Wikileak's sex flounders charges leaked.
 

Oh the Irony. But after reading the charges I had to LOL. Are Swede's that up tight? The charges are laughable and would hardly constitute rape in my opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110204/...ileaks_assange

Where the law defines rape as "sex without consent," initiating sexual intercourse with a partner who is unconscious and therefore cannot have consented to it is rape, the end.

They need a reason to accuse him. Any reason.
The oldest rule, "destroy a man publicly, before you kill him".

Imagine how many people now think that Assange is a criminal, even if he is set free this will always haunt him.

Greetings,
Catfish

So, the woman let him continue the act in BOTH occasions and is now screaming RAPE RAPE?

Rrrright...

Wow. :o

This.

Note that even if the woman consented AFTER the act started, the act of starting without consent was in itself rape. Intent matters.

Now do not misunderstand me, Rape is a horrific crime that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and then some. The Issue as I understand isn't one of consensual sex but over the issue of the usage of a condom.

So before I get hung on my statement one needs to understand that one judge already threw it out only to have it reinstated by another.

It was clear by her statement that she wasn't offended they were having intercourse but was offended that he did not use a condom the second time.

She allowed the intercourse to continue with the statement "You batter not have aids".........So STD concern is the context of the issue not sexual intercourse. That is how I read into it and just my opinion.

It happens a lot actually...but I think it's extra suspicious in this case..especially when it was thrown out but re-instated by somebody up the ladder.

but then again, you piss off world governments and this sort of thing happens to you.

My bad, I read frau's reply, but not the OP link.

You're right.

When you scan the thread titles quickly, this appears to read 'Wikileaks founders sex changes leaked'. :o

I winder why we don't just bump him off. Even the Obama Admin for all their talk before his election have shown they are willing to kill people with no due process (that's what using a drone attack on a "high value target" is, after all.

If you can bump off some AQ guy who might not actually kill people, but instead, um, manages the AQ website and propaganda, then why not Assange?

What's the difference?

That is the real story, he released the cables to publicise his book to raise money for the operation.
He is trying to delay the extradition until the op and then get it thrown out by claiming he is now Julie-ann.

I thought he was a criminal before these allegations surfaced.

Haven'T we been here before, in a thread some weeks ago aboiut Assange'S sex charges? There I pointed out that the laws in Sweden are such that a woman that is not feeling well after intercourse (or at least claims that), can sue her partner for rape. As a male you can get into trouble just because the woman makes up her mind - afterwards.

I think they are nuts up there.

Edit:
P.S. Here it is. I knew I already had put it on the table:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=186
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=274

Having sex with a woman who is unconscious is pretty creepy in any context. :nope:

Excuse me, I feel the need to wash my hands after reading about this guy. ewww

What a creapazoid. :nope:

Dunno about Swedish law, but from the international "guy law" this guy sounds like a loser. :nope: Porking women when they are unconscious is totally lame. :yep:

No he was not, but see how this stuff already works ?
Sun Tzu at its finest :-?

Greetings,
Catfish

P.S. If you probably mean that he is a criminal for making the stuff public in this wikileaks, i guess all witnesses of concentration camps spreading the word should also have been silenced ? Well, it has been tried :shifty:

Reminds me of this. :O:

My dear departed Father was fond of a saying, which I shall not repeat here, that addressed the concept that everyone has an opinion just like they have certain body parts. It fits perfectly.


Godwins law. If you have to invoke the nazis then you have already lost the debate. Assange isn't fit to shine a concentration camp survivors shoes.

I agree that he is a moral deprived scumbag, but the case has many holes, signs of policital grandstanding and all sides contradict themselves and each other.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/assanges...204-1aguk.html

As I recall, Godwin's law only describes the correlation between the length of the debate and the likelyhood of Nazis being invoked.

I think you meant 'August's Law'. :D

For once I disagree with Frau on the "Rape" charge. Though the courts seem to be waffling.

It is clear that the night before sex was consensual. That doesn't make rape the next morning okay - far from it. But was it rape? Did he he start while she was asleep? Obviously. But did he know that? Was she responding in her sleep? Did he know that? The only problem she seemed to have with it at the time was the condom question.

I'm not arguing one way or the other. It just seems to me that it's not entirely cut-and-dried. In other words, I don't know. But the behaviour of both of them seems questionable to me.