Swedish prosecutors drop Julian Assange rape investigation

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Kryties

Amazing that you believe everything he says and also amazing that if innocent he's hidden away for 7 years by his own doing yet says he was detained isn't it?

The U.N. itself called it "arbitrary detention". Apparently you think you know more than the United Nations.

Yes indeed, it wasn't the UN itself, it was a UN panel - it wasn't a binding UN decision which is kind of proven by the fact that the UK said it wasn't.

So, you think you've actually read the details, or just the bits that suit your vision of Saint Julian?

a reply to: Kryties

You can carry on as long as you like ignoring what I posted, and saying I look like a total ass for disagreeing with you doesn't really suit you - but hey, I understand how you are blinded in your devotion.

I'm well aware of what was posted regarding the Apache pilots - but again, what has actually happened apart from your moral outrage?

Sorry, I'm not going to call you clueless for your love of your poster boy, but, well, if the cap fits.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Salander
You should consider informing yourself about the many definitions of rape in Sweden. It's absurd.

Rape is rape. The allegations directed towards Assange would have been considered rape under English Law. Both Magistrates' Court and the High Court said that the charges against Assange would constitute rape in England.

You're not one of these people who think rape's OK are you?

Rape is rape and torture is torture, I agree. However, not wearing a condom during consensual sex is not rape. The Swedes have strange rules.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: uncommitted

Legal duty? What on earth are you talking about?

Most everything the US does is ILLEGAL. That includes military aggression around the planet, torture, rendition, murder and much more.

I'm talking facts, what are you talking about. As Assange has been a fugitive from Swedish justice, hiding out in another country's embassy which is in the UK, the UK government is legally bound to ensure that there is a sufficient police presence to prevent him absconding. That's a legal duty the UK had to Sweden. Quite how your rant fits into that I'm not sure.

You claim to be talking facts, but your post strongly suggest you are very much unaware of many facts related to the Assange case. If you had been following this case from the beginning you would know that the sex with the two women was consensual, but for not wearing a condom he was in violation of some absurd Swedish law. Neither of the women wanted to press charges, and the case was dropped.

It was brought back by the influence of an attorney and politician. It was a political prosecution, rather persecution, as no case was ever brought.

Knowledge is a good thing.

originally posted by: Salander
Rape is rape and torture is torture, I agree. However, not wearing a condom during consensual sex is not rape. The Swedes have strange rules.

Sorry you are wrong. Assange appealed that point in the English Magistrate's Court and the High Court and they said that it rape was in English Law. You can trivialise the view of the woman, and your narrow interpretation of rape, but at the end of the day the law is the law.

Assange was also wanted for sexual molestation. In some people's minds this is trivial too.

Anyway, here's a couple of legal things to look at.

However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

- Assange hearing at the Magistrate's Court (above quote in body of text)
- UK High Court judgement with some legal argument regarding rape
- UK Supreme Courts final hearing on the extradition

originally posted by: Kryties
From: smh.com.au....

"Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny has today decided to discontinue the preliminary investigation regarding suspected rape concerning Julian Assange," the prosecutors office said in a statement.

Ms Ny said it was "not possible to take any further steps that would move the investigation forward".

"All prospects of pursuing the investigation are now exhausted," she said. "It is no longer proportionate to maintain the arrest of Julian Assange in his absence.

"To continue with legal proceedings would require Julian Assange's personal appearance in court. There is no longer any reason to continue with the investigation."

As Assange has already has meetings with Swedish officials and was interviewed by prosecutors late last year, and now with this, any doubt as to his innocence should be quelched.

Assange's Australian legal adviser Greg Barns said he would ask (Australian Prime Minister) Malcolm Turnbull to intervene.

"Mr Turnbull should talk to [Theresa] May about safe passage out [of the UK]", Barns told Fairfax.

"Mr Turnbull should also ask whether there is an extradition request against Assange."

Yes it will be interesting to see if Turnbull has the balls to do the right thing and help Assange out of the UK. I'm doubting this very much though - he's shown multiples times that he has no spine whatsoever.

Oh but he does. Turnbull is a fearless warrior when it comes to bashing the small minority of Australians who are against vaccinating their children.

He never mentions his substantial interests in the vaccine industry.

Turnbull is dishonest as well as gutless.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Salander
You should consider informing yourself about the many definitions of rape in Sweden. It's absurd.

Rape is rape. The allegations directed towards Assange would have been considered rape under English Law. Both Magistrates' Court and the High Court said that the charges against Assange would constitute rape in England.

You're not one of these people who think rape's OK are you?

The case has been dropped. That's it. There was no rape.

The case being dropped does not mean rape did not occur, what a ridiculous comment.

It was a ridiculous case in the first place.

originally posted by: Barliman
It was a ridiculous case in the first place.

Yeah, lots of men think that rape and sex crimes are ridiculous and that they should just be allowed to get on with it. Really sad comments coming out from people who trivialise rape, especially when celebrities are involved, thinking that the public persona of the celebrity in question could not possibly be a mask for undesirable character traits.

There is a long list of celebrities who got away with sex crimes becuase people believed them instead of thr victim.

a reply to: paraphi

The prosecutors are part of the court system.
Part of their job is to ensure that the time of the judges is not wasted with non - cases.
If they believed that a case for rape could be made and would have a reasonable chance of success they would have gone with it.
So, the case actually has been before the courts.

In some ways this outcome is better than a "not guilty" verdict-- as it is saying that the whole case was rubbish.
That has been apparent all along.

a reply to: Kryties

I agree, it's about time. It's been a major power trip for those opposing him. Now that they're all gone, they can't dictate anymore.

