Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

kaptink writes "Julian Assange is back in court today to appeal his extradition to Sweden. So far the court has heard more on the incompatibility between UK and Sweden sex crime laws and that the arrest warrant used was essentially flawed. — 'Ben Emmerson QC told Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ousely that the European arrest warrant under which Assange is being held was flawed because it failed to provide a "fair, accurate and proper" description of the alleged sexual misconduct.'"

Comments

So it goes like this

[unity100]

The girl that we had willing sex with, decides days LATER that she may or may not be so willing after all, and goes and asks for advice.

a conservative (swedish) politician (with ties to u.s. backed companies) intervenes, and a prosecutor in a DIFFERENT area takes up the case that the other prosecutor has DROPPED, and conjures up a new sex crime by stating 'continuing after a condom broke constitutes rape'.

with that fantastic, politically-driven propped-up legal interpretation, probably 30% or more of the world's male population are now classified as rapists. yes. if your condom popped out in the last moments before your ejaculation, you are a rapist.

how could you stop, you ask ? well, thats not the prosecutor's problem apparently. you may need to go to tibet and train 10 years in a mountain temple to be able to control your dick, in last stages of pre-ejaculation maybe. prosecutor doesnt care. he had to invent a sex crime, and he did.

well done sweden. good for you. you were one of the few countries in which corporate backed conservative politicians didnt start to screw the basic human rights over. now, you are one.

Re:So it goes like this

[UnknowingFool]

My understanding of the charges is that Assange had sex with two women on separate occasions. Both times the condom broke. Under Swedish law, your partner can demand that you to get tested for STDs and other diseases in this case. Assange refused. Now this isn't a law in the UK. Is this malicious prosecution? I don't know. But let's not let details of what happened get in the way of your uninformed rant.

Re:So it goes like this

[LizardKing]

Under Swedish law, a large number of things are considered to be a sex crime. The beauty of this if there really is a smear campaign going on is that Assange will now forever be associated with a sex crime that would not be considered an offence in most, if not all, countries apart from Sweden. As for the title of the Slashdot article, it's misleading. He's not in court for a "sex crimes appeal", he is in court for an extradition appeal.

Re:So it goes like this

[LizardKing]

Based on the - undisputed - version of events that has come out in Sweden, Assange had consensual sex with the first woman who subsequently attended a social function accompanying him. Odd behaviour for a rape victim. He then had sex with another woman, and when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police. Also undisputed is the fact that the first woman had previously written an article suggesting such a course of action to get revenge on any man she felt had cheated her.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny that you accuse someone else of being uninformed when your understanding of the case is this poor.

Re:So it goes like this

[Teron]

No, under Swedish law you can't even force a convicted rapist to get tested for STDs. The only ones who can be tested against their will are pregnant women.

Re:So it goes like this

[elrous0]

Don't be silly. He is every bit as guilty as Dominique Strauss Kahn. Just because Julian Assange, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar, Moamarr Quadaffi, and many other enemies of the U.S. became accused rapists shortly after crossing the U.S. government doesn't mean these are obvious CIA setups to publicly discredit them in the interests of the U.S. That's just a coincidence.

The CIA doesn't do bad stuff like that. And if you say otherwise, you're obviously nuts. So stop talking crazy and just accept Assange's guilt.

Re:So it goes like this

[ari_j]

(I have no knowledge of the actual facts and am only responding to the facts as stated here. I take no position on the accuracy of the factual foundation to my comment.) It sounds as if Assange's real mistake was one we all make at one time or another: Failure to properly review a woman's published materials prior to engaging in a sexual relationship with her.

Re:So it goes like this

[cgeys]

That is exactly true. We have many great laws here, but this one is one that is fucked up.. It basically does give the right for girls to complain about the sex several days later, just because they did not like it. It's a dangerous situation for every men.

Re:So it goes like this

[emt377]

When in Sweden he should ask the police for advice himself. Tell them he was asked to provide sexual services in return for lodging, that this wasn't discussed in advance, and at 3am he didn't feel he had too many options other than put up with it. He was tired and not familiar with the area or country even. He should ask the police if he was sexually exploited or the victim of any other crime.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

In both cases the women insisted on the use of condoms, and the condom "accidently" broke in both cases...
Wikileaks indeed...

The revelation and feeling of being raped was when the two women accidentally discovered that it happened to both of them.

All other details are just details, that either bend the story in either direction.
The question is if he did something to the condoms or not.

Imagine he has HIV.
Would it count as rape then?

Re:So it goes like this

[Arancaytar]

Moamarr Quadaffi

You're saying the US falsely accused him of rape? I guess he's not such a bad guy after all then.

You know, apart from the whole assassinating-dissidents and murdering-millions-of-people thing.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's besides the point, but am I the only one who can control themselves when it comes to this stuff?

The condom breaks, you stop and put another one on. It's really not that hard to have a little self control.

Re:So it goes like this

[elrous0]

Don't be silly. It's just a coincidence. Accusing someone of rape isn't one of the fastest and easiest ways to publicly discredit them and destroy their reputation in the press and among their supporters. No one would ever think of using that to their own political ends. Stop all this crazy talk.

Re:So it goes like this

[l-ascorbic]

OK, fanboy: excuse this one. This is the description of what happened *according to Assange's own lawyer*:

The appellant [Assange]'s physical advances were initially welcomed but then it felt awkward since he was "rough and impatient" They lay down in bed. AA was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom She did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration AA tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.

Source

Re:So it goes like this

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

It's very sad that bullshit like this gets voted up on slashdot. I suppose in this boys club wimmin are not someone you bother to empathize with.

This story is not about women who willingly sleep with a man, and afterwards claim he made them. It's a about a man who gets women into his bed, willingly, and then does things to them they don't consent to.

In one case, a condom broke, she tried to grab a new condom but couldn't because he held her down. For this, he may be charged with some sort of sexual assault.
In the other case, he put his penis into her while she was asleep, without bothering to put on a condom first. He really should have known better, because the day before, she had to repeatedly tell him to put one on, because he wasn't eager to do so. And after waking her up by getting to be the first man to enter her without a condom, he badgered her into letting him continue. He wanted to have some fun, after all. Who cares if she enjoys it. For this, he may be charged with a minor case of rape.

He enjoys it, she endures it. By itself, one instance of this sort may not mean much. In the heat of the moment, stuff can happen.
But if it happens to two women in a row, one might get the idea that he likes sex this way, taking what he wants while she endures it, whether she wants to or not.
And when two women talk to each other and find out that there is a pattern behind what they had previously discounted as bad sex, the decision to throw the book at him may well be justified.

PS: The legal terms don't translate well, different legal system and all.
PPS: There are men who think that once you have a woman in your bed, you can do with her as you please. If the Swedes have laws against that, good for them.

Re:So it goes like this

[LordLimecat]

Odd behaviour for a rape victim.

Possibly a different definition of one as well. This isnt "gun to the head violent rape", this is "Swedish-law-consent-was-withdrawn" rape, if the accusations are correct.

Undisputed....Assange had consensual sex with the first woman.....when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police.

Its not undisputed, it is in fact the primary dispute of the case-- whether the sex was consensual, or simply started that way and consent was withdrawn during the act.

Re:So it goes like this

[LordLimecat]

Yes, and the CIA is doing a bang-up job with Strauss Kahn. Whats that? Their defense and primary witness' credibility is heavily in question? Wow, wonder how the CIA screwed that up.

All the information is pointing to a maid who was trying to extort a ton of money out of Strauss Kahn, and he has already been released from house arrest. Theyre currently trying to figure out whether they even have a case left. CIA secret op, indeed.

Re:So it goes like this

[hedwards]

No, it wouldn't count as rape then. Rape is purely about consent. Consent was given and provided that he wasn't knowingly spreading the disease there's nothing that can or should be done about it.

While we're at it, what about all the women that trick men into getting them pregnant by claiming to be on the pill? Following your logic that's rape as well, which is just absurd. If you have sex without a condom, STIs and pregnancy are real risks. Claiming that it's different if the risk turns out to be high isn't really legitimate.

Re:So it goes like this

[hedwards]

You can withdraw consent at any point during sex, but you can't withdraw consent afterwards. Which is really the crux of the matter, the women didn't consider it to be rape until after consulting with police, which makes it really fishy that there was anything that Assange did that was criminal. Sure it was stupid to sleep with a radical feminist, but nothing that could reasonably be foreseen as criminal.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but that doesn't have "Sex ... Appeal" in it, and /. needs those pageviews!

Re:So it goes like this

[betterunixthanunix]

wimmin

Way to go.

Re:So it goes like this

[kaptink]

My bad. In retrospect I probably didnt do him any favours wording it like that cause your right, three of the four 'possible' charges arent really sex crimes in any rational society. And the forth is dubious at best. Better than 'Rape Appeal' though.

Re:So it goes like this

[surgen]

I suppose in this boys club wimmin are not someone you bother to empathize with.

What's a "wimmin" and why would I empathize it?

Unless its a cool new lingo for swimmin', in that case I take offense to your remarks. I am in a boys club _dedicated_ to swimming. I still don't understand how to empathize with it though.

Re:So it goes like this

[phorm]

The day before or no, I believe in many places that attempting sex while one person is sleeping is illegal, as the sleeping person cannot give consent...

Re:So it goes like this

[DavidTC]

No, having sex with a person and deliberately giving them HIV is assault (Just like deliberately giving any other infection), not 'rape'.

Rape is a specific crime. Failure to get tested for STD might be illegal, but is not rape. Failure to inform someone of STD status might be illegal, but is again not rape.

