Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[heliocentric]

Well, whoever you were quoting, you seem now to agree with the view you previously thought naive.

No Jean, I'm not. I'm saying that the Swedish authorities have it in their power to separate them but choose not to do so. In particular I suspect that their refusal to consider ruling out extradition to the USA is not unconnected to strong pressure from that country.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not quite sure who you're quoting with the word "sensible". But I think on an international plane it is quite possible to disentangle the issues. Sweden could do so 1) by indicating that it is not connecting them and would not extradite Assange if he voluntarily gave himself up for questioning in Sweden or 2) agreed to carry out a preliminary questioning in the UK.

If they will do neither, I agree that Assange has good reason to be wary. That he would not get a fair trial in the US for revealing to the world the illegal acts sanctioned by the government seems certain, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

And among all the speculation, that (1) and (2) factually are not options leads understandably to his wariness and questions in the minds of John Pilger and many others.

My position on the women's allegations is that I don't have the facts. I would expect to have details of all the people involved if I were on a jury.

What we all know is that one was on the Christian wing of the Social Democratic Party and did not believe in the Christian way of no sex before marriage. In fact, she was at the other end of the scale, opting for a sexual encounter with someone she barely knew. In a previous life, she was employed in Swedish embassies abroad.

The other is allegedly someone who doesn't appear to have been working for the press but obtained a press pass on the grounds that she was a press photographer.

This is not to condemn either of them but simply to ask a few questions.

Assange is 41. I have had a look at some facts. The average age of a rapist is 31. 44% of victims are under age 18 and 80% are under age 30. Both involved in the allegations were over 18 and one was over 30. The vast majority of rapists commit six or more offences.

Rightly or wrongly, my inclination in a case involving three nonentities would be to doubt the man. I can at most in this case be open minded about what happened. These women should have a trial but only in a country that is blase about the nature of Assange's work. There is a need to establish whether Assange is a danger to women and also to establish if the international establishment is using women as pawns in its game.

[french frank]

I'm saying that the Swedish authorities have it in their power to separate them but choose not to do so. In particular I suspect that their refusal to consider ruling out extradition to the USA is not unconnected to strong pressure from that country.

Well, I agree with that.

Politics entangles, the law separates. If Sweden is only concerned with an alleged crime committed in Sweden, then it must separate the two.

[JohnSkelton]

What we all know

There has been an awful lot of speculation, leading to "we" knowing all sorts of things, and going against any ethical principal of anonymity.

Here's the lawyer for the two women http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...pe-allegations

[Lateralthinking1]

There has been an awful lot of speculation, leading to "we" knowing all sorts of things, and going against any ethical principal of anonymity.

Here's the lawyer for the two women http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...pe-allegations

Quote: Borgström, a highly respected Swedish lawyer with 30 years of experience, today rebutted the claims and counter-claims that Assange's arrest has unleashed. He said his clients were "the victims of a crime, but they are looked upon as the perpetrators and that is very unfortunate".

So the highly respected lawyer has decided for the jury. Assange is guilty. Even if the women were a part of a so-called honey trap, I doubt that reasonably minded people would see them as perpetrators. As I said earlier, they would have been manipulated, willingly or otherwise, by the international establishment which, as it happens, is overwhelmingly male. That their lawyer is arguing had they known what was about to happen, they may not have gone to the police, is actually diabolical. By seeking to depict this as a conventional case, it raises fears in ordinary women, which are often acute as it is, about seeking police help in the Facebook era.

More broadly, many aspects of this case revolve around Big Brother's case against transparency. The notion that he is a criminal who is being protected by the strength of public support is the reverse of the truth in our so-called democracies. Ask the general public how much influence they feel they have compared with 'the system'. Do they think that the internet has increased democracy or, if anything, reduced it? I know what I think. And all of these dynamics are entirely in sync with those concerning the operation of Wikileaks itself.

No one has answered the question about the coincidental timing. Let's ask this one. How exactly, as the lawyer suggests, does this enable Assange to divert attention from Wikileaks and place himself in a better position? He is stuck in the Ecuador Embassy. It placed the decision of the Ecuador Government in doubt. He would have been facing a bigger trial anyway than most will ever do. It has alienated many who were previously supporters. And the fact that he is Mr Wikileaks is now mentioned in every bit of coverage of this story around the globe.

