Slashdot Mirror
Assange Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight
Richard_at_work writes "After losing his appeal to the UK Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago, Assange's lawyer was given leave to seek a reopening of the case on particular grounds — the UK Supreme Court has now rejected those grounds and upheld its earlier ruling that Assange should be extradited, which could happen in the next few days."
Welcome to Team USA: World Police
This all reminds me of a reality show now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I thought you had to be accused of a crime that is extraditable to be extradited.
You can't be extradited for drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia because that's not a crime here.
I don't want to live in a world where people fear the truth. As you can see, it is a problem that the lies only get bigger and bigger. Assange shouldn't fear going to court to display the truth. But everyone knows its just a stunt to get him put away.
I won't consider him guilty until he's convicted, and maybe not even then. He had to know as soon as he gave up anonymity, something like this would happen to him. The powers that be will ruin him as much as they can, as publicly as they can, both as a warning to others and as a distraction from the truths he helped reveal.
bah.
Didn't one of the women later withdraw those allegations and run off to Israel somewhere to hide?
They want to prosecute him for rape because he allegedly banged a groupie without a condom. Any sane person would avoid prosecution for that, "guilty" or otherwise. No sane person would consider that a criminal act.
You know, the actual content that it leaks? Nope? Rather chat about a juicy sex story instead, with all our oh-so-clever little bon mots?
I think this is essentially Mission Accomplished for the TLAs regardless of the outcome of any eventual trial.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Even if Assange committed the acts he was accused of, those acts are not illegal in any country besides Sweden. That usually means that you don't get extradited. Unless the United States wants you, then you're not safe anywhere.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Hmm, is that so? ;)
I am Melllvar, Keeper of the Tapes!
That, of course, is not the actual charge. The actual charge itself being just one of four.
The meme "he's being charged for having sex without a condom" is a deliberate attempt to skew the actual situation. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything serious. I'm not saying he's not. But I'm just pointing out, the *actual* charges are that 1) the woman *only consented* to sex with a condom but he only pretended to use one, violating the terms of her consent; 2) that he started having sex with another woman in her sleep; 3) that he held one woman down in a sexual manner against her consent; and 4) that he rubbed his penis against one girl without her consent.
Again, it's not "stranger in the bushes, knife up to the throat rape" that's being charged, but the charges are not "he had sex without a condom".
I am Melllvar, Keeper of the Tapes!
OP is not a troll. Deal with the content, not the language.
If he committed a crime against some women he deserves whatever he gets and he needs to stop trying to hide because it makes him out to be a coward unwilling to face the consequences of his actions. No doubt his involvement with wikileaks is fanning the flames here but lets not forget that according to ex-staffers he's tried to change that organization into a dictatorship of sorts and attacked those who questioned his decision or motives. These are signs of desperation and paranoia. Wikileaks will survive just fine without its corrupt dictator. In fact it will probably become better.
I have no more sympathy for him than I do Joran van der Sloot.
[citation needed]
(or vagina)
Here you go
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
British Judges have already said in their ruling that all four complaints would be unlawful under English law.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.
http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/
I should also point out that if you google her name, there are allegations of some serious ties to the CIA via her odd history of involvement with anti-Castro groups in Cuba. Can't imagine why a CIA operative would be in the West Bank with an innocent Christian group trying to get close to Palestinian leaders, though.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Yeah, I'm not surprised that they're bending over backwards to find a way to rid themselves of Assange. When has any British citizen been convicted of rape under similar circumstances?
âoethe fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.â
I don't even know where to start with this logic. Rape is illegal because of the state of mind of the victim, not the state of mind of the aggressor.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And, no, she wasn't asleep. Or were you there observing?
Look, we know that he pulled the kecks of the USA government down and showed everyone the skidmarks. But putting a vendetta on a bloke for pointing out your failures as a country is even worse behaviour than the despicable acts JA told everyone about.
It's easy to stand on the sidelines and say that. I actually once held that view on the case. Now I'm not so sure. What I'm going to write is kind of personal and long, but I think it should be said. Bear with me.
