Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

296 comments

Buggars! (4, Insightful)

xystren (522982) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322669)

Welcome to Team USA: World Police

Re:Buggars! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322731)

Yes, naturally his sexual deviancy is the fault of the US. And the CIA clearly has control over the British and Swedish justice systems

Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322805)

Not wearing a condom? Oooh, most of the USA male population to the right wing are guilty of that!

Shagging women? Most men: guilty.

Funnily enough, there's not even a warrant for arrest. Do you have one? No? YOU SEXUAL DEVIANT YOU!!!

Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322903)

You think not wearing a condom and fucking a women while she is asleep is normal?

Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (2)

oPless (63249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322935)

Didn't one of the women later withdraw those allegations and run off to Israel somewhere to hide?

Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (0)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322973)

[citation needed]

Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323385)

Does someone need a citation to prove their question now???

Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323489)

[citation needed]

(or vagina)

Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (5, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323575)

Here you go [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (4, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323665)

I should also point out that if you google her name, there are allegations of some serious ties to the CIA via her odd history of involvement with anti-Castro groups in Cuba. Can't imagine why a CIA operative would be in the West Bank with an innocent Christian group trying to get close to Palestinian leaders, though.

Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323097)

Since normality in this regard is not what is a subject matter, your argument as such is invalid.

You seem to profess the idea of normality, as if every intercourse is one where one is "not wearing a condom and fucking a woman while she is asleep".

Re:Buggars! (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322947)

Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes.
Does the UK have an extradition arrangement with Sweden (in this case as part of the EU I would figure)? Yes.
Would the Swedish legal system treat him appropriately from the UK perspective if convicted of this particular crime, and will he get appropriate process? Yes, but that's why they have an extradition agreement at all.

At that point he's just delaying the inevitable. If not, then you'd have to kick one or both of Sweden and the UK out of the EU for not upholding the same basic sets of rights and rules. The question of whether or not the US is fabricating the whole thing can be addressed fairly in sweden (at least the UK would consider it fair).

Re:Buggars! (4, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323021)

Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

This.

The guy let his own ego lead him into a situation that enabled him to get caught in a honey trap. He got a little bit of PR out of it, but he and his organization would have been much better off had he realized how susceptible he was to manipulation.

Ironic, given that he worked at Seatec Astronomy :)

Re:Buggars! (2)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323061)

Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes.

Please cite the law in question and show how it applies to Assange's specific behavior of not wearing a condom after promising he would.

Re:Buggars! (1)

dalias (1978986) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323149)

Someone has a right to withdraw consent at any time. Based on my understanding of the allegations, that's what they're saying happened.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323209)

Even after the fact? Please cite the law.

Re:Buggars! (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323393)

It is Swedish law. Not American not british but Swedish law.

Besides the CIA. Is just as clueless as you are regarding Swedish law.

He got lucky with two different women. The problem becomes Swedish law is very much in the womens favor. And that bit him on the ass when those women found out

Re:Buggars! (2)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323427)

It is Swedish law. Not American not british but Swedish law.

I was responding to the claim that the alleged crime would be illegal under UK law.

Is just as clueless as you are regarding Swedish law.

Evidently not as clueless as you are concerning the context of this discussion.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323235)

Post-Coitus too it seems.

Re:Buggars! (2)

Kijori (897770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323405)

According to Wikipedia:

There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.

The law in England on consent obtained by deception is complex and unwieldy. I am not an expert, but I don't think lying about whether you are wearing a condom would be sufficient to vitiate consent. Even if that particular charge would not be a crime in England and Wales, however, if the allegations are true he would still potentially be guilty of rape and sexual assault.

Re:Buggars! (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323453)

The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:

Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

From http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/ [studentactivism.net]

Judgement mentioned in the article, direct from the UK Judiciary website - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf [judiciary.gov.uk]

Re:Buggars! (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323593)

The fundamental issue is that these are different interpretations of the law than those reached in hundreds of other past similar cases, including some far more aggressive than this.