[ahinton]

Well, I do think that a court case being in Sweden would have a resonance of Breivik in international perceptions. That suits the authorities well. If it were in the US, it would bring to mind MacKinnon but he is far less known.

Were such a case to be considered and regarded purely on its own merits or otherwise without any overtones of possible extradition requests from US or reference to Wikileaks issues, it would have no such resonance at all; the Breivik case has its own inherent resonances in international perceptions based solely on those acts of which he was accused and stood trial.

I find it quite astonishing how much faith in the authorities can be shown in this instance. For years, we have had people bashing the governments, the bankers and those who start wars. They are all as untrustworthy as a used car salesman and far more dangerous. All of a sudden, there is utter trust and we mustn't question anything because to question is to form conclusions.

I certainly don't claim any such thing and I'm sure plenty of others here and elsewhere don't either. The principal issue here is that we only know as much as we know at any given time and should accordingly be wary of jumping to any conclusions at all, especially opinionatedly judgemental ones, until sufficient is known and provable in any part or parts of this case and what it/they might turn into.

Everything I have read of the contributions so far tells me one thing more than any other. It is that rape is something that rightly brings out extraordinarily strong emotions. Perhaps understandably, logic or any broader context can in the process just be wiped out. That some have already assumed that Assange committed rape is no more right than to assume that he didn't do so. Some have decided that the substance of the allegation is rape rather than assault when there is a variety of viewpoints in newspapers. And some immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was saying he should not be tried for rape somewhere when I wasn't.

Fair enough, but for one thing he's not going to be tried for anything unless he's first extradited to Sweden and that won't happen unless he and/or the Ecuadorian authorities agree to that happening and, for another, until he is prosecuted successfully there, he still won't be up for trial for anything and only if and when he's prosecuted successfully will if become known for certain what the substance of the charges is; if he is tried and found not guilty, one might hope that the question of whether his accusers deliberately fabricated their evidence in the cause of a politically motivated ploy unconnected with any form of alleged sexual assault on the part of Mr Assange would have its answers revealed during the course of that trial until it accordingly collapses if inddeed that is found to be the case.

And nearly everyone in understandable knee-jerk reaction has completely ignored his involvement in Wikileaks. That is an absolute dream for the powers-that-be. Either the world's best known player of 'cat and mouse' has illogically decided to hand them a win-win situation or they have a propaganda strategy that is working more effectively than any of them could ever have hoped.

No, they haven't; what some of them are doing, however, is confusing matters (and themselves) by allowing the two entirely separate issues to become enmeshed in their minds, which doesn't help when there's no reason for them to be so unless the sexual assault allegations are indeed discovered to be a smokescreen for an entirely separate Wikileaks-oriented agenda.

Scenario - Prime Minister Nick Griffin says that two BNP members have been the victims of rape by BNP opponents. Believable? My point about morality is that it can only be considered sensibly in a moral environment. More pertinently, justice in law can only occur where the law is not compromised by ulterior motives. Neither is the case here. Ecuador might be different.

It would take a leap of imagination as well as faith so large as to be well beyond the capabilities of the most athletic of Olympian gold medallists to imagine a scenario in which Mr Griffin as head of BNP was UK's Prime Minister in the first place but, if he were and he did make such a claim, it would matter little who did or did not believe it; all that would matter would be whether those alleged rape victims chose to press charges and, were the accused to be arrested, charged and tried in Court, what the outcome would be. Whatever your views - or anyone else's - about the morality or otherwise of a BNP government in Britain or indeed about rape and other forms of sexual assault, it's only the law that can permit the election of such a government and only the law that can try cases of alleged rape and other forums of sexual assault. That this might or might not be different in Ecuador is hardly the point, since a scenario of Mr Griffin heading an extreme right-wing government in that country is even more implausible as is that of him as UK Prime Minister and since, however Ecuadorian law may deal with alleged rapists et al, Mr Assange is not about to be charged and tried there for such acts, so that's something of a red herring, really.

[heliocentric]

So the highly respected lawyer has decided for the jury. Assange is guilty.

