Slashdot Mirror


Assange Has Signed Book Deals Worth $1.5 Million+

cold fjord writes "Julian Assange has signed a major book deal for his autobiography worth more than one million pounds (1.2 million euros, 1.5 million dollars). Assange told Britain's Sunday Times newspaper that the money would help him defend himself against allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden. 'I don't want to write this book, but I have to,' he said. 'I have already spent 200,000 pounds for legal costs and I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat.' The Australian said he would receive 800,000 dollars (600,000 euros) from Alfred A. Knopf, his American publisher, and a British deal with Canongate is worth 325,000 pounds (380,000 euros, 500,000 dollars). Money from other markets and serialisation is expected to raise the total to 1.1 million pounds, he said. Assange is currently out on £240,000 bail under what his lawyer refers to as not so much 'house arrest' as 'manor arrest', fighting extradition to Sweden for questioning. The Telegraph adds, 'Mr Assange said he regarded himself as a victim of Left-wing radicalism. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism,' he said. 'I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism.' .... A full extradition hearing is due in London on February 7th."

452 comments

  1. Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wouldn't read too much into Assange's claims of revolutionary feminism being at fault. It's too hard to know whether he's someone playing fast and loose with sexual morals or a victim of jealousy - both seem very plausible given the parties involved.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    1. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Innocent until proven guilty.

      All we know is that a controversial figure is being charged with "sex by surprise" after being accused by two women who didn't decide to report him until after they met each other. Even then, charges were filed, then dropped, then filed again.

      He may be guilty, but I don't see any evidence. If this is all they can put in front of the jury, he should be found not guilty.

    2. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if he is guilty does that matter? The guy has an ego but is that really surprising? To openly defy the biggest bully on the planet you need to be a bit crazy/weird/different.

      I don't care about his sexual exploits as long as it doesn't stop the great work that Wikileaks is doing.

    3. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Innocent until proven guilty.

      All we know is that a controversial figure is being charged with "sex by surprise" after being accused by two women who didn't decide to report him until after they met each other. Even then, charges were filed, then dropped, then filed again.

      He may be guilty, but I don't see any evidence. If this is all they can put in front of the jury, he should be found not guilty.

      We like to think of them as damsels in distress or innocent little princesses, but the truth is women lie. A lot. About very serious matters like rape. They will continue to do so as long as the consequences to them are so non-existant. Something like 30% of all US rape accusations turn out to be false.

      For all crimes, for both men and women, if you knowingly lie and knowingly make a false criminal accusation against someone, you should face whatever penalty that person would have faced if convicted.

    4. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by superdana · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no such crime as "sex by surprise." This fictitious crime was invented by Dana Kennedy at AOL News and has been widely debunked. Assange is accused of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion. See http://jessicavalenti.com/2010/12/10/aol-news-at-the-center-of-%E2%80%9Csex-by-surprise%E2%80%9D-lie-in-assanges-rape-case/

    5. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's too hard to know whether he's someone playing fast and loose with sexual morals or a victim of jealousy - both seem very plausible given the parties involved.

      Why do you say that?

      It's true that there is a distinct possibility of either being true, but what exactly makes you say that it seems "very plausible given the parties involved" that it's a case of someone "playing fast and loose with sexual morals"? Does Julian Assange have a history of sexual aggression? Is he a well-known womanizer? Does he have a reputation as someone who needs a new pair of tits to play with every other day?

    6. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting
    7. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, but he's a well-known megalomaniac with a history of believing that only his version of morality is correct and constantly blames others for his own actions. Does that work for you?

    8. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by qbast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And how exactly do you determine "false"? Do you also count situations when victim got threatened into dropping charges or rapist got out on technicality?

    9. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by qbast · · Score: 1

      No, but he has been consistently portrayed as egoistic, self-aggrandizing asshole.Hell, even a lot of Slashdotters is repeating that, trying to show how balanced and unbiased they are.

    10. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      We have the specifics. No means no and the woman in question never said it.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    11. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Innocent until proven guilty?

      If only... his point about Sweden being the Saudi Arabia of feminism is correct. It's the model that most Western countries are working towards too - one in which all a woman has to do is accuse a man of rape to completely ruin his life. She walks away anonymous. His reputation is completely destroyed - and probably loses his job and friends. Rape accusations have become the way for women to ensure custody of children in divorces, promotions or just get revenge.

      The ridiculous unbalancing of the legal system is now being used for political purposes too.

    12. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think it would be for situations where they have been found to be knowingly lying. Of course, this would be a difficult detail to find out, so it probably wouldn't be used too often.

    13. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      I'm Swedish and the parent is spot on. If Assange is guilty of rape I really hope some of my old girlfriends don't have any grudges since I'm apparently guilty of the same as well.

    14. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Jurily · · Score: 1

      And how exactly do you determine "false"? Do you also count situations when victim got threatened into dropping charges or rapist got out on technicality?

      Those "technicalities" are the cornerstone of modern society, you know. Let them go, and we're back to...

      BEDEVERE:
                What makes you think she is a witch?
      VILLAGER #3:
                Well, she turned me into a newt.
      BEDEVERE:
                A newt?
      VILLAGER #3:
                I got better.
      VILLAGER #2:
                Burn her anyway!

    15. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by revscat · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You know, it's fascinating that your list doesn't include the most plausible explanation: "being railroaded by the US." Assange's persecution is entirely about politics. He has embarrassed America and damaged the credibility of its foreign policy apparatus, as well as that of other governments. If you really think that the charges against him have anything to do with their merit, them I'm sorry but you are naive to the point of idiocy.

    16. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Jurily · · Score: 1

      There is no such crime as "sex by surprise."

      Well, duh. I read that as "some non-specific sex crime the women made up after the fact".

    17. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by RDW · · Score: 2

      'No, but he has been consistently portrayed as egoistic, self-aggrandizing asshole.'

      I thought his portrayal in the movie was particularly unfair:

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pS7sKjlzwFg/TPwPmfCfr4I/AAAAAAAAGb4/DBJefMu1DMA/s1600/477f056f3ada.jpg

    18. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      In soviet Sweden, the charges bull you?

    19. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd say the most likely scenario is :

      Assange was fairly aggressive sexually, but both Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén liked this when they thought a relationship might result. They then later decided the incidents were rape once they found out Assange was such a womanizer.

      In other words, Assange's actions might have been considered rape if the women were unwilling participants and he'd continued anyways, but that's not the case. Swedish men should be obviously concerned by this prosecution because Assange probably would not have taken his actions quite so far if the women had been unwilling. Sex is a two way street that gets bumpy, men need to stop when women say no, but women need to actually say no. Sweden's prosecutors however want the authority to interpret the most wild hypotheticals like "what if he'd done this anyway after I'd said no" as reality.

    20. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by qbast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have to convince me of that. However due to those technicalities (among many other things), categorical statements like "30% of rape accusations turn out to be false" are nonsense.

    21. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by AnttiV · · Score: 1

      Mod this one up +2314 Funny :D I know it's an old joke but seriously, I laughed soo hard this time :D Thanks, man :D

    22. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's definitely a sex creep.

    23. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 0

      There are advantages to each style so get off your soap box and stop being an asshole. For example, in an educated populace (which the United States does not have) a trial by jury is most fair. Have you forgotten the entire dark and middle ages? "Professionals" judged people then too.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    24. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moot point. The laws were retarded back then, and were upheld as such. Juries don't exactly legislate now, do they?

    25. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by ceCA · · Score: 0

      Correction: "panties involved' not 'parties involved"

    26. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree with that a jury would be a great idea if it consisted of level-headed educated people, but that's utopian.

    27. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was accused of rape by an ex girlfriend when I was 17. She did it for revenge. It cost my family 10 grand and fucked me up so much I dropped out of college (this got drug out for two years). In the end, she admitted to making it all up, and she received no punishment whatsoever. I didn't even get an apology from the prosecutor that did this nor the one cop that threatened to kill me (over the phone).

      Thankfully, she ruined her own life in doing this because my family and I started a massive truth campaign that turned the community against her because her story kept changing. She is now a fat washed up cunt who's husband is in prison.

      Well that was all 10 years ago. But the experience will always be with me. The FACT is that women lie about things like this all the time. People that defend it have never had it happen to them. I have a daughter that is 4 years old. I would would question such an accusation coming out of her mouth as well. Probably because of how well she has been parented, she would never make such an accusation. As she grows older, she will fully understand the consequences of doing something like this to someone. Andrea, my ex, obviously didn't. It looks like the idiot prosecutor (who lost the next election after this) now has his own law office in Riverside CA on Orange ST. He used to practice about 1500 miles due east from where he is currently at.

      Here's hoping more misfortune befalls Andrea and Steve, everyone in their family, and their childrens' children for generations to come. My life has been great since this incident and hopefully will continue to get better.

    28. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      The reality of the story is that if he weren't so paranoid and kept his phone on, he wouldn't be in this mess.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    29. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of a case that was thrown out because the accuser was found to be making false claims. (She said he came to her house and harassed her at a time when he had the very solid alibi of being at the police station making a statement). So obviously her credibility is shot, but does that mean it was a false accusation? I suppose only the two people involved will ever know.

    30. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Weezul · · Score: 1

      An FBI study of the 10,000 rape cases referred to the FBI during the seven years between 1989 and 1996 concluded that the primary suspect was exonerated by forensic DNA evidence in about 25% of sexual assault cases in which results could be obtained.

      I'm unsure about the parent comment's 33% statistic. I'm however also unsure how one should treat the assault cases where results could not be obtained, which represent like 20% of this data set. Validity of results will obviously not be statistically independent from the results themselves.

      There is a further complication that rape cases referred to the FBI will usually be far more prosecutable, like perhaps more violent rapes. That suggests there will be fewer outright false accusations in this data set and more mistaken identities. It's also rule out all cases where the woman is transparently making a false accusation, btw.

      You'd ideally want to restrict to cases involving acquaintances, thus ruling out the mistaken identities and focusing more upon women with ulterior motives. I'd imagine however that mistaken identities are actually quite rare in rape cases, suggesting outright false accusation rate is much higher than 25%, perhaps around 33% or so.

      In any case, the FBI dataset firmly establishes the parent's overall point that false rape accusations are rampant.

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    31. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by peragrin · · Score: 0

      wow so your saying julian can go out and murder and rape people on camera and it will all be a plot by the USA to discredit him? no matter what he does it is someone else's fault?

      Julian has admitted to have sex with two seperate women. in sweden the laws are such that if a woman removes her consent of sex during intercourse you must stop. It is a he said she said rule. but the law favors the woman. I didn't write the laws but at least I am smart enough to know them.

      maybe they just want money,but they haven't asked for money. They haven't done any(that I have found) mass media interviews like Julian has. So which party looks guilty. the one who is trying this case in the media, or the ones who are trying by law?

      What most likely happened is julian slept with two different woman who when they realized he fucked them both over physically and mentally with one night stands, and that he is a cheating bastard, used the law to get even with him.

      Of course I will now be modded into a troll for saying anything bad about Lord High Julian.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    32. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Although I agree that rape accusations can be abused, I would have to disagree entirely that "all a woman has to do is accuse a man of rape to completely ruin his life." It is very simple to avoid having your life ruined by rape accusations, don't put yourself into position where you can be accused. Avoid, picking up women at bars for one night stands. Avoid pre-marital sex with girl-friends that could turn jealous on you. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you are 'alone' with a woman unnecessarily. In other words hold yourself to a higher moral standard than the world does when it comes to sex. Our society only has to deal with this kind of stuff because we make compromises. When we play fast and loose with morals, either we won' t protect women enough by allowing men to take advantage of the system. Or we won't protect men enough by allowing women to take advantage of the system. So don't take sides, just take the higher ground.

    33. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Troed · · Score: 1

      You know Sweden employs actual professionals to judge guilt, right?

      Not at the first instance we don't. There we put a few politicians to make sure that whatever we get is as politically clouded as anything can be.

    34. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      In an attempt to explain the only possible reason soldiers might kill someone in a war zone, "Killing people is fun." - Julian Assange

      You will not find a credible mental health professional who agrees with his assessment. That's a really fucking scary view into his psyche. His own admission is that video games are fun. He likes video games. Killing people is like playing a video game. Therefore, "Killing people is fun." At best, he's a sociopath.

    35. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You mean to say he has embarrassed the American government. As an american I can, with a straight face, sit here and tell you that Julian Assange has done nothing to embarrass me. What he's done is point out the failings of my representatives, most of whom were elected against my vote, rather than by it.

      What Assange is doing is great; it may eventually open peoples' eyes to the fact that the shit politicians spew when they want something from you and the shit they spew once they've had their way with you are from two different bulls. When people realize that they're hearing false promises before the election and lies after, here's hoping they're 7 different kinds of pissed off.

      Whether we, as a people, begin voting more wisely, or we violently overthrow our current govenrment, there will be positive changes here in the US, and those changes will have come about, in no small part, due to the work of Julian Assange. My only hope is that it happens soon and that it's not too bloody (voting machines don't produce paper cuts but most of the paper ballots I've used were printed on cardstock).

      I propose a new term, similar to character assassination but by means of spreading truth about a person, rather than lies. I wish that we term this act "character assangenation". Who's with me?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    36. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      There is no such crime as "sex by surprise."

      Tell that to the snail that was raped by a tortoise... "I don't remember.. It happened so fast..."

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    37. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      NOT the GP, but the 30% caught my attention, so I'll provide a source - False Rape Reporting

      Dr. Kanin found 41% of accustations were found to be 'false'. Two studies - one by the FBI and one by Britain, using 'similar methodology' found 8%, but 'does not include accusers who drop out of hte justice process'.

      Wiki lists 45%, 41%, 8%, 8%. Average of 25.5% across 4 quoted figures.

      Depending on how you define a 'rape accusation', 30% is a reasonable figure, I think. One critical difference would be whether your standard requires reporting to the police, for example.

      I had a friend who was accused of rape by a girl - the police hardly even bothered to take a report from her, because they'd lost count of how many times she's tried it. Very much a case of 'crying wolf'. Think 'crazy stalker chick'. It was figured out she was lying within minutes in this case - he had an airtight alibi for when she said it occured.

      She's the type who puts additional stress on women who have really been assaulted, because additional police resources are taken up by her false accusations and it makes the cops doubt anybody who comes in.

      While I fully support rapists going to prison; I think that woman needed to spend some time behind bars herself for false reporting. But that also makes me grimace- if you've made a false rape report, you're more likely to follow through and put an innocent man behind bars simply to protect yourself.

      It's *complicated*, but we need to find a proper balance - I'm thinking if you make a false report, that's beyond obvious, or if it comes out that you maliciously falsified the charge and it resulted in the conviction of an innocent, you need to spend some time in prison. If you fess up BEFORE the trial; then we'll let you go(for that offense).

      It's kinda like the military's drug policy - self identify and you'll face no charges. Wait until you're caught, charges.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    38. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, he can't go out and murder and rape people on camera and it's just a USA plot to discredit him. Only you said that. So you are underscoring the other post's point that you are an idiot - and not just because you're "naive".

      Assange is the only person whose "wanted for questioning" by Swedish police for a crime of this minor nature has been escalated into an international manhunt, enlisted Interpol, and within days hauled the UK justice system into extradition proceedings. He is being singled out, from all the many people over many years who were wanted by Swedish police for questioning in this matter. He differs from them in that he leaked many cables more or less damaging to the USA.

      Regardless of what happened between Assange and the two women accusing him (which is certainly not "murder and rape people on camera", and isn't even actually rape, but rather a failure to stop consensual sex) - it is perfectly clear to everyone that Assange is being railroaded by the USA. Except perhaps to idiots.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    39. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by bstender · · Score: 1

      It is a revolutionary interpretation of the events, (given what what is publicly known and generally agreed upon in the Western world), to charge Assange with rape, or even molestation. It is also revolutionary feminism, to shift mores such that all sexual behavior conforms to these standards.
      tricky stuff, i applaud any increase of awareness and care for our fellow humans and having this discussion has no doubt helped raise the human race up a notch. But at the same time, i abhor the method of a political show trial to push an elite agenda. (though it is obviously being done by corrupt Swedish bootlicking politicos to avenge an illegitimate hegemony, rather than for anything socially redeeming)

      --
      look sig is kool
    40. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by joss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Your advice comes down to: avoid pre-marital sex

      Fuck you. My guess is either you are a born again Christian or the kind of guy who can't get laid anyway so pretends its about a moral 'high ground' rather than admitting to being a loser.

      I really think people should avoid pre-sexual marriage. If people got laid enough before choosing a life partner there would be fewer divorces and fucked-up children around, the world would be a better place.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    41. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but he's a well-known megalomaniac with a history of believing that only his version of morality is correct and constantly blames others for his own actions

      Sounds like a few countries I know lol

    42. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by joss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, they do in a way. Look up jury nullification. Certain people don't like it but its one of the few functioning forms of democracy we have left.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    43. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by peragrin · · Score: 0

      If your wanted for rape and they know your location the same thing would happen to you or me. Here is the trick they Knew his location. he can't stop talking to the media so it was simple to actually find him. If they know of your location it is easier to find you.

      And he isn't being railroaded by the USA yet. If the USA tries to charge him with espionage then he will be railroaded.

      My personal favorite part was when the guardian published (leaked) the police reports from the ladies on Julian, and Julian and his lawyers cried foul as leaking private information about a private case like that is wrong. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

      Also note that Julain slept with both of these women before the USA diplomatic cable release. If it was a USA setup they set it up before he released the information. Are you now saying it was a premeditated railroading?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    44. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sex by surprise" is the direct translation of an offensive Swedish slang expression for rape. It is a crime - it's rape - but it's not a term that anyone in Sweden would use unless they were deliberately attempting to offend.

    45. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by joss · · Score: 2

      Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    46. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither would I. According to the Telegraph Mr Assange says he fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism i.e. Swedish law is a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism. Left-wing radicalism is also a great characterization for the Swedish law in general as well as the law in the other Nordic countries as they have greatly influenced each other along the years. How many votes did the extreme right get during the last elections in Sweden, again? In fact, the summary is so funny it belongs to the idle section.

    47. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

      Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.

      I don't believe that you've ever been in the same room as a soldier who wasn't made of molded plastic in your life.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    48. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      In this country the police would have charged her for making false statements and a number of other things that waste police time. She would never have gotten the punishment you were up for but there damn sure would have been conseqences

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    49. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your wanted for rape and they know your location the same thing would happen to you or me.

      I can guarantee that if it happened to "you or me", neither of us would have made it to Interpol's most wanted list, nor had to produce a quarter-million-quid's worth of bail in the face of a complete lack of evidence, or even formal charges. Unless there's something about you you're not telling ?

      That's is the kind of thing that happens to violent serial offenders with a long history of crimes and victims, not people accused for the first time of - and not even by the victim, but the state - relatively low-grade sexual assault.

      he can't stop talking to the media so it was simple to actually find him. If they know of your location it is easier to find you.

      He didn't need to be "found" because he wasn't trying to be "lost". He co-operated fully with the Swedish authorities before - with their permission - leaving Sweden and then fully with the UK authorities when there was actually cause to do so.

      My personal favorite part was when the guardian published (leaked) the police reports from the ladies on Julian, and Julian and his lawyers cried foul as leaking private information about a private case like that is wrong.

      And it is.

      Testimony in a ongoing legal proceeding against a private individual is a completely different ballgame to historical record of Government dealings. If you cannot figure that out, you shouldn't be commenting.

    50. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sco08y · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.

      Well, being a veteran, a few combat veterans actually opened up to me, and none of them said anything remotely like that.

      While in, I formulated a rule that if someone claimed something that sounded over the top, I would divide by ten or drop it an order of magnitude, whichever made more sense. If someone was a great mechanic, it meant he could probably change the oil on his car. If his girlfriend was a model, she was probably average. One story about 200 confirmed kills turned into 100, then definitely 30, and BTW it was indirect so not "confirmed kills" as much as "estimated BDA." And damned near every National Guard idiot has a collection of combat patches of units he knows nothing about, and they all claim to be infantry because they were slotted as infantry for six months.

      So, really, if someone is talking about how shooting someone was "orgasmic," first of all, I'd be suspicious as to whether the person really was a combat veteran, because that's just not how I've ever heard it described on the *rare* occasion they talk about it. And even then, I'd take it with a huge fucking grain of salt, because I guarantee you that there are guys who will lie their asses off about that, and do it with a tone of total reverence.

    51. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sco08y · · Score: 1

      sorry, BDA means "Battle-Damage Assessment" and is a catch all for casualties, vehicles destroyed, etc.

    52. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that this AC is marked "troll" considering he hits the nail on the heard regarding the relevance (Stuff that Matters, eh?) of the sexual charges against Assange versus the work and spirit of wikileaks. How is that "trolling"?

      It is relevant to the image of wikileaks, sure, but since when has it become trolling to look behind the mask, instead of going to the tune of PR, and actually care for what something stands for?

    53. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never fail to be amazed by the shallow narcissism and ridiculous posturing that passes as "legal opinion" here on Slashdot - and which gets repeatedly upmodded as "Insightful".

      This AC writes as if it's a reasonable expectation that Swedish law enforcement is really going to spend their time sharing the evidence with "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot as the investigation proceeds. And mods mark it up as insightful?

      Several points in response to your twattery:
      1) Innocent until proven guilty is the standard to which the jury is expected to adhere; and the standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond any crackpot conspiracy scenario I can imagine which might exculpate my personal hero."
      2) Trials are where the evidence is aired. Dismissing the "lack of evidence" before there's even a fucking trial just makes you an idiot. It's generally considered poor form, and can even ruin the case, if lawyers start sharing all of their evidence publicly. The time for showing evidence and making a case is at trial. Until then, the prosecution and the defense don't give a fuck whether or not YOU, anonymous coward on slashdot, feel that there is sufficient evidence to justify the charges.

      tl;dr: L2LAW, fuckwit. Your purported understanding of the legal system shows you watch way too much CSI and Law & Order, and don't spend nearly enough time actually learning facts about it.

    54. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Americano · · Score: 1

      you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.

      OH, the irony. Given that you're spouting off this particular opinion, I take it you haven't talked to too many professional soldiers yourself?

    55. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      [blockquote]a well-known megalomaniac with a history of believing that only his version of morality is correct[/blockquote]

      Believes that only his version of morality is correct? You don't say!

    56. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      She's made so many false reports the police don't believe her anymore.

      Just post the story and her name and address on /b

      She'll find out just how horrible rape really is.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    57. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      So, never ever have sex with any woman ever, and in fact never ever be in any situation where you might potentially be unsupervised with a female under any circumstances, or you deserve to have your life ruined? Remember, being married doesn't mean it's not rape -- it just means it's somewhat harder to find you guilty before a jury.

    58. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by dreampod · · Score: 1

      Your argument is analogous to telling women that 'if you didn't want to get raped, you shouldn't have dressed so sexy'.

      Just like women have the right to dress sexy and not raped, men have the right to spend time around women alone and have consensual sex without being falsely accused of rape. We shouldn't have to regress to Talibanic inter-sex relations where men and women are not allowed to associate with non-family members of the opposite gender to avoid being accused of sexual impropriety, though typically it is the woman who is punished (regardless of fault or validity) for this sort of behaviour.

