What motivates the outrage over Julian Assange's Political Asylum?

[whatchamacallit]

With so many huge fucking crimes against humanity getting little or no attention, why are some people so fixated on Assange's alleged transgressions?

27 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	They are compelled by an uncompromising devotion to law and justice (lol)
	1 (4%)
	They fear and loathe his challenge to the establishment and want him neutralized by any means possible
	26 (96%)
	???
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[randome]

1. If there are two sides to the Assange issue...

...then it must be admitted by any objective standard that the vast majority of the outrage and vitriol comes from the pro-Assange side. Those of us who do not see Assange as the hero that others want to see are continually accused of being right wing trolls and enemies of Democracy.

The pro-Assange group is very loud and very insulting. You do not see the same overall level on the anti-Assange side.

Ponder that, please.

It is the same kind of mindset that exists regarding OWS. People want to believe in heroes or in heroic organizations and when their trust is questioned, they turn spiteful.

I have no objections to anyone who wants to discuss an issue. I try to be as objective as possible and maintain that I don't care about being right or wrong. I simply want to know the truth.

I don't think the same can be said for the 'other' side.

This one-sided outrage was especially evident this morning when at least half a dozen threads were started by the 'pro' side, none of them offering substantially new information. Evidently in an attempt to garner responses more to their liking.

[whatchamacallit]

2. Right, ok

So why do you care about this case?

[randome]

3. I'm drawn to subjects like this BECAUSE they are difficult to parse and understand.

I've learned a hell of a lot about human nature simply by belonging to DU. And I'm sure I can learn a lot more.

[Zorra]

9. *derp* No one is buying that.

The consistent, indignant protestations being posted by some here, in the form of repeated opinions that fail to acknowledge sourced facts and logic, most recently with regard to the undeniable ludicrousness of the Julian Assange case, along with the consistent lack of posting credible sources to support positions and the use of various well known propaganda techniques, has fully clarified the sources of certain duplicitous agendas.

These posters would be well advised if someone were to explain to them that they either need to get real with what they are selling, or give it up. No one here is buying. Our plates are already over full of this type of bullshit from GOP sources, and we don't need it coming from somewhere else as well.

What I mean, to wit:

-----.Us----------Them
-----.↓↓↓----------↓↓↓


Have a nice day.

[Robb]

40. You *meant* to prove him right with that response, right?

Your post is satire? Surely.

[sabrina 1]

16. Did you have any objection to the spamming of the board yesterday

with anti-Assange posts?

And btw, this is not about Assange, it is about freedom of the press. Surprising that you miss that very important point. He is the individual they, who do not want that kind of press freedom, have chosen to make an example of at the moment.

You can expect strong reactions from Democrats when the freedom of the press is a target of any government. Not sure why you would be surprised by it, frankly. Or think it is about any one individual.

[Marr]

105. You begin by mischaracterizing your opponent? One need not think of Assange as a "hero" to think

that these extradition efforts are fueled by politics. It seems fairly obvious to me that there are a lot of influential people who want to make an example of the man.

But I agree there is a big difference to be found in the tone of the two camps. The detractors are unusually dogged in pushing the message of the day. They seem much more... professional. If you know what I mean.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Knowing what their government actually does is frightening to many people who yearn to believe in

"the land of the free and home of the brave" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[backscatter712]

6. Yep. Assange aired our government's dirty laundry.

Now they want to destroy Assange to make an example out of him, which is why the UK threatened to storm Equador's embassy over some questionable accusations of sexual misconduct. If you think that the UK, the US and Sweden are so interested in this case as to keep an army of cops outside of the embassy, and threaten an international incident over what some have construed as "date rape", I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[brooklynite]

15. "They" means President Obama, right?

Last time, I checkd, he's in charge of the military and the Justice Department.

[tama]

35. Included, of course

It's not news on DU that it's not easy to try to be both Democrat party supporter and a leftist/progressive/revolutionary.

[brooklynite]

37. Since I'm not a leftist or a revolutionary, I guess I'm immune from conspiracy theories

[sabrina 1]

55. I am immune to conspiracy theories also. That's why I support the new media

such as News Organizations like Wikileaks where you know you won't get Conspiracy Theories like 'There are Mushroom Clouds headed our way from Iraq's WMDs'. Our MSM had no problem dispensing those CTS, but Wikileaks whether you like the concept of real facts or not, has never been accused of doing the same thing. And that is their 'crime'. They committed journalism.

Many people believe that if Wikileaks had existed before the Iraq War started, it might not have happened, although I think Assange would be dead for interfering with Cheney's war.

We have no press which is why we have a government that can do whatever it wants and there are no consequences. Wikileaks was exactly what we on the Left were dreaming of throughout the Bush years and when it did appear and we saw them reveal the corruption of dictatorships like Kenya's brutal regime, and Iceland's main bank etc, it was like a dream come true and we hoped they would get something on the Bush war crimes, but never thought it would happen. And then it did.

And nothing has been done about the crimes they exposed. Instead, something really bad has happened, the left which railed against the Bush war crimes for so long, have suddenly gone silent, and some are even calling the messenger the criminal.

[datasuspect]

5. propanganda and brainwashing

well funded propaganda and brainwashing

[HooptieWagon]

41. Yep. Except on DU.

There are no propagandists/astroturfers/Psy-Ops on DU, and they get offended if you insinuate there are.

[backscatter712]

43. Yep. We must maintain a civilized atmosphere of cordiality and respect.

Therefore, truthful accusations of trolling, sockpuppetry, astroturfing, or psy-ops are not allowed.

[Robb]

44. Astroturfers. Like someone here since 2004, 4,000 posts

...1,000 of which have been made in the last 90 days?

Like that kind of astroturfer? Because I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. Other than assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a paid plant. THAT isn't going to win any logic competitions.

[intaglio]

7. The reason for some, at least, sensational word attached to the accusations

Rape.

