Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
iemanja
iemanja's Journal
iemanja's Journal
December 15, 2013
A powerful song.
I decided Nina Simone needed her own thread
Nina Simone, Four Women
A powerful song.
December 15, 2013
At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown
This is your country on guns.You've heard this story before, the one that played out again the week of Thanksgiving—this time in Lakeland, Florida—where 2-year-old Taj Ayesh got his little hands on his father's loaded pistol, pulled the trigger, and crumpled to the ground. You may have heard about 9-year-old Daniel Wiley, who was playing outside his house in Harrisburg, Texas, when a 13-year-old mishandled an unsecured shotgun, blasting Wiley in the face. You may also have heard about 2-year-old Camryn Shultz of Forty Fort, Pennsylvania, whose embittered father put a bullet in her head before turning the gun on himself. Maybe you didn't hear about the case in which a child shot others and then committed suicide, but that also happened this year. Twice.
A year after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mother Jones has analyzed the subsequent deaths of 194 children ages 12 and under who were reported in news accounts to have died in gun accidents, homicides, and suicides. They are spread across 43 states, from inner cities to tiny rural towns.
Following Sandy Hook, the National Rifle Association and its allies argued that arming more adults is the solution to protecting children, be it from deranged mass shooters or from home invaders. But the data we collected stands as a stark rejoinder to that view:
127 of the children died from gunshots in their own homes, while dozens more died in the homes of friends, neighbors, and relatives.
72 of the young victims either pulled the trigger themselves or were shot dead by another kid.
In those 72 cases, only 4 adults have been held criminally liable.
At least 52 deaths involved a child handling a gun left unsecured.
Additional findings include:
60 children died at the hands of their own parents, 50 of them in homicides.
The average age of the victims was 6 years old.
More than two-thirds of the victims were boys, as were more than three-quarters of the kids who pulled the trigger.
The problem was worst over the past year in the South, which saw at least 92 child gun deaths, followed by the Midwest (44), the West (38), and the East (20).
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-killed-guns-newtown-anniversary
A year after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mother Jones has analyzed the subsequent deaths of 194 children ages 12 and under who were reported in news accounts to have died in gun accidents, homicides, and suicides. They are spread across 43 states, from inner cities to tiny rural towns.
Following Sandy Hook, the National Rifle Association and its allies argued that arming more adults is the solution to protecting children, be it from deranged mass shooters or from home invaders. But the data we collected stands as a stark rejoinder to that view:
127 of the children died from gunshots in their own homes, while dozens more died in the homes of friends, neighbors, and relatives.
72 of the young victims either pulled the trigger themselves or were shot dead by another kid.
In those 72 cases, only 4 adults have been held criminally liable.
At least 52 deaths involved a child handling a gun left unsecured.
Additional findings include:
60 children died at the hands of their own parents, 50 of them in homicides.
The average age of the victims was 6 years old.
More than two-thirds of the victims were boys, as were more than three-quarters of the kids who pulled the trigger.
The problem was worst over the past year in the South, which saw at least 92 child gun deaths, followed by the Midwest (44), the West (38), and the East (20).
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-killed-guns-newtown-anniversary
December 14, 2013
Remember that life is good
Whatever the intertube drama du jour, don't forget the joys of family and loved ones. Whether you celebrate a holiday this year or not, remember to be thankful for what we do have in life. Honor your friends, family, both human and furry, and celebrate.
As a woman, I celebrate my sisters--by both birth and struggle--my friends, and the men who value us. I invite others to do the same.
December 13, 2013
It's only the lives of two human beings
Why should you care? I will point out for everyone reading that you have sent me a series of quite cordial and thoughtful PMs, yet somehow peer pressure means you feel compelled to mock me in public forums rather than engaging in thoughtful debate. People can draw their own conclusions as to what that says about you. I would have thought by adulthood, a person would have the strength of character to be able to express what he actually thinks without belittling people simply for attempting to engage in dialog. But if that is who you choose to be, so be it.
