January 11, 2012 will mark the 400th day of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s house arrest, a court order that arose after an erstwhile Swedish prosecutor decided to re-launch a case against the free information and open government activist for a broken condom. According to Swedish laws, sex with a broken condom is deemed not fully consensual.
Assange by that point, of course, was international public enemy #1 for most of 2010 after WikiLeaks began leaking diplomatic cables to the media, some of which contributed to the Arab Spring, which in turn inspired protests across the world, including Occupy Wall Street. Thus, some viewed it as rather convenient that Assange’s presence was rather suddenly demanded in Sweden at the precise moment when WikiLeaks’ influence in the free and open government movement was at its apogee.
Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny has stated that the arrest warrant was issued because interviews in the case cannot be conducted over the phone or internet; they must be held in person, according to Swedish law. Assange and his legal team have argued that it was an attempt to have him extradited to the United States for prosecution under U.S. espionage laws.
Shortly thereafter, WikiLeaks efforts were severely limited by Amazon, Visa, Mastercard and PayPal refusing service due to the political strong arm tactics from the likes of Senator Joe Lieberman, who was Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
While Assange is scheduled for a two-hour hearing at the UK Supreme Court on February 1st over an “application for permission to appeal,” it is quite clear that Assange’s house arrest has also functioned as a de facto political detainment; that Assange is thus a political detainee, and the lengthy process has largely been successful at tightening a logistical and financial vice grip around WikiLeaks’ free information journalism.
WikiLeaks supporters can help the publisher and Assange by donating money at WikiLeaks.org and certainly by continuing to blow the whistle when and wherever government and business attempt to cloak bad ethics and morality in a veil of secrecy.
January 05, 2012 at 7:34 pm, Anonymous said:
Sweden, Britain, Australia, and America all recognize the withdrawal of consent in each countries Sexual Assault Laws. The constant repetition of a “broken condom” isn’t helpful in the accusations against Assange.
No jurisdiction conducts police interviews over the telephone. The police are not newspaper reports or other types of interviewers.
Assange had a choice of spend the time during the entire process in jail or to be released on bail. He choice to be out on bail. There are always conditions attached to bail.
January 05, 2012 at 11:39 pm, Dr True said:
the interviews with the complainant was conducted over telephone
January 06, 2012 at 9:16 pm, Anonymous said:
It has been known for some time that they went into the police station. There is a need to keep to the same story.
January 06, 2012 at 10:51 pm, Dr True said:
please check: they went to the police station, but AA’s interview was conducted over the phone the next day and not even recorded.
The interrogation of S was conducted by criminal inspector Irmeli Krans that same day.
The interrogation of A A took place by telephone the day after ….
The chief interrogator was Sara Wennerblom. The interrogation began at 11:31 and was concluded at 12:20 – forty nine minutes”.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,02.shtml
January 07, 2012 at 12:29 am, Anonymous said:
Thanks for the article. They both went to the police station. Assange isn’t the complaint but the accused. The police have probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime and must be incarceration until the conclusion of his crime. Case in point is the issue of the arrest warrant, and the article provided. Honestly, the article makes things worse for Assange.
When police have probable belief a crime has been committed an interview of the accused isn’t conduction over the phone. As the topic was about Assange it was assume that it would have been clear.
January 07, 2012 at 12:40 am, perfectblack said:
but he did an interview at the police station and wasn’t arrested.
January 07, 2012 at 12:51 am, Anonymous said:
An EAW has been issued for Assange’s arrest for return to Sweden for prosecution. The British courts have so far viewed it as valid. This is the second arrest warrant issued for Assange. We know that the Supreme Court will have a hearing on the validity of the ‘judicial authority,’ but might not working Assange’s favour.
January 07, 2012 at 2:30 pm, Decadoblue said:
Hi Anotherbird
Your making yourself look really silly(evil).
Even you don’t believe the tripe you are posting.
I pity you
January 06, 2012 at 2:45 pm, Replying to Rubbish said:
No there are not conditions attached to bail. That’s why there is something called unconditional bail. You are a pathological liar.
Furthermore it hs been asserted multiple times that Assange has broken no Australian Law, and as far as I can tell there is a constant attempt in Sweden right now to mask the fact that he has broken no Swedish Law either. Rape involves not giving consent, yet they had both accepted sex from assange as it was.
They can’t then call him a rapist after he had sex for stipulations that they didn’t make before having sex.
January 06, 2012 at 2:46 pm, Replying to Replying said:
*not conditions attached to ALL bail.
January 06, 2012 at 7:47 pm, Anonymous said:
The requirement to check in with the police is a condition of bail. The requirement to wear an electronic tag is a condition of bail.