To be fair on him, that's what he's paid to do, just as Assange's lawyer will put the opposite spin on things. Bear in mind also that the interview with the lawyer took place in 2010 - if he were consulted now he presumably wouldn't claim that Assange was using the rape case to divert attention from Wikileaks.

Julian Assange may or may not be guilty of rape; independently of this, the two defendants in the rape case may or may not have been the willing or unwilling agents in an attempt to discredit him (which certainly has taken place) or place him in a position where US government agents (having warned the Swedish authorities to step out of the way) could get hold of him. Those are the things "we" know little or nothing about. What we do know I think is that Assange has cause to fear some heavy retribution from the US government, which has shown itself to be prepared to act above its own laws and constitution in the Manning case, in Guantanamo and elsewhere, on some trumped-up grounds of espionage when all he has actually done is published information passed to him by a whistleblower, which is what journalists are (or used to be) supposed to do.

[Lateralthinking1]

Were such a case to be considered and regarded purely on its own merits or otherwise without any overtones of possible extradition requests from US or reference to Wikileaks issues, it would have no such resonance at all; the Breivik case has its own inherent resonances in international perceptions based solely on those acts of which he was accused and stood trial.

Yes, were it to be but it can't be. Most people don't analyse in depth like we do, accurately or inaccurately. Britain is eccentricity, bowler hats and cups of tea. Germany is technical efficiency and Brazil is the samba. Scandinavia was quiet, peaceful and efficient, a place where nothing horrible happened and where democracy on a good day could just be on the side of the people. So if Assange is to be changed from having the mythical status of the little guy with a sword against terrible overlords, it is inevitable it will be where Breivik ruined everything. I could have bet on it.

I certainly don't claim any such thing and I'm sure plenty of others here and elsewhere don't either. The principal issue here is that we only know as much as we know at any given time and should accordingly be wary of jumping to any conclusions at all, especially opinionatedly judgemental ones, until sufficient is known and provable in any part or parts of this case and what it/they might turn into.

To an extent. Does this also apply to general attitudes towards bankers, arms salesman, etc? You ahinton might be an exception to the rule - I say that nicely - but Wikileaks supported growing doubts about blind acceptance.

Fair enough, but for one thing he's not going to be tried for anything unless he's first extradited to Sweden and that won't happen unless he and/or the Ecuadorian authorities agree to that happening and, for another, until he is prosecuted successfully there, he still won't be up for trial for anything and only if and when he's prosecuted successfully will if become known for certain what the substance of the charges is; if he is tried and found not guilty, one might hope that the question of whether his accusers deliberately fabricated their evidence in the cause of a politically motivated ploy unconnected with any form of alleged sexual assault on the part of Mr Assange would have its answers revealed during the course of that trial until it accordingly collapses if inddeed that is found to be the case.

.....No, they haven't; what some of them are doing, however, is confusing matters (and themselves) by allowing the two entirely separate issues to become enmeshed in their minds, which doesn't help when there's no reason for them to be so unless the sexual assault allegations are indeed discovered to be a smokescreen for an entirely separate Wikileaks-oriented agenda.

There is something to those points. My concern is that the allegations about his private behaviour involve Sweden as an independent country when we know that it is not independent when it comes to Wikileaks. The two matters cannot be separated out there. In my opinion, that means there can be no justice for Assange in Sweden.

It would take a leap of imagination as well as faith so large as to be well beyond the capabilities of the most athletic of Olympian gold medallists to imagine a scenario in which Mr Griffin as head of BNP was UK's Prime Minister in the first place but, if he were and he did make such a claim, it would matter little who did or did not believe it; all that would matter would be whether those alleged rape victims chose to press charges and, were the accused to be arrested, charged and tried in Court, what the outcome would be. Whatever your views - or anyone else's - about the morality or otherwise of a BNP government in Britain or indeed about rape and other forms of sexual assault, it's only the law that can permit the election of such a government and only the law that can try cases of alleged rape and other forums of sexual assault. That this might or might not be different in Ecuador is hardly the point, since a scenario of Mr Griffin heading an extreme right-wing government in that country is even more implausible as is that of him as UK Prime Minister and since, however Ecuadorian law may deal with alleged rapists et al, Mr Assange is not about to be charged and tried there for such acts, so that's something of a red herring, really.

