Julian Assange loses extradition appeal

[SmokingGun]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/30/jul ... t-for-now/


Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and international whistleblower icon, lost his appeal on Wednesday at the Supreme Court in London against extradition to Sweden to face charges of rape and sexual assault.

However, Assange’s legal team was granted 14 days to ask the Supreme Court to reopen the case, thanks to some quick legal maneuvering by his lawyers to challenge one of the points made in the judgment.

-------------


If he does manage to miraculously escape the US "Justice" system:


http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-25- ... ate-2012-5


If Julian Assange ran for Senate elections in Australia, he stands a chance of winning a seat, according to a new poll.

The poll of 1000 voters was conducted at the end of last month by UMR Research, according to The Sydney Morning Herald. The poll found that 25 percent of respondents would likely vote for him if he ran (although 61 percent said they wouldn’t).

“At this stage Julian Assange stands a very real chance of being elected to the Senate should he run,” pollster John Utting said. He added that any extradition of Assange to the U.S. could increase support for him.

Wikileaks declared that its founder would run for the Australian Senate last month, after discovering that being detained abroad was not a dealbreaker, according to the Guardian. Australian police say Assange and WikiLeaks did not break any Australian laws, so he could not be disqualified from running for political office. John Wanna, a political scientist at Australian National University, told the Guardian Assange could contest elections as long as he remained on the Australian electoral roll.

The next senate election cannot be called before July 2013 and is due around August of that year.

[SmokingGun]

Supreme court dismisses Assange appeal bid




Julian Assange Julian Assange's Wikileaks website published material from leaked diplomatic cables

The Supreme Court has dismissed a bid by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes.

Seven judges of Britain's top court unanimously dismissed the move by Mr Assange as being "without merit".

Two weeks ago the court rejected his argument that a European arrest warrant for extradition was invalid.

His lawyers had argued that the decision was based on a legal point that had not been argued in court.

Swedish prosecutors want to question Mr Assange over allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two female former Wikileaks volunteers in mid-2010 but have not filed any charges.

Mr Assange, whose WikiLeaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, claims the sex was consensual and that the allegations against him were politically motivated.
'Last attempt'

The court has given Assange a two-week grace period before extradition proceedings can start.

Once the fortnight is over, officials have 10 days to fly Mr Assange to Sweden.

The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman says this is "pretty much the last attempt" by Mr Assange to legally fight extradition.

The anti-secrecy campaigner could still take his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg and has until 28 June to make the move.

Our correspondent says there is the possibility of an appeal to the ECHR but legal experts say that it is "unlikely to block" Mr Assange's extradition.

Fair Trials International chief executive Jago Russell said: "Today's decision takes Julian Assange one step closer to being extradited to Sweden.

"Although Sweden is rightly proud of its justice system, its over-use of pre-trial detention means that, if extradited, he is likely to be imprisoned and placed under extremely restrictive conditions."

[Danzig in the Dark]

If he does manage to miraculously escape the US "Justice" system:

Shouldn't he be more worried about the Swedish justice system?

[SmokingGun]

If he does manage to miraculously escape the US "Justice" system:

Shouldn't he be more worried about the Swedish justice system?

The Swedes are just doing the US government's bidding.

[Danzig in the Dark]

If he does manage to miraculously escape the US "Justice" system:

Shouldn't he be more worried about the Swedish justice system?

The Swedes are just doing the US government's bidding.

Was Assange's raging boner in on the set-up?

[SmokingGun]

copy and pasted:

1. Assanage hasn't even been charged with a crime
2. Which wouldn't be rape, but "sex by surprise" if he were charged
3. He got permission to leave the country and it was granted
4. He's offered to answer questions remotely - offers that have been rebuffed

So, does this look like a normal prosecution or a witch hunt to you?

and:

the charges against Julian Assange were already dropped by the original prosecutor in the case, due to a lack of evidence, and new charges have not even been filed. He is being extradited for an interrogation by a different prosecutor who is trying to revive the case, but who cannot even find enough evidence to do so. One of the "victims" threw a party in Assange's honor within 24 hours of supposedly being raped, and sang his praise on her Twitter account during that party. The two "victims" both publicly bragged about having spent a night with Assange after supposedly being raped. How many rape victims go around bragging about having had sex with their attacker?

[Danzig in the Dark]

2. Which wouldn't be rape, but "sex by surprise" if he were charged

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're not taken seriously?

[SmokingGun]

2. Which wouldn't be rape, but "sex by surprise" if he were charged

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're not taken seriously?

Pro tip: Next time, do 1 minute of research before putting your foot in your mouth and making yourself look utterly misinformed and clueless:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=julian+assange+sex+by+surprise

[DEATH ROW JOE]

So, does this look like a normal prosecution or a witch hunt to you?

