In other words, no, you do not know what happened. Rather, you are assuming that Assange, against all evidence to the contrary, is a saint who never would, nay could, do such a thing and as such the claims should not be investigated, at all, ever.
And, what, exactly, prevents him from being extradited to the U.S. from the U.K.?
Or, the women only decided to report the rapes after learning of another victim to stand with against an internationally known man with many supporters.
Tell me, if it were not Assange, but someone you did not support, would you feel the same way?
And, that is done via police investigation and court. Yet, it is that very investigation that Assange is trying to side-step.
Assange is accused of a crime, yet you and so many others are against him being investigated, let alone tried. He left the country and refused to return to avoid being questioned. His actions are, in fact, suspicious.
Answer me this, if you were to substitute in this case someone else, someone you do not personally support, for Assange, would you be so quick to oppose investigation? Would you opinions change?
It is the word of two against the word of one. What makes his word worth more than theirs?
Dilated? Really? Do you know even the first thing about female anatomy? As for "wetness", that occurs with mild stimulation in most women. A woman does not have to be awake, or even willing, to become wet.
Even "fishy" sounding stories need to be investigated. Especially when it is the word of two ordinary women against that of an internationally famous man.
It seems both you and Assange believe this should not even be investigated and he should not be questioned simply because he is Julian Assange of Wikileaks and they are just women.
In order for the summary to be "an impartial statement of events", it would have to include something to the effect that one woman claims she told him to stop when the condom broke and he did not and the woman claims he had unprotected sex with her while she slept after stating she did not want to have unprotected sex.
The summary implies that the entirety of both acts were consensual when the claims are that the acts started off consensual and that they became non-consensual when the Assange did things the women did not want to do.
She had already stated she did not want to have unprotected sex with him. That nullifies your argument. If HungryHobo had told his girlfriend not to give him a blowjob while he was asleep and she did so, then it would be like the situation he describes, but that is not what he said.
She had already told him she did not want to do what he did.
But, the part you are missing is this: Assange could and should have stopped when the condom broke and the woman asked him to stop. And, Assange should not have had unprotected sex with a sleeping woman after she had already told him she did not want to have unprotected sex with him.
It seems like you are suggesting that the charges should not be investigated and that Assange should not be questioned because of "presumption of innocence."
The presumption of innocence does not mean one is not prosecuted. It means that when one is accused of a crime and prosecuted, the court assumes one is innocent until the prosecution proves guilt.
Two women have come forward and accused Assange of a crime. The police investigate the crime. The prosecutor decides if there is a case to made. The case is heard in a court. That is how it works.
Both women say that Assange first agreed to use a condom and then refused, in the first instance by continuing with sex after the condom broke, and in the second by having sex without using a condom with a woman who was asleep, the Times reports.
Now, STFU until you know what you are talking about.
The summary implies that Assange couldn't be guilty because they women initially consented, disregarding the fact that with one, he refused to stop and with the other, he waited until she was asleep and did something to which she did not consent.
If you believe Assange, you may, be right. But, that is a question for the court.
If you want to get into whose word is suspect, you have referred to Assange as a creep; his actions and reputation make his word just as suspect as theirs and there are two accusers with similar stories.
No, dumbass. The events occurred over a total of four days. The sex did not last for four days, nor did the deception. The accounts say Assange had sex with one woman then, four days later, had sex with another woman.
You really need to go back to elementary school and improve your reading comprehension skills.
So instead, they show their association with a racist group to matter
Both associations mattered, or they would not have existed in the first place. The belief by the credit card companies that Wikileaks was breaking U.S. federal law is why Wikileaks was cut loose. It is not illegal to be racist.
and they show themselves to be anti-freedom
Because free speech isn't a right that racists have? Or, because they have cut ties with an organization they believe to have committed a federal offense under the guise of free speech?
Is that honestly any better?
You are going to have to rephrase that question in proper context.
They can, but they're showing their colors by doing so, and a lot of people don't like what they see.
