Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Calls For Assange To Step Down
Stoobalou writes "A member of Iceland's parliament and prominent organizer for whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has turned on the site's spokesman, Julian Assange, urging him to step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden. Birgitta Jonsdottir told news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site laying bare US involvement in the war in Afghanistan and further promised revelations."
I guess everyone has a price...
When somebody is doing something that is not wrong, but offends, they attack him, till everybody turns against him. Or possibly her. Just ask the lady from Georgia.
Now I can recognize how terrible it is to pretend that the king can do no wrong, or to let the king get away with all sorts of crap, but it is equally wrong from the other way, to take even the slightest, flimsiest excuse and use it to tear down a person in authority.
Tough choice.
2 more words: scared off
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Well, Birgitta Jonsdottir hates kittens. It's true because I made the allegation. She should step down.
For the record, Jonsdottir is not part of WikiLeaks but of IMMI. So the title is wrong.
Does wikileaks need Assange as a public spokesperson? If not, what benefit to the CIA/whoever is there in providing the leak with any more publicity? Or is it more of a revenge thing?
They've already said they've withdrawn the charge of rape http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821, and are now only pursuing him for the molestation charge -- which in and of itself is a charged statement. The sex was said to be consensual and that the molestation charge hinges on weather or not knew the condom broke during intercourse and if it was intentional or not.
So, why does /. continue to perpetuate the assertion that he's being persued with a 'rape' charge?
There is a bit of a problem with not enough information about this case, so I'll try to summary what I know so far.
1: Two women who had sex with Assange went to the police and were adviced to file charges of rape ...
2: A prosecutor releases the accusations publicly to the press (not a common thing here in Sweden afaik)
3: The case is withdrawn because they realize Assange cannot be nailed for rape. The remaining charge is something akin to sexual harassment.
4: The rape charges are revived
5:
6: Profit?
No seriously I'm starting to wonder what the fuck is up with the swedish legal system.
"but that does not mean i automatically give the man a free pass on rape"
So, not respecting a woman's wished is now rape?
If Assange steps down and is found not guilty in the end,
He's already "not guilty". It's not like he's even had a trial or anything is it?
Agreed.
Whether he is guilty or innocent, Wikileaks should not be about him.
If it is ever about individuals, it is about the whistle-blowers. The wikileaks website is just a tool that helps them blow the whistle anonymously.
He should turn it over to a foundation where he can be one of the board members.
With regards to sex, it has always been. She doesn't want to have sex with you but you don't respect her wishes, what is that called again?
The dogcow says "Moof!"
The Swedish government retracted one of the charges, for a while, and then reinstated it later.
You fail to separate fact from accusation.
Maybe he's a sleeze. Maybe even criminally so. You have no evidence of this, however. And fortunately, I live in a society where you are presumed innocent. Not just as some feel-good thing we say about our justice system, but as an actual fundamental element of our entire society. Until a court has found absolute evidence giving them reason to convict, neither you nor I are in any place to presume the worst of him. The same way you and I would appreciate such presumptions of innocence if we were falsely or mistakenly accused of something.
Whatever the allegations, Assange has managed to get himself into trouble. Like this other guy at HP. And also this guy named Clinton (no need for URL I guess) that did not have sexual relationship with that woman.
Interesting how everybody thinks the wikileaks issue is some kind of CIA attack.
These are males. You know, the male human.
Yeah, except you're making the fundamentally flawed assumption that he's guilty.
The fact is, neither you or I know whether he is guilty or not yet, and yet you seem to be implying that he is.
5 more words: 2 more words: scared off
Maybe Wikileaks sees that the US has sicced the dogs of war on Assange and they want to dump him now that he's a liability.
Or he did it?
There has been no evidence presented, he's not been put on any trial. While it is possible he is the victim of a campaign, it is equally possible he is actually guilty of something.
If only Hans Reiser had founded wikileaks, someone would have already broken him out of prison.
"... urging him to step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden. Birgitta Jonsdottir told news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site ..."
Seems to have been a pretty effective smear campaign, if you ask me. I want evidence, and for someone besides a human rights activist who would have an immediate bias against an accused rapist to be the one asking for him to step down.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"respect a woman's wishes in the bedroom? nah"
She may well have disrespected his wish precisely as much as he disrespected hers.
If she says 'I want you to use a condom', and he says 'No, I refuse to use a condom, what I want is to have sex without a condom', and she says 'OK then', then A) neither party is showing the other either any more or any less respect, B) it is not and can never in any way, shape or form be 'rape'.
In fact, how is disrespecting a woman's wishes something by default negative? Can I require of women that they respect my wishes?
No, wishes are subject to negotiation at all times, for both men and women. Any other attitude is sexist. You smell disgustingly misandrist.
Now, if he said "No, I don't want to use a condom, and moreover, I will now have sex with you whether you wish or not, here I come!", then he would have raped her. Fortunately no evidence of that has been presented and found valid in court, hence he is not guilty of this act. He is as respectable as he ever was and those who treat him badly are committing the morally objectionable act of treating an innocent man badly.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
So she's saying that Assange should temporarily step aside as spokesman for Wikileaks until the facts of the case have been sorted out. Not quite the earth-shattering denunciation the media has hyped, huh? Of course, I don't see how she couldn't anticipate this kind of reaction from all of Wikileaks detractors in the media. That was just naive.
So when does wikileaks leak the police reports that were filed against him?
Other Wikileaks people are urging him to separate this personal situation from Wikileaks. Really? Why? So far, I haven't seen any evidence and so all I know is that I have heard there is a rape and a case of molestation against him. I also know that the charges were initially dropped and I can only assume it was because the evidence is shaky if non-existent.
It seems to me that this has all come about because he is in charge of Wikileaks. If he were to go quiet and let someone else run the show, who knows what they will do? I'm not sure it is in his best interests to disconnect himself from Wikileaks.
Let's see some evidence. Let's get some details. If he was a "nobody" that no one has ever heard of and had nothing to fear from world governments, that would be one thing. But this guy is an enemy to some very powerful individuals and organizations. Remaining in the spotlight is all he has to defend himself at the moment. Asking him to give up his post now would be a problem.
Maybe he's a sleeze. Maybe even criminally so. You have no evidence of this, however. And fortunately, I live in a society where you are presumed innocent.
You're innocent in a court of law, but not in the court of public perception. IN many countries, perception is reality, and as such, some people think he should step down from his "Spokesman" role at Wikileaks. It's a perfectly sane request, that would serve to help the quell the perception that Assange *is* Wikileaks, which is so false.
You'll have that sometimes...
Mission Accomplished.
The Swedish government retracted the charges. Now his own organization isn't backing him up? How much do you want to bet Jonsdottir isn't a CIA plant?
The Swedish government then brought new charges. Now a prominent member of his organization, who is also a member of Parliament in Iceland, is calling for him to step down so that the charges against him stop reflecting poorly on Wikileaks.
In all seriousness, if you're going to attempt to argue that the charges against him are unsupported by facts, wouldn't it be good to provide a few facts for your unsupported assertions?
It could be a good opportunity for wikiLeaks to show they are truly committed to posting all information in the public interest by posting the police reports and other documents relating to the case. Redact the potential victims names, etc, and put up something that may be damaging to yourself would really show commitment to the ideals you've espoused, IMHO.
How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case and furthermore, commenting on it in public? In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police, and the firing of the prosecutor for not running a tight ship with a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive brances.
This doesn't pass the "smell test." Not one bit.
Did Assange do anything wrong? I don't know - but this sort of tampering by politicians makes it sure seem like someone, somewhere, *is* out to get him.
Everything Ive read said the charge is because the woman claimed he broke the condom on purpose.
That is not rape.. that is her being too dry, an expired condom, or a non latex condom.
