Wholeheartedly agree. This isn’t exactly the most difficult point to grasp and I’m amazed there’s any debate on it. There’s a distinction between Wikileaks and the private actions of Assange. Political pressure/conspiracy or not, we cannot judge from the comfort of our armchairs. We have to believe in the rule of law in a civilised society and that involves a court testing these serious allegations.

Hear hear.

So, hang on: these guys are ‘absurd’, but when John B claimed it to be a ‘fact’ that Julian Assange is not guilty of rape, you found that he made ‘valid points’? Your position is pretty untenable over all this. Admit LibCon was wrong to publish John B’s post, and that you were wrong to defend it, and then we’ll talk about the absurdity of others…

Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant.

Just one of those names at the end of any letter and you know that whatever it says is going to be wrong.

But all of them together….a thing of beauty! Only Vanessa Redgrave appears to be missing.

IF Assange did commit any sex-crime, then not only does he deserve to be charged, but he deserves to be tried and found guilty and be subject to the Swedish sentancing.

My issue is that the Swedish prosecuter looked at this case a while ago, and decided it wasn’t worth persuing (of course there can be a variety of reasons for not persuing, but we’ve got to assume the biggest was there wasn’t a big enough case to prosecute).

Then, under pressure/’suggestion’ from the Americans, and involvement from a politician (right-wing I heard?) the case comes back to light. Plus the US is already in talks with Sweden to extradite him to the US.

None of us want to see anyone given immunity to rape because they are on ‘our’ side on an issue. If you commit such an act of violence you are by default not on ‘our’ side. But the British government owes this case a huge amount of diligence in examining all the context before sending him to Sweden. We all know that won’t happen though, Assange is now just a prisoner of a system determined to shut him up.

If he goes to Sweden and then onto the US, then thats not only a travesty for FoI, but a travesty for rape victims too. It will say to the victims in this alleged case their pain can be used for political reasons. It will rape can be used a legitmate political tool to capture someone making trouble for you. And it will add yet more feul to the nasty anti-rape agenda we see so often when someone claiming rape is viewed as a potential liar rather than victim.

I have no issue with him being tried for the rape. But he should only be tried for that, and not be sent on elsewhere or have alternate charges levelled.

@ 5

“My issue is that the Swedish prosecuter looked at this case a while ago, and decided it wasn’t worth persuing (of course there can be a variety of reasons for not persuing, but we’ve got to assume the biggest was there wasn’t a big enough case to prosecute).”

This.

I agree that Assange should be charged if approriate, but there should be cast-iron guarantees that he won’t be sent to the US to be sentenced to a life in jail / tortured, and if Sweden does decide to prosecute the international community needs to keep the pressure on to give him a fair trial.

Why is it so hard for these clowns to realise that Assange may in fact be a rapist? Laurie Penny wrote a pretty good piece about it that sums up my feelings (Im not sure if this was her intention but im arrogant enough to believe it was) so thanks to her.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/12/julian-assange-rape-women

Also, is this the same Iain Banks that recently wrote transition? What a piece of pretentious waffle.

Begining, middle, end. Dont fuck with that formula, its tried and tested.

Peter Tatchell has been tweeting same – charges are something to do with the CIA – all day yesterday.

Pathetic.

With Sunny entirely here – it perhaps says a lot about the mentality of the writers that they can demand charges not related to the issue of information freedom should be dropped because it suits their political perspective. Presumably they have no concern for due process…

Incidentally, for those talking about extradition to the United States, you do realise Sweden (or us) can only do this if the US charges him with something. He is not an enemy combatant so whatever loophole the US is using to keep Guantanamo open is clearly no use here – so to lock him up they will need a crime. Unfortunately the US has the first amendment – so his right to publish material (especially outside US jurisdiction) would make this difficult to prosecute. They’d have to prove conspiracy to steal the information, and I doubt there is the evidence for that – plus it would put the government obsession with secrecy on the stand which is hardly ideal.

The rape case may be being pushed for political reasons, but the complaint predates the US cables release so is not directly linked. And I doubt the Swedish courts are any more likely to be corrupt or in the government’s pockets than ours are.

The charges should be fully investigated and to say otherwise does imply the women are lying.

What?

Lying when they stated that they weren’t raped?

This is mealy mouthed hypocrisy. You and everybody who has read anything of this affair knows full well that these charges have been trumped up as a political revenge attack.

Having come to the correct conclusion the first time, the blog posts on this issue over the last few days show that you have changed your stance because you couldn’t be seen to be accusing a rape victim of lying.

Yet the only people denouncing the leftie thought crime here are a bunch of extreme feminists who see the patriarchy behind every penis and are prepared to willfully ignore the evidence of their eyes and intellect for reasons of ideology.

Sometimes defending freedom of speech can be painful.

You need to grow a pair.

Good article Sunny, and I quite agree.

The charges should not be dropped. They should be investigated in a fair and thorough way, just like any other allegation.

One slightly controversial demand does not render the whole letter absurd. After all, the charges have already been dropped once before. Furthermore, revelations of CIA links, deleted tweets and some not-so-discreet US pressure give every indication these charges are trumped up.

Granted, there may have been, or yet be, a case to answer, but the subsequent behaviour of the Washington Lie Machine®, the barrel-scraping of the Swedish authorities as they repeatedly fumbled to bring a case, and the adverse, often poisonous publicity has utterly blown any hope of an impartial and fair investigation or trial.

I love the fact that someone can call him/herself ‘OldTrot’ without shame.

Bit like the disgusting ‘lenin’ from that lenin’s tomb cesspit.

Agree with you totally. Wikileaks and Assange are two different issues, as is support for Anomymous.

We should support WikiLeaks where they provide information in the public interest, condemn them if they put lives at risk, and take the piss if they indulge in pointless gossip.

As for Assange we should be vigilant to ensure he gets a fair trial. Its regretable his alleged offenses were made public but then he’d be a hipocrite if he made that argument himself.

cjcjc
Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant.

Just one of those names at the end of any letter and you know that whatever it says is going to be wrong.

At least they have the guts to name themselves you gutless creep

Why do they call the charges “dubious” and demand he should be freed. Shirley if the latter were true the charges would be downright false.

Oh, and OldTrot - so far there have been no revelations about CIA links. Doesn’t mean there aren’t, of course, but there’s no evidence as yet.

Absolutely agree with Sunny.

@6 Chaise, I don’t think the dropping and reopening of the case is all that suspicious; apparently in Sweden, lawyers for women who report rape can and do request that cases get reopened. I agree that he shouldn’t be extradited from Sweden to the US. But nor should he be extradited from the UK to the US, and the UK hasn’t guaranteed that he won’t be, either. I read all these absurd comments on CiF and elsewhere suggesting that he’s being sent to Sweden in order to get him to the US – as though people are unaware that the UK has an extradition treaty with the US, too, and a very one-sided one at that.

“At least they have the guts to name themselves you gutless creep.”

Wow.

Well, my name is Chris Carter.

Happy now?

18 – No. You ruined the X-Files.

And by the way, if you condemn anyone who self-identifies as a Trotskyite when will you be going after people who call themselves, say, Wilsonians?

Needless to say, I won’t be.

Chris carter, the US footballer or the sciptwriter or the resident Powelite
You have to be a journalist.

Here’s a novel idea – try dealing with arguments instead of slinging childish ad hominem jibes around

@22 Pfft, that would do away with the main point of libcon.

@22 – agreed

oldnazi in referance to oldtrot
How witty ?

“But while I support a discussion of the case and the charges (minus all the ‘radical feminists’ rubbish that has graced some coverage), the idea that all charges against Julian Assange should be dropped immediately is patently absurd.

The charges should be fully investigated and to say otherwise does imply the women are lying. Without evidence that simply won’t do”

They have already been investigated.

They have already been dropped.

That’s what makes their reintroduction now so farcical.

I should also have mentioned to Chaise that even if it wanted, it would be illegal for Swedento extradite Assange without UK agreement. ( http://sverigesradio.se/sida/gruppsida.aspx?programid=2054&grupp=13199&artikel=4226109&sida=2 )

God, sohopolitico – you make no attempt to understand where I’m coming from on the issue and keep making these tired accusations at me.

Let’s be clear – I did not agree with the way John B’s article was framed. I added caveats after I read it properly, with links to more information. It was written at a time with incomplete information and wasn’t balanced. While those two factors may be preferable, it doesn’t mean an article should be deleted / retracted if it fails to do either.

John B had his view and I’ll defend the right of my writers to take controversial views (as long as they don’t break the same rules as those in the comments policy, and I don’t believe it did). You may disagree, fine. But I’m neither going to delete the article nor am I going to apologise for it being published here. I hope that makes my position clear. At the same time – I will also publicly disagree with people who think Assange should not be investigated, whether John B says it or anyone else.

Does Julian Assange look like a creepy boating android poshbot? Yes.
Should said poshbot be made to endure a miserable and lengthy sentence if found guilty in an open and fair criminal trial? Yes.
Is the timing of the arrest warrant and subequent legal proccedings total anchovies?* Yes.
Are these continued postings on what amounts to semantics and hearsay a waste of everyone’s time? Oh, fuck yes.

* anchovies = smelling extremely fishy

Craig Murray’s a Socialist?

You mean the police don’t have to let someone go if Trigger from Only Fools and Horses says so?

So, hang on: these guys are ‘absurd’

yes.

What John B wrote was not absurd. You can point to parts that were over-stated or insufficiently caveated, but if you cannot see the differences between that and this, I think you’re a bit loopy.

It’s amazing all this is causing such confusion; the charges are about as serious as they can get and should be treated as such. Assange is innocent until proven guilty and equally should be treated as such.

