A couple legal questions

[DrZoidberg]

This went swish over my head. What are you talking about?

Do you think the Ecuadorian embassy is harboring a rapist? You yourself pointed out that Sweden is clearly in the U.S. orbit and CIA friendly. Don't try to bullshit me with this business of broken condoms. I have led community groups on environmental issues and have seen the morals police used before on matters that had nothing to do with the issues we were working on. My condoms did not break. Hasn't this issue been worn to death? Just because you had consensual sex with someone doesn't forever license all sorts of extradition and legal charges for the rest of your life.

There is no doubt this would not have been happening if Assange had kept his pecker in his pants but I bet if he had, there would be other trumped up charges. You admit they really are still afraid to charge the man and can only keep it that way by not dealing with Assange in London. You covered that case really clearly. It is possible you simply do not appreciate hot tea that is years old.

I have no idea what your on about or what "side" you think I'm on. I too think the whole circus surrounding this is ridiculous. The only reason at all the Swedish judiciary can't get their act together is because they can't decide what law has allegedly been broken, or how it was broken. Considering the high profile of Assange, they should have gotten the top people on it at once and given it the respect it deserves. Switching prosecutors in mid-stride and re-labelling the case, as well as calling in Assange again, even though he's already had been more than co-operative up to that point does not look good for Sweden. And does make Sweden come across as CIA tools. This would be true regardless the Swedish judiciary really is influenced by the CIA. Demanding that Assange come to Sweden in order to be questioned is just stupid posturing and... frankly... comes across as childish IMHO. I don't get it.

BTW, since USA can rule for the death penalty for spying, this makes it impossible for Sweden to extradite him to USA. It's against Swedish law to extradite anybody who risks a death sentence. So I think the Assange's worry that the CIA is trying to use this as a way to get Assange extradited won't fly. That makes Assange come across as a conspiracy nut IMHO. But the idea that the CIA is using Sweden as a way of discrediting Assange isn't a crazy conspiracy at all. If that was the conspiracy it's been very successful and the CIA is getting all their moneys worth. I'm not saying I'm sure that there is a CIA conspiracy. But if there is it has been very successful.

 

[arkirk]

Do you think the Ecuadorian embassy is harboring a rapist? You yourself pointed out that Sweden is clearly in the U.S. orbit and CIA friendly. Don't try to bullshit me with this business of broken condoms. I have led community groups on environmental issues and have seen the morals police used before on matters that had nothing to do with the issues we were working on. My condoms did not break. Hasn't this issue been worn to death? Just because you had consensual sex with someone doesn't forever license all sorts of extradition and legal charges for the rest of your life.

There is no doubt this would not have been happening if Assange had kept his pecker in his pants but I bet if he had, there would be other trumped up charges. You admit they really are still afraid to charge the man and can only keep it that way by not dealing with Assange in London. You covered that case really clearly. It is possible you simply do not appreciate hot tea that is years old.

I have no idea what your on about or what "side" you think I'm on. I too think the whole circus surrounding this is ridiculous. The only reason at all the Swedish judiciary can't get their act together is because they can't decide what law has allegedly been broken, or how it was broken. Considering the high profile of Assange, they should have gotten the top people on it at once and given it the respect it deserves. Switching prosecutors in mid-stride and re-labelling the case, as well as calling in Assange again, even though he's already had been more than co-operative up to that point does not look good for Sweden. And does make Sweden come across as CIA tools. This would be true regardless the Swedish judiciary really is influenced by the CIA. Demanding that Assange come to Sweden in order to be questioned is just stupid posturing and... frankly... comes across as childish IMHO. I don't get it.

BTW, since USA can rule for the death penalty for spying, this makes it impossible for Sweden to extradite him to USA. It's against Swedish law to extradite anybody who risks a death sentence. So I think the Assange's worry that the CIA is trying to use this as a way to get Assange extradited won't fly. That makes Assange come across as a conspiracy nut IMHO. But the idea that the CIA is using Sweden as a way of discrediting Assange isn't a crazy conspiracy at all. If that was the conspiracy it's been very successful and the CIA is getting all their moneys worth. I'm not saying I'm sure that there is a CIA conspiracy. But if there is it has been very successful.