I feel sorry for those girls who have been told by the courts they weren't raped in far less pleasant ordeals than this, yet this, a much more borderline case, is affirmed as rape.

It's frankly disgusting.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323125)

He hasn't been charged with anything. He's being extradited for questioning only.

Re:Buggars! (0)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323169)

you really think the fight would be this hard for just asking some questions?

Re:Buggars! (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323551)

Yes. And?

From the perspective of extradition it doesn't matter. Would the questioning involve torture? No. Could he be charged with a crime that the UK recognizes? Yes. Is the punishment for said crime something the UK allows (i.e. no death penalty)? That's pretty much it.

Re:Buggars! (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323127)

and will he get appropriate process?

Yeah, Sweden's going to give him due process. They're duly going to process him on a plane to the U.S., where he'll be thrown in prison forever.

Re:Buggars! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323279)

This plus thrity; it's just to get him into Sweden, where they have "special" extradition laws with the US. So he'll get to Sweden be "questioned" about the allegations; get a reprimand or slap on the wrist for whatever they say he did there. To instantly be sent off to the US.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323591)

They could do that. But then so could the UK.

From the perspective of the UK they trust the Swedish legal process (which includes the European court of human rights). If the Swedes decide to turn around and send him to guantanamo bay (specifically) the UK and the EU would lose faith in the swedish legal system and there would have to be consequences to treaties and EU membership etc.

Sending him to the US is another matter. Because again, the UK and Sweden can both extradite to the US and the same basic questions apply. If the US wanted him they'd have had as much luck in the UK as they would in sweden I would think.

Re:Buggars! (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323229)

If I understand the case correctly, the issue was that the extradition was handled improperly and requested by someone who might not have the authority to do so. Sometimes the US and people bowing to US pressure get sloopy and forget to handle things above the board since they often assume their legal actions will simply be rubber stamped by foreign judges, which is not always the case.

Re:Buggars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323365)

Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK?

There is no alleged crime.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323611)

Richard At work posted a nice summary above. He's wanted for questioning in alleged criminal activity. Whether I used precisely legally correct language or not I'm not sure, least of all as it applies to a legal system that isn't my own.

Re:Buggars! (4, Insightful)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323469)

Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

Oh, it's not extradition for the alleged crimes that has people worried. It's the fact that he was already detained for investigation for a month in Sweden until the case was closed and he was permitted to leave the country. Now they want him back. Are they going to repeat the same process with different prosecutor's until the outcome changes? That's suspicious to the point of being terrifying.

Re:Buggars! (1, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323645)

If the Swedish legal system allows it then... so what?

The Swedish legal system isn't a variant on the common law system of the US/UK/Canada etc. Nor is it obliged to be. If the UK has decided their process is fair enough to allow extradition treaties then that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

There's nothing particularly suspicious to the point of being terrifying. If their system allows that, and you think it's terrifying don't ever travel to sweden. For all it matters their system could be the Kings word is law, and he is the supreme legal authority in the country, if the UK signed a treaty agreeing that system is sufficiently fair to allow extraditions then they are bound by that agreement.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323507)

Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? No.

It's a VERY SPECIFIC law that only exists in Sweden.

So no, the alleged crime is NOT illegal in the UK.

And he's not even being ACCUSED of it! The case was dropped and they merely want to take a statement. A statement JA said he was happy to give in a UK police station, but not if he has to pay and spend time travelling BACK to Sweden when he'd already cleared his leaving the country with the police at the time.

Re:Buggars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323659)

He's not charged with any crimes. Only wanted for questioning. It does seem unusual to extradite someone not charged with a crime.

Re:Buggars! (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323005)

There are allegations.
Mostly withdrawn.
There is no indictment.
Required for extradition.
You presume guilt.
In the absence of evidence or formal charges in court.

It looks like Jack Lint is warming up his instruments, in Information Retrieval.

