WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange In Jail For Failure To Use Condom

SWITZERLAND-US-MILITARY-INTERNET-WIKILEAKS-ASSANGE130033--300x450I can’t imagine the late Swedish novelist Stieg Larsson would have dared have Lisbeth Salander kick a hornet’s nest as hard as Julian Assange has with his death-defying (so far) revelations of the U.S. government’s foreign “diplomacy.” Neither can I imagine Larsson coming up with such a ridiculous plot element as Assange’s arrest for failure to use a condom. This is definitely in the “truth is stranger than fiction” category, and it has captured the world’s attention just as The Millennium Trilogy did. The latest from the Guardian, which seems to have become the leading authority on all things WikiLeaks:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was today refused bail and remanded in custody until 14 December over claims he committed sex offences in Sweden.

Assange told City of Westminster magistrates court today that he intended to fight his extradition, setting up what could be a long legal battle.

The 39-year-old Australian turned himself in to Scotland Yard this morning to face a Swedish arrest warrant.

He was asked by the court whether he understood that he could consent to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion, involving two women.

Assange said: “I understand that and I do not consent.”

Assange denies the allegations, which stem from a visit to Sweden in August. He and his lawyers claim the accusations stem from a “dispute over consensual but unprotected sex”, and have said the case has taken on political overtones.

Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny has rejected those claims.

Journalist John Pilger, filmmaker Ken Loach, and socialite Jemima Khan were among six people in court willing to offer surety.

They all offered at least £20,000 each. An anonymous individual offered £60,000.

But District Judge Howard Riddle refused the WikiLeaks founder bail on the grounds that he had access to financial means and might fail to surrender.

The judge said these were “serious allegations against someone who has comparatively weak community ties in this country and the means and ability to abscond”…

[continues in the Guardian]

majestic

Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

34 Comments on "WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange In Jail For Failure To Use Condom"

  1. Cerebralcaustic | Dec 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm |

    I’m confused:

    Normally on Disinfo, Sweden and the other Scandanavian countries are viewed as lands of peace and justice, where progressive laws protect women and minorities, and where a bloated socialist welfare program is funded by massive taxes on the wealthy…

    …but when Sweden *actually enforces* those strict progressive pro-women laws, it’s suddenly a joke.

    /Double-standard is double.

  2. Acrexxnor | Dec 7, 2010 at 5:34 pm |

    Cerebralcaustic:

    At first I suspected the world is out to get Assange, various governments, organizations, and corporations. Indeed, this is probably true, but you are right this is a double standard. If it were some random person facing these allegations I would want then tried and prosecuted, women deserve that justice. I am wary because I do support the U.S. governments right to classify war documents. You cannot win a war or ensure security if anyone has access to sensitive information. Everyone has an idea about what is really going on, there is no need to release classified documents and risk losing this war, whether it’s a good war or not. Besides that I would love the corporations dirty secrets to get aired out I have no problem there haha.

  3. Acrexxnor | Dec 7, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

    Cerebralcaustic:

    At first I suspected the world is out to get Assange, various governments, organizations, and corporations. Indeed, this is probably true, but you are right this is a double standard. If it were some random person facing these allegations I would want then tried and prosecuted, women deserve that justice. I am wary because I do support the U.S. governments right to classify war documents. You cannot win a war or ensure security if anyone has access to sensitive information. Everyone has an idea about what is really going on, there is no need to release classified documents and risk losing this war, whether it’s a good war or not. Besides that I would love the corporations dirty secrets to get aired out I have no problem there haha.

  4. The skepticism comes from the possibility that the whole ordeal was a Honey Pot operation (the accuser is apparently linked to the CIA). The conspiracy theorist would say this was set up as a precaution to be called upon if Assange leaked any significant documents (I would expect a lot more media about him being on this scandal than about any of the leaked documents)

  5. There’s a couple things fundamentally wrong about your viewpoint (as usual):

    1- Rape can’t be considered a “strict progressive pro-woman law” by any rational person.
    2- Scandanavian countries enjoy some of the highest standards of living and most educated and healthy populations in the world. They also happen to have one of the smallest gaps between the rich and poor. Those two facts are highly correlative wherever you look on the planet. For that reason, Scandinavian countries are praised by all sorts of people, not just what you consider the fringe left.
    3- Its possible to simultaneously admire and be critical of an institution like the Swedish government, despite the inability of idealogues like yourself to grasp. It takes understanding and nuance.

    The “joke” stems from the disregard to normal legal processes, not that they’re being observed.