Early this spring I moved to a nordic country, not to unlike Sweden in many respects. There's a very relaxed sexual culture here which in many ways is good, some ways not so much. I had only been here a week and a half when I was downtown; I'd gone dancing (there's a world-famous party scene here) and so was in a typical skimpy dancing outfit (partly to look good, but in no small part so that I didn't overheat). I was walking back to my car when a cute guy came up to me and started flirting with me. I ended up giving him my phone number. I continued back to my car. A couple blocks later, another even cuter guy started flirting with me. So fresh off the previous experience I flirted back (both in English and in his language; everyone here is fluently bilingual), and he walked aside me as I headed toward my car. And the flirting got heavier, and there was kissing, etc. And he started suggesting going back to his place. I didn't want to, and I said no. We kept walking but he kept bringing up the topic. But still... cute guy, flirty mode, etc.
Anyway, I couldn't find the car, and kept getting more and more convinced that I had walked past it. But he kept trying to get me to keep going forward with him. Several times I'd stop and start to turn around, but he'd (in a physical, but very flirtacious / not aggressive) manner stop me and get me to keep going forward. And I didn't want to start a scene or anything, so I did. But as it became clear that we were only a couple blocks from his place, I had gotten to the point where I was weighing just running. And I stopped, but I hesitated too much (it's incredibly hard to get yourself into the mindset of, "cute person who you were flirting with and who's being really nice to you isn't at any point in time going to accept the word "no", and you really need to just run"). And so he picked me up - but making a game out of it, acting all flirty about doing so - and literally carried me to his place.
But I didn't fight it. I couldn't get myself to try to make a scene (and especially didn't want to start anything with someone who's strong enought o do that). And below it all, it was still a guy who I was attracted to, and who was being friendly and flirty and for whom I just couldn't get the concept that he wouldn't, *at some point* accept no for an answer. I actually used the excuse "I'm too heavy" as a reason he should put me down, as if that was going to work.
In his apartment he started taking off my clothes. It may seem strange, but more than anything I protected keeping my shoes on. Because it seemed like if he got my shoes off, and I couldn't then run away outside, that would mean that something happening was inevitable, and so I had to protect that boundary above all. Purely an illusory boundary of course; he was between me and the door, and then later over me, so there was no way I was just going to walk away. And I kept saying no and trying to leave, but whenever he put any (still friendly, still flirty, but resolute) resistance I stopped, not wanting to get in a fight with this guy.
I protected my body with a hand, something he wasn't very happy about, and kept trying to move it or get me to move it, but that was one thing I made sure didn't happen. But he started trying (and to a limited extent succeeding at) fingering me, and not just the front. And so I made a decision I've often questioned but always come to the conclusion was the right one - I decided to try to finish him in other ways so that he'd stop tr
OK. You're up to 2 points on your posting license now. Best be careful.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
True this. The thing is that I am sure he would have received a 3 month Suspended Sentence, and be free to move on whereever he wants to stay after that. Instead he's spent what, 18 months, 2 years in house arrest in a process that's completely collapsed WikiLeaks and the good job that was being done. Now, when he does appear in a court here in in Sweden, the details of his (alledged) behavior with these women will become public record. The punishment, if he's found guilty at all, will be minimal, and all that will remain is the image of a jerk who fled responsibility. If he's found innocent and let go, he will - of course - look even more foolish and paranoid. It's indeed a sad story this.
He's not even charged with a crime yet in the country he's going to be extradited to. So care to fix the rest of your sentence?
Cue the authoritarian douchebags who are hoping that no one will notice that the guy hasn't even been charged yet.
Do you own a mirror?
Shagging women? Most men: guilty.
Wanna bet? $100, and we decide the winner with a /. poll...
1. Assanage hasn't even been charged with a crime
2. Which wouldn't be rape, but "sex by surprise" if he were charged
3. He got permission to leave the country and it was granted
4. He's offered to answer questions remotely - offers that have been rebuffed
So, does this look like a normal prosecution or a witch hunt to you?
Logic and rational thought are a bit more than saying 'they'll get in trouble, so they won't do that!' Someone who really wants to look at the issue should consider what the US might offer Sweden and whether it'd be worth whatever penalty they'd face from the EU after the fact if they handed Assange over to the US. I have a feeling the US can offer a hell of a lot under the table and that Sweden's punishment wouldn't exactly be on the order of expulsion from the EU under a cloud of shame. As for why the US wouldn't just get him from the UK, maybe the powers that be there are reluctant to get into another US extradition controversy on top of the McKinnon case.
