Julian Assange is a prick.

[Frission]

I don't like him, but the whole charges on him strike me as being purposefully orchestrated.

 

[ArnRand]

snip

Then your left is a bunch of whiners. I don't like them.

But come on... we can't be all good guys. If you look at any country's history, no country is actually the "good guy".

Actually, you mentioning history made me remeber that whole imperialism and genocide thing.

Yeah...point taken.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

I support Assange, Just watching that footage from the Apache helicopters made me sick, and the fact that there is a group out there that has published that information is great.
He worked with traditional media, and had to live on the road for a long time to avoid any dangers, the idea that those 'military secrets' were secret for a reason is bullshit, Having read a great deal of the papers leaked I can only conclude that most people, including it appears the majority of people posting in this thread, believe that the world is exceedingly black and white.

Some of your comments are actually pretty disgusting, as a citizen of the UK I can understand that we are the bad guys, for most of the world we are the enemies, open your eyes and realise that the more we know about the bullshit that our governments feed us, the better we can defend against that bullshit.

The coincidental nature of the allegations against Assange, the timing of them, the actual actions that he took, and the actions of the accusers, makes me think that the accusations are unjust. He had consensual sex with 2 women, neither time did he use a condom, they only made accusations after finding out about each other. It seems obvious to me that they are really pissed about him sleeping with someone else, not him sleeping with them.

Sweden has a history of quick extraditions to the US, just because no request has been made, does not mean that there isn't an agreement. I personally believe that the original plan was to extradite him from sweden to the US, due to the publicity surrounding that case I believe that that plan has been dropped. Although looking at the manner in which bradley manning has been treated should give some indication to how Assange can be expected to be treated.

Can I get a source on the thing about condoms? And which of my comments are disgusting? I said he was a prick, I guess that's a pretty terrible insult or something where you come from?

This isn't about the bullshit our governments feed us, or about conspiricy theories and paranoia about the UK being the 'bad guys' to the world (Protip, we're not. A lot of countries see the UK as a santuary. You'll find plenty of immigrants stuck in a holding bay in Italy or somewhere saying they're desperate to get to the UK.) It's about a man fleeing rape charges. And by the way, there's nothing special about Swedish rape laws. 'One: ?The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law?

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.'

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

1. Calling someone a prick is offensive, you know that, you wouldn't have said it otherwise, stop being a child.

2. Of course we are 'bad guys' we invade countries, destroy homes, kill civilians, repress the media, give weapons too immature boys and act surprised when they commit war crimes. We assist in the extradition and torture of innocent civilians, we put up with the existance of guantanimo bay. Of course we are fucking bad guys. Are you that blind that you don;t see that, that you buy into the whole 'lets give them freedom' shtick.

3. I've read that article, I disagree with alot of points that it makes. If you had read my first point though, you would see that I don't believe that america will try to extradite Assange anymore. They may have been thinking of doing so before the publicity surrounding his case blew up. You have to question, why is sweden doing this, They have never requested the extradition of a foriegn citizen in a case similar to this, only for murders. It's an awfully coincidental time to set a presendent, one that they haven't followed with anyone since.

Read what I'm saying before you start argueing with me, Pull your head out of your arse, it's time to realise that we have fucked over the rest of the world for too long, our country and our society aren't nice.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

-Snip-

Also, article of my own.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

 

[Ryotknife]

I dont trust Assange. I dont think he is the devil, but it is obvious he has an axe to grind, which compromises his message of truth.

It is possible that the USA might seek custody over him. I am sure there are plenty of people near the top of the political ladder in the US who would LOVE to string him up by his limbs and pull until they come off. But i believe it is improbable that the US would do anything. One, it is an election year and this would only end badly. Two, by playing ball it would diminish Assange by making him look like paranoid and crazy. So, it would not be in any politicians best interest to go after him.

Although, that hasnt always stopped US politicians from doing something stupid, i will admit. Still, him running to Ecuador is also fishy as hell. Although people vastly overestimate how much "control" we have over other countries. Hell we gave Pakistan a lot of money every year to help search for bin laden, and they set him up in a pretty posh manor.

Either way, it is a self serving A-hole vs a bunch of self serving politicians he pissed off. It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them really.

 

[Ryotknife]

It was a broken condom.

Sweden considers it rape. This is all they could come up with after the case was weak enough to be dropped already.

It's BS to get him to sweden, then be disappeared into a US or UK blacksite out of the way of human rights oversight so they can ask him about those papers he released with a car battery to the nuts.

Do you really think the US is that stupid? The second Assange is extradited, he will become the most watched man on the planet, I sincerely doubt the Americans would try to "disappear" him when under that kind of scrutiny.

What happened to Bradley Manning?

Hasn't he been tortured for the last 7 months or thereabouts, a fact his lawyers are looking to use so the charges against him get dropped?

considering treason carries the death penalty.

by firing squad if i am not mistaken.