I'm glad that you endorse and encourage this sort of thing. Let's get Tuttle, next.

Re:Buggars! (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323195)

Control no, influence yes.

Setting aside his innocence or guilt, US allies often go along with unofficial requests from the US to deal with people unless there is a domestic reason not to (such as countries that do not allow the death penalty making a ruckus about extradition, or Polanski's popularity).

In this case Assange is pretty hated by both governments and corporations around the world, so other governments are not exactly interested in fighting US pressure on the issue.

Re:Buggars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322737)

"Team America: World Police", but I get your point.

Yep, the U.K. has agreed to extradite Assange to the United States.

Well, to Sweden, who will suddenly drop any legal issues they have and immediately extradite him to the United States.

So long to any real meaning of the phrase "Rule of Law"

Re:Buggars! (0)

xystren (522982) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322827)

It has been an interesting turn of events on how far reaching US law seems to be outside of their borders... I wonder if there could be an argument made for non-extradition due to the fact that the US also still has the death penalty in place.

Re:Buggars! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322897)

He is being extradited to Sweden, not the US, for alleged sex crimes (not wearing a condom during intercourse), well sort of alleged. He hasn't actually been charged with anything in Sweden.

Re:Buggars! (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323069)

Sweden is just a stop. US is the final destination. US has extradition treaties with Sweden.

Re:Buggars! (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323285)

So does the UK...

Re:Buggars! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323397)

Actually, I believe the UK has made the bar for extradiction much more difficult in the last 5 years for the US because of changes to US laws. Thus the need to get Assange to a country that doesn't have the same barriers.... There was a reason Assange went to the UK after opening the doors.

This whole debacle is fishy at best...

I, for one, would like to see Sweden promise to return Assange to the UK after his "questioning" (or Trial or prison term), a simple thing for them to do, yet, it has still NOT been done, or even put on the table as an option to speed up this process for the Swedes. That in itself should be enough to raise flags for most people....

Re:Buggars! (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323491)

But he didn't commit any crimes in the UK, so there's no grounds for extradition. The U.S. has to get him into Sweden first before they can try to get ahold of him. (Or so the story goes.)

BTW it's ridiculous to claim "rape" just because a guy didn't wear a condom. The two ladies *consented* to have bare sex... nobody forced them to.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323527)

Uhm, what? He doesnt need to have committed any crimes in the UK to be extradited - the country requesting extradition just needs a valid warrant.

Otherwise you could commit a crime in one country and flee to any other country in the world - and it quite obviously doesnt work like that...

Also, check out the complaints made against him, its more complex than you (and incidentally most people against hte extradition in these stories comments) seem to believe it is - they didnt consent to have bare sex, thats part of the complaints made.

Re:Buggars! (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323347)

The US has an extradition treaty with the UK too, so I wonder why they are taking such an indirect route.

My best guess is that they feel they will have an easier time getting Sweeden to extradite him on hazier charges (since the DoJ has yet to find anything to actually charge him with) and the UK is a bit more obsessed with proper use of law (a rather old and neurotic British trait).

Re:Buggars! (3, Insightful)

Kharny (239931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323581)

Impossible, sweden cannot extradite him without UK consent. (illegal to extradite after you been extradited from different country in european law)

Re:Buggars! (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323001)

The death penalty is a non-issue. The US prosecution simply has to promise they won't seek the death penalty.

Re:Buggars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323335)

That's OK. He's probably on Obama's secret kill list anyhow.

It's a joke! I think...

Re:Buggars! (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323425)

A surprising number of US laws are extra-territorial, especially things like murder, rape, terrorism, piracy (as in maritime hooligans rather than music down-loaders) and oh yes just about anything in the espionage category. What is surprising to me is how little interest the USG is showing in this matter, but that may change if Bradley Manning is convicted. I wouldn't be surprised if during the Manning trial, that Assange was subpoenaed and deposed in that matter.