Ive used many condoms in my day, I'm not even sure how one would "break" the condom on purpose while its in use. I suppose its possible that the condom was tampered with prior to being used but that kinda implies that he intended to break before hand.
I think the women found out about each other.. found they wern't exclusive, and decided to muck things up as best as possible.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
No, because it means that if this is a US campaign against him or similar then Wikileak's leadership can be disrupted just by mere accusations.
The worst thing they can do is make Assange step down whilst he's innocent to make a point that if it is an intelligence operation or similar, that they can't be bullied.
Wikileaks vs the Pentagon
The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me.
The problem is bigger than Assange.
Accusations of bribery are rampant on Slashdot whenever a public figure, judge or politician makes a
I'm not a conspiracy nut but....
If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, sound like a horse and feels like a horse, it is most likely a horse.
Government officials tell directly to the public that if Assange doesn't hand over the files they will get him by other means and one week later you see rape charges.
How come there are still people thinking that something might be even remotely true concerning these allegations.
Sure, the allegations could be true, but - Birgitta Jonsdottir is a politician, and like everyone else has a price to do or say anything. It is within the realm of probability that she has been paid to take this highly public stance.
The fact is, a smear campaign is not just a simple accusation (in this case two coincidentally made on the same day), but rather a string of questionable accusations presented to people. Sure each one can easily be disproved in most cases, but if you make enough false allegations and pay a few people (especially those who appear to give credibility to an accusation) then these lies appear to be true.
Does ANYONE actually believe the USA can illegally invade another country, kill hundreds of thousands of people and manage to hide it.... yet would just stop at a simple rape allegation?? Uh, no! It has been widely covered that the US government is actively trying to destroy credibility of wikileaks, and sadly that will involve putting US operatives or paid rats inside wikileaks with the ultimate goal of taking this organization down.
The CIA has set up dozens of puppet governments in similar ways, so taking down an enemy website by 'framing' those who run it will happen. Truth be told, that "Collateral Murder" video makes much of what has happened look like a child's birthday party. For example, the blast and shockwave from the MOAB bomb can destroy about 8-10 blocks radius of a city, and we used these in Iraq... how many people who be disgusted if we saw the aftermath of just one?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
It does not seem like the organization is calling for him to step down, rather a supporter of the organization.
The facts can wait until the trial. Until then the OP can make all the assertions he wants, because this guy is still innocent by the standards of any civilised part of the world.
So, if I cheat her, that's rape too, because it relates to bedroom, and her wishes?
Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.
I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Mission Accomplished indeed
It's not a neo-con thing, it's a politician thing.
Yeah, because the US government has no history of doing anything to people that try to undermine it or piss off those within it.
Seriously, where have you been these last two years? Obama is running the white house and is commander in chief of the US military. These neo-con conspiracy theories don't work right now.
The military-industrial-congress complex stays in power no matter what label their current frontman is associated with. Different branch, same tree.
You can't take the sky from me...
It is not uncommon for people in a leadership role to take a "leave of absence" or "administrative leave" when there is an allegation of some sort of impropriety like this. It is usually publicized as "taking time to review the situation with lawyers & mount a defense," by the person taking the leave, and it also sends a clear signal that the "organization" is not embroiled in some sort of tawdry legal battle.
When the case finishes up, if the defendant is declared not guilty, they can step back into their previous role; if they're declared guilty, the organization is not tarred with the "we support and employ rapists/molesters/etc" brush.
If Wikileaks is about more than Mr. Assange's fragile ego, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that he should take an administrative leave from his duties to mount a defense. If this were just an "intelligence operation" to smear Mr. Assange, I think it would be a lot more convincing than the keystone kops operation we've seen so far with charges being levelled and then withdrawn.
> There has been no evidence presented, he's not been put on any trial. While it is possible he is the victim of a campaign, it is equally possible he is actually guilty of something.
While that's true, don't forget about presumption of innocence. Without evidence to the contrary, the status quo is that Assange is innocent.