No, the plausible nature or otherwise of Griffin as PM isn't relevant. All one has to ask is if it would ever have been believable that a Jewish man could have got a fair trial in Nazi Germany. In that situation, I should say that I was not overly bothered about the morality, not as a means of dismissing the seriousness of the allegations as was the interpretation earlier by some, but as a means of dismissing any seriousness one could give to the highly immoral regime in which the trial took place. It was a version of "that's a bit rich coming from him" etc.

Personally, I couldn't say in such a case "well, they might be sending people off to the gas chambers but what is being alleged here is still a serious matter". I would be saying "you can't trust anything and there is no chance of either the alleged perpetrators or victims receiving a fair trial". As many of us have agreed before, there is always a distinction between the law and morality. Law exercised by immoral people effectively makes any moral consideration within the legal framework pretty ludicrous. It is a wholly bad thing when that occurs and it is detrimental to all. But not much good comes from pretending that it would be capable of containing decent principle.

[JohnSkelton]

Quote: Borgström, a highly respected Swedish lawyer with 30 years of experience, today rebutted the claims and counter-claims that Assange's arrest has unleashed. He said his clients were "the victims of a crime, but they are looked upon as the perpetrators and that is very unfortunate".

So the highly respected lawyer has decided for the jury. Assange is guilty.

He's speaking as their lawyer. He's not deciding for anyone. He'd be an odd lawyer if he said 'my clients might be telling the truth or they might not'. Indeed his remarks are nothing like as forthright as those of Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens:

Assange's UK lawyer, Mark Stephens, attributed the allegations to "dark forces", saying: "The honeytrap has been sprung ... After what we've seen so far you can reasonably conclude this is part of a greater plan."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

You seem to want to turn this thread into a speculation about the guilt or innocence of Julian Assange and the motives or lack of (with an obvious preference on your part for those motives existing) of the two women. That wasn't what I was trying to discuss - what I was trying to discuss was the way the matter has been prejudged by some in the Assange camp who refuse to accept the possibility that he has a case to answer, and who have set all sorts of derogatory theories about the alleged victims running on the internet. The remarks of John Pilger are plain wrong because he doesn't know that what he is claiming is true yet he presents it as undeniable fact. And it all comes perilously close to the old response to rape, sexual abuse - entrapment, knew what they were doing, making it up, asking for it

I take heliocentric's point about the American authorities having an interest in pinning down Assange so he can be extradited, the problem with which being, of course, that it applies not only to him answering questions but if he's charged and refuses to go to Sweden for trial. I also take french frank's point about separating the two issues and giving some assurance about extradition, though I'm not sure if legally a state with an extradition treaty with another can do that.

All my sympathies are with WikiLeaks and not those who want to silence them (and have tried to do so already with some brutality). But that doesn't exempt Assange from being accountable for his alleged actions, if those allegations have enough weight to come to court and are proven in court.

[heliocentric]

He's speaking as their lawyer. He's not deciding for anyone. He'd be an odd lawyer if he said 'my clients might be telling the truth or they might not'.

Although actually Claes Borgström is a slightly odd lawyer, in that he is a spokesperson for the Social Democratic Party in Sweden on gender equality issues, on which he seems to hold somewhat controversial views (eg. "that all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women", according to Wikipedia); however that might be, he is a politician as well as a lawyer which might be considered to make him doubly untrustworthy...

[Lateralthinking1]

You seem to want to turn this thread into a speculation about the guilt or innocence of Julian Assange and the motives or lack of (with an obvious preference on your part for those motives existing) of the two women. That wasn't what I was trying to discuss - what I was trying to discuss was the way the matter has been prejudged by some in the Assange camp who refuse to accept the possibility that he has a case to answer, and who have set all sorts of derogatory theories about the alleged victims running on the internet. The remarks of John Pilger are plain wrong because he doesn't know that what he is claiming is true yet he presents it as undeniable fact. And it all comes perilously close to the old response to rape, sexual abuse - entrapment, knew what they were doing, making it up, asking for it

No, I have said that I have no opinion on his innocence or guilt as I don't have the facts. What I am doing is trying to inform myself, and others, of the sort of things that should and hopefully would be available to a jury if he went to court. The authorities have decided that he should go to court in Sweden. There has been some talk of whether a trial could be held in Britain instead. In normal circumstances, I would accept the decision of whatever the Swedish CPS happened to be. Given the wider context in this case, I am effectively rejecting that on the grounds that the countries have unrelated, ie political, ulterior motives.