For a person who supports a person that is suppose to be about transparency to manipulate the truth is quite perplexing.
Honestly, some people have to take the time and read the law instead of making things up.
Sexual assault laws in Australia are “Indictable offenses.” Those are “typically include more “serious” crimes; for example: murder; sexual assault/rape; and armed robbery.”
[Legal DEFintion]
Criminal Law Consolidation (Rape and Sexual Offences)
A person who has sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that other person:
a. Knowing that that other person does not consent to sexual intercourse with him/her
b. Being “recklessly indifferent” as to whether that other person consents to sexual intercourse with him/her
c. Continues with sexual intercourse when consent is withdrawn
Shall (whether or not physical resistance is offered by that other person) be guilty of rape.
[end LDEF]
One change to Australia rape laws is the recognize “complainant is asleep or otherwise unconscious (including as a result of voluntary consumption of drugs/alcohol);”
The accusation against Assange are just that accusations. It mean innocence of guilt. Who knows the two women could be lying. Assange should just go to Sweden undermine the prosecution case in court. Then move on with his life with this lesson learned.
There are people who are willing to take the time and actually read the law. I am one of those people.
reference: http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/sheets/rs1/index.html
January 05, 2012 at 9:29 pm, Geoff said:
Note that:
1. Assange has never been charged, anywhere at anytime, with anything.
2. There is no accusation, by either girl, of saying ‘no’ or any similar word or action, at any stage, to sex.
3. Similarly, there is no accusation concent was ever withdrawn.
4. Both girls were in friendly relations with Assange after the event.
5. One of the girls says she was “railroaded” by the police into making a complaint and refused to sign the statement.
You can verify these statements, with the orginal interview transcripts, here:
http://justice4assange.com/
January 05, 2012 at 10:46 pm, Anonymous said:
1. Assange will be formally charged after his interview in Sweden
2. The accusations against Assange where leaked.
3. The issue isn’t whether or not consent was withdrawn. The issue is whether not there was consent in the first place. The concept of consent being withdrawn has to do with the fact that the law recognizes it in sexual assault laws. A women who refuses to have sex after a condom broke is the withdrawal of consent.
4. That has no relevance to the accusations. However, there is just to much that has to be dismissed,
5. That is quite interesting, it would be big news if it happened. It just never happened.
Let us assume that the site claims that are true. Then one will have to believe that only those formally charged with a crime can have an arrest warrant issued for them. Unfortunately, EAW allow arrest warrants to be issued for those accused of crimes also.
January 06, 2012 at 2:07 pm, Celine O'Neal said:
There is concrete evidence that the two women lied about the accusations; the one who said she was asleep, was in fact not asleep. Evidence shows they both lied about it being un-consensual, in text messages between the two women and in their blog posts (the latter of which they deleted, conveniently). The lawyers representing the women have the evidence and, of course, will not give it to Assange’s lawyers. They do not want to lose their case. If Assange did indeed rape, I hope he is punished for it. But after looking at the issue on both sides and as objectively as possible, I am convinced that it was consensual, that Assange is innocent. It makes me sad that some feel that it is ok to wrongfully accuse and potentially charge someone falsely.
January 06, 2012 at 9:10 pm, Anonymous said:
It quite perplexing that Assange’s lawyers didn’t not use “the concrete evidence” during Assange’s extradition hearing. There was no one in the room when the alleged crimes where committed other than Assange and one of complaints.
The deleted text message has to be dismissed unless Assange’s lawyers can recover them. That is it is doubtful that they text messages described ever existed. Anyone, can claim that Assange confessed to the crime (which was conveniently later deleted).
The use of such and such change/deleted is just an attempt to seed doubt in peoples mind. It is called a “fish exhibition. ” A person will search for such information until it is found, even if it doesn’t exist. The logic is that no one admitting it exist then it must exist.
Assange wouldn’t be the first person who has had false accusations laid against him, nor is he the first person who as animatedly professed his innocense.
If it was consensual, I want Assange to fight it in a court of law, instead of dragging his extradition through the courts. Like any court case it is the prosecution who has to prove their accusation.
January 06, 2012 at 10:59 pm, perfectblack said:
please check:
http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml
you can see the deleted text messages. göran rudling discovered that.
January 07, 2012 at 12:02 am, Anonymous said:
Sorry, but I can’t read Swedish. However, from reading the translation there one can’t come the conclusion that some want to push. Any court would dismiss such information as it doesn’t have any relationship to whether or not the accusations are valid. However, when you have people grasping at straws anything that they encounter or fabricate will only be used to re-enforce the fallacy in their argument.
The accusations have nothing to do with what happened before or after the alleged transgression. It has everything thing to do what happened during the time that the alleged transgression.
