Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Hrm, "rape culture" or no, these things seem pretty difficult to prosecute anyway (at least for date rapes and such). As these things tend to happen in private, it's one person's word against the other. Difficult to establish proof with just that, unless I'm ignorant of something.

[Moghjubar]

Oh hey, compilation video of ... "stuff"... from these last years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q6DNm6rrYY&feature=share

Wowza.

[Reelya]

 :-\Well here's a recent doco on the Assange case by a respectable journalistic outfit, Four Corners on abc tv australia. It's 46 minutes though, but very interesting if anyone wants a better overview than opinion pieces and tabloid newspaper articles.

Anyone who doesn't want to watch the video, they have a transcript here (ABC transcript all their news shows).

I'm going to go with what Four Corners are saying unless someone comes up with a better source with actual information.

[palsch]

:-\Well here's a recent doco on the Assange case by a respectable journalistic outfit, Four Corners on abc tv australia. It's 46 minutes though, but very interesting if anyone wants a better overview than opinion pieces and tabloid newspaper articles.

Anyone who doesn't want to watch the video, they have a transcript here (ABC transcript all their news shows).

I'm going to go with what Four Corners are saying unless someone comes up with a better source with actual information.

Why is that more reliable than court findings and legal documents? I don't get it. In particular this bit;

PER E. SAMUELSON: In mid-September he got a message from his then-lawyer, but the prosecutor did not want him and... that he was... for an interview, and that he was free to leave Sweden, and under that assumption he left Sweden in the afternoon of the 27th of September in good faith that he had sought for and got approval from the prosecutor to leave the country.

This is a lie. It's a lie that Assange's lawyer seems to have told people.

During the UK trial it was revealed that his lawyer was contacted and told he was wanted for 'interrogation' on September 22nd. He then left the country on the 27th. His lawyer late claimed that he was unable to contact Assange during this period, but only after it was revealed through multiple sources that he had in fact been contacted by the prosecutor. Originally he lied both to the UK court and to the witnesses for the defence saying that he had never received that request.

Seriously, read pages 7-10 of the Magistrates report. Assange's lawyer comes off as either an enormous liar or the greatest incompetent ever to handle such a high profile case. Notably he had this said about him by the judge;

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue.  He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and  not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant.  It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear.  Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it.  I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake.   It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter.  The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.  It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem .  Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.

It seems the documentary was mislead by Mr Hurtig as well, despite it being made long after that decision was released. I'm not confident in the accuracy of any report on a trial that isn't at least passingly familiar with the court findings of that trail.

Assange did receive clearance to leave the country (or rather, they didn't take steps to stop him), but on the 15th of September before the decision to interrogate was reached. His lawyer received the request for interrogation on the 22nd, Assange left on the 27th. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the 20th of November. This is not the, "12 days after giving Assange clearance to leave the country," stated in the documentary. The only 12 day gap is between his being confirmed clear to leave the country and his leaving, and that clearance was effectively revoked in the middle of that period with the request for further questioning.


They also pass completely over the reality of the allegations, misrepresenting them again as 'consensual sex without a condom'. They further represent the women's worries as about STDs. This is another misrepresentation. The initial (Swedish) police report;

Vid 14 tiden samma dag inkom två kvinnor till stationen som ville prata och få lite råd om två tidigare händelser och de var lite osäkra på hur de nu skulle gå vidare. Inledelsevis så nämndes brottet våldtäkt och att båda kvinnorna skulle varit utsatta.
At 14:00 that day two women came to the station who wanted to talk and get some advice on two previous events and they were a little unsure of how they would now go ahead. Starting off the crime of rape was mentioned and that both women should have been victimized.

It was after this report that a rape investigation was started. As has been mentioned multiple times, charges come at a late stage (usually after the interrogation Assange inadvertently skipped out on) in the Swedish system. The documentary says, "they did not file any charges against Julian." It doesn't mention the investigation or nature of the allegations.