 

[Spectrre]

The US military shooting the wrong people? Again?

Not a secret.

News outlets even talked about how US drones have a hard time killing the people who they want to kill.

So instead of being more accurate, new guidelines set by the US labeled every military age male as a terrorist so if they die with the target, its suddenly okay.

We know this. It happened before. News outlets have been embarrassing the military for a while.

First of all that wasn't at all the point. I am well aware that the US military more often than not shoots at people they're not supposed to, I don't think many people in the world can deny that much.

My point is that you said this :

Nothing actually important gets leaked by an internet crusader.

You've literally stated that this whole ordeal isn't important. You're casually dismissing people unjustly dying. But not only that. You can't deny this was a secret, watch the video, or read about it. It may not be a secret that US military shoots at people it shouldn't, but this was covered up. They tried their best to make people believe that they had every reason to shoot those innocent people. Thus, the truth, the fact they killed innocent people, was a secret. No one knew for sure this was a lie until wikileaks revealed it.

 

[ScaryAlmond]

snip

Okay.

What authority does the US have to have him extradited at all? Can they do that to non-citizens? Can you extradite, for instance, a Mexican into the US to stand trial if he's the head of a drug cartel?

Also, what exactly is the NDAA, because I'm not fully abreast of the law and I'm picking this stuff up as I go. The only thing I can find on Wikipedia is the National Defense Authorization Act, which is concerned with military spending.

In any case, he really does need to clear his name before I start to feel bad for him, even if he does face potential life in prison.

The US has no authority to extradite him until they present a case they would most likely use the Patriot Act which due to him releasing classified information he could be charged so yes he could be extradited theoretically.
The NDAA is a law that was passed recently that allows the US to indefinitely detain anyone one of any country without charge if Authorities believe they are a threat this legitimizes the indefinite detention of inmates in Guantanamo and even if they are proven innocent they can still be detained.
While this is not the only part of the law it is fairly significant as it can bypass anyone's constitutional right to a fair trial.

The major problem is that recently the US has been pretty flexible with even their own laws consistently breaking Pakistan's sovereignty by using drones, executing a US citizen abroad with out charge as well as killing his US born 16 year old son for which they cannot present a reasonable case for.
They have recently said that anyone they kill is an enemy combatant (without proving) and they can only be proved innocent post-humongous which means they can only prove they are innocent after the US has killed them.

Sex charges have been pretty standard for Whistle blower as they are hard to disprove and they take away credibility from anyone.
The Wiki leaks embarrassed the US allot eg the Collateral murder video which you should probably watch.
And considering their recent unhinged approach to Assange e.g US media calling for his assassination there is some danger
For trilligan http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-05/news/30592103_1_persons-military-force-authorities a quick link should be alright
For the 16 year old kid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Rahman_al-Awlaki

 

[electric_warrior]

Probably not a rapist, but definitely a bit of a sleazeball and a massive douche

 

[ScaryAlmond]

you mention 'we americans' so maybe English isn't your first language?

By the way America is not the center of the English language so surprise other countries exist.
What I was trying to clarify is the general attitude that has come out of the american media and the major amount of spin that has come out.
Looking at the history of Whistleblowing you should see a pattern of Sex charges to discredit any one that speaks out hell you don't have to look far Craig Murray who is at the Ecuador embassy was in the exact same situation sex charges after whistle blowing.
What I am saying is that you have to take it with a grain of salt.

We don't know whether or not he assaulted those two women because he's fleeing from an arrest warrant that would bring him to court to answer the charges.

Umm never said he was charged that last word may have got me a little confused sorry if that last sentence leads to the contrary a little bit.
He is wanted for questioning and so far the Swedish have outright refused to question him in England.
Remember the whole idea of wiki leaks is that Governments lie you need to remember that.
Seriously if you want a proper conversation stop calling everyone stupid and crazy if you want a discussion damn well act like it it doesn't help your argument and just pushes this to the level of children.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Y'know, I always find it funny when people call other people names based on allegations posed by someone in "authority" doesn't matter what for, hasn't everyone learned that human beings are generally out for their own personal interests first? This includes people in any position of power moreso even than the common man, as a person in power now has to hold on to their power, and they have all these outside influences shoving bribes and "conditions" at them to try and sway EVERY DAMN DESCISION EVER, of course the system is corrupt, of course we shouldn't trust it, but when they accuse someone of something or even bring up the slightest allegations so many people will jump on the band wagon on either side and fight eachother over it, let it go, some people do things they shouldn't and sometimes the governments of various countries do things that bend or break the rules they "follow"(follow being used in a loose way here as corruption is seemingly a rule in most governments and seems to override all others) to silence a detractor, ESPECIALLY one with a high profile in the public eye, and they will use any allegations they can find to do so, especially if those allegations are unrelated(because that way they don't look mad cunts for doing so, and get to villify the individual in question while they're at it), as far as I'm concerned I don't know the man, but due to his association with opening the lid on a wide variety of corruption with a ton of money behind it, I would be likely to suspect foul play on the part of the authority figures involved, but since I don't know the guy personally I can't speak for or against him in this specific case, so while I may be more likely to favour the idea of the government authorities being in the wrong(due to seeing more than one too many instances of this over the course of my life) I also cannot really side with him either, it's recognizably one of those "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" scenarios, and at least I know that julian as one man can only do so much harm, when I see tons of harm coming from governments all over right down to the very people who rely on them for support and guidance.