    59. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Assange is the only person wanted for questioning in a case like this who was the subject of an Interpol bulletin and now a UK extradition. Because he is being railroaded by the USA.

      I didn't say that the USA set up whatever happened between Assange and the two women in Sweden - you did. I said that the manhunt that is working to extradite him was set up by the USA.

      I also said that you are an idiot. You are.

      Goodbye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    60. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by dreampod · · Score: 1

      Jury nullification is nearly impossible these days due to the way jury selection is performed. Anyone who truthfully answers that they are unwilling to apply the proscribed penalities in a particular case will not be seated for the trial which removes the vast majority of potential 'nullifiers'.

    61. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.

      I don't believe that you've ever been in the same room as a soldier who wasn't made of molded plastic in your life.

      And I don't believe you've ever had a talk with a military before. I don't even need to go to a war zone. I have a friend in here, that belongs to the military branch of the police, and they have orgasmic experiences everytime they have to opportunity to beat up CIVILIANS at manifestations where the police had the orders to interfere. And they are their countrymen!
      Imagine how they would feel for blowing up some alien guys from another religion with a different colour from half way around the world!.

    62. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      He isn't on Interpols most wanted list. he never was. Get your facts straight. He was added to the same list that every other person on interpol's list of wanted persons go on to.

      The InterPol Red Notice list currently contains 293 names with 160 of them having variations of Sex Crimes. The Red List is for deportation of people to a given country.

      Testimony in a ongoing legal proceeding against a private individual is a completely different ballgame to historical record of Government dealings. I would agree with that if wikileaks hadn't published information from ongoing court cases before. Also the information the Guardian posted wasn't restricted it is available to everyone with access to the swedish court system. On top of that those documents show Julain has lied to the media about his involvement with the woman in question. That is right Julian is lying to you about his involvement's. Why would he lie to the media if he was innocent?

      He really is only guilty of being a womanizer who lies to women to sleep with them. Not that uncommon. He simply got caught this time and by doing it in a country with extremely woman biased rape laws is going to get hurt by it.

      The real lesson get written permission before sleeping with a woman in sweden.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    63. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      As an American, I am curious to hear the advantages of a jury. GP is correct in the sense that lawyers work less and less on presenting their client in the best light and more on playing the jury as saps.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    64. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Study: Couples who delay having sex get benefits later

      A new study in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Family Psychology sides with a delayed approach.

      The study involves 2,035 married individuals who participated in a popular online marital assessment called "RELATE." From the assessment's database, researchers selected a sample designed to match the demographics of the married American population. The extensive questionnaire includes the question "When did you become sexual in this relationship?"

      A statistical analysis showed the following benefits enjoyed by couples who waited until marriage compared to those who started having sex in the early part of their relationship:

      * Relationship stability was rated 22 percent higher

      * Relationship satisfaction was rated 20 percent higher

      * Sexual quality of the relationship was rated 15 percent better

      * Communication was rated 12 percent better

      Single and Multiple Cohabitors’ Risks of Divorce

      ...contrary to the early hypotheses, research has consistently shown that those who cohabit prior to marriage have a greater chance of divorce than those who do not cohabit. (Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom, 1988; Bramlett and Mosher, 2002; Dush, Cohan and Amato, 2003; Lillard, Brien, and Waite, 1995).

      Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce

      Examined relationship between premarital sexual activity and risk of divorce among women married between 1965 and 1985. Found that nonvirgin brides faced considerably higher risk of marital disruption than did virgin brides.

      Marriage & Relationships

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    65. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half the guys here have not read the facts of the case.
      They have mouths/keyboards and mod points, no details about the incident.
      He is yet not *charged*, he is only wanted for questioning.
      If they dont know that much, they should shut up, but they have freedom of idiotic speech too :-)

      He waited 5 weeks and repeatedly offered the Swedes to talk and clear up the matter.
      He left Sweden after securing permission to do so.

      Of the two women, Anna Ardin has a blog where she published a 7-step revenge process for jilted women who wanted to teach their ex a lesson.
      Now that page is not there on the blog.

      She tweeted that she was having the time of her life with Assange AFTER the episode.
      Both women had intercourse many times during the stay, each.

      When they discovered that he had affairs with both, both felt cheated and worried that they may have STDs.
      So they asked him to test himself.
      He said no. This is the point of consensual becoming "rape".
      Had he tested himself, they would not approach the cops.

      They approached the cops to ask whether they could get him to test himself and what they could do. (They could as well have got themselves tested, but maybe some STDs have more than weeks of gestation time, I don't know)

      Then the Stockholm prosecutor dismissed the rape / sex / molestation charges that very evening, as not enough for pressing any case - because the two women enjoyed the intercourse but now were scared of STDs, and one of the two even said that she likes Julian and believes he would not harm anyone. This after the case was first dropped by the Stockholm prosecutor.

      Enter Claes Borgstrom, politician and lawyer, who had introduced new rape legislation in Sweden.
      He had the case forcibly re-opened, in Gothenburg, not Stockholm - this is like opening a IP/patent suit in Texas.

      Now the Gothenburg prosecutor reopens the case.
      Assange offers to talk, explain for 5 weeks.
      Then he wants to travel and asks permission to leave Sweden
      He is granted permission to leave.

      He goes to UK and first reports to British extradition system to confirm to them that he is not a fugitive running away from Sweden.

      It is this upright correct procedure that will go on to eventually assure the UK judge that Assange wont run away after bail.

      Meanwhile Anna Ardin has left Sweden and is not cooperating in any way with Claes Borgstrom, probably because she is the most hated woman online.

      OK what does Assange say?

      Does he curse the women?
      No. He says they may have been pressured into making a claim or statement.
      And that he wont hold anything against the women till he sees proof of their willing complicity.

      Far from rape, this is jealousy and fear of STDs which was abused by Claes Borgstrom, a Swedish lawyer MP to get political mileage for himself and to ass-kiss USA and NATO.

      And here, on slashdot, of the places, we get people with 4, 5 and 6 digit user IDs saying that Assange is an egomaniac and so he must have raped women, lied or done something bad in general.

      Today I lose my respect for the Slashdot crowd.
      On the most important topic of their entire lives - on the future of technology-assisted democracy, on the topic of the real elite *hackers*, they dont fucking RTFA, RTFS or RTF News, or Google Anna Ardin's tweets or her blog, and come here and curse *their* eventual savior as being a rapist who is ironically out on a mission to protect weak and powerless citizens of the world, by angering leaders and politicians of all developed countries, of all megacorporations, of global banksters, or cruel dictators.

      This guy, hunted around by more than a dozen Secret Service agencies, Julian Assange, is a *double* rapist within his own groupies who arrange food and stay for him?

      And when the girls say they have had the time of their life with him, the morning after?

      Slashdot does not really have intelligent and earnest people.
      It has a bunch of "expert" "rational" types who think data structures, equations and intellectually superior memes that *they* believe in, run the world.

      In short, ignorant of their ignorance. Just like everyone else.

    66. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      When consensual sex stops being consensual, it becomes rape. Rape is a serious crime, not a minor one. We don't know what accounts of the events are correct, but this is a serious matter.

      Railroading would be a serious concern and remains a possibility, but remember that Assange seems to discount that idea and considers it a cultural matter tied to feminism. I suggest that instead of considering this strongly tied to Wikileaks, this is a plain old dispute over the sexual conduct of a celebrity. Side information suggests that any of the parties involved may be being dishonest.

      Nothing is clear.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    67. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      Care to explain your reasoning, or at least interpretation of facts?

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    68. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with the idea that because one person lies others that share physical attributes with the liar are also liars. But I also disagree that women always get prosecuted for making false reports.

      I knew a guy that had his reputation completely destroyed by abuse allegations. When it came out the the 'bruises' on the woman were being manufactured with a curling iron and some determination on the part of the accuser she got mandatory counseling.

      My bro never got his life back. He moved to an adjacent state so he could still visit home quietly on long weekends etc...

    69. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Anyone who truthfully answers, before hearing the evidence, that they are unwilling to apply the proscribed penalties shouldn't be seated. It betrays a lack of judgment and critical thinking skills.

    70. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      don't put yourself into position where you can be accused.

      Good plan. Too bad it shouldn't happen in the first place, though.

      Also, what does marriage have to do with this? It's just a title. You could have summed it up as, "get to know someone," and it would have made more sense.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    71. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      in sweden the laws are such that if a woman removes her consent of sex during intercourse you must stop. It is a he said she said rule. but the law favors the woman. I didn't write the laws but at least I am smart enough to know them.

      Thats a pretty scary rule to be honest . . . .

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    72. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the law is concerned, he's accused of rape. Rape is not a "minor crime" by any stretch.
      As far as enlisting interpol goes, I think maybe you're confusing interpol with the Scotland Yard or some other such institution. You go to Interpol when your suspect leaves your jurisdiction, and you want him or her back, in this case, for questioning.

      that's all there is to it. The Swedish police can't go after him in Britain, but they do have to bring him in for questioning, you know, due process and all that jazz. So they call up Interpol to put out a red notice, find out where he is, and work to have him extradited to face his questioning and/or charges if still applicable post-questioning. It's hardly something unique to assange, and the only reason it's getting mass media attention is because a) it's assange, and b) we'd a drama queen.

      But you're absolutely right in that between he and any other person wanted for questioning, the only differentiation is that he published leaked cable (and he's also dramaqueen'ing it up to the media, most normal cases don't). Everything else is the norm - If Jimbob McCommonsson was wanted by swedish police for questioning, and skipped town to the UK, they'd call up Interpol just the same. and while getting interpol involved may not be common, that's because people don't generally need to be extradited to face questioning.

      Further, the whole OMG OMG BIG BAD USA LOL angle doesn't really fit - those cables embarrassed more or less everyone, not just the US. So if this really is a secret government plot to nab Assange, it's just as likely to be any other world government he published dirt on than just the USA.

      And the last part is just idiotic. What you consider rape doesn't mean a thing. What is important here is what Swedish law defines as rape. A woman revokes consent, you have to stop. You keep going, it equates to rape. in a he-says she-says situation the law prefers the woman's side - as another poster said, I didn't write the laws, but I do make it a point to know them. What he's accused of is a crime in Sweden, and that's all that really matters regarding the extradition.

      Yet more, both women had previously pressed charges BEFORE he published the cables. Really now, if the US wanted him they'd already have him. This is an institution that is known to arm militants in foreign countries (see Mujahideen in Afghanistan), arm both sides of a conflict (see Iran vs. Iraq), back coup d'etats (see Pinochet and Sadam) and engage in all kinds of shady business. You'd think it'd have more up its sleeve than a pair of rape cases.,,, Now, if the USA tries to extradite him, you might have a point, but your mancrush on Assange obviously has you blinded to rational thought.

    73. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but he's a well-known megalomaniac with a history of believing that only his version of morality is correct and constantly blames others for his own actions. Does that work for you?

      In a word... no. Sorry, it does not. As I said above, either could be true, but no matter what you think about Julian Assange, I have not seen anything to suggest that he is a sexual predator.

      Also, from what I've heard, it's unfair to characterize him the way you did; his ideals, morals and opinions may not match yours, but what makes you say he's a megalomaniac, that he believes only his version of morality is correct, or that he constantly blames others for his own actions? Not that any of this does matter: even if he is a "bad guy" in one regard, there is nothing to suggest he would also be likely to be a "bad guy" in other regards.

      And of course, none of the above changes "innocent until proven guilty", although I'll grant that it's fair to form an opinion even in the absence of a formal conviction, as long as you remember that it's just an opinion and retain a willingness to adjust it in the light of new facts.

    74. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is. Claiming he isn't flies in the face of all evidence. Just because you enjoy sucking him off, doesn't mean the rest of us do.

    75. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's true that nothing is clear. It's not clear that the women retracted their consent during a sexual act.

      One version of the story is that the entire duration of the sex was consensual, but that a condom broke, or wasn't used the way the woman thought it was. At that point the woman (or women) wanted Assange to get an STD test so the woman would know their own risk, but Assange refused. At that point, the woman (women) claimed their consent was retracted.

      If that version is what happened, then it wasn't rape. It might be some other crime - the women seem to have a right to know what their risk of STD was, when it changed from when they consented. But it's not rape.

      Assange does seem to be saying that the proximal cause of his legal problems is "revolutionary feminism" (which can have "retroactive consent revocation" laws passed in Sweden), rather than "persecution to serve US political interests". But he doesn't say that the "revolutionary feminism" is the only reason he's subject to an international manhunt and extradition on those accusations. Indeed he earlier did say that the emergence of those accusations was the product of US effort to counterattack him, which does seem obvious to a reasonable person. Just as he didn't actually say that he's "a victim of Left-wing radicalism" - the Telegraph said that, adopting Assange into its own rightwing agenda.

      So you're right: nothing is clear, and without specifics, we should be wary. But what strongly ties this to Wikileaks instead of just he/she said about sex is that Assange is Wikileaks, and no one accused of acts like Assange is has been the subject of an international manhunt and UK extradition proceedings.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    76. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, you're looking at culturally-biased data conducted by parties interested in finding a specific answer. In scientific terms, the results aren't even wrong, they fail to meet fundamental standards for collecting valid sociological data.

    77. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

      So...has he leaked any cables "more or less damaging" to any countries other than the USA?

      Or is the USA his sole target?

      Many people on /. regard Assange as a saint.

      If he is truly a saint, then he should be fighting against the dirty secret dealings of ALL countries (and all countries ARE guilty), not just the USA.

      Otherwise he's just a fucking political hypocrite.

    78. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Ah, so instead of them, it's "professionals" who may just as easily suffer from lack of good judgement, or perhaps even be bribed.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    79. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person who wrote that article you refer to is Jessica Valenti, who invented Feministing:

      Feministing covers topics ranging from outrage on measures to restrict reproductive rights or pay equity to irreverent or bemused coverage of pop culture and art, such as urinals shaped to look like vaginas.

      She is not as unbiased and un-radical as she likes to portray herself as.

    80. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      As far as the law is concerned, he's accused of deliberately damaging a condom during otherwise consensual sex. There are degrees of rape, as there are degrees of most crimes, and that is a minor degree of rape, even in Sweden where it is considered rape.

      I'm not confusing Interpol with anything - Sweden alerted Interpol to find Assange. Show me a single other case where Sweden alerted Interpol to find a missing foreigner who was accused of this particular kind of rape.

      It's true that this "rape" case gets unusual attention because it's Assange, but I don't see how his being a "drama queen" has anything to do with it. Subsequent to his being targeted with these accusations and manhunt, he made some public comments to the media that was hounding him, which doesn't make him a drama queen. Though staying in the public eye is a good survival strategy when you've made the kinds of enemies he has with his leaks, especially the Pentagon and CIA/etc.

      Those cables didn't "embarrass everyone" - they embarrassed the US most of all, and a few other countries a lot less. Not just because the actual leaker was a US soldier who demonstrated the insecurity of US comms, but because the subjects of the cables is mostly US performance in its various wars, and duplicity in prosecuting them. The cables didn't just embarrass the US, but actually compromised operative secrecy in several cases. The US is clearly the government most likely to be pressuring Sweden.

      The rape cases are working well to discredit and capture Assange, and to inhibit other leakers seeing his treatment. Just executing him quickly would blow back on the US rather badly, and even the current incompetent CIA/etc aren't going to do that.

      I don't have a "mancrush" on Assange. I have a rather deep love for the truth. So when I say "fuck you" for saying something stupid like that, I'll explain that it doesn't mean I have a mancrush on you, either. I just think you're stupid and not worthy of respect.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    81. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by BELG · · Score: 1

      People are people. These "professionals" could be bribed just as a juror. The only real difference is that they have a solid education to base their decisions on, and more to risk if they do take a bribe than a juror.

    82. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree, although I dispute that Assange is Wikileaks. I don't think he's necessary or even particularly important to the organisation - either it or something much like it would go on without him.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    83. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I spelled out the advantages. Juries made up of your actual peers who are educated on the issues at hand would do much better than and professional judge because they can identify with your unique circumstances. A professional judge is the same shit they had in the middle ages when they were burning people for heresy or sending people who were in debt to prison for the rest of their lives, leaving their families to starve to death. There are advantages and disadvantages to each style.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    84. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, Assange received 2/3 of Wikileaks' payroll, so Wikileaks seems to consider him at least very important to it.

      There are other orgs like Wikileaks, like Cryptome, but they didn't receive the kinds of leaks that Wilileaks has received. Nor have they received anything like Wikileaks' attention, though their lesser publications still merited much more attention than they did receive.

      After this latest cycle, Assange has become equated with Wikileaks, even if here hadn't been before. Especially in the minds of people who actually leak the kind of content Wikileaks publishes, and even more so in the minds of the mass media which publicize what Wikileaks publishes. Which is where it counts, even more than inside the Wikileaks org itself. But because of what's happening to Bradley Manning after leaking (punitive confinement, possibly torture, and probably conviction for treason - and so possibly execution), I think the Wikileaks brand is tainted as a recipient of leaks.

      Which is just as well, I suppose. Because Wikileaks has now put its class of org on the map. So other leak publishers will have an easier time getting an audience. Now something much like it will go on without Wikileaks or Assange being necessary, able to reach a much larger audience and therefore having a much larger effect.

      The next step will be a leak publishing org (perhaps Wikileaks itself, and perhaps deliberately set up) publishing faked leaks that discredit the org, and (to some extent) the entire class of org. That would be the most effective counterintel to a threat like Wikileaks and its fellows. I expect it's only the complacency and incompetence of the CIA/etc that has left Wikileaks and others with their perceived integrity intact.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    85. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by bstender · · Score: 1

      Though political vengeance is clearly at the root of this case, he is charged of violating a bona fide Swedish law, rape, a law that is being roundly derided for its uniquely broad, (revolutionary) definition. It hasn't actually been tried in court before from what i've read.
      I knew a radical feminist years back who explained to me why male on female sex is intrinsically violent and debasing to women. It is one of those times when logic works, but fails to persuade.

      --
      look sig is kool
    86. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Avoid putting yourself in a position where you are 'alone' with a woman unnecessarily.

      In other words, treat women like they probably have cooties and you'll be OK? That seems impractical.

    87. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, it's rape because Assange continued with the sex after the lady withdrew consent. That doesn't seem particularly radical.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    88. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't /. need a "stupid" moderation alongside "funny"...

    89. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by chrb · · Score: 1

      You will not find a credible mental health professional who agrees with his assessment. That's a really fucking scary view into his psyche. His own admission is that video games are fun. He likes video games. Killing people is like playing a video game. Therefore, "Killing people is fun." At best, he's a sociopath.

      Soldiers would never enjoy killing? : US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies' "Other soldiers told the army's criminal investigation command that Gibbs boasted of the things he got away with while serving in Iraq and said how easy it would be to "toss a grenade at someone and kill them".

      If you were the pilot of an Apache, cruising through the skies, taking out enemy tanks with Hellfire missiles, why would you not enjoy the experience? If you believe that you are doing good deeds, killing bad guys, and protecting your country, and getting a massive adrenalin rush, all at the same time, would you honestly feel upset that you are killing bad guys and "terrorists"? Do you think that the average soldier cries when they kill a bad guy "terrorist"? Of course not. These people are professionals, they are trained to be desensitised towards killing. The men like Peter Mercer (who killed himself after asking his father "How can you love someone who has killed so many people?") are in the minority - most soldiers do not feel a lifetime of suicidal regret for their killing.

    90. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may not have asked Assange for money but they could easily get a lot more money from the CIA (or other group) who is trying to discredit Assange.

      What do you imagine the US government would pay to have such a smear against Assange?

    91. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, one should avoid contact with other races to avoid accusations of racism and avoid contact with children to avoid accusations of pedophilia.

      Protip: You can't stop crazy from being crazy, no matter how high your horse.

      Heres my solution. Stop thinking of women like they're either sex objects, to be exploited or pedestalized, or members of another species.

      The good news of crazy being crazy is that it outs itself as such really damn quick.

      Sorry to hear that sex is such a problem for you.

    92. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by dreampod · · Score: 1

      That depends entirely on the whether the law is fundamentally flawed or not.

      When anti-miscegenation laws were on the books there were no set of circumstances that would lead non-racists to convict because the law was morally bankrupt. The same applies to most sodomy laws which remain on the books in many states and countries. You can even see this in a recent marijuana possession case where they were unable to find 12 members of the jury pool who were willing to apply the proscribed penalties for the 1/16th of an ounce the man was in possession of. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html

      When the law has fallen out of touch with society or the penalties are grossly inappropriate to the crime it is not improper to conclude that you would find it impossible to convict.

      Obviously in more complicated cases deciding in advance that you would or would not convict is improper and harmful to society. Though many states also refuse to seat jurors who are morally opposed to capital punishment in murder trials that could carry that penalty even when they will consider the evidence and render a fair judgement.

    93. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      You determine false in a court of law.

    94. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I agree that rape accusations can be abused, I would have to disagree entirely that "all a woman has to do is accuse a man of rape to completely ruin his life." It is very simple to avoid having your life ruined by rape accusations, don't put yourself into position where you can be accused. Avoid, picking up women at bars for one night stands. Avoid pre-marital sex with girl-friends that could turn jealous on you. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you are 'alone' with a woman unnecessarily. In other words hold yourself to a higher moral standard than the world does when it comes to sex. Our society only has to deal with this kind of stuff because we make compromises. When we play fast and loose with morals, either we won' t protect women enough by allowing men to take advantage of the system. Or we won't protect men enough by allowing women to take advantage of the system. So don't take sides, just take the higher ground.

      This would not be out of place as an Americanized paraphase of a Taliban religious edict in Afghanistan, pre. 2002.

    95. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      Innocent until proven guilty.

      All we know is that a controversial figure is being charged with "sex by surprise" after being accused by two women who didn't decide to report him until after they met each other. Even then, charges were filed, then dropped, then filed again.

      He may be guilty, but I don't see any evidence. If this is all they can put in front of the jury, he should be found not guilty.

      Quite similar to the Mike Tyson rape accusation and conviction. In Tyson's case, it was not two women getting jealous of each other, it was a woman who complained days later after talking to her friends.

    96. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I spent six years in the Air Force, and a year in a half in Afghanistan, mingling with all types. The GP is right, and you're wrong. There is a small percentage of soldiers out there who certainly do take pleasure in killing. I helped one target and destroy a truck with a Javelin missile. Permission was requested and granted to fire on this truck based on the flimsiest of evidence. Afterwards it turned out that maybe this truck wasn't carrying insurgents after all, but just innocent farmers. Also a young lady was hit by debris from the explosion which severely maimed her. There was very little regret expressed; just a lot of laughing about how cool the explosion was.

      Welcome to humanity.

    97. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

      In Norway, juries are selected from a qualified pool - which means they tend to be educated and reasonably levelheaded. While certainly not perfect (there's wrong judgements there as everywhere), the system seems to work reasonably well.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    98. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not a reputable journal of opinion. I'm not familiar with that blog, but it looks like she's biased and/or somewhat obtuse.

      The blog entry deviates pretty significantly from any of the reports I've seen. As in she's asserting that the women never called the sex consensual and I haven't read that anywhere else. It also strikes me as a bit odd that it would be rape and then that she stuck around for another round later on. Not impossible, but definitely a bit odd if it really was rape. Especially since I haven't heard a single account that suggested that he was armed or threatening.

