Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[Flosshilde]

Assange comes across as a not very appealing person, undertaking activities which in themselves are possibly questionable (Wikileakes I mean) which have had very positive (in my view) outcomes & which were needed to force governments (principally the USA) to come clean about illegal activities.

From what I remember reading about the rape/assault allegations the Swedish authorities have not followed normal procedures (& I can't remember the details) & have not given assurances that Assange will not be extradited to the USA if he does surrender to them.

Are there also not questions about the UK agreeing to the extradition - something to do with the offence he is charged with having to be an offence in the UK, & what is classified as rape in Sweden is not classified as rape in the UK? Sorry - a bit vague & I'd have to go back & check what was said at the time of the extradition hearings.

[Dave2002]

Currently the UK "problem" is about extraditing Assange to Sweden. if the Swedes dropped the charges would the UK then allow him to be extradited to the USA?

Which of the two countries - Sweden or the UK - is more likely to extradite him to the USA?

We should have good relationships with Sweden. If the UK has no intention of allowing Assange to be extradited to the USA, then perhaps the UK government could allow the Swedish court proceedings to take place in the UK - would that be possible? However, the current situation does not make it necessary for the UK government to declare whether it would allow Assange to be extradited to the USA or not.

Not our problem! Diplomacy!

[Bryn]

The formulation of the accusations is not so far from what appears to have actually happened as to merit the verb concoct, which means To make up, devise, or plan by concert, or by artificial combination; to put together, make up, or fabricate (a story, project, fraud, etc.).

A decidedly over-egged 'definition'. The word simply means "cooked up". In Assange's case the accusation of rape appears to have been cooked up by some in the Swedish legal system. It is not what his alleged victims accuse him of. Why do you find it so hard to grasp the distinction?

[Pabmusic]

A decidedly over-egged 'definition'. The word simply means "cooked up". In Assange's case the accusation of rape appears to have been cooked up by some in the Swedish legal system. It is not what his alleged victims accuse him of. Why do you find it so hard to grasp the distinction?

From the BBC website:

'Claes Brogstrom, the lawyer for the two Swedish women making the sexual assault complaints against Mr Assange, said their ordeal seemed to have been overlooked by Mr Assange's supporters.

He insisted that the charges against Mr Assange would be treated as a "normal case" in the Swedish judicial system.

"He will be interrogated by the prosecutor. The prosecutor after that has to decide whether to prosecute him or not and if that happens there will be a trial in the court of Stockholm.

"There's no demand from the United States that he should be extradited to the US," Mr Brogstrom added.'

Unless anyone is suggesting that the girls' lawyer is part of the conspiracy, of course, this hardly supports your argument.

[jean]

A decidedly over-egged 'definition'.

Blame the OED then, not me.

The word simply means "cooked up".

And is now used as a metaphor, since no actual cooking is involved.

Why do you find it so hard to grasp that his victims are accusing him of a physical violation not so far removed from rape?

[ahinton]

A decidedly over-egged 'definition'. The word simply means "cooked up". In Assange's case the accusation of rape appears to have been cooked up by some in the Swedish legal system. It is not what his alleged victims accuse him of. Why do you find it so hard to grasp the distinction?

I think that you have a point here. If there are accusations, it is only right and proper that they should be known and published accurately and, if "physical assault", "sexual assault" or whatever are what they are, it would be as well for further details of this/these to be published (especially given the unusual situation in the case) in advance so that both the accused and the rest of us at least are made aware of exactly what criminal offence/s it is /they are of which who is/are accusing him, although I doubt that this would make any material difference to the Swedish request for his extradition to go before the prosecutor and, if then charged, stand trial for them.

Whatever the nature of the accusations, however, the concern would surely seem to be less whether or not actual rape was involved (however that particular crime may reasonably be defined in Sweden) and more whether the accusations are genuine and justifiable or merely trumped-up and, if the latter, one has to ask why and it would not be hard to figure out at least one answer without the need to be a professional conspiracy theorist in order to do so. The trouble is that, until Assange receives a fair trial if charged or his accusers drop their accusations before they become charges in the first place, it may be impossible to ascertain which of these is the case.