Rape is the specific crime of having sex without consent.

Re:So it goes like this

[SleazyRidr]

Continuing with the next paragraph from that same source:

But crucially, Emmerson said, there was no lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation, because "after a while Assange asked what AA was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA told him that she wanted him to put a condom on before he entered her. Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found her."

Women have always expected men to be mind-readers, but that doesn't constitute rape.

Re:So it goes like this

[MacGyver2210]

She never said "Stop" or "Don't", and had previously said "Yeah, let's do it." That is consent. You can withdraw consent during sex, but only if you SAY YOU DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE - which she never did.

It's malicious prosecution, and the fact that it came to light about a day after the WikiLeaks fiasco should be all you need to know in order to figure out it was staged and coerced prosecution of a man who has committed no crime.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

You can withdraw consent at any point during sex, but you can't withdraw consent afterwards. Which is really the crux of the matter, the women didn't consider it to be rape until after consulting with police, which makes it really fishy that there was anything that Assange did that was criminal.

If your partner withdraws consent during sex yet you still continue, that's rape, even if your partner doesn't think it is at the moment. The victim's failure to understand the law at the moment of the act doesn't excuse the accused; what matters is whether the victim was coerced into having sex when she no longer wanted to.

One of the big problems in this world is that there are way too many women who will be raped by an acquaintance and yet not acknowledge that what the man did to her is rape. Denial and self-blame is, in fact, a stereotypical reaction from rape victims: "it wasn't rape; he was just drunk/I didn't make myself clear/I brought him to my room/he couldn't help himself/etc."

Re:So it goes like this

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

He enjoys it, she endures it.

What kind of nonsense is this? People don't endure rapes and sexual assualts; they suffer them. Enduring someone who is poor in bed, and not articulating what you do/do not want them to do, does not constitute a sexual assault.

This case is groundless unless the alleged victim had a serious reason for "not articulating" herself properly, that is, fear for her safety if she did so. That would make the case a sexual assault, and that is a common feature of assaults. Being "badgered" into sex is not grounds enough.

Rape laws are for victims who did not consent to sex with another individual before or during the act. They are not for people who afterwards decided that they shouldn't have consented. It's unfortunate that a case of the latter kind should become so prominent, to the detriment of victims in the former, far more serious cases.

Re:So it goes like this

[l-ascorbic]

It's a verbatim quote from the court. Go find another to contradict it if you want.

Re:So it goes like this

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

Technically true, but I prefer to have a more nuanced stance on this.
Imagine your significant other (imagine having one, if necessary) waking you up in the morning by going down on you. Assume that you like it, and that maybe you talked with her/him about how you might like it. Should she/he go to jail for that?

On the other hand, shoving something into a woman's vagina without even trying to make her wet first is going to be unpleasant for her. Add the condom-thing. What Assange did is unacceptable even in the most sex-positive light.

As far as not knowing whom to believe, a lot of people see red flags in the feminazi woman with CIA connections and stuff like that. For me, the biggest red flag is the man who needs to be repeatedly told to please finally put on a condom.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Odd behaviour for a rape victim.

Possibly a different definition of one as well. This isnt "gun to the head violent rape", this is "Swedish-law-consent-was-withdrawn" rape, if the accusations are correct.

You know, basically all industrialized Western nations consider it rape when somebody continues having sex with a partner who's withdrawn consent. This isn't some Sweden-only thing.

And "gun to the head" is a very rare rape scenario. Stuff like The Implication is a lot more common than that.

Undisputed....Assange had consensual sex with the first woman.....when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police.

Its not undisputed, it is in fact the primary dispute of the case-- whether the sex was consensual, or simply started that way and consent was withdrawn during the act.

Yup. There's a large number of morons who will tell you the "facts" of this case—which upon examination, turn out to be the defense lawyers' version! And then there was the time back in November or so when some documents from the prosecution came out describing the accuser's allegations that Assange used force to obtain compliance; the defense then protested vigorously that the prosecution was trying to try the case in the court of public opinion.

Re:So it goes like this

[l-ascorbic]

Also, if you think the Guardian is a tabloid you need your head examining.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree in principle but the devil is in the details:
1)How long does one have to stop ? A vague answer such as immediately or at once won't cut it, The answer must be a precise amount of time. For example, a time of "0.0000 seconds" would mean anyone asked to stop is automatically guilty of rape as soon even if the one asked to stop actually stop.

2)How do you collect evidence on such a case when one of the party claims the other didn't stop and the other party claims the contrary.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it excuses his behavior (it doesn't), but why didn't she SAY something? Squirming or reaching for things seem like things that could be easily mistaken for more play by some people. There's a reason we have spoken language: to convey complex ideas like "No, not unless you wear a condom".

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Based on the - undisputed - version of events that has come out in Sweden, Assange had consensual sex with the first woman who subsequently attended a social function accompanying him. Odd behaviour for a rape victim.

I think by "undisputed version of events" you mean "shit Assange's lawyers have been telling the press."

Also, the "odd behavior for a rape victim" that you describe is in fact fairly stereotypical for date rape victims who are in denial or blaming themselves. It may sound crazy for you, but the real world works like that, and it's well known. You can't conclude anything from the fact that she accompanied him later.

To give an extreme example, this sort of behavior is also common for women who are physically abused by their husband or domestic partner. Their man will beat the shit out of them—yet they will hide it, and when discovered they will insist that it's their fault because they provoked him, and even defend him when the cops get involved. Would you think that such a woman is showing "odd behavior for an abuse victim"? Because that's in fact normal behavior for an abuse victim!

Re:So it goes like this

[rhyder128k]

How is this flamebait? Responding in thread as I haven't had any mod points for months.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

May I interupt your rant to state that he has not been convicted of anything. You could start talking about human rights violations after a conviction or possibly if he is being unjustly treated, neither is currently the case.

Re:So it goes like this

[elrous0]

The CIA didn't screw up Strauss Kahn. It was actually a rather masterful piece of work. The accomplished both their goals with flying colors. Today a pro-American puppet is in charge of the IMF and Sarkozy is likely to win the presidency. The CIA has screwed up plenty of operations in the past, but this most certainly wasn't one of them.

It was never about convicting Strauss Kahn. It was about discrediting him.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the condom break if no condom was used?

Re:So it goes like this

[TWX]

If you have sex without a condom, STIs and pregnancy are real risks. Claiming that it's different if the risk turns out to be high isn't really legitimate.

If you have sex, STIs and pregnancy are real risks. Claiming that it's different if the risk turns out to be high isn't really legitimate.

There, fixed that for you.

Anyone engaging in sexual activity should know and understand that the activity's primary purpose is to make more humans, and that everything we've ever done to avoid making babies while having sex has failed at some point or another. That doesn't mean that they fail often, but it can happen, and there is no release of liability if a pregnancy occurs while attempting to prevent it.

Assange may be a rat-fink and an asshole, but if a consensual sexual encounter that included a broken condom (or even no condom at all) is all they've got, then in my mind, they've got nothing. I'd argue that it's her burden, just as much as his, to ensure that the birth control device is intact.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's rape if a woman starts having sex with a man without consent. It's rape if the man tells the woman "I don't want to have sex with you anymore" and she doesn't disengage herself after that. It's rape if the man would have said that, but didn't because of a reasonable fear of illegal reprisal from the woman or because he has been rendered unable to speak somehow. It's not rape if the woman starts having sex with the man without consent, but consent is then given while the sex goes on. What you describe is not rape - it doesn't matter that you don't like Assange or what he does. You might not like taxes either, but that doesn't make taxes money rape.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Feminazi:

Not all heterosexual relationships are rape.

Thank you,

Mankind.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

You're trying to be clever here, but you're not doing a very good job.

First of all, if you're honestly saying that you think a despot obsessed with absolute control and taking what he wants at any cost to others is probably not a rapist, you might need to read this sentence again. Repeat until you see the obvious point.

Second, rape accusations (or even convictions!) aren't even automatic character assassination. For examples, see every professional athlete ever (and many, many amateurs as well).

Finally, just so you can see how it looks from an outsider's perspective:
Man, it's so clever when people make a point by saying the opposite of a point they're making in a way that looks obviously false. Clearly, only a brilliant person who is not suffering from any kind of severe brain damage would use that tactic!
For your own sake, stop doing this.

Re:So it goes like this

[sgt_doom]

Of course, we must all agree with you, especially since (and this is no joke!) the recently reappointed director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, also happens to be the grandnepher of Richard Bissell, the chief of the CIA's Directorate of Plans who was fired by President Kennedy, who was later to be murdered in Dallas in 1963.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

"that is, fear for her safety if she did so"

Even then, it would need to be justified fear. It isn't enough that she considers the guy creepy and scary but never says a word to him. He actually needs to have threatened her in some way. Otherwise he might be completely oblivious to the drama unfolding in her mind and that is no crime.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I don't disagree in principle but the devil is in the details: 1)How long does one have to stop ? A vague answer such as immediately or at once won't cut it, The answer must be a precise amount of time. For example, a time of "0.0000 seconds" would mean anyone asked to stop is automatically guilty of rape as soon even if the one asked to stop actually stop.

A "reasonable" amount of time. You know, using that legal construction where you ask what a "reasonable" person would judge.

This issue is, in actual reality, not a real problem. In 99.9999% of cases (and yeah, we know where that number comes from, but bear with me), when a woman wants a man to stop, the man either stops quickly enough to her satisfaction, or continues long enough that it's obvious he doesn't give a damn about her consent.