    99. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, I'd be surprised if a small number of psychopaths didn't manage to slip in undetected. It's not a large number, but it's probably a negligible non-zero number. And it's more a matter of it being really hard to screen for genuine psychopaths.

      200 confirmed kills wasn't really that unreasonable back when they were keeping track of that, depending upon the particular job that individual did. My dad was a radio operator back in Vietnam, and his kill count was significantly higher than that. But, anybody who served since sometime in about the 80s or so who claims that is completely full of it. The military doesn't keep those tallies any more. At best it's a personal count, and more likely a lie.

    100. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by bstender · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, it's rape because some politician insisted that he be charged with it. While what he said she should say may or may not be what actually occurred, your hypothetical is nonetheless a bit radical unless there is also some form of physical or psychological force in play as well. And having them be actually upset afterwards would also help align it with the real world.

      --
      look sig is kool
    101. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      Something like 30% of all US rape accusations turn out to be false.

      [citation needed]

    102. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sco08y · · Score: 1

      I'm doubtful that a psychopath would be attracted to combat arms, after all, you're in an environment where there is constant, close social interaction and a lot of people who can kill you or lock you up if they discover who you are.

      Yeah, if he was calling for fire (the guy I was talking about was operating an LRASS) he could have claimed a lot of kills. It depends how you count it, after all, the arty guys might want some credit. I'm not going to get into the debate because it's all a lot of dick waving, and that makes my arms tired.

      Usually a confirmed kill is you acquire the target and pull the trigger, and no one else can reasonably claim it. Most kills for non-snipers are unconfirmed because everyone opens up and the squad collectively fires hundreds of rounds. So snipers get the most, and 200 would put you as one of the top snipers in the world, quoth Wikipedia.

    103. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      my libertarian stance would not allow this. although in most cases i do indeed hold myself to a higher standard than anyone i'd happen to argue with, i believe that every man or woman has the right to have sex for fun.

      your advice appears very reactive and does not help the erosion of people's freedoms. it's the flipside of "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide", which i think any sane person (without an agenda) would agree is a dangerous attitude to have and leads to "slippery-slope" lawmaking.

      don't get me wrong - i haven't been with a tremendous number of women, but even in my limited experience i've encountered situations that could be construed as being without consent if there were a careful re-writing of events from the other's point of view. and there'd be no way to prove either way. i find this quite scary.

      certainly, if i was Assange, i would not be flashing my wares all over town. but hell, the guy's always been a nerd so i'm sure he was loving the novelty of being able to have any woman he wanted.

    104. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.

      What? You're incredibly divorced from reality. That's not true in the slightest.

    105. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by turbotroll · · Score: 1

      in sweden the laws are such that if a woman removes her consent of sex during intercourse you must stop. It is a he said she said rule. but the law favors the woman.

      This is not even the only Swedish law which favors women. For instance, prostitution is outlawed over here, but in such manner that it is a criminal offense for a man to buy sexual services but not for a woman to sell them (I don't know how are the cases of homosexual prostitution, either male-male or female-female, handled.) The law axiomatically defines a woman as a victim.

      The Swedish law, while aiming to be "progressive", is actually extremely sexist and hypocritical. Such bigotry extends to other spheres of the society such as labor, but that is out of scope of this discussion.

    106. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      ...don't put yourself into position where you can be accused.

      Your post boils down to "if you want never to be accused of rape, don't EVER make the acquaintance of ANY women". Following your way of thinking, if I don't want to risk lung cancer, then I should simply stop breathing.

      The purpose of civilized society is to allow us to go peacefully about our day-to-day activities, not to have us always looking over our shoulders and acting out of fear and distrust.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    107. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't doubt that your friend is a psychopath, but it's hardly fair to condemn the entire military based on one guy.

      In any group, there will be a minority of sadists. There will undoubtedly be more of them in a groups that engage in violence as a matter of course (police, military, etc.), but even then the majority are regular people with normal feelings of empathy.

      Anecdotally, I know quite a few soldiers and veterans who have seen combat. Only one of them actually enjoys hurting people, and he was that way long before he enlisted.

    108. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see why and forgive me for taking the petty road on this one.

      People get discredited all the time in the public eye and it does weaken their influence. The accusations against him do discredit him and vindication i believe is important. Although, IMHO if you've seen that Lionel Hutz impersonator he's using for a lawyer you'd know he didn't cost $300,000 - I find that a bit of a Joke TBH. As for the rest of the scum sucking bottom feeding parasites (I mean lawyers) you know they are just in it for the press.

      He's supposed to be the worlds biggest whistle-blower (no pun intended) and he has troubles keeping it in his pants? Ironic don't you think? Do unto others springs to mind here.

    109. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's trivial to find just as many studies showing the exact opposite. The problem is, you can never remove unrelated cultural biases from these kinds of surveys.

      For example, if religious morality is so beneficial for the "family," why do Christian hellholes like Oklahoma have the highest divorce rates in the country? If you plot religiosity versus divorce rates and other social ills on a state-by-state basis, you end up with practically the same graphs.

    110. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      "Sex by surprise" is not what he was charged with. That's a slang term that Assange's lawyer slung around for the media to drum up sympathy. He was charged with rape.

      For somebody who says "innocent until proven guilty" you're pretty clearly leading us to call the women slanderers. False accusations of rape are very uncommon, though certainly not unheard of (something like ~5.9% of reported rapes).

      Don't get me wrong -- innocent until proven guilty is excellent as a legal standard and I don't want to abandon it. I don't have evidence of Assange's guilt. I'm not willing to just dismiss the claims against him, though. I know! Let's have a trial!

      And of course you don't see enough evidence to convict him; you clearly haven't even attempted to see if "sex by surprise" was a real thing, even though it should surely have set off your "obvious bullshit" detector.

    111. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Read the AC above you. Jessica Valenti has an axe to grind and an agenda to push.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    112. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know Einstein's theory of Relativity is wrong because he divorced his first wife and helped create the Atom Bomb?

    113. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Try watching the "Collateral Murder" video, and tell me those guys weren't enjoying themselves.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    114. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm guessing things like this happen multiple times daily. pretty sad, when some asshats with bad intel can murder people. then just play it off. everything should be accountable, even in war.

    115. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      If the USA tries to charge him with espionage

      how would that work? some shitty treaty?

      where does it end, crime-wise? i.e. why aren't we charging all those russian/chinese/outer rim bootleg factory operators under the dmca?


      if someone can do something in country A and be charged in country B by it's laws, then that is just...retarded? pathetic? sickening?

      --
      ...
    116. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      How many rape victims have you known? The sense to which it violates the person is deeper than other forms of assault - people don't always go right to the police or do anything but hide the shame they might feel. Rape's an almost uniquely damaging crime - I've known victims of it and dated someone once who had been raped a few times when they were young - it left a big mark on their mind and left them less than rational about certain topics, even that many years afterwards.

      I think I seriously misphrased the thing you responded to - I meant to enclose the statement with "it is claimed that" rather than "I believe that" - I don't know if it was rape (I wasn't there). I believe it *would be* rape were consent withdrawn during sex and Assange continued.

      I don't believe there's a reason to believe that the charge is political in nature (even if it's pursuit *might* be more visible either because of celebrity or because of political interests).

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    117. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      "...but the truth is people lie. A lot."

      There. Fixed that for you.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    118. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by chucken · · Score: 2

      Attack the person's stated position, not the person. Doesn't matter what religion they are, or if they've been laid. Argue their position, not their imagined state in the world. You dick.

    119. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by lennier · · Score: 1

      I would divide by ten or drop it an order of magnitude, whichever made more sense.

      Aren't those the same thing?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    120. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sakredkow · · Score: 1

      Maybe you like to think of them as damsels in distress or innocent little victims, but spare me the royal we. I think of them as competent beings with the same obligations, responsibilities, and rights, as all of us. I think it's just for us to withhold judgment before all the parties are formally heard.

    121. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Link to video and commentary here.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    122. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you agree with the conclusions wikileaks came up with from the video, it's pretty undeniable that the soldiers involved were having a grand time.

      Begging a dying man to go for a weapon so he could be finished off is sick.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    123. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by hardboiled.tequila · · Score: 1

      both seem very plausible given the parties involved.

      Am I the only one who read that as "given the panties involved"?

    124. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Begging a dying man to go for a weapon so he could be finished off is sick.

      Actually, I took it as the opposite, as in "Don't do it, or you'll be dead".

      Whether or not you agree with the conclusions wikileaks came up with from the video, it's pretty undeniable that the soldiers involved were having a grand time.

      Didn't sound like a "grand time" to me. It sounded like a group of professional soldiers going about their business. Apparently they were engaged in stopping the Mehdi Army. The Mehdi Army caused Iraq plenty of grief.

      It is a remarkable change from years past, when the militia, led by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, controlled a broad swath of Baghdad, including local governments and police forces. But its use of extortion and violence began alienating much of the Shiite population to the point that many quietly supported U.S. military sweeps against the group. Mahdi Army waning, a tentative sign of stability in Iraq

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    125. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really where Juries show themselves to be problematic. I used to work for the Dept of Justice in Australia, and we estimated that around 30% of people found guilty where innocent, and 30% of people found innocent where guilty. Not very good statistics, and frankly it had more to do with the quality of your lawyer than anything. The problem seemed to be Juries. Judges can get very talented at spotting liars and truth tellers, and are often very skilled at working out how peoples accounts fit together with what are often complex matters of evidence and law. But Juries are just plain easy to bamboozle. The girl starts crying in court, the jury gets sympathetic. The man starts crying, the jury suspects overbearing guilt. Its not evil, its how we are wired, but it does demonstrate holes in our cognitive abilities to determine truth and how easy it can be manipulated by a good lawyer. But good judges know all about the sort of emotional shenanigans lawyers pull, because they've seen it all before.

      Who knows whether assange is guilty or not, but if we presume an experienced and fair judge (and we have no reason not to) , Swedens lack of Juries frankly should be a good sign that a fair outcome is possible.

    126. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by sco08y · · Score: 1

      I would divide by ten or drop it an order of magnitude, whichever made more sense.

      Aren't those the same thing?

      I must have reflexively tried to avoid applying numeric operations to non-numeric things, having been mentally scarred by atrocities like "LEADERSHIP * TEAMWORK = SUCCESS".

      While I appreciate your pedantry, a vital prerequisite to posting on /., I must point out that the proper question would be, "wouldn't any case in which it made sense to divide by ten also be a case in which it made sense to drop an order of magnitude?" The answer would be yes.

    127. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by xzoon · · Score: 1

      and isn't even actually rape, but rather a failure to stop consensual sex

      There is no such thing as "failure to stop consensual sex", the moment a women doesn't want to have sex anymore, the sex becomes non consensual, or rape. "Failure to stop consensual sex" would be if both were still consenting, but for some reason couldn't stop. It's quite sad to see peoples attitudes towards women. I've held /., as a community, in quite high regard when it comes to morals, if you read at 4+ at least. But it seems that it doesn't extend to women.

      But then again, I live in the hornets nest of revolutionary feminism that is Sweden. And I've been raised with the knowledge that women have the same rights as men, and that I shouldn't have sex with people that doesn't want to have sex.

    128. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      Anyone who truthfully answers, before hearing the evidence, that they are unwilling to apply the proscribed penalties shouldn't be seated. It betrays a lack of judgment and critical thinking skills.

      Not at all, I would never convict someone of any of these "crimes":

      - Hate speech
      - Inciting Subversion
      - Drug 'Abuse'

      What difference does it make that there is "evidence" that someone is a member of a Communist party or smoked some meth, I don't care whether they did these things or otherwise, because I don't consider them crimes.

    129. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flip side of false accusations (certainly not disputing that they happen, though, as many have pointed out, it's pretty hard to determine how often) is that many rapes go unreported (also very hard to determine how many): women are intimidated by their attackers; police questioning, cross-examination, etc. are all traumatic and invasive; and convictions are tricky (it's often one person's word against another). Adding the possibility of being prosecuted for making a false accusation is likely to make women even less likely to report rape.

      Everything surrounding rape and the law is damn tricky.

    130. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break. You claim that rape is so much more violating than other forms of assault. OMG women are so dainty and their fragile little egos are damaged beyond repair. Really, how many people do you know who have been the victims of serious (non-rape) assault? Shot, stabbed, burned, etc? I know a guy who was shot during a mugging and would barely leave the house for a couple of years. People were telling him to get over it and man up. But somehow if he were a woman it's different?

      I agree that rape is a serious form of assault but I don't buy that it's any worse than other forms of serious assault. To believe otherwise is just a form of reverse sexism in my opinion.

      And another thing: Why is it ok to believe that Assange, a male, is the perpetrator of this horrible crime, rape. But it's not ok to believe that a woman is the perpetrator of a much less serious crime, false reporting?
      Because that's what is coming out of a lot of these comments:
      Male = rapist --- to be expected
      Woman = liar -- how dare you even think such a thing, you pig.

    131. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So the man and woman are having consensual sex, and the woman changes her mind during the act. Now it's rape? How does that protect the rights of the man? Especially when women not infrequently have unrealistic, self-created expectations of what the sex will be like or mean - just as men do?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    132. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Insightful and Interesting for a personal attack? Oh, what has Slashdot come it? (Yeah right.) Myself, I choose not to pursue sexual relationships, and it is a choice; I have had and am able to have partners. I choose not to. Like the other responder said, attack the message not the individual. I do agree that people should avoid pre-sexual marriage, and I'm not saying everyone should make the same decision as I made.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    133. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have. I also have read about the underlying psychosis involved and most are not even close to reality. Based on the comments here, as usual, I'm the only one who even has a basic understanding of the subject matter - and yet the ignorant puppets will troll moderate and the peanut gallery will throw popcorn all day long.

    134. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      And I don't believe you've ever had a talk with a military before.

      I have. I have lots of friends and family who are in the military. I have researched some of the psychology involved in the topic at hand. Comments like yours only highlight your general ignorance; which is seemingly without bounds.

      I have a friend in here, that belongs to the military branch of the police

      Not even comparable. The fact you believe it is, only further validates my original comment about how completely ignorant you are on the subject matter. "Power tripping" is hardly the same thing as living, fighting, and surviving in a war zone. They are not at all comparable. The only thing you've confirmed is that you're friend is a serious dick.

      When morale people are made to kill others, serious conflicts in the mind begin to crop up. Basically, what you are seeing is the manifestations of those conflicts and an effort to resolve them so as to avoid mental pain and long term damage. Those who are unable to do so frequently have very long term mental health issues.

      This is why soldiers frequently have irrational and impassioned out breaks of bravado and those with you are frequently in full support. To do other means you are entertaining the thought of one's self being a murderer. Morale people who constantly condemn themselves as murderers eventually have a mental break and are unable to function as a soldier.

      The reality is, what you saw absolutely was not blood lust. What you saw was soldiers attempting to maintain their mental health in an extremely high stress environment while trying to convince themselves that their actions are not immoral despite a life time of experience which has told them the fundamentals of their jobs make them murderers.

      If you watch realistic war movies, you constantly see this behavior. Only in movies, they way tone it down because the ignorant masses of civilians don't understand what they are seeing. This is especially important to tone it down for hero characters because otherwise the ignorant masses won't be able to identify with the character. Regardless, the point remains, even in realistic war movies, much of this is presented to viewers, albeit in a watered down persona.

      And the fact that the masses are most definitely completely ignorant, and go out of their way to remain so, is exactly why the military goes out of their way to hide the harsh realities of war and humanity. The reasoning is simple. You can't fix stupid. And when stupid people see stuff like this, they have absolutely no context, nor a desire to establish a context, and the result can only do harm. No good can come of such video. Case in point, look how stupid the masses are here. Look how they go out of their way to censor this information and topic every time it comes up.

      The simple fact is, people are stupid animals and ignorance such as yours only serve to completely validate that the military absolutely did the right thing in attempting to hide the video in question.

      And to be absolutely clear, several of their leaked videos should be leaked. They do depict war crimes and are not readily explained as above. Just the same, the video which gets most of the attention, only gets attention by the mass of stupidity and ignorant humanity who don't even know what it means to be human.

    135. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by jbssm · · Score: 1

      The simple fact is, people are stupid animals and ignorance such as yours only serve to completely validate that the military absolutely did the right thing in attempting to hide the video in question.

      Of course, you have a video with a guy on a power trip practically begging over the radio to let him open fire on some guys down below, you can hear them cheering when they blow up a truck (that was actually carrying children), you can see they are making up whatever worst case scenario about what they see in the screen in order to be able to shoot whatever people they see down, but yes, you are right, they are just human beings, complex human beings and that, that was not blood lust, it was just a complex facet of an otherwise wonderful human being full of love to give. I bet they smoke some joints later and sing peace and love to every one and they have flowers spreading all around they barracks and pictures of little puppies in funny poses with pink ribbons in them.
      Yeah, you are absolutely right, those soldiers are the most peaceful, intelligent and human people I know ... how could I be so blind.

      Thanks god you are so smart and so knowledgeable about the military and have shown me the light.

    136. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Borland · · Score: 1

      Just to flip this around a bit Anon, shouldn't we also assume the alleged victims are innocent until proven guilty? From your later posts I can understand why you are bitter on this point. However, consider that there are plenty of men who are willing to presume that rape claims are false until proven otherwise without your history. And even if we go with the worst case there is still a majority of claims which are accurate.

      The Assange case exists in a charged atmosphere. I'd be wary of pre-judging anyone involved (I have to fight my own bias too). There are reasons that all these charges might be trumped up and there is certainly a possibility that Assange is a misogynist prick who did what he was alleged to have done.

    137. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Of course, you have a video with a guy on a power trip practically begging over the radio to let him open fire on some guys down below

      Again - ignorance.

      Do you want to kill people you love? Or might you kill people you've de-humanized? Its all part of the same mental defense process. You comment also seems to re-write history a bit, but ignoring that, you're also seemingly ignorant of the fact that children are not uncommonly in combat in that part of the world. So an indifference toward the death of yet more children in a war zone is not surprising at all. The fact they specifically dismiss it as they do, in indicative of exactly what I'm talking about.

      The rest of your post wonderfully highlights the stupidity of the masses and how stupid people like you go out of their way to remain blissfully stupid. Had you actually wanted to stop being stupid, you might have bothered to go research a bit. But nope, remaining stupid is your priority - and seemingly at all costs. And you, yourself, are the poster child of exactly why the military wanted to keep that video hidden of stupid eyes.

      People like you don't want to know the truth. People like you don't want to know humanity. People like you want to remain in your fairytale world, as you wonderfully illustrate via your projection. The simple fact is, humans are complex. And sadly, when it comes to war, completely rational, well meaning people, exactly as you, are the ones doing the things you point a finger at and condemn. While you'll never admit it, you are damning yourself. That's you in the video. Its not hard to see why you're unwilling to yield - because it means coming to terms with the fact you're human rather than "human" as you've built up in your imaginary world.

    138. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by horigath · · Score: 1

      Something like 30% of all US rape accusations turn out to be false.

      Only for very small values of "like". The rate of falsely reported rapes is around 2%, similar to that of other serious crimes. Many rape allegations are unproven in court, which is not the same thing as "false" or unfounded, and many many cases go completely unreported.

    139. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by jbssm · · Score: 1

      You comment also seems to re-write history a bit, but ignoring that, you're also seemingly ignorant of the fact that children are not uncommonly in combat in that part of the world

      My comment says exactly what happens in the video. Now, if you want to be stupid and concede the point - that I must stress, I didn't make that assumption previously, you did! - that it's actually expected that children be in that war scenario, than it means that those guys from the US military in the video killing people know very well, there was a big enough probability, that a van that was by any standard you may want to apply, JUST and ONLY aiding wounded people ,could very well have children inside, and your OH SO HUMAN and COMPLEX military guys blew it up, knowing that inside there could be children. You actually just said that, didn't you?

      And sadly, when it comes to war, completely rational, well meaning people, exactly as you, are the ones doing the things you point a finger at and condemn.

      People like me, don't go to war unless they are forced to. And taking into account there is no conscription in the USA army and you weren't invaded by anyone, then I can very easily say, no, absolutely no people like me where ever seen in those nice videos of US military blowing up innocent people from a vantage point outside all danger and cheering about the fact they are doing it.

    140. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      It's possible, criminal, and unacceptable to rape someone one's married to. Marriage doesn't solve things.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    141. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by bstender · · Score: 1

      Moving past assuming what actually happened in this case, what is most interesting to me is the definition of rape that is being put forward by Sweden. I have sympathy for the plight of women attempting to navigate a world of physically stronger men, backed by a culture of men all telling themselves they are in charge, quickly resorting to terrorism and committed to violence as needed. Certain feminist thought very much identifies this social feedback loop as a primary cause not just of women's oppression, but of sick relationships and a sick society in general. But using the patriarchal means of arrest and incarceration to address this is not well thought out imho, like training your dog by beating it.
      and tangential to this, making genuine reform all the more difficult, this first test of a bleeding edge law protecting women is sold cheap by a hack politician to please some powerful men in Washington. May his head explode and may all men and women of good nature and intent see the purveyors of this old world for what they are, small -minded, greedy and the purveyors of sickness and degradation for women AND men.

      --
      look sig is kool
    142. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      As soon as she communicates it to him and he fails to stop, it is indeed rape.

      Men don't have a right to keep going, nor do they have a right to sexual satisfaction. These things are contingent on continued consent.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    143. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      Men can be raped too, and it's often just as damaging to them. Rape is not more serious than other forms of assault because it's about women, rape is more serious because it affects our sexual and social identity.

      It's possible that Assange is a rapist or that the women involved lied. I don't think we know which of those things is true, but I don't have this impression that either is impossible to talk about as a possibility. It wouldn't be cool to assume the truth of either, but considering them - fine.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    144. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      What does that first part mean practically? Do you think rape should be decriminalised? Like many areas where society should probably change, there are both criminal acts to punish and cultural efforts to make.

      I'm having a tough time pulling the meaning out of your language - what kind of sickness and degradation are you talking about?

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    145. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by bstender · · Score: 1

      I was paying heed to the radical feminist thinking that has led to the radical definition of rape in question, but I'm standing by my personal opinion that the crime of rape should include some type of force or credible coercion. and THAT should be severely punished.

      'Sickness' and 'degradation' in the usual meaning of the terms. I am no expert on radical feminist thought, but these ills are postulated as a product of the patriarchal social system, in essence the extensive reliance upon force and coercion, domination and violence to achieve ends as opposed to cooperative, equitable, respectful arrangements. It further contains the notion that those that think such a world is hopelessly idealistic are victims of a cultural feedback mechanism, rather than it being the result of any inherent genetic necessity.

      --
      look sig is kool
    146. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by mrman18766 · · Score: 1

      You are already at +5 so all I have to say is - Amen!

    147. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      Is there a need for the flowery language? It gets in the way of clear communication.

      Are you saying that the metric of "if sex stops becoming consensual, it becomes rape" is radical, or are you saying some other definition is radical?

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    148. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Do you see the difference between saying "no" before the act and saying "stop" during the act? This is why there are degrees of different crimes. Is using your tongue during a kiss, that's rejected by the person you're kissing, "rape"?

      FWIW, Assange isn't accused of not stopping during the act. He's accused of using a condom with a hole in it, and further accused of deliberately making that hole. There is no evidence, AFAIK, of the accusations. Which doesn't mean they're false - in this case, though there are plenty of cases in which such accusations are false. Everyone has a right to require proof of accusations before they're considered true. And to held responsible for an actual act.