So, those people, how are a vast minority, are taking the law into their own hands, acting like a lynch mob. Is that your idea of an appropriate response? Is it it appropriate to say "I don't like what you are doing so I am going to attack you"? And, isn't it "I am going to attack you because I can and you won't be able to retaliate or defend yourself"? As far as I am concerned, those that are doing the attacks are a bunch of cowards because they would never do this as a stand up fight.
It's not about the US, and the companies operate on a global scale. It is about press freedom and a reliable payment infrastructure.
Sorry, but that argument went out the window when Wikileaks made it solely about the U.S. And, let us not forget that Wikileaks is putting out intellectual property. They don't deserve any more payment than does the RIAA or the MPAA.
Of course they are press. Not conventional established press, but press nonetheless. Their long association with the NY Times and many other newspapers is pretty telling in that regard.
I see, so Betty Jo in her mumu who has been interviewed 16 times about the various tornadoes that have leveled her town is the press too, right? They are not the press, any more than Betty Jo is. Wikileaks is not the media, they are not the press. They have reduced themselves to an anti-American dissemination center for stolen classified information.
I am betting the fact that SCHC is a non-profit providing health care to migrant workers, the elderly, and the poor might have figured into the sentencing.
As for how she was able to do so, she was probably the only real IT person in the company
Disclaimer: I worked at SCHC as the sole IT person for a long time.
I worked there for a while. I am guessing she was the sole IT person. Thing to remember is that SCHC is a non-profit where most of the budget goes to health care.
The companies are protecting themselves against being associated with a group that many consider to be anti-American. The only thing they are more vulnerable to is attack by groups such as the Wikileaks supporters who are now attacking them.
They can associate with whom they please. DDoSing their websites does not publicize any association with the KKK or any other group besides the group that is attacking them and that association is "This group that hates America is now attacking U.S. companies that have stopped doing business with the group."
No, Wikileaks is suffering repercussions, dumbass, but it seems many of their supporters, including you, are suggesting that there should be no repercussions to Wikileaks actions and are attacking the vehicles of those repercussions, to whit the companies that have stopped doing business with Wikileaks.
Wikileaks is not the press and they are disseminating information the government considers classified. Not to mention that Wikileaks has started leaking information simply to embarrass the U.S. and damage the international relationships of the U.S.
No one said all companies are required to
do business with Wikileaks.
By what you call "canceling active services", the companies are protecting themselves.
The companies are exercising their freedom of association. Those that are DDoSing them are attempting to force the companies to do business with Wikileaks against the companies' wills.
If Wikileaks takes a controversial political stand or makes a very public controversial move, "they should expect repercussions."
Why they did it is irrelevant. They made a choice and did what they believed best for them. Now, they are being punished for exercising their free association rights by people who claim to be fighting for the free speech rights.
And, still these actions will only hurt Wikileaks in corporate and business circles. If, by dealing with Wikileaks, a business will find itself between a rock (the Wikileaks supporters doing the DDoSing)and a hard place ( the U.S. government) with no way to protect themselves, the best option is not to get in the middle.
Didn't you see Wargames? If there is no winning move, the only way to win is to not play the game. In this case, it would mean not doing business with Wikileaks to begin with.
If some company does something involving Wikileaks that this group does not like, this group will punish that company with DDoS and other actions, right?
So, if I own a company, why should I provide any kind of service to Wikileaks? If I decided I don't want to provide my services to Wikileaks because someone is attacking them or I don't like what they are doing, which is my right, I am going to be pilloried by an anonymous group who are hell bent on hurting me and my business for doing something they do not like.
These attacks are showing companies that they should not do business with Wikileaks and any site like Wikileaks.
These attacks are hypocritical as well. The attackers are saying to these companies "You must do as we wish. You must associate with Wikileaks even if you don't want to or find their behavior objectionable." They are attempting to impose their will upon others from a position of secrecy.