2)How do you collect evidence on such a case when one of the party claims the other didn't stop and the other party claims the contrary.

The same way you do for any other criminal case. E.g., what would you propose the court do if you claim that I mugged you and I claim that you gave me your $100 as a gift?

Re:So it goes like this

[hedwards]

You might want to re-read my post. She consented at the time, and changed her mind after the fact. This new story about her withdrawing consent mid coitus is a new story, and it really begs the question as to why the story has now changed to that degree. I don't know which version is correct.

At this point, I doubt either woman has sufficient credibility to be a witness without some substantiating evidence that anything illegal happened. And them hanging out afterwards is not likely to lend credibility to any case that the prosecutor can put forth at trial.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

any sane judge would look at the facts: girl post article on how to get revenge if cheated, a guy cheat on her, the girl enacts his plan.

I wonder why she wasn't just convicted with entrapment in the first place.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, because he is male, the answer would be no.

All too often the case in many Euro countries - trying to get a sexual harassment/assault case against a women is like trying to push a building up a hill.

Re:So it goes like this

[Belial6]

So true. Assange is still is denial about having been raped by at least one of these women if not both. One of them publish how to hurt men against their will using sex. Clearly she knew what she was doing, and Assange is the rape victim in the case. Sure that is an outrageous statement, but so is claiming that a published feminist running an international seminar claiming that she was raped and didn't realize it after having published that you could screw men this way. You shouldn't limit your description of physically abused people to women either. It speaks of sexual bias. Men are far more likely to be physically abused, and far less likely to report it. Women physically abusing men is so common that most of the population just sees it as normal. It permeates our popular culture, it is done publicly, and women frequently publicly declare their abusive behavior with no negative impact to their lives.

Re:So it goes like this

[LordLimecat]

Probably because, even if your scenario were factual, that has nothing whatsoever to do with entrapment.

Re:So it goes like this

[Darinbob]

Which can be easily explained to police. Unless the accused tries to turn it into a media event by claiming it's a US based conspiracy.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

You kept your answers (purposefully ?) vague. What do you think is a reasonnable amount as a reasonnable person ? Not giving an amount before makes it too easy for "a reasonnable person" to just claim the accused should have stopped "x seconds sooner", ie to adjust the amount on a case by case basis to ensure that no matter what the accused took too long to stop.

Besides, you answer a question by another question. You're just evading the issues. But I'll answer your rethorical question: I would never have the opportunity to propose anything to the court as the police would just laugh a 100$ complaint and the prosecutor would never charge anyone for theft of 100$.

Re:So it goes like this

[LordLimecat]

She consented at the time, and changed her mind after the fact.

You might want to reread your sources. If everyone was in agreement over that, there WOULD be no case.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

You might want to re-read my post.

Or, alternatively, you might want to read the actual allegations against Assange instead of just parroting his defense lawyers' stories as if they were the undisputed facts. Here's some choice bits:

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.

[...]

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

Re:So it goes like this

[LordLimecat]

So, if Strauss Kahn wins the presidency, and this discussion resurfaces, will you then claim that its even more brilliant, because he will be an ineffective president?

The way you are arguing, no matter what reality and all evidence shows, you can continue to claim that its a conspiracy.

And Im not trying to claim the CIA couldnt do something like that (despite it being incredibly illegal, and not something the CIA would do inside of our country); but when you have no evidence whatsoever, and reality in fact heavily implies the opposite, it really hurts your credibility.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

It is none of your business what happened in their bedroom. And, since it wasn't rape it is none of the government's business either. Stop trying to get the government to micromanage your life because you are unable to do it yourself.

Re:So it goes like this

[elrous0]

He won't even get nominated to run. He's finished. That was one of the two goals.

As for evidence, as I told another poster, I'll try to get the CIA to send you a signed confession. Because barring that, you're either going to have to wait 60 years for them to declassify the details, or accept that there are just too many coincidences here to dismiss it all as pure chance.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what's worse, people who parrot these fantasies, or people who mod this utter crap as insightful. According to my fantasy, your father raped your mother. I don't have any proof, but hey, who needs that stuff. If I yell it hard enough and often enough, it becomes reality, right? Where there is smoke, there is fire. Btw, your fantasy doesn't match with the fact these girls hang out with him after the "enduring". What's left is an easy to brainwash fool.

Re:So it goes like this

[elrous0]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me in four similar cases, all taking place within weeks or months after the accused crossed the U.S. government, one of which has already been shown to be a set-up--well, shame on the the sucker who thinks that's all just an incredible coincidence.

Everyone who crosses the U.S. is suddenly a rapist. And an army of suckers like you will swallow that fiction no matter how many times they use it. They've gotten so brazen now that they're staging their arrests within DAYS of the accused making speeches challenging the U.S. government. Hell, they're not even spacing the arrests apart anymore. Omar and Strauss Kahn were arrested within days of one another. Nor did they even bother to distance cutting Kahn loose with the election of the new IMF chief. On Tuesday a new IMF chief is elected, on Thursday the prosecutor suddenly admits he has no case. THAT'S how fucking stupid they know you are.

But keep being stupid. I can't stop you. Keep believing that all these people are suddenly becoming rapists right after they cross the U.S. Keep explaining away each individual case and blithely ignoring the larger pattern. Tell yourself that the U.S. doesn't give a shit about the IMF chief proposing abolishing the U.S. dollar as the world currency standard. Tell yourself that the CIA would never take covert action to discredit someone who threatens U.S. interests. Shit, tell yourself that the Tooth Fairy exists for all I care.

Re:So it goes like this

[JumperCable]

In one case, a condom broke, she tried to grab a new condom but couldn't because he held her down.

Please cite your source for this. I have never read anywhere that this occurred but in your statement. The issue with Anna according to the article is:

This alleged victim is "convinced Assange broke the condom by the glans and then continued to ejaculation", Emmerson says of AA's statement.

Now tell me this, how many people have had the bad luck of a broken condom during sex and didn't know it until after everyone was done? I know I have.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

You kept your answers (purposefully ?) vague. What do you think is a reasonnable amount as a reasonnable person ? Not giving an amount before makes it too easy for "a reasonnable person" to just claim the accused should have stopped "x seconds sooner", ie to adjust the amount on a case by case basis to ensure that no matter what the accused took too long to stop.

I invoked the Reasonable Person Standard that's used all over the place in the law. This is purposeful. The reasonable course of action is to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

I'm sad to hear your local police and DA aren't interested in prosecuting muggers. So, let's suppose instead that you forgot to lock the front door of your house when you got home for the evening, and I got in with a gun in my hand and stole something of great value; say, a Picasso sketch. I say that I'm licensed for concealed carry, and that you invited me to your house and gave me the Picasso as a gift. How do you propose this sort of thing should be adjudicated?

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend likes to play that game all the time. We're kinky that way. She screams: "No! Not there! Stop!" and struggles, but then gives in to the passionate lovemaking. Sometimes we use props like rope, handcuffs, chains etc. Our safe-words are "Yellow", "Orange", and "Red" meaning "rest a moment, then continue", "sore/too rough, move on to another position", and "Stop" respectively -- or "mmmm... mmmmm... mmmmm" for "stop" if she's gaged.

We didn't always have safewords, or play very rough. We first discovered this power-play turned us on when we were mid coitus and holding hands (fingers interlocked) -- She was unable to free her hands from mine as my body spasmed in orgasm I was unable to let go or stop. There was an incident before we started using safewords when I didn't know she wanted me to stop. It wasn't rape, just a misunderstanding -- I would have stopped if I had known she wanted me too, and she knew that. No one got angry or emotionally hurt -- We just talked about it like adults and agreed to find a solution to help prevent miscommunication.

It's come to my attention that many men and women enjoy sexual role-play & power-play, and many people play at it without learning how to play safely first. Did Assange commit rape or did he and his partner have an unfortunate incident due to poor communication? To me it looks more like the latter.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

"that is, fear for her safety if she did so"

Even then, it would need to be justified fear. It isn't enough that she considers the guy creepy and scary but never says a word to him. He actually needs to have threatened her in some way. Otherwise he might be completely oblivious to the drama unfolding in her mind and that is no crime.

Right! Just like in this video.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

In australia they considered 30 seconds as unreasonnable. The appeal is here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/46.html. Do you agree ?

As for your question
--No history of me giving expensive gifts to random strangers.
--Absence of the notarial act necessary for the transfer of such an expensive property: inexistant.
--No tax papers filed concerning the sum owed to the tax collecting agency for such the gift.

By the way, I hate Picasso's paintings. He was a greatly gifted artist but he decided painting crap was more profitable.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think it's weird that this all happened after he pissed the US politicians? Not saying the sexual matters, but the discovery of said sexual matters only happened after the US politicians got pulled into this.

Then again I haven't really been following the subject that much and I may have missed a lot of information, but it seemed to me that one day I was watching a news story about Wikileaks pwning some people that have a fuck tonne of power and then the next news story, Assange is trumped up on sexual assault charges that in any other court would probably not have been taken as seriously.

Whenever you think about it, it just seems a little bit bullshit

Re:So it goes like this

[xzoon]

People don't endure rapes and sexual assualts; they suffer them

Does that apply to other crimes as well, or only rape and sexual assault? If a victim of wife beatings, assault, etc doesn't suffer, but closes their eyes and endures, does that mean it isn't a crime?

This case is groundless unless the alleged victim had a serious reason for "not articulating" herself properly

A long history of women shutting up and enduring sex even if they don't really want to is a pretty good reason.

That said, I don't think the first case has much of a case. Trying to prove what she is saying would be incredibly hard, and even if she did manage to prove it, it's a gray zone. But I do think it's good that she did report it, people need to learn to listen, talk, and observe during sex.
The second case should be brought to court. Initiating sex while the other party is sleeping is nothing short of rape, unless you actually know the other party very well, and knows that he/she doesn't mind. But as usual, it will be incredibly hard to prove, and he would probably walk free even if he did it. But it sets an example that it is NOT OK to do stuff like that.
It feels kind of sad that JA has to be a person who gets that role (and by extension WikiLeaks, since people can't separate the two), but he shouldn't stand above the law, just because he is who he is.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

As for your question --No history of me giving expensive gifts to random strangers. --Absence of the notarial act necessary for the transfer of such an expensive property: inexistant. --No tax papers filed concerning the sum owed to the tax collecting agency for such the gift.

Yup. We can add to that list, and here's one: it would be really strange and self-servingly convenient for me if it was really true that I walked into the home of a stranger like you with a gun (which we both agree that you saw!) and you just happened to be such a swell guy that not only was it OK with you that I did so, but you also gave me a really valuable object as a gift. I.e., no reasonable person would think any of this is likely.

And hell, even if I was telling 100% the truth as I experienced it I should still be convicted of something, because a reasonable person should have known that strangers who give you extremely valuable gifts when you enter their houses while armed actually believe I'm robbing them.

Rape allegations should be judged similarly to how we're judging this imaginary scenario; a combination of facts about the situation and "reasonable person" standards that either rule out fanciful explanations, or still blame people when they act out of recklessness or criminal negligence. The fact is that most of the rape apology bullshit you read in this thread is more akin to the unreasonable story that my imaginary defense is concocting, where I take your Picasso without showing any reasonable regard for the possibility that, gee, you might not actually want to give it to me.

Likewise, if a woman tries to reach for a condom right before you are going to penetrate her and you use force to hold her down and prevent her from doing so, gee, perhaps maybe she doesn't want to have sex with you like that, and, shikes, you should ponder whether at that point she's still consenting to what you're about to do.

PS, those two links above are important. A lot of rape apology scenarios, when you read them carefully, basically boil down to excuses for recklessness or criminal negligence about consent. The apologies repeatedly argue that in some scenario the man is justified in "going ahead" with a woman that might not actually want to. I.e., they're trying to construct a justification for sex that does not rely on whether the victim actually consents, or trying to find "tricks" to avoid the responsibility of figuring out whether she wants it or not.

If you watch The Implication video, that's also what's going on; boat guy is saying that that in certain situations a woman "will" or "has to" have sex with him, and systematically avoiding the crucial issue of whether she really wants to.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

What you described is the accusation. Something assange disputes.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, "reasonable" just means "most." "Reasonable" is subjective to begin with.

And from what I see, there's no actual evidence that he did rape anyone.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice, but is there any evidence that this happened? Or are people guilty until proven innocent?

Re:So it goes like this

[bill_mcgonigle]

One of them publish how to hurt men against their will using sex. Clearly she knew what she was doing,

Gosh, did the CIA just Google for an agent when it knew Assange was in Sweden? Is this the one who was doing the anti-regime intelligence work in Cuba, or the other one?

Re:So it goes like this

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm glad SleazyRidr posted the next paragraph.

It appears that you were selectively quoting the article in an attempt to mislead your fellow Slashdotters. How do you answer this charge?

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree veiled threats can be used to force "consent". However, I think it's also possible for a good prosecutor to sell the ideas of veiled threats having forced consent even when there were none. In some situations, both the defense and the accusation will be plausible: if someone enters with a knife the bedroom of someone thirty years younger after lockpicking the door, no jury would be insane enough to accept the consent defense, especially if they don't know each other. If they were roomates that have known each other and have already dated before, the consent defense become much more plausible (from the point of view of the jury who is not omniscient), the accusation remains plausible too but the defense being more plausible automatically lowers the probability the jury will convict. There could still be physical medical evidence. In a "I said stop", the medical evidence will be scarcer: "I saw no teared tissues, it is compatible with both the accusation and the defense versions". You should watch Dershowitz comment on the strauss kahn case at bloomberg: it's outdated but he explained in which cases the "misunderstood consent" defense is a hard sell to the jury (they don't know each other, not the same social status, they never dated before).

You didn't answer about the 30 seconds delay. What do you think about the five seconds delay being too short ? The accusation asserted the consent was invalid to begin with but the Jury asked if it was rape if the consent was withdrawn in the middle of intercourse indicating they accepted the consent was valid and that they convicted based on the five seconds being too long. That's not my analysis but the analysis of the appeal court who granted appeal based on a related technicality. http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2006/225s05.pdf. Do you see a five second delay as reasonnable to comply ?

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

To my knowledge the charges laid against Assange are not for refusing a STD test. Nor are they mandating a court ordered STD test on its own. They are instead charges of rape. IF in Sweden this STD testing law exists then a court ordered STD test for Assange I can fully appreciate. I'd also assume that if an STD is found that the courts in Sweden would need to prove that he knew he was a carrier of that STD prior to having intercourse. If it can be proven that we was aware then I'd assume the charges would not be rape (as the sex was consensual) but rather some sort of assault charge associated with this sort of crime.

Re:So it goes like this

[Grumbleduke]

My understanding of the charges is that they're not actually charges; he is merely wanted for questioning in connection with events. From what I recall, that was one of the grounds of the challenge to the EAW; i.e. they weren't trying to extradite him to face charges. This may be because when they to charge him, they will have to provide his defence team with all their evidence, at which point the entire case is likely to collapse and the English court won't make him leave. Instead, they're extraditing him for questioning, then once he gets to Sweden they can lay charges and lock him up, in solitary confinement, while they drag out the legal process (and maybe hand him over to the US).

Of course, this is mostly speculative - sadly I wasn't in the courtroom today or yesterday - iirc it was journalists by invitation only...

Re:So it goes like this

[LordLimecat]

That was me you told. Here is my reluctance to believe it:
I will grant that it is possible that this was an opportunity that was seized upon by one or more governments to take some of the spotlight off of Assange (or to cast him in a bad light). But you seem to think that the entire case, start to finish, was fabricated. None of Assanges lawyers have yet argued that, nor have they denied a relationship or even the intercourse with the girls. Their entire claim has been that extradition would somehow put them more in the doghouse because they would be in the US-friendly Sweden (as if the UK isnt friendly with the US, and doesnt do extraditions?). It makes no sense, especially if we entertain the "CIA black-op" scenario.

And for everyone to right away assume that Assange MUST be in the right, before he has even set foot in a courtroom (because, of course, he is refusing to do so), is ridiculous. We see where similar assumptions about Strauss Kahn ended up (about his guilt, in that scenario).

And as for Strauss Kahn, everything Ive heard is that his name is NOT marred by this, the French are quite upset about the kneejerk reaction that the US had, and that Strauss Kahn could use the whole ordeal to play the victim card and come out looking better than before. Doesnt really sound like a good CIA plan to me.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

In this case, "reasonable" just means "most." "Reasonable" is subjective to begin with.

The Reasonable Person Standard doesn't mean "most," and if by "subjective" you mean "anybody

And from what I see, there's no actual evidence that he did rape anyone.

There is evidence accompanying the allegations. For example, one of the accusers' exes has testified that he never had condomless sex with her over the course of a two-year relationship. The implication here is that it's very unlikely that this lady would now consent to this with a guy she barely knew. One of the accusers also claims that Assange wouldn't leave her house, that she stayed over at a friend's house one night to avoid him, and eventually had to call the cops to get the guy to leave—the cops' testimony about what happened then is third party evidence. There's also expert judgement that a condom that Assange used was torn on purpose.

Before you protest, note that I'm not claiming that the allegations are true. My point is that's up to a court to decide whether the whole body of evidence and argumentation presented by the prosecution and the defense merits a conviction. But your claim that there is no evidence is false.

Re:So it goes like this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I agree veiled threats can be used to force "consent". However, I think it's also possible for a good prosecutor to sell the ideas of veiled threats having forced consent even when there were none.

But of course, it's also possible for a predator to get a good defender to sell the idea that the prosecution is just inventing fantastical veiled threats for what was just an innocent situation. I just don't think that argument has any weight.

We haven't touched the larger problem in these cases, which is that society at large just blames the victim when it comes to rape. I can build the best circumstantial argument ever that the defendant clearly and repeatedly showed a systematic disinterest on whether the accuser consented, and too many juries are going to come back and say that the accuser is a slut and it's her own damn fault, or worse: case in point. (Though the prosecution did retry that case and win.)

You didn't answer about the 30 seconds delay. What do you think about the five seconds delay being too short ?

I'm skeptical of the value of having some seemingly precise number here. It's not like people are going to wear stopwatches during sex so they can time whether the man pulled out quickly enough. Or, more perversely, how many rapists who hear of a "5 second rule" or "30 second rule" would simply exploit this to not stop in a timely fashion? ("Ok, she said 'stop,' so I'll just keep going for 30 seconds, and maybe by then she'll stop saying 'no.'")

If your partner asks you to stop you should stop as soon as you can. If you're not doing anything particularly kinky, in the practical sense that really just means "immediately." Contrary to what whiny rape apologists would like you to believe, if you treat your partner with respect, are attentive to what she's experiencing and you stop when she asks you, she will be satisfied that you stopped "immediately" even if the stopwatch says 5.7 seconds.

In the real world, when a woman accuses a guy of not stopping immediately, there's a much better than even chance that the guy just didn't care about her continued consent. And that makes him a rapist.