I respect whistle blowers highly. The planet needs more of them.

originally posted by: Barliman

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Salander
You should consider informing yourself about the many definitions of rape in Sweden. It's absurd.

Rape is rape. The allegations directed towards Assange would have been considered rape under English Law. Both Magistrates' Court and the High Court said that the charges against Assange would constitute rape in England.

You're not one of these people who think rape's OK are you?

The case has been dropped. That's it. There was no rape.

The case being dropped does not mean rape did not occur, what a ridiculous comment.

It was a ridiculous case in the first place.

No it wasn't, you say that as you aren't familiar or don't agree with the laws of another country. That's your problem really.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: Kryties

I agree, it's about time. It's been a major power trip for those opposing him. Now that they're all gone, they can't dictate anymore.

I respect whistle blowers highly. The planet needs more of them.

Why is Assange a whistle blower? Manning, yes - maybe, Snowden the same, but Assange? He just disseminated the stuff. In effect, he handled stolen goods rather than performed the theft.

a reply to: uncommitted

In the eyes of whom?

The law is Corrupt. Do you really trust those who have ruined any sense of Trust we have left in them? It's easier to be gullible than it is to behonest, for most of the brainwashed world. THINK outside of yourself. Think outside of the Cave you've been placed in.

a reply to: uncommitted

Theft? Stolen goods? I think not.

First of all, property of the government is, by definition, property of the taxpayer. We pay for everything the government does, therefore its every single issuing fruit is not the governments property but the property of the people, properly speaking.

Therefore, if the government have information which we paid them to access, we own the method, and we own the data, or a share therein. Also, in the case of information about war crimes, again, we pay our governments, who spend our money on the materials necessary to conduct war. It is our money which pays for their training, their gear, the very bullets they fire. We, therefore, have a right to know that our investment is being used in the exact manner we would wish it to be, for the exact set of reasons we would wish it to be, and in the event that these things are not, we have a right to know the extent to which our trust is being abused, and the finances we deploy as tax are being misspent.

Every stray round, every bad missile shot, every mortar wandering off target and hitting the wrong people, every single horror inflicted upon someone who was no threat to our people, either at home or abroad, is our right to know the exacting and complete detail of. It is NOT the case that the governments of our nations have the right to keep these things from us, because we pay the government to handle affairs in accordance with our manner and morals as people.

If they are incapable of doing that, and information exists which shows as much, then the people who pay for the actions which are called into question, have EVERY right to the information, more right to it than the members of the government and the military, who spent our resources unwisely enough to kill innocents in the hundreds of thousands.

If it were not for Snowden, I would not know that my taxes have been spent by GCHQ, on systems and methodologies which remove the rights of citizens in my country, prevent their having privacy, remove the necessity for probable cause.

If it were not for Manning and Wikileaks both, American taxpayers would probably STILL have no idea what the true cost of war is, because it was being hidden from them by a government who DESPERATELY wanted to continue to have carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, war wise, wherever they wanted, without checks and balances from the people. These checks and balances cannot exist if the only people who know anything about a scenario are those responsible for it.

In short, the people own every action and resource in government possession, because they provide the money which is used to purchase and create them. There is, in short, no theft occurring here, because the people who received the information, are the people who fund the entity which generated the information.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Theft? Stolen goods? I think not.

With the best of respect to you, what you think is immaterial. Can you please stop suggesting that just because you want something it should come to pass. Classified data being taken when the person taking it had signed statements to say they would not perform such an act, therefore it's theft. The stolen data is therefore stolen goods.

You can argue whatever you like, you are just stating your opinion.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: uncommitted

In the eyes of whom?

The law is Corrupt. Do you really trust those who have ruined any sense of Trust we have left in them? It's easier to be gullible than it is to behonest, for most of the brainwashed world. THINK outside of yourself. Think outside of the Cave you've been placed in.

Yeah, whatever, it's easier to make a post of various soundbites than come up with something interesting isn't it.

a reply to: uncommitted

A prime example of how to avoid a question. Most original of you..

a reply to: uncommitted

Well, with respect, I beg to differ. What I think, what people think of this issue is absolutely material, more material in fact than what a given law states. The law permits things which are unjust to occur all the time, and prevents other things which are just from happening, all the time. Given that this is the prevailing situation, the moral and ethical implications of an action are far more important than what any given law states about the issue.

Morally and ethically speaking, we are responsible as taxpayers, for the way our resources are deployed, because we are responsible for electing those who will administrate these things on our behalf. Again, in order for that responsibility to function, we must be made aware of the shortcomings of our governance, in order that we can vote in such a way as to correct those shortcomings. This is impossible if we are not made aware of the issues as they exist, rather than as they are spun by those who benefit from a given action.

Further to that, it is worth mentioning that no matter what the terms of a NDA, or even the Espionage Act, the Defense Secrets Act (both American laws dealing with this matter, which in combination are dealt with in subsections of the United States Code) or the Official Secrets Act, might be, a person cannot be legally obligated by signing any document, to commit or cover up a crime, be it murder, be it harassment, be it violations of the rights of citizens, or violations of laws applying to war, REGARDLESS of whether that crime is committed by a person acting as a private citizen, or an act carried out by a department of government.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: uncommitted

A prime example of how to avoid a question. Most original of you..

You didn't pose any question, you made a set of random statements that to you may have seemed profound, but really wasn't.

a reply to: uncommitted

Do my random questions scare you that much? Try again.