And, that is going to do what exactly? The key will still be retrieved from key.mozilla.org. The address is not something that has to be put in by the user. It doesn't even have to be stored as a domain name.
According to an email from Project Gutenberg’s CEO, Dr. Greg Newby, PG has changed their procedures for research of copyright non-renewal following the takedown of the Anderson work, although as of this writing (11/21/10) they have not posted these changes on their website. Dr. Newby says PG has also put a hold on public domain determinations for non-renewals. They do not seem to be reviewing the status of works already posted.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, no, you do not know what happened. Rather, you are assuming that Assange, against all evidence to the contrary, is a saint who never would, nay could, do such a thing and as such the claims should not be investigated, at all, ever.
And, what, exactly, prevents him from being extradited to the U.S. from the U.K.?
Or, the women only decided to report the rapes after learning of another victim to stand with against an internationally known man with many supporters.
Tell me, if it were not Assange, but someone you did not support, would you feel the same way?
And, that is done via police investigation and court. Yet, it is that very investigation that Assange is trying to side-step.
Assange is accused of a crime, yet you and so many others are against him being investigated, let alone tried. He left the country and refused to return to avoid being questioned. His actions are, in fact, suspicious.
Answer me this, if you were to substitute in this case someone else, someone you do not personally support, for Assange, would you be so quick to oppose investigation? Would you opinions change?
It is the word of two against the word of one. What makes his word worth more than theirs?
Dilated? Really? Do you know even the first thing about female anatomy? As for "wetness", that occurs with mild stimulation in most women. A woman does not have to be awake, or even willing, to become wet.
Even "fishy" sounding stories need to be investigated. Especially when it is the word of two ordinary women against that of an internationally famous man.
It seems both you and Assange believe this should not even be investigated and he should not be questioned simply because he is Julian Assange of Wikileaks and they are just women.
In order for the summary to be "an impartial statement of events", it would have to include something to the effect that one woman claims she told him to stop when the condom broke and he did not and the woman claims he had unprotected sex with her while she slept after stating she did not want to have unprotected sex.
The summary implies that the entirety of both acts were consensual when the claims are that the acts started off consensual and that they became non-consensual when the Assange did things the women did not want to do.
And you know what actually happened how? Were you there, or are you just taking Assange's self-serving word against the word of two different women?
She had already stated she did not want to have unprotected sex with him. That nullifies your argument. If HungryHobo had told his girlfriend not to give him a blowjob while he was asleep and she did so, then it would be like the situation he describes, but that is not what he said.
She had already told him she did not want to do what he did.
Under the law as written, yes it is rape.
But, the part you are missing is this: Assange could and should have stopped when the condom broke and the woman asked him to stop. And, Assange should not have had unprotected sex with a sleeping woman after she had already told him she did not want to have unprotected sex with him.
It seems like you are suggesting that the charges should not be investigated and that Assange should not be questioned because of "presumption of innocence."
The presumption of innocence does not mean one is not prosecuted. It means that when one is accused of a crime and prosecuted, the court assumes one is innocent until the prosecution proves guilt.
Two women have come forward and accused Assange of a crime. The police investigate the crime. The prosecutor decides if there is a case to made. The case is heard in a court. That is how it works.
Now, STFU until you know what you are talking about.
The summary implies that Assange couldn't be guilty because they women initially consented, disregarding the fact that with one, he refused to stop and with the other, he waited until she was asleep and did something to which she did not consent.
If you believe Assange, you may, be right. But, that is a question for the court.
If you want to get into whose word is suspect, you have referred to Assange as a creep; his actions and reputation make his word just as suspect as theirs and there are two accusers with similar stories.
And what gives one person, Assange, greater credibility than two other people?
I guess that Slashdot, Taco, and letsurock have forgotten that when the women says stop and the man doesn't, it is rape, even here in the U.S.
No, dumbass. The events occurred over a total of four days. The sex did not last for four days, nor did the deception. The accounts say Assange had sex with one woman then, four days later, had sex with another woman.
You really need to go back to elementary school and improve your reading comprehension skills.