Due process and the respect for the principle of justice should prevail.

Thank you Sunny for taking such a clear position on this.

Assange won’t even be deported (and top QC Geoffrey Robertson, one of whose specialties is deportation, is flying back from Australia just to defend him)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-extradition-attempt?intcmp=239

Cue: mucho wailing and gnashing of teeth by One Issue Wonders

SP: So, hang on: these guys are ‘absurd’, but when John B claimed it to be a ‘fact’ that Julian Assange is not guilty of rape, you found that he made ‘valid points’? Your position is pretty untenable over all this. Admit LibCon was wrong to publish John B’s post, and that you were wrong to defend it, and then we’ll talk about the absurdity of others…

a) The difference between my post and what Sunny is talking about here, as you well know, is that at the time of my post, people were trying to smear JA as guilty of rape on the basis of accusations that do not sanely account to rape.

b) The minute that it was made clear that the accusations against JA accounted to what would be called rape in England & Wales, I made clear that that was the case, and retracted any suggestion that it wasn’t.

c) I dealt with the entire case without trying to smear any individuals and stick to facts. You and Cath (and CIM, who’s the most unspeakable interlocutor I’ve ever encountered) decided it would be jolly to slate chaps who were making factual arguments as rape-enablers. Here’s a cap, judge its size and mind how you go.

@18 cjcj

Address?

@35 – John, I don’t think people are saying you were or are being a ‘rape-enabler’. Your sources were dodgy but you ran with them. This produced a post which has been effectively and fairly criticised many times over.

I am glad that Sunny has stated his view above. It is fair for him to support his bloggers, and also disagree with them.

Sunny, I know that you have a thing about portraying socialists as all looney but what makes you think the above are socialists? Craig flipping Murray? Are you kidding me?

Get off your bandwagon, it’s getting a bit ridiculous.

@Sunny:

God, sohopolitico – you make no attempt to understand where I’m coming from on the issue

Well, doing so has not been made easy by the fact that your key interjection on this consisted in defending JohnB’s post as having made ‘valid points’, and portrayed those who sensibly objected that he had not got the facts to back up his claims as themselves being unreasonably taken with the urge to demand purity from fellow lefties. Now, I hope you regret striking that tone by now, especially given the facts that have subsequently come to light. I continue to think it would be appropriate for you to make that regret known. Especially since you have in the past made it policy to retract and apologise in similar circumstances. I recognise that you will not. And at least your comment here is something.

@Luis:

What John B wrote was not absurd. You can point to parts that were over-stated or insufficiently caveated, but if you cannot see the differences between that and this, I think you’re a bit loopy.

What is both loopy and absurd is to adopt a position of God-like surety in the face of incomplete evidence. It was loopy and absurd when JohnB declared it to be a ‘fact’ that Assange is not a rapist, despite the lack of information (indeed, despite the fact that it had been made known by at least one involved party that relevant facts had yet to be disclosed). And it is loopy and absurd when the authors of this letter act similarly.

@John B:

The difference between my post and what Sunny is talking about here, as you well know, is that at the time of my post, people were trying to smear JA as guilty of rape on the basis of accusations that do not sanely account to rape.

No, as I said to Luis E, your original post, and this letter, are of a piece, insofar as you both pronounce with certainty on a subject which any reasonable person would have concluded they didn’t know enough to form a conclusion about. Your post and this letter are absurd for the same reasons.

b) The minute that it was made clear that the accusations against JA accounted to what would be called rape in England & Wales, I made clear that that was the case, and retracted any suggestion that it wasn’t.

Actually, you issued an incomplete retraction, that covered only comments made subsequent to the original post. And, in numerous comments, you also continue to stick to the ridiculous pretense that you were justified in saying what you did in that first post, given the facts as they appeared. But you weren’t. Other people recognised, right at the beginning, that you were engaging in baseless speculation. It was neither logical nor reasonable to pronounce, unilaterally, it to be a fact that Assange is not a rapist. The idea that, on the contrary, that position was rationally required at the time is utter bullshit.

c) I dealt with the entire case without trying to smear any individuals and stick to facts. You and Cath (and CIM, who’s the most unspeakable interlocutor I’ve ever encountered) decided it would be jolly to slate chaps who were making factual arguments as rape-enablers. Here’s a cap, judge its size and mind how you go.

I have never called you a rape enabler. I say you engaged in bad, highly irresponsible blogging on that occasion. On this subject of smearing, though, I must say that you yourself do a rather nice line in it. You have several times accused those who objected to the ill-informed diatribe that was your original post of being illiberal people who wish to lock up all men irrespective of guilt. You would be much better off finally admitting that your post was a misjudgement, rather than blindly lashing out at those who pointed out the error.

[39] he, hee the blogsphere would be a very quiet place if comments/opinions had to live up to the standards being suggested by SP?