The completely misrepresent what a red notice is. Interpol notices are coded regarding the action to be taken, not the severity of the crime or any other factor. Red notices are for people wanted for arrest. Ghaddafi was not subject to a red notice because he was never wanted for arrest and extradition by any other nation. I can't find it now, but I have seen a list of about six current red notices issued for wanted rapists and other sex offenders. It's standard practice. People seem to confuse it with the Operation Infra-Red annual focus on a selected number of serious offenders, which does focus on serious crimes.


This is just the first part and already the documentary has lost me entirely.

[EveryZig]

Also, it means that the states that are full of pro-lifers don't have to resort to banning abortion from pro-choice states federally. If you consider it to be that big of a deal then you can move to the next state over where it's legal/illegal.

I don't think many people who have strong opinions about an issue like this would find laws they object to less objectionable because they are in other states. Morality (sane or otherwise) has no reason to care where something happens.
Also, I don't think it is as easy to just move as the "move if you don't like the state law" part implies. (True, you would not have to permanently move in the case of abortion, but I hear that argument used in other cases as well.)

[GreatJustice]

Also, it means that the states that are full of pro-lifers don't have to resort to banning abortion from pro-choice states federally. If you consider it to be that big of a deal then you can move to the next state over where it's legal/illegal.

I don't think many people who have strong opinions about an issue like this would find laws they object to less objectionable because they are in other states. Morality (sane or otherwise) has no reason to care where something happens.
Also, I don't think it is as easy to just move as the "move if you don't like the state law" part implies. (True, you would not have to permanently move in the case of abortion, but I hear that argument used in other cases as well.)

The Louisiana pro-lifers would probably generally prefer the California sinners go straight to hell for abortion while their own state comes off clean, and the California pro-choicers would generally prefer the Lousiana hicks keep their restrictions on abortion. Moving if you don't like the state is a helluva lot easier than moving if you don't like the USA.

The pro-life movement is never going to succeed in federally banning abortion. The Supreme Court would overturn any such law even if it did pass.

The 10th is one of the most subjectively applied amendments in the Constitution.

Counting your chickens before they hatch isn't a great idea.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pro-life sentiment has been rising steadily for quite a while now, so I don't think the US federally banning abortion at some point in the near future is that unrealistic. The Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn a law like that for about the same reasons that it didn't overturn ACA assuming it passed without a veto.

Besides that, 10th is subjectively applied largely because of decisions like Ableman v Booth. Decisions mostly relating to personal matters, like medicinal marijuana, have had the 10th applied without incident (though none of the states involved have taken the step of allowing state police to arrest federal agents enforcing marijuana laws). Abortion falls rather clearly under the purview of things that would be covered by the 10th.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It hasn't been steadily rising, it's been fighting with pro-choice attitudes for the past decade. One instance of it being higher does not an abortion ban make, and furthermore the Surpreme Court would not uphold such a ban because of precedent. The judicial precedent states and has for a long time stated that abortion is constitutional and can't be banned.

[Nadaka]

That is why they are attempting to amend the constitution to ban or at least allow states to ban abortions.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, it's a good thing that'll never work. They're going to need a little more than what they have to get an amendment.

[EveryZig]

The Louisiana pro-lifers would probably generally prefer the California sinners go straight to hell for abortion while their own state comes off clean, and the California pro-choicers would generally prefer the Lousiana hicks keep their restrictions on abortion. Moving if you don't like the state is a helluva lot easier than moving if you don't like the USA.

IIRC, gay marriage is sort of defined on a state level, which has not kept it out of national politics at all. I don't see why the same would not occur with abortion.

[palsch]

Counting your chickens before they hatch isn't a great idea.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pro-life sentiment has been rising steadily for quite a while now, so I don't think the US federally banning abortion at some point in the near future is that unrealistic. The Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn a law like that for about the same reasons that it didn't overturn ACA assuming it passed without a veto.

For starters, I think the Supreme Court overturning such a law is entirely possible, for exactly the reason it overturned the ACA.

