Ruben Bolling at 7:00 am Wed, Dec 15, 2010
MORE: tomthedancingbug • ttdb
Game of Thrones recap: 'Breaker Of Chains' explores the many feuds of House Lannister [season 4, episode 3]
Hobby Lobby, IUDs, and the facts
If it’s rape, it’s retroactive rape; withdrawing consent after the fact.
In reality this should’ve been nothing more than a private medical matter.
I love how Jack Welch is chunkin tha deuce!
Since Jack Welch was born around Boston, technically he should be “throwing threes.”
Everyone knows Brokaw’s gotta tear tattoo.
They’re lucky Cronkite is dead or he’d own ALL their asses.
And that’s the way it is!
What!? Who’s Manning!?
Naomi Wolf puts “being charged with a sex-crime” in perspective.
“Assange is indeed charged with a sex crime and the more you try to divert from that truth the more it appears that your motivations are purely political.”
? No one is denying this.
“And the truth is that Assange is behind bars due to a sex crime allegation”
He is in bars for a sex crime allegation. He is not behind bars DUE to a sex crime at this very moment, whether one existed or not.
He is behind bars because he didn’t report about his whereabouts to the Swedish investigators and because he didn’t return to Sweden on request. He is not behind bars ONLY because the sex crime allegations.
Standard procedure in a Swedish crime investigation is that the suspect is released, if they are not suspected to commit new crimes, even allowed to leave Sweden, on the conditions that they keep in contact about their whereabouts (so the investigators always know how to contact him/her) and is prepared to return to Sweden on request. If Assange hadn’t accepted these conditions, he wouldn’t have been allowed to leave Sweden in the first place, if there had been signs that he would obstruct the investigation as he has done, he could even have been put under surveillance or arrest after the first interrogation.
You have to realise that Sweden DON’T have a bail system and Sweden DON’T usually put people in arrest during an investigation. A suspect has to PROVE BY ACTION that he/she will obstruct the investigation or commit new crimes, before being put in arrest. If, however, the suspect or someone else obstruct an investigation, then the Swedish justice system go into high gear to prevent them from continuing to do so. I’m actually surprised that they didn’t issue an arrest warrant immediately when Assange started to obstruct justice (by not reporting about his whereabouts).
ASSANGE HAS PROVEN THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. That is why there was a international arrest warrant for him, that is why he is being arrested.
Assange did not became arrested because he is suspected of rape. He became arrested because he obstructed the Swedish investigation and didn’t keep his word to the investigators.
If Assange had honored the conditions for his release. There wouldn’t have been an Interpol arrest warrant. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY, he is treated (by the Swedish legal system, certainly not by international media or internet know-it-alls) like everybody would who had obstructed justice like he have done. His case or treatment is not unusual, it is standard procedure. He only have himself to blame.
What would have been the smart thing to do by Assange, would have been to comply to the conditions of his release. Then he wouldn’t have been in the hands of the Brittish legal system (that is much more likely to extradite him to US then the Swedish legal system, if US can produce an extradition request). If he had complied to the conditions, then he would still have had a good chance of getting a Swedish citizenship and Wikileaks could still have gotten legal protection from Sweden with him as “ansvarig utgivare”. Now they likely will have to use someone else as “ansvarig utgivare” if they still like to get that protection and that would mean that Assange would no longer be in charge of what Wikileaks publish or don’t publish.
If you don’t think that getting the status of a Swedish journalistic outlet is a big deal. Then you should consider that a journalistic outlet in Sweden has much stronger protection then in any non-Scandinavian country and it is easier to get this protection then in any other Scandinavian country. The protection apply both within the country and outside the country (where the Swedish government will do its outmost to protect it and its journalists). It is freedom of the press done right (any state that doesn’t rank 1 according to this index, don’t in practice have freedom of the press). If wikileaks gets protection as an Swedish journalistic outlet, the only way another country could censor the sort of information wikileaks is currently publishing on the internet, would be national firewalls a la China or Saudi Arabia. They would have no legal means to take down wikileaks servers inside Sweden.
Ah, the old switcheroo, so; implying that the vigour of the prosecution doesn’t mean Assange didn’t commit that of which he is accused. Gotcha.
Which still leaves the comparison to Capone, sort of, hanging there.
So, I guess he is a high profile figure, flummoxing the masters of the universe with his elite organisation of concerned members of the local community… hmmm
If “switcheroo” means “restatement of the original point,” then yes. I’ll quote my two posts here:
“The argument could be made that most tax cheats wouldn’t get that kind of treatment. / That doesn’t mean he didn’t commit tax evasion.”
