[POLITICS] Julian Assange Arrested

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The fact that Wikileaks has never had to retract a story speaks volumes to me. Yes, he used information for partisan goals. Can one truly claim no other news organization does the same? I doubt it. At least his site was actually using facts and not made up conspiracy theories to excuse Hillary losing to herself.

Also, Assange is someone who Chelsea Manning is risked going back to jail in order to protect, and she's a genuine hero, so he can't be all that bad.

It isn't that WikiLeaks "didn't retract a story" it is that WikiLeaks would not retract a story regardless of it being factual. Don't you remember them releasing doctored emails being an issue already? Assange didn't care if they were doctored or not.

"I've looked at a lot of document dumps provided by hacker groups over the years, and in almost every case you can find a few altered or entirely falsified documents," said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global. "But only a few."

"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University's Global Security Initiative, citing Russia's long history of spreading disinformation.

Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at King's College London.
A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled "Pay to Play."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/

For Assange it was not about whether the information was accurate or not, it was about whether it suited his agenda.

 

[Agema]

If you want to talk extradition to the USA, then sure: Assange merits a lot of consideration in terms of normal whistleblowing type rules in terms of revealing criminal conduct.

But that still doesn't excuse him seeking to evade the process of law in Sweden and the UK on other offences by exploiting the fact he's rich and famous.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The fact that Wikileaks has never had to retract a story speaks volumes to me. Yes, he used information for partisan goals. Can one truly claim no other news organization does the same? I doubt it. At least his site was actually using facts and not made up conspiracy theories to excuse Hillary losing to herself.

Also, Assange is someone who Chelsea Manning is risked going back to jail in order to protect, and she's a genuine hero, so he can't be all that bad.

It isn't that WikiLeaks "didn't retract a story" it is that WikiLeaks would not retract a story regardless of it being factual. Don't you remember them releasing doctored emails being an issue already? Assange didn't care if they were doctored or not.

"I've looked at a lot of document dumps provided by hacker groups over the years, and in almost every case you can find a few altered or entirely falsified documents," said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global. "But only a few."

"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University's Global Security Initiative, citing Russia's long history of spreading disinformation.

Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at King's College London.
A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled "Pay to Play."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/

For Assange it was not about whether the information was accurate or not, it was about whether it suited his agenda.

I flatly dispute the emails being doctored. The Hillary campaign refused to go through the emails and clarify which were legitimate or not and they were allowed the opportunity so that to me speaks volumes. They just want to have the excuse that (some of) the emails are faked so that they can apply it to the ones that are not but are still highly incriminating. If they won't take it upon themselves to correct the record, Wikileaks definitely has no obligation to do so.

The fact that the dnc leadership resigned right after their release tells me that they were not fake.

If you want to talk extradition to the USA, then sure: Assange merits a lot of consideration in terms of normal whistleblowing type rules in terms of revealing criminal conduct.

But that still doesn't excuse him seeking to evade the process of law in Sweden and the UK on other offences by exploiting the fact he's rich and famous.

Weren't his charges in Sweden that he raped a woman because they had consensual sex but he didn't tell her he had an std or something due to a change in Swedish law that defines rape more broadly? Also, weren't they dropped? How did he evade anything?

Posts like this make him sound like Roman Polansky which is very sneaky.

 

[Baffle]

Weren't his charges in Sweden that he raped a woman because they had consensual sex but he didn't tell her he had an std or something due to a change in Swedish law that defines rape more broadly? Also, weren't they dropped? How did he evade anything?

He hid in the embassy until the clock ran out on the charge: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

"Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion against Mr Assange because they have run out of time to question him."

That's pretty much how he evaded something. Same with the rape case - they had to drop it as they couldn't formally notify him of it, which they have to do. Though I understand they're reopening (or planning to reopen) the rape case.

 

[Agema]

Weren't his charges in Sweden that he raped a woman because they had consensual sex but he didn't tell her he had an std or something due to a change in Swedish law that defines rape more broadly? Also, weren't they dropped? How did he evade anything?

Posts like this make him sound like Roman Polansky which is very sneaky.

The law has the right to make you do things like turn up and face due process. By trying to stop this happening, you are evading the law. By ducking into the Ecuadorian embassy, he was evading the Swedish laws by refusing to return and be interviewed about crimes he was accused of. In the process of absconding he also broke British law, thus spending nearly seven years evading British law as well.

Some of the crimes he was accused of in Sweden he now could not be prosecuted for, because he managed to evade the law so long the statute of limitations ran out. So if he had committed them, he's effectively got away with them by default.

And imagine you or I were accused of sexual assault and attempted to claim asylum in an embassy. They'd laugh in our faces and turf us straight out back onto the street. But Assange is wealthy and influential, so he got different rules.

I have no idea or opinion on whether he committed sexual assault, and I'm sympathetic to him with regard to the accusations from the USA. But in terms of breaking the law by attempting to evade it... no sympathy at all.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Weren't his charges in Sweden that he raped a woman because they had consensual sex but he didn't tell her he had an std or something due to a change in Swedish law that defines rape more broadly? Also, weren't they dropped? How did he evade anything?

Posts like this make him sound like Roman Polansky which is very sneaky.

The law has the right to make you do things like turn up and face due process. By trying to stop this happening, you are evading the law. By ducking into the Ecuadorian embassy, he was evading the Swedish laws by refusing to return and be interviewed about crimes he was accused of. In the process of absconding he also broke British law, thus spending nearly seven years evading British law as well.

Some of the crimes he was accused of in Sweden he now could not be prosecuted for, because he managed to evade the law so long the statute of limitations ran out. So if he had committed them, he's effectively got away with them by default.

And imagine you or I were accused of sexual assault and attempted to claim asylum in an embassy. They'd laugh in our faces and turf us straight out back onto the street. But Assange is wealthy and influential, so he got different rules.

I have no idea or opinion on whether he committed sexual assault, and I'm sympathetic to him with regard to the accusations from the USA. But in terms of breaking the law by attempting to evade it... no sympathy at all.

He was already in hiding for his life before the charges surfaced, that he continued to remain there was due to him fearing extradition, not due to him wanting to evade arrest. Furthermore, the charges were withdrawn, he didn't just wait for them to expire. The accuser chose to stop pursuing them.

Also, it's very convenient to get someone to accuse him of such a crime with such a convenient timing, just as they were realizing he could remain in the embassy forever and they'd never get him. If Hillary joked (but not really) about assassinating him when she was in Obama's governement I can't put this ploy past them either.

This to me screams character assassination, getting someone from a country with definitions of rape that don't exist in America accuse him of rape for consensual sex because he didn't outright disclose he had an STD while people who hear about it think he actually had sex without consent in the US. It's propaganda.

Weren't his charges in Sweden that he raped a woman because they had consensual sex but he didn't tell her he had an std or something due to a change in Swedish law that defines rape more broadly? Also, weren't they dropped? How did he evade anything?

He hid in the embassy until the clock ran out on the charge: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

"Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion against Mr Assange because they have run out of time to question him."

That's pretty much how he evaded something. Same with the rape case - they had to drop it as they couldn't formally notify him of it, which they have to do. Though I understand they're reopening (or planning to reopen) the rape case.

That's a catch-22. Either he faces the charges and they also end up extraditing him for the other stuff unrelated to this (related to wikileaks) or he avoids them and they smear him as though he's someone like Roman Polanski.

I will not support such a tactic, ever. Whoever deploys it is the one I'll be suspicious of, by default.

 

[Baffle]

That's a catch-22. Either he faces the charges and they also end up extraditing him for the other stuff unrelated to this (related to wikileaks) or he avoids them and they smear him as though he's someone like Roman Polanski.

He may well be someone like Roman Polanski; we can't tell because he refused to face the charges (that is, he evaded them, as noted).

 

[Agema]

He was already in hiding for his life before the charges surfaced, that he continued to remain there was due to him fearing extradition, not due to him wanting to evade arrest. Furthermore, the charges were withdrawn, he didn't just wait for them to expire. The accuser chose to stop pursuing them.

No he wasn't. He lived in Sweden for a while, and was openly living in the UK for a while before the extradition request from Sweden rolled in. And the UK has some of the easiest extradition rules in the world when the USA wants someone: Britain is just about the stupidest place anyone worried about being extradited to the USA would ever go.

Also, it's very convenient to get someone to accuse him of such a crime...

Dude. You really need to read up the timeline of events because you've got it very wrong.

He was accused of sexual assault in late 2010, dragged an extradition challenge through the UK courts and fled to the embassy mid-2012 when the extradition was finally upheld. Christ. Had he just gone to Sweden, assuming he were innocent, the investigation would have just run its course and he'd probably have been free to do as he pleased before Christmas 2010.

This to me screams character assassination, getting someone from a country with definitions of rape that don't exist in America accuse him of rape for consensual sex because he didn't outright disclose he had an STD while people who hear about it think he actually had sex without consent in the US. It's propaganda.

And you evidently don't know what he was actually accused of, either.

The accusations were that he had consensual sex initially, but later had sex by coercion and/or whilst the victim was asleep. Both are crimes in the USA too.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

That's a catch-22. Either he faces the charges and they also end up extraditing him for the other stuff unrelated to this (related to wikileaks) or he avoids them and they smear him as though he's someone like Roman Polanski.

He may well be someone like Roman Polanski; we can't tell because he refused to face the charges (that is, he evaded them, as noted).

When facing your charges means risking being extradited to the US and facing the death penalty, it's not really evading any longer, it's just protecting your life.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

When facing your charges means risking being extradited to the US and facing the death penalty, it's not really evading any longer, it's just protecting your life.

Uh, no. That's still evading the law. If he was truly trying to "protect his life" then why'd he stay in the UK of all places?

 

[Avnger]

That's a catch-22. Either he faces the charges and they also end up extraditing him for the other stuff unrelated to this (related to wikileaks) or he avoids them and they smear him as though he's someone like Roman Polanski.

He may well be someone like Roman Polanski; we can't tell because he refused to face the charges (that is, he evaded them, as noted).

When facing your charges means risking being extradited to the US and facing the death penalty, it's not really evading any longer, it's just protecting your life.

Except the UK is legally mandated to not extradite a prisoner if they could face death and/or torture[footnote]as defined under international and UK law, so things like solitary confinement don't count.[/footnote]. So that's not an excuse at all...

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The fact that Wikileaks has never had to retract a story speaks volumes to me. Yes, he used information for partisan goals. Can one truly claim no other news organization does the same? I doubt it. At least his site was actually using facts and not made up conspiracy theories to excuse Hillary losing to herself.

Also, Assange is someone who Chelsea Manning is risked going back to jail in order to protect, and she's a genuine hero, so he can't be all that bad.

It isn't that WikiLeaks "didn't retract a story" it is that WikiLeaks would not retract a story regardless of it being factual. Don't you remember them releasing doctored emails being an issue already? Assange didn't care if they were doctored or not.

"I've looked at a lot of document dumps provided by hacker groups over the years, and in almost every case you can find a few altered or entirely falsified documents," said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global. "But only a few."

"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University's Global Security Initiative, citing Russia's long history of spreading disinformation.

Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at King's College London.
A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled "Pay to Play."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/

For Assange it was not about whether the information was accurate or not, it was about whether it suited his agenda.

I flatly dispute the emails being doctored. The Hillary campaign refused to go through the emails and clarify which were legitimate or not and they were allowed the opportunity so that to me speaks volumes. They just want to have the excuse that (some of) the emails are faked so that they can apply it to the ones that are not but are still highly incriminating. If they won't take it upon themselves to correct the record, Wikileaks definitely has no obligation to do so.

The fact that the dnc leadership resigned right after their release tells me that they were not fake.

If you want to talk extradition to the USA, then sure: Assange merits a lot of consideration in terms of normal whistleblowing type rules in terms of revealing criminal conduct.

But that still doesn't excuse him seeking to evade the process of law in Sweden and the UK on other offences by exploiting the fact he's rich and famous.

Weren't his charges in Sweden that he raped a woman because they had consensual sex but he didn't tell her he had an std or something due to a change in Swedish law that defines rape more broadly? Also, weren't they dropped? How did he evade anything?