Essentially we are in agreement. The tempest in a teapot analogy should apply and not fly over your head. The U.S. kills people in foreign countries its boss says should be killed. It is clear this administration and all its agencies have Assange on many lists. You may think he is coming across as a conspiracy nut, but what would you do. I do understand his concern. When it is your life on the line, and you have many people gunning for you, ordinary civil rules means very little to the CIA and others. It is true he may not be officially at risk of extradition, but his world and the threats he faces are not common to very many people...simply because of who he is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have no idea what your on about or what "side" you think I'm on. I too think the whole circus surrounding this is ridiculous. The only reason at all the Swedish judiciary can't get their act together is because they can't decide what law has allegedly been broken, or how it was broken. Considering the high profile of Assange, they should have gotten the top people on it at once and given it the respect it deserves. Switching prosecutors in mid-stride and re-labelling the case, as well as calling in Assange again, even though he's already had been more than co-operative up to that point does not look good for Sweden. And does make Sweden come across as CIA tools. This would be true regardless the Swedish judiciary really is influenced by the CIA. Demanding that Assange come to Sweden in order to be questioned is just stupid posturing and... frankly... comes across as childish IMHO. I don't get it.

BTW, since USA can rule for the death penalty for spying, this makes it impossible for Sweden to extradite him to USA. It's against Swedish law to extradite anybody who risks a death sentence. So I think the Assange's worry that the CIA is trying to use this as a way to get Assange extradited won't fly. That makes Assange come across as a conspiracy nut IMHO. But the idea that the CIA is using Sweden as a way of discrediting Assange isn't a crazy conspiracy at all. If that was the conspiracy it's been very successful and the CIA is getting all their moneys worth. I'm not saying I'm sure that there is a CIA conspiracy. But if there is it has been very successful.

Essentially we are in agreement. The tempest in a teapot analogy should apply and not fly over your head. The U.S. kills people in foreign countries its boss says should be killed. It is clear this administration and all its agencies have Assange on many lists. You may think he is coming across as a conspiracy nut, but what would you do. I do understand his concern. When it is your life on the line, and you have many people gunning for you, ordinary civil rules means very little to the CIA and others. It is true he may not be officially at risk of extradition, but his world and the threats he faces are not common to very many people...simply because of who he is.

I'm not saying that Assange shouldn't be worried. But him saying that he worries he'll be extradited to USA is just silly. That'll never happen. But I don't think CIA can assassinate Assange. For racist reasons. The American voters would never put up with CIA offing white westerners. If Assange had been black or Arab he'd be fair game. That's just my hunch.

 

[fromderinside]

DrZoidberg that racist comment is just terrible.

Maybe we should review why Assange is important to Sweden.

Timeline: Sexual allegations against Julian Assange in Sweden http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341

Why the US considers a need to get Assange.

US Verses WikiLeaks: Espionage and the first amendment http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40653249/...leaks-espionage-first-amendment/#.VQSYeY54rYg

Maybe you can find where there is a nexus between the two cases such as Sweden permitting Assange be handed over to the US.

 

[tupac chopra]

Essentially we are in agreement. The tempest in a teapot analogy should apply and not fly over your head. The U.S. kills people in foreign countries its boss says should be killed. It is clear this administration and all its agencies have Assange on many lists. You may think he is coming across as a conspiracy nut, but what would you do. I do understand his concern. When it is your life on the line, and you have many people gunning for you, ordinary civil rules means very little to the CIA and others. It is true he may not be officially at risk of extradition, but his world and the threats he faces are not common to very many people...simply because of who he is.

I'm not saying that Assange shouldn't be worried. But him saying that he worries he'll be extradited to USA is just silly. That'll never happen..

I think there is enough doubt there to make any reasonable person worried.

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg that racist comment is just terrible.

I'm listening. What makes you think CIA is willing and able to assassinate a high profile white westerner? Do you have any examples of it ever happening. As far as I know all known targets are non-white. Do you really think that is purely a coincidence? Racism is really a thing. The fact that Americans voted Obama into power does not prove racism isn't a factor in American politics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not saying that Assange shouldn't be worried. But him saying that he worries he'll be extradited to USA is just silly. That'll never happen..

I think there is enough doubt there to make any reasonable person worried.

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.

For the Swedish politicians responsible for turning Al-Zari over to the Americans it backfired in a major way. I do not think that'll ever happen again. Sweden was only willing to turn him over to CIA if they guaranteed he wouldn't be tortured. Which the CIA did. And then proceeded immediately to torture him anyway. Now the Swedish government has trust issues regarding working with USA. It was also catastrophical regarding Swedish views of USA. Hearts and minds or something.

 

[repoman]

Sweden is all kinds of fucked up. A country full of Cucks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what is the elephant in the teapot? The U.S. trying to get at Assange and make an example of him...and it is not about sex at all.

This went swish over my head. What are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_in_a_teapot

 

[tupac chopra]

Sweden is all kinds of fucked up. A country full of Cucks.