Upholding the ACA was, in the end, largely a matter of judicial restraint. But such restraint doesn't just apply to laws passed by congress but also binding precedent created by previous courts. Overturning such precedent can often be more significant than just overturning a law in that it can effectively change whole swathes of case law and the validity of government action in an entire sector of life. Flipping Roe v. Wade on most proposed grounds would be a massive shift in the current precedent that would have ripple effects through other areas of law.

Now whether it would happen depends heavily on the Court and who gets appointed, but I don't think it's an easy case that a federal abortion ban would be upheld, and today I feel it would likely be struck down, even with a vaguely conservative court.

As to pro-life sentiment increasing, I feel that misses very important nuance.

The binary of pro-life and pro-choice entirely ignores peoples attitudes towards whether abortion should be legal and to what degree. I've met pro-choice people who have been for heavy restrictions that would be effective bans in much of the country (although admittedly they were not aware of the practical effects of those restrictions). Similarly I've lived with people who considered themselves pro-life but were for legal, safe abortion with only slightly stricter than minimal restrictions. In the end these labels have more to do with identity than actual opinion about the law.

There is a danger of complacency on the pro-choice side, especially given the argument slippage and a generation of doctors who haven't been exposed to the horrors of illegal abortions on a daily basis. But I honestly don't believe the real opinion is anywhere near as bad as that graph makes out.

[GreatJustice]

The Louisiana pro-lifers would probably generally prefer the California sinners go straight to hell for abortion while their own state comes off clean, and the California pro-choicers would generally prefer the Lousiana hicks keep their restrictions on abortion. Moving if you don't like the state is a helluva lot easier than moving if you don't like the USA.

IIRC, gay marriage is sort of defined on a state level, which has not kept it out of national politics at all. I don't see why the same would not occur with abortion.

Gay marriage has a bunch of legal issues attached to it (tax breaks, etc). Marriage, quite frankly, shouldn't even by defined by the government; if a person wants to "marry" their cat, then they can go right ahead and do so in my books.

It hasn't been steadily rising, it's been fighting with pro-choice attitudes for the past decade. One instance of it being higher does not an abortion ban make, and furthermore the Surpreme Court would not uphold such a ban because of precedent. The judicial precedent states and has for a long time stated that abortion is constitutional and can't be banned.

I'd say that its rather decisive considering it was about 35% to 65% in favour of pro-choice once and it is now 50% to 40% for pro-life now (not to mention the overall trend is pro-life, if you have problems reading the graph).

The decision could be overturned with a fifth pro-life Justice, and right now the SC has four who would probably overturn it if they could and one who would consider it (and would likely do so were there executive support, going by his history). Hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'd say that its rather decisive considering it was about 35% to 65% in favour of pro-choice once and it is now 50% to 40% for pro-life now (not to mention the overall trend is pro-life, if you have problems reading the graph).

Aren't we condescending? Of course I can read the graph. I can read that there was one year that is completely out of line with the others and suggests a statistical anomaly. The overall trend is not pro-life. There isn't strong movement in either direction. That graph does not possess a meaningful trend.

The decision could be overturned with a fifth pro-life Justice, and right now the SC has four who would probably overturn it if they could and one who would consider it (and would likely do so were there executive support, going by his history). Hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

I'd remind you that Scalia and Ginsberg are more likely than not to retire during Obama's second term and be replaced by our very much pro-choice president. The justices are all older people as well, so any one of them in particular suddenly having to retire or even dying isn't out of the question.

Furthermore, the actions of the Supreme Court are not predictable. People were calling each other crazy on this very liberal board for suggesting there was a chance that the ACA could be upheld entirely, and look what happened.

[Nadaka]

Scalia will not retire while a democrat is in office, he might even turn to healthy living to try and not die. He is 100% politically motivated, he exists to serve the conservative agenda and will not leave until he can be sure that a like minded person will be able to take his place.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think healthy living can help a man Scalia's age. He's the fattest 78 year old I've ever seen.