Rightly, rape is seen as an unforgivable crime but Mr Assange not charged with rape, he is charged with not appearing in Sweden for questioning about a possible offense covered by the same statutes as sexual assault. That offense is having unprotected sexual intercourse with 2 women. Both these women consented to the sexual act but that, either by design or accident (the condom splitting) Mr Assange was left uncovered. Quite rightly the women in question want Mr Assange to submit to a test to confirm his HIV status, which is why they went to the police.

Personally I think JA is an asshole for not taking such a test and publicising the results but the prosecutor in the case is, probably, a bigger asshole. The prosecutor may also be acting on the instructions of Swedes who wish to appease the USA and render JA to America without benefit of an extradition hearing. This last action is permissible under Swedish law. Equally it would be possible for the prosecutor to have Mr Assange questioned in the UK or at the Ecuadorian embassy; the prosecutor refuses to do that making the prosecutor's motives very murky indeed.

[whatchamacallit]

8. That's a reasonable assessment of the issues, but

my question is more about the dogs in this fight.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. He's not properly charged with anything, he's wanted for questioning in Sweden.

The legal process in Sweden differs in significant ways from the legal process in the USA and for that matter in the UK; the finding of the extradition hearing in the UK High Court was that the Swedish legal process was at a stage equivalent to Assange having been charged. See the opinion of the President of the Queen's Bench in the extradition hearings:

Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

See also the Swedish Prosecution Office:

18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the arrest of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/

[riderinthestorm]

11. Great assessment. I'd stipulate also that there's also a great deal of misogyny

under the guise of "seeking justice for the rape charges" (yes, I know there aren't any charges but you wouldn't know that from the outraged ones).

The women say there's no rape, they didn't want charges but the patriachal paternalistic Swedish state decided FOR them that they were going to conveniently resurrect the questioning process after Wikileaks exposed the diplomatic cables and war crimes by the US. There seems to be a salacious group who can't wait to punish the two women by making them endure a public spectacle over these charges (that they didn't want) under the guise of "justice" for them (that they didn't seek). I'm finding it sick observing the way people want to force the women into this power play.

The fact that Sweden has no extradition hearings (and has a history of participating in illegal rendition with the US), and won't promise NOT to send Assange to the US, seems to be the motivating factor for getting Assange to Sweden instead of the manufactured outrage over the "rape".

Also, I think there are a fair few who simply hate that he's arrogant and has successfully exposed corporate and government crimes.

[TorchTheWitch]

12. Yet another "pro-Assange" person that has no idea what the allegations even are

No, both women did NOT consent to certain acts as the allegations bare out. There is no allegation concerning a broken condom either.

AGAIN, these are the allegations against Assange:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

AGAIN, there is no "broken condom" allegation while there ARE three allegations that amount to sexual assault and one (the fourth) amount to rape as they do in the UK, Sweden, the US and pretty much any civilized country in the world. Which one of these allegations do you believe does not amount to sexual assault/rape just as the UK court ruled they did? How is Sweden wrong in identifying these allegations as sexual assault/rape and wrong to pursue the accused individual to answer to them, and how is the UK wrong for agreeing that they are allegations of sexual assault/rape in Sweden just as they would be in the UK and rule that the accused individual should be sent back to Sweden to answer for them, and how is the US wrong to also agree that they are allegations of sexual assault/rape and that the accused individual should be sent from the UK back to Sweden to answer to them?

These allegations have been publicly known and posted here countless times for over two years, yet so many on the "pro-Assange" side STILL refuse to acknowledge them and STILL insist on pretending the only allegation is some nuttery about a broken condom. But I guess if one was to believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory concerning this case one would have to pretend the facts don't exist and make up their own.

[riderinthestorm]

17. They are WRONG because the women themselves don't call it rape, nor want charges.

This is slut shaming of the most misogynistic sort since its a transparent power play in order to shut down Wikileaks. "Sweden" is wrong to push a case in defiance of the two women who do NOT want a part of this, its a classic paternalistic state telling the women they don't understand their own sex lives so big daddy's gonna step in and work it for them! What the fuck?

It demeans and belittles every other rape case where the women are screaming for justice and can't get it. Rape kits sitting for years if not decades unprocessed. Sweden has the worst rape prosecution stats in Europe but decides to go full bore on this one - the one where the women say it isn't rape, nor did they want charges.

Have you sat in on a rape trial where the women are willing to testify? Its humiliating - strokes, penis size, vaginal lubrication, positions, licking, spitting, how many times anal, what kind of sex toys.... Now you want these two women to have to testify in public about their private sex lives despite their express desire NOT to?

Its a sick voyeuristic's dream of a public shaming and nobody on DU should be a party to forcing, yes FORCING, these women into this very public rape for a disgusting international power play REALLY designed to shut down Wikileaks.

[intaglio]

51. On the matter of rape

I, personally, do not object to the continuation of the case despite the objections of the injured women. Too many rape and sexual offense cases are dropped because the raped/injured person fears familial or social stigma and violence.

[reorg]

52. I think you are confusing two different issues

If the alleged victims and only witnesses to the acts state that there was no rape, no violence, no taking sexual advantage of a "helpless state" then the prosecution has no case and it is not the job of any lawyer to chastise his clients and tell them they don't know what they are talking about.

If, OTOH, the prosecution receives notice of serious sex crimes, they have the duty to follow up on such information, open an investigation and bring charges if they can prove them, no matter what the victims want. Whether or not this is a sensible course of action may differ, though, from case to case.

[intaglio]

56. You are not talking about a legal system based on Common Law

The Swedish system is founded on the "Code Napoleon". In such systems the choice of whether to bring a prosecution is in the hands of a prosecutor or presiding magistrate. The prosecutor has considerable leeway and they also instruct any investigators.

The prosecution of rape under common law systems is hampered by the frequent refusal to testify or the change of testimony of the victims. In "Code Napoleon" systems it is entirely possible that a criminal could be found guilty of an offense and for the victim of the offense to be found guilty of obstruction of justice or perjury.

[reorg]

57. I know

I live in Germany which has similar system. Here as well as in Sweden the authorities have a DUTY to investigate certain crimes and neither the prosecutor nor the police or the victims have a choice in the matter.

