[cryptome] Re: UN Definition of Arbitrary Detention: The Case of Julian Assange

  • From: douglas rankine <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:43:22 +0000

Hi Mike,
The prosecution keeps trying to make its case...
Assange so far has managed to prevent them from making it.

That is up to him of course, that is the strategy he has decided upon...rather than face a trial, about which he vehemently protests his innocence. He has chosen the option of using the law of diplomatic immunity to jump out of the legal jurisdiction of the arrest warrant. Such an action has its own set of consequences. If one avoids due process of law, then there is no such concept as arbitrary detention or proceedings or arrest applicable. The action he took was deliberate with the intention of avoiding the legal process. He can easily overcome his voluntary detention, by leaving the embassy. True, he will be arrested and returned to Sweden for further investigation and perhaps trial.

The reasons he gives for not giving himself up, is because he won't have a fair trial in Sweden and he fears that the US will extradite him to the USA, for further legal proceedings concerning other matters. Those fears may or may not be well-founded, but should the women complainants in Sweden be denied justice because of his fears...Something wrong there...the advocacy and promotion of human rights is unconditional...is it not?
If that be true, why didn't the USA apply for extradition proceedings when he was in detention in the UK?

The legal definition of rape is the penetration of the human penis one inch into the vagina, without the consent, continuing and ongoing of the woman.

The charges the Swedish court wish to make are contained in the Appeal Judgement of the UK Supreme Court.
There are 4 charges, you can see them right at the very beginning of the judgement.
see url: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131202164909/http://judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-approved-judgment.pdf
1. Unlawful co-ercion
2. Sexual molestation
3. Sexual molestation
4. Rape

He has also made certain depositions regarding the cases which contain admissions and concurrence of facts, which I cannot find at the moment...but if one looks hard enough, because one is interested enough, then they will be there. You can read the depositions which Assange made during his appeals against the warrant of extradition. I am not saying here that because of those admissions he is guilty, merely, that he has a case to answer.
Surprise sex indeed...:-) . Nuffink wrong with a bit o' surprising sex first thing in the morning...washed or unwashed...eh...:-) . Might be worthwhile to read the women's depositions an all...


   /From/: Michael Best <themikebest@xxxxxxxxx>
 * /To/: cryptome <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 * /Date/: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 06:52:52 -0500

First, I should say I don't know what actually happened with Assange and
that woman and won't really come to any sort of conclusion until if/when
the prosecution tries to make its case. Until then we get to hear Assange's
defense but not so much from the prosecution, so the data that I have only
tells one side of the story. Nor does questioning him or even criticizing
him detract from acknowledging the good he's done. The bad doesn't wash out
the good, nor the good the bad. We're all heavily flawed and Assange is no

Second, I should clarify one thing that I think the Western media may have
gotten consistently wrong: *it's my understanding* from the Swedish papers
that Assange isn't accused of rape - he's accused of something that
translates roughly as "sex by surprise" - in other words, sex without
affirmative consent but without physical resistance or refusals. NOTE: This
is my memory from when it first began to unfold and was first in the
Swedish papers. *It's possible this is out of date*, and if so please
kindly correct my good faith error. The reason I'm pointing it out is that
the sex by surprise charge is more of a gray area and may explain why
there's disagreement over whether Assange raped her or not (yes, I'm aware
of the statement that the police made it up).

TBH, I'm a little confused as well (but not surprised, UN's decision was a
foregone conclusion when Assange asked for it).

Assange seems to have evidence to exonerate himself, so why not go to trial
and demand international observers or UN involvement? Arbitrary detainment
also requires a lack of due process, which Assange has had. The continued
and unnecessary negotiations about allowing the Swedes to interview him in
the Ecuadorian embassy seems like he may be foiling the

What *really* confuses me though is the ACLU's statement that "In light of
this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in
connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and
*unconstitutional*. "

I'm not sure how the ACLU got there. It was a UN panel decision which a UN
rep said is "indirectly binding". The decision involves the U.K., Sweden
and Ecuador. The U.S. isn't even involved and the potential charges and
actual investigation are completely unrelated to the rape and sexual
assault charges. If someone wants to argue that they are related, then the
argument will almost surely be that the rape and sexual assault charges
were simply to get at him for the real espionage-related (broadly speaking)

I guess we'll see what happens next (hopefully it's more data).

Other related posts: