At least under the way our law operates, Julian Assage is not guilty of rape. How can I know this? After all, I wasn't there. I don't know the specific allegations. But here's what I do know.
The last time Assange pissed off the powers that be, rape charges were filed against him, then quickly dropped (a warning shot across his bow, perhaps?). Now, many moons later, after he has again seriously pissed off the powers that be, leading to calls of his assassination for the horrible crime of embarrassing those in power, the charges are suddenly reinstated (With the timing clearly indicating that the reinstatement was not based on evidence of the crime, but rather, Assange's wikileaks activity). Further, an international manhunt is called for, putting him on an international most wanted list for crimes that NEVER would have put him on that list.
This is all extremely suspicious. Extraordinarily so. Multiple world governments want to destroy him, including ours.
Now, under these circumstances, say he was criminal charged of the swedish crimes under our standard, where he has to be proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Who can honestly say they don't have reasonable doubt about the validity of those charges now based on the circumstances? It is an established fact that there is an international conspiracy to take him down now, and it is clear why. This conspiracy is made up of governments with thousands of spies and trillions of dollars worth of resources - more than capable of manufacuring any charge against him and any evidence against him needed to support that charge.
Whether they actually did or not, or even whether he actually did exactly what he is charged with doing is now really irrelevant. The legal standard is reasonable doubt. That is definitively established. So he's not guilty.
Now the counter to this might be, well, we haven't seen the evidence against him. But given the circumstances, no matter how convincing that evidence might be, it simply can't be trusted. (Though I suspect it isn't anything particularly strong, because otherwise the governments would have leaked it and we'd see the video or whatever by now). But even if it was strong - the forces arrayed against him have the resources to manufacture it, so it can't be trusted.
Now - what if he confesses? Well, anyone will confess if threatened appropriately. Our government tortures people. But even without torture, false confessions are quite common. Again, under the circumstances, even a confession at this point would be suspect. And he hasn't confessed.
To be clear - I'm not saying he didn't do what he is charged with. I'm saying that legally, he could only be found not guilty at this point, because the circumstances create strong reasonable doubt.
4 years ago