Of course can a victim be found guilty of perjury, but close relatives of the perpetrator cannot be compelled to testify. So, in many of those cases you mentioned, it is possible for victims to "obstruct" and not be held to account for it.

[riderinthestorm]

62. Patriarchal and paternal structure designed to strip women of their own authority

You do realize that don't you?

If a woman can't even make her own decisions about what happened between her and her partner, that's misogyny masking as a law.

Have you ever participated in a rape trial intaglio? Its humiliating and degrading - every last bit of sperm and vaginal lubrication is discussed, anus licking, how many strokes, how fast, loud noises, buttocks here or there.... Women who are motivated to testify because they seek justice get through knowing that there's going to be some resolution.

Forcing hostile witnesses to testify against their consensual sex partner has got to be a perv's greatest dream - all details exposed to a salacious audience. Yet these women get to be slut shamed for what? So their consensual sex partner goes to jail for doing exactly what both of them wanted. And you think this is okay?

I work at a rape crisis center as a volunteer advocate and I can tell you that forcing any woman onto the stand is going to produce a very, very bad result for any woman. Unless or until that woman decides to do it on their own, the stripping away of their very own authority produces much greater damage.

[intaglio]

69. I agree, it is currently humiliating and degrading in an adversarial court system

The Swedish system is not adversarial. It is based on "Code Napoleon" and is far more friendly to victims, although perjury can be prosecuted.

The idea is that the prosecutor presents evidence of wrongdoing. This can include statements given by the victim and later retracted. The defense can do the same. Questioning of witnesses is very strictly subscribed and IIRC does not take place in open court. There is no jury, only 2 lay and 1 professional judges. Lay judges are appointed for several years.

Now on to your point about forcing witnesses to testify - agreed, in English style court system it is wrong. There is, of course, the problem that many rapists escape because of the dreadful pressures put on victims in adversarial systems by family, friends and society. In Britain there has been a lot of concern because the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service often refuse to prosecute because of the vulnerability of the victim's evidence. This leads to the dreadful situation that of rape complaints received only about 6% result in conviction i.e. only about 10% of rape complaints get to court but once there 6 out of 10 result in conviction. Judges are supposed to protect the witness but all to often do not.

The question then becomes "Do you allow a rapist to escape, probably offending again, because of the terrible trauma that might be done to the witness because of an incompetent judge?"

Is there an easy answer? No.

Is prosecution despite the wishes of the victim a result of a patriarchal system? Again, no! Without prosecutions carried through against the wishes of the victim the conviction rate of sickening toe-rags would be worse. In the UK it has been female campaigners who have pushed for more proactive prosecution of rapists.

The truth is that both Common Law and Code Napoleon systems have their weaknesses but in the cases where victims need protection from society Code Napoleon has the advantages.

[riderinthestorm]

70. Sweden has some of the WOST prosecution rates of rape in Europe

Worst.

Please don't tell me its a "kinder, gentler" rape trial. Especially if you do NOT want to be there, and did NOT want charges. Do you want to describe to any stranger the intimate details of your sex life? Really? Every last groan, twitch, degree of vaginal lubrication, penis size and stamina etc of your consensual partner, in order to send them to jail?

If Sweden really cared about victims of sexual assault they'd be hunting down the many, many cases of rape where the women actually WANT prosecution. But they don't.

Just Julian Assange. With an Interpol red warrant no less.

Disgusted, bitter laughter abounds at this "justice".

[intaglio]

84. Please remember I am a supporter of Assange

Now, try and get your story straight.

Firstly women in Sweden are more likely to report rape; i.e they have less fear of the system.
Secondly, The reported rapes in Sweden are 46.5 per 100,000.
Thirdly, Sweden achieves convictions in 10% of the cases. This compares to the UK with 6%.

The Swedish system works better for rape than any other country that I know of; but it is still not perfect.

[sabrina 1]

19. Both women told very different stories about their consensual sexual

involvement with Assange, before the 'authorities' got involved. And the proof of that was on the internet, seen by millions of people, until it was erased. And from witnesses to whom they spoke. Most of it however was saved and will be produced in court IF the prosecution ever manages to have the courage to present their case in court.

The change in the stories, and we are not even sure who is speaking here, occurred after the case had been dismissed, but resurrected again by one of Sweden's most notorious, and questionable attorneys who is so far to the extreme left that he has met the extreme right in Sweden and formed an alliance for the purpose of 'getting' Assange.

[tama]

36. Hmm

Hard to consider a social democratic politician (attorney who took over the case) extreme left in any way; being member of Socialdemokraterna in just extreme opportunism. His radical feminism (male tax etc) has been considered very extreme, though.

[reorg]

48. Obviously, you have never bothered to study the facts

of the case.

Yes, the main allegation by the women (Ardin: allegation #2; Wilen: #4) is about condom use, allegation #2 is specifically about the "broken condom" (see below).

Since you seem to believe the alleged acts would be considered rape in pretty much any civilized country, surely you must be able to provide an example of such cases where a comparable scenario has led to a conviction of rape.

Here is the relevant part of Sofia Wilén's police interview, based on and during which the interviewing police officer notified a junior prosecutor who was the stand-in for the weekend over the phone that Assange was a rape suspect, upon which the stand-in prosecutor immediately issued an arrest warrant. (When Wilén became aware of this, she refused to continue with the interview, BTW). Two days later, the Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné withdrew the arrest warrant and dropped the case, not finding anything worthwhile to investigate in this:

... They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she's not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice. She didn't like being ordered in her own home but thought 'whatever' and got the water and juice anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn't want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn't know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said 'be good'. He replied 'don't worry, I'm always bad'. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She'd already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone.

The Assault

They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. ...

http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml

Here is where Ardin describes allegation #2, the condom issue:

... Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.