Re:Buggars! (-1, Flamebait)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322923)

He's a douche. He committed crimes against u s a. He's lucky he wasn't extraordinary renditioned or we didn't land two dozen navy seals in his back yard.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323071)

Might as well put up a sign that says: Come flame me if you hate America!

Re:Buggars! (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323191)

They only send in the Seals and missiles if you're in the Middle East and not particularly well-known. For everyone else, they forgo the explosive charges for rape charges.

Re:Buggars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322867)

I'm rooting for Assange to get to Sweden and... he's released after his fine and short jail time.

Just to see what outlandish, stupid conspiracy theory his followers come up with THEN...

Re:Buggars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322873)

How so? Assange stands acussed of sexual harrassment in Sweden, and will be extradited there to stand trial for that charge.

What he did might have merely been slimy douchebag behaviour, and his celebrity status meant you got an overeager prosecutor involved, but I don't see US involvement there.

Re:Buggars! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322971)

Technically, he will be extradited *for questioning* about that charge, and if the charges are deemed to have merit after that questioning, the Swedish prosecutor will move ahead with pressing charges. It's entirely possible (perhaps even *likely*) that they'll question him, decide the charges have no merit, and release him back to the UK.

And all of this is *exactly* how the Swedish system works. They don't bring a suit until they've done an investigation, and when they decided they wanted Mr. Assange for questioning, he had already left the country. So they ordered him detained for questioning (in absentia), and this extradition request will bring him back to Sweden to face *questioning* by the prosecutors on the 4 allegations under consideration.

Yes, they gave him permission to leave. NO, that permission did not immediately cancel any possible legal obligations he might have in the matter. They decided they needed to ask him more questions, they asked him to come back, he refused, so they're compelling him to come back. This is all very normal legal process for Sweden, and the ONLY reason to suspect that there's any "hand of the US" at work here is because he happens to have embarrassed the US government at some point, and that seems to be enough for the tin-foil hait crowd.

Assange Kardashian? (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322723)

This all reminds me of a reality show now.

Re:Assange Kardashian? (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322885)

There we go. If he marries one of them he's off the hook.

Well, he'll probably wisely choose the death penalty anyway...

Hang on. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322725)

I thought you had to be accused of a crime that is extraditable to be extradited.

You can't be extradited for drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia because that's not a crime here.

Re:Hang on. (1, Insightful)

cod3r_ (2031620) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322753)

pretty sure rape is illegal everywhere.

Re:Hang on. (2, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322927)

Sex without a condom isn't rape in most countries including the UK. He is wanted for questioning related to that, but isn't charged with any crime in any country.

Re:Hang on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323077)

Pretty sure that if the girl says "okay," but stipulates the precondition of a condom (e.g., "not without a condom, Julian!" or "put on the condom!"), and you go ahead and force yourself on her anyway without a condom, or misrepresent whether or not you're wearing a condom, that'll constitute rape.

Please explain to us how it wouldn't. Rape is non-consensual sexual activity. If she withdraws her consent, or issues her consent with conditions, and you don't adhere to those conditions, she has a legitimate complaint.

It has been alleged that he has committed a crime. The Swedish system doesn't file formal charges until after interviews are conducted. He's needed for an interview which will determine whether or not the prosecutor feels it's reasonable to press charges. He is being extradited for that interview, and to face the charges in Sweden, if charges are filed.

If no charges are filed, he'll go have a chat with the prosecutor, and then be turned back over to UK custody. And since he's done nothing that would warrant the UK legal system continuing to hold him, he'll be a free man.

Re:Hang on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323187)

It has been alleged that he has committed a crime. The Swedish system doesn't file formal charges until after interviews are conducted. He's needed for an interview which will determine whether or not the prosecutor feels it's reasonable to press charges. He is being extradited for that interview, and to face the charges in Sweden, if charges are filed.

So they couldn't just ask the UK legal authorities to provide an interview room and get this over with? Then they could have filed for extradition with charges attached if it got to that, but would have skipped the entire extradition circus if they decided not to file charges.

