Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the dont-give-him-a-white-bronco dept.

The Courts 197

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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

farking bastiges! (-1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734370)

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

Re:farking bastiges! (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735148)

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

Isn't he Australian?

Re:farking bastiges! (3, Informative)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735558)

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

Re:farking bastiges! (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735686)

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

Re:farking bastiges! (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735748)

Yes

Frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734378)

First

Assange (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734422)

I find this very hard to masturbate to

So it goes like this (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734426)

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 (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734600)

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 (5, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734780)

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 (4, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734990)

(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 (5, Informative)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735058)

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 (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736726)

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

the moron who modded the above down (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736848)

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36737384)

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.

Re:So it goes like this (1)

emt377 (610337) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735122)

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 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735182)

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 (4, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735668)

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 (4, Informative)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736056)

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 (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735586)

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 (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735696)

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 (0)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736284)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736602)

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.

yes. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736928)

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:So it goes like this (2)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736436)

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 [youtube.com] 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 (1)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736648)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734814)

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 (2)

Teron (817947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734820)

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 (4, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734704)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735730)

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

Re:So it goes like this (1)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735844)

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 (1, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734980)

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.

Uhhh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735116)

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? (1, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735198)

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? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735722)

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? (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735572)

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/ [eutimes.net]

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 [cnn.com] . 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? (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 3 years ago | (#36737212)

"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? (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36737422)

The point is that this is what Strauss Kahn was calling for [guardian.co.uk] 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? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36737274)

Here is another excellent article [guardian.co.uk] 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:So it goes like this (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735202)

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 (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735294)

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 (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735652)

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 (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36737192)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735224)

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 (4, Informative)

l-ascorbic (200822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735580)

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 [guardian.co.uk]

Re:So it goes like this (-1, Flamebait)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736106)

Calling The Guardian valid news is like saying all reports on Fox News are complete and unbiased.

What a fucking tabloid rag. Seriously? It wasn't rape. She said yes, and never said no. No means no, but silence means nothing.

Re:So it goes like this (1)

l-ascorbic (200822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736342)

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

Re:So it goes like this (1)

l-ascorbic (200822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736438)

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

Re:So it goes like this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736554)

No means no, but silence means nothing.

You sound like a guy who rapes unconscious women.

Re:So it goes like this (5, Informative)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736126)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736614)

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 (3, Insightful)

hhnerkopfabbeisser (645832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735582)

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 (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735788)

wimmin

Way to go.

Re:So it goes like this (1)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735852)

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 (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735960)

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 (0)

hhnerkopfabbeisser (645832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736344)

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 (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736136)

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 (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736298)

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.

wow. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736790)

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:So it goes like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36737002)

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.

Good luck with that (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734534)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734752)

Breaking News, Assange a Nazi!

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734766)

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 (2)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735034)

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

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735270)

Puny flacid battles aren't newsworthy

Re:Good luck with that (1)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735064)

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 (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735464)

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

That's what she said!

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735114)

Germany only extradites people with their consent.

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

White Bronco (1)

shuz (706678) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734564)

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

Re:White Bronco (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735174)

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

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734628)

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

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734790)

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 (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734836)

Non sequiturs make me eat lampshades.

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735252)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735424)

Obama has switched parties?

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735440)

Obama has switched parties?

Yes, prretty much.

Re:Broken Condoms are no Big Deal (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735842)

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

you know what this is really about (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734718)

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 (1)

Qatz (1209584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734988)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736042)

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 (0)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735128)

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 (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735700)

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 (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735146)

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 (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735354)

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 (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735458)

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 (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735630)

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 (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735876)

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 (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736108)

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 (1)

jbonomi (1839286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36737340)

Seriously embarrassed by what, exactly?

Re:you know what this is really about (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735734)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735418)

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.

ugly girls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734726)

I hope that hoe gets pregnant! then decides not to have the baby after it's too late to abort.

Hello Mr Dreyfus (1)

bizso09 (1695798) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734926)

This thing is a classic Dreyfus affair [wikipedia.org] . 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 (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735170)

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.

sex crimes appeal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735048)

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

So Many Theories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735578)

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 (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735632)

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.

Who IS the Enemy? (1)

glorybe (946151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736000)

Obviously the powers that be are out to crush Julian. But how is it that portable phone makers, cell phone makers, and large numbers of banks and institutions that all have publicly claimed safety and are so easily hacked are not considered the enemy. We are now finding out that cell phones that claim to use all kinds of frequency hopping to shield calls really don't shield calls at all. Even the US military is lax in protecting data as are hosts of social institutions. So who exposes more data, Wiki Leaks or your standard cell phone suppliers? Let us all bow and kneel to the great corporations. They can do no harm, even when they do it over and over again.

Just get in over-with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736418)

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.

Whenever assange comes up, despicable face of (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36737378)

american zealotry comes to surface. first, read below regarding how it actually unfolded in sweden, and behold the shitty arguments that they have not hesitated from wandering out to in order to justify what is being done to him - not twice, not thrice, but EVERY occasion when wikileaks or assange comes up :

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.

the arguments that have been used to justify the bullshit are :

- you have to stop when you are told to stop. even if you are ejaculating and your body is convulsing involuntarily. (defies physiology)

- a woman may 'endure' despite she doesnt enjoy the sex, if the man enjoys. multiple times. she can attend social functions with him. (defies definition of rape, and actually anything that people have to endure in their life, including jobs)

- condom broke. (makes probably 30% of male population and similarly 30% or more of female population guilty of rape - broken condoms and broken pills)

- insert random bullshit that hasnt come up yet. (anything goes)

it is not too difficult to see why americans are disliked globally. the INSTANT something is harmful to your self-interests, you let go of any high principle you were touting just before that moment, and in this case, its REASON. leave aside democracy, liberty, freedom etc and all that. (iraq, somalia, now bombing of libya - you name it)

you are way too willing to portray yourselves as self-contradictory, self-indulged assholes. i have not been ascribing to that general perceptive about americans, but the continual bullshit i have observed in these wikileaks/assange threads is making me think that the people who think like that, actually have a strong point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?