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
"Oh come on! You honestly believe I can deal with REAL WOMEN! And TWO of them at that! Where will I take them, to my Mom's basement?? To show off my command center! Get real! Now I know how Britney feels!"
The last statement was added only for effect
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
He should flat out refuse and flip them the bird for even asking. If one succumbs to this sort of underhanded tactic then NO ONE is safe. Now, if hes proven guilty in court, then yes, he should step down.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I do know that if (in a student bar) you fill a condom with a pint of beer, tie it off and lob it 20'+ through the air it won't break when it hits the floor.
Until the third try. Thank god I wasn't wearing it at the time.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Lol, a friend of mine found out once that pulling a extended pleasure condom over his head and blowing it up with his nose, will make your face go numb.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Or, to put it another way, the world may as well just declare that the US government has reiterated its commitment to denying people the ability to disseminate information which is classified.
But yeah, yours sounds better if you're trying to pretend that all of the data being leaked was available via standard freedom of information requests.
> I'm not even sure how one would "break" the condom on purpose while its in use.
Why that's easy, you just slightly flex your barbs and they'll shred it from within.
Holy moly, is it true that in Sweden telling someone you're using a condom and then not using a condom is rape?!?
Many organizations outgrow their visionary founders. Perhaps it is time already for wikileaks to do this.
While the timing of the allegation is convenient enough to evoke suspicion, that alone does not mean it is necessarily baseless. And even if baseless, the allegations can still taint the organization. The wikileaks organization and mission are important enough that Assange should seriously consider the possibility that wikileaks might be better served by his standing aside, if only temporarily.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I guess her price is the undisputed leadership of the WikiLeaks organization.
The claim is the condom broke, if you have another source please post it. Also see Sig.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Right now, Assange is just doing too much at wikileaks. If they are to fight a media war against bare-knuckled organizations that don't share their love of sunshine, they have to think more tactically. Assange is a single point of failure. He might be a rapist (I won't judge yet), and in any case, the last few weeks have proven that he is personally take-down-able. This has become far too much about him personally, and far too little about the leaks. That's why Wikileaks needs joint, distributed leadership. Should future leaders happen to "turn out to" be tax evaders, visa violators, horse thieves or child porn addicts, they get out of the way, concentrate on their defense, and leave Wikileaks in the charge of others. This is how rebellions are always organized, and it's with good reason.
The obvious mistakes you make are:-
(1) Presumption of guilt.
(2) Borderline circular reasoning, using the above presumption of guilt "proves" that he doesn't respect boundaries which "proves" that he's a guilty of rape.
Well, circletimessquare, I know that you're a liar and a paedophile. Say what you like in your defence, but we won't believe you because we already know that you're a lying paedophile, and we all know that paedophiles lie, which proves that you're a liar. (See what I mean?)
for those of you who wish to flame me because i am dissing their personal hero
No, they wish to flame you due to the presumption of guilt. I saw the guy on television, and I didn't particularly warm to him- matter of fact, I thought he was a bit arrogant and dickish. I still think you're an idiot.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Don't piss off the US government, you can't win.
It probably works like anyone who has information leading to the arrest and conviction of Julian Assange will receive $100,000.
So a lot of people Julian may think or thought were his friends will take the money. His ex gfs, his own family members even. It's never wise to piss off the US gov.
Anyone can be stopped by the US gov.
The idea of a politician who doesn't understand the smear campaigns seems ludicrous. Especially when it revolves around such a high-profile issue as US military secrets. I can only conclude that: a) she's the stupidest politician who ever lived. b) she's very new to politics and being manipulated c) she's one of those who'll gain from this smear campaign
For 1 million dollars would you claim Julian Assange raped you? Would you claim he robbed you? Would you frame up Julian Assange for murder?
For enough money anybody can be framed. It's a business and it involves operatives.
The point is that nobody is immune from government coercion. The government will offer bribes and when bribes don't work then there will be threats. It's very possible that everyone around Julian Assange has skeletons in their closet or has broken some law, or maybe their families are being threatened, or maybe they are being threatened with torture in forms we cannot imagine.