Good luck with that

[AmiMoJo]

For some reason the UK seems to roll over when it comes to extradition warrants. Someone will probably try to blame the EU (as TFA seems to) but it does not affect other EU countries. For example there was a case last week where some German men were found guilty of various war crimes while they were stationed at concentration camps in Italy, but none of them will be extradited. Germany only extradites people with their consent.

Assange has a long hard battle ahead I think.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking News, Assange a Nazi!

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't talk crap. Why do you think they haven't already shipped him out? I'm surprised he can remain in the UK for so long, he's Australian.

Re:Good luck with that

[HerculesMO]

You can't say long and hard when talking about rape cases, it's a no-no.

Re:Good luck with that

[davegravy]

Assange has a long hard battle ahead I think.

You had to fit "long" and "hard" in there, didn't you?

Re:Good luck with that

[Schmorgluck]

Germany only extradites people with their consent.

Wrong: Germany just can't extradite its own citizens without passing a law specifically for this purpose.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Puny flacid battles aren't newsworthy

Re:Good luck with that

[Tr3vin]

You had to fit "long" and "hard" in there, didn't you?

That's what she said!

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

The rule of law is important in the UK.

Re:Good luck with that

[yacc143]

And the law would probably not pass constitutional review. E.g. Austria does not extradite it's own citizens, nor does it extradite if there is the risk of the capital punishment. Btw, if I got that right, the most stringent view has Portugal that does not recognize life sentences and does not extradite if there is a risk of such a sentence.

 

Re:Good luck with that

[Schmorgluck]

There's a specific provision in German constitution that permits that a German citizen is extradited, through very strict processes, but it's possible. It's indeed unlike just about every European country. It's a legacy of post WWII, to allow for German war criminals to be extraded and judged.

Most other European countries simply don't extradite their citizens (I'm not sure about the UK, actually: does it extradite its subjects or does it just wait for the CIA to kidnap them?) AND they don't extradite anyone to a risk of death sentence. I don't know how it's handled by other European countries, but in the case of France it means a promise has to be made by the head of the Public Ministry of the American state involved, that the accused won't be sentenced to death, for someone to be extradited by France to the USA.

Just a promise? Yeah, just a promise. Between allied countries, and maybe even stronger: a promise between lawyers. Contrary to honor among thieves, honor among lawyers does exist. It's even enforced, everywhere lawyers exist. And if that promise was broken ONCE, that would mean extraditions couldn't happen anymore without VERY VERY complicated negociations, which would probably imply, on the part of France, to require that the sentencing would be commuted to life imprisonment - which would certainly be granted. So the State's head of Public Ministry (I don't know if this position is called the same in all the states of the Union, hence my use of this purely function-descriptive wording) would just have embarrassed his governor, who could retaliate by attacking him about his lack of reliability, which would honestly be a fair criticism. An the result would just be an international crisis, an in-state clash, a fair amount of criticism from the lawyer community. And that prosecutor wouldn't even get the human sacrifice he so insisted to have pronounced. Totally not worth it. For anyone.

There's also the case of federal pursuits. Honestly, I'm not sur how it works, but I guess it's roughly the same. American lawyers are even more fond of consistency than European ones.

Why did I only mentioned the USA in what precedes? Because as far as I know, the USA is the only place in the whole world that applies death penalty that can be actually trusted to not apply it if asked politely.

Re:Good luck with that

[Xest]

For what it's worth we're not entirely unique in this though. My girlfriend is Canadian and it was only the other week her Dad was complaining about Canada being guilty of the same thing- sending people off whom the government should in fact be protecting, and failing to bother to get citizens safely home who have been arrested unfairly in foreign nations.

Perhaps we like freely sending people out the country, to counterbalance the fact we have absolutely no fucking idea how many people are actually coming in to the country.

White Bronco

[shuz]

Ford SUV - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson Indeed this trial is a circus.

Re:White Bronco

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford SUV - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

Indeed this trial is a circus.

Um... Mazda Miata - see Janet Jackson? The hell did that first part come from?

And, Assange's entire M.O. is "attention whore", so it seems entirely appropriate that this devolve into a media circus. It's what he wanted, right? Oh, wait, is it only good if the attention fuels his ego?

Broken Condoms are no Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

A broken condom is nothing compared to how bad the republican party is fucking America right now.

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

A broken condom is nothing compared to how bad the two-party system is fucking America right now.

FTFY

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal

[halivar]

Non sequiturs make me eat lampshades.

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal

[gstoddart]

Non sequiturs make me eat lampshades.

Speaking of lampshades, I think I'll have the tuna salad on whole wheat.

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has switched parties?

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has switched parties?

Yes, prretty much.

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal

[TheRaven64]

No, he's still in the Corporatist party (blue branch).

you know what this is really about

[FudRucker]

it is about the US Government wanting revenge on Assange/wikileaks for exposing the US Gov's dirty laundry (it isnt about any alleged sex crimes)

Re:you know what this is really about

[Qatz]

And in doing so they have brought far more public attention to wikileaks. Yay for them. If they really wanted to discredited wikileaks they should "leak" a bunch of bad info, wait a year they reveal the information to be false. Then just call all the content of the site into question.

Re:you know what this is really about

[elrous0]

Don't be crazy. Next you'll be saying that the U.S. would be willing to frame someone for a sex crime just to put a pro-U.S. puppet in charge of the IMF and ensure the reelection of their pro-U.S. puppet in France. And that's just crazy talk. The CIA doesn't do bad stuff like that.

Re:you know what this is really about

[spire3661]

Thats what usually happens when you give a superpower a black eye. Im all for truth and justice and liberty for all, but hte fact of the matter is, when you piss people off, they forget all that stuff. Im sure Assange is guilty of something, the rape thing is a bit of a strech, but again thats what you get for playing women too. None of this stuff about Assange surprises me because he comes of as a grandiose asshole of the 1st order.

Re:you know what this is really about

[Toonol]

What involvement has the US had in his accusation, charges, or deportation?

Oh, it's secret. Got it. The lack of evidence proves it.

Re:you know what this is really about

[Anonymous Coward]

it is about the US Government wanting revenge on Assange/wikileaks for exposing the US Gov's dirty laundry (it isnt about any alleged sex crimes)

 
You're talking about the U.S. Government - these are the people who (continue to) snatch foreign nationals off the street in their own or third party countries, and send them for secret interrogation in countries with long histories of human rights abuses.
 
If you think this sex crime stuff was their method of neutralizing him, you, sir, are a retard.

Re:you know what this is really about

[elrous0]

Well none, obviously. What would the U.S. even have to gain from Assange's arrest? It's not like he was threatening them in any way. Besides, the CIA doesn't do bad stuff like frame people. Only other government's intelligence agencies do bad stuff like that.

Re:you know what this is really about

[CrimsonAvenger]

What would the U.S. even have to gain from Assange's arrest?

Hate to say this, but Assange isn't important enough for the US government to bother with, when all is said and done.

Re:you know what this is really about

[LordLimecat]

ext you'll be saying that the U.S. would be willing to frame someone for a sex crime just to put a pro-U.S. puppet in charge of the IMF and ensure the reelection of their pro-U.S. puppet in France.

Thats a brilliant theory! How is the Strauss Kahn case going anyways?

Whats that, charges likely to be dropped, Strauss Kahn likely to run for the presidency still?

Oh, ok. Guess thats part of the secret illuminati plan as well?

Re:you know what this is really about

[Duradin]

You have to remember that the U.S. government is completely incompetent except for secret conspiracies, they call pull those off without anyone blabbing anything about it.

Re:you know what this is really about

[TheRaven64]

I have no doubt that the CIA has the capability to orchestrate something like this. My doubt is that they'd bother. Assange is basically irrelevant. He's part of the bread and circuses of government - leak some trivial secrets, sack some junior government employees, and make it look like you're working hard. He hasn't done anything that would make him worth the CIA spending time and money on.

Re:you know what this is really about

[Anonymous Coward]

And naturally, everyone will instantly believe the USA's information as opposed to Wikileaks. It's not like Wikileaks has a reputation for delivering the truth and the government has a reputation for lying and covering their tracks every chance they get or anything.

Re:you know what this is really about

[jimicus]

I'm not so sure.

Lest we forget, Wikileaks seriously embarrassed the US government not so long ago. I think the purpose of this is less to punish Assange and more pour encourager les autres (or more accurately, discourager) - from having anything to do with leaking information.

Re:you know what this is really about

[jbonomi]

Seriously embarrassed by what, exactly?

Re:you know what this is really about

[elrous0]

Exposing the nasty secret memos of the State Department (many of which have and will cause serious diplomatic problems for years to come) and also exposing serious weaknesses in their security, among other offenses. That's no laughing matter. People have been assassinated over MUCH less.

Re:you know what this is really about

[elrous0]

Strauss Kahn's political career is over and a pro-U.S. puppet is in charge of the IMF. I would call that a pretty successful operation. The goal was never an actual conviction.

And no Illuminati or tin foil hats necessary. Just an agency with a long and well-documented history of these sorts of operations to protect U.S. interests.

Re:you know what this is really about

[LordLimecat]

Might be credible if you had a shred of evidence to back your claims up; otherwise, how do you intend to separate yourself from scores of other certifiably nuts conspiracy theorists?

Re:you know what this is really about

[Belial6]

That isn't how you do it. You have a relatively low level person with access to information supply the fake information. You then have them spend the next year in a jail cell. I doubt it would be that hard to find someone that would willingly play the roll of the patsy.