There are not too many countries that aren't fucked up if we want to look.
I have no doubt that the present government in Australia would hand anyone over to the USA without any evidence if they could. I believe that they would do it even a second time if the first time resulted in an innocent person being tortured.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sweden is all kinds of fucked up. A country full of Cucks.

It's actually true. Sweden has the world's greatest concentration of single house holds. 60% of Swedes live alone. Not to be confused with being lonely. What constitutes being in a relationship is an increasingly vague concept over here. What this means in practice is that we're only sort of monogamous, and we think this is ok. Norway is similar. And does help to explain why Scandinavians keep so damn fit and healthy. Since we need to continuously work on our relationships, keep ourselves attractive and keep sex interesting. Or our partners will move on. So yes, we're likely getting cuckolded a lot. But we also don't care. I base this on the statistics. According to the statistics we're less possessive over our partners. Which I think is a good thing. If that's being fucked up. Then I'm happy about being fucked up. Mmmm... fuck.

A bit of a derail

 

[arkirk]

I think there is enough doubt there to make any reasonable person worried.

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.

For the Swedish politicians responsible for turning Al-Zari over to the Americans it backfired in a major way. I do not think that'll ever happen again. Sweden was only willing to turn him over to CIA if they guaranteed he wouldn't be tortured. Which the CIA did. And then proceeded immediately to torture him anyway. Now the Swedish government has trust issues regarding working with USA. It was also catastrophical regarding Swedish views of USA. Hearts and minds or something.

You seem to have a great faith in the Swedish government, but the idiocy of the sex charges indicates they aren't on the up and up as far as I see it. As for assassinating people...there really never were answers as to who killed so many white men and brown men and black men we know the U.S. killed. They could always blame it on another government...or a lone wolf or an estranged lover. I put very little beyond the capabilities and mentalities of our clandestine services or any nation's clandestine service. The man does have to worry and shipping him to Sweden is creating a situation over which he would have no control or recourse.

Come on Dr. Zoidberg....Assange and these women had a fuck fest and only one of them later thought Assange should be charged. These are adults. The sex was consensual. No pregnancy occurred. No disease was contracted. Just some woman feeling bad she got suckered into a fuck fest and went along with it. I don't trust the Swedish government at all. Neither does Assange's legal team.

Now about this espionage act bullshit...all of a sudden Obama revives an act that has remained dormant for more than 50 years because it was controversial when it was last used. You seem to have faith...a lot of faith in governments who claim the right to keep a lot of secrets from you. This is foolhardy and my country only has this stupid faith because of a protracted effort of our mainstream media to make us content vegetables at its service. That, my friend is not a democracy. We have a boss in the white house putting out hits on people and you think we should trust them?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think there is enough doubt there to make any reasonable person worried.

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.

For the Swedish politicians responsible for turning Al-Zari over to the Americans it backfired in a major way. I do not think that'll ever happen again. Sweden was only willing to turn him over to CIA if they guaranteed he wouldn't be tortured. Which the CIA did. And then proceeded immediately to torture him anyway. Now the Swedish government has trust issues regarding working with USA. It was also catastrophical regarding Swedish views of USA. Hearts and minds or something.

You seem to have a great faith in the Swedish government, but the idiocy of the sex charges indicates they aren't on the up and up as far as I see it. As for assassinating people...there really never were answers as to who killed so many white men and brown men and black men we know the U.S. killed. They could always blame it on another government...or a lone wolf or an estranged lover. I put very little beyond the capabilities and mentalities of our clandestine services or any nation's clandestine service. The man does have to worry and shipping him to Sweden is creating a situation over which he would have no control or recourse.

Come on Dr. Zoidberg....Assange and these women had a fuck fest and only one of them later thought Assange should be charged. These are adults. The sex was consensual. No pregnancy occurred. No disease was contracted. Just some woman feeling bad she got suckered into a fuck fest and went along with it. I don't trust the Swedish government at all. Neither does Assange's legal team.

Now about this espionage act bullshit...all of a sudden Obama revives an act that has remained dormant for more than 50 years because it was controversial when it was last used. You seem to have faith...a lot of faith in governments who claim the right to keep a lot of secrets from you. This is foolhardy and my country only has this stupid faith because of a protracted effort of our mainstream media to make us content vegetables at its service. That, my friend is not a democracy. We have a boss in the white house putting out hits on people and you think we should trust them?

I think Swedish law agrees with you. The women did report this as a rape... or rather sexual assault. Wilfully spreading STDs falls under that heading technically, in spite it not really being a rape. I do think that should be illegal. But that didn't happen. Now comes the sticky mess of our legal machine working through this. Once the legal machine has been started it cannot be stopped. That's a good feature in any modern legal system. So they reported Assange for something. The women weren't professionals. It's not up to them to interpret what laws were broken. They simply described the events. Now it's up to legal professionals to sort out wtf this all means legally... if anything.