The point is that Julian Assange and everyone around him should have known better. The US government has unlimited resources, secret sources and methods, and will stop at nothing to accomplish its mission.
Then the governments of the world will bribe, torture, threaten, everyone associated with Wikileaks everywhere and it wont just be Julian Assange being charged with rape, it will be everybody associated with Wikileaks being charged with rape, murder, tax evasion, Wikileaks will be treated like a terrorist organization.
How can Wikileaks be saved post Assange? That should be the question. Can Wikileaks as a concept even work? I suspect that against a government as mighty as the US government no matter how advanced Wikileaks ever becomes it will never be able to compare to the 600 billion dollar military budget, trained killers, operatives, satellites, and secret spy weaponry.
Which is a blatant injustice. Once she has agreed to something, she has agreed to it.
She cannot buy a car and then say "but I didn't know it had fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view mirror". If she does not want a car with fuzzy dice, she should state it clearly beforehand in a written contract.
Rape is a serious crime. No one should be convicted of it without proof. Letting the word of the accuser trump the word of the accused inverts all the accepted legal principles.
No, if he steps down, even temporarily, he would be sending a clear signal that he believes the mission & purpose of Wikileaks is much more important than his own reputation and ego.
And he would give himself time and energy to devote to defending himself against the allegations, wouldn't it be great if he exposed the US government in COURT with evidence they're behind this "character assassination"?
I've noticed a difference between some political systems I know best - British, Canadian, American. British and Canadian Members of Parliament, cabinet Ministers, and so on, generally will resign at the drop of an accusation that stands a chance of lasting more than a few news cycles - anything even debatable. If they don't, the PM tends to ask for a resignation. It's nothing to do with guilt; it's about Party Vs. Member.
The political agenda is in the hands of the Party, and even the PM is expected to put it ahead of his own career. You resign, not because you're guilty, but because it's bad for the Party (capital P!) to have the news be about the accusation story. It should be about whatever bill or program they're flogging this week. So the guy resigns, the accusers do a dance of victory - and are staring at another person in the position the next morning, one with the same agenda and probably the same qualifications. It makes it a very minor victory.
(The resigner, by the way, is generally rewarded with the best jobs the party can hand out...and if the problem does turn out to be minor, they show right back up in public office soon after, trumpeting their heroic sacrifice for the team at rallies. Long-run, being a smear victim is probably a career plus...)
American politicians, on the other hand, seem to regard resignation as confession, and fight to the bitter end, past where EVERYBODY knows they're guilty. (OK, Nixon resigned...after his friend Barry Goldwater told him that impeachment was certain and that he had maybe SIX votes in the Senate.)
So she may be just saying "The material's good enough to keep the news filled with police and court statements for weeks or months, so Do The Right Thing." ... and there'll just be another Wikileaks rep on the job in the morning.
I'm shocked that I can't tell if you are a feminist or a parody of a feminist.
When people become heroes, those that see them as heroes don't want to believe they can do any wrong. When something bad comes out they'll find a way to deny it, or explain it away.
That's what is going on here. The Slashdotters in question hate the US for various reasons (though most live in it). Assange made the US look bad so he is a hero. That means he can't do any wrong in their mind. They can't accept that a person can both do somethign they like and something they don't. Thus they have to invent an elaborate conspiracy as to why it couldn't possibly be true. Rather than say "Let's wait and see," or accepting that it might be possible for him to do something they respect and something they don't, they have to find ways to spin it.
Just human nature.
That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.
There are times when it can be proven a woman has made up a rape allegation. It does not always involve the woman confessing. Those women should be prosecuted harshly as they are attempting to do serious harm to the man they accuse.