Re:you know what this is really about

[Belial6]

Uhhh....Did you miss that this thread is about WikiLeaks?

Re:you know what this is really about

[elrous0]

I'll see if I can get the CIA to send you a signed confession.

Re:you know what this is really about

[jbeaupre]

That would make a great sig line.

Hello Mr Dreyfus

[bizso09]

This thing is a classic Dreyfus affair. I mean, isn't it obvious that they just want him out of the way since he exposed some of their dirty little secrets, thus they created this whole sex crime charge to achieve that?

Re:Hello Mr Dreyfus

[Hazel Bergeron]

The difference is that back when most people were supposedly ignorant and had little means to access information, there was a real divide created in the country between supporters and detractors of Dreyfus. Today only a tiny proportion of any Western country cares about any stance but the one promoted by government and the popular media.

We think that the Internet etc. make us more free, but the wealth of modern methods of transmitting information simply means being flooded with propaganda more effectively than ever before. Most think they see multiple viewpoints when in fact they're seeing the same viewpoint multiple times with slightly different wording.

Re:Hello Mr Dreyfus

[c6gunner]

I mean, isn't it obvious that they just want him out of the way since he exposed some of their dirty little secrets, thus they created this whole sex crime charge to achieve that?

Yeah, the Swedes are pissed because he told the world what's really in their chocolate.

sex crimes appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Like him or hate him, you have to admit he's got that sex crimes appeal. Rowr!

Uhhh, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

shortly after crossing the U.S. government

When exactly did Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar and Dominique Strauss Kahn (half your list) become enemies of the United States?

Re:Uhhh, what?

[elrous0]

Strauss Kahn had been openly criticizing the value of the U.S. dollar in the weeks leading up to his arrest and had just pulled ahead of the pro-U.S. Sarkozy in the French presidential race. Omar was raising funds for the Muslim Brotherhood, in their effort to secure a place in the new Egyptian government.

Re:Uhhh, what?

[nedlohs]

Depends on how deep you go down the conspiracy path.

At the extreme end, when they got involved in exposing that the US has no gold - http://www.eutimes.net/2011/05/russia-says-imf-chief-jailed-for-discovering-all-us-gold-is-gone/

More reasonable (but still off in conspiracy land) when Strauss Kahn talked up Special Drawing Rights to replace US dollars for reserves and for oil trading - http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/markets/dollar/index.htm. Such a move would crater the US economy (yes even further). Saddam and Gadaffi also got on the "trade oil in something other than dollars" bandwagon before the US bombed their countries.

Re:Uhhh, what?

[dkleinsc]

Another angle on the Dominique Strauss Kahn case: They may also have been targeting New York AG Eric Schneiderman, who just happened to be making moves to prosecute the banking giants under New York law. By having the case blow up in his face, they probably succeeded at discrediting Schneiderman as well.

Re:Uhhh, what?

[cavreader]

"Such a move would crater the US economy " If the US economy gets cratered so will every other economic system on the planet that is more complicated than using goats and virgins for as currency. Isn't it a simple and orderly world when everyone can blame the US for every single fucking problem? It offers absolution to everyone there by stifling any real efforts to actually address their own problems. If you believe the world can dump the dollar without bankrupting themselves you are living in a dream world. The current US debt load is not an insurmountable obstacle giving the sheer size and dominance of the US economy. As a percentage of GDP the US debt is ranked 36th in the world. The US per capita GDP is ranked 7th in the world only losing out to countries smaller than an average size US city such as Kuwait,UAE, and Qatar. People love to proclaim the US no longer manufactures anything but somehow they are still ranked the #1 exporter in the world. People like to claim China owns the US because of their purchase of government bonds and securities but never acknowledge that the Chinese consider these investments safe, profitable, and low risk. Any harm China would inflict in this arrangement would end up hurting them more than the US. China has the 2nd largest economy and is still about 4 trillion short of surpassing the US while having 4 times the number of people to support under their system and they have started running into their own difficulties lately which is slowing down their projected growth. There are countries looking to dump the Euro and return to their own currency so situations like the Greece meltdown doesn't take them down. If the world critics want any positive changes in the world they need to stop taking the easy way out by blaming the US for everything and expecting them to fix everything. The US does have problems and has created it's own share of problems and should be part of the concerted efforts to make things better but it is hardly the cause of everything that goes wrong in the world.

Re:Uhhh, what?

[elrous0]

Here is another excellent article on exactly what Strauss Kahn was calling for (and why it scared the U.S. government so much). Of course, with their puppet in place as IMF head now, this plan has been quickly dropped.

Re:Uhhh, what?

[elrous0]

The point is that this is what Strauss Kahn was calling for right before his arrest on trumped-up charges. And literally within days of a new IMF chief being elected, the prosecutor in the case (who had previously made a public arrest and called the case rock solid) suddenly drops the case and admits that the only witness is a joke. If you think that's all just a coincidence, well then, what can I say?

Re:Uhhh, what?

[nedlohs]

Which is completely irrelevant to the US not liking the idea of a transition away from trading oil in US dollars and from using US dollars as reserves.

And also completely unrelated to what I claimed which had nothing to do with manufacturing or debt to GDP ratios and so on.

There's certainly no blaming of the US - it's the only place that doesn't get any of the blame since they aren't the ones choosing to use another country's currency for world trade. Your the only one who mentioned the US being a cause or being expected to fix things.

There's also no "inflicting" or malice involved (from China). It will change at some point and everyone knows that (we don't use the pound sterling for international trade anymore after all). Obviously the US would prefer it to be later, while some others would prefer sooner, while some others just want to be ahead of the curve without spooking the markets and triggering a collapse that hurts them.

Being the world's reserve currency has *huge* advantages and the US can't really be faulted for benefiting from them. However, take those advantages away and you are going to be in trouble if you have relied on them. Also note that said cratering of the economy isn't the end of the world, it's just a restructuring though one in which the US emerges from significantly less wealthy (but positioned to boom again if the government can manage the transition).

Re:Uhhh, what?

[cavreader]

Being the reserve currency does provide great benefits but this fact has provided stability and is so embedded in the world economic model that changing to something else would be catastrophic for not only the world economy but also for the world diplomatic relations. This issue would prompt the US to really start using their every bit of leverage they posses to prevent this from happening. Classifying the change as "restructuring" is like describing violent genocide as mere population restructuring. This is just the kind of issue that can speed up the coming of WW3. Governments also do not have the final word on this issue because the global conglomerates for good or ill also have the means to throw up road blocks if it appears they are looking at economic upheaval. The sheer administrative costs associated with this type of change over is enough to cause problems. And then the question becomes what should become the new reserve currency? China's artificially manipulated currency, the Euro which is already raising red flags after the problems in Greece, the ruble, the yen, or the peso? When is the last time the countries of the world have come together unanimously on any issue of importance?

Re:Uhhh, what?

[nedlohs]

Do you not have an enter key?

For the first line, yes the US dollar has provided stability, the problem is it is now not doing so. The dollar's devaluing is pushing prices higher and pumping inflation everywhere else (there should be inflation in the US - that's what happens when you borrow lots, but it is being seen elsewhere instead). The rest of world isn't going to put up with that forever, hence the moves at moving to "currency baskets" and so on.

For the last line, I stated what the guy was for using in the first damn comment, and of course it was none of the currencies you listed.

I didn't read the rest, since it's one huge block of unreadable text.

Re:Uhhh, what?

[cavreader]

sorry about the formatting but using the tiny keyboard on my phone is a pain in the ass.

Re:farking bastiges!

[gstoddart]

deported to sweden. but claims he's not from there!

Isn't he Australian?

Re:farking bastiges!

[Canazza]

It's not deportation, it's extradition, there's a difference.

So Many Theories

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting how so many posters on this site are willing to assume that other countries will not follow the rule of law. Especially with cases originating in the UK. For example Gary McKinnon is 1) assumed not to have done anything, or anything worth prosecuting, 2) the US is assumed to have 'cruel and unusual punishments', and 3) there is an assumption that Mr. McKinnon will not get a fair trial. Substitute Julian Assange in for McKinnon, and Sweden in for the US and you have this current story.

Yes, there may be political motivations. As a matter of reality, crimes that do not affect people with some sort of political importance to not attract as much attention from the police, public, or press. However, that doesn't mean that a crime was not committed, nor does it mean that the court system in the various jurisdictions are corrupt. Likewise the press presents a story from a certain point of view, which is designed to get readers, and not necessarily present the facts (see the Casey Anthony case).

Another issue is that posters point out that what constitutes a crime is dependent on the jurisdiction, and seem to argue for a more universal set of laws, often with the idea that only the loosest laws should apply. But the problem is there that various people have different ideas about what should and should not be legal, especially with things that are, or can be dangerous. Alcohol is one such topic, where you have states (like California) which allow selling it, but have strict public consumption laws. Other states, like Louisiana, are much more progressive, allowing public consumption and drive-through daiquiri stands, and then there are more regressive states, like Pennsylvania, which highly restrict alcohol purchases, or various 'dry' counties throughout the south which forbid all alcohol purchases. Many other restrictions (e.g. guns, marijuana, prostitutes) have similar jurisdiction-dependent regulations.

So yeah, I guess I just fail to get worked up about Mr. Assange or Mr. McKinnon.

suspicion

[roman_mir]

the only thing that I suspect in all of this is that Assange is an asshole, and rips condoms on purpose. Beyond that I don't care about him, but his work with the Wikileaks is very important regardless and the materials they publish are excellent and need to be revealed.