Idiotic laws surrounding sexuality is commonplace. I don't know any country who doesn't have problematic laws regarding sexual transgressions. There's of course a completely reasonable explanation for this. Consent for sex is mostly given tacitly. Nobody who doesn't have Aspergers asks permission. Sex is pretty much all instinct and the reading of and sending subconscious messages. A court of law can only rule on things that have been specifically stated. Sex and rape are not activities well suited for being settled in court. But nobody can think of a better system. So all our legal systems and laws, all over the world, for dealing with rape are idiotic.

Yes, I to think this whole Assange situation is a total joke. It should also be mentioned that life turned into hell for these two women who reported Assange. They've been attacked and assaulted repeatedly. Which is not cool at all. It's just tragedy all around. If in fact Assange was wilfully spreading STDs they would have done the right thing. Since he was sleeping around so much all the time, the sooner the better. So I have a hard time judging the women negatively for this. Sure, they could have gotten tested first, and then waited with going to the cops if it had been positive. But they didn't. They jumped the gun. But being an idiot isn't illegal. Can't blame them for that.

Sweden has among the world's most transparent governments. If you want to accuse a country for keeping secrets from it's citizens, it's probably better to pick on some other country than Sweden

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think Swedish law agrees with you. The women did report this as a rape... or rather sexual assault. Wilfully spreading STDs falls under that heading technically, in spite it not really being a rape. I do think that should be illegal. But that didn't happen. Now comes the sticky mess of our legal machine working through this. Once the legal machine has been started it cannot be stopped. That's a good feature in any modern legal system. So they reported Assange for something. The women weren't professionals. It's not up to them to interpret what laws were broken. They simply described the events. Now it's up to legal professionals to sort out wtf this all means legally... if anything.

It sounds like Sweden groups sexual offenses as what we translate as "rape" rather than the multitude of offenses we have for various degrees of sexual misconduct.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think Swedish law agrees with you. The women did report this as a rape... or rather sexual assault. Wilfully spreading STDs falls under that heading technically, in spite it not really being a rape. I do think that should be illegal. But that didn't happen. Now comes the sticky mess of our legal machine working through this. Once the legal machine has been started it cannot be stopped. That's a good feature in any modern legal system. So they reported Assange for something. The women weren't professionals. It's not up to them to interpret what laws were broken. They simply described the events. Now it's up to legal professionals to sort out wtf this all means legally... if anything.

It sounds like Sweden groups sexual offenses as what we translate as "rape" rather than the multitude of offenses we have for various degrees of sexual misconduct.

This is purely an accident of translation. English and Swedish words for the various things don't perfectly match up. The exact Swedish word that translates to rape is "våldtäkt". This word has never been used in the Swedish press (or judiciary) to describe these events. Not once. The words that have been used is "övergrepp" and "sexuellt ofredande". "Övergrepp" is a very wide term for any act (including rape) perpetrated on another that radically infringes on their integrity. This can be physical or otherwise. The other word is "sexuellt ofredande" which is a fairly mild sexual transgression. It's basically pinching a ladies ass at a bar or making unwelcome sexual advances at the work place. We don't really have a good word to describe what Assange allegedly did. But then again, neither does English. Shenanigans?

When the international press reported on this they translated "övergrepp" in a way that would cause maximum headline splash. Which is understandable. They always do this shit. Who's surprised?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It sounds like Sweden groups sexual offenses as what we translate as "rape" rather than the multitude of offenses we have for various degrees of sexual misconduct.

This is purely an accident of translation. English and Swedish words for the various things don't perfectly match up. The exact Swedish word that translates to rape is "våldtäkt". This word has never been used in the Swedish press (or judiciary) to describe these events. Not once. The words that have been used is "övergrepp" and "sexuellt ofredande". "Övergrepp" is a very wide term for any act (including rape) perpetrated on another that radically infringes on their integrity. This can be physical or otherwise. The other word is "sexuellt ofredande" which is a fairly mild sexual transgression. It's basically pinching a ladies ass at a bar or making unwelcome sexual advances at the work place. We don't really have a good word to describe what Assange allegedly did. But then again, neither does English. Shenanigans?

When the international press reported on this they translated "övergrepp" in a way that would cause maximum headline splash. Which is understandable. They always do this shit. Who's surprised?

That's why I used quotes around "rape"--I felt like it wasn't a good translation.