I admit, I want to see him win this, but I cannot say whether he's innocent, and I wouldn't go so far as to insinuate anything I cannot prove on either end of this.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Julian Assange is a prick. First of all, the guy EDIT: Is accussed of sexual assaulting two women and refuses to go to court (I first said he did sexually assault them), then he says some bullshit conspiracy theory about being charged in the us, and fucks off to Britain. He isn?t some kind vigilante freedom fighter, the guy just did something illegal and seems to think he?s above the law. Sweden has said explicitly that if he gets taken there they won?t send him to the US. If he?s innocent of sexual assault, then he should fucking go in a court and prove it.

Now all of you may agree with me (probably not?). But the guy gets celebrity endorsements, supporters in anonymous masks outside the embassy, and the help of Ecuador (who are fucking idiots by the way.) I don?t understand at all.

So yeah. Wikileaks is great. Julian Assange is a prick.

EDIT: nice link about misconceptions. Read it all. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

personally id say he's a prick because freedom of press is one thing....stealing information and documents not meant to be released is and should be illegal for the most part.
not to mention handling stolen information knowingly is a crime and there is not telling what damage his style of 'journalism' may cause. it could actually get innocent people hurt.

im not saying that the government should hide bad things they did under the rug, but don't release bullshit that has no importance other than its potentially dangerous to people out for free viewing. people have the right to privacy.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Julian Assange is a prick. First of all, the guy EDIT: Is accussed of sexual assaulting two women and refuses to go to court (I first said he did sexually assault them), then he says some bullshit conspiracy theory about being charged in the us, and fucks off to Britain. He isn?t some kind vigilante freedom fighter, the guy just did something illegal and seems to think he?s above the law. Sweden has said explicitly that if he gets taken there they won?t send him to the US. If he?s innocent of sexual assault, then he should fucking go in a court and prove it.

Now all of you may agree with me (probably not?). But the guy gets celebrity endorsements, supporters in anonymous masks outside the embassy, and the help of Ecuador (who are fucking idiots by the way.) I don?t understand at all.

So yeah. Wikileaks is great. Julian Assange is a prick.

EDIT: nice link about misconceptions. Read it all. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

personally id say he's a prick because freedom of press is one thing....stealing information and documents not meant to be released is and should be illegal for the most part.
not to mention handling stolen information knowingly is a crime and there is not telling what damage his style of 'journalism' may cause. it could actually get innocent people hurt.

im not saying that the government should hide bad things they did under the rug, but don't release bullshit that has no importance other than its potentially dangerous to people out for free viewing. people have the right to privacy.

I find your position to be most curious. First of all he personally does not steal information insiders leak it to him so let's just make that clear. Now with your stance and correct me if I am wrong. You believe that government and corporate secrecy should be kept as such no matter how illegal, or morally objective their action may be?

As for it getting innocent people hurt, please explain? The video of the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians and even a member of the foreign press for example. That shows our troops even runs over corpses knowing they are there when there was no need to. Then it was covered up and the incident lied about until the leak happened to show what truly happened.
The innocents in this case were already hurt, by the very people you seem to wish to shield
by the opposition of the truth coming out.

The leaks are always things that are never innocent. There is some sort of controversial objection to be had with them otherwise they would not be worth leaking. So what is the danger here? Danger of prosecution to the guilty parties? Danger that someone may and rightfully so take action if no one else stands up for what is right against the guilty?

How far do your beliefs even extend to? Is it just limited to government/military and corporations? Or are you even extending this to personal levels? If a man with a family kidnaps and kills a little girl in his shed and you found out, would you not report it? Do you see the man as "innocent" like you seemingly label the guilty parties of the actions revealed in the leaks? In this case I even give you the leeway of actually involving innocents, his family. Would you not report the crime and because it may bring anger and risk to his family?

If you would report the crime then how do you justify your stance on the leaks? You would be doing just the same risk act that you claim makes you against the leaks.

If you don't report the crime then... I don't even have words to express how sickening that would be.