They are not accusing Assange of witchcraft so it does not look like a witch hunt.

If you want to argue that something unusual is going on, then you need to find a case with comparable facts and compare how that was prosecuted to how Assange is being prosecuted.

Simply listing what was done and then asking a rhetorical question does not qualify as an argument unless you're in 3rd grade arguing during recess.

You say "Swedes are just doing the US government's bidding." Are you suggesting that it is easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK? Why would the US need Assange transferred to Sweden from the UK to bring him to justice in the US? Is there some reason the US does not simply charge Assange with espionage and extradite him directly from the UK?

Seems like you are getting your chain pulled again and seeing a conspiracy where none exists.

[Danzig in the Dark]

2. Which wouldn't be rape, but "sex by surprise" if he were charged

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're not taken seriously?

Pro tip: Next time, do 1 minute of research before putting your foot in your mouth and making yourself look utterly misinformed and clueless:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=julian+assange+sex+by+surprise

Thanks for helping me find this. Your extra bit of research has allowed me to expose you as an even bigger assclown.

Let's get this out of the way: Sweden does not have a "broken condom" law. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was not arrested because his contraception failed mid-coitus. Nor is he charged with "sex by surprise."

The details of Assange's arrest last week are being sorted out in a bizarre game of Internet telephone in which misinformation reigns. Facts about the alleged assaults are hard to come by and are confused by contradicting media reports, translation issues, political bias and cultural disdain for rape victims.

Everyone from Fox News's Glenn Beck to feminist writer Naomi Wolf is getting in swipes. Beck told viewers that Assange is being investigated for "sex by surprise" (again, not a real law) because of a "radical" feminist bent on revenge. Wolf wrote a snarking letter to Interpol in the Huffington Post, arguing that the accusers are using feminism to "assuage . . . personal injured feelings." And AOL News writer Dana Kennedy dismissed the incidents as a simple "condom malfunction."

Now, we don't know if Assange is guilty or innocent - but we do know that the accusations against him have been badly reported, misconstrued and generally pooh-poohed. In the same way that Assange's document dump held a mirror to U.S. diplomacy, the accusations against him and the subsequent fallout reflect our country's overly narrow understanding of sexual assault, and just how far we are from Sweden's legal standard.

The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example, prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."

So if you initially agree to have sex and later change your mind for whatever reason - it hurts, your partner has become violent, or you're simply no longer in the mood - your partner can continue despite your protestations, and it won't be considered rape. It defies common sense. Who besides a rapist would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner?

It was only two years ago that Maryland overturned an archaic court ruling stating that if a woman withdrew consent, any sex that followed wasn't rape. In 2007, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals justified this old ruling, explaining that anything after the initial "deflowering" of a woman couldn't be rape because "the damage was done" to her virginity and she could never be "reflowered." In fact, the injured party, according to this ruling, wasn't even the assaulted woman, but the "responsible male's interest" - that of her father or husband. It took until 2008 for the state's highest court to change this.

"The United States has relatively regressive rape laws; in most states, there's a requirement of force in order to prove rape, rather than just demonstrating lack of consent," feminist lawyer Jill Filipovic wrote last week. "We're deeply wedded to the notion of rape as forcible . . . a consent-based framework for evaluating sexual assault is not yet widely accepted."

The fact that U.S. law is so ill- equipped to actually protect women in realistic scenarios is a national embarrassment - not to mention a huge hurdle in obtaining justice for sexual assault victims. Swedish rape laws don't ban "sex by surprise" (a term used by Assange's lawyer as a crass joke), but they do go much further than U.S. laws do, and we should look to them as a potential model for our own legislation.

In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it.

"I am proud to live in a country where rape and assault are considered to be serious crimes," Swedish feminist Johanna Palmström told me. But "even if we have good laws, it still happens too often that people who report rape are questioned and slandered - we see that now with the women who have reported Julian Assange."

Indeed, better laws do not always mean justice for victims. Only 20 percent of the rape cases reported in Sweden in 2008 resulted in a court trial. A 2010 report by Amnesty International notes that acquaintance rape in Sweden is on the rise and that victim-blaming is just as alive there as in the United States: "Young and intoxicated women in particular had problems fulfilling the stereotypical role of the 'innocent victim.' As a result, neither rapes within intimate relationships nor 'date rapes' involving teenage girls generally led to legal action."

If anything, this means we can't stop at changing legislation. For true justice, there needs to be a cultural shift in the way Americans think about sex, consent and rape, so that when women come forward - whether they're accusing a celebrity, a sports star or a neighbor - our immediate reaction isn't to misconstrue or speculate about their motives, but to listen.

None of this is to say that the accusations against Assange are true - we have no idea. And there is little doubt that the timing of the legal proceedings is politically motivated: Assange's accusers came forward in August (the same month they allege being attacked), but it's only now that authorities are vigorously pursuing the case.