      Note that I am not dismissing Assange's responsibility if he knowingly used a defective condom, and if he deliberately made the defect. Consent contingent on a standard quality condom can be reasonably inferred as part of a contingency on using a condom, and reasonably retracted after the fact if the condom is found to be less than standard quality, and Assange would be liable if he broke it and knowingly used it despite the contingency. But increasing the probability of pregnancy or infection is not the same as forced intercourse. Assange's liability might even be higher for increasing the risk of the sex than if he'd forced sex but with a working condom. But they are certainly distinct.

      And so disputing the semantic difference of "rape" accusations from what actually occurred is legitimate. Especially considering the circumstances of Assange's notoriety, which a reasonable person would expect are designed to accuse him of a discrediting crime like "rape" in public, which creates images of forced sex. Which makes the distinction between forced sex and less safe sex important.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    149. Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... by Improv · · Score: 1

      I might be willing to consider gradations of rape, but I believe that not stopping after being told to stop remains rape and merits a very harsh sanction. I would agree with you that knowing use of a defective condom does not constitute rape, even if it should probably not be legal.

      As far as I understand, he was accused of not stopping, but the news reports have hardly told a consistent story.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  2. Indeed! by headhot · · Score: 1

    Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

    1. Re:Indeed! by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      I'm still hoping for a surprise party

      --
      ---
    2. Re:Indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

      That's one of the worst way to find out about it.

    3. Re:Indeed! by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      He's behind you!

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    4. Re:Indeed! by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

      No need, the matter appears as if it could be more substantial than that.

      Interpol, based in Lyon in eastern France, later said it had received an arrest warrant for the extradition of Assange.

      The Stockholm district court on Thursday ordered an arrest warrant for Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, for questioning on "probable cause of suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" in Sweden in August. Sweden issues global warrant for Assange

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:Indeed! by mangu · · Score: 1

      Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

      If I were trying to make "sex by surprise" with someone I would not want s/he to give me head. There can be painful consequences if the victim bites.

    6. Re:Indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some women think it's incredibly romantic to be woken up with sex.

      Some women consider it non-consensual, apparently.

      It's somewhat hard to find out, before the fact, which of the two your one night stand happens to belong to. It's unusual for the woman who had consensual sex with you the night before to claim rape though.

    7. Re:Indeed! by bstender · · Score: 1

      you're doing it wrong

      --
      look sig is kool
    8. Re:Indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need! Luckily for you, it doesn't exist. And words like "rape" and "had sex with women without their consent/against the terms they consented to" are pretty easy to wrap one's head around.

  3. Mr Assange? Say hello to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...Uncle Sam's undercover female spy/setup network, you've been had.

    Of course announcing your "deals" for books and whatever wasn't a bright move neither, Uncle Sam will be busy going after that next.

    Clearly you don't play chess much.

    1. Re:Mr Assange? Say hello to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yea, I'm sure Uncle Sam is going to tax the shit out of a non US citizen for income earned overseas. I'm also sure that if he did owe US taxes he wouldn't pay them.

      Clearly you're fucking retarded.

    2. Re:Mr Assange? Say hello to... by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      INSURANCE.AES. Checkmate.

    3. Re:Mr Assange? Say hello to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      INSURANCE.AES. Checkmate

      Ah, so he is not merely an alleged rapist, but an extortionist as well. Oh, and if the INSURANCE.AES file contains the unredacted names of informants against the Taliban, or various human rights workers, and its contents are used to find and kill them as a result of their names being released, Assange is an accessory to murder as well? Charming.

      Thank you for clearing that up.

      Well, we can be reasonably certain if there is a bad outcome, it won't bother Assange: "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.

    4. Re:Mr Assange? Say hello to... by Iori+Branford · · Score: 0

      Lest anyone take that horribly out-of-context quote the wrong way:

      When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".

      The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

      It's the kind of moral conundrum that would unnerve most people, that made some wonder last week what the potential ramifications of the latest leak might be, but it is a subject on which Assange himself is absolutely clear: "You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion."

    5. Re:Mr Assange? Say hello to... by Caraig · · Score: 1

      You make an unfortunately excellent point. We all like to think that insurance.aes256 is going to be some massive Stick It To The Man thing, but it could be an absolute firebomb as far as the people with lives on the line goes.

      Naturally I'm hoping that the only people who get hurt by the release of insurance.aes256 are corporations and governments... but the chances of that happening and not resulting in lots of deaths is, probably, pretty slim. (Plus, such entites are usually made up of, you know, squishy people.)

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
  4. That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some over priced phone calls.

  5. Deserves release of draft PDF by keehun · · Score: 5, Funny

    If there was anything deserving of a WikiLeaks leak, it's this book before it's published in its pdf form. Teach Assange a lesson.

    1. Re:Deserves release of draft PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't pay tax to Assange to write a book. I do however pay tax to my government and I do expect that they don't keep any secrets from me.

    2. Re:Deserves release of draft PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False equivalence. You are advocating copyright infringement against Assange. The documents published by WikiLeaks are not copyrighted (otherwise WikiLeaks would have been sued for copyright infringement).

    3. Re:Deserves release of draft PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What lesson is that? Do I pay taxes to Assange and am I thrown in jail if I don't pay them?
      He has always been in favor of personal privacy and rights, and in favor of government transparency.
      Perhaps you should consider the differences between these two concepts.
      I'm not sure why you are in revenge mode anyway. He should be taught a lesson because.. he is fighting for our freedoms?
      My guess is you couldn't even give up paypal because it would inconvenience you while buying more cheap Chinese crap, and you don't even deserve these freedoms, but the fascist state that is being created for you.

    4. Re:Deserves release of draft PDF by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if he 'anonymously' leaked it himself.

      For all his faults, he does truly believe in freedom of information.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  6. Re:1.2 million euro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  7. hmm by nomadic · · Score: 1

    I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat

    So is he waffling on his long-time insistence that he is not wikileaks, but merely a member?

    1. Re:hmm by Truekaiser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      well to be honest if it wasn't for what he did the site would of been ignored like cryptome. in which case just getting the leaked documents would of done nothing if the site they were leaked too was ignored and derided as fake if actually brought up as cryptome often is. he became both the figurehead and the pr man for wikileaks not only approaching normal newspapers with the information to give them good story's but saying to other people who know of wrong doing and don't know where to leak the information, you can give it to me.

    2. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. He is not Wikileaks, but he makes valuable contributions to the organization.

      By the way it's 'would have' not 'would of'.

    3. Re:hmm by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So is he waffling on his long-time insistence that he is not wikileaks, but merely a member?

      If he is just a member, he is clearly a member with "benefits".

      Julian Assange paid two thirds of WikiLeaks salary budget

      That makes for an interesting contrast to the way Assange / Wikileaks has treated the alleged primary source of the classified US government documents they've been so recently leaking:

      Is WikiLeaks Reneging on its Financial Promise to Bradley Manning?

      As to how he views himself....

      Now that shadowy organization Wikileaks has unleashed another wave of military field reports, people want to know more about its founder, Julian Assange. According to a Times profile today, he's running Wikileaks with an iron fist.

      Even remotely, his style is imperious. When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland, questioned Mr. Assange’s judgment over a number of issues in an online exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. “I don’t like your tone,” he said, according to a transcript. “If it continues, you’re out.”

      Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. “I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest,” he said. “If you have a problem with me,” he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should quit.

      A reported twelve Wikileaks members have left. Julian Assange: On the Run, Even During CNN Interviews

      Pied Piper Julian Assange brooks no dissent in land of WikiLeaks

      I guess the above also explains: ‘Chaos’ at WikiLeaks Follows Assange Arrest

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Agreed" is a sentence fragment. Please use complete sentences next time.

    5. Re:hmm by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Cryptome is not ignored, I have seen articles about it in the news, and have seen people discuss some of the documents posted there in online forums. The fact that it is not as famous as Wikileaks probably has more to do with the fact that the information posted there is not quite as high profile...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While he's correcting a mistake that is extremely annoying (who makes this one, really? people who can speak english but not write? How the hell do you mix up "of" and "have"??), you're just being petty. English is not my native language and even I cringe every time I see this.

    7. Re:hmm by siride · · Score: 1

      Let's just call it an elliptical construction (implied "it is" at the beginning). I mean, really, does it matter? I don't really see the value in the rule about avoiding sentence fragments. I find them to be perfectly reasonable and clear.

    8. Re:hmm by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      well to be honest if it wasn't for what he did the site would of been ignored like cryptome. in which case just getting the leaked documents would of done nothing if the site they were leaked too was ignored and derided as fake if actually brought up as cryptome often is. he became both the figurehead and the pr man for wikileaks not only approaching normal newspapers with the information to give them good story's but saying to other people who know of wrong doing and don't know where to leak the information, you can give it to me.

      It almost makes me wonder if this might not be the exact sort of thing you need to do to get the news out. The media's covering him for the "sexy" angle, dirt and sleaze is sexy. PETA gets people to go naked for fur but that just doesn't seem to generate enough controversy. Maybe PETA should hire the Old Spice guy to sexually assault women wearing fur. That'll get the message out.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't wikileaks, but he is a large part of its (current) fund source.

  8. Rape allegations by superdana · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I know this is probably asking too much of Slashdot, but in discussing the rape allegations against Assange, let's please remember that it's well within the realm of possibility for all three of the following to be true simultaneously:
    1. Wikileaks is important, and we should promote its continued existence.
    2. The tactics in use by various governments to pursue the rape allegations against Assange are politically motivated.
    3. The rape allegations are true and Assange should be held to account.

    (Please note that I am saying these three things can all be true at the same time, not that any one or all of them necessarily are.)

    Many falsehoods have been spread about the allegations against Assange. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case." [1] (I very strongly urge you to read her piece in its entirety.)

    Please don't let your admiration for Assange's work with Wikileaks prevent you from taking seriously an accusation of rape. Rape is a serious crime, and accusations of rape need to be taken seriously, even if—perhaps especially if—they are made against people we otherwise consider to be heroic.

    [1] "Some Shit I'm Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange": http://kateharding.info/2010/12/16/some-shit-im-sick-of-hearing-regarding-rape-and-assange/

    1. Re:Rape allegations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please don't let your admiration for Assange's work with Wikileaks prevent you from taking seriously an accusation of rape. Rape is a serious crime, and accusations of rape need to be taken seriously, even ifperhaps especially ifthey are made against people we otherwise consider to be heroic.

      Look, I know that in this day and age we are not supposed to say it, but a line does have to be drawn somewhere when it comes to defining rape. If the women claimed that they had been drugged, or that they never consented to have sex with Assange, I would be a bit more willing to hear their claims of rape. However, both women did consent, but are claiming that Assange went "too far" and failed to stop on command -- continuing to have sex with a broken condom, having sex while one of them was asleep, etc. If we start to call these things rape, then a lot of people out there are going to be implicated, including an ex-girlfriend of mine (to be clear, I would not even consider accusing her of raping me).

      Either "rape" means violence, or it does not. I agree with the Huffington Post piece quoted in that blog post you linked to: we should not conflate what Assange did the sort of violent crime that most people think of when they think "rape." The last thing we need is for "rape" to refer to things that are so commonplace that people forget that there are truly dangerous rapists out there.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Rape allegations by LainTouko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The tactics in use by various governments to pursue the rape allegations against Assange are politically motivated.

      The rape allegations are true and Assange should be held to account.

      It's pretty difficult for two statements like that to be simultaneously true. For it to be right to hold Assange to account, the allegations don't just need to be true (something which is unknowable), they need to be provable beyond reasonable doubt. If various powerful governments want your head and are prepared to use underhanded tactics in order to get it, it's very difficult to maintain that doubt is unreasonable.

    3. Re:Rape allegations by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The rape allegations are true and Assange should be held to account.

      The problem is that people keep using that word - "Rape". It has an enormous number of negative connotations. Read the link you provided at kateharding.info - how many times does she use the "R" word? Rape, rape rape... From what we know of the Assange case, the women who he is accused of "raping" both continued to see him afterwards. One took him out for breakfast the next day, and paid for his train ticket back into Stockholm. Another arranged a party for him the next day, during which she twittered "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing." These are not the actions of women who have been raped - at least, not in the sense of what the majority of people consider the word "rape" to mean. Calling whatever supposedly happened between Assange and these women "rape" diminishes the word, and is grossly offensive to both men and women who have genuinely been the victims of forced sexual intercourse.

    4. Re:Rape allegations by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      You mean like the falsehood that he is a journalist???

      He is the victim of his fame and not being able to turn his penis off .. nothing more. We've seen the same story told a many times, famous guy gets paraded in front of the press because he will screw anyone anytime. And someone he screwed either got pissed off or he actually did something wrong.

      Yawn .. nothing to see here. Can we move onto some real news????

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    5. Re:Rape allegations by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What an amazing turn of words. To say that circumstances around claims and actions by those making the accusations are merely "tactics used to discredit rape victims everyday" is abhorrent. That's a shameless attempt to equate it to saying "she was probably asking for it". The truth is that those "tactics" are used to discredit all sorts of accusations about everything all the time. If you don't take these things into consideration when judging the validity of an accusation, then what the fuck else *is* there?

      It's a horrible and sickening crime and that's why the accused should always be given full benefit of doubt and investigation of validity of such weighty claims must be thorough and unquestionable.

      Merely googling phrases like "woman admits false rape claim" produce more than enough news articles for me to justify never merely accepting an accusation without intense scrutiny and certainly never believing the accused is guilty until proven well beyond any doubt. Of course, we protect accusers in this country, without affording the same right to the accused -- and their life is ruined forever after merely by the accusation, even if it is found to be false.

      Remember the beginning of this year, when two women accused a man of rape . . . because they said the consensual sex wasn't very good?

    6. Re:Rape allegations by Marcika · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many falsehoods have been spread about the allegations against Assange. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case." [1] (I very strongly urge you to read her piece in its entirety.)

      I've read that post in its entirety, and most of the comments as well. I'm close to throwing up. By her own admission Harding is "an arrogant, man-hating cunt who hates free speech, can’t tolerate dissenting opinions, and lives to preserve [her] echo chamber of brainwashed sycophants". I agree fully. Most of these women advocate locking Assange away indefinitely without trial or hearing; anyone who mentions the evidence against the women (like those oh-so-caring/admiring Tweets about him the day after the alleged 'rape') gets immediately banned by Harding.

      Given the apparent echo-chamber nature of reactions to the allegations on these feminist sites, I start to seriously lean towards discounting the women's statements and assuming innocence, given that word stands against word anyway.

    7. Re:Rape allegations by john82 · · Score: 1

      4) Once again, when a (self) important male is the focus, any women take a back seat.

      In this case, we have someone who is important not merely because he says so, but because he's also waving a political banner. That means we can conveniently overlook that he's a serial scumbag. AND, because he's waving that oh so important banner, we shall cast doubt on the character and veracity of the women rather than the man.

      Nothing to see here that you haven't seen before. Move along ladies.

    8. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 2

      Rape doesn't mean violence. It means sex without consent. Your personal interpretation of the word and desire for a specific meaning is irrelevant. Are you arguing that once a woman gives consent, she's no longer allowed to change her mind? At what point in your mind is she committed and her wishes no longer matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

    9. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape is about sexual contact, not STD risks.
      In other words: if the victim is troubled by the sex, then it's rape. If the victim is ok with the sex and is only upset about the risks that she could have been infected with an STD, this is closer to endangering someone or harming someone than rape. It's still forced sexual contact, but I don't think it can be called rape if the victim says "I would have been OK with it if he had worn a condom". Calling that situation 'rape' cheapens the ordeal of the victims of real rape where sex is the issue regardless of use of protection against STDs.

      I don't have all the facts about the Ardin/Assange case, but it seems very likely that Ardin is upset about Assange not using a condom rather than he having sex with her. If that's the case, then it's disgusting to say we should support Ardin like she's a real rape victim. She's a victim of being exposed to the risk of having an STD, not rape. Until she says the sex is the issue and she would feel raped even if Assange had used protection, then I won't consider it to be rape and neither should anyone else.

      And ultimately, saying "Well, she enjoyed the sex but she did not consent to doing it without a condom, so it's still rape" will just make people not take rape victims very seriously.

    10. Re:Rape allegations by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case."

      In a case with no physical evidence, the only defense is to try to discredit the witness! Yes, the guilty do this, but so must the innocent. To exclude the only possible defense--as the law often requires--means that justice is impossible. No wonder many dismiss the legal process in these cases outright.

      The real problem is that a crime that produces no evidence and makes no impression on reality should not be such a serious matter. With less at stake the guilty can admit their wrong and accept a minor punishment; and the innocent need not be destroyed by the allegation itself.

    11. Re:Rape allegations by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      From what I've read this seems to boil down to a he said she said case from two women that discovered they were sleeping with the same man. Rape is a serious charge and should be only upheld with serious evidence there is far to much ambiguity from my perspective with these cases. The filing charges and dropping them and refiling seems fishy I wonder if Sweden has a filing false reports law or similar they could have used to compel these women to stick to there version of events? Further extradition for questioning? Sorry this just smacks of overreaching and punitive they are free to contact his lawyer and get a no response to any questions they might have there is no need to extradite him, charge him or drop it.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    12. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the link you provided at kateharding.info - how many times does she use the "R" word? Rape, rape rape...

      What is this thread, it's like some unfunny remake of Blazing Saddles! :)

    13. Re:Rape allegations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Rape doesn't mean violence

      If "rape" does not mean "violence," then we should not throw rapists in prison. Are you arguing that rapists should be free to walk around, because they are not violent criminals?

      Are you arguing that once a woman gives consent, she's no longer allowed to change her mind?

      Are you trying to say that one women can be raped? What if a man changes his mind about having sex?

      My original point can be summarized as this: Assange did things that a lot of people do, and that few people would call "rape" or would even consider to be criminal. If you are going to say that what Assange did is "rape," then there are a lot of rapists out there, far more than anyone should be comfortable with. Like I said, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and in my opinion, we are being far too liberal with the use of the word "rape" when it comes to Assange's actions.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    14. Re:Rape allegations by definate · · Score: 2

      That's a good article. Though she has 2 conflicting statements.

      She recognizes that this is far beyond the usual treatment and that it is definitely politically motivated. She also recognizes how much the media has tainted peoples views against the girls. However she then goes on to say that a fair trial should be pursued. Do you believe that a fair trial could ever be held now?

      Additionally, given the time has lapsed, and that relative to more obvious cases of rape, this one seems particularly less like rape, such that there is no evidence (from what I've been reading, including her articles), that any such force took place, how are we supposed to prosecute when it's merely he said, she said? Essentially, we wouldn't be having a trial on what happened, but a trial on how the jurors perceive the character of the people in question. Something that is already tipped against men.

      I just read the comments by people on her post, and they fall to the same problems as the people on the opposite side, they put words in their mouths, and infer that something (which has not been stated) happened, which would define this as clearly rape.

      Lastly, from the Guardian...

      Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

      According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

      In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

      Now, neither Miss A nor Miss W say that they said no. While Miss A's statement suggests that she did something which should have been inferred as a no, Miss W outright says that she consented. Regardless of any half asleep state, however given she says she was "half asleep", the "surprise sex" part comes in with Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Swedish laws in question, as she is likely saying she was improperly exploited due to this state. Where as the first one is relying on these other actions, and the condom breaking, to say that while she may have implicitly consented to sex, she didn't consent to unprotected sex, though he contests that he knew it was broken.

      I just re-read the charges, and they are so light, that I could not be certain that in the usual course of events that I would not also violate the letter of these laws. It would reduce having sex to filming it, and ensuring that a contract is drawn up beforehand which outlined what can and can't be done.

      All of this personally comes off as the least sympathe

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    15. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Insane feminist double-think.

      It's right up to the point that any "evidence" in court other than say-so becomes meaningless. Basically... if you've got your cock in her and spooged, and then she changes her mind... what fucking meaning does a rape charge have? It's an accusation that can (and does, frequently) ruin a man's life out of spite and revenge... and all because people like you want to count angels dancing on the head of a pin.

    16. Re:Rape allegations by Squapper · · Score: 1

      Having sex with a sleeping person IS in fact defined as rape in Sweden. And to me it sounds quite reasonable that having sex with someone who isn't aware and thus can't give you consent should indeed be defined as rape in the rest of the world as well.

    17. Re:Rape allegations by definate · · Score: 2

      Oh, though Miss A sounds quite suspicious, her charges at least warrant further investigation (and I believe are the primary ones the prosecution are looking into).

      However, we can see that she does have an axe to grind, continued relatively as friends, and later was looking to make money off of it. Not to mention the rest of it, it all decreases the seriousness of her claim, and from the articles so far, I don't believe there's any evidence beyond their words, which are in opposition to each other.

      So you're still left at the same conclusion.

      Though, I just realized I err on the side of false negatives (beta), and not on false positives (alpha). I would rather a system be setup such that the likelihood of an incorrect verdict, is biased towards keeping people out of jail, than it is putting people in jail. Something other people might not agree on.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    18. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      How do you know what Assange did? Or are we declaring people guilty or innocent before trial now? Did you read the definition of rape provided? Is the word violence anywhere in there? It's a frequent, but not required, ingredient. Sorry if our laws disagree with your personal interpretation.

    19. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      It's also an allegation that can (and does, frequently) ruin a woman's life because everyone tries to twist words around, throw up fantastical scenarios that have no bearing on the case at hand, and invent their own definitions for rape.

    20. Re:Rape allegations by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I would argue they need to have "Degrees" of rape as most people when they hear the word "Rape" think of violent rape, such as a man jumping out of the bushes and savagely beating and having intercourse with a woman, or drugged rape, such as some dude slipping a woman a rufie, rather than "oh, this chick was having sex with the dude willingly then she decided she wanted him to stop and in the heat of the moment he refused". As far as the "sleeping sex" I don't know the details but they sound suspect.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    21. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... not when the laws of the country state that the accuser enjoys anonymity... while the accused is dragged through the press. Hence the "ridiculous unbalancing of law". May be you should get yourself a real education - those womens' studies courses really fucked you up.

    22. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      Right, none of your points do a thing to refute that rape != violence. I see why you decided to post as AC.

    23. Re:Rape allegations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      I guess a lot of people are rapists then, at least considering the fact that one of my ex-girlfriends started having sex with me while I was asleep, and several of my friends have had similar experiences. Or perhaps I just have a habit of making friends with rapists.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    24. Re:Rape allegations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      If you are referring to the "definition" given by Wikipedia...maybe you should have looked at the second paragraph, where rape is described as an underreported category of sexual violence.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    25. Re:Rape allegations by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      Many would draw a line between having sex with a sleeping person when the sleeping person and the other person had not been having sex, and a situation where the sleeping person and the other person were mutually and consensually naked in a bed where they had just spent the night having sex. The first situation strikes most people as criminal, the second as bad manners.

    26. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 2
      That would make sense, given that we follow the same legal framework for murder.

      Sleeping sex....ever seen the movie "Kids?"

      When bringing up hypothetical situations, lets bear in mind that the woman in question gave consent for protected sex. According to the allegation, one of the consented to having protected sex with JA, who tried to ignore the condom request. She was insistent, and JA eventually quit trying to have any sort of sex with her. She then woke up the next morning to him screwing her brains out without a condom.