One thing about me, is I never lack the courage of my convictions. I am who I am, and believe what I say, whether in public or private.
December 11, 2013
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
From the Swedish Prosecutors Office
Chronology
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
Swedish proceedings
20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.
21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.
25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
September 2010
The investigation is underway.
September 2010
The arrest of Julian Assange is ordered.
18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the arrest of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to order the arrest of Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
On the request of the British police, additional information is added to the European Arrest Warrant concerning the maximum penalty in Sweden for the crimes of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
British proceedings
7 december 2010
Julian Assange is arrested by British police.
16 December 2010
At a hearing on detention at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the Court decides that Julian Assange should be granted bail.
7-8 February 2011
Hearing in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
24 February 2011
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a decision to grant the request for surrender of Mr. Julian Assange to Sweden.
March 2011
Mr Assange appeals the court's decision.
12-13 July 2011
Hearing in High Court in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
2 November 2011
The High Court dismisses the appeal by Mr. Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden.
5 December 2011
The Court grants Mr. Assange the right, within 2 weeks, to request leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
16 December 2011
The Supreme Court grants Mr. Assange leave to appeal. The Court will sit on 1 and 2 February 2012.
1-2 February 2012
Hearing in the Supreme Court of Great Britain concerning whether a prosecutor can be considered to have the legal authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
30 May 2012
The Supreme Court decides to uphold and grant the request to surrender Julian Assange to Sweden. The Court grants the defence 14 days to make an application to re-open the appeal.
12 June 2012
Assange requests the Supreme Court appeal to be re-opened.
14 June 2012
The Supreme Court dismisses the application to re-open the appeal. The Court also orders that the period for extradition shall not begin for 14 days.
19 june 2012
Mr Assange seeks political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
16 august 2012
Ecuador grants Assange asylum.
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
Swedish proceedings
20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.
21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.
25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
September 2010
The investigation is underway.
September 2010
The arrest of Julian Assange is ordered.
18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the arrest of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to order the arrest of Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
On the request of the British police, additional information is added to the European Arrest Warrant concerning the maximum penalty in Sweden for the crimes of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
British proceedings
7 december 2010
Julian Assange is arrested by British police.
16 December 2010
At a hearing on detention at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the Court decides that Julian Assange should be granted bail.
7-8 February 2011
Hearing in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
24 February 2011
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a decision to grant the request for surrender of Mr. Julian Assange to Sweden.
March 2011
Mr Assange appeals the court's decision.
12-13 July 2011
Hearing in High Court in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
2 November 2011
The High Court dismisses the appeal by Mr. Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden.
5 December 2011
The Court grants Mr. Assange the right, within 2 weeks, to request leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
16 December 2011
The Supreme Court grants Mr. Assange leave to appeal. The Court will sit on 1 and 2 February 2012.
1-2 February 2012
Hearing in the Supreme Court of Great Britain concerning whether a prosecutor can be considered to have the legal authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
30 May 2012
The Supreme Court decides to uphold and grant the request to surrender Julian Assange to Sweden. The Court grants the defence 14 days to make an application to re-open the appeal.
12 June 2012
Assange requests the Supreme Court appeal to be re-opened.
14 June 2012
The Supreme Court dismisses the application to re-open the appeal. The Court also orders that the period for extradition shall not begin for 14 days.
19 june 2012
Mr Assange seeks political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
16 august 2012
Ecuador grants Assange asylum.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/
December 11, 2013
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Assange-to-be-surrendered-to-Sweden/
Swedish prosecution: Assange to be surrendered to Sweden
Assange to be surrendered to Sweden
2012-06-14
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the application from Mr Assange to re-open the appeal. In addition, the Court has ordered that the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today.
In accordance with the framework on European arrest warrants, the Court's decision means that Mr Assange will be surrendered to Sweden within 10 days after the 14th day.
Further information from the prosecutor
Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, cannot supply any information regarding the case at the moment, but will give interviews in connection with a detention hearing in Sweden
2012-06-14
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the application from Mr Assange to re-open the appeal. In addition, the Court has ordered that the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today.