Assange clearly believes that the world has a lot to learn from his work with WikiLeaks. But we can also learn from his dismissive attitude toward these allegations.

"They called me the James Bond of journalism," Assange told the New York Times in October, discussing the warm welcome he got in Sweden. "It got me a lot of fans, and some of them ended up causing me a bit of trouble."

That "bit of trouble," as he put it, and the way the Swedish authorities are pursuing the allegations, is a key lesson. Whatever Assange is revealing about this country's diplomacy, his high-profile case has also shown how far the United States is from Sweden - and from justice - when it comes to victims of sexual assault.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06996.html

I guess you missed that rape joke, SmokingGun.

[SmokingGun]

"Julian Assange's lawyer told AOL News on Thursday that the WikiLeaks founder has been charged with "sex by surprise" in Sweden. "

I'll take Assange's lawyer's word for it. Considering he hasn't been charged with anything at all, everything else is pure speculation.

[Danzig in the Dark]

"Julian Assange's lawyer told AOL News on Thursday that the WikiLeaks founder has been charged with "sex by surprise" in Sweden. "

Excellent source you cited.
http://jessicavalenti.com/2010/12/10/ao ... rape-case/

AOL News at the center of “sex by surprise” lie in Assange’s rape case
By Jessica | Published: December 10, 2010 at 1:59 pm

The allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are pretty straightforward in terms of Swedish law: he’s been accused of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The charges allege that Assange held one woman down using his body weight to sexually assault her and that he raped another woman while she was sleeping.

Yet the media – everyone from Naomi Wolf and Glenn Beck to bloggers across the internet – is reporting that Assange is being charged with “sex by surprise,” or some bizarre Swedish law having to do with a condom breaking, not rape. Multiple reports also characterize the sex as consensual.

The truth? There’s nothing in Swedish law about “sex by surprise” or broken condoms. (Here’s the penal code, see for yourself.) And despite reports to the contrary, Assange’s accusers have always said that this was not consensual sex.

So what are actually very serious charges are being diminished by shoddy reporting and victim-blaming – and it all starts with AOL News. All of the news sources and blogs reporting that the Assange charges are simply “sex by surprise” cite this piece from Dana Kennedy at AOL News.

The international manhunt for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a sex-crime investigation in Sweden apparently stems from a condom malfunction.

Assange’s London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called “sex by surprise,” which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.

“We don’t even know what ‘sex by surprise’ even means, and they haven’t told us,” Stephens said.

So you would think that Kennedy, a seasoned reporter, would do some sleuthing into what the law actually is. No such luck. Instead Kennedy goes on to report the really important “facts”: that one of the accusers is a blond radical feminist who “once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men.”

But here’s the thing – if you look at that “treatise” against men, it’s actually just a blog post that links and translates an English eHow article that has nothing to do with dudes. So yeah, she didn’t write anything – just re-posted a rando article. For that, she’s a conniving feminist bitch. Kennedy then goes on to use the article in The Daily Mail tabloid – the same one Naomi Wolf used – to outline the rest of the case (stopping along the way to point out the other accuser was wearing a pink sweater, of course).

Now, the BBC, The Guardian and The New York Times (among other reputable news outlets) have all reported the real charges against Assange – the correct information is out there. So why hasn’t a correction been issued? At the very least, a follow up piece is in order. But instead of doing some more reporting on the truth of the charges, Kennedy has a new angle: “Lawyer: Assange Faces ‘Tough Climate’ in Feminist-Friendly Sweden”

One of Assange’s two accusers is also known for her strong feminist views, having once written a treatise on how to take revenge on men. [There's that bullshit again! -Jessica] Both she and Borgstrom have been active in the Social Democratic Party.

“Assange is going to be coming into a very tough climate up here, and I wonder if he understands how much danger he’s in,” said Per E. Samuelson, a high-profile defense lawyer in Stockholm who specializes in defending men accused of rape.

“Some of the laws regarding rape are rather extreme, and the way they are applied in court is sometimes unbelievable,” Samuelson told AOL News. “To be accused of a sex crime in Sweden is considered very serious. Swedish courts tend to believe what the woman says.“

The horror – they trust women?! But what really kills me about this follow up piece is that Kennedy finally accurately reports what Swedish law is:

There are three categories of rape in Sweden, “severe” rape, “regular rape” and “less severe” rape as well as a host of other charges involving sexual assault and coercion, the nuances of which were outlined in The New York Times.

So the folks at AOL News know the truth, they’ve just chosen not to correct their error – instead leaving up the original post to drive traffic and influence an army of blogs, forums and media outlets to misreport the story and smear the accuser’s names.

Now, I have no opinion about Assange’s innocence or guilt – we don’t know shit about it. But I hardly think that accurately reporting the charges against him is some sort of militant feminist conspiracy. Because of the irresponsible reporting of AOL News, the truth has been muddied and even lost; even worse, women who may be rape victims have been lied about, smeared and trashed the world over.

I'll take Assange's lawyer's word for it. Considering he hasn't been charged with anything at all, everything else is pure speculation.

That's what you get for trusting a lawyer.
http://garrulouslaw.com/2010/12/the-jul ... tions.html

What About “Sex by Surprise”?

This is the result of a mistranslation of the word överraskningssex, slang for rape. There’s no such offence in Swedish law.

Here is the penal code of the Kingdom of Sweden. School me.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52880358/The- ... -of-Sweden

[Skate4RnR]

Sex by surprise, that's a good way to look at it.

[SmokingGun]

[CliffByford]

All well and good SmokingGun, but what if Assange really did sexually assault two women? A good deed - or even a host of good deeds - does not necessarily mean that the individual who has committed them is wholly good himself.

Also, you really fucked up on that 'sex by surprise' thing. You love posting links but seemingly hate to do any research, especially if potentially valid alternative viewpoints contradict your own ideology. You used to consistently quote they Daily Mail, one of the most right-wing and unreliable rags in the UK. When confronted on this count you said nothing. Why?

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Any sex I get these days is by surprise, so I can empathize with Assange a bit.

[KneelandBobDylan]

Any sex I get these days is by surprise, so I can empathize with Assange a bit.

[Skate4RnR]

All well and good SmokingGun, but what if Assange really did sexually assault two women? A good deed - or even a host of good deeds - does not necessarily mean that the individual who has committed them is wholly good himself.

Also, you really fucked up on that 'sex by surprise' thing. You love posting links but seemingly hate to do any research, especially if potentially valid alternative viewpoints contradict your own ideology. You used to consistently quote they Daily Mail, one of the most right-wing and unreliable rags in the UK. When confronted on this count you said nothing. Why?

I've also deduced he's Mormon.

[SmokingGun]

All well and good SmokingGun, but what if Assange really did sexually assault two women? A good deed - or even a host of good deeds - does not necessarily mean that the individual who has committed them is wholly good himself.

Also, you really fucked up on that 'sex by surprise' thing. You love posting links but seemingly hate to do any research, especially if potentially valid alternative viewpoints contradict your own ideology. You used to consistently quote they Daily Mail, one of the most right-wing and unreliable rags in the UK. When confronted on this count you said nothing. Why?

One of the "victims" threw a party in Assange's honor within 24 hours of supposedly being raped, and sang his praise on her Twitter account during that party. The two "victims" both publicly bragged about having spent a night with Assange after supposedly being raped.

Also, they dropped the accusations before the whole Wikieaks thing embarassed the USA.. and suddenly the Police wanted Assange again, although hey explicity told him the case was closed and he was free to leave the country.

Does all that strike you as normal?

If you think there's no political pressure caused by Wikileaks influencing the accusations against Assange then.. well, I don't actually don't think you are that naive.

As for the sex by surprise thing, I quoted his lawyer.. who was wrong.


WTF does any of this have with the Daily Mail?


Daily Mail unreliable? Yeah, it's a gossip rag but they publish stories the self-admitted leftist BBC is too ideologically and politically biased to publish.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... FREED.html

Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims'

Maybe my search skills suck, but I couldn't find that on the BBC.

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012 ... tian-bias/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -News.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Left.html

IMO it's fine for a private media company to be biased, towards left or right. But a publicly funded broadcaster should be completely neutral. What is your opinion on this?

IMO the Leveson enquiry is such a load of bullshit, and Leveson went crying to the country's most senior civil servant when Gove told him how important free speech is. He should be investigating the BBC and not Murdoch. Once hes done with Murdoch, is the Daily Mail next?

Phone hacking is a crime, so arrest anyone who aided and abetted.. but leave free speech alone. Allow the public to make up their minds what they want to read. Slander, libel and other existing laws will take care of any problems. Do you agree? Or do you think the government should decide what is fair, what is right or wrong, and what is balanced?

[Love_Industry]

All well and good SmokingGun, but what if Assange really did sexually assault two women?

It also depends on your definition of assault and rape. Sweden being a Lutheran country and under Social Democratic (that would be Conservative in most countries) rule for a long time has developed very strict laws on sex crime. Don´t be fooled, the fact that Sweden ranks high in the rape/sexual assault statistics does not mean that we are a bunch of raging sexual beasts without control. We just have stricter laws than almost all (European at least) countries, and Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin being well known active Social Democrats are products of the environment that developed those laws. So it is possible that their cultural set-up makes them ultra sensitive to any sex that is not by written consent or in an exclusive relationship


http://gossip.whyfame.com/sofia-wilen-a ... -rape-8461