After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn't have semen in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broke the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn't look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. ...

http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,02.shtml

Police interview with Assange regarding allegation #2:

MG (Mats Gehlin - the chief interrogator): ... you are under suspicion and are to be formally notified of this and this is for the crime of molestation. And the notification is as follows: Assange has between 13 and 14 August 2010 in Anna Ardin's residence at Tjurbergsgatan in Stockholm molested Anna Ardin by during sex, which was initiated and completed with the explicit condition a condom would be used, with malice aforethought destroyed the condom and continued the sex until he ejaculated in her vagina.

(...)

MG: The accusation is the condom, a condom, was damaged after the act and Anna is of the opinion that at one point when you withdraw your penis there was a sound like you first removed the condom but when you entered her again she reached down and felt and she could feel you still had the condom on. Then you ejaculated and she feels amongst other things that she has semen in her. And she looks at the condom and there's no semen in the condom. And so the question to you, is this a situation you recognise in any way?

JA: No. At one point Anna pointed to the bed which had a wet spot. And said, look at that. And said, is that you? I said, no it has to be you. And we didn't talk about it anymore, at all, not at all. Until the accusations on Friday, a week later. ...

http://rixstep.com/1/20110130,01.shtml

Further transcripts at: http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml

[intaglio]

50. Like many you are confusing Complaint and Charge

You have quoted is the prosecutors complaint.

But I will grant your assertions for the moment. I can argue against them but there is no point because ...

I regard Mr Assange's sexual practises to be, at the very least, dubious and ....
We both agree, Assange is most likely a sexual asshole;
We both agree he may most likely a sexual predator;
We both agree that he should submit himself for trial.

However, he is not facing a trial.

He is not charged with any sexual offense; the prosecutor has not raised a charge against him from the complaint that the prosecutor has formulated from the original complaints by the injured parties. At present the prosecutor is examining the complaint and says that she wishes to question Mr Assange before turning that complaint into a criminal charge. The prosecutor could raise that charge without such an interview but, from what I gather, the case is weak given the known opposition of the complainants to the charges and the charge might be dismissed.

A charge would allow a criminal case to continue, even with Mr Assange not present. Assume that he was found guilty in such a case then the sentence would take priority over any request from a foreign government (USA) that Mr Assange be rendered to them.

So, the prosecutor's actions are questionable because they have not raised a charge and the Swedish Government's motives are dubious given that they will not give an undertaking not to render Mr Assange to the USA if he does return for questioning.

Now, let me make clear that I do not object to the continuation of the case despite the objections of the injured women. Too many rape and sexual offense cases are dropped because the raped/injured person fears familial or social stigma and violence. I had not taken this into account.

So let me eat crow, the prosecutor is right to file a complaint that is, essentially, rape but wrong not to bring a charge from this complaint.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

59. two things

Swedish law(as well as the law of a fair number of other countries) differ from US and UK law. For Sweden to actually charge Assange the interview is required beforehand and not after.(more or less its the last step before being charged i believe.)

secondly, who would sign such an agreement, giving a blanket non-extradition treaty/agreement is folly considering the Sweden would require to look at whatever evidence the US brings it(assuming they even want him these days) and base its decision on that. Also on that matter, if there are even the slightest whiff of a chance for Assange to face torture or death penalty in the US he would *NOT* be handed over as Swedish law forbids it.

[intaglio]

61. There is precedent for the prosecutor examining Assange in the UK

and although "Code Napoleon" prefers such an interview with the accused it is not essential. This is how crimes can be tried in absentia in such states

Secondly, an undertaking by Sweden would be perfectly possible. It is the same sort of agreement that is made in diplomatic circles whenever some totalitarian POS visits another country

[struggle4progress]

100. The UK court found that the European Warrant for Assange indicated rape was one of the charges

The court then examined the matter more closely and determined that the alleged behavior would also constitute rape in the UK

[treestar]

13. Who is outraged?

The outraged are the ones who want him to get away with everything because they think he stands for something to do with the fucking crimes against humanity. But somehow he gets himself into the news, not the fucking crimes against humanity. Did he expose such crimes with that purpose? I don't think so.

[whatchamacallit]

14. Lol!

[riderinthestorm]

18. [phone] kaboombs more. nt

[treestar]

20. When does he ever talk about them or when do those on this board?

All I hear about is how he's being persecuted. It's all about him.

And if he really exposed crimes, we'd hear about them too. Or is that part of the conspiracy against him?

Why doesn't he volunteer to come to the US, be tried, and expose our country's terrible crimes?

[backscatter712]

22. Keep throwing those strawman arguments!

That's right! If you can't win on the arguments, caricature your opponent and use emotional appeals!

[treestar]

25. How have you responded to what I said?

why doesn't he volunteer to come here and expose our terrible national crimes?

[sabrina 1]

23. He has talked about them consistently over the past number of years. Just because

you don't see him on the US MSM doesn't mean he has not spoken about his reasons for believing in a free and open press or about the war crimes, not just from the Bush years, but in other countries whose corruption Wikileaks has exposed.

Your lack of knowledge of this fact demonstrates ironically that what he says is true. That without a media that reports the facts, people will remain ignorant of those facts. Assange just completed several TV interviews some with prominent people who stand up for human rights eg, the new President of Tunisia, a well known human rights activist who was jailed under the Ben Ami regime for his human rights activism.

Stop depending on the MSM, they would show an interview like that, despite how newsworthy it was considering the recent revolution in Tunisia and the fact that a famous Human Rights Activist is now president of Tunisia. Who, btw, thanked Assange for his courageous stand on human rights and help in exposing Tunisia's corrupt, brutal regime known for its human rights abuses.

[treestar]

26. Why don't you mention them then?

What crimes did he expose? Name these crimes.

[Comrade Grumpy]

109. You can try this: http://wikileaks.org/

Well, there was the murder of innocent Iraqis by those helicopter guys, for starters.

[treestar]

28. Oh really? I don't see anything about that

It's all about him. And why doesn't he come here to face justice? Ellsberg did.

If what he did is so right, why doesn't he stand on that and face charges in Sweden and here (not that there are any but he alleged there will be) like someone who believes in his actions?