“My only point here is that unusually vigorous prosecution of a crime cannot be used as evidence that the crime is bullshit.”
The two points, as you can see, are identical. Unfortunately for you, that is not what a switcheroo is. (A switcheroo is a marsupial who both tops and bottoms, depending on what his partner is into.)
I liked the line “you just published stuff top officials wanted leaked”. The reaction from the government looks differently when you see it this way. They leak and it’s okay, but when they cannot ‘spin’ the leak, then evil is afoot.
The question is, do you trust everything The Government says, unless somebody has been able to PROVE they are lying … or do you expect them to lie all the time unless they have NO REASON NOT TO.
They certainly WOULD lie about this. It’s part of their M.O. Therefore there is no reason to trust them. It’s not like sex-by-surprise is the only reason anybody’s ever heard of Julian Assange.
Where’s “Scooter” Libby? Oh yeah, he didn’t do any time. Patsies not invited anyway.
Spoiler alert: None of those other guys are in prison either.
I thought for sure the Gang Boss was gonna be Cheney.
I thought the folks here would be the type to take all allegations of sexual misconduct seriously.
I admire your strawman, but who said allegations of “sexual misconduct” shouldn’t be seriously?
you want this sex crimes charge to be connected or trumped up, but we don’t know that with any certainty.
And if in doubt imprison ‘em? Please try harder.
But my question to you remains: when has an allegation of a sexual misdemeanor ever resulted an international manhunt and in the accused being imprisoned under abominable conditions — including 23.5 hours lock-down & solitary confinement — in a western democracy?
I don’t think Mr Assange is much more than a horse’s ass, but I do think that the abuse and misuse of the international criminal justice system — even against a horse’s ass — is a horror.
Assange is currently charged with sexual crimes, not espionage.
Assange is currently charged with sexual crimes, not espionage.
Of course that’s what he’s charged with.
But do you actually believe that is why his has been subjected to an international manhunt and placed in solitary confinement? If so, could you direct us to any similar cases upon which you’ve based your belief?
I’m gonna back up Goblin on this one- the U.S. hasn’t charged him with anything, yet.
However the point of the comic stands because U.S. officials have been calling for espionage charges against Assange even while many of the other people mentioned in the comic are celebrated as journalistic heroes for much the same behavior.
At best Assange seems to be a complex character. I just hate all the people claiming that the sex charges MUST be trumped up because he pissed off the U.S. government. Isn’t it at least plausible that he’s a crusader of free speech AND a sex criminal?
“Isn’t it at least plausible that he’s a crusader of free speech AND a sex criminal?”
This, in essence, is my point exactly. The story is more complicated than Assange as some kind of Internet folk hero under fire. I’m disappointed that BoingBoing seems to be dropping the ball on that.
Assange can be that hero, certainly, but he might also at the same time be a rapist. I’m not saying he definitely is, certainly he’s innocent until proven guilty, but let’s be adults, and be honest about the actual reason he was arrested and the complexity of the situation.
Isn’t it at least plausible that he’s a crusader of free speech AND a sex criminal?
Sure… until you’re familiar with the precise nature of the allegations.
It’s a massive beat-up. Assange is guilty of being uncontactable when the second woman wanted him to take an STD test. The first woman only came to light after the second woman got in a tizz and went to the cops, and an extremely zealous investigation was commenced.
A condom broke with one woman, and after shagging the other one with a condom, he went her without one in the morning. Witnesses who saw them afterwards had no clue there was anything wrong, or even that they had a sexual relationship.
Talk about out of proportion…
Sex criminal, eh? How many of us are in the same boat?
As a Swedish male, I’ve probably had a lot more sex with Swedish women then you ever will, or women in general (judging from the rather unpleasant personality you display in your comment). I have never been in that boat, I don’t know of any other Swedish male that has ever been in that boat. The behaviour you mention is unthinkable to a Swedish man. A sicko who did something like that would be frowned upon, not just by Swedish women, but also by Swedish men. I would have thought that acts like these would be unthinkable to any normal man, anywhere, in any culture, but perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps it is normal behaviour for a man in the Anglo-Saxon culture to break the trust of his sexual partners, in that case I feel even more sorry for the women in the Anglo-Saxon culture then I did before.
And refusing to take a STD-test when a sexual partner ask you to, is actually criminal in Sweden. If the partner can not be contacted, that is not illegal in itself (although the story I’ve heard, is that Assange could be contacted, but refused to get tested, but then I also heard that he had some morbid fascination with sperm and unprotected sex), but then you can require help by Swedish authorities to contact him/her (perhaps this is how the Swedish police got involved in the first place).
Oh my fuck. Assumption, much? And you’ve the hide to make me out as an arsehole, you straw-manning turkey.
You’ve gone so far out on that limb, your desperate need to paint yourself as superior is plainly evident.
Somehow it’s someone’s fault a condom broke? Sif. So we’re left with a sleepy next-morning dinger-less shag… I’ve a feeling the woman said nothing to prevent it at the time, and I’ve seen nothing that suggests otherwise… if you’re privy to some evidence the rest of us aren’t, then please enlighten us.
So far, nothing that only a ‘sicko’ would do…
Then we have one of the women, days later, becoming anxious about the possibility of contracting an STD; fair enough. But she can’t get in touch with Assange, and only here is where the shit starts to hit the fan in any notable fashion.
So maybe Assange should’ve checked his voicemail, or faced the music when things went pear-shaped, or whatever. But given his circumstances, being uncontactable shouldn’t have struck her as particularly suspicious or evasive regarding STDs, either.
This is not the stuff of international law enforcement cahootage and extradition circuses. It’s a fig leaf with a blatant ulterior motive on show for all to see; a travesty and insult to propriety.
I’m saying Assange is not a ‘sex criminal’ unless you stretch that definition to ridiculous lengths. And I’m dead right, you self-righteous ponce.
The most troubling thing about the whole Assange business is how many self-righteous asses have come out of the woodwork to declare that there’s nothing sexual assaulty about fucking a girl without a condom after she’s insisted you wear one.
And I’m dead right, you limey wig-tingler.
I’m not the type for speculative punditry…
Assange may, in the future, be charged with espionage: but that hasn’t happened yet. This whole mess way too politically charged to start the speculation spin machine, no matter which direction it spins.
I thought the folks here would be the type to take all allegations of sexual misconduct seriously. They are serious allegations that warrant further investigation and public accountability.
I know you folks want a martyr, you want this sex crimes charge to be connected or trumped up, but we don’t know that with any certainty. So let’s not ramp up the spin machine and call the game before the 3rd inning is over. Assange might very well be charged with espionage, then again he might not, either way lets not evangelize the talking points like the regular MSM pundits.
“Assange is currently charged with sexual crimes, not espionage.”
You can’t seriously be deluded enough to believe this.
Sexual crimes for which extradition is a highly unusual treatment. Funny, that.
Al Capone was pursued unusually vigorously for tax evasion, because he was a multiple murderer and the government could only get him on taxes. The argument could be made that most tax cheats wouldn’t get that kind of treatment.
That doesn’t mean he didn’t commit tax evasion.
OT, I know, but – because he was a multiple murderer, or because he ran a bootlegging operation? That is, would a nonviolent ringleader of a big rum running operation (assuming it were possible to be such a one) have been pursued with much less vigour for his tax evasion? What about a murderer who respected prohibition laws?
help me with this one; Tax related charges were brought against Capone because the authorities couldn’t be sure of proving guilt for any of the other crimes they thought he had committed.
In the Assange case, does the legal-transference happen because they won’t publish the evidence or means and methods of acquiring it? From where does this impetus to misdirect the field of enquiry come?
It seems you are implying that this kind of legal exuberance is consensus ‘fair’ when taking into consideration the supposedly justified treatment of Al. Which brings me back to my question.
Do they have a ton of evidence and no will to use it or would it be political/financial suicide to whirl him through a crooked court?
I think I have missed a large part of this story somewhere along the line.
My only point here is that unusually vigorous prosecution of a crime cannot be used as evidence that the crime is bullshit.
I suspect that the media coverage make this look more serious than it is. Sweden averages two international arrests within Schengen every year for sex crimes. UK is not part of that area and I could not find any reliable sources on non-Schengen extraditions for sex crimes.
Seriously? I hadn’t heard that.
Christ, thank you. I was starting to think I was the only one who isn’t fooled by all this fanboy bs.
Do you want to see my Jules Assange Trapper Keeper??? It’s signed and it has my diary in it and it’s pretty and I love him!
Scottt Ritter was right when he said there weren’t any WMD.
We all know what telling the truth cost him.
Just for some perspective here, “progressive” Sweden only prosecutes “rapists” called Julian Assange:
To #7: Lots of people commit sexual crimes; how many of them are held in solitary in a foreign prison?