As for women being less willing to retract the claim, that may be true in some circumstances. Perhaps that's why until guilt is proven we shouldn't be making the name of the accused public. If there really is sufficient evidence, he should be named and go to jail. If there isn't his life should not be ruined as a result of an unproven accusation.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Be honest - no matter what happens, you're going to ascribe it to a conspiracy. Even if he's eventually found guilty and there's solid evidence to support the conviction, you'll simply change your tune to "Yeah, well, the US obviously fabricated that evidence and made the Swedish government dance to its tune."
What? I'm just reacting to what other people are claiming. I didn't present a single fact in my post (except for the fact that "moly" is holy).
Fortunately no evidence of that has been presented and found valid in court
Which makes sense, since there hasn't been a trial yet. The charges have been re-instated by the prosecutor, so who knows, perhaps we will have a chance to see what a jury thinks about the evidence.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Will be interesting to know how much she is being paid for this.
There is a clear conflict of interest in a government requiring it give permission for people to express dissent.
If the government has the ability to control what is said about it, then bad governments will never be seen as bad, and good governments will sometimes be seen as bad, its a race to the bottom.
Nobody's requiring anybody to get permission "to express dissent," so I'm not sure what your point is.
Assange has made quite clear what his viewpoints are, and has stated his criticisms quite clearly. They've been reported by news outlets all over the world. So whose dissent is being stifled again?
And you don't think that giving interviews and press statements about the investigation have detracted from his ability to represent Wikileaks at all then?
I don't particularly care about WikiLeak's spokesman, or about the conspiracy theories involving these allegations. What I DO care about, strongly, is rape allegations being used as the reason for stepping down from a prominent position. All it takes is some woman (or man!) to cry RAPE against someone with a plausible story, and before the burden of proof has been presented in a court of law--heck, in many cases, often before police even make an arrest--people demand that the alleged criminal step down. Now, in situations where there may be some potential contact with the alleged victim, perhaps a mandatory leave of absence during the investigation and trial, but to completely step down from your position? It's bad enough that false rape charges can ruin a reputation for a lifetime. And yes, I've seen perfectly good people (teachers) who's lives and careers are ruined, even though they were found innocent. When a conviction comes, sure, throw the guy to the wolves, but in sexual cases such as rape, far too often the public automatically assumes guilty--even after being proved innocent. I, of course, in no way wish to disrespect actual victims of rape (and the majority of rape accusations are real as far as I know), but those not directly involved should mind their own business more and stop with the prejudice. Pet peeve. Ending rant.
Seems to me if WikiLeaks can't handle these matters in a more professional and low-key manner, they are self-destructing.
Shame, because a reputable clearing house for leaked information would be useful; the newspapers certainly aren't up to the task.
... the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure
It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
.. the ego has crash-landed.
If Wikileaks is to fulfill any "role" whatsoever it should not let itself be used as an ego vehicle for socially challenged, no, deficient people. Assange became the news instead of Wikileaks.
As with Google, it's no use stating who is "behind" something. Your options are simply disproving the allegations or facing up to the facts - only after that can you play "whodunnit" and nail them. In addition, if you want to be believed it generally helps not to be a complete d*ck when you speak to the press - as any con man will tell you, people are more ready to believe someone they like. So being bright also seems to fail on Assange's list of assets..
Insert
An authoritative law review article debunked the canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false -- the author traced this number to its baseless source. See http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf.
As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs.
In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
Low blow. Reiser was a murderer, no one saw themselves that way.
One of those statements is a lie. It takes all of about 3 seconds to figure out lots of ways to cause a condom to fail prematurely, the easiest of which is reading the box which tells you explicit things NOT TO DO in order to get it to not break. I'm going to bet you haven't even opened a box.
I think you're blaming the women in an attempt to clear your boy's name.
You do realize that most of the time women are 'too dry' because they don't want to have sex with you? The vagina is nice and self lubricating ... when its receptive. And for the women who that isn't the case, they also know to bring lube ... its as standard practice as wearing a condom for them. I'm going to have to assume you really don't have that much experience with women, but you go ahead and tell us how it is and we'll pretend you know what you're talking about.