A loving couple can between all happy, them engage in a fight, then be all happy again. Does it mean that they didn’t fight? No it doesn’t. This is something that some just don’t understand.
January 07, 2012 at 12:51 am, perfectblack said:
I understand that perfectly well, but then it’s a fight and not a rape allegation. And I think the deleting of tweets that indicate no trouble between the two of them is relevant, at least the complainant thought so too, otherwise she wouldn’t have done it.
January 07, 2012 at 10:01 pm, Anonymous said:
You seem to not understand the concept. The courts don’t care about what transpired before or after the event, unless it has a direct relation to the event. That is something about the event that clearly explains what happened during that event, and any motives relating to that event. The case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a prime example of that. Or, even skinny jeans.
January 07, 2012 at 1:02 am, perfectblack said:
if no context information was relevant then there would be no use whatsoever investigating any rape/molestation case: the word of a woman saying she withdrew consent would always be enough, that’s never provable.
January 07, 2012 at 9:40 pm, Anonymous said:
An innocent person will go to jail with that type of arguing. It seems as though it is time to sit down and research the law. Being uniformed is no longer a valid excuse.
January 08, 2012 at 12:19 am, perfectblack said:
It’s not my arguing. You said that context information is not regarded as relevant in court. But I think it should. Deleted tweets and behaviour after an alleged assault are to be considered in court.
January 08, 2012 at 4:11 pm, Anonymous said:
“The word of a woman saying she withdrew consent would always be enough, that’s never provable.”
Your comment. Just read the laws on rape. You wouldn’t have wrote that if you had taken the time to read what various laws say about consent.
January 06, 2012 at 1:40 am, Despretot said:
Read about unkown aspects from live of Julian Assange:
http://despretot.info/2011/11/julian-assange-mendax-2/xaaaaucxbbbbu
January 06, 2012 at 5:46 am, Despretot said:
xaaaaucxbbbbu. Read about unkown aspects from live of Julian Assange:
http://despretot.info/2011/11/julian-assange-mendax-2/
January 06, 2012 at 12:59 pm, Anonymous said:
It’s been 400 days only because Assange keeps appealing the court’s decisions. Not that I blame him, but it’s a bit disingenuous to say he’s a “political prisoner.” He’s hardly the first person to be subject to restrictive bail conditions, or to be accused falsely (if that is indeed the case).
January 06, 2012 at 1:05 pm, DJ said:
Agreed. But, what other choice does Assange have? If he’s worried about being extradited via Sweden, do you blame him for appealing?
January 06, 2012 at 1:06 pm, DJ said:
And I agree Assange not the first person subject to restrictive bail conditions (I never suggested this, did I?), but his case is certainly a great opportunity to highlight how political dissidents can and do have their work made incredibly difficult by the state.
January 07, 2012 at 9:39 am, Jane said:
Happy newyear~~
Approximately 127 million adults in the U.S. are plus-sized, and more than 1 billion worldwide. Do you want to mingle with hundreds of thousands of plus size singles, big beautiful women(BBW) and big handsome men(BHM)? –SeekmyBBW.C óM’It is the best community for meeting big beautiful singles andtheiradmirers!
Join the best BBW dating site today and find the love of your life!
January 17, 2012 at 5:59 am, D+J said:
Wanting a person contact without contacting he/she was putting that person into risk and this happened. Unfortunately now that person’s business emails are not coming properly, will change and use some other different emails to solve. Because other emails are working.
February 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm, a3144257 said:
I’ve said that least 3144257 times. SCK was here
February 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm, a552346 said:
I’ve said that least 552346 times. SCK was here
February 12, 2012 at 3:42 am, get rid of bad breath said:
Hey there! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new apple iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the superb work!
February 12, 2012 at 3:51 am, free look period refund life insurance said:
Wow! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It’s on a completely different topic but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Wonderful choice of colors!
February 12, 2012 at 7:57 am, Vashti Fodor said:
I wish to point out my affection for your generosity in support of those individuals that really want guidance on this one question. Your special dedication to passing the message around became rather important and has all the time enabled girls much like me to reach their endeavors. This helpful key points denotes a whole lot to me and even more to my office workers. Many thanks; from all of us.
March 20, 2012 at 7:32 am, antivirus software said:
Often check your own computer’s entire program. I favor to operate tests right away since they slow your computer and might acquire a short time. Only when portion of your personal computer method appears to be infected, it is possible to scan the actual think component merely. Should you be using a no cost software, make sure that the idea eliminates your spyware and adware they have determined. Some free applications may determine the hazards yet need buy the program in purchase for this to get rid of the issue. In my opinion these specific applications needs to be wiped and replaced by simply packages which have complete performance.