex again later, possibly without a condom. Furthermore there are several places in the report where upon demand he uses a condom (but not before being an absolute asshole about it) so it would be hard to argue that he wouldn't do the same this time if she just told him off.
Now obviously all of the above is a dick move from an A grade asshole. However to prove it was rape you need to prove intent. That means that you need to prove that Assange knew she was still sleeping when he penetrated her (not when they started smooching) and that he choose that time in order to be able to not use a condom. And that is basically impossible. It's like trying to prove that he intentionally destroyed a condom when having sex with the other girl.
Also when the girls first went to the police the junior prosecutor on call during the weekend went over the matter and concluded that it was impossible to charge him with rape.
The victims attorney then contacted a senior prosecutor who took over the case and opened rape charges. At the time I thought that reeked of "big game hunting" and I still do. Other people (including Assange) think it's all a conspiracy theory though and that the additional charges were purely political.
|
It should be common knowledge however that condoms doesn't protect very well against STDs if put it on after the fact. What a fucking stupid argument. He entered her without her knowledge or consent without a condom after knowing full well she didn't want to have unprotected sex. That goes far beyond being an asshole. I don't know if it's rape or not, that's for more legal-minded people than me to decide, but the constant downplaying of his actions is simply disgusting.
Also no conspirational theorist has managed to explain why the need for the sexual charges to get him extradited to the US. The US could simply have made a request and the Swedish police would have just picked him up. It wasn't a secret he was staying in Sweden.
|
Determining if something is rape is very simple. Was there consent?
Yes -> not rape. No -> it was rape.
No need to obfuscate it.
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
It’s an important societal conversation that is needed to shift norms.
I don’t think it’s productive to do that while discarding other norms at the same. Northern Ireland is small, so any semi big news story is very much water colour talk, and we had a prominent rape case here.
People’s opinions were already formed way before the trial even concluded, basically down predictable ideological lines.
Nailing the odd public figure won’t shift consent ideas in the right direction, IMO anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