[sabrina 1]

33. Is he wanted here? I thought you were all saying he is imagining that the US

is after him. What 'justice' should he face here?

He's a journalist, is that a crime in the US now?

[HooptieWagon]

42. Nope, journalism is not a crime...

which is why the US wants to silence him extrajudicially.

[sabrina 1]

21. I don't know, I saw the crimes against humanity and hoped that something

would be done about them. I read as much of the war logs relating to the torture etc which did take a little effort, and expected that with such incontrovertible evidence provided by Wikileaks surely something would be done.

If you missed the reporting on those crimes by Wikileaks, then you probably weren't paying attention. The Bush gang's crimes against humanity were confirmed. I would have expected the 'left' at least to have been paying attention.

The outrage over this case is precisely because all those war crimes have been ignored while games are being played over a broken condom or whatever, being there are no charges it's hard to know what it's all about.

But we DO know about the war crimes. We saw the documentary made in Iceland that brought tears to the eyes of people around the world, where the two children whose father, the good samaritan, was murdered and they were both wounded. We also read the apologies from the two US Soldiers, who were heroes that day when the pulled the children out of the car and saved their lives.

How anyone could say they missed the revelations of war crimes, is beyond me, unless they were sleeping.

[Prophet 451]

24. I'm of two minds on the subject

On the one hand, I believe very strongly in justice and the rule of law (I am considering having the phrase "fiat justitia, ruat caelum" tattooed around my collarbone). So I believe Mr Assange should be subject to the same laws as anyone else which means he should appear and be questioned concerning the charges against him. I believe Roman Polanski should be returned to prison as well. Naturally, Mr Assange is also entitled to the same rights and protections as any other person accused of a crime.

That said, the fact that several governments are going to such lengths over the charges makes it blatantly obvious that the PtB have it in for him. He is being pursued not because of the charges against him but because he is politically inconvenient to the PtB

[HooptieWagon]

31. Bingo.

[sabrina 1]

34. He has appeared and he has been questioned, in Sweden.

Still no charges have been filed against him after two years. He has always been available for questioning. He was told he was no longer needed in Sweden where he remained for five weeks making himself available for questioning. On the same day that the Prosecutor, Nye, told him he was no longer needed, she issued a secret warrant for his arrest..

The issue has never been the unavailability of Assange. The issue has been the refusal of the Swedish Prosecutors to speak to him and then the lies they told about why they refused.

Edited to add, I believe you are correct re why they are really after him.

[cemaphonic]

39. You must have a rather unique definition of availablity.

Still no charges have been filed against him after two years....The issue has never been the unavailability of Assange.

So the whole "fleeing Swedish jurisdiction, fighting multiple extradition appeals, and jumping bail and fleeing into the Ecudorian embassy" never happened?

The issue is precisely about the unavailability of Assange, and regardless of how anyone feels about the other issues swirling around this case, to state otherwise is an absurd distortion of the facts. His whole objective is to avoid Swedish custody because he thinks they'll send him to the US, so he is going to great lengths to make himself unavailable to the Swedish justice system.

[sabrina 1]

46. No, there is no question that he has been available for two years to speak to the

Swedish Prosecutor but for some reason, she has refused to speak to him. Well, we know the reason, IF she spoke to him, she could not demand that he be extradited. Her refusal to speak to him going as far as to lie about it, made it obvious that extradition and imprisonment is all the prosecution was interested in.

Once that became obvious, Assange appealed to block any such extradition now that it was clear this was the goal. Few people have been fooled into thinking that by trying to block this egregious attempt to incarcerate him without even filing charges translates into what you just said, that he was trying to avoid talking to them.

He DID talk to them. You have not explained why they refused to do so again, especially since Sweden had done this in the past, spoken to a 'witness' which is all Assange is at this point, who did not wish to go to Sweden. Why would this be any different?

He has been warned, and there is no question about it, that going to Sweden would jeopardize his freedom and maybe even his life (top US officials have been calling for his assassination) and he is absolutely right to seek asylum.

These latest attempts to intimidate Ecuador have only emphasized the desperation of the Western powers to shut him up, one way or another and made a mockery of Britain's claims of having respect for the law.

All this for someone who has never been charged with a crime. Journalism is a dangerous occupation these days. No wonder our own 'journalists' just read the memos they are handed.

[cemaphonic]

49. Well yes, Sweden never wanted to merely "speak" with him in the UK as an informal witness,

they wanted to arrest him - however the Swedish legal system has a requirement that an interview be made with the accused before charges are filed. So it would be fairly pointless to conduct such an interview outside of Swedish jurisdiction if they can't actually take him into custody afterwards. This was a big factor in the original extradition hearings, and the British court found that the Swedish prosecution was at a stage that corresponded to filing charges in a common law system:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12569462

Accordingly he found "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution".

So no, he has not made himself available to the Swedish authorities in any meaningful way in the last two years. Offering an interview from London was pure PR on the part of him and his lawyers. Effective though, I grant you.

All this for someone who has never been charged with a crime.(because he has twice fled the jurisdiction of the relevant authority.)

At any rate, tomorrow should be interesting.

[sabrina 1]

54. I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. He has already been arrested in London

and jailed, under the EAW issued by the Swedish Prosecutor. So she already had him arrested. In fact he was out on bail and could easily have been arrested any time and handed over to Sweden, and will be if he leaves the Embassy.

Have people really forgotten all of this?

This prosecutor has lied already when asked why she would not interview him in London, by claiming that Swedish law forbade it. There is no such law. Caught in that lie, they are now telling another one.

The facts are that she has consistently refused to speak to him, either in London or in Sweden where his lawyers were in daily contact with her attempting to set up an interview which she refused to do, then gave her consent for him to leave and on the same day that he finally left, as if she was waiting for him to leave, she issued the EAW for his arrest.

So I don't understand why anyone would say 'he can't be arrested' when he was out on bail after the Swedish Prosecutor had him arrested. It is ludicrous and can only be stated by someone who is blind to the fact that he is and has been subject to arrest under the Swedish prosecutor's own warrant for the entire time he has been in Britain.