Re:Hang on. (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323099)

Continuing to have sex with someone after they express their unwillingness, however, can be a crime (and might be classified as "rape"). Why the woman in question chose to protest is irrelevant. He isn't being charged with having sex without a condom: he is being charged with having sex over the protests of his partner.

You can claim she is accusing him not because she feels genuinely violated, but because of political reasons, and you may be right, but what he did could be considered a crime in Sweden and the UK, and just about everywhere else in the western world, depending on the facts of the case. But then, that is why he is being deported for questioning: so they can figure out what those facts are.

Re:Hang on. (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323103)

It is when the woman involved said that she didn't want to have sex with him *without* a condom.

Re:Hang on. (0)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323141)

(or vagina)

Re:Hang on. (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323115)

To be more specific, it's that the girl insisted he wear one but he didn't. Thereby violating the conditions on which her consent to sex rested. And that's only one of four charges.

Re:Hang on. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323059)

The actual act Assange is accused of would not be considered rape in any other country in the world.

Re:Hang on. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323599)

Really? Forcing himself (sans condom) on someone when their consent clearly stipulates the use of a condom? When the consent is implicitly withdrawn if he DOES NOT have a condom?

Because shit man, if that's the case, I've been caught a few times without a condom, and suffered blue balls as a result until I could rub one out to relieve some pressure. If I had known that the expert legal team of Hatta & Sons, LLC would clear me of any wrongdoing, I would've just banged her anyway, even if she said no!

You know, since it's not RAPE to force myself on her if she at SOME point consented to me doing anything sexual with her whatsoever. I guess we could call it the "I got needs that these bitches need to satisfy" defense. I'm sure it'll be airtight.

Re:Hang on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322783)

Well, obviously, with such insight, and copius legal arguments citing case law in such impressive detail, you must be a lawyer who could really help out! Quick call the queen of the Brittish courts and relay your message post haste!

It's sad (5, Insightful)

axlr8or (889713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322763)

I don't want to live in a world where people fear the truth. As you can see, it is a problem that the lies only get bigger and bigger. Assange shouldn't fear going to court to display the truth. But everyone knows its just a stunt to get him put away.

Re:It's sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322961)

Assange shouldn't fear going to court to display the truth.

It remains to be seen if that has anything to do with the case. One guess about the future turn of events is that he is found not guilty of rape, but then immediately arrested again in order to be extradited one more time over a different alleged crime. If things actually turn out that way, then it is a clear miscarriage of justice.

Guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322795)

Well. He might just be guilty. If he would have replied to the prosecutors questions directly he would be either convicted or acquitted by now, most probably the sentence that was correct as Swedish courts are as good as any other west European...

My guess is that he consider himself guilty as he goes to these extreme lengths to evade the questioning (there is no prosecution yet).

Re:Guilty? (1)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322913)

I won't consider him guilty until he's convicted, and maybe not even then. He had to know as soon as he gave up anonymity, something like this would happen to him. The powers that be will ruin him as much as they can, as publicly as they can, both as a warning to others and as a distraction from the truths he helped reveal.

Re:Guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322939)

iirc he's made numerous attempts to speak with prosecutors both before and after he left switzerland. i believe he was even told he was free to go by one prosecutor before leaving.

what's happened is a second prosecutor has (unprecedentedly afaik) reopened the case once he was out of the country. he's been more than willing to speak with them via telecomunications but has resisted returning to switzerland as he believe's they'll hand him over to the USA government.

sorry i don't have links to back this up, tbh i'm sick to death of the whole thing and really nothing can be known for sure now until he does/doesn't get extridited to the USA.

anywho, what might you just be guilty of? spreading FUD for one....