  6. Liam_McGonagle | Dec 7, 2010 at 7:49 pm |

    So Assange turned himself in? Does that mean that we won’t get the benefit of seeing the ace he claimed to have in reserve re: BP and some big bank?

    That’d be a shame. I’d spent the last two weeks wondering what new information could possibly be more damaging to those big corps than has already been revealed. White slavery? Pederasty? Satanic cults? Beastiality? Really gotta wonder . . . Seems that sexual ‘morality’ is the only type of morality the public give two shits about any more.

  7. Liam_McGonagle | Dec 7, 2010 at 3:49 pm |

    So Assange turned himself in? Does that mean that we won’t get the benefit of seeing the ace he claimed to have in reserve re: BP and some big bank?

    That’d be a shame. I’d spent the last two weeks wondering what new information could possibly be more damaging to those big corps than has already been revealed. White slavery? Pederasty? Satanic cults? Beastiality? Really gotta wonder . . . Seems that sexual ‘morality’ is the only type of morality the public give two shits about any more.

    • dumbsaint | Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 pm |

      I have a feeling they’ll save that until either the US or Australia cooks up espionage laws to get him under. Although why bother when the leaders of both countries are calling him a criminal without having a law for it. (both former lawyers).

      • Liam_McGonagle | Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 pm |

        Good point.

        Technically speaking, the U.S. Constitution’s Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits ‘ex post facto’ prosecutions like the ones posited here. . . .

        http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9

        But I don’t know what the situation in Australia is. And even if there were a similar prohibition Down Under, it’d only be a matter of time ’til they found a suitably ‘amenable’ jurisdiction, it seems, given the well-publicized history of the U.S. bullying Spain and Germany into dubious legal territory . . .

        • Ironaddict06 | Dec 8, 2010 at 11:25 am |

          I saw this on CNN this morning. At this time the U.S. is looking to charge Julian under the Espionage laws of 1917 or 1927?

          • Liam_McGonagle | Dec 8, 2010 at 1:02 pm |

            Yeah, radio had an interesting review of the relevant law over the weekend–Espionage Act of 1917.

            The criticism of this law seems to be that it’s pretty poorly written. It seems to hinge on proving “intent” to interfere with operations of the armed forces or government. And the waters are muddied even further by the fact that, as a foreign national, the applicability of a ‘loyalty’ test to Assange is dubious at best.

        • dumbsaint | Dec 12, 2010 at 3:41 am |

          Sorry Liam, missed this one.

          Australia rarely needs any bullying to tow the line with the US.

  8. Also, Disinfo editors… come ON.

    Yes, the charges against Assange are pretty likely to be politically motivated. But the charges are NOT sex without a condom. Its mentioned in the allegations because it acts as a modifier to the original charge, kind of like how when you murder someone with a gun you are liable for a higher sentence than if you murder them with your hands.

  9. Also, Disinfo editors… come ON.

    Yes, the charges against Assange are pretty likely to be politically motivated. But the charges are NOT sex without a condom. Its mentioned in the allegations because it acts as a modifier to the original charge, kind of like how when you murder someone with a gun you are liable for a higher sentence than if you murder them with your hands.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Dec 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm |

      Um, no. Disinfo is absolutely in the right on this one. Every account I have read says that the liasons were consensual, and that the only basis for bringing up the rape charge was the breakage of a condom during the act.

      I’m afraid the facts are pretty clear in this case; the ‘condom incident’ is NOT merely an aggravating charge–it is the sole legal basis for bringing any charges at all.

      • Word Eater | Dec 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm |

        Consent can be revoked, even mid-coitus.

        The issue is that the women consented to sex only if he had a condom. In the first instance, the condom broke, but he finished up anyway and in the second, he refused to wear a condom but went on and did the deed.

        The truth of the claims is shaky considering the timing.

        • Ironaddict06 | Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 am |

          Ok, for the first charge couldn’t Julians lawyers put the blame on the manufacturer of the condom, for a default product?

        • Liam_McGonagle | Dec 8, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

          The point is well taken.

          But it seems to me that the central fact remains that the charge would never have been revived without the alleged condom breakage. So my point is that this is not an ‘aggrevating charge’–it is THE central allegation underlying the charge.

          • Liam_McGonagle | Dec 8, 2010 at 2:30 pm |

            Just as an aside, is there any special reason why only half of my comments are credited to me on Disqus? I’m unable to edit my spelling mistake of ‘aggrevating’–s/b/ ‘aggrAvating’.