It goes without saying that in 99.9% of instances commentators are never truly in possession of the facts but this doesn’t stop communities like LC holding forth on all manner of political, or cultural events.

What you are suggesting (in effect) is a convention where conversations can only be considered valid in a post-hoc environment – how much fun would that be, eh?

If JohnB put’s up a crap post then I’m sure most of the opinionated bloggers here are more than capable of shooting him, or his point of view, down in flames? Surely that is a preferable to insisting Sunny withdraw an item that he published in good faith?

Demonstrably sane and liberal men who have voiced their concern that the allegations against Julian Assange may be politically motivated have been derided the length and breadth of the feminist blogosphere and labelled as misogynists, their fears and concerns over the obvious political ramifications of the case, the inconsistencies in evidence and process thus far and the rapidly diminishing probability of a fair trial swept to one side under the banner of ‘whatever’ by feminist writers who rather naively seem to want to see the trial go ahead and then comment about miscarriages of justice ipso facto rather than logically tackle the thorny questions that have already been raised.

These writers seem wedded to the presumption that the old rationale and methodology will suffice in what is clearly a novel set of circumstances where a new mindset is required. What is most abhorrent about their casual attitude to the intellectual interrogation of this new set of circumstances in this case is that these writers have singularly failed to learn (often to even investigate) the very lessons that the most recent batch of Wikileaks have taught us. The predominant lesson being that the structures of power and influence that the U.S.A. bring to bear are extremely adept at embedding themselves deeply in the government machinery of the host country and using the advantage that it bestows to leverage the preferred outcome of the USA, irreverent to the impact on the host country.

Once that lesson has been absorbed, the potential outcomes of the case can be analysed in a realistic light and I am afraid that the spread of positive probable outcomes is poor and clearly favours a miscarriage of justice. Men who may only had that ‘gut feeling’ that this guy, who might otherwise be seen as a hero, is ‘on a hiding to nothing’ are justified in their deep visceral outrage. While given a fair trial Assange may have a ‘fair’ chance of a deserved outcome (whatever that may be), given a 50/50 chance that the U.S.A brings pressure to bear that probability of a positive outcome (for him) sinks to approx. 25 % and given a 100% probability of the U.S.A’s malign influence the corresponding probability of a positive outcome for Assange is of course zero.

The suggestion that the U.S. will intervene is reasonable and is backed by a considerable amount of evidence that this ‘beacon of liberty’ has sullied its hands in significantly less important cases to protect it’s self interest and even that of it’s corporations. In fact, given the weight of the evidence, the burden of proof should lie with those who believe the U.S.A. will be able to resist the desire to bring its considerable power, influence and reach to bear to prove that they have actually done so before in any similar case. The U.S.A’s long term track record as exposed by Wikileaks and the recent conduct of some of their most senior politicians demonstrates that the exact opposite is true and that the U.S.A. will use every opportunity possible to exert every possible pressure on the most sensitive pressure points in this case to ensure that their self interest prevails while using every device at their disposal to appear to maintain a proper diplomatic distance.

It almost goes without saying that this case is almost made to measure for a miscarriage of justice, in that it provides a plethora of sensitive pressure points, creating opportunities to sway the outcome of the case. Is there any evidence that there is any judiciary in the world that is up to the task of properly policing all of those possible pressure points in this case in the face of such an experienced and powerful opponent as the USA to ensure a fair and just outcome, let alone the Swedish system that is already creaking under the strain or even the U.K.’s system given Judge Riddle’s (you couldn’t make this up) questionable performance over bail.

The bitter irony is that many of these feminists are not acting in their own enlightened self interest by unthinkingly supporting their fellow feminists whilst unwittingly acting as tools of the ‘old, male and pale’ power structure that they profess to be striving to change. Furthermore they are acting against one of the very men who has done so much and is risking so much to change the system and who are virtually guaranteeing that there will be a long wait for the next man who is brave enough to put his head above the parapet.

It is time for those feminists (and other incumbents in the fifth estate) who are arguing that the trial should go ahead as though this were ‘business as usual’ sharpened up and recognised that this is a new situation and that new rules will have to be applied if justice is to prevail. This is based on a realistic assessment of the circus surrounding the case (rather than the case itself) and cannot simply derided as a misogynistic conspiracy theory.

Feminists are accusing other liberals of unquestioningly assuming Assange is innocent.

Other liberals are accusing feminists of unquestioningly assuming Assange is guilty.

In the meantime those on the right who hate the bloody lot of us are having a right laugh at us getting so caught up in this deep and perplexing moral maze. Divide and conquor indeed.

Is it too much to ask that those of us on the left could accept there are clearly political machinations going in this case, but that allegations of rape should also be taken very seriously? We should be supporting fully any and all investigation into the rape allegations. But making clear these are the only charges Assange should be facing if this case really is as seperate to Wikileaks are we are told.

If (if…) Assange is sent to Sweden and the rape suddenly goes away and the US gets some vague charge made thats when we all on the left can get involved. As thats not only an attack on free speech and free information – it would also be a dark day for all rape victims too.

First of all Craig Murray isn’t a socialist. Small point but makes your headline inaccurate.

Second Julian Assange has had no charges filed against him in Sweden that we know of.

The Swedish prosecutor have yet to to provide Assange’s lawyers in London with documentation or any evidence on the claims.

So you can’t drop charges that haven’t been made. There are only claims and allegations so far.

This is from Socialist Unity

“Anna Ardin, one of the two complainants in the rape and sexual assault case against WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, has left Sweden to join a Christian activist community in the Palestinian West Bank , and may have ceased actively co-operating with the Swedish prosecution service and her own lawyer, sources in Sweden told the Australian website”

Even feminists have questioned the allegation of rape. You can read what Naomi Wolf said on Huffington Post here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html

Conspiracy theories? Not here.

“Report: Assange accuser flees to Middle East, may not be cooperating with police”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-accuser-stops-cooperating-police/

That’s completely irrelevant and highly speculative (as shown by the “may”s). She could have any number of reasons for wanting to go there. Even if it were true that she had ceased “actively cooperating”, who could blame her, given all the pressure and the smears? It tells us nothing.

Naomi Wolf seems to have been working on incorrect information and one hopes she will revise her view.

Nice try

Richard P

“Even if it were true that she had ceased “actively cooperating”, who could blame her, given all the pressure and the smears? It tells us nothing.”

Or it could be that there really isn’t any evidence that Assange did anything wrong. None has been presented so far. So it would seem perfectly reasonable for the Swedes, to avoid further embarrassment, to have one of Assange’s accusers to flee to the West Bank to do good works. Officially she ran because of “all the pressure and the smears”.

And still no explanation as to why Craig Murray is labelled a socialist.

Not sure what’s wrong with being a socialist.

I think that the OP has the balance right. It did occur to me this morning that the worst possible outcome for Mr Assange, would be to avoid answering the questions the prosecutor wants to put. This letter appears to have it that there is no case to answer. Perhaps there isn’t, but that should be up to the Swedish Justice system to determine, not people who have predetermined his innocence, for, if they were successful. there would be no resolution to the issue that would have widespread public support.

I didn’t realise it was such a huge insult to Craig Murray to call him a socialist. I always saw his views as on the left. If he objects, I’ll clarify that.

@48 andyzee: “Or it could be that there really isn’t any evidence that Assange did anything wrong. None has been presented so far.”

Err, that is how prosecution works here, in Sweden and in most countries commonly described as liberal and democratic.

The prosecutors presented a case to a court or judge in order to raise an arrest warrant for Assange. The case was based on accusations from two women. The two women may withdraw the accusations if they wish, but the prosecutors are free to continue. It is not uncommon for accusers to withdraw a statement (for example, in battered partner cases) and for the prosecution to proceed.

*Evidence* is required for prosecutors to determine whether there is a case to pursue and for a court/judge to decide whether to raise an arrest warrant and send the accused to another court for judgement. Thus far, the evidence appears to be the original statements of two women. It might be your argument that the accusation is weak; I take the position that Swedes who understand the language and judicial system (and who have read the prosecution case) are best qualified to make a decision.

To summarise: at this stage, an accusation has been made, and the prosecutors and the justice system have determined that the accusation deserves consideration in a court.

When the case is assessed in a court of justice, the evidence that has already been reported and any new evidence presented by the prosecution and defence will be examined. Assange will be judged on the basis of all the evidence provided, which may be greater than that submitted to establish a case for prosecution.

Note very carefully that two standards of evidence are required. Evidence is initially required to establish that the accusations deserve examination in a court and that the accused should be arrested. (In the UK, we conduct preliminary trials and hearings to establish whether the initial evidence is sufficient for a full court case.) In the full court case, evidence is assessed in depth and there is normally more evidence. The evidence needs to establish that a crime did happen, without uncertainty.

Given that we are many steps away from the full court case, any remote assessment of Assange’s guilt or innocence is misguided.

Thanks for the reply Charlieman.

And understand “Given that we are many steps away from the full court case, any remote assessment of Assange’s guilt or innocence is misguided.”

But was it not highly unusual for Interpol to issue an international ‘most wanted’ arrest warrant for Assange considering no formal charges were brought against him in Sweden?

andyzee,

I’d have thought that, if you were accused of a crime in one jurisdiction, then a civilised process to take a fleeing person back into your jurisdiction for cross examination had some merit. It doesn’t mean your guilty.

Though the Gary McKinnon case, which seems a clearer cut case of an embarrassed USA using such procedures for PR reasons, does make me hesitate…

The Interpol notice wasn’t an arrest warrant as such. Indeed, upon receiving it, the police made no move to arrest Assange. They waited for the EAW from Sweden.