Re:farking bastiges!

[Ksevio]

But if his UK visa expired, would he be deported to Australia?

Re:farking bastiges!

[jonbryce]

Yes

Just get in over-with

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of what you hear is wrong and this would all be over if Assange hadn't fled the country instead of letting the police question him. And the process in the UK is downright ridiculous. There is really no chance that the UK will refuse to extradite him. The only valid reason would be that he wouldn't get a fair trial in Sweden, which is a ridiculous claim and it would have to be really terrible for on EU state to actually say that about another member state (just look at how most countries clung to the fiction that Greece was a safe country for asylum seekers).

And, contrary to popular belief, Swedish laws are not that different from most other civilised countries. For purely political reasons (that I don't necessarily agree with but that's another story) the terminology has changed in recent years and more acts are now considered "rape". However, it is only the name that has changed. The acts were criminal even before. Same crime, new name.

From what I've read (and I have the advantage of being able to read Swedish), Assange is accused of two acts that could, if proven, amount to rape under Swedish law. However, I have seen absolutely nothing indicating that there is a way to prove the allegations. In my opinion, this would all have been over long ago if Assange himself had not decided to do a runner and use the whole thing as a marketing ploy for himself.

wow.

[unity100]

so, she didnt enjoy it, but she endured it, because HE ENJOYED it. and you are, along with the morons who modded your idiotic post up, are actually jus tifying the charges against the man on those grounds. not only that, you uttered out another idiotic bullshit saying 'if swedes have laws agains that, good for them'.

no. good for you. well done. as of this moment, you basically practically classified 50% or more of sexual relations in between 1 or more participants as rape.

totally leaving out the fact that, everyone at all times endures a lot of things they dont like in any voluntary participation in ANYthing (ranges from marriage to jobs) and things just cant be perfect to the point of you enjoying everything you participate every time, the woman who has participated in that 'joyless' sex act, has not only attended social functions with assange later, but also had MORE sex with him later. if she hadnt enjoy having sex with him, she would not.

the idiocy here stems mainly from the fact that, you are totally clueless about the fact that 'rape' suddenly came into being when assange had sex with ANOTHER women, and AFTER that act, the first woman, who not only had engaged in multiple acts of repeated sex with the guy, suddenly felt the need to go to police to talk about rape.

it is appalling that there were people who modded your clueless and foolish post to +5.

someone mod parent down please. maybe he wont talk shit before actually researching and knowing about the current events he is talking about, next time. not that i have much hope that he will tho.

Re:wow.

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

So you don't see any difference between having bad sex and being held down and having bad sex forced on you. Or being asleep while bad sex is forced on you.

Revealing.

PS: To the best of my knowledge, both women didn't have sex with him again after those incidents.

Re:wow.

[unity100]

are you aware that leave aside woman CONSENTUALLY engaging in multiple acts of sex over a duration of time countable by days, she at NO point told assange to stop in any of these sexual intercourses, and this is in her testimony ? what 'forced down' you speaking of, idiot ? are you just expressing opinion without having information about what you are speaking of ?

Re:wow.

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

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

> 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.

> Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept"

And anyway, that is not the incident for which he may be charged with rape.

Re:wow.

[unity100]

why not go all the way and quote fox news instead of official swedish legal documents then, since you started.

the moron who modded the above down

[unity100]

explain to me. why it is flamebait.

is there someone in their right mind justifying people complaining about sex, DAYS later it happened in a consentual fashion ? have sex today willingly, decide its rape tomorrow.

im anxiously awaiting justification of the moron who downmodded the parent as flamebait. not that it is possible to RATIONALLY justify what i have posed though.

Re:the moron who modded the above down

[Anonymous Coward]

is there someone in their right mind justifying people complaining about sex, DAYS later it happened in a consentual fashion ? have sex today willingly, decide its rape tomorrow.

Yes, this is the politically correct stance in Sweden today. ALL High-ranking politicians call them selves feminist and will -at least in public - subscribe to the view that a woman never lies about being raped, and that the woman was raped if she at any point in time decides that she was raped.

I am posting anonymous because I was myself involved in a similar situation and lost my job and my friends because of rape charges which were not true. I was convicted and have spent time in jail. I consider Swedens rape law to be unjust. My case is appealed.

yes.

[unity100]

youre screwing someone, and she withdraws consent half a second before your ejaculation. or, just at the point you started ejaculation and your body is convulsing involuntarily.

im waiting for your justification in regard to biological impossibilities above, for the bullshit you have proposed.

really. some of you people are SO much willing to villify julian assange that, you are going to extreme ends, even putting forth totally unjustifiable, idiotic, rationale-free bullshit.

last to be challenged, has become entire field of biology in regard to homo sapiens sapiens physiology. im waiting for the next bullshit.

Re:yes.

[hedwards]

I'm not using that argument, but I think it requires a good faith effort to stop as soon as possible. Which usually will be pretty immediate. Not several minutes later. But, you do have a point, in that absolutely immediately isn't necessarily realistic in all cases.

Re:yes.

[LordLimecat]

Im willing to state that your opinions on the matter has about as much influence on the actual facts of the case as does mine; that is, none whatsoever.

The fact is that he is being tried for involuntary intercourse, which is being termed rape. Whether or not you think the law is reasonable is irrelevant, especially when it comes to his extradition. If Assange can show that he attempted to comply with the woman's wishes, that would be a matter for the actual trial; at the moment the fight is over whether he will go peacefully to a trial or make a spectacle out of this entire thing.

Re:yes.

[unity100]

woman says in her own testimony that she never told him to stop. you cant even begin to charge 'involuntary intercourse' with that.

Re:yes.

[LordLimecat]

Source would be nice, I linked my source at the start which says that she DID withdraw consent during the act.

Re:yes.

[unity100]

source is above in higher posts of this thread. there are many posts pointing to other phenomenon not broadcast by anglo-american media as well.

WATCH OUT!

[Thud457]

If you engage in retroactive rape, time traveling Hitler may insult your grandmother!

One addition, outstanding unity100 human

[sgt_doom]

While I cannot improve upon your most excellent comments, outstanding unity100, please allow me to add that all those perps and crooks going after Wikileaks' Julian Assange are connected, financially, in one way or another with the Swedish publishing people, the Bonnier family (Ardin, their shysters, Borgstrom and the other clown, as well as all the original publication rags involved --- basically the Swedish equivalent to the Rupert Murdoch machine).

The same Bonnier business which received funds from the US Federal Reserve Bank, along with Sweden's central bank, during the period of 2008 - 2010. Funny how those things always work out that way????

Swedish law review

[sgt_doom]

Under Swedish law, doodski, one cannot bring charges against another until the discovery process has been finished and a proper charge been levied against the supposed culprit --- something which has yet been done as the Svensk prosecutor has yet to pass on all the ICQ messages from Ardin to Assange's defense attorneys, along with other legally pertinent information.

Obama loves you.....and Goldman Sachs!

What part of moron-land do you come from?

[sgt_doom]

Gee whiz, ari_i the douchebagger idiot, do you think thousands of damning leaked cables might have something to do with it or are you so totally incapacitated with trying to find your vagina, such a thought has yet to occur to your arithmetically-challenged pea-brain?

First, study ALL Swedish law,

[sgt_doom]

Under Swedish law, the discovery process must first be finished before any charges can be brought -- which has yet to be accomplished by the Svensk prosecutors.

Your comments are excellent, LizardKing, but that must be added. More importantly, they Brits should be far more concerned with the total compromising of their government and police forces by the Rupert Murdoch crime machine, and begin using all their resources to extradite Murdoch and his co-conspirators.

mod parent up

[unity100]

the most enlightening post in this whole discussion. spills out a lot of names to watch for.

Feh...

[jjrff]

"Alex I'll the-rapists for 1000 dollars..."

Ok, let's try this.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

youre screwing someone, and she withdraws consent half a second before your ejaculation. or, just at the point you started ejaculation and your body is convulsing involuntarily.

Please enumerate all of the circumstances where it's ok to fuck somebody who doesn't want you to. That sounds like it would be very useful to know.

Re:Ok, let's try this.

[unity100]

please enumerate all of the circumstances when someone sells you a donut, and withdraws their consent just after you swallowed it.

Re:Ok, let's try this.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

please enumerate all of the circumstances when someone sells you a donut, and withdraws their consent just after you swallowed it.

When you buy a donut, the donut is then yours to dispose of as you want. I really, really, really should not have to point this out, but that's not the case for sex: your partner doesn't surrender control of her body to you during the act. The fact that she consented initially doesn't entitle you to continue after that consent has been withdrawn.

In real life, there are two kinds of men: those who stop promptly when their partner tells them to, and those who very obviously don't. The latter are the ones who find themselves accused of rape (though not nearly often enough).

These are also the ones who start all the theoretical arguments about what exactly you're allowed to do to a woman when she no longer wants your dick inside her, and for how long. In fact, this is a pretty good index of rape apology—when somebody tries to shift the argument from "does she want it" to "at what point am I entitled to disregard whether she wants it." Or, to use your analogy: "At what point is the donut mine?"

Re:Ok, let's try this.

[unity100]

When you buy a donut, the donut is then yours to dispose of as you want

IS it ? so, you are saying that, a mutually agreed interaction/transaction can be broken at will in the case of sex, but, not in the case of other transactions ?

my my. and the reason for this leisurely, at-will double standard comes from, what ?

of course, i would like to also remind you that the woman in NO case had said ANYthing about wanting him to stop, to assange, and this is her testimony. it appears you have missed that bit of information about the case, and instead talking out of your ass.

so in this case we not only have the physiologically unlikely proposition of male being ordered to stop sex at any point the other participant desires, but also in assange's case, male is supposed to be understand that the woman is wanting him to stop, WITHOUT being told to stop.

world of wonders.

