Craig Murray has done a remarkable job independently attending and reporting on each day’s testimony.
He is widely criticized for his other views and accused of being an Assange sympathizer by parties who believe Assange may be guilty. I personally don’t see any evidence for bias impacting his reporting, but just wanted to raise the issue because there is usually a deluge of sniping comments attacking Murray’s coverage the minute it is linked.
This is probably the best available coverage of Assange’s hearing in the world at this point, which hopefully makes you feel pretty sick with anger towards The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., regardless of your views on the merit of Assange’s charges.
The biggest problem with Assagne is the fact that the US managed to assasinate his character with the swedish rape accusations dropped last year (after 10 years). They managed to make him untouchable, as journalists would have had to argue to show support for a "supposed rapist".
Yeah, but for the fact that Melzer is full of shit. He's basically a demagogue; making many vague, unsubstantiated, unverifiable or nonfalsifiable claims.
Turns out that Melzer's only concrete accusation is based on a misreading of evidence at best; the one against the Swedish police, of how they supposedly tampered with (even fabricated) one of the testimonies. The evidence for that is inconclusive, Melzer was possibly confused with the format of the Freedom of Information documents released by the police, but in any case Melzer is making a big fuss out of nothing and downplaying rape with his other comments at the same time.
> One of the women interviewed by Melzer later sharply criticised him and demanded his resignation. She said that by defining how a "proper rape-victim" would have to act, Melzer was engaging in victim blaming and that his report was partially "untrue and defamatory".
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is demagogue? Pretty bug accusations.
And downplaying rape?
Did Assange force or drug the women to have sex with him?
What kind of argument are you making with your first sentence?
Regarding the rape, this is what Wikipedia has to say about it:
> On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm, reported to the Swedish police that Assange had engaged in unprotected sexual activity with them that violated the scope of their consent, also because one woman was asleep in one case.
> Did Assange force or drug the women to have sex with him?
In many places rape is defined as sex without consent, and force is not required. England is one such place. In some places consent is nullified by actions such as removing a condom without telling someone. Again, this is the case in England.
> As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.
> In relation to this and the other offences, Mr Emmerson QC put forward what he said would be a fair description of the conduct which, if adopted, would show that there was no dual criminality. In summary, his contention was that the alleged offending conduct had been taken out of context; in relation to offence 1 that context was consensual sexual activity (undressing and lying naked on top of AA)) with the joint expectation that sexual intercourse would take place, followed by sexual intercourse taking place consensually, once he had used a condom. The offending conduct alleged was no more than a brief period, which could readily be seen as a mere misunderstanding. During that brief period, AA did not object to the continued naked contact as the apparent precursor to intercourse; AA did not wish to proceed immediately for a reason not immediately obvious but shortly thereafter rectified. It was also of importance in relation to the mens rea, since for dual criminality, the facts alleged had to impel the conclusion that Mr Assange had no reasonable belief that AA was consenting to what had happened.
> It seems to us that the conduct described as offence 1 fairly and properly describes the conduct as set out in AA's statement in relation to what is complained of restricting her movement by violence. We accept that Mr Assange subsequently allowed AA to move so she could find a condom for him to use, but at the point in time to which the offence relates, we do not read anything in her statement to indicate consent to his restraining her. Indeed her statement indicates precisely the opposite at the point of time to which it relates. It of course might well be argued that his subsequent decision to let go of her might indicate a lack of coercion or consent to what followed, but at the point of time to which the offence relates, we consider the conduct of which he is charged to have been fairly and accurately described. As we have set out at paragraph 71.v) above, the matters alleged are sufficient, in our view, and to the extent relevant, to impel the inference of knowledge. The context does not change our view.
> It must therefore follow in respect of offence 1 that the challenge made fails, even if the extraneous material was taken into account.
So, he's a rapist because he can't read minds and we imagine he prefers not to wear a condom. Got it.
Of course nobody should be interested when his human rights are ignored, because that inexcusable behavior is so much more damaging for society than governments murdering innocent civilians, illegally spying on everyone, and lying to their own people about their actions.
The interview I linked (this is from memory), emphasized the fact that the accusations were pretty bogus to begin with. The accuser did not actually go to the police about rape: she wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him.
> Was heisst das: Die Behörden wiegelten ab?
> Darf ich von vorn beginnen? Ich spreche fliessend Schwedisch und konnte deshalb alle Originaldokumente lesen. Ich traute meinen Augen nicht: Nach Aussagen der betroffenen Frau selber hat es nie eine Vergewaltigung gegeben. Und nicht nur das: Die Aussage dieser Frau wurde im Nachhinein ohne ihre Mitwirkung von der Stockholmer Polizei umgeschrieben, um irgendwie einen Vergewaltigungsverdacht herbeibiegen zu können. Mir liegen die Dokumente alle vor, die Mails, die SMS.
> What does that mean: The authorities are weighing down?