What’s the ‘radical feminist nonsense’? Please,do explain

Assange is innocent. Don’t fall for the American con. Those women are getting paid off.

douglas clark

“a civilised process to take a fleeing person back into your jurisdiction for cross examination had some merit.”

Assange didn’t flee. He cooperated with the Swedish and British authorities. He left Sweden at the end of Sept with the full knowledge of the prosecutor.

Richard P, sorry you are correct, it was an European arrest warrant , but he was on Interpol’s most ‘wanted list’. Also the EAW was to do with the allegations and not any type of formal charges.

Why this letter is ‘absurd’ – when the allegations against Assange are completely ridiculous – is beyond me.

If the Russians were demanding the extradition of Assange … well, just think about it.

Sunny Hundal

“I didn’t realise it was such a huge insult to Craig Murray to call him a socialist. I always saw his views as on the left. If he objects, I’ll clarify that.”

I’ve no idea if Murray would be insulted to be called a socialist but I’ve read what he has been through so doubt he would care very much.

Murray is not a socialist. Which makes headline look a bit dumb.

andyzee,

I was speaking in general terms about the European Arrest Warrant when I used the word ‘flee’. It is still the case that Mr Assange should nothave special privilege to escape from the charges levelled at him. Indeed, he should welcome an opportunity to refute them.

I think he’d get a fair hearing in Sweden. So why the obfuscation? What say you?

The charges have been fully investigated in Sweden. Assange stayed there for forty days. He was told there was no case to answer.

But, he has now been arrested and jailed. Without any charges. And, without any evidence.

As you say: Without evidence that simply won’t do.

douglas clark

“It is still the case that Mr Assange should not have special privilege to escape from the charges levelled at him.”

I think they are allegations. Not *charges*. I only pick up as I go along. Not being too familiar with how whistle-blowers get stuffed by who ever.

Then again only an absurd letter writing socialists would make a documentary like this:

http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/a-faraway-country

@61 Andyzee

I remember that programme being broadcast at the time. What is your objection to it?

Richard SM

Perhaps I’m a little younger. I remember http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/cambodia-year-ten best.

Since then I’ve always read Pilger with interest. And have never once thought of him as being a socialist.

The author of this blog piece thought Craig Murray was a socialist. And still does.

I’m not sure what the point of it was.

I am number 63.

I am number 64

I do not think the UK authorities should extradite Assange, because there is a significant danger that he will be handed over to a third country (the USA) which has a poor human rights record and wishes to persecute him as a political prisoner.

Furthermore, the European Arrest Warrant is seriously flawed and should be scrapped. As should our extradition treaty with the USA.

andyzee @ 61,

You are quite right, they are allegations, not charges. My bad. Though I still think the correct people to investigate them are the Swedes. I am kind of against trying to out-think a judiciary, which is what I suspect some folk are trying to do. Personally, I do not think this will ever get to a trial, and AFAIK, Mr Assange would be less likely to be extradited to the USA from Sweden than he would be from the UK. Is it not us, after all, who have some sort of one sided agreement with the Americans?

Phil Hunt,

Perhaps you could spell out why the EAW is flawed? I’d have thought that globalising justice, to the limited extent that this does, was probably a good thing.

[deleted]

@68 Douglas Clark: Perhaps you could spell out why the EAW is flawed?

The EAW is flawed because it allows the authorities to arrest and imprison people — such as holocaust denier Gerald Fredrick Töben — for acts that are not illegal in the UK.

While Töben is an obnoxious person, he hadn’t broken UK law and should never nave been arrested.

douglas clark

“Though I still think the correct people to investigate them are the Swedes. I am kind of against trying to out-think a judiciary, which is what I suspect some folk are trying to do. ”

Jailing someone and then shipping them off to another country to answer allegations
concerning a broken condom that might have spilt during consensual shagging.

Yes, lets leave it to the people who know best to sort out.

[70] And are our laws are flawed for sanctioning the imprisonment of Assange, even though he has not been charged.

Commentators here have justified this deprivation of liberty on the basis he does not have an address in the UK.
What absolute rot – it would take just 5mins to rent a flat on the Old Kent Road.
It’s not even as if Assnage is an absconding risk given that half the secret services in the world are straining at the leash to bang him up for something or other (and preferably the longer the better) – I mean where on earth can he run to, Outer Mongolia?

There are further claims today that the women who alleged Assange sexually assaulted them may not be entirely trustworthy (dodgy source admittedly) even so I suspect Pagar’s £50 is safe?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas—Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html

@72 – funny that the Daily Fail is used as a source here. Naomi Wolf also did the same.

From the Failpaper:

But the woman told police that she woke up next morning to find him having sex with her without a condom.

‘This is what they are saying is rape,’ said Mr Hurtig.

Mr. Hurtig holds a different definition of rape than Swedish and English law.

The rape myths being bandied around in this matter are quite horrific.

As Jaclyn Friedman writes:

Rape Apology Day happens whenever rape breaks through into the news cycle.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_we_talk_about_when_we_talk_about_rape

This benefits nobody. It harms us all.

(and again, hopefully without the fucked up html)

@72 – funny that the Daily Fail is used as a source here. Naomi Wolf also did the same.

From the Failpaper:

‘But the woman told police that she woke up next morning to find him having sex with her without a condom. ‘This is what they are saying is rape,’ said Mr Hurtig.’

Mr. Hurtig holds a different definition of rape than Swedish and English law. The rape myths being bandied around in this matter are quite horrific.

As Jaclyn Friedman writes:

‘Rape Apology Day happens whenever rape breaks through into the news cycle. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_we_talk_about_when_we_talk_about_rape

This benefits nobody. It harms us all.

Sorry, I made a mistake. Assagne wasn’t on Interpol’s ‘most wanted’ list over a split condom.

No, Swedish prosecutors want him for something called “sex by surprise”. Normally a person convicted of this heinous crime is fined around 5,000 kronor.

btw, the Swedish chief prosecutor who chucked out the case judged the charges as absurd. I guess she must also be stupid socialist.

‘No, Swedish prosecutors want him for something called “sex by surprise”. Normally a person convicted of this heinous crime is fined around 5,000 kronor. ‘

FFS! This isn’t a crime in Sweden or anywhere else. Idiot!

For the hard of understanding:

‘First of all, let me put this straight: there is no such crime as “sex by surprise” in Sweden. Assange is charged for rape, sexual harassment and duress, and this is, what is called in Swedish legal terms, on “sannolika skäl;” a classification that means that the prosecutor has enough evidence to make her believe it is likely the verdict will be in her favour. There is fairly strong evidence, then, it is not charge pulled out of thin air. “Sex by surprise” or överraskningssex as it would be translated in Swedish is slang for rape. It is a term that is used when speaking about rape, but jokingly, or keeping it light, a word that brings with it positive connotations, which makes the word inappropriate in itself, but it is nevertheless synonymous with rape.’
http://feminismandtea.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-by-surprise.html

andyzee, these are myths. It’s not a crime to have sex without a condom. The accusations are several and none is as simple as that. He is accused of rape and of sexual molestation. And there is no such thing as sex by surprise. That is just the translation of a Swedish slang term used to trivialise rape. There has never been any such charge. Please, read a bit more critically and don’t swallow everything reported by Assange’s lawyers, the Mail, and others that use these biased sources.

I think ‘most wanted list’ is a very inaccurate description of Interpol red notices. As far as I can tell they can be issued for pretty much any crime. (The other day Croatia used one to seek someone on corruption charges.) Some years there are five thousand or more.

[74] “The rape myths being bandied around in this matter are quite horrific” – well, if they are ‘horrific’ even some women have doubts regarding the substance of claims that have been made (if we just think about the case in hand).
Jemima Khan characterised the evidence heard in a British court as “feeble”, not that this prevented the authorities from sending Assange to prison (and all because he didn’t have a lease on the Old Kent Road).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/11/julian-assange-jemima-khan

Reports suggest that one of the women was felating Assange within hours of meeting him and both apparently engaged in consensual penetrative sex with the world’s most famous man before he had time to properly digest his first Swedish kipper?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange

Put another way, given the risks, and more recently, sensitivities involved in casual sex, wouldn’t those at risk be better off deferring the physical act until they had learnt a little bit more about each other before trotting off to bed – oh, I realise this is a hopelessly old fashioned view, but this entire furore could have been avoided had the various protagonists settled for a either friendly handshake, or perhaps a knowing wink – hell why not even a surreptitious peck on the cheek instead of blow jobs and intercourse?

It has been argued time and time again that women cannot get justice when it comes to rape.
I have no doubt that many, or perhaps even most women are victim to a system that flounders once it has to rely on evidence that amounts to little more than he said, she said sort of stuff (as seems to be the case with accusations made against Assange).

Additionally, no matter how badly some men may have behaved in the past, it is a great injustice to victimise a potentially innocent person because of crimes committed by another person – or to use the old adage, two wrongs don’t make a right?

A&e, what Jemima Khan perhaps is unaware of is that the prosecution is by no means required to provide full details of its case at this stage in the proceedings. To say the case is flimsy before having heard what the full case actually is is surely a mistake.

[81] not full details Richard, but surely there should have been a few snippets to suggest a compelling argument before depriving Assange of his liberty?

Fancy being locked up in a place Wandsworth with the label ‘rapist’ hanging over your head – I seem to recall certain members of the prison community are rather fond of administering their own brand of justice to men accused of such crimes, unless that person is locked in solitary confinement ‘for his own good’
http://solitarywatch.com/2010/12/10/wikileakers-held-in-solitary-confinement/

As your link points out, he is in solitary confinement because he asked to be separated from the other prisoners. His request for internet access has also been granted (with restrictions).

We can argue about whether he should have been granted bail, but good arguments have been presented on this site that someone in his situation would not normally get bail. Thus, the question is not one of him in particular – it isn’t the case that he is being treated more harshly than anyone else would be under the circumstances.

As to whether extraditing states should have to give more detailed info, that’s again a more general issue of whether we like the way the European Arrest Warrant system works. The point is that the prosecution are holding back some details until after they have questioned Assange. I understand this is standard practice.

Solitary, or being subject to intimidation by cons who hate rapists – not much of a choice is it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7925545/Child-rapist-stamped-to-death-in-prison-cell.html

Good arguments for being in jail – isn’t that what the right wing American politicos are saying?

Sunny said: “The charges should be fully investigated and to say otherwise does imply the women are lying.”

If this is a set-up – something I personally find very likely, given the circumstances – it’s quite possible the women involved had no real choice in the matter. It cannot be remotely unusual for many of the people Assange has enraged to use blackmail and threats.

I’m with Pagar on this. Just because misogynists typically oppose rape prosecutions does not mean that anyone who expresses any doubt about any rape charge – even in the most extreme circumstances – is objectively pro-misogyny. It’s broken logic.

If Assange had been accused instead of another easily fabricated offence like drug trafficking, I doubt many people here would be accusing those doubting the charges of being objectively pro-drugs, even though people who think drug-taking is a good thing typically oppose drug prosecutions.

I’m interested in the fact that so many people in this thread – and the cosignees of the letter – are explicitly assuming that the rape allegations are a politically motivated set-up, but only one person put their balls where their mouth is and claimed that the two complainants are getting paid off.

How do the rest of you think this worked? Were the women approached by CIA agents and enlisted to honey trap Assange? Who’s paying them? The Americans? Did the same people who missed the clues about 9/11 have the foresight to track down and recruit, not one, but two secret agents who just happen to be fuckable by the notoriously voluble Assange’s well publicised standards? Just in case the organisation that he was by no means in sole control of happen to have more embarrassing revelations up its sleeve?

Or are we saying that they volunteered to do the dirty with him, and then to him, off their own backs, for – well, what? Loyalty to the US government? A fervent, spontaneously shared belief in the importance of keeping videos of children being killed in Iraq secret? Remember, this is pre-cablegate, and one of the women had trained (but not, as claimed, left) for a humanitarian mission in Palestine. So how likely is it that she’d lure a man to her bed and have unprotected sex with him to exact revenge for bringing war crimes in the Middle East to public attention?

It’s easy to shout “stitch up job!” when someone you admire is accused of something you wish they hadn’t done. But if you want people to believe you, at some point when the facts become clear you need to at least try and propose a mechanism for how the stitch up was actually, you know, stitched up. All this hand waving about the general evilosity of the US secret (hah) services only gets you so far.

As against that, the so-called “hysterical” and “radical” and “rabid” and “overwrought” explanation offered by most feminists – that the women reporting rape are actually quite unlikely to be outright mendacious conspirators, because duh, men rape women all over the fucking shop so why not this guy? – is tear-inducingly banal and transparent.

Which is, you know, what Wikileaks is kind of all about, yeah? Transparency, that is.

[87] if this was a ‘honey trap’ the operatives who had been recruited for it would not necessarily advertise their methods and motives to make life a little easier for bloggers on the net, not least because by definition they are, err, secret agents?
Sex is an old weapon in espionage and can be used in all manner of ways to achieve political ends?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6876549/ns/us_news-security/

Having said all that I agree with you that this is unlikely to be a ‘set-up’ by the good old USofA although I wouldn’t discount the possibility entirely.

The elements of the story that worry the pro-Assange camp, or at least those elements that have so far been presented via media sources, are as follows;
*neither women approached the authorities in the immediate aftermath of their encounter with Assange but instead waited for days – it may be significant that neither reported the sexual violence against them in a more timely fashion?
*the women colluded with each other prior to giving their version of events to the police – this decision may greatly damage the credibility of their testimony since it begs questions over a concerted attempt to punish Assange for apparently attaching little meaning to recent events in the boudoir?
*the allegations have already been heard then rejected by the first Swedish prosecutor – why would such a decision be taken if there was any compelling evidence to begin with, although I’m sure Assange’s lawyer will claim plenty has been manufactured in the meantime?

I think the ‘time’ factor may also count against the women (by that I mean meeting to penetration time), as well as the international notoriety of the man they went to bed with – one line of defense might be that the women acted in a predatory way seeking out Assange because of his fame?

You say that ‘men rape women’ but in what way are the actions of other men pertinent to the case in question?
It sounds you are suggesting that gender alone is sufficient grounds to make a case against somebody – are their other groups who are guilty on the basis of a single characteristic?