Re:Ok, let's try this.

[VortexCortex]

In real life, there are two kinds of men: those who stop promptly when their partner tells them to, and those who very obviously don't. The latter are the ones who find themselves accused of rape (though not nearly often enough).

In real life, there are two kinds of women: those who asked their partner to stop promptly during sex, and those who very obviously haven't. The latter are the ones that find themselves falsely accusing men of rape (far too often).

Indeed, unless you were in that bedroom, you really can't say what happened. We can look at the surrounding evidence and determine that the "rape victim" had premeditated this false rape scheme by posting it online. We can also see that she did not immediately claim she had been raped -- It was not until she felt cheated (not raped) that she then followed her premeditated false rape scheme to the letter.

Word to the wise: Ladies, please read the book titled "The boy who cried wolf" -- A story about how foolish it is to assassinate your own character. Men, watch the movie "Basic Instinct" -- A story about how foolish it is to assume all women are sane.

Re:Ok, let's try this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop using sockpuppets to make stupid arguments against you so you can destroy their arguments. Nobody is as stupid as the GP.

Re:Ok, let's try this.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

When you buy a donut, the donut is then yours to dispose of as you want

IS it ? so, you are saying that, a mutually agreed interaction/transaction can be broken at will in the case of sex, but, not in the case of other transactions ?

We'll set aside the fact that you insist on talking about sex like a commercial transaction.

The answer is yes. Some transactions are over the second that both parties make them, like the donut purchase. Some transactions are ongoing and can be broken at will at any moment. Like, for example, at-will employment. Then there's all sorts of cases in between.

of course, i would like to also remind you that the woman in NO case had said ANYthing about wanting him to stop, to assange, and this is her testimony. it appears you have missed that bit of information about the case, and instead talking out of your ass.

Let's leave aside the fact that you are wrong about what the accusers' testimony is. Explicit verbal refusal is not necessary for rape. The thing that's relevant is whether the accused party had sex with the alleged victim in spite of a lack of consent. There are many ways this can happen; one of them is disregarding explicit refusals, but another is showing a clear disregard for whether the victim consents.

I.e., the criminal law standards of recklessness and criminal negligence apply to rape.

so in this case we not only have the physiologically unlikely proposition of male being ordered to stop sex at any point the other participant desires, but also in assange's case, male is supposed to be understand that the woman is wanting him to stop, WITHOUT being told to stop.

It's physically impossible to pull out during sex? Damn, I must be doing it wrong.

And in Assange's case, there is one allegation that he used force to overcome resistance before starting—and another that he started while the alleged victim was asleep.

Re:Ok, let's try this.

[unity100]

We'll set aside the fact that you insist on talking about sex like a commercial transaction.

sex is just an interaction in between one or more people, just like anything else. it doesnt have 'special status' among human interactions.

The answer is yes. Some transactions are over the second that both parties make them, like the donut purchase. Some transactions are ongoing and can be broken at will at any moment. Like, for example, at-will employment [wikipedia.org]. Then there's all sorts of cases in between.

quite. and the sex transaction was over more than one time after the parties made them. THEN, DAYS later, the woman changed her stance regarding the matter.

Let's leave aside the fact that you are wrong about what the accusers' testimony is. Explicit verbal refusal is not necessary for rape. The thing that's relevant is whether the accused party had sex with the alleged victim in spite of a lack of consent. There are many ways this can happen; one of them is disregarding explicit refusals, but another is showing a clear disregard for whether the victim consents.

lets leave aside the fact that there is nothing other than the testimony of the alleged, WILLING rape victim in this case regarding all these.

'explicit verbal refusal is not necessary' -> yes, we need to telepathically understand that the sex partner is unwilling to participate in the act, if we are told nothing by her. and the standard for that, is 'showing a clear disregard', the definitions of 'clear' and 'disregard' being impossible to determine in any given context. totally subjective.

really. gtfo.

It's physically impossible to pull out during sex? Damn, I must be doing it wrong.

then allow me to tell you that, you seem to be not exactly enjoying your sex intercourses ....

And in Assange's case, there is one allegation that he used force to overcome resistance before starting—and another that he started while the alleged victim was asleep.

yes. allegations of women who have changed their stance days later after sexual intercourse, when they discovered that they were being cheated by other women.

Wikileaks are illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cultural question here: In Sweden, do they refer to condoms as "wikis"? Or is that just what Assange calls them?

How about adding the CRUCIAL paragraph afterward

[Anonymous Coward]

"But crucially, Emmerson said, there was no lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation, because "after a while Assange asked what AA was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA told him that she wanted him to put a condom on before he entered her. Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found her."

That make the above paragraph much milder and more akin to "he did not see it immediately but complied afetrward".

Re:Whenever assange comes up, despicable face of

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

You really like ranting, don't you.

You think everyone in this discussion is american. What an americocentric idiot you are.
I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you mistake me for a native speaker.

You think it's reason to regard all arguments against Assange only in isolation, so nothing amounts to much, but you weave everything against the accusers into a big conspiracy theory.

Pardon the pun, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this all seems a bit fishy.

Get over it Assange!

[psiden]

Assange's work with Wikileaks is indeed extremely important, and that is precisely why he should have got over his personal shame, instead of acting this childish and disrespectful - and all this commotion would all be over and done with long ago and more importantly the focus back where its better need.

Filing accusations of this kind is never easy, especially not when the guy is a huge celebrity. Give these women a break until their case have been tried. Being right or wrong, together with whatever evidence these women have been found trustworthy enough to have their case investigated, which means Assange needs to be interrogated. Probably it all ends there, maybe not, but that is the way it have to work. Thousands of people are extradited between European countries every month, it is common procedure and Assange is no exception - the law applies to ordinary people as well as politicians, footballers, rock stars and the occasional Julian Assange's. Just get over it, Assange!

To make it easier for Assange, he was even offered to be interrogated discretely at the airport without media or anything, but he declined. Maybe it was the 'without media' part that made the offer less appealing?

PS. Contrary to common belief people are not convicted of rape in Sweden for 'forgetting to use a condom'.

Re:Get over it Assange!

[thej1nx]

PS. Contrary to common belief people are not convicted of rape in Sweden for 'forgetting to use a condom'.

No worries, I am sure USA can arrange for there to be a first time for such.

The good old USA, where it is okay to get foreigners residing in other countries brought into domestic jurisdiction via state-sponsored kidnapping. Yep, it has happened. Not surprised, Assange refused the airport offer.

Extradition is in the best interests of the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK only consents to extraditing people because of long historical problems with Russia and the former Soviet Union. You see, the UK cannot place itself in a position to demand Russia to hand over its citizens in cases like the Litvinov poisoning, if the UK itself refuses to extradite its citizens and other people suspected of crimes. This was also the reason why Gary McKinnon had to be sacrificed - to maintain a position to make demands.

Right!

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

This case is groundless unless the alleged victim had a serious reason for "not articulating" herself properly, that is, fear for her safety if she did so. That would make the case a sexual assault, and that is a common feature of assaults. Being "badgered" into sex is not grounds enough.

Yes, because the critical question in these cases isn't whether she wanted it, but rather which other aspects of the situation make it OK for a guy to have sex with a woman despite the fact that she might not actually want to.

Re:farking bastiges!

[swamprat0129]

One of my favorite parts of Johnny Dangerously is that news article.

Re:Whenever assange comes up, despicable face of

[unity100]

You think everyone in this discussion is american.

yea. i said something just like that - if you pull one out of your ass that is.

go back and reread what i posted.

Re:Whenever assange comes up, despicable face of

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Do you have any evidence that the posters who put forward those objections you listed were American?

If not, then congratulations, you just let your emotions judge and convict an entire country's population of being unforgivable due to some pseudoanonymous comments people made on the Internet.

I really hope you don't hold any position of power or serious responsibility in your day job that requires objective analysis.

Re:Whenever assange comes up, despicable face of

[unity100]

i invite you to re-read the title of the comment you replied to. this is not some event that has occurred only in this article, and this wasnt the only discussion which has taken place.

Do you have any evidence that the posters who put forward those objections you listed were American?

It's all very simple

[Anonymous Coward]

In Sweden rape is all sex (actually penetration) that is non-consensual. When you are asleep you cannot consent, ergo putting your penis in someone that is asleep is rape according to Swedish law. The other cases are more complicated, but the rape charge isn't.

And before you ask the question: Yes, it's rape to penetrate your girlfriend while she is asleep. This has of course never gone to court, but the law is very clear.

Re:It's all very simple

[psiden]

Far as I understand the latest law in the UK is even more strict in this case.

Re:It's all very simple

[Anonymous Coward]

While what you are saying is more or less correct in practice, it's not quite what the law says. Rape is when someone coerces someone into sex or takes undue advantage of the fact that a person is asleep, drunk etc ("helpless state"). Undue being a key word here. You could in theory have sex with your sleeping wife or girlfriend who in theory might have nothing against it. I am not aware of a case regarding intercourse with a sleeping woman but I remember an older case about a man ejaculating on his sleeping wife/girlfriend being acquitted (the charge was probably not rape but some other crime).

Oh, and the act has to be "sexual intercourse" or a "comparable act", which is up to the courts to interpret. I agree that would usually mean penetration, though it need not be by a penis, nor vaginal.