      She freaked out the next morning, drove to the chemist to get an std test and a day-after pill. She also asked JA to get tested as well, but he refused because he was too busy. Whatever side you may lie on, that's the story of a scumbag pushing his way past a girls clearly stated limits. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but this isn't a "She changed her mind halfway through" situation; it's a "she was clear and he ignored it" situation.

    27. Re:Rape allegations by xnpu · · Score: 1

      I think the argument here is that somewhere there's a point of no return. You can't get off a roller coaster once it's started rolling. This is just the nature of the ride you've chosen to take. You have to finish it.

    28. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's how it's categorized. Is that the same as the definition? If someone has sex with a woman who's passed out drunk, what would you call it? Was violence required? If you disagree with the definition, please provide an alternative from somewhere other than the top of your head.

    29. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you define someone who continues to share the bed for days afterwards with the alleged rapist? What did she expect when she invited him into her bed?

    30. Re:Rape allegations by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      If "rape" does not mean "violence," then we should not throw rapists in prison.

      Why not? Protecting society is certainly one of the biggest reasons that somebody should be incarcerated, but there are certainly others: Punishment. Deterrence. Rehabilitation. There are all sorts of crimes for which people are and should be sent to prison that don't involve violence. Theft certainly ranks high among them; it's been something recognized as a serious crime pretty such as long as societies have existed. Fraud would be another. I'm sure you can think of others.

      Like I said, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and in my opinion, we are being far too liberal with the use of the word "rape" when it comes to Assange's actions.

      Lines are drawn in specific places. It's done on a per-society basis. We call them "laws."

      In Sweden, they believe that Assange's actions violate those laws. They still need to convince a court that he actually did those actions and that the actions do violate the law; that burden is on them. But if they bring him to trial and the verdict comes back guilty, you need to step back and acknowledge peoples' right to a different opinion than yours. Especially different societies.

      Second, I'm not sure where you're getting your information that people do things like this all the time or a lot of people do them or even that few people would call them rape. Claiming it does not make it true, nor does your anecdote that an ex-girlfriend did one of these things to you and you didn't call the police so clearly it can't be rape. How are most of these issues different from spousal rape, where a husband just assumes by virtue of being married that he has consent to fuck his wife whenever he wants? Hell, I would find that more defensible than fucking somebody who specifically is telling you no and yet it's still outlawed in most countries of the world. (See the spousal rape article on Wikipedia if you want a citation.)

      From my personal opinion, I find almost all of the things you listed should be rape. There are any number of perfectly valid reasons that a person might withdraw consent (tell the person to stop) after sex begins. What if he is hurting her? What if she was only interested in vaginal sex and are suddenly taking it up the ass? What if he refuses to use a condom? What if he suddenly becomes an asshole she would never have consented to have sex with ("shut the fuck up bitch or I'll beat your fucking brains out!")? What if he starts handcuffing her to the bed or choking her because he likes it kinky? Can you honestly claim you believe any of those situations that a guy should be able to continue right on fucking the person and it be legally okay? Even "eh, I changed my mind" works for me. I would fucking HATE IT and probably never have anything to do with the woman again if she pulled it on me, but the idea that there is any reason or any point at which I can say I get to have my penis in somebody who doesn't want it there... well, I deserve whatever I get.

      Having sex with somebody who is asleep is an even easier case. Just because somebody consents to sex that night doesn't mean they consent to even more sex in the morning, and there is no reason that anybody should be able to fuck somebody without their consent and it be okay -- especially when the person is not even conscious to know who is doing them how or why, much less agree to it. You want to have more sex? No problem. Wake her up and ask. She screwed you last night, chances are she'll screw you again in the morning. Not even asking? Holy crap. "But gosh, I didn't want to wake her up or anything!" Talk about the definition of a selfish bastard -- in all possible ways.

      The only iffy one to me is continuing to have sex with a broken condom. If the woman knows it broke and says stop, see point #1 about withdrawing consent. If not, I think pr

    31. Re:Rape allegations by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Many would draw a line between having sex with a sleeping person when the sleeping person and the other person had not been having sex, and a situation where the sleeping person and the other person were mutually and consensually naked in a bed where they had just spent the night having sex. The first situation strikes most people as criminal, the second as bad manners.

      Bad manners? Waking up to sex is fun! (In the context of the latter situation, of course.)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    32. Re:Rape allegations by siride · · Score: 1

      Strawman.

    33. Re:Rape allegations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      If someone has sex with a woman who's passed out drunk, what would you call it?

      It depends a lot on the circumstances. If it is a total stranger doing it, and no consent was ever given, then I see no reason not to call it rape. If, on the other hand, two people decide to have a wild night of drinking and sex, and at some point one of them loses consciousness, I really do not think that "rape" is the appropriate label.

      I never claimed to have a better definition for rape, I only said that the simplistic one based on "consent given" or "consent not given" may imply that a lot of people are rapists, and that certain very common behaviors would be inappropriately classified as "rape." That very same Wiki article makes the point that just defining when consent is given or not given is difficult, and that explicitly stating "yes" is not the be-all and end-all of consent (and that not explicitly stating "no" does not imply consent either). Making a blanket statement like, "Having sex with someone who is asleep is rape," fails to properly capture the difference between a predatory who sneaks into someone's bedroom and starts having sex with them without any sort of permission, and a consenting couple that has been having sex all night anyway. Likewise with drugs: simply stating that having sex with someone whose judgement is impaired by the effects of a drug constitutes rape implies that a whole lot of people are raping each other right now.

      Most people associate rape with violence, or perhaps more generally with predatory behavior, which is why we put convicted rapists in prison: they are dangerous and need to be kept separate from the rest of society (at least in theory; in practice, we put plenty of non-violent criminals in prison, but that is an entirely separate issue). If we start calling people rapists who are not exhibiting any sort of violent or predatory behavior, then we will wind up diminishing the seriousness of "rape" as a crime or allegation, which we definitely do not want to do. We already have a serious problem with false allegations of violent rape, why would we want to create a whole new problem of mass rape allegations for activities and behaviors that most people would not consider "rape?"

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    34. Re:Rape allegations by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      At that rate one needs to have some proof or another witness to make it reasonable. Such as someone seeing her fleeing from the room. In this case you could possibly say that since two women are accusing him the likelihood of either is increased but then again the judicial system should not be based on probabilities above 90 percent guilty. Too many men get hit with rape charges and then even when found not-guilty they are ruined for the rest of their lives. As it turns out Assange is not ruined by this case because of his Wikileaks affiliation. Funny how some of the biggest scum bags become revered in some circles, such as Vlad the Impaler.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    35. Re:Rape allegations by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I find particularly worrysome, is that Interpol was involved in hunting down Assange (in the end he gave himself up voluntarily in the UK, but that notwithstanding...). Interpol can only be activated against individuals that are international criminals - their crimes spawn country boundaries. In that sense, manslaughter by itself is not a crime of Interpol's inference. Rape, even less. Rape where violence wasn't involved... well.. it's just ridiculous.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    36. Re:Rape allegations by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, there are people who behave like that after being raped...but they're in abusive relationships, whereas neither of these women really appeared to be in relationships at all.

      It is pretty weird in these circumstances.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    37. Re:Rape allegations by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's possible for them to both be true. Assange should be "held to account" just like anyone else under the same allegations. None of whom are subjects of international manhunts, Interpol bulletins and UK extradition. It's the political motivations of various governments, namely the US and Sweden, that are going beyond that.

      As for reasonable doubt, just the existence of a very powerful enemy isn't enough to create reasonable doubt. "Anything can happen" isn't "reasonable". If there is physical evidence of his actual crime, and no physical evidence of exoneration, any doubt isn't going to be reasonable.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    38. Re:Rape allegations by Weezul · · Score: 1

      There are two problems with your analysis :

      (1) As Naomi Klein said, the reasons for prosecuting Assange are so transparently political that, even if he's guilty as sin, his case will do massive damage to rape prosecutions for decades to come. Are you a minority accused of rape? Great, just trot out the prosecutors racial statistics. etc. "Selective prosecution" has now become a dog whistle for jurors and journalists.

      (2) Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen's reasons for pressing charges are fairly clearly revenge. Assange may or may not have been rough with them, but they both apparently liked that when they thought he wanted a relationship. Again, the publicity here will impact rape prosecutions for decades by making the defense "she's just saying this for revenge" infinitely more believable.

      Imho, we should get behind Assange's defense not because he's necessarily innocent, but because otherwise will damage huge numbers of rape cases all over the world for decades. If otoh we defend Assange, then rapists who don't get the same defense will not look so good.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    39. Re:Rape allegations by careysub · · Score: 1

      Rape doesn't mean violence. It means sex without consent. Your personal interpretation of the word and desire for a specific meaning is irrelevant...

      If you Google the terms rape and "violence against women" together you get 4.75 million hits. The first regular listing returned in entitled: "Rape: Violence Against Women: Merck Manual Home Edition". On the web page you will read the following statement: Typically, rape is an expression of aggression, anger, or the need for power rather than sexually motivated. About half of women who are raped are physically injured.

      The terms "rape" and "sexual violence" are very commonly associated, and formal distinctions between any sort of non-consensual sex and sexual assault are also very commonly ignored. Note the statistic above: "About half of women who are raped are physically injured." Such a statistic could not possibly be including cases of "the condom broke but he didn't stop", but only actual physical coercion or threats of violence. It treats the term "rape" as being virtually equivalent to "sexual assault" - i.e. an act of violence.

      Note also the definitions offered by Dictionary.com (I show all of them):
      1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
      2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
      3. statutory rape.
      4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
      5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

      Except for 3., which is universally understood to include within it a class of sex acts that may be entirely consensual, each of these definitions specifies the use of force as a component of the definition. It is not true that "rape" in normal discourse simply means "sex without consent".

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    40. Re:Rape allegations by bstender · · Score: 1

      The actual facts, (whether she was truly asleep, whether he was actually having intercourse with her asleep) are irrevocably tainted by the fact that the charges were fabricated WAY after the fact. that is, AFTER celebrating her tryst, AFTER discovering he wasn't faithful, AFTER going to the newspaper, AFTER getting 'advice' from prosecutors, AFTER a politician made sure to see to it that Julian Assange was charged with rape despite the refusal by the chief prosecutor.
      IOW, both women have zero credibility.

      --
      look sig is kool
    41. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      If ... no consent was ever given, then I see no reason not to call it rape.

      So basically, if no consent was given, it's rape with no violence. Correct? Great, thanks for confirming my point.

      What most people associate with rape doesn't matter when it comes to the law. We also put people in prison because of illegal, not predatory, actions and those do not imply violence. Otherwise Bernie Madoff would be free right now.

      As to the rest, I whole-heartedly agree that there should be more specificity to the definition of rape (to include degree and intent, like homicide) in laws around the world. In fact, I believe Sweden tried to do something along those lines.

    42. Re:Rape allegations by NoSig · · Score: 2

      You have an underlying perspective that sex is something men do to women, and that remains true even if you point out the slant of your examples. From that perspective it is reasonable that the man would be responsible for the condom being broken, since the whole sex act is his sole responsibility. In reality, sex is something two people do together - it is a joint venture. Once you realize that then it makes little sense to blame one party for, say, a broken condom. Every example having to do with rape should be with the woman as aggressor, and if the example then doesn't seem too serious, then it isn't serious when a man does it either. On broken condoms, one party has to clearly withdraw consent for there to be a real issue, and at that point the broken condom is irrelevant. You'd have to get into deliberately sabotaged condoms to get a problem that's actually about broken condoms, but that's simply not rape, even if it should be punishable in some way.

    43. Re:Rape allegations by sdguero · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are going to find a lot of sympathetic people on /.

      Nerds tend to have been close to their mothers, put the Va-j-j up on a pedestal (where it arguably doesn't belong), and rarely get laid. Hence they fall in love with, and kiss the ass of, the first girl that is willing to have decent intercourse with them. Because of this, they also tend to end up with strong opinionated women that they kowtow too. Yeah yeah I'm being super general but overall I think it is a strong trend on my engineer friends.

    44. Re:Rape allegations by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of problems with the whole thing.

      Now granted, the women didn't come forward for a while, but to be fair a lot of rape victims don't immediately come forward (if at all). However, considering the timing (i.e. they both found out about the other's existence) and/or there was some sort of political motivations here, the whole thing sounds absolutely fishy.

      As a man, I absolutely agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Yes, women get legitimately sexually assaulted all the time, but they also hold a lot of power. All a woman has to do is point the finger at a man and accuse him of raping her and that's enough for the police to ask questions. If a girlfriend is really, really pissed at her boyfriend (say, she found out that he was cheating on her), all she has to do is accuse him of rape.

      I really just don't know. Maybe it has to be defined as involving force or violence specifically. If a woman goes through a rape kid and has traces of a guy's semen but otherwise no injuries (from being held down, strangled, etc.) can you really call it rape? If there was no attempt to restrain her and/or no attempt on her part to resist (and, as a result, injuries on one or both parties), can you really call it rape?

      It's unpopular to say what I and the parent post are saying, but until we have some sort of solid standard, the accusation of rape will always be a power that women can use to screw over men for whatever reason. Yes, women have suffered hundreds and hundreds of years of abuse and social inequity, but that's no reason to tip the scale the other way.

    45. Re:Rape allegations by ubermiester · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Either "rape" means violence, or it does not

      Rape has to do with consent, not necessarily violence. Violence is obviously used to overcome the lack of consent, but you do not need to violently rape someone. Statutory rape is when you have sex with someone who is not old enough to offer consent in the first place. Someone who is sleeping is incapable of consent (unless there's some kind of pre-arranged consent video or something - I'm sure its a well known fetish).

      And in this case we're talking about a fine line. One of the women claims that she consented to protected sex, but when Assange insisted on removing the condom, she retracted her consent but he refused to recognize that (allegedly). That's still rape. She did not consent to what he was doing and he did it anyway. I understand that such a finely tuned definition is not the norm, but we praise places like Sweden for their progressive policies on speech and the law, so why are they suddenly called a bunch of left-wing extremists when someone like Assange is involved?

      Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

      And BTW, Assange's claim that he 'fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism' should tell people all they need to know about his dedication to human rights and fighting the "good fight". He's a narcissistic ego-manic.

      Wikileaks=important, Assange=asshole.

    46. Re:Rape allegations by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Rape doesn't mean violence

      If "rape" does not mean "violence," then we should not throw rapists in prison. Are you arguing that rapists should be free to walk around, because they are not violent criminals?

      A completely meaningless response because nobody claimed that anyone should be allowed to walk free or that non violent criminals should not be confined. The grandparent was merely pointing out that your notion that rape is invariably violent is false in the eyes of society at large and of the law.
       

      Are you arguing that once a woman gives consent, she's no longer allowed to change her mind?

      Are you trying to say that one women can be raped? What if a man changes his mind about having sex?

      Another meaningless response, as nobody said anything of the sort. (And yes, men can be raped, though the law is slow in recognizing this fact.)
       

      My original point can be summarized as this: Assange did things that a lot of people do, and that few people would call "rape" or would even consider to be criminal.

      Repeating your argument doesn't lend it any additional credence - because what matters isn't what some nebulous 'many people' think (and I suspect you're wrong on that anyhow) but what the law says. Your mindset of "if it isn't violent it isn't rape" is misogynistic and decades out of date - nowadays we recognize that people of both sexes have the right to not to consent to sex and the right to withdraw that consent without consequences.

    47. Re:Rape allegations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      So basically, if no consent was given, it's rape with no violence. Correct? Great, thanks for confirming my point.

      Again, it depends on the situation. Just because someone does not have a signed and notarized document detailing consent does not mean that they are committing rape. These situations are not at all clear-cut.

      We also put people in prison because of illegal, not predatory, actions and those do not imply violence

      Yeah, and in fact our prisons are overflowing with them, which is why I made the point that ideally we would only imprison people who are dangerous and need to be kept separated from everyone else. There are a lot of other things we could do with non-violent criminals: community service, fines, probation, etc. The fact that we often choose to toss them in prison cells, where they are nothing more than a drain on society, is a problem, not a solution, created by "tough on crime" political platforms.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    48. Re:Rape allegations by smartr · · Score: 1

      I mean, what if I feel that in the middle of sex, I no longer want to be having sex, for about 10 seconds, then later decide - that I actually want sex again. Is that 10 seconds of rape? What if I decide to wait a couple of weeks after continuing a relationship, even after being raped for 10 seconds? Never mind the psychological studies on "hot" and "cold" states. People are going to do irrational things in a "hot" state. Generally speaking, if you've been having a night of wild sex, you're going to be in a "hot" state, and aren't going to take a gently stated "stop" at face value. How about in a relationship? Is it rape to try and seduce your lover? One person is tired, and the other tries to get them in the mood? Is Seth Rogan being horribly raped in the sex scene of "Knocked Up" as he states his discomforts of sleeping with his pregnant partner? He might have been doing the moving, but he clearly was not consenting. If there is no actual violence, then it seems more fittingly as a form of molestation. In a sexual relationship, I'd go as far as to say - there's no such thing as molestation within an established consensual sexual relationship. I think it's reasonable to say there should be implied consent. You want to avoid non-violent sexual advances? You need to end the sexual relationship. The courts really can't determine any factual basis beyond a reasonable doubt on these matters of "rape" anyhow if the party's stories split. I'm not saying this kind of behavior is not abusive behavior, but we haven't outlawed being mean yet - as our courts would be completely overrun with wasteful chicanery. If being mean isn't against the law, why should we waste our time with this?

    49. Re:Rape allegations by torako · · Score: 1

      I'm not comfortable with people who think it's ok to continue to have intercourse if one of the partners says "no, please stop", even if there's no physical force. I'm not saying the word "rape" is necessarily the correct word to use, but it's definitely criminal.

    50. Re:Rape allegations by thechemic · · Score: 1

      Rape does not mean "sex without consent". Your personal interpretation of the word and desire for a specific meaning is irrelevant. For infact "sex without consent" is the definition of molestation (not rape). Rape certainly does, by definition, involve violence.

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
    51. Re:Rape allegations by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Please don't let your admiration for Assange's work with Wikileaks prevent you from taking seriously an accusation of rape. Rape is a serious crime, and accusations of rape need to be taken seriously, even if—perhaps especially if—they are made against people we otherwise consider to be heroic.

      Yeah that's exactly the problem in Sweden and that is spreading to other countries now. Rape is a serious crime and does indeed need to be taken seriously, by both parties! The problem now is that everything protects the woman and they are using false rape charges for revenge and nothing is being done about that.
      In fact, the public prosecutor in this case, is some lunatic Swedish woman that even wrote a document, some years ago, on how to use these accusations to get even with the guys that didn't behave according to their standards for whatever reason. And for her, it didn't event matter if the accusations where true or not.

    52. Re:Rape allegations by Americano · · Score: 1

      You're confusing "violence" with "force". And a rape doesn't have to be "violent" in the sense of someone being beaten into submission, and then forced to have intercourse.

      "Sex without consent" = "Sex against the will of your partner" = "sex under duress" (def. 1) = "sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." (def. 2).

      "Force" doesn't have to take the form of a black eye or a split lip or a broken arm. It can be the threat of harm, or it can simply be "I'm bigger and stronger and weigh more than you, and I'm already halfway there, so I'm going to finish, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, even if you did change your mind."

      The GP's point stands: "Rape" =/= "violence". They often *do* go hand in hand, and they're close cousins, but they are not equivalent. In fact, you'll often see rape charges filed with assault & battery charges as well - rape covers the sexual aspect, the assault & battery charges handle the "...and I slapped her around a bit" aspect.

    53. Re:Rape allegations by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      I would hope at the least that she's no longer able to change her mind after the act is over. Part of the problem is that it's hard to *prove* the general case of "a woman consented and then changed her mind mid-act" let alone to separate it from "woman consented and the following morning changed her mind so now it's rape" or even "girl gets caught with boyfriend, entire act becomes rape at that point so as to avoid wrath of family."

      Didn't at least one of the accusing women make a blog post after the fact making a positive statement about that night, you know in between it happening and it becoming "rape"?

    54. Re:Rape allegations by sco08y · · Score: 1

      However, both women did consent, but are claiming that Assange went "too far" and failed to stop on command -- continuing to have sex with a broken condom, having sex while one of them was asleep, etc.

      There are cases where consenting adults can, during sex, do things that aren't entirely consenting because they're caught up in the moment. And it's damned easy to make stuff up. It's damned easy to to go overboard and crucify someone over it in the name of "zero tolerance" and such. No one has come up with a good system that consistently and fairly adjudicates sex charges.

      But that's not a good argument to limit "rape" to only clearly violent encounters.

      Either "rape" means violence, or it does not.

      Simple battery is generally defined as any unwanted touch, no matter how light. Same with assault, you simply have to move in such a way that you deliberately restrict the person's freedom of movement.

      Imagine if it wasn't so. A mugger would only need to corner a person and poke, because the victim couldn't (legally) do *anything* in response. It's already a bit like that with the squeegee guys in many cities.

      In many cases, wives get away with abusing their husbands because they're "only" screaming at them and the men (and often the courts) don't view that as abusive.

      Generally speaking, written laws have to be broad because people will actively seek out loopholes and exploit them. Social mores are subject to the same problem.

      we should not conflate what Assange did [with] the sort of violent crime that most people think of when they think "rape."

      Just to be sure: It's still something that I could never do to a woman, even if I didn't who she was. And it's morally equivalent, at least, to slapping a woman around. So, on the scumbag scale, he's at least on the order of a guy who hits his girlfriend, arguably worse.

    55. Re:Rape allegations by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Accuser = anon, accused = in the paper?

      Simple question: Devise a way to fundamentally tell the difference between "woman doesn't consent midway through the act" and "woman who retroactively revokes consent the following morning". Until you can with 100% accuracy, it's hard to claim that the woman's say-so should be sufficient evidence in and of itself, yet her consent (or lack thereof) is the sole defining element that renders it a crime or not.

    56. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently Assange never said "left-wing extremists". The paper added that to fit into their own agenda.

      Secondly, I've seen the story said 10 times each way. Your version is a new one too :)

    57. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno bout you, but a woman in the throws of climax won't listen to a man telling her he's chafed from a condom, or a heat spot etc etc.. I'd bet you a hundred to one in nearly every (80% or more) of cases where that happens the woman will finish, and then get off.

      The double standard is clear when you apply the standard in reverse. Women just have been on the short end of the law for so long, they're now able to leverage an unbalanced perception. Women waking up first, and initiating sex before a man has a chance to be awake enough to offer consent etc etc etc. Women who have female ejaculate which can often make their partner uncomfortable, and don't disclose it beforehand, then don't stop until they are "done" etc etc.

      It helps when you have a set of steps to follow to build a case against your accuser. What I'm seriously skeptical of is the fact that these women neither showed any of the typical signs of rape trauma. The blog entry that's often cited indicated adoration for the accused after the fact. They also didn't avoid contact with the accused, a typical indicator of rape victims. Rape is a serious crime, and in some countries still justification for state sponsored murder. The indicators of RTS are well studied (unfortunately for humanity, and assange in this case) so the minimization discussion (following the blog entries) is a non starter.

      This whole thing stinks, and Assange was a douche for doing what he did (sleeping with two women, and keeping the relationships secret.) But minimizing the entire definition of rape is not fair to victims of such a horrendous crime.