The allegations are sufficiently serious not to be side-stepped so if I were Hague I would set a trial, with international involvement, as the condition on his release to Ecuador. As for those in the Assange camp, whoever they might be, they would be extremely odd if they did not protest his innocence. In regard to wider comment, it isn't being managed. What is the alternative? A UN diktat that everyone shouldn't say a word? The way things are going, it can only be a matter of time, but not yet please!

While I understand the concerns about ensuring victims of rape are encouraged to report crime, I think there is a manoeuvre in any parallels drawn between every other occurrence in history of such allegations and this one. This involves what some arguably see as this decade's bin Laden and, as such, the context is utterly unique. Even if he were proven to be guilty, that in itself does not rule out that it was a set up. And given what I have seen and heard about the ways of governments in the past five years, I feel instinctively that it is very likely. The counter-claim would be blackmail, not by the women, but by the more powerful.

[vinteuil]

Even if he were proven to be guilty, that in itself does not rule out that it was set up. And given what I have seen and heard about the ways of governments in the past five years, I feel instinctively that it is very likely. .

... I wonder what Lateral's view is on the various conspiracies behind -

Roswell

the various Kennedy assassinations

the Oklahoma bombing

9/11

the so-called 'Moon' Landing

7/7


He probably has his suspicions regarding Titus Oates and Lambert Simnel too...

[scottycelt]

... I find it quite astonishing how much faith in the authorities can be shown in this instance. For years, we have had people bashing the governments, the bankers and those who start wars. They are all as untrustworthy as a used car salesman and far more dangerous. All of a sudden, there is utter trust and we mustn't question anything because to question is to form conclusions. That some have already assumed that Assange committed rape is no more right than to assume that he didn't do so ... Scenario - Prime Minister Nick Griffin says that two BNP members have been the victims of rape by BNP opponents. Believable? My point about morality is that it can only be considered sensibly in a moral environment. More pertinently, justice in law can only occur where the law is not compromised by ulterior motives. Neither is the case here. Ecuador might be different.

Wait a minute, if everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law surely a claim of rape should be taken seriously, whether the source is a BNP PM, Communist Leader, or, Hell's Bells, even a Catholic Cardinal? We all have different moralities but there is one law.

Aren't you being a tad inconsistent here when suggesting any claim from a BNP member should be taken less seriously than any other ... ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Wait a minute, if everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law surely a claim of rape should be taken seriously, whether the source is a BNP PM, Communist Leader, or, Hell's Bells, even a Catholic Cardinal? We all have different moralities but there is one law.

Aren't you being a tad inconsistent here when suggesting any claim from a BNP member should be taken less seriously than any other ... ?

No I'm not. I'm depicting a scenario in which there would be a BNP Government. Some would think that its law would command the respect of the majority. I am not saying it wouldn't but I have my doubts about it, particularly in regard to ensuring re-election!

Fortunately, we are not in Europe living in such a regime. Ordinarily the political establishment has sufficient control, based on tacit support, not to need to resort to unethical measures. At the same time, it is frequently unethical anyway so why should it not be unethical when feeling especially threatened? The issue here is obviously different, being not about the rights of groups but scrutiny by all.

My point was to remind people that the political controlling classes are either cosy or they are not and it is illogical suddenly to consider them cosy when they appear to stand unequivocally for rightness. Many of the examples provided by vinteuil are from history. Some might justifiably be questioned but I do tend to think that there are 'darker forces' operating in the modern world.

[JohnSkelton]

Then it's clearly impossible that anyone who might conceivably be thought of as against the world order - me, say, with a history of political activism - could ever satisfactorily be found guilty of any crime, because of the dark forces at work, so it would be quite wrong if there's the possibility someone like that has committed some crime to charge and try them? That's interesting, though it's also bloody stupid.

The fact that the US would like to shut WikiLeaks up and get their own back on Assange does not give him total immunity. Or it shouldn't.