In accordance with the framework on European arrest warrants, the Court's decision means that Mr Assange will be surrendered to Sweden within 10 days after the 14th day.
Further information from the prosecutor
Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, cannot supply any information regarding the case at the moment, but will give interviews in connection with a detention hearing in Sweden
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Assange-to-be-surrendered-to-Sweden/
December 11, 2013
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK1/
Why Assange can't be interviewed in the UK
From the Office of the Swedish prosecutor.
Why is the prosecutor not able to question Mr Assange in the UK?
Swedish Prosecution Authority has recieved many questions about why the prosecutor did not go to the UK and questioning Assange.
In cases where a suspect is abroad, the prosecutor must consider what investigation measures are possible under Swedish law and international instruments. Moreover, the prosecutor must consider what is required in the specific case to enable the investigation to be conducted in a legally sound and effective way without compromising quality. The prosecutor must also consider how any trial can be conducted if the investigation results in the prosecutor bringing a prosecution and how any sentence can be enforced.
In this matter, the prosecutor’s deliberations resulted in a request for the detention of Julian Assange for the crimes of which he was suspected. Pursuant to the court’s detention order the prosecutor issued a European arrest warrant.
The prosecutor’s assessment is that, for the purpose of the investigation, Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation. Without going into the details about the work of the investigation, it can be mentioned that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date. When continuing the investigation there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.
Under Swedish law the defendant must be present in person at the trial in cases involving this type of crime. If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced. The court’s detention order means that Mr Assange has been detained to ensure this.
Swedish Prosecution Authority has recieved many questions about why the prosecutor did not go to the UK and questioning Assange.
In cases where a suspect is abroad, the prosecutor must consider what investigation measures are possible under Swedish law and international instruments. Moreover, the prosecutor must consider what is required in the specific case to enable the investigation to be conducted in a legally sound and effective way without compromising quality. The prosecutor must also consider how any trial can be conducted if the investigation results in the prosecutor bringing a prosecution and how any sentence can be enforced.
In this matter, the prosecutor’s deliberations resulted in a request for the detention of Julian Assange for the crimes of which he was suspected. Pursuant to the court’s detention order the prosecutor issued a European arrest warrant.
The prosecutor’s assessment is that, for the purpose of the investigation, Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation. Without going into the details about the work of the investigation, it can be mentioned that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date. When continuing the investigation there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.
Under Swedish law the defendant must be present in person at the trial in cases involving this type of crime. If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced. The court’s detention order means that Mr Assange has been detained to ensure this.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK1/
December 11, 2013
So there is indeed a legal order from Sweden and the EU ordering Assange's arrest on allegations of sexual assault.
That led to an order of extradition, which Assange appealed. The following link is the legal ruling from the UK Supreme Court rejecting Assange's appeal.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
I request, in fact insist, that everyone read the above legal documents before responding to the OP. It's a long document but you can skim through to the parts that deal with the facts of the case, the status of the investigation, and Assange's standing as the target of a Swedish arrest warrant. I will not brook continued disinformation. This is a legal case, therefore the legal record is the most relevant piece of documentation. The linked legal ruling is from the UK Supreme Court in response to Assange's appeal to overturn the extradition order on the group that no charges had been filed--the same argument many here make. The court gives its reasoning for rejecting that argument and shows why Assange is an accused person under Swedish law.
The beginning of the legal ruling deals with the issue of whether the Swedish prosecutor represents a binding legal authority under EU law. The UK Supreme Court ruled it did, and therefore the arrest warrant is valid. The facts of the case begin at number 83 in the linked document. The final ruling is near the end of the document and there the various justices give their reasons for rejecting Assange's appeal. They in fact declare invalid many of the arguments members here have made in defense of Assange.