Re:Guilty? (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323217)

iirc he's made numerous attempts to speak with prosecutors both before and after he left switzerland

Hmm, is that so? [satwcomic.com] ;)

Re:Guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323339)

hehe, sorry, and i'm actually English ;)

as i said, i'm sick and tired of this whole story up until the point he actually does or doesn't get extredited to the US.

Re:Guilty? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40322951)

They want to prosecute him for rape because he allegedly banged a groupie without a condom. Any sane person would avoid prosecution for that, "guilty" or otherwise. No sane person would consider that a criminal act.

Re:Guilty? (3, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323287)

That, of course, is not the actual charge. The actual charge itself being just one of four.

The meme "he's being charged for having sex without a condom" is a deliberate attempt to skew the actual situation. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything serious. I'm not saying he's not. But I'm just pointing out, the *actual* charges are that 1) the woman *only consented* to sex with a condom but he only pretended to use one, violating the terms of her consent; 2) that he started having sex with another woman in her sleep; 3) that he held one woman down in a sexual manner against her consent; and 4) that he rubbed his penis against one girl without her consent.

Again, it's not "stranger in the bushes, knife up to the throat rape" that's being charged, but the charges are not "he had sex without a condom".

Re:Guilty? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323083)

Even if Assange committed the acts he was accused of, those acts are not illegal in any country besides Sweden. That usually means that you don't get extradited. Unless the United States wants you, then you're not safe anywhere.

Re:Guilty? (1, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323605)

British Judges have already said in their ruling that all four complaints would be unlawful under English law.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf [judiciary.gov.uk]

Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/ [studentactivism.net]

Plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322803)

Hopefully he has used some of his money to prepay for a rescue, in the event he were to end up in the hands of the US.

Oh good. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322871)

And... cue the ignorant douchebags shouting about how this is just a ploy for the US gov't to get its hands on him.

And... cue the +5 Insightfuls for people who have no idea how the process of extradition under an EU Arrest Warrant works, but are absolutely sure that somehow Sweden will throw away its relations with the EU in order to satisfy the US, when the US could have just as easily requested extradition directly from the UK if they wanted him.

Because it's only FUD if you disagree with it.

Time was, Slashdotters had a bit of logic and rational thought to go along with their opinions. Now it's just tin foil hats and "it must be true because I read it on a BLOG! On the INTERNET!" all the way down.

Re:Oh good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323007)

Yes it's a troll...but it's also spot on accurate.

Re:Oh good. (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323389)

OP is not a troll. Deal with the content, not the language.

Anti Israel commission accused of tax fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40322937)

Just to recap, Assange was accused of rape days by two woman days after they had CONSENTED sex with him (it was consented at the time), they changed it to UNCONSENTED sex after a discussion between them. Which looks very much like one or both are honey traps, most likely the second woman who came along, was so hot to trot she had a fingering session in a movie theater, and yet later claims to have been raped.

In other news, an EU Commissioner who opposed Israel control of US, now stands accused of tax fraud after his bank transfer records were handed to the Belgian tax authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_De_Gucht
2010: ""Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill. That is the best organized lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics – no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats"

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/120612_De_gucht
"The taxman was eager to discover the source of certain sums including the money used to pay for Mr De Gucht's holiday home in Italy. "

EU handed our SWIFT data over to the US, and I wonder how many Commissioners are doing favors in exchange for NOT handing over bank records.

Re:Anti Israel commission accused of tax fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323161)

Assange had consensual protected sex with a woman. Then in the morning he unilaterally decided to engage in unprotected sex without her consent. After explaining this to the police because she wanted Assange to submit to an STD exam, the police decided to investigate it as rape.

In a general sense, If you penetrate a woman against without her consent you raped her.

Re:Anti Israel commission accused of tax fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323333)

it was consented at the time

Yes, and they claim that consent was predicated on the use of a condom. "Let's have sex" does not give him carte blanche to violate any orifice he wishes in any way he wishes for as long as he wishes, or as many times as he wishes.