> Can I start over? I speak Swedish fluently so I was able to read all the original documents. I couldn't believe my eyes: According to the woman concerned, there was never any rape. And not only that: The statement of this woman was retrospectively rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow turn up a suspicion of rape. I have all the documents in front of me, the emails, the SMS.
> wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him //
If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. That seems a reasonable definition of rape.
A person seeking police advice may not know they were raped in that way. And prosecution despite that person's reluctance would seem right as it seems to protect the public from a menace (someone knowingly spreading HIV).
Those mightn't be the facts here, but save the last paragraph it fits with what you're saying and explains why a public prosecutor would seek a prosecution despite the alleged victim not considering themselves to have been raped.
If someone is familiar with the case and Swedish rape laws then I'd be interested in their input here?
> If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. That seems a reasonable definition of rape.
I agreee, but is not telling someone that you do not (to your knowledge) have HIV "not revealing a fact"? You seem to be falling prey to the muddying of waters I mention in my original comments: Instead of discussing the fact that the US spied on its own citizens etc, or the fact that Assange is being held accountible in and by a country where he did not commit any crimes, we are discussing the optics of a constructed rape case, without either of us knowing the laws of the country.
>If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given.
Assange could have Tuberculosis too. So that's also rape, right? The flu? Also rape. He could be a triple rapist!
Just forget all that systematic government murdering, spying, and lying he revealed, we won't entertain facts from a possible triple rapist!
If one knows one has a deadly communicable disease and is willfully negligent knowing that your actions are likely to cause particular harm then it would be assault.
Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice?
How would you protect people from active malicious infection? Or, have you done reason that we shouldn't consider these things to be assault?
FWIW I made it quite clear I was addressing the general principle of how sexual intercourse might be rape even if consent was seemingly given (that 'consent' being ignorant of the facts, and ignorant of the law). And also addressed the question of why a country might seek prosecution even when a person didn't feel they were raped.
I assume from what you're saying that Assange did not have (or have reason to believe he had) HIV at the time of the alleged rape? Which would of course rule out this love of reasoning in this case, but would not make my response to the OC incorrect.
From the linked article: "According to the woman concerned, there was never any rape. And not only that: The statement of this woman was retrospectively rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow turn up a suspicion of rape. I have all the documents before me, the emails, the SMS."
What muddies the waters is that under Swedish law, rape is a fairly broad thing. Possibly it was rape under the law. What complicates matters is that the public prosecutor would never touch a case like this because the Police would just respond with their standard "crime cannot be proven".
Selective enforcement at its "finest", in my opinion.
What are you referring to? Maybe it's different abroad, but this untouchability isn't present in the US, where journalists quite regularly express support for Assange. The New York Times is on record calling the effort to prosecute him a "strike at the very foundation of the free press".
The NY Times has a history of trying to smear Assange. The day after they began publishing the Iraq and Afghan War Logs, provided to them by Assange, the NY Times prominently ran a hit piece about Assange. Here's the opening:
> Julian Assange moves like a hunted man. In a noisy Ethiopian restaurant in London’s rundown Paddington district, he pitches his voice barely above a whisper to foil the Western intelligence agencies he fears.
> He demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted cellphones and swaps his own the way other men change shirts. He checks into hotels under false names, dyes his hair, sleeps on sofas and floors, and uses cash instead of credit cards, often borrowed from friends.
The whole point was to paint him as a paranoid control freak, rather than someone who had completely legitimate fears of state surveillance. Does anyone seriously think that Assange was not under surveillance by multiple state intelligence agencies at that point?
Anyways, this is how they treated the person who provided them one of the biggest scoops in the paper's history. If you look at the NY Times page on the War Logs, they still feature the hit piece at the top: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/worl...
Yes, the NY Times has expressed opposition to the prosecution of Assange, but they've hardly reported on his extradition case. They should have this case on the front page every day, given how critical it is to the future of journalism in the US.
I just fundamentally disagree with your characterization of "hit piece" here. The personality and behavior of a source is very relevant information, especially when they're vouching for the authenticity of leaked documents. Maybe his behavior was a reasonable reaction to legitimate fears, but that's a judgment call that readers of the NYT should be able to make for themselves - reporters should not be in the business of strategically hiding information to ensure readers reach the right conclusions.
There was no question of the authenticity of the documents. The piece was completely unnecessary. Julian Assange himself is irrelevant to the stories that the NY Times published, and readers did not need to know that the NY Times considers Assange paranoid in order to evaluate US military logs. If a NY Times reporter broke a big story, would the NY Times run it next to a smear piece about that reporter's personal habits?
He is widely criticized for his other views and accused of being an Assange sympathizer by parties who believe Assange may be guilty. I personally don’t see any evidence for bias impacting his reporting, but just wanted to raise the issue because there is usually a deluge of sniping comments attacking Murray’s coverage the minute it is linked.
This is probably the best available coverage of Assange’s hearing in the world at this point, which hopefully makes you feel pretty sick with anger towards The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., regardless of your views on the merit of Assange’s charges.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/