I see all kinds of blatantly false information spread by DUers in defense of Assange. They insist the victim recanted. False. A victim has been widely shamed: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-was-targeted-after-i-made-assange-sex-crime-claim-says-accuser-of-wikileaks-founder-8613006.html She has been shamed just like the victims in Steubenville were shamed, just as were the young high-school girls gang raped and later shamed on social media before they committed suicide.
People insist no charges have been filed against Assange. This is a technical matter invoked to deceive. As the court record shows, Assange is an accused person under Swedish law, not merely a suspect. The Swedish prosecutor has issued an arrest warrant for Assange. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html He is evading a Swedish court order to appear for final questioning. In the Swedish system, charges are only filed at the very end of an investigation. They do not operate under the same legal rules that the US does. It presenting the excuse of "no charges," people distort the record in order to create a false impression that he is merely a suspect. If there were no Swedish legal proceedings against Assange, there would be no order of extradition. That order is to compel him to comply with a Swedish court order to face the allegations against him.
People argue that Assange is hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid being grabbed by the US. Yet the US has far closer relations with the UK than with Sweden. If they wanted to grab him, they could have more easily done so in London. Additionally, if the US were to issue charges after he went to Sweden, Assange could just as easily take refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in Stockholm at that time. The facts simply do not support the idea that Assange is evading anything but allegations of sexual assault.
There is no principal in shielding Assange from prosecution. The fate of Assange in sexual assault proceeding has no bearing on Wikileaks, the NSA, the US military, or any other arm of the US government. The information Assange released remains in the public domain. Defending Assange does not advance anti-authoritarianism or freedom of information. It defends a single man that many have imbued with heroic qualities and think too important to have to face the legal consequences of alleged sexual assault. You can support the actions of Assange at Wikileaks without shielding him from legal proceedings in Sweden. His being able to avoid those charges does not advance freedom. It shields a single man from sexual assault allegations. Make no mistake about it. That is all you are doing by defending Assange. Laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault do not exist solely for men you do not like or respect. Everyone must be held to the same legal standard in the respective country where the assaults occurred.
Defending Assange is no different from the people of Steubenville who protected generations of rapist football players until video evidence made it impossible to do so any longer. Like Assange's defenders, they believed those football players too important. They refused to believe they could actually be rapists. The women must have been lying. Assange is now the favorite quarterback, and defending him is no different from what happened in Steubenville. Here we are witnessing the active propagation of rape culture. Making excuses why someone should not face charges makes it easier for rapists to reoffend. Whether the person you seek to shield is a football player or owner of a website that publishes government secrets, refusing justice to their victims denies the basic human rights of rape victims. It is a morally unconscionable position and part of the reason that so few rapists are punished for their crimes.
Assange has not yet been tried, so he is not a convicted sexual assailant. He like every accused person deserves his day in court. Yet Assange has gone into hiding to avoid facing the court. Only by going to Sweden can he clear his name or face the legal consequences of his actions.
The question for now is what you each of us here on DU is: Are you someone who believes some people too important to face charges of sexual assault? Or do you rape victims deserve to have their allegations heard, and that no one should be above the law, even someone who has made a great contribution to public knowledge like Julian Assange?
Defending Assange against sexual assault allegations
Has nothing to do with the NSA, "empire," authoritarianism, or one's views of government. Assange's fate is entirely separate from Wikileaks. The information he helped make available to public is still there, and the website continues. Wikileaks is far more than Assange. It is possible for two things to be true: Assange can have made a major contribution to the public through Wikileaks and still be a sexual assailant. The court record shows that he is in fact an accused sexual assailant under Swedish law, and the courts there have issued a warrant for his arrest under allegations of sexual assault.
The International Arrest Warrant for Julian Assange
There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
So there is indeed a legal order from Sweden and the EU ordering Assange's arrest on allegations of sexual assault.