Both associations mattered, or they would not have existed in the first place. The belief by the credit card companies that Wikileaks was breaking U.S. federal law is why Wikileaks was cut loose. It is not illegal to be racist.
Because free speech isn't a right that racists have? Or, because they have cut ties with an organization they believe to have committed a federal offense under the guise of free speech?
You are going to have to rephrase that question in proper context.
So, those people, how are a vast minority, are taking the law into their own hands, acting like a lynch mob. Is that your idea of an appropriate response? Is it it appropriate to say "I don't like what you are doing so I am going to attack you"? And, isn't it "I am going to attack you because I can and you won't be able to retaliate or defend yourself"? As far as I am concerned, those that are doing the attacks are a bunch of cowards because they would never do this as a stand up fight.
Sorry, but that argument went out the window when Wikileaks made it solely about the U.S. And, let us not forget that Wikileaks is putting out intellectual property. They don't deserve any more payment than does the RIAA or the MPAA.
I see, so Betty Jo in her mumu who has been interviewed 16 times about the various tornadoes that have leveled her town is the press too, right? They are not the press, any more than Betty Jo is. Wikileaks is not the media, they are not the press. They have reduced themselves to an anti-American dissemination center for stolen classified information.
I am betting the fact that SCHC is a non-profit providing health care to migrant workers, the elderly, and the poor might have figured into the sentencing.
As for how she was able to do so, she was probably the only real IT person in the company
Disclaimer: I worked at SCHC as the sole IT person for a long time.
I worked there for a while. I am guessing she was the sole IT person. Thing to remember is that SCHC is a non-profit where most of the budget goes to health care.
The companies are protecting themselves against being associated with a group that many consider to be anti-American. The only thing they are more vulnerable to is attack by groups such as the Wikileaks supporters who are now attacking them.
They can associate with whom they please. DDoSing their websites does not publicize any association with the KKK or any other group besides the group that is attacking them and that association is "This group that hates America is now attacking U.S. companies that have stopped doing business with the group."
No, Wikileaks is suffering repercussions, dumbass, but it seems many of their supporters, including you, are suggesting that there should be no repercussions to Wikileaks actions and are attacking the vehicles of those repercussions, to whit the companies that have stopped doing business with Wikileaks.
Wikileaks is not the press and they are disseminating information the government considers classified. Not to mention that Wikileaks has started leaking information simply to embarrass the U.S. and damage the international relationships of the U.S.
Your entire post is hypocritical.
Why they did it is irrelevant. They made a choice and did what they believed best for them. Now, they are being punished for exercising their free association rights by people who claim to be fighting for the free speech rights.
And, still these actions will only hurt Wikileaks in corporate and business circles. If, by dealing with Wikileaks, a business will find itself between a rock (the Wikileaks supporters doing the DDoSing)and a hard place ( the U.S. government) with no way to protect themselves, the best option is not to get in the middle.
Didn't you see Wargames? If there is no winning move, the only way to win is to not play the game. In this case, it would mean not doing business with Wikileaks to begin with.
If some company does something involving Wikileaks that this group does not like, this group will punish that company with DDoS and other actions, right?
So, if I own a company, why should I provide any kind of service to Wikileaks? If I decided I don't want to provide my services to Wikileaks because someone is attacking them or I don't like what they are doing, which is my right, I am going to be pilloried by an anonymous group who are hell bent on hurting me and my business for doing something they do not like.
These attacks are showing companies that they should not do business with Wikileaks and any site like Wikileaks.
These attacks are hypocritical as well. The attackers are saying to these companies "You must do as we wish. You must associate with Wikileaks even if you don't want to or find their behavior objectionable." They are attempting to impose their will upon others from a position of secrecy.
In other words, people are assholes.
And, that is going to do what exactly? The key will still be retrieved from key.mozilla.org. The address is not something that has to be put in by the user. It doesn't even have to be stored as a domain name.
Maybe you should learn to read before commenting.