There are several reasons why people believe he has not been charged, and the main one is that much of the evidence for this case is very damaging to the Prosecution. Although the defense has seen it, the prosecution has refused to give them copies, but as soon as charges are filed, they must hand it over. They do not want to do that.

Immediately it will be all over the media, exposing this entire sham for the witch hunt it is. Text messages between the two women showing them plotting all of this, including 'making money from it' by going to the tabloids among other things. Which we saw way back in the beginning before the women began scrubbing their sites.

I doubt there was ever going to be charges filed, and so does anyone who has followed it, read all the documents, saw the witness testimony transcripts and especially anyone who was watching the women's own texts and then erasures and remembered what was in them in real time.
.

[treestar]

72. I don't see why they can't go after him for this

Why is it "having it in for him?" If anyone else did the same thing, they'd get a pass?

It's pretty serious to breach security issues.

But I do agree he is not entitled to greater rights than others. He talks as if he is. Like he is entitled to leak classified documents. If he can do that, why can't the rest of us just not obey laws we don't like?

[Pholus]

76. If only "they" had a better record, it might not seem like such petty persecution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/663170.stm

So, you were just trying to explain how "the rest of us" have to obey laws. Seems like we've got a counterexample.

[treestar]

77. So you're saying because the UK decided not to extradite Pinochet to Spain then

they have to decide not to extradite Julian to Sweden?

It depends on their law, really. Maybe they think Pinochet could be subject to a more severe sentence than the mere questioning Julian seeks to avoid.

Actually that would make sense. Funny they don't just decide to deport him to Australia. Get rid of the problem.

[Pholus]

80. Obviously it is their perogative to selectively enforce their laws.

But in the end, such a lack of uniformity would imply that how much the rules will depends critically on "who your friends are."

[treestar]

92. It would take really finding out

Rather than assuming the British are corrupt simply due to liking Julian so much.

Though I am appalled at not extraditing Pinochet. Maybe it's the age thing.

[Pholus]

94. I hardly "like Julian" that much. However,

I recognize that "right and wrong" can be enforced rather selectively and with the most petty of motivations. In this case I find great amusement in both watching this oh-so-grand and subtle trap unfold and realizing the desperation which motivates it.

And I have learned....

To wit, I have lost count of the number of times that the "security uber alles/top secret" fetishists have argued that I personally shouldn't worry about the myriad violations of my privacy since nothing bad would happen if I have nothing to hide.

I just hadn't realized until this affair that they value THEIR privacy so highly for a related reason....

[tjwmason]

110. This is a different process

Assange is subject to a European Arrest Warrant, as these were only created 2004 they couldn't be used in the Pinochet case.

[Pholus]

111. OK, so "totally different."

I look forward to the new era when all crimes are treated with such force.

Of course I also look forward to it raining donuts from the sky.

[Prophet 451]

86. But that's the point, he has never been charged with that

If a proper warrant had been sworn out on those charges, that would be a different thing entirely. But the only thing Assange has ever been charged with is a sexual charge of, frankly, questionable merit. If he were not the founder of Wikileaks, would two seperate jurisdictions be pursuing him, and the British threatening to violate international law by storming an embassy, over a questionable allegation of sexual assault? No, they wouldn't.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. He's identifying what a War Hero warned

[RKP5637]

30. Exactly!!! Ike knew it then and now is a zillion times worse. n/t

[RKP5637]

29. Many don't like mirrors held up IMO and react accordingly. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

32. Outrage can be bought.

Whether its on the streets of Russia, N Korea, or Iran; or on the internet and social media in western countries. Of course, DU is immune from astroturfers, propagandizers, and Psy-Opsers... or so I'm told.

[backscatter712]

38. That's right. Astroturfers and Psy-Ops operatives do not exist here. Just ask them. n/t

[99Forever]

45. This railroading attempt is an insult to any thinking persons intelligence.

Who the fuck do they think they are fooling?

Gutter politics, at it's lowest.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

60. and this obstruction of justice is an insult to any who value justice, so whats yer point?

[99Forever]

63. What "obstruction of justice" would that be?

Be sure to kick that strawman's ass real good, would you?

This is quite clearly an authoritarian, fascist attempt to silence and punish someone with the audacity to SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER.

But go ahead and carry water for them, if you must.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

74. speaking truth to power isn't a permission slip to break the law(nor a get out of jail card ) n/t

[99Forever]

78. One MORE time.

Assange has NOT been charged with a CRIME to be jailed for, so he sure as fuck doesn't need one of your strawman "get out of jail cards."


Got a problem with due process, do you? Or are you fine with locking people up just because you don't agree with them?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

81. he can't bloody be charged properly until after the interview he skipped from

Sweden's(and many other countries) laws isn't identical to US/UK law

So i have no problem with due process, I'm actually arguing for due process happening

[99Forever]

87. Hogwash.

They aren't interested in "interviewing Assange." They want to disappear him.


Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

90. i'm not fooling anybody

I'm pointing out that Swedish law differ from US/UK law

that you want to remain blind to such is simply you fooling yourself

[99Forever]

91. Every phony talking point you are trying to make has been ..

.. proven to be bullshit on this forum dozens, if not hundreds of times. It's boring.

You got one thing right. You aren't fooling ANYONE.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

93. follow my posts that much do you? i'm flattered :) n/t

[99Forever]

95. Huh?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

96. hey, i'm only taking you at your word :)

Every phony talking point you are trying to make has been .... proven to be bullshit on this forum dozens, if not hundreds of times.

obviously if you know the above as a fact then you would need to have been quite interested in my posts yes?

funny how a statement regarding Swedish law is considered a phony talking point tho

[riderinthestorm]

64. Justice for who? The women who say there's no crime?

How about real justice for the rape victims in Sweden who will NEVER get any prosecutorial action on their cases that they WANT to see go to court?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

73. i haven't seem em say there was no crime

i have seen one of them say she hadn't planned to file charges

In my eyes there are some crimes the police must investigate regardless of whether or
not the victim wants the offender to be punished. Rape definitely belongs there.