Oh ... you mean like ... he caused it to ... BREAK ON PURPOSE?
Seriously, what is so hard to understand about the charges at hand? Guilty or not I don't know, but its REALLY easy to see him as capable of doing it as it certainly isn't hard to do ... especially for anyone who's had sex enough to have a few condoms actually break.
Of course, the reality of it is, its also pretty much instantly noticeable that the condom broke for both man and woman. I've never had or heard of a condom breaking that wasn't immediately clear to both parties involved, it does tend to feel more than slightly different, you might find out what its like one day. You might want to start with reading the box to find some fairly reliable ways to break condoms.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Sorry, but i dont think your capable of understanding it.
I've seen what having a "foundation" did to wikipedia. No thanks. While the site has a clear leader that means there's someone accountable for when it goes wrong.
I am trolling
And would be just as unnecessary as preceding a pair of words with the phrase "two words" (by the way, this sentence has twenty six words).
Good job, Langley kids.
I tend to agree. If the correct answer is not B, she's damn good at disguising herself: http://this.is/birgitta/me/I.html
Sorry, but if I require a predetermined mindset to be "capable of understanding your point," then your point wasn't very supportable to begin with. Thanks for letting us know.
That's very interesting, considering the FBI has jurisdiction over child pornography investigations. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) has no jurisdiction in the matter, so why would they be the ones raiding Tor Relay operators looking for child porn? Do you have any actual cases you can share where ICE is raiding places looking for child porn?
So... you're talking about Sweden right? Because he's not being investigated for these allegations in the US. Or are we to believe that of these two possibilities:
a) Julian Assange acts like a jerk with a couple girls in Sweden because, "hey, these girls sort of dig me, and think I'm kind of a hero;"
b) The CIA finds 2 women in Sweden who both regard Assange highly (remember - one helped bring him there to speak, the other was in full rock-star stalker mode, from what we've heard), buys them off, convinces them both to go have sex with Assange, and then guides them to the nearest police station to file a complaint, and then begins influencing and guiding the entire Swedish criminal justice system into railroading Julian Assange into prison all because his organization leaked classified operational documents that, so far, don't appear to contain anything particularly damning or illuminating that we haven't already seen reported.
you're claiming that (B) is actually MORE likely to be the scenario? Think of the complexity it would involve, and then ask yourself whether or not that would make sense.
Aww did I offend you... You have to use ad hominem attacks... Weak ad hominem attacks.
Ill start at your only real objection.. the one about him weakening the condom before hand.
Why the fuck would he do that? He didnt do it imediately before, cause Im betting she would have seen him do it, and then it became rape. He would have had to weaken it before they were about to screw, and since from what I gather this was the first time they knocked boots.. how would he know that she would want a condom.. and that he needed to weaken it for.. what unknown reason?
Your logic has alot more fucking holes then mine.
Ohh and about the female being too dry.. thats not him breaking the condom on pourpose, no matter what else it might imply.
This is just you trying to take this "rapist" down a peg or too. Im sorry in my book its innocent until proven guilty.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Imagine. The other leaders of an organization devoted to openness and truth don't like it when one of them turns out to be a sneaky liar.
Why are we still discussing the "rape" when both the girls denied that he raped them. They may proceed with charges of harassment/molestation which are a different thing altogether. Those charges mean very different things than they do in the US. If I remember correctly what they are currently alleging (or last I read) was that he didn't use a condom when they asked him to, or he took it off after he put it on without telling them or something to that effect. http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7651572.ab
letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
The predetermined mindset required is that of "Free thinker", rather than a propaganda victim.
Maybe in a few years (if you try hard) you might be ready to comprehend some fundamental concepts of politics.
Also, do you like getting the last word in ?
Wait, wait - is "free thinker" code for "no proof or substantiation of allegations required?"
Perhaps you could try making a point rather than engaging in name-calling & rhetoric that is clearly FUD in an effort - a failing effort, that is - to sound clever?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
[citation needed]
Clever signature text goes here.