So, yeah, while people shouldn't immediately start screaming about plots by the big bad government, it's no better to rant about conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats and say that a government would never do something because it's against the rules.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
They weren't prostitutes because they didn't ask for money. Had this happened in ancient Israel, it depends on your translation on the verse. He could be obliged to pay her father 50 shekels of silver and be obliged to marry her and may never divorce. However, Exodus 22:16-17 is a lot clearer on the matter. "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."
Clearly this happened in modern Sweden where Biblical law does not apply, but if you're going to post religious trolls at least get your facts right.
i dont get it.
No doubt he was easily setup as they knew he was massively vain and sexually creepy. That's the real tragedy of Wikileaks; they are forever tarred by this fundamentally flawed human being.
But to believe this has *nothing* to do with US hegemony is truly ignorant - especially in light of Hillary Clinton just happening to 'drop by' Sweden this week. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange touches down at Gitmo instead.
if Assange was being extradited for being a leaker ,then this warrants being /. ed. However, he's not being extradited for his role in wikileaks, just that he's being accused of using what appears to be his overly inflated self-image to foist himself unwanted on a woman. So is the 'it's /. -able' if they're known to the tech community, and do stupid stuff in their personal life ? That'd fill a lot of /. pages.
A citation is also the fancy term for a traffic ticket. See also the point system for that part.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Of course, since the court ruled on a point never covered during the trial, it made a colossal fabrication and fiction of the entire proceedings --- nothing pertaining to legal process whatsoever.
To those stooges, or even worse, unthinking idiots, who keep claiming Assange and Wikileaks is some kind of intel agency ploy, those of us who have been monitoring this have never witnessed such a gargantuan amount of resources globally brought to bear to stop Wikileaks and Assange.
Paypayl, the Swiss firm, Amazon and Tableaux Software in Seattle, and Visa, etc., all bowed down to the oligarchs' pressure and power! Truly, the all-powerful Transnational Capitalist Class is calling the shots, and that leaves only one recourse.
What are you trying to say?
And Jaclyn's background is most odd: on week she claims to be a super-slut (her words, not mine) who urges here sisters to sleep with as many guys as possible, the next month she claims to be a hardcore feminist. (She also claimed to be a rape victim 'cause she once went out drinking with her college wrestling team (she being the only female with them) and awakened after a hard night drinking to find a grappler running his hand down her jean-covered leg --- truly brutal rape indeed!!!)
Well, you requested a citation, you have received one. Just not the one you have expected. Isn't it obvious?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
What does all of this have to do with Asange? -1 off topic.
2) 3) and 4) all need to be prepended with: in the morning, while in bed, after the woman had already had sex with him the previous night. 2) 3) and 4) are also all things that many other women enjoy. Also note that neither of the 'victims' actually had any problems with these events until several days later when they met each other and decided that, oh hey, he's kind of a douchebag. Rape!
Makes the other charges sound significantly less scary. Lies by omission are still lies.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
My point was you were being an asshole with your [citation needed], so you got an asshole snark reply back.
At least I was kind enough to explain it to you without being patronizing.
So, for you: -2 asshole
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Well, you requested a citation, you have received one.
(facepun)
Darn, highly-referenced academics must be in real trouble when they get behind the wheel.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
If a woman lies to a man by saying that they can have sex without condom because she is using pills, is she guilty of rape? Or is there some kind of double standard where woman is allowed to lie about using contraceptives, but man isn't?
I don't know if Assanage is guilty of a sex crime but if he is he should be prosecuted. If this is all about the US Gov. trying to shut him up ....well you know how it goes. Any one who dismiss Assanage as inconsequential hasn't got a clue or is a troll or worse! Like it or not Assanage has become the face of transparency. It goes with out saying that the US Gov. whats to smack down this guy ....just remember the rhetoric coming out of the US when the leaks started, the suspension of the access to financial support, how after the leak the charges from Sweden surfaced. Look at whats being said about the US's kill list and that leak...through the regular press.