Wrong. My position is that if a corporation of government fucked up they should face the consequences of those actions.
How ever, trivial stuff that doesnt need to be said like info of plans and nuclear secrets do not need to be told to the public unless the government chooses so because it can create a hostile environment, politically, personally, or economically. and in the case of the later two and others i didnt mention, effecting someone on a personal level or a safety or economic level violates there rights as a person which is why journalist have their own responsibility on what they choose to publish and how. this is also why we have laws against slander, libel, defamation of character and privacy.

Plus he may not have personally stolen the information, but he knowingly held it, and published it knowing what it was. that is a crime. that is a felony, a big felony, its the same as knowingly buying and reselling stolen goods, and he should not have done that. And i know the escapist community will be against me on this, but the government does not have to reveal every damn detail of what it does to you and is guarded by constitutional rights as well. Same goes for corporation which is a big business held by who? stock holders. ranging from big millionaires to simple employees making an investment to put little billy in a good school or make house payment. So revealing secrets that are not actually criminal activity to the public can damage sale, deals, and stocks and effect even the little man economic which is a violation of their rights to property or the pursuit of happiness.

So my big problem is not that he reveals secrets, its that he proven to be criminally irresponsible about it. And no, not every secret is a legal issue, but it could be in an individuals best interest, like if a politicians old college photo came up or someone did something not exactly wrong...but embarrassing (lets say for the sake of an argument, said something or did something back in a time that wouldn't fly today) they should be allowed to cover that up to avoid the media blowing it out of proportion even though its neither illegal of morally wrong, just embarrassing. Or maby its its documents about the DEA and plans on how to deal with cartels, you dont want that shit leaking.

So what im saying is that most of the time when releasing ANYTHING, you need to be sure if its worth releasing and/or what kind of consequences it could have on people who or who may not have been involved.

 

[dystopiaINC]

I really don't agree with wikileaks because some things should be kept private. I saw a few of the leaks awhile back and some of the stuff was comments and private communications that were just really embarrassing to have leaked to the public. I see it like this, I'm working at a fast food restaurant, a customer walks in and I can smell him from through the glass front door. and it just gets worse from there he smells like utter crap, but I don't say anything to him. I'm polite and helpful and friendly. by the time he leaves I'm about to puke and I'm not feeling well, I'm actually feeling physically ill, and I'm kind of angry I had to put up with such a nasty individual. (yes this has actually happened to me many times)So what do I do? I vent my frustration and text a friend complaining about how he smelled and I don't use pretty words. Then somebody take those emails and posts those on the internet were this man can see them and know it was me. Now take that same situation and make me a diplomat in another country, and the things I said were about a high ranking person in this country, and he finds out through these leaks, now anything I try to do as part of my job is undermined. It can get ugly and this is the gist of some of the things I saw on wikileaks.

 

[smithy_2045]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

 

[itsthesheppy]

you mention 'we americans' so maybe English isn't your first language?

By the way America is not the center of the English language so surprise other countries exist.
What I was trying to clarify is the general attitude that has come out of the american media and the major amount of spin that has come out.
Looking at the history of Whistleblowing you should see a pattern of Sex charges to discredit any one that speaks out hell you don't have to look far Craig Murray who is at the Ecuador embassy was in the exact same situation sex charges after whistle blowing.
What I am saying is that you have to take it with a grain of salt.

We don't know whether or not he assaulted those two women because he's fleeing from an arrest warrant that would bring him to court to answer the charges.

Umm never said he was charged that last word may have got me a little confused sorry if that last sentence leads to the contrary a little bit.
He is wanted for questioning and so far the Swedish have outright refused to question him in England.
Remember the whole idea of wiki leaks is that Governments lie you need to remember that.
Seriously if you want a proper conversation stop calling everyone stupid and crazy if you want a discussion damn well act like it it doesn't help your argument and just pushes this to the level of children.

Oh god more conspiracy theories.

Unless you have evidence on hand that says that Sweden is cooking all of this up to oppress him, I'm not interested in wishful speculation.

Arrest Warrant. Filed Lawfully. On accusation of rape. Everything else; all this business about there being a conspiracy to nab him over wikileaks, or that the charges are cooked up, or any of that other stuff, is baseless conspiracy theorizing.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Well, I get why Assange does not want the US to get a hold of him. Guantanamo is still open as far as I recall...

 

[Stu35]

Umm never said he was charged that last word may have got me a little confused sorry if that last sentence leads to the contrary a little bit.
He is wanted for questioning and so far the Swedish have outright refused to question him in England.

For the THIRD time this thread:

No, he is NOT wanted 'for questioning' he is wanted 'for arrest'.

There is a difference. This is why he cannot be interviewed whilst hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy.

?The Swedes should interview Assange in London?
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange?s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or ?indictment?). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.

Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor?s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:

140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:

"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.

"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not ?disproportionate? as submitted by Assange?s lawyers:

160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.

The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.

Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.

 

[smithy_2045]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.