That led to an order of extradition, which Assange appealed. The following link is the legal ruling from the UK Supreme Court rejecting Assange's appeal.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
I request, in fact insist, that everyone read the above legal documents before responding to the OP. It's a long document but you can skim through to the parts that deal with the facts of the case, the status of the investigation, and Assange's standing as the target of a Swedish arrest warrant. I will not brook continued disinformation. This is a legal case, therefore the legal record is the most relevant piece of documentation. The linked legal ruling is from the UK Supreme Court in response to Assange's appeal to overturn the extradition order on the group that no charges had been filed--the same argument many here make. The court gives its reasoning for rejecting that argument and shows why Assange is an accused person under Swedish law.
The beginning of the legal ruling deals with the issue of whether the Swedish prosecutor represents a binding legal authority under EU law. The UK Supreme Court ruled it did, and therefore the arrest warrant is valid. The facts of the case begin at number 83 in the linked document. The final ruling is near the end of the document and there the various justices give their reasons for rejecting Assange's appeal. They in fact declare invalid many of the arguments members here have made in defense of Assange.
I see all kinds of blatantly false information spread by DUers in defense of Assange. They insist the victim recanted. False. A victim has been widely shamed: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-was-targeted-after-i-made-assange-sex-crime-claim-says-accuser-of-wikileaks-founder-8613006.html She has been shamed just like the victims in Steubenville were shamed, just as were the young high-school girls gang raped and later shamed on social media before they committed suicide.
People insist no charges have been filed against Assange. This is a technical matter invoked to deceive. As the court record shows, Assange is an accused person under Swedish law, not merely a suspect. The Swedish prosecutor has issued an arrest warrant for Assange. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html He is evading a Swedish court order to appear for final questioning. In the Swedish system, charges are only filed at the very end of an investigation. They do not operate under the same legal rules that the US does. It presenting the excuse of "no charges," people distort the record in order to create a false impression that he is merely a suspect. If there were no Swedish legal proceedings against Assange, there would be no order of extradition. That order is to compel him to comply with a Swedish court order to face the allegations against him.
People argue that Assange is hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid being grabbed by the US. Yet the US has far closer relations with the UK than with Sweden. If they wanted to grab him, they could have more easily done so in London. Additionally, if the US were to issue charges after he went to Sweden, Assange could just as easily take refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in Stockholm at that time. The facts simply do not support the idea that Assange is evading anything but allegations of sexual assault.
There is no principal in shielding Assange from prosecution. The fate of Assange in sexual assault proceeding has no bearing on Wikileaks, the NSA, the US military, or any other arm of the US government. The information Assange released remains in the public domain. Defending Assange does not advance anti-authoritarianism or freedom of information. It defends a single man that many have imbued with heroic qualities and think too important to have to face the legal consequences of alleged sexual assault. You can support the actions of Assange at Wikileaks without shielding him from legal proceedings in Sweden. His being able to avoid those charges does not advance freedom. It shields a single man from sexual assault allegations. Make no mistake about it. That is all you are doing by defending Assange. Laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault do not exist solely for men you do not like or respect. Everyone must be held to the same legal standard in the respective country where the assaults occurred.
Defending Assange is no different from the people of Steubenville who protected generations of rapist football players until video evidence made it impossible to do so any longer. Like Assange's defenders, they believed those football players too important. They refused to believe they could actually be rapists. The women must have been lying. Assange is now the favorite quarterback, and defending him is no different from what happened in Steubenville. Here we are witnessing the active propagation of rape culture. Making excuses why someone should not face charges makes it easier for rapists to reoffend. Whether the person you seek to shield is a football player or owner of a website that publishes government secrets, refusing justice to their victims denies the basic human rights of rape victims. It is a morally unconscionable position and part of the reason that so few rapists are punished for their crimes.
Assange has not yet been tried, so he is not a convicted sexual assailant. He like every accused person deserves his day in court. Yet Assange has gone into hiding to avoid facing the court. Only by going to Sweden can he clear his name or face the legal consequences of his actions.
The question for now is what you each of us here on DU is: Are you someone who believes some people too important to face charges of sexual assault? Or do you rape victims deserve to have their allegations heard, and that no one should be above the law, even someone who has made a great contribution to public knowledge like Julian Assange?
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 53,032