    58. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just define rape in any way that suits your political agenda. That's why the rape laws are confused, abused, fundamentally unfair and contradict the basic principles of western law - that justice is blind.

      You won't even define rape - because that would put limits on the kind of bullshit you and your kind could get away with.

    59. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      Only a child would think circumstances don't ALWAYS affect a situation. However, I'd like to know where you would draw the line for when a girl no longer has the right to change her mind and withdrawal consent. You've used complete strangers in previous examples, but I presume you don't actually think that's a requirement.

      What do overflowing prisons have to do with whether rape has to be violent or not?

    60. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      Again, it's easy to imagine all kinds of scenarios where it's silly, but the fact remains that screwing someone against their will is rape.

      Do you consider a man having unprotected sex with a woman who has clearly stated that he needs to wear a condom to be a sex crime on any level? Does he have the woman's consent to have unprotected sex with her?

      Also, your comment is formatted as one big, hard-to-read blob; please consider using the paragraph tab at least.

    61. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      If we're talking about the Assange situation, one of the women in question was unequivocally clear that condom-use was a pre-requisite to sex. Assange lost interest, then later had sex with her wearing a condom that night. The next morning, he had sex with her without wearing a condom. Does that sound like a joint decision?

    62. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      I agree, it shouldn't be sufficient evidence to *convict*. Do you feel a woman's word is sufficient to investigate the matter further or should it be ignored without further proof?

    63. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      Didn't at least one of the accusing women make a blog post after the fact making a positive statement about that night, you know in between it happening and it becoming "rape"?

      No, you're incorrect, but I recommend you read the story yourself. I read the Guardian's version. Both woman have different stories and the charges are different in both cases.

    64. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      And your definition comes from where?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse

      Please go read (more than the first line, or else you'll be very disappointed) and come back with something worthwhile to add other than what you wish the definition of rape was.

    65. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      Um, that argument has been proven illegal in courts all over the world, and it's a little disturbing you didn't get the memo.

      There are many ways that the "roller coaster" can change into something unexpected; the easy obvious one is rough/violent/forceful sex that either partner decides is not what they signed up for. You're saying they have no right but to lay there and get screwed once it starts?

    66. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to look up the ad hominem. Calling someone names doesn't disprove their opinions or positions.

    67. Re:Rape allegations by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Citation required. That is just way over the line of what you can say without providing a citation.

    68. Re:Rape allegations by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Can only a woman be raped? Despite the man-rapist-on-female-victim slant of my examples, I fully believe a man can be raped by both a woman and a man. It's going to be more rare, far less reported, and probably will involve at least some degree of actual violence; that's just how the tools (and frankly the psyches) line up.

      Frequently, but definitely not always, rape is used as a way of discouraging male homosexuality. While not a particularly common occurrence, it definitely happens where a man his held down and raped by a woman. Sometimes drugs are involved.

      It's one of the problematic side effects of the way the women's movement has been run in recent decades. Child sexual abuse tends to be pushed as a man on girl problem rather than the more accurate adult on child problem, domestic violence is a man on woman problem rather than the pretty much everybody on everybody problem that it is and sexual harassment is viewed as being only harmful when perpetrated by a man.

      It's something which ultimately has to change, but it's going to take a while because quite frankly the women that are getting the press tend to not care about the effects that the biased information has on everybody else. I was personally pleased to find that the domestic violence educational pamphlets at my doctors office were written to be gender neutral.

    69. Re:Rape allegations by hedwards · · Score: 1

      In practice, cases like that tend not to be prosecuted. Mainly because there was consent and the individual that was providing it isn't interested in pressing charges because they don't think that it's rape.

      While the person that was allegedly raped doesn't get to force a penalty, they can withdraw or opt not to report it. Which is what makes sex crimes at times so hard to prosecute. They don't get reported and even when they do the person doesn't necessarily want to push things as it ruins their life as well.

    70. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think a man should be CHARGED with rape... if the only evidence is a woman's say-so?

    71. Re:Rape allegations by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      One took him out for breakfast the next day, and paid for his train ticket back into Stockholm. Another arranged a party for him the next day, during which she twittered "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing."

      Stockholm Syndrome perhaps? (Ha ha)

    72. Re:Rape allegations by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      The only iffy one to me is continuing to have sex with a broken condom. If the woman knows it broke and says stop, see point #1 about withdrawing consent. If not, I think predicated consent is too slippery a slope to go down. "I wouldn't have agreed to sex if I knew the condom was broken" seems perfectly fair to me, but it's a stone's throw away from "I wouldn't have agreed to sex if I knew the car he was driving was his mother's" or "if I knew he was married" or "if I knew he wasn't rich." While I don't approve of people lying for sex, calling it rape does cross a line for me as long as the actual act of sex itself was consensual.

      How is this not begging the question? The question is whether the act was rape, in particular, whether consent was given. You then answer it by saying the act of sex itself was consensual. You premise the answer. And to wonder: If you offer me a cookie, and I assent to taking it, and then you punch me in the face, and say that I consented because you were lying by calling a punch in the face a cookie, I hardly see how you could be telling the truth, that is, that I actually consented.

      Let's take another case. I am temporarily rendered insenstive to some extent, and then you offer me sex, having convinced me that your name is Megan Fox and a beautiful and famous actress, and I assent. In reality, you are Dhalka226, an ugly and infamous sex-monger. I hardly see how I could be considered to have consented.

    73. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      Yes. Charged != conviction.

    74. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah yeah I'm being super general

      Then why the fuck did you bother typing? [citation needed], idiot.

    75. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking idiot - as you've demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. CHARGING someone with a crime is what the police do when they believe they have enough evidence to CONVICT someone in a court of law.

      It's not an investigation. The investigation has been done... they are now CHARGING the man with the crime. You are saying that the plice should automatically believe a man to be guilty on nothing more than a woman's say-so.

      Stalin loved idiots like you.

    76. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you woke up to find your ex-girlfriend sticking a jizz-covered dildo up your ass, that would be fine with you? Or is there a difference between consent to some sexual acts, and consent to others?

    77. Re:Rape allegations by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      If they decide they didn't want anybody to have sex with them when they were asleep, then yes, it's rape. Otherwise, it's not. When asleep, you cannot communicate consent so assuming consent is risky.

      Don't want to get accused of rape? Then don't have sex with people who are sleeping, or else get permission beforehand.

    78. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either "rape" means violence, or it does not.

      Rape doesn't mean violence, but rape is an act of violence. And having sex with someone, without a condom, while she is asleep, and after she has told you explicitly that she wants you to wear a condom, is an act of violence.

      Whether or not that's what Assange did, on the other hand, is unproven, and is currently under investigation.

    79. Re:Rape allegations by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      The fact that we often choose to toss them in prison cells, where they are nothing more than a drain on society, is a problem, not a solution, created by "tough on crime" political platforms.

      this is going to be more of the same as more and more prisons get privatized. all those "dividends" going to lawmakers and such...

      --
      ...
    80. Re:Rape allegations by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Underlying perspectives on sex is different from particular situations. I note that you use a sentence structure of "he had sex with her" rather than "they had sex", which is again consistent with you viewing sex as something men do to women. Any discussion from a starting point like that is pointless.

    81. Re:Rape allegations by thechemic · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing an encyclopedia with a dictionary. Please go use the right tool for the DEFINITION of English words or else you'll appear arrogant and uneducated. I don't need to come back with anything worthwhile to you. You'll obviously use whatever inappropriate tool you can find to attempt to prove your arrogance is warranted.

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
    82. Re:Rape allegations by xnpu · · Score: 1

      Please re-read my message: "somewhere there is a point of no return."

      What you describe is way before the point of no return. It's the standing and line for the roller coaster. Fixing your jacket, putting away your sunglasses, getting excited about what's ahead. It's the part that lasts 20 minutes. I'm talking about the actual roller coaster ride, the 20 second thrill that can't be stopped once started.

      Or to spell it out for you: I'm talking about the sexual climax. You really think if a woman changes her mind seconds before the guy is to ejaculate it's reasonable to expect a guy to pull out and abort? Even if you do think so, for many men it's simply impossible to do so. 10 seconds before that? Sure. But once those fish start swimming, there's no turning back.

    83. Re:Rape allegations by mijelh · · Score: 1

      Interpol can only be activated against individuals that are international criminals - their crimes spawn country boundaries

      That's what wikipedia says but I checked the provided sources (including Interpol's constitution) and I see no reference to that restriction.

    84. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spawn? Maybe you mean span? Creating new international boundaries does sound pretty supercriminal to me though...

    85. Re:Rape allegations by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Interpol can only be activated against individuals that are international criminals - their crimes spawn country boundaries.

      Assange is a citizen of Australia. He went to Sweden. While in Sweden he allegedly committed acts against two citizens of Sweden that could be criminal acts. The citizens of Sweden complained to the Swedish police. The possible criminal acts were brought to the attention of the Swedish prosecutors who had some disagreements about how serious this matter was, and various legal actions took place. While the Swedish prosecutors were sorting things out, Assange - citizen of Australia who was only visiting Sweden, left Sweden for the UK. Eventually the Swedish prosecutors got things sorted out, and had a warrant from a Swedish court to detain Assange on, "probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion". Assange lost an appeal to the Swedish Supreme Court, so the warrant continued in effect, and the Interpol notice was made since Assange was no longer in Sweden, and refused to return. He is currently in the UK, under "house arrest", and fighting extradition back to Sweden.

      In short: Assange is from country A, allegedly committed a crime in country S, and left for country B before the issue was settled in country S. That leaves him an international fugitive from justice. Interpol deals with that.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    86. Re:Rape allegations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      However, I'd like to know where you would draw the line for when a girl no longer has the right to change her mind and withdrawal consent.

      Anyone can change their mind, at any time, and I would not claim there is any limit to that. My only point was that it should not be easy to be found guilty off raping someone. Suppose that someone does change their mind, right in the middle of having sex with someone else, and makes that very clear...how long are we willing to wait until the other person stops, before we start calling it rape? What if someone changes their mind right before the sex would have stopped anyway (e.g. just a moment before a man has an orgasm), and their partner just finishes as usual?

      My point all along has been that, in my opinion, it is wrong to call what Assange did "rape," mainly because what he did sounds an awful lot like what a lot of other people do, so many people that we would literally be living in a society saturated by rapists. You might think he is an asshole, you might think what he did is rude, selfish, etc., but calling him a rapist amounts to calling a lot of other people rapists. What it comes down to is this: should every person have to be worried about being accused of being a rapist, unless they have a entered into a written agreement that specifies what will happen, how long it will happen, and what the contingencies are? Things do not always go as planned with sex; people are sometimes spontaneous; sometimes, people do not like what winds up happening. People sometimes even have sex with someone they never would have considered having sex with otherwise, but they get caught up in the heat of the moment and whatnot.

      Call Julian Assange an asshole, call him a cad, a womanizer, whatever. "Rapist" just seems like the wrong description to me, it leaves us in the precarious situation of implicating mass numbers of people.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    87. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jesus christ you give women a bad name :\

    88. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't blame one party for a broken condom? What if one party refuses to use a condom, despite that being a clear term of the arrangement? What if one party holds the other down and has sex with them when they don't want it? Let's not play down the accusations here. Let's not make excuses. If I'm ever asked to define "rape culture", I think I'll just point to this whole page.

    89. Re:Rape allegations by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      I would be hesitant to sex a girl up in Sweden without an attorney present.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    90. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      Do, pray tell, explain what I was describing.

      I think you're arguing with the voices in your head again, as none of your situations were described by me or is relevant to the rest of the discussion thus far.

    91. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      Brilliant point! Arguing the reference material without ever actually addressing anything else; reminds me of 8th grade debate club.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define:rape&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1

      Is three sources that disagree with you enough for you yet?

    92. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      Ahhh, another person that confuses an overall argument with one that's specific to wikileaks.

      Yes, I think a man should be charged based on a woman's claim that she was raped by him. If a prosecutor doesn't get enough evidence for a decent run in course, the charges would be dropped.

      However, in the JA situation, the police had the word of the women and text messages. Additionally, they scheduled an interview with him, he left the country before the interview, so that + their evidence allowed them to charge him. Is that sufficient for you?

      Actually, I don't care if it is, because it was enough for the Swedish police (who I'm pretty sure, Stalin did not love).

    93. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      "They" didn't have sex, as she was unconscious at the time. If it was a situation where they were both awake and coherent, I would have said "they had sex." Any other pedantic points you'd like to make or can we go ahead and agree that having sex with an unconscious partner who hasn't given consent is rape?

    94. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      None of the details of your slippery-slope argument are relevant here.

      What would you prefer to call someone who forces sex on an unconscious victim? And are you saying that you personally, as well as many people you've known, have forced sex on unconscious victims?

    95. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      I find it hilarious that a zillion users get on every wikileaks thread there is and spout off the most asinine, fairy-tale about CIA setups, war crimes, and global conspiracies, but you want a citation that references the wildly publicized Guardian's leaking of JA's criminal charges.

      I guess that explains why it seems like everyone makes dumb points - because they can't be bothered to read the material they're arguing about.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

    96. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, another person that confuses an overall argument with one that's specific to wikileaks.

      Pfff... at no point have I even mentioned Wikileaks. Yet another person who wants to change the subject. I've consistently kept this out of specific cases.

      Yes, I think a man should be charged based on a woman's claim that she was raped by him. If a prosecutor doesn't get enough evidence for a decent run in course, the charges would be dropped.

      Precisely why fucking idiots like you should never be in a position of power. You don't understand the law. You don't understand justice. A thousand years of common law development to ensure fairness, freedom and prevent arbitrary persecution... and fuckwits like you would piss it all away in the name of political correctness.

      However, in the JA situation, the police had the word of the women and text messages. Additionally, they scheduled an interview with him, he left the country before the interview, so that + their evidence allowed them to charge him. Is that sufficient for you?

      I never mentioned Wikileaks...but you just did. Epic hypocrisy fail.

      Actually, I don't care if it is, because it was enough for the Swedish police (who I'm pretty sure, Stalin did not love).

      Not in 1939 he didn't... but he'd fucking love them now... having modelled their rape laws on his regime. P.S. Look up the tern "useful idiot". A winnar is you!

    97. Re:Rape allegations by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think anyone who falsely accuses someone of rape should spend a few hours in a prison shower with some other inmates then they'll know what the word means

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    98. Re:Rape allegations by NoSig · · Score: 1

      You are having problems with basic reading comprehension. Do you honestly believe that what you wrote is meaningfully related to what you are responding to? If I wanted to have a discussion where the other party spews random sentences I'd talk to /dev/random instead.

    99. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      Says the guy who argues based off sentence structure. Thanks for the contribution, I believe your work here is done.

    100. Re:Rape allegations by NoSig · · Score: 1

      You did it again.

    101. Re:Rape allegations by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Charged = drug through the media and branded forever by the populace, because too many people see charged as equivalent to guilty and the papers don't exactly turn around and run a story about how he's really not guilty and she was making the accusation for revenge or whatever other reason a woman might choose to falsely accuse a man of rape.

      The problem is the core nature of the crime in question in it's milder forms. Precisely because the defining factor that separates normal sexual encounters from rape is consent and only consent. If a man and a woman have sex, and the woman claims it is rape, it is therefore rape, unless the man can provide some kind of absolute evidence that she was consenting at the time and through the total duration of the act.

      Let me give you a scenario: Man and woman have sex, woman presents no indication that she is not consenting whatsoever and in fact seems to be enjoying herself. The next day, she goes to the police and claims it was rape, as she decided to revoke consent after they were already alone together. There are no witnesses to the revocation of consent possible aside from the two of them, as they both agree that they went back to his place and were alone when they began to have sex (the difference being that he claims she was consenting, and she claims that she said no). There is physical and DNA evidence that they did in fact have sex.

      Prove that this man isn't guilty of rape. The only evidence in his favor is his own testimony that she didn't say no. The testimony in her favor is physical/DNA evidence that they did in fact have sex (which he is not contesting) and her own testimony that she said no but he wouldn't stop.

    102. Re:Rape allegations by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Slight concern here as we're now talking JA specific stuff. As I understand it, he actually went so far as to ask permission from the prosecutor before leaving the country just to be safe, was granted such, and then the political juggling to get the charges pushed again after having originally been dropped occurred and his refusal of an interview was refusing to return to Sweden at his own expense for an interview.

    103. Re:Rape allegations by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You don't use the Interpol for that stuff! The ex croatian PM, Sanader, escaped to Austria. He is wanted to swindling hundreds of millions of EUR from the croatian taxpayer. The croatian government did NOT get the Interpol involved, however - they just asked Austria to extradite him.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    104. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you brought up the subject of Wikileaks...let's take the dictionary.com definition - please tell me, oh great fuckwitted one

      1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
      2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

      Where does it say that Assange force a woman to have sex? As I said... lying shitbags like your redefine rape to suit you political correctness ends. You want to reduce the burden of proof in "rape" to such a level that it is effectively a quick-trip to the gulag on the say-so of a woman. In direct violation of centuries of law tradition.

    105. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      When he woke up and started fucking her sleeping body without a condom after she clearly stated he had to wear one to have sex with her.

      Did you see the word violence anywhere in your definition of rape?

    106. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      Yup, rape can be tough to prove in cases where it was consensual sex and the woman changes her mind in the middle of it. That doesn't mean we should change the definition of rape.

      Yup, rape trials can be a public hell for the accused and the accuser, regardless of the outcome. That doesn't justify changing the definition of rape.

      The fact remains that any of us are liable to be charged with he-said-she-said rape charges, but we generally trust that the prosecutor, judge, and jury are smart enough to figure out when it's valid or not. That's what we pay them for.

      I'd like to you to find me a DA who will prosecute based *solely* (meaning no text messages, like JA) on a victim's word with no other corroborating evidence.

    107. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      If you aren't the AC who posted referring to Wikileaks, then how would you presume that I would know that your faceless post was different than the other guys faceless post? Try posting as a human who accepts the consequences of his words. Thanks.

    108. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      Yes, I had an ambiguous statement. I don't believe his leaving the country had anything to do with him being charged.

    109. Re:Rape allegations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) Sorry "JasperHW"... please do tell us your full name and address.

      b) Good job avoiding answering the post.

    110. Re:Rape allegations by thechemic · · Score: 1

      LMAO... Here is a quote from you earlier which started the debate, "Rape doesn't mean violence. It means sex without consent." Here is my retort, "Rape does not mean sex without consent. Rape certainly does, by definition, involve violence." The reference sources you've included both have "phsyical force" and/or "violence" included in their definitions. Thus, the sources you've included VALIDATE my point, not disagree with it. I refuse to take this argument any further with somebody who is obviously slightly challenged. Reply with whatever you like, I'm sure i'll be entertained just as I have been up to this point. However, I cannot afford you a response in return. Our verbal volley was fun. I'm going to go play with the big boys now. ttyl.

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
    111. Re:Rape allegations by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      No, you simply implied that he left the country to avoid the police, rather than going so far as to verify with the authorities that he was permitted to leave the country before doing so.

      There's a pretty wide difference between "Left country to avoid police" and "Left country after verifying that he wasn't needed by them first."

      You state "Additionally, they scheduled an interview with him, he left the country before the interview, so that + their evidence allowed them to charge him. Is that sufficient for you?", but it appears that he asked the prosecutor if they needed him and if he was free to leave the country before doing so.

    112. Re:Rape allegations by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      I didn't imply anything other than that leaving the country had a legal implication with his charges, which is not the case, as he hadn't even been charged yet. Yes, there's a difference, hence me correcting it.

  9. Re:1.2 million euro by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

    At this point, that might be the only way he can receive payment.

  10. Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The more I read about Assange's political and societal beliefs, the more I wonder why he flirted with establishing residency in Sweden. He describes himself as a Libertarian when support for a welfare state at some level is practically universal among Swedes, and now he finds the country a hornets nest of wacko feminists.

    1. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He obviously did it for the impeccable poon. I mean, duh.

    2. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because 'libertarian' doesn't mean what you think it means?

    3. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      My understanding of libertarianism is minimal government with services being provided by free and voluntary associations of like-minded individuals instead of involuntary taxes. The only role of government is to ensure the freedom of people to establish those associations. This political philosophy does not accord at all with Sweden. Now, if I've misunderstood libertarianism, I'm open to correction.

    4. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by chrb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sweden has stronger protections for free-speech than his other options for residency. Look at The Pirate Bay - if it were in the U.S. or Russia or UK it would've been taken down long ago. As a resident of Sweden, he may also get the freedom to travel throughout the European Union, which would be useful as it gives him easy access to the 24-hour media of the West. Australian politicians have been signalling that they may want to prosecute him and confiscate his passport, so returning home isn't a wonderful prospect.

    5. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by chrb · · Score: 2

      The only role of government is to ensure the freedom of people to establish those associations.

      And how is this to be interpreted? Should the government have a military, and a police force? What about a fire service - it's hard to ensure stability and freedom when a fire in a city threatens the entire city infrastructure because some houses are uninsured. And what about some basic health service - to deal with pandemics and other problems which affect national security (e.g. wars, terrorism)? And what about prosecuting people who leak classified data? Intelligence agencies? Where does that fit into libertarianism?

      But when it comes to whatever Assange believes, you should just read the words of the man himself:

      Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

              Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

              How do your leaks fit into that?

              To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

              There's the famous lemon example in the used car market. It's hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can't get a good price, even when they have a good car.

              By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there's a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.

              You've developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.

              Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I've been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don't come from nowhere.

              It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

              WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

    6. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Aussie politicians asked the federal police to see if Assange had broken any laws, they came back with a definite "no". Most of those politicains have now resorted to calling him irresponsible rather than criminal, the foriegn minister has said all along that WL has done nothing wrong by publishing leaks (even though some of those leaks were personally embarrasing to him). So far he has recieved much better treatment by the Aussie government than David Hicks did.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Social libertarianism can be paired with socialist government.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    8. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Won't last.

      The most basic flaw in socialism is an unhealthy concentration of power.

      Power corrupts etc. See history.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside the U.S., libertarian means anarchist.

    10. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Europe and Canada seemed to have a few good years of Socialism. I hear people complain all the time about them these days however. Then again the US is supposed to be a Capitalist Republic but you see the same problem of too much concentration of power and wealthy class ruling the rest.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    11. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by bstender · · Score: 1

      Concentration of power is indeed the main problem facing societies, but equating that with Socialism is Fox-news-level political analysis; (the horror stories of totalitarian Communist regimes force fed to us as children have stealthily morphed into simply, "Socialism"). As Antisyzygy notes, Europe and Canada enjoy far better conditions than US citizens do, and the concentration of power in the USA is about as unhealthy as it can get, (and is imploding).
      If one is stuck with 'concentration of power' (a logical, natural tendency), then Socialism has the advantage of assuring that at least certain basic needs are dispersed to all citizens, as opposed to the jungle we have clawed our way out of. Social Libertarianism is another animal again, Anarcho-syndicalism holds the most promise for my money. It's biggest problem is violent suppression by concentrated power (Capitalists).

      --
      look sig is kool
    12. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Other societies also have problems with concentrated power but with socialists it's by design.

      As to which country is better I'll take you seriously when the USA starts to have a net outflow of immigrants.

      For now people are still voting with their feet and the consensus is you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

      Anarcho-syndicalism? Idiot.