“Please try harder.”
No, really, I don’t think we need an even bigger straw villain.
Yeesh, you guys.
The cartoon isn’t about the current charges. It’s about the rumoured Espionage Act charges to come. Obviously.
Meanwhile, here’s Afua Hirsch on Britain’s mad extradition laws.
I don’t think anyone has decided to prosecute, and Assange hasn’t been charged with anything. Right now, his formal status is that he’s wanted for questioning.
“I don’t think anyone has decided to prosecute, and Assange hasn’t been charged with anything. Right now, his formal status is that he’s wanted for questioning.”
And the reason why this is so shady is that the prosecutor’s office refused to speak with him multiple times before contacting interpol.
And the reason why this is so shady is that the prosecutor’s office refused to speak with him multiple times before contacting interpol.
You get got that totally mixed up. Assange refused to speak with the Swedish prosecutors until he knew what he was being prosecuted for. Problem was that he wasn’t prosecuted for anything(*), he was just wanted for questioning in an ongoing investigation. To be allowed to leave Sweden in the first place, he must have admitted to the conditions that he would keep the investigators up to date about his whereabouts (so that they could contact him) and that he would return to Sweden for questioning if required.
To issue an Interpol arrest warrant, the Swedish investigators had to (prematurely) verbalise what he was wanted for. So, by an ironic twist, he actually got what he asked for.
(*) The Swedish prosecutors are not as quick to prosecute somebody as US prosecutors. The initial investigation is going on until they are exactly sure what crime has been committed and it is very likely that they will get a conviction. I believe this and all the other differences between a Scandinavian legal system and a Common law system, make it less unpleasant for a suspect until they have actually been found guilty by court. You don’t want someone to be punished before they are found guilty without doubt, do you? In common law countries, the unpleasantries during the investigation is often more punishment then the actual punishment. Of course, giving a lot of leeway to suspects means that some of then will try to obstruct an investigation (like Assange did) and once the trust have been broken, the legal system have to set an example to discourage someone else from doing the same. I can see why this would seem somewhat like a Jekyll and Hyde transformation to someone that is used to a legal system where all suspects is treated like dirt from the start of an investigation.
“I thought the folks here would be the type to take all allegations of sexual misconduct seriously. They are serious allegations that warrant further investigation and public accountability.
I know you folks want a martyr, you want this sex crimes charge to be connected or trumped up, but we don’t know that with any certainty”
We all want investigation and accountability.
Leems and you are going through all sorts of gyrations to assume that everything here is on the up and up, which has not been the case since the first day these allegations were brought. I do not believe he is going to get a fair trial, which is all any of us want.
which is all any of us want.
That is all you want? You are completely understating your case. This wonderful comic shows what Assange’s supporters want even though that is not what they have.
I am attacking the idea that TtDB chose to engage in political mythology (with, perhaps, a bit of wilful ignorance). This comic shows the common perception even if the truth is much more complicated. Assange is indeed charged with a sex crime and the more you try to divert from that truth the more it appears that your motivations are purely political. I am simply interested in the truth whatever that might be, not the politics. And the truth is that Assange is behind bars due to a sex crime allegation and not due to his involvement with wiki-leaks.
And the truth is that Assange is behind bars due to a sex crime allegation and not due to his involvement with wiki-leaks.
Well, not just the allegation. He’s behind bars because two women made the accusation and a prosecutor decided the case was strong enough to prosecute and Interpol issued a Red Notice and Assange turned himself in and the Swedish government has decided to appeal the UK judge’s decision to grant bail. Any one of those things didn’t happen, and Assange might not be in jail right now.
It’s the second step in that chain that looks the most dubious. Back in August, as you may recall, the Swedish prosecutor’s office issued a warrant for Assange’s arrest, and then revoked it, saying that the charges “lacked substance”. Then, in September, they opened the case up again.
That’s the part that makes the whole thing look a bit suspicious. It’s possible that the reopening was a legitimate response to new information coming in, as the prosecutor’s office claims. It’s also possible that it’s the result of political pressure. We don’t know. (It’s even possible that both are true — that there was political pressure, which caused the prosecutor to look for more evidence, and then legitimately find something.)
But you cannot know for certain that there was no political pressure.
Also, don’t forget that Assange voluntarily surrendered himself to the UK police. If he hadn’t done that, and if he’d just been some random guy accused of sexual molestation, how much effort do you think the UK would have put into finding him? He’d probably be a free man right now. So there’s another way that the political aspects of this have affected things.
Mail (will not be published) (required)