[riderinthestorm]

75. Oh, then you DO believe women should be stripped of their own authority to make their own decisions

I'll add you to the (depressing) list.


This is the only interview the women did, "voluntary relations" seems to be the key bit.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab


It was published in Swedish and has been virtually ignored by western media. Here's a snippet from the article

"One of two women involved told Aftonbladet in an interview published today that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: “It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”

Speaking anonymously, she said each had had voluntary relations with Assange: “The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women.”

Sources close to the woman said that issues arose during the relationships about Assange’s willingness to use condoms."

[Bodhi BloodWave]

79. nope

the woman in question made a report to the police, she described rape according to Swedish law

the police acted on that information as they should.

*looks at your article*

that is a very twisted description of the story i must admit (my rough translation that might not be exactly word for word)

*
Det är helt fel att vi skulle vara rädda för Assange och därför inte velat anmäla, säger kvinnan, han är inte våldsam och jag känner mig inte hotad av honom.

I båda fallen har det handlar om frivillig sex till en början som i ett senare skede övergått i övergrepp.

Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne. Vi står fullt ut för uppgifterna, säger kvinnan till Aftonbladet.
*

Its totally wrong that we would be afraid of Assange and therefore not wanting charges, says the woman, he is not violent and i don't feel endangered by him

In both cases its about voluntary sex initially that later became abuse

the second woman wanted to report rape. i gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. we stand by the information,says the woman to aftonbladet
**

and looking a few sections up under the heading 'Anser sig utsatt för sexövergrepp/
Considers herself the victim of sexual abuse' we can read that the woman in her 30s considers herself the victim of sexual abuse or molestation but not rape, but another woman(between 20-30) contacted her and told her a similar but worse story
***

as for '“The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women.” this line by you, the full section would be translated into

the accusations against Assange is not staged by the pentagon or anybody else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man having a skewed view of women and trouble accepting a no
****

Perhaps you would be nice enough to explain why you seem to have been skipping the 'therefore not wanting charges' part of the news in all your postings about this?

[pnwmom]

83. What a difference a full translation makes. Thanks, Bodhi bloodWave. n/t

[sabrina 1]

104. And you are skipping all of the other evidence, the women's own texts and

conversations with witnesses, and the most important piece of evidence which completely contradicts the story re the 'torn condom', the only actual piece of forensic evidence, provided by the woman herself. I guess she didn't know about DNA. Too bad for the prosecutor.

What you have not provided is the mountain of exculpatory evidence, nor apparently have you read all of the witness testimony or the women's own words now scrubbed from the internet, but fortunately saved before they got to do that.

The reason this case has not been brought to court is because the first prosecutor was correct, there is no case.

There is so much that backs up the women's initial statements, not the later ones which all the evidence, including their own words and witness testimony, contradicts.

Both their lawyer and the prosecution when asked, by REAL journalists how the are going to be able to explain all the huge problems with their 'allegations', they are unable to do so.

But all that has been in the media are the 'allegations' which did not come for months and which the prosecution refused for months to even allow the Defense to see, but were LEAKED to the internet and here you are doing exactly what was expected to be done with them.

Aside from the mountain of exculpatory evidence, which is not what the media spreads around, anyone following it from the beginning and who has read the witness testimony, can plausibly and have, see a very different story emerging.

And after two years of refusing to speak to Assange, refusing to give the 'evidence' to the Defense which they do not have to until charges are filed, so they retain control of the smear campaign as long as they do not file charges, a vast majority of people know what is going on here.

The latest claim that Sweden cannot file charges, even they when asked, have a difficult time making that claim with a straight face.

[HiPointDem]

114. Where is the part that "describes rape according to swedish law"?

anna ardin (the political secretary & press officer for 'the brotherhood,' a faction within sweden's social democratic party; the person who arranged assange's lecture, travel, and homestays; also reportedly once an anti-castro activist, organizer of a mission to gaza, and founder of a gay nightclub) considers herself the victim of sexual abuse or molestation but not rape.

Reading her police testimony, the 'sexual abuse' apparently consists of her *suspicion* that assange deliberately broke the condom he used when they had sex.

The other woman "told her a similar but worse story".

Huh?

The story she told the police is that she took assange to her workplace (a museum) the first day she met him and allowed him to suck her breasts, unzip her pants, etc. in the museum cinema with her workmates also sitting in the cinema.

Two days later she brought him to her apartment, had voluntary sex three times with him, once with a condom covering only the head of his penis, went out to get him breakfast leaving him alone in her apartment, came back, got back in bed with him, dozed off and was awakened by him entering her again, and said "Are you wearing anything? You better not have HIV" before allowing him to continue sex. He was already 'in' so she "couldn't be bothered" (probably a bad translation) to do more, as she'd been nagging him about condoms all night (which he wore when asked to).

Afterwards she told him if she got pregnant he'd have to pay her student loans. They joked about naming the baby 'afghanistan'. she went with him to the station and asked him if he'd call her again.

Neither story is particularly horrifying.

where's the accusation of rape in your translation?

[pnwmom]

82. Voluntary one night doesn't mean voluntary the next morning.

Women need to consent each time.

[reorg]

85. voluntary five minutes before and not stopping during the incident in question

Does make the case for consent, sorry.

They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.

[pnwmom]

88. According to this quote, he entered her when she was asleep. An unconscious woman

cannot give consent.

I don't know where you got this particular quote though. Is the woman here supposed to be Miss A or Miss W? What I read about Miss W was slightly different, but it agrees with your account that he penetrated her while she was asleep. Hence, no consent.



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

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."

SNIP

Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her.

[reorg]

97. excuse me, do you require a signature on a written form

to accept consent?

You need to get out more if you haven't noticed yet that I quoted from the transcript of the police interview with Sofia Wilén, regarding the only allegation that has been characterized as "rape".