If she says, "You need to use a condom," and you force yourself on her without a condom (and that *is* what's been alleged), then YOU ARE COMMITTING RAPE.

There's a term for what you're doing: Victim blaming [wikipedia.org] . As a fun sociological experiment, why don't you try telling every woman you're about to have sex with, "because you've consented to have sex with me, I will do anything I want, whenever I want, to you, and I consider this consent to be irrevocable and permanent." Just see how the woman responds, I bet you'll really enjoy a life of sexless frustration. Not that that's any different from your current life, by all appearances.

Does anyone ever talk about Wikileaks any more? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323053)

You know, the actual content that it leaks? Nope? Rather chat about a juicy sex story instead, with all our oh-so-clever little bon mots?

I think this is essentially Mission Accomplished for the TLAs regardless of the outcome of any eventual trial.

Re:Does anyone ever talk about Wikileaks any more? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323183)

That's because they stopped releasing embarrassing details. Assange lost a huge amount of credibility when he chose not to release the massive banking corruption documents.

What is surprising about this case, which isn't ever touched by the media, is why did Interpol get involved when they've never touched anything as basic as questioning over a sexual accusation. That's the corruption of the system, to take out, or discredit one individual that hasn't even been arrested, let alone found guilty.

Re:Does anyone ever talk about Wikileaks any more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323459)

Nobody talks about Napster anymore either, but that doesn't mean the RIAA can say Mission Accomplished regarding piracy.

Thanks to Wikileaks, it's now a lot more culturally OK to leak classified info, for better or for worse. Look at how much crap gets leaked these days: Obama and Stuxnet, ACTA debates, Foxconn, etc. etc. Whether or not Assange and WL are still doing what they used to, loads of people are following in their footsteps. Mission Accomplished for him.

Re:Does anyone ever talk about Wikileaks any more? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323629)

Things slowed down quite a bit after they have lost all their funding.

alterior motive obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323225)

He should seek country and international court damages if this is used primarily to facilitate a further extradition to the US considering his actions are properly covered under free speech and also freedom of the press.

JJ

Extradition to the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323275)

Many here are claiming that he fought the extradition to Sweden like hell to avoid ultimately being extradited to the US, as that was the plan all along. Conspiracy theory or not, I'm wondering on what grounds this would be true? What crimes has he been accused of in the US? Is he wanted anywhere but in Sweden for more than questioning?

Due process, nothing more - nothing less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323379)

Being a Wikileaks pop-star doesn't make him immune from the law. And if this was all fabricated don't you think someone would have leaked that proof by now?

Why do people defend this person? (2)

SierraQ (1773076) | more than 2 years ago | (#40323407)

If he committed a crime against some women he deserves whatever he gets and he needs to stop trying to hide because it makes him out to be a coward unwilling to face the consequences of his actions. No doubt his involvement with wikileaks is fanning the flames here but lets not forget that according to ex-staffers [wired.com] he's tried to change that organization into a dictatorship of sorts and attacked those who questioned his decision or motives. These are signs of desperation and paranoia. Wikileaks will survive just fine without its corrupt dictator. In fact it will probably become better.

I have no more sympathy for him than I do Joran van der Sloot.

Re:Why do people defend this person? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323517)

Because it's totally inconceivable that anyone who has made it his mission to reveal the embarrassing and incriminating secrets of the world could possibly have any embarrassing or incriminating secrets of his own.

It simply must be a conspiracy, Occam's razor be damned.

Re:Why do people defend this person? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323529)

no

Re:Why do people defend this person? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323679)

He is not charged with any crime at this point, so obviously there is not a great deal of evidence against him.

Nothing Doing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40323561)

Dt Chapter 22 Verse 28-29 Original Languange
Assange violated no ancient judean law.
The people that want him punished are evil people, but they are the majority, and both men and women think as they do.

The women were prostitutes. They were neither owned by another man nor were they young virgin girls. The ancient judean laws say nothing about them as there is nothing to say.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...