      'Your fooling yourself we're living in a dictatorship.'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      FYI even if I accept you premise that 1% of the population control everything (false) that is still a large of people with relatively small amounts of power and with the built in check that they will be taken to the cleaners by their fellow 1%ers the second they stop focusing on making money and decide to do something 'for our own good'.

      Compare that to the bureaucrats deciding paths for whole industries with no check on their power and a built in motive to deliver 'bread and circuses' to the unwashed idiots.

      Finally there is no nation in Europe that can be considered socialist by any reasonable definition of the term. Much less Canada.

      We are all mixed Capitalist/Wellfare states.

      The dispute is about just how the mix is done.

      Any nation that becomes truly socialist (by eliminating private property) quickly becomes irrelevant.

      You might be young, watch Venezuela over the next few years.

      Bet they import Oil before Chavez Hangs from a street light.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Well, explain why the disparity in wealth currently is 70 percent of the money is in 10 percent of the populations hands (1920's levels) and why there was ever such a thing as Robber Barons and Coal Towns in lightly regulated markets. I'm not saying our bureaucracy isn't to blame for the problem, as I am all for states-rights and very limited federal government. But keep in mind those with the highest power in the bureaucracy are made of the upper 10 percent richest individuals and there is a revolving door between them and industry or lobbyist taking Congressmen on special "business" trips behind the scenes. Montana (where I am from) had one of the WORST of that class (Conrad Burns). Thankfully he was out of office awhile ago.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    15. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Assange picked a very odd place in introduce Wikileaks...

      Shortly after getting WikiLeaks off the ground, Assange flew to Kenya to attend the World Social Forum — a yearly symposium dedicated to the redistribution of wealth and the eradication of capitalism — where he delivered a presentation about his new website.
      The Founder of WikiLeaks and His Secret Life *

      ..if he truly favors free enterprise, a proposition of which I'm a bit skeptical....

      Australian acquaintances say he was bitterly disappointed by the outcome of the Cold War with a resounding global victory for the United States and its allies. Mr. Assange then began identifying with the defeated "progressives," from the pensioned-off millions - on starvation stipends - of the old Soviet nomenklatura to the innocent dupes who never realized that the World Peace Council was a KGB-controlled organization ....
      DE BORCHGRAVE: International Subversives

      Oddly enough, some other people also have a different view of Assange....

      Assange and the Anarchist War Against the U.S.

      In the late 1960s, I attended a university in Singapore. My dormitory roommate was a 19-year-old American student. He hung pictures of Che Guevara and Mao Zedong on the wall and spent days on end writing a treatise about when and how the “rotten capitalist system” in the United States would be overthrown.

      In the 1970s, I worked as the Soviet consul in San Francisco. Every month or so, a crazed American anarchist would approach me and ask the consulate to provide dynamite or Kalashnikov machine guns to fight the “imperialist pigs” in Washington and cleanse U.S. society of the “capitalist filth.” .....

      Now, in the 21st century, we have WikiLeaks founded by anarchist and anti-imperialist Julian Assange who is driven by a hatred for capitalism and the United States. In the modern age of the Internet, Kalashnikovs and dynamite are no longer necessary to try to overthrow the enemy. Modern technology and outstanding hacking skills allow anarchists to help weaken the United States, the citadel of capitalism.

      Undoubtedly, WikiLeaks delivered a heavy blow to the United States. First, it showed the world that U.S. diplomats might smile to your face while they sharpen their knives behind your back.

      Second, WikiLeaks exposed the vulnerability of the world’s most powerful country. Seasoned spies used to hunt for years for a single page of classified information, but WikiLeaks and its alleged main leaker, U.S. Private Bradley Manning, in one fell swoop scored more than 500,000 classified and secret U.S. military and diplomatic documents.

      Third, the leaks will surely discourage the world from dealing candidly with the United States. Let’s say, for example, that Russia (or any other country) wanted to sign a secret agreement with Washington on a plan to arrest a top Afghan drug lord. Before any U.S. partner signs the agreement, it will wonder if the details of the operation will be splashed across the Internet before the plan can be executed.

      Finally, WikiLeaks will surely inspire copycats who are just as zealous as Assange to undermine the United States at all costs.

      Thanks to the cables, Russia and most of the world are once again laughing at Uncle Sam’s gullibility and criticizing the United States for being two-faced. Surely, Russia’s diplomats will now be more tight-lipped in dealing with U.S. diplomats. .....

      Of course, radical, anti-establishment rebels like Assange and Che Guevara will always make themselves known in the modern

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Being an EU citizen allows you to live and work anywhere in the EU. Therefore, unless you're tied to a particular job, the choice of which country to attempt to establish residency in is often based on things such as how easy it is to get residency, e.g. how long you'd have to live there (which differs from country to country and under different circumstances), whether or not you have family in a particular country or are a descendant of a particular country etc. Pretty much the whole of the EU is pretty un-libertarian and pro-welfare anyway.

    17. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      People that throw around wealth disparity like it is itself a problem are just plain idiots.

      The 'poor' in America typically own multiple color TVs and would be envied by much of the world as 'rich people'.

      What matters is that the lowest are not starving.

      In the USA we spend billions on obesity related health care for the 'poor'.

      That said many families go from poor to rich to poor in 3 or 4 generations.

      That is a healthy thing (idiot rich kids squandering their money) which should keep dynastic wealth down to size.

      The last thing we want to become is like Europe. Where they hide their dynastic ultra rich in a separate nation with no income tax.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by turbotroll · · Score: 1

      Sweden has stronger protections for free-speech than his other options for residency. Look at The Pirate Bay - if it were in the U.S. or Russia or UK it would've been taken down long ago.

      I don't agree with this. The case of The Pirate Bay merely shows that Hollywood's lobby wasn't strong enough at a given moment and that the establishment had more important voices to censor or silence.

      Do you think you have full freedom of speech in Sweden? Try criticizing the current immigration policies, for instance, and you will be immediately labeled as "racist", never mind if your critique has nothing to do with somebody's skin color.

      I refuse to believe in any fine gradations of freedom of speech. If you are free to speak whatever you want, but only as long as you don't offend somebody or make them feel uncomfortable, then you are not free to speak. You either have freedom of speech or you don't.

      (Full disclosure: I'm also a resident of Sweden.)

    19. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a fucking jingoist authoritarian douchebag.

      You're welcome to stand in your red-white-and-blue underwear on top of your trailer and shout "U-S-A! U-S-A!" all you want. Just get the fuck out of the way of those of us trying to make this a sane country.

    20. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So far he has recieved much better treatment by the Aussie government than David Hicks did.

      What? You're saying that the Australian government actually treated an Al Qaeda trainee more harshly in some fashion than Mr. Wikileaks? For shame!

      Jihad" diary reveals David Hicks terror training
      DAVID Hicks's handwritten "jihad diary" gives new insight into the sophisticated terrorism training he underwent, exploding claims that he was an innocent abroad.
      The confessed terrorism supporter used a school exercise book - complete with boy's-own images of fighter aircraft - to write up the detailed instruction he received in weapon use, explosives and military tactics from Islamic extremists in Pakistan.

      After describing how "to kill a VIP", Hicks noted that guerilla war involved "sacrifice for Allah". He sketched the mechanism of the telescopic sight of a sniper's rifle and the circuitry of deadly rocket-launched warheads. The exercise book was released yesterday by federal magistrate Warren Donald who, in easing the interim control order covering Hicks since his release from jail last month, found that, on balance, he remained at risk of committing a terrorist act or of undertaking further terrorism training......

      The exercise book was filled out by Hicks while he was training with the Lashkar-e-Toiba terror group in northern Pakistan between March and June 2000.

      Hmmm.... Lashkar-e-Toiba .... where have we heard of them before?

      US blames Lashkar-e-Toiba for Mumbai
      About 10 gunmen landed in rubber dinghies in Mumbai on Wednesday and wreaked havoc with automatic weapons and hand grenades, in an assault that killed 188 and injured more than 300. The dead included 22 foreign nationals, among them two Australian men....

      Jihad" diary reveals David Hicks terror training
      The Adelaide man, now 32, went on to train with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, where he was captured and handed over to US forces.

      Training with al-Qaeda.... hmm....
      Mumbai attacks: al-Qaeda plotter behind Bali bombing linked to terror attacks

      I'm sure most Australians remember the horror of the Bali Bombings and the many Australians killed there. Most people probably remember their handiwork on September 11, 2001 as well.

      Of course, the Taliban are reaching out as well.

      I would say that Mr. Hicks was involved with a rather nasty bunch, and is quite lucky he didn't get himself killed.

      The Aussie politicians asked the federal police to see if Assange had broken any laws, they came back with a definite "no".

      Well, it's actually a bit more subtle than that.

      "The AFP has completed its evaluation of the material available and has not established the existence of any criminal offences where Australia would have jurisdiction," it said in a statement.

      "Where additional cables are published and criminal offences are suspected, these matters should be referred to the AFP for evaluation."

      Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the AFP had noted a number of offences that could be applied depending on the circums

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    21. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    22. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Hicks was held for 5yrs without charges. In 2006 the US made a new law and rerospectively charged him with it. They made it perfectly clear that Hicks would not be released unless he pleaded guilty.

      BTW: I trust The Australian and the Telegraph about as much as I trust the Taliban.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Yes, under Socialism man suppresses man. Under Capitalism it's the other way around.

    24. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Hicks was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy, and had a trial date set of November 18, 2005. The trial was stopped due to court battles about the procedures being used. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governed the legal procedures used, not a new offense to retroactively charge him with. After all the questions about legal procedures had been worked out, Hicks plead guilty to providing material support to terrorism in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence and for aiding the prosecution. They could have easily kept the original charges and sentenced him to a very long sentence.

      I think this is worth noting:

      The Australian government has refused to lobby for Hicks' release, saying it has faith in the U.S. military commission process.

      During a visit to the United States in July, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said his government was "satisfied that the military commission process ... will provide a proper measure of justice."

      "The allegations against (Hicks) are particularly serious, and we look forward to them being dealt with before the tribunal," Howard said. U.S. sets trial of Australian

      By the way, you can hold enemy combatants in wartime without charges. Al Qaeda makes war on the United States, and the United States now makes it right back under authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    25. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      So then its not a bad thing that there is a disparity in wealth unparalleled since 1920? After 1950 it was 70 percent of the money in 90 percent of the people's hands, now its 70 in 10. This is a good thing? Im no idiot sir, you just fail to address the problem.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    26. Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Hicks plead guilty to providing material support to terrorism [reuters.com] in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence and for aiding the prosecution."

      The charge of "providing material support to terrorism" was not on the books until 2006, therefore Hicks was convicted of a restrospective crime.

      "They could have easily kept the original charges and sentenced him to a very long sentence."

      No they couldn't that's why they withdrew them and offered the plea bargain.

      And of course Howard approved of the way Hicks was treated, Howard and Ruddock were complicit in holding Hicks as a political prisoner, they willingly threw an Australian citizen under the bus to demonstrate their loyalty to the US-AU alliance.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  11. Re:1.2 million euro by CRCulver · · Score: 2

    As a linguist, I'd say that the side arguing for no marking of the plural in "euro" is just as guilty of prescriptivism as the side arguing against.

  12. Profit by slapout · · Score: 0

    1. Leak secret documents
    2. Rape trial
    3. ?
    4. Profit!

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  13. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you fit two people in your basement?

  14. "a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.

    1. Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? by srussia · · Score: 1

      What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.

      Is that you Miss A? Say hi to Miss W for me.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    2. Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? by damaged_sectors · · Score: 1

      What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.

      But you've spent you're whole short life following your own advice. And you still sound like a whiny crybaby who pisses in their pants...

      What next - an Anonymous Coward whining about disclosures and ?

      blame the women

      Slime and slander - the weapons of toads.

    3. Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he should blame the women. If they were in the fucking kitchen where they should be instead of at the lawyer's office then he wouldn't be in this situation either. Anyone who says that the women should be somewhere other than the kitchen making a tasty sammich is a moron and shouldn't have any legal rights.

    4. Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation?

      I doubt it. Considering Sweden's current sex laws, if he hadn't put out then he'd probably have been brought up on charges of "sexual fraud" or "failure to deliver".

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you that CIA guy? When do we get our money?

    6. Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      As it is, he seems to be merely looking at a charge of failing to keep things under wraps...

  15. Re:1.2 million euro by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The euro is an international currency, the Anglo-sphere can try to "regulate" language all they want, but it just looks foolish. There is a reason why we use euro/euros for different things: "This game costs twenty euro. I had a bill of fifty euro yesterday, but I spent most of it on clothing. Oh wait, I still have twenty euros in my pocket, I can pay for it!"

    No-one cares. The point was communicated, that's what counts. Language is a fluid thing -- despite the futile attempts by those from Dr Johnson onwards to bend it into conformity. It's arbitrary, and artificial. Bending and breaking words to suit worked for Shakespeare. Conformity is the enemy of creativity.

    Grammar nazis may wish to live in a sterile world -- but most of us don't. Give it a rest.

  16. ..And it drops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The infamous book deal. A year or so from now there will be a movie deal.

    My respect the Assange is now gone.

    1. Re:..And it drops by careysub · · Score: 1

      The infamous book deal. A year or so from now there will be a movie deal.

      My respect the Assange is now gone.

      With his legal problems, which are sure to grow if the U.S. government has any say in the matter, he will need a fortune for his defense. Note that despite no laws being broken the U.S. government has managed to shut down almost every mechanism for supporting Wikileaks, and will continue to try to shut off all means of making contributions (that are entirely legal to make).

      He would have to have a legal deathwish, hoping to be destroyed by court proceedings, not to strike while the iron is hot to raise money. And, are you asserting that Assange does not have a story worth telling? Even those who disagree with Assange should want to hear what he has to say to make their judgment.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  17. Good for him. by Seumas · · Score: 1

    Might as well make a few bucks telling your own story than make nothing letting someone else tell their version of your story.

    It's just too bad he's not a cute female. As a male, half the country wants to accuse him of "treason" (ignoring his citizenship, of course) and have him executed. Meanwhile, the actual real Soviet spy that was actually really caught was sent safely back to Russia, where she is apparently the figurehead for some new political movement, a consultant for a major bank, has done a spread in Maxim, and is reportedly going to be featured in Playboy.

  18. Re:1.2 million euro by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

    You are wrong. The currency may be the euro but the plural of euro is still euros. Just like there is the dollar and you are paid in dollars. Just like there is the GBP and you are paid in pounds. Just like there is the yuan and you are paid in yuans. So please don't try to bastardize the language to fit your misconceptions.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  19. "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism" by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    You can take the boy out of Australia but you can't take the Australia out of the boy.

  20. it was by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you know that it was as such, when the perpetrators of the case first merrily publish blog posts titled 'how to take revenge on him through legal system', telling how disgruntled women should abuse the legal system to exact revenge on males, and then delete the post once the internet community becomes aware of it.

    1. Re:it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source please?

    2. Re:it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      justf*ckinggoogleit

      but sure: http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

    3. Re:it was by AdamWill · · Score: 2

      um, people outside the UK may not be aware of it, but citing the Daily Mail as a reasonable source is approximately as sensible as citing Glenn Beck. (note that article perpetuates the whole bizarre thing about a condom breaking, which as has already been pointed out in this thread, is simply bullshit).

    4. Re:it was by unity100 · · Score: 1

      its not the only source that perpetuates condom breaking. the swedish prosecutor had a tough time trying to invent a case after being pressurized to reopen the case.

    5. Re:it was by ciaran.mchale · · Score: 1

      you know that it was as such, when the perpetrators of the case first merrily publish blog posts titled 'how to take revenge on him through legal system', telling how disgruntled women should abuse the legal system to exact revenge on males, and then delete the post once the internet community becomes aware of it.

      That is untrue, and the newspaper article you cited when asked for a source is incorrect. The woman did write a blog article that offered advice on how to get revenge, but the blog article did not suggest using (or abusing) the legal system to do so.

      Read an English translation of the blog article if you want to check.

    6. Re:it was by unity100 · · Score: 1

      are you aware that the translation you have linked has "7 Steps to Legal Revenge by Anna Ardin" as the article title ? and youre saying she did not suggest using the legal system to do so ?

    7. Re:it was by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange

      "There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape," director of prosecutions Marianne Ny said in a statement.

      "The basis for further considerations is not sufficient at the moment. More investigations are necessary before a final decision can be made (concerning possible charges)," she added.

      A Swedish duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Assange on August 20th over rape allegations. But chief prosecutor Eva Finne abruptly withdrew it the next day, saying new information had come to light.

      Then last week Finne said there was no reason to believe a crime had been committed, adding however that she had enough evidence to keep looking into a molestation allegation from another woman against Assange.

      The lawyer for Assange's alleged victims, Claes Borgstroem, lodged an appeal against Finne's decision to a special department in the public prosecutions office....

      Ny, head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular, overturned Finne's decision on the rape claim, and also said the investigation into the molestation claim would be extended.

      "Based on the information available, the crimes in question come under the heading of sexual coercion and sexual molestation," she said.

      Ny told AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:it was by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Ny told AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either."

      quite so quite so. its not so out of the ordinary when politicians intervene and you end up having to overturn it out of the blue.

    9. Re:it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal=not illegal. It in no way implies the use of the legal system for said revenge.
      Maybe you should try fucking reading with comprehension.

    10. Re:it was by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Legal=not illegal. It in no way implies the use of the legal system for said revenge. Maybe you should try fucking reading with comprehension.

      maybe you should fucking stop talking about law, while not knowing shit about it.

      in european countries with decent legal systems, if it comes out that you are using the justice system for revenge, EVEN if legally, you lose the case you are pursuing against someone. in the least case, it is mandated by law that such an evidence should be weighed against your case and reduce it, and this is set by precedents. the mere mention of advising someone to use law for revenge is an offense in some countries.

      but of course, its easy to blabbermouth without knowing stuff, like you are doing, anonymously ...

    11. Re:it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey cocksucker. Read the translation of her blog again, NOTHING in it indicates the use of the legal system for revenge.
      Go blow a goat....or are you too busy with Assange?

    12. Re:it was by unity100 · · Score: 1

      dimwit. "7 Steps to Legal Revenge by Anna Ardin"

    13. Re:it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dimwit yourself. Legal means methods that are not illegal. The title (and the blog itself) say nothing about using the legal system. Read a dictionary you tool.

    14. Re:it was by unity100 · · Score: 1

      LEGAL REVENGE also denotes a phrase with the meaning of 'legal system revenge', just like how 'legal case' is.

      if, her intentions were as you described, she wouldnt have deleted that blog post.

    15. Re:it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Sweden, and the broken condom was in the news here two days ago. There was a leak on how it has been tested by the national forensics laboratory and they've concluded that it was broken - although they couldn't say for sure whether it was by accident or not.

      I'm serious. That's the "rape" evidence.

    16. Re:it was by NiceGeek · · Score: 0

      Really, so it's a case of "if she didn't have anything to hide"? How hypocritical coming from an Assange cocksucker...er..supporter.

  21. Re:1.2 million euro by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    I was more bothered by the fact that the summary used dollars, pounds, and euros, and then didn't bother to specify if the dollars were Australian or US.

  22. Job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has this guy ever had, say, a real job?

    1. Re:Job? by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 1

      You mean like J.K. Rowling? Writing is a real job.

  23. The storyline by necode · · Score: 0

    The book storyline will go like this: Since women from countries in state of constant political upheaval were in short supply, the hero tried to expand his horizon with easier accessible Swedish samples, but got dragged into hornet nest (ouch!) of female revolutionaries. The book will be widely read by vulgar housewives in state of constant bore, whom Assange pretends to despise. The more I read about the man the more novelty of his marketed brand of anarchism feels worn out ... like a used condom.

  24. there is no fucking rape .... by unity100 · · Score: 0, Troll

    this 'rape' wordage regarding this business befuddles me. the women CONSENSUALLY had sex with the person. then, they have openly and legally declared that the sex was consensual. EVEN after the rape allegations.

    yet, fscking american media still talks of 'rape'. when you look into legalese of that rape in swedish law, it comes up as something that more than half of american males would be charged with, every few months in their lives.

    yet, whore of an 'opinionated entertainment' (in their own legalese) channels like fox and whatnot still fool the gullible with talk of 'rape'.

    but i digress. really. its too much effort.

    if, one is that gullible enough to be manipulated like that, like a moron, they should be let to be manipulated and exploited. its their choice.

    what should not be let, however, manipulators to manipulate much more people than could be dangerous, like mass media, fox, and other mouthpiece newswhores.

    1. Re:there is no fucking rape .... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      yet, fscking american media still talks of 'rape'. when you look into legalese of that rape in swedish law, it comes up as something that more than half of american males would be charged with, every few months in their lives.

      yet, whore of an 'opinionated entertainment' (in their own legalese) channels like fox and whatnot still fool the gullible with talk of 'rape'.

      I guess the Swedish media got it wrong too, eh?

      The Stockholm district court on Thursday ordered an arrest warrant for Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, for questioning on "probable cause of suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" in Sweden in August - Sweden issues global warrant for Assange

      Thank goodness you're there to set things straight.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  25. At least now he doesn't have to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...pull the old "we need $1.000.000 a year for webhosting - please donate" prank anymore to fatten his wallet and cover his private expenses. Really, didn't anyone raise an eyebrow over this requested sum that Wikileaks asked for several times, always saying it was for webhosting? Really.... a million dollars a year.... for meager webhosting....

  26. Perhaps now ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now that Mr Assange has his own income again wikileaks will release the money they collected for Private Bradley's defence. It's funny how Assange seems to have forgotten about this entirely. Apparently they'd just forgotten to be formal about it, but, assuming they've finally gotten around to it, it appears the money is less than half what was expected/promised.

    Yes wikileaks is a good thing, however the focus on embarrassing the US and not anyone else these days does make one wonder about an agenda, and the focus on Assange rather than the work they're doing is starting to split the organisation. Maybe it's running a wiki that turns people messianic, after all Jimmy Wales has gone through the same thing with wikipedia money.

    1. Re:Perhaps now ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes wikileaks is a good thing, however the focus on embarrassing the US and not anyone else these days does make one wonder about an agenda

      Oh, for fucks sake. In order to leak something to Wikileaks you need to:
      - speak English (which excludes most countries; plus the US is the most populous English-speaking country)
      - not have a gun in your face (which excludes Russia, China, and a few others)
      - have Internet access (which excludes China, since it's censored, and the third world, since most of their citizens are too busy starving to death to post on Twitter)
      - have something interesting to say (i.e. must work either in a big corporation, most of which are American, or big government)
      It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see most leaks won't come from Sub-Saharan Africa.

      the focus on Assange

      The media focuses on Assange, not Wikileaks (I counted 0 mentions of Assange in their front page ). I think the reason for this is to make more personal stories (it's a guy just like you doing this big thing; it isn't exactly the truth but people like it better this way).

  27. Re:1.2 million euro by qbast · · Score: 1

    Point is also communicated if you ignore punctuation, spelling and (in most cases) grammar altogether. And no, being too ignorant or lazy to spell properly does not make you creative or nonconformist.

  28. The delicious irony of it all by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some over priced phone calls.

    Unless the money is guaranteed, maybe not, since his biggest fans are the very ones most likely to steal... ahem, "share" the Kindle version.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:The delicious irony of it all by index0 · · Score: 2

      So wanting to show the corrupt things the government does means you want all information to be free?