Consent is given in different forms. One test of lack of consent is that an accused cannot "reasonably" have assumed that consent was given. If you share the bed with someone throughout the night, making love over and over again, you might well "doze off" for a moment in a cloud of bliss. Normally, that doesn't mean you have objections to feel your partner near or "in" you another time. As is obvious from the quote, Wilén actually didn't have objections and continued with the sex once she was fully awake, even though she was a little miffed that her anxieties regarding STD were not met in the way she had planned it. I guess it's possible that Assange also didn't cut his toenails the way she might have liked it, who knows.

[pnwmom]

98. According to her statement, she NEVER gave prior consent for sex

WITHOUT a condom. He had no basis for assuming that she would consent to that in the morning, after arguing about that the night before.

By the time she woke up to find he had penetrated her without a condom, it was too late -- the rape had already occurred. That she allowed him to continue doesn't change the fact that he penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping, even though he knew her consent had been conditional on condom use.

It isn't obvious to me at all from her quote that she didn't have serious objections -- just that she thought it was pointless to express them, given the situation. And from everything she said, she was probably right. He was a large man, and on top of her and already inside her. It was easier to let him get it over with. But when he entered her, it was rape.

[reorg]

99. she was "consenting" several times over

and wasn't even bothered all that much about the condom, according to the police protocol:

They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be.

They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

As it turned out, her health concerns were unfounded. What is it with women who cannot get a man quickly enough into their bed and their body but are unable to trust him when he tells them he has no diseases? And then, for crying out loud, go to the POLICE to force him to take a test? I for one wouldn't touch such a person with a ten foot pole, but, then again, they're not chasing after me like I was hot meat or something

[pnwmom]

101. The fact that she had "let it be" when she discovered after intercourse began

that he hadn't placed the condom correctly didn't give him prior permission to do that. And it certainly didn't give him permission a few hours later to use no condom at all.

The argument could be made that he had actually raped her twice, including the time he used the condom incorrectly. When a woman insists that sex is conditional upon using a condom, she means a condom that is correctly used -- not one that is placed only on the head, or is full of holes.

[reorg]

102. you still don't even know what you are talking about

The condom wasn't placed correctly and the fact that she "let it go" happened just a few minutes before she woke up from "sleep", or rather being "half asleep" which are HER words.

The whole issue is about the condom, as you admit yourself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with her willingness and eagerness to fuck Assange as often as they could possibly manage before he had to go. For others to explain to her that SHE was abused, frankly, I find that preposterous.

The law and the courts don't agree with your silly legal sophistry. Nowhere has there ever been a rape conviction because someone let the condom off.

[pnwmom]

106. She made it perfectly clear that she required him to use a condom. He used one with reluctance

because he apparently has erection problems. And then he didn't, without her consent.

That's rape.

[reorg]

107. if it is rape

then you should have no problem to cite a similar case but you obviously can't, just like all the others I have asked this question, here and elsewhere.

How do you know "she made it perfectly clear", BTW? Have you been there? The protocol only mentions she had been "nagging" him about condom use. Perfectly possible that he thought she would no longer insist, on the basis of what the interview describes. I mean, what kind of reasoning is this: he was already in me, so there was no point in stopping him? Since when are STD transmitted within the first seconds of contact, how does the risk not increase, the longer the contact lasts? And, especially, since she claims she was also concerned about a pregnancy, since when do you get pregnant from contact with a penis? She could have perfectly well prevented this particular risk while being fully awake, but, according to her own words in the police interview, let this go, too.

What it comes down to is that she was only concerned not to get some disease despite assurances there was no risk.

Only in the Saudi-Arabia of feminism will a prosecutor construe this as rape, and only if the man is not wanted to stay and work in the country, for certain unrelated reasons.

[pnwmom]

108. "only in the Saudi-Arabia of feminism will a prosecutor construe this as rape."

That's a funny way to describe Sweden.



Guess what? Based on their construction of their laws and her statement, Sweden's investigating him for rape (and assault and molestation). And at least one of his close colleagues, the Stockholm Wikileaks coordinator, thinks the investigation is justified. Interesting that someone who actually knows him thinks this.


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

The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."

[Octafish]

47. He loved Big Brother.

Don't drone me, Bro!

[cali]

53. What a shit poll. And I'm pro-asylum for Assange.

I still hate this kind of dog shit that attempts to discredit people and demonize them. It reeks.

[whatchamacallit]

65. Oh no!

[SidDithers]

58. What motivates the idol worship of St. Julian?...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

113. mumia must be jealous...

[H2O Man]

66. shallow thinking

[avebury]

67. If MSM did their job in investigating reporting, the world would not

need for there to be a wikileaks. People care about the Assange case because it is about freedom of the press and Wilkileaks is not the only entity that published released information. If you at the road that the US has been going down since 9-11 and what this country is becoming we need for courageous people to turn the spotlight on what is going on. There are a lot of people around the world that are starting to view the US as a greater threat to world security then countries like Iran. I can't remember where I saw it but there is a poster out there that compares the actions of the US versus Iran and, If you look at it with an open mind, it is pretty damning on the US. We have lost the position of morality in the world. If the Republicans and Tea Party are successful in taking over permanent control, it will be lost forever.

[Overseas]

68. People don't want to believe our country has changed so much that we now allow indefinite detention.

I have been waiting for habeas corpus to be restored. But it hasn't been yet.

[riderinthestorm]

71. I've actually had DUers tell me we don't do that anymore. Conveniently ignoring how many in Gitmo

right now as we speak?

And how many more that we don't even know about in our various rendition sites across the world....

[Overseas]

89. We were so glad when our president ordered that torture stop on day one. But habeas corpus

has yet to be restored.

The right to face your accusers. To be told why you are being detained. That was a basic human right in our country, until the Bush Gang trampled on the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles.

I hope our president will restore those rights in his second term.

[Marr]

103. A paycheck. /nt

[Zorra]

112. kick

[woo me with science]

115. Well.

What's obvious is obvious, isn't it.

[woo me with science]

116. kick