            Also, I’m a bit miffed that almost none of my designated ‘likes’ take on the system. I had thought that was my fault, some obcure browser setting that I haven’t been able to locate and correct yet. But now that I see a good 1/3 at least of my comments show up as “Anonymous” when I log in to submit stories, I really have to wonder if there’s a more pervasive system F-Up within Disqus.

  10. Anonymous | Dec 7, 2010 at 8:48 pm |

    Um, no. Disinfo is absolutely in the right on this one. Every account I have read says that the liasons were consensual, and that the only basis for bringing up the rape charge was the breakage of a condom during the act.

    I’m afraid the facts are pretty clear in this case; the ‘condom incident’ is NOT merely an aggravating charge–it is the sole legal basis for bringing any charges at all.

  11. I agree with Cha Gra, This side act is just to drown out the music from the center ring.

  12. I am deeply curious as to why this charge has been dismissed and revived several times. The prosecutors have been plain that there is no reason to charge Assange in the past, months before deciding they were wrong yet again.

    Gosh, it couldn’t be politically motivated, could it?

  13. I am deeply curious as to why this charge has been dismissed and revived several times. The prosecutors have been plain that there is no reason to charge Assange in the past, months before deciding they were wrong yet again.

    Gosh, it couldn’t be politically motivated, could it?

    • dumbsaint | Dec 7, 2010 at 7:40 pm |

      Specifically, the charges were thrown out by the chief prosecutor. It was only until a politician in an unrelated part of Sweden intervened that the case was re-opened.

  14. Anonymous | Dec 7, 2010 at 11:37 pm |

    I have a feeling they’ll save that until either the US or Australia cooks up espionage laws to get him under. (Although why bother when the leaders of both countries are calling him a criminal without having a law for it. [both former lawyers].).

  15. Anonymous | Dec 7, 2010 at 11:40 pm |

    Specifically, the charges were thrown out by the chief prosecutor. It was only until a politician in an unrelated part of Sweden intervened that the case was re-opened.

  16. Anonymous | Dec 7, 2010 at 11:54 pm |

    Good point.

    Technically speaking, the U.S. Constitution’s Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits ‘ex post facto’ prosecutions like the ones posited here. . . .

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9

    But I don’t know what the situation in Australia is. And even if there were a similar prohibition Down Under, it’d only be a matter of time ’til they found a suitably ‘amenable’ jurisdiction, it seems, given the well-publicized history of the U.S. bullying Spain and Germany into dubious legal territory . . .

  17. Word Eater | Dec 8, 2010 at 3:00 am |

    Consent can be revoked, even mid-coitus.

    The issue is that the women consented to sex only if he had a condom. In the first instance, the condom broke, but he finished up anyway and in the second, he refused to wear a condom but went on and did the deed.

    The truth of the claims is shaky considering the timing.

  18. Ironaddict06 | Dec 8, 2010 at 3:25 pm |

    I saw this on CNN this morning. At this time the U.S. is looking to charge Julian under the Espionage laws of 1917 or 1927?

  19. Ironaddict06 | Dec 8, 2010 at 3:30 pm |

    Ok, for the first charge couldn’t Julians lawyers put the blame on the manufacturer of the condom, for a default product?

  20. Anonymous | Dec 8, 2010 at 5:02 pm |

    Yeah, radio had an interesting review of the relevant law over the weekend–Espionage Act of 1917.

    The criticism of this law seems to be that it’s pretty poorly written. It seems to hinge on proving “intent” to interfere with operations of the armed forces or government. And the waters are muddied even further by the fact that, as a foreign national, the applicability of a ‘loyalty’ test to Assange is dubious at best.

  21. Liam_McGonagle | Dec 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm |

    The point is well taken.

    But it seems to me that the central fact remains that the charge would never have been revived without the alleged condom breakage. So my point is that this is not an ‘aggrevating charge’–it is THE central allegation underlying the charge.

  22. Anonymous | Dec 8, 2010 at 6:30 pm |

    Just as an aside, is there any special reason why only half of my comments are credited to me on Disqus? I’m unable to edit my spelling mistake of ‘aggrevating’–s/b/ ‘aggrAvating’.

    Also, I’m a bit miffed that almost none of my designated ‘likes’ take on the system. I had thought that was my fault, some obcure browser setting that I haven’t been able to locate and correct yet. But now that I see a good 1/3 at least of my comments show up as “Anonymous” when I log in to submit stories, I really have to wonder if there’s a more pervasive system F-Up within Disqus.

  23. Anonymous | Dec 12, 2010 at 7:41 am |

    Sorry Liam, missed this one.

    Australia rarely needs any bullying to tow the line with the US.

Comments are closed.