    2. Re:The delicious irony of it all by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      His fans are also the ones who would willingly pay more than the book is worth if the kindle version were on sale for "name your price". I find it rather ironic you'd imply that they aren't willing to spend money when they're the primary source of funding for the entire endeavor.

    3. Re:The delicious irony of it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lord, this was modded Insightful? Citation needed.

  29. Re:1.2 million euro by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    The only "regulation" involved here (aside from your attempt at it) is to let speakers of each language handle the plural form as they normally would for the name of any other currency.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  30. Re:1.2 million euro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Language is fluid" and all the rest of that is really code for "I'm too lazy and stupid to learn to use language effectively."

  31. 200,000 pounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    200,000 pounds !!! how has he managed to spend that much money already?
    Especially since public defenders (which he got when he was arrested) are paid by the government in Sweden. Unless you are found guilty, then you have to pay a fine (to the government) based on your yearly income and not the actual cost of the lawyer.
    The UK lawyer can not be that expensive, right?

  32. Re:1.2 million euro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    amen

  33. The part I don't understand is how does one have s by melted · · Score: 1

    The part I don't understand is how does one have sex with a woman while she's asleep? It takes quite a bit of time and effort to get her ready for sex when she's not asleep, and without doing that you could damage your boner (and would 100% guaranteed wake her up before you got a chance to do anything at all) if you tried to fuck her dry. I'd like to hear her explain how this is physically possible.

  34. Re:1.2 million euro by macson_g · · Score: 1

    Or East Caribbean, Bahamian, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Canadian, Fiji, Guyana, Hong Kong, Jamaican, Kiribati, Liberian, Namibian, New Zealand, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Surinamese, New Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago or Tuvaluan dollars for that matter.

  35. I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary fem by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 0

    I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism/
    I went down, down, down and the reward went higher/
    And it stings, stings, stings/
    that hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism/
    the hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism.

    w/ apologies to J.Cash

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  36. Wow, pricey lawyers by trollertron3000 · · Score: 1

    Maybe he should like, find a regular lawyer. One that doesn't cost the GDP of a small country. Just a suggestion.

    --
    Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
    1. Re:Wow, pricey lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you know you are guilty, you need to spend more to get away with it.

    2. Re:Wow, pricey lawyers by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Maybe when you've got a country with a large GDP pushing to get you locked up and the key thrown away, it's a good idea to have a lawyer that costs the GDP of a small country. Just a thought.

  37. Re:1.2 million euro by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Who is the "we" on whose behalf you speak? I've come across people who consistently use "euro" as the plural, and people who consistently use "euros", but I was unaware that there are some who use both and place semantic weight on the decision of which to use.

  38. Men are fucked... by NuKe_MoNgOoSe · · Score: 1

    There are 2 accusations men will never come clean on. 1. Rape 2. Child molestation. All you need to be is accused of it and your stained for life because people will always find you suspect regardless if your found innocent or guilty. All a kid, especially a teenager or a woman has to do is cry rape or molestation and a man is devestated for life. There is no redemption for these accusations, even if you win you lose. Men especially have to tread carefully a woman scored can end up being a life ruiner, a spoiled kid can end up being your downfall. Kids nowadays can divorce their parents, spankings are considered child abuse, hell sending kids to their room and grounding them could be considered unlawful confinement.. As time moves on humanity becomes more pathetic, their rules more ludacris, the law needs to be reviewed when it end up ruining the very lives it was meant to protect.

    --
    When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
    1. Re:Men are fucked... by turbotroll · · Score: 1

      There are 2 accusations men will never come clean on. 1. Rape 2. Child molestation.

      You forgot possession of child pornography. I agree 100% with the rest of your post.

    2. Re:Men are fucked... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      spankings are considered child abuse

      I agree with the rest of your post, but this actually makes sense. Employing physical violence against someone because you didn't like what they said or did should not be condoned. Children aren't somehow less than people, and they deserve to hear a rational explanation. I wouldn't go up and hit someone merely because they didn't change their belief system for me and insisted upon being 'stubborn.' It's just poor parenting.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Men are fucked... by NuKe_MoNgOoSe · · Score: 1

      I dont hit my kids either, but when i was growing up I deserved a spanking now and then. My father would try and rationalize with me but i was just a disruptive kid and I ALWAYS took dad seriously when he came at me for a spanking. Dad knew where to draw the line I was always clothed and it was more shock than pain... but I always flew straight for a while after that hahaha.

      --
      When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
    4. Re:Men are fucked... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      My father would try and rationalize with me but i was just a disruptive kid and I ALWAYS took dad seriously when he came at me for a spanking.

      Sorry, but there's plenty of people who could be classified as 'disruptive.' Just because they don't conform to your opinion doesn't mean that they deserve to be physically assaulted. My parents hit me when I was a child, and for a time, all it caused me to do was become violent (towards them and others). I didn't take them seriously. I became angry.

      If someone can't be 'rationalized' with, then you should wait until they clear their head. I'm not about to advocate that you should hit someone merely because you don't like what they are saying or doing, regardless of their age.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:Men are fucked... by NuKe_MoNgOoSe · · Score: 1

      Aye, im not looking for supporters for child violence lol, but for a long time a spanking was the status quo all my friends had experienced one at some point and for my parents it was a regular things. Its like I say back in the day it wasnt uncommon for people to take nude photos of their kids in showers and baths or running around the house naked as a jaybird. My mom has tons of photos like that of me and my cousins. We were kids, mom and my family thought these things were cute! Id clock anyone who tried to say my parents had less than the best intentions while i was being raised. And really the majority of us grew up to be fine citizens and not violent miscreants, i choose not to spank my kids because now we live in a much different world.

      --
      When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
    6. Re:Men are fucked... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Oh... alright. I was just stating that I don't believe that violence is the solution.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:Men are fucked... by NuKe_MoNgOoSe · · Score: 1

      Oh completely, my kids are no angels but a timeout works well enough for me in most cases. When they get older though that will be another story lol.

      --
      When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
  39. Re:1.2 million euro by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Balderdash. Try reading Beowulf in the original. If you don't understand it perfectly, is that because you're lazy and stupid or because the English language has changed?

  40. Assange=Sellout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget Assange and his $1,500,000 corporate book deal (some rebel, what a sell-out), instead read a book that’s really been BANNED like “America Deceived II” by E.A. Blayre III.
    Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
    http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526

  41. Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The book will be about wikileaks not about Assange. He should be forced to give the entire procedings to wikileaks, and still have to defend _him selv_ against the charges that have been raised against _him_, not wikileaks.

    1. Re:Please by iammani · · Score: 1

      Nope, this book it about what he thinks of wikileaks, and how he believes people (including him) started wikileaks. So its fair to pay him. Ok, to come up with analogy, say you write a book about the US Govt, is it you that should be payed for it or the US Govt?

  42. Re:1.2 million euro by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    That's called the "Aussie".

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  43. Rapists escaping punishment, or false accusations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The low conviction rate of alleged rapists has two obvious potential explanations though one of them is usually ignored depending on the prejudice of the person considering the subject:

    1) A high percentage of the accusers are escaping justice because they lied about the alleged crime but were not prosecuted.
    2) A high percentage of the accused are escaping justice because they raped the accuser but were not found guilty.

    The sad truth is that when the accused and accuser offer different versions of events, despite our prejudices, only the two people present actually have any idea what the truth is, and even they could be deluding themselves.

    There is no easy solution short of all of us carrying personal video recorders 24/7

    God protect us from the harpies who want all men to be considered guilty until proven innocent and the misogynist scum who think women have got it coming to them.

  44. Re:1.2 million euro by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I don't think it matters much:
      1.009 USD = .9971 AUD = 1.008 CAD

    1,200,000.00 EUR = 1,578,572.77 USD = 1,574,066.17 AUD = 1,591,959.41 CAD

    they are all roughly 1.5 million dollars, using the same rounding rules as the article.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  45. Re:The part I don't understand is how does one hav by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Not to get into a Bill Clinton-style discussion of what constitutes sex, but you can certainly have oral sex with someone who is asleep...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  46. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

    http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

    False Rape Accusations are *incredibly* common, and becoming moreso every day.

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
  47. sex life, /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can discuss all what you want, but one thing is true: Julian Assange has more sexual relationships in three days than what all the users of /. have in three months.

  48. Re:The part I don't understand is how does one hav by Corbets · · Score: 1

    The part I don't understand is how does one have sex with a woman while she's asleep? [...] (and would 100% guaranteed wake her up before you got a chance to do anything at all) if you tried to fuck her dry. I'd like to hear her explain how this is physically possible.

    Depends on his... ... size, doesn't it?

  49. Revolutionary Fems unite! by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

    T-shirts with the snake and the phrase "Don't Tread IN Me" could really catch on in Sweden.

  50. Re:1.2 million euro by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Bending and breaking words to suit worked for Shakespeare.

    Shakespeare was an artist. What he produced wasn't information, it was art, and in art, the rules are simply guidelines. Of course, you need to know and understand the rules to break them effectively.

    If you say "loose" when you mean "lose" you are communicating something quite different than what you intend to convey. A language with no rules would make for some wild poetry, but would be a great hindrance to communication.

    "Their bears".

    "There! Bears!"

    "They're bears. In fact, they're their bears there."

  51. Re:The part I don't understand is how does one hav by xnpu · · Score: 1

    How about a small one with some lube?

    Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.

  52. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The content on Wikileaks is classified on any number of no-distribute policies, including copyright. In particular, most Church of Scientology documents are classified under some combination of copyright and trade secret laws, and CoS has tried its best to get those documents taken down.

  53. Error detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Would have" not "would of"

  54. Re:1.2 million euro by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Adakmsfd ,efasme. lsad as,d-asd,ev, q=[[q

    Right? I understand it. It's your fault you don't. You're not fluid enough.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  55. You hippie you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Grammar nazis may wish to live in a sterile world -- but most of us don't. Give it a rest."

    The chorus of all those illiterates who imagine that they understand what is being said but actually understand little.

    None of us would be posting comments unless we had been taught to read, write and spell by proscriptive methods.

    True it can be a pain in the backside when making casual comments but the grammar nazis do have a point. If you want to communicate efficiently and thoroughly then you need to know the rules and apply them.

    None of us get it right all the time but it is worth at least aiming to get it right. Those who don't bother will live in a world of misunderstanding though maybe happy in their ignorance.

    You shouldn't be so dismissive of either them or their comments.

  56. Rape Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am reminded of a case where a man walked free in Texas because the woman hadn't been wearing underwear that night at the bar and therefore the man had every right to rape her in the eyes of the law. Another case where in the middle east several Haliburton contractors raped another female employee repeatedly and she was told not to say anything or she would get fired, none of the men were arrested because there was no one who could legally punish them.

    On the other side of the spectrum. Women have the ability to ruin any mans life just by accusing them. If a man doesn't call her back she can fabricate a rape story and his life is ruined, If accused he will bear that mark for the rest of his life. Every place he moves he now has to notify everyone around him that he is a rapist, by law.

    1. Re:Rape Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except I've seen very few men's lives ruined by rape accusations, but I have seen many examples of alleged rape victims lives ruined by rape accusations. Look at what happens every time some famous/important/"upright family man" is accused of rape. Everyone comes out of the wood work to argue that the women are liars, they were asking for it, they're just money-grubbing man-hating radical feminist bitches, that everyone KNOWS she was a slut and she probably just regretted it the next morning, the lying whore.

  57. It's a scam. He don't need money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    His lawyers get paid by the Swedish government. There is no use of any technical expertise (and they would be compensated by the government anyway). There is no bail to pay once he is in Sweden, since Sweden don't have a bail system (what we have is conditional releases, Assange have already broken the conditions of one, he won't get another before the trial). Room and board will be paid by the Swedish government. It is extremely unlikely that he will have to pay any compensation to his (alleged) victims (it can only be claimed if they can provide evidence of a loss of income).

    I can only think of three things he could need the money for:
      1) Paying his way through the US justice system, if USA manage to produce an extradition request on him and get him before Sweden does.
      2) Money to keep him on the run as a refugee.
      3) Money to spend privately on things unrelated to any of this.

    As a Swede I would call this a scam, but since most slashdot readers don't seem to share Swedish norms, then call it a marketing trick. Whatever you call it, he don't need any money to pay for legal costs in Sweden. Even if he hired someone to kill all witnesses, it wouldn't change a thing, their statements is already on record, that is all that is needed.

    Could at least someone demand that any money left from the book after the trial is donated to charity (perhaps wikileaks). Nobody should profit from a rape.

    1. Re:It's a scam. He don't need money! by iammani · · Score: 1

      Does the swedish govt pay for his British Lawyers and his British Bail Bond too (which was about 200,000 euros, if I recall correctly)?

      Nobody should profit from a rape.

      Oh yeah, its the rape charges that made him famous, and the book is about his relationship with the women and the rape. Oh wait, his book is about how he started with wikileaks and early personal life.

      Too bad none of you claims hold any water (No wonder you posted anon)

      3) Money to spend privately on things unrelated to any of this.

      Wow, someone is jealous.

    2. Re:It's a scam. He don't need money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, who paid his bail? Did he pay it? I'm pretty sure Michael Moorer paid it.

      I think point 3 is very pertinent. Your hero worship has clouded your judgment. Plus I'd like to see your apology for a few items where he isn't the choir boy with his money as you honor him to be.

      It is going to suck for you when you have your "say it ain't so Joe" moment when you find out he's actually not the messiah and he's only out for himself.

    3. Re:It's a scam. He don't need money! by iammani · · Score: 1

      I am well aware that the money goes to himself, and not a penny may go to wikileaks or any non-profit org. But my point is he deserves it.
       
      Do you have any reason why the money should no go to him (apart from the point that he is profiting from rape(which I have already countered))

      BTW, its not Micheal Moorer was just of the contributors to his bail bond. And I am sure if he had had this money with him, he would have himself posted it.

    4. Re:It's a scam. He don't need money! by Clsid · · Score: 1

      And you are assuming automatically that they guy did rape them. If you are from Sweden I would like to tell you in all honesty, what a moronic attitude you have towards issues like this. Women that feel betrayed are a force to be reckoned with, and what you qualify as "rape" is an insult to everybody's intelligence. A woman that was truly raped would immediately go to the authorites and stay away from whoever attacked her, or on the other hand, try to forget it ever happened and never talk about it in public. That didn't happen in this case, and based on the timing of the accusation I believe it's pretty safe to bet that the case has been politically motivated. Such abuses of the legal system should be frowned upon, much like that legal case of that woman against McDonalds because she got burned by hot coffee after she spilled the cup. It is a waste of taxpayer's money in either case. As far as the money scam theory of yours, try to RTFM next time, like for instance http://www.fsilaw.com/~/media/Files/The%20Julian%20Assange%20Defence%20Fund.ashx where they explain why they need the money. To be honest, I couldn't care less about Assange. To me, he is either very brave or very stupid thinking he can change the world, and he will either get in jail, killed or somehow diminished like most free thinkers before and probably after him. The stupidity surrounding the case is so extreme that I have been tempted to send money to his "Defence Fund". Bah, I think I'm starting to care.

    5. Re:It's a scam. He don't need money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has at least one British lawyer as well, that is frequently quoted in Swedish media. That lawyer will not be paid by the Swedish government. Also, his Swedish lawyer may also cost money right now if doing more than appearing in court...

  58. His Money's No Good Here by blueZhift · · Score: 1

    I think we can be assured that before too long there will be all manner of lawsuits and proposed laws to attach to and see to it that Assange doesn't get his money. In the U.S. there are already many states with laws designed to prevent convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes through book deals and such. While the claims against Assange are unproven and many would say highly suspect, the presumption of innocence has not been at play in the actions of the U.S. and other governments around the world. If he can, Assange may need to get that money in cash.

  59. Homework assignment? by jbatista · · Score: 1

    'I don't want to write this book, but I have to,' he said.

    Sounds like Mr. Assange is back to school -- this time he has to write an essay on his own life.

    --
    My sig is better than your sig.
  60. Queensland by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    To narrow it down - you can take the boy out of Queensland, but you cannot take Queensland out of the boy.

  61. Re:1.2 million euro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, "Balderdash" and insults, the argument of last resort.

    I doubt you understood what was written in the comment. That is because your thoughts are clouded with your own prejudice on the subject.

    Nobody is or has suggested that the rules don't change through time, though disuse or imaginative additions to the set. Even so, it doesn't help to imply that rules can be ignored or that they don't exist.

    You are worse than the so called grammar Nazis. You are an anti-grammar-Nazi Nazi. You know the rules and use them to put your case (well, that is, apart from your self indulgent detour into insults), but you encourage others who aren't lucky enough to be as literate to give up their efforts and accept lower standards - which will ensure that their voice is unlikely to be heard or respected.

  62. Re:1.2 million euro by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

    Balderdash. Try reading Beowulf in the original. If you don't understand it perfectly, is that because you're lazy and stupid or because the English language has changed?

    Maybe it's because I haven't taken the time to learn West Saxon, the language in which Beowulf was written?

    Also, I might be lazy and stupid. I'll concede that point, if you'll concede that your metaphor is balderdash.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  63. swedish media didnt get it wrong by unity100 · · Score: 1

    fool. dont talk sarcastically on matters you dont know about.

    the 'rape' in swedish law is nothing like the rape you know elsewhere in the world. after having consentual sex, a woman can come up days later and declare that it was not consentual. and it becomes rape.

    moreover, in this case, that wasnt even the case - the prosecutor have extended the swedish law in SUCH a way that it made continuing sex after a condom broke, a rape.

    no, it isnt rape, according to rational mind/societal acceptances of contemporary human civilization. for the better or for the worse, swedish law has an off-scale definition of rape.

  64. Re:1.2 million euro by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

    Personally, I use "euro" as the plural form in all cases except for when referring to individual coins. So, "I saw 3 euro on the ground outside" would be unspecified as to which coinage made up that value; but "I saw 3 euros on the ground outside" would be specifically referring to 3 individual 1 euro coins.

    (for reference only: I'm a native English speaker living in the Eurozone)

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  65. Assange is a tit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he should spend some more time "in solitary confinement in a Victorian gaol cell".

    Bloody hyperventilating drama queen....

    I mean, would he rather have been banged-up (and I use the term advisedly) in a multi-occupancy cell with convicted felons?

  66. Re:1.2 million euro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No-one cares

    More often than not "no one" translates into "I, with ostentation, and I'm calling out to the audience in the hope they will give momentum to my personal opinion".

  67. Re:1.2 million euro by hajus · · Score: 1

    There is semantic value in english for dollars as well. You wouldn't say "I have a 20 dollars note." You would say "I have a 20 dollar note." You also wouldn't say "It's a two hundred dollars fine."

  68. Re:1.2 million euro by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Also known as Old English, which evolved into Middle English, which evolved into Modern English. I find Tudor English sometimes difficult. "Language is fluid" is a scientific observation.

  69. Re:1.2 million euro by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    I'm certain you don't understand my comment, because my intention isn't to insult anyone. Rather it was to show that either the post I was replying to was, as I say, balderdash, or more than 99.9% of native English speakers are idiots. Read the previous anon coward's post and you'll see I was quoting.

    I consider "descriptivist" a more elegant description than "anti-grammar-Nazi Nazi". Descriptivists don't deny that rules exist, but consider that prescriptivists (grammar Nazis) tend to get the rules wrong. Either they make up their own rules or they follow "authorities" who made up their own rules, or imported them uncritically from Latin.

  70. Re:Sellout by Suki+I · · Score: 1

    He says he was *forced* to write a book, for $1.5M? I helped on several series and nobody forced me! Maybe I need to get involved with a more Dominant publisher. Trying to get a fatwa to boost sales seems like a dead end.

  71. Re:1.2 million euro by Duradin · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't say "I have a 20 dollar note." You'd say "I have a 20 dollar bill." You also wouldn't say "I paid two hundred dollar for that."

  72. While the book deal sounds nice, by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 1

    It seems that he'll find out that writing a book is not that simple, even if you had all the necessary information available. My guess is that the book will be very short, very bad grammar, and then too late to cash on the success of wikileaks...

  73. Assange isn't Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what everyone needs to recognize is that despite what Assange may think, he is not the entire organization (under closed doors that is, check out the wired article on Domsheit-Berg). There are dozens of people who ARE Wikileaks. You can still support Wikileaks and its mission while disowning Assange. It's not hard really.

    For one his public strategy has sunk itself the moment he conflated his sex charges as an attack on WL. Now he cries foul when the media reports on it. Too bad Julian, the moment you started running around pretending it was a government OP you screwed yourself over.
    He should have gone on the down-low and let another colleague take care of the PR so that the sex charges would blow over.

    I for one welcome our new OpenLeaks overlords!

  74. Sooo... by splerdu · · Score: 1

    Surprise buttsecks is legal?

  75. ooooh by unity100 · · Score: 1

    so you have come out and mistakenly posted with your own nick, instead of insulting as anonymous. i'd much rather be an assange cocksucker than a witless moron who insults people anonymously, lacking the balls to do it with his/her own identity.

    this non-discussion is over. come back when you learn some 'fuckin' manners.

  76. Re:1.2 million euro by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

    Grammar nazis may wish to live in a sterile world -- but most of us don't.

    *ahem* "Do not." In formal writing such as that on Slashdot, one should not use contractions.

  77. squirrel tarmac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange: Oi! More pussy monies!

  78. ach by revxul · · Score: 1

    Ironic, isn't it, that the face of WikiLeaks is up on charges because his "wiki" leaked? (badump*ksh)

    --
    Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
  79. Re:Sellout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah its tough to pay the mortgage on a 10 bedroom home in the British countryside, I feel so sorry for the hardship this guy has to face. His lifestyle seems so harsh, his only real option is too sell his precious memoirs.

  80. What I liked ... by jc42 · · Score: 1

    ... was the bit in the Mail Online story saying that Julian "... begs judges not to reveal his address".

    So I fed "Ellingham Hall, Norfolk, UK" (from the story) to google maps, and it instantly showed me how to get to Ellingham Hall, on Hall Road, a mile or so west of Kirby Row. Except it gave the address as in Suffolk instead of Norfolk, but the English do some funny things with their addressing system, y'know.

    It looks like a nice place to be stuck for a while. But I've heard the weather there is somewhat frightful right now.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  81. Re:1.2 million euro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All posted with impeccable spelling and grammar. Your attitude towards language will not be applied in the way you intend. Educators who believe that a merely communicated point is sufficiently communicated will produce poorer students.

  82. Snakeoil Salesman by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    Why would a genuine social crusader boast about his derring-do on a dating site?

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-16/us/assange.dating.profile_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-okcupid?_s=PM:US

    That's like somebody bragging how they feed homeless people, just so that they can get dates. It's one thing not to be any kind of social crusader whatsoever, but the guy who does social crusading for self-serving superficial self-promotional reasons is a particularly noxious type of person. That's a demagogue.

  83. He acts also, i've seen him on SNL by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Dude is funny as all hell on Saturday Night Live (SNL for you non american tv watching peeps)

    And don't try to tell me that's not him, that's just more government propaganda.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  84. Re:Sellout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to get a fatwa to boost sales seems like a dead end.

    What, the journal spamming isn't working out so well for you there?