Should Assange be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted, tried and found not gulty of any charge, would that make any difference to the Swedish government's decisions on whether to allow him to be extradited to US thereafter? It would be hard to see why, given that there is no conceivable connection betwen why the Swedes want him now and why the Americans will almost certainly want him immediately his trial is over.

On the other hand, what if he is convicted by a Swedish court and sentenced to a jail term? Would the Swedish government then try to seek the postponement of any subsequent US extradition request until he's served his sentence?

[ahinton]

It's R v Williams [1923], a music teacher was properly convicted of rape by deception who had intercourse with a girl after pretending that his acts were a method of training her voice.

That reference is a tad unfortunate after last night's Prom!...

[gurnemanz]

Assange comes across as a not very appealing person, undertaking activities which in themselves are possibly questionable (Wikileakes I mean) which have had very positive (in my view) outcomes & which were needed to force governments (principally the USA) to come clean about illegal activities.

I agree. While supporting increased freedom of information (of which Ecuador is not a model practitioner) I find it impossible to sympathise with Mr Assange. Irrespective of the rape charges, his self-important martyr's stance is not appealing and I find his masked anonymous supporters spooky.

[jean]

If there are accusations, it is only right and proper that they should be known and published accurately and, if "physical assault", "sexual assault" or whatever are what they are, it would be as well for further details of this/these to be published (especially given the unusual situation in the case) in advance so Mr Assange and the rest of us at least are made aware of exactly what criminal offence/s it is /they are of which who is/are accusing him, although I doubt that this would make any material difference to the Swedish request for his extradition to stand trial for them.

That is precisely why I don't think we should be using loaded words like concoct before we are made aware of these details.

[Pabmusic]

That reference is a tad unfortunate after last night's Prom!...

I thought carefully about citing Williams, because most law students (male ones at least) snigger when it's first introduced . But intercourse by deception is rape in the UK. I'd be surprised if there were nothing similar in Sweden.

[scottycelt]

And why on earth should they have to?

Also, the UK has signed agreements with many other countries regarding extradition and we would expect the same in return from them if the circumstances were reversed.

Assage, whether innocent or guilty of breaking Swedish law, has a clear case to answer in that country and skipping bail and then cowering in a foreign embassy in London does nothing to promote innocence. Whether we agree with some definitions of 'rape' or not , the law in Sweden is the law.

It it had been Dominic Strauss-Kahn in that embassy I wonder if we would have the same people protesting outside about possible extradition to the US to face rape charges?

[Pabmusic]

...It it had been Dominic Strauss-Kahn in that embassy I wonder if we would have the same people protesting outside about possible extradition to the US to face rape charges?

Ah...what a good point.

[ahinton]

Assage, whether innocent or guilty of breaking Swedish law, has a clear case to answer in that country and skipping bail and then cowering in a foreign embassy in London does nothing to promote innocence. Whether we agree with some definitions of 'rape' or not , the law in Sweden is the law.

That's all true, undoubtedly, but do you believe that he has skipped bail and then sought refuge in a foreign embassy solely in order to try to evade having to face prosecution and possible trial on the sexual assualt charges in Sweden? I don't know him personally but that seems a tad implausible to me...

[french frank]

And why on earth should they have to?

To make a complicated matter simple.

Their concern should be judicially to establish the facts of the case, and if Assange is found guilty, to punish him in accordance with the Swedish law.

And the matter of what happened, how it happened, whether the accusations (by whomever) were politically motivated or not, are irrelevant to the prime concern: that he should first be brought to trial if the facts support that.

Wikileaks and the US are a separate matter. That's why on earth they would make the way forward more simple.

[JohnSkelton]

In Assange's case the accusation of rape appears to have been cooked up by some in the Swedish legal system. It is not what his alleged victims accuse him of.

Where have Assange's alleged victims said he didn't rape them? (I'm not saying that hasn't been said, just wonder if there's a quotation / reference). I don't see why it's "cooked up", though, if a victim's perception of a crime differs from that of a legal system. Why "cooked up"? Pilger's claim is that the women are CIA agents and that it's a conspiracy, as I understand it. That's surely what "cooked up" means?