Posts like this make him sound like Roman Polansky which is very sneaky.

You are attempting to to say you actually know better than the security analysts listed above that already stated they were doctored due to what they found by analyzing them? Why were the undoctored emails not released instead of the doctored ones, and why did they feel it necessary to change some of the information the analysts found to have been changed? Simply because the Clinton Campaign chose not to address them at all does not in any way mean they were not doctored, it simply means they chose not to address stolen and doctored information that was illegally obtained by a foreign government publicly. You act as if they should be forced to address it, and there is no reason that they should tbh. Prior to Trumps's "talking out of his arse about shat he knows nothing about" problem, it is considered pretty standard for politicians to not address such things publicly.

Information pertaining to Debbie very well could have merit and that does not in any way show that some of the information was not doctored, as they already showed that the dates and sources are not even accurate on some of the claimed information. You wanting to believe that wikileaks and Russian hackers are of such upstanding moral character to be above doctoring emails they illegally hacked into and stole from others to promoted their own agenda does not make it factually correct, it just means you want to believe that more than you want to believe what actual security analysts are telling you about said information after they examined it.

EDIT: In addition, you stated Wikileaks is under no obligation to correct the record, while you also stated that you believe that Wikileaks is credible due to not retracting any information above. You do realize that means Wikileaks is under no obligation to tell the truth, yet you think that means they are credible. That does not even make sense. It just sounds like you want to believe them regardless of what is the actual truth either way.

Your desire for it to be true =\= it being actually true.

 

[Terminal Blue]

This to me screams character assassination, getting someone from a country with definitions of rape that don't exist in America accuse him of rape for consensual sex because he didn't outright disclose he had an STD while people who hear about it think he actually had sex without consent in the US. It's propaganda.

Oh my god, the irony..

Okay, so two women Assange had sex with in Sweden went to the police to try and find him and ask him to get tested for STIs. The police couldn't do anything for them, but took statements from them anyway. Based on those statements, the police decided to open a criminal investigation into several possible crimes which were described in those statements, although the women at the time did not believe they had been victims of a crime. Much of the media response to the case has focused on this factor, and the fact that the two women didn't break of contact with Assange immediately. But this is actually incredibly common in sexual assault cases where people often have a warped perception of what does and does not qualify as criminal, and don't always understand their own rights.

So, according to the testimony of one woman, she allowed Assange to stay in her flat. They went out on a date, then went back to said flat. Although she was comfortable sleeping with him, she was alarmed when Assange forcefully undressed and restrained her (while she tried to stop him) and attempted to have unprotected sex with her. She managed to convince him to use a condom, but she claims he tampered with it, which caused it to break, but Assange continued to have sex with her regardless despite, she alleges, knowing that the condom was broken and that she did not want to have unprotected sex.

The second woman met Assange during his visit. After a date, they went back to her flat and had sex, during which Assange reluctantly agreed to use a condom after an argument. The next day, she woke up to find him having sex with her. She asked if he was wearing a condom, and he said no. She let him continue because she didn't want to have another argument about it.

The point in both cases is that, assuming these statements are true, Assange was entirely aware that his partners did not want to have unprotected sex, but beyond attempting to pressure them (which is shitty, but not criminal) he actively took steps to manipulate the situation so that he could ignore their preferences. That is the criminal mentality that constitutes a sexual offence, knowing that someone does not want something and doing it anyway because you think, or know, you can get away with it.

Sexual consent, in a modern legal system, applies on an act by act basis. The fact that these women consented to have sex with Assange does not mean they consented to perform any sex act he might want. Protected and unprotected intercouse is a different act from a legal standpoint. The fact that they did not instantly perceive their experiences as criminal also doesn't mean anything, despite forming much of the basis of the character assassination against them. You do not have to know the law to be a victim of a crime.

Now, it's possible the statements were not true or, more likely, that they were partial accounts of one person's perception of a complex situation. But there is sufficient evidence there to warrant a criminal investigation. There would be sufficient evidence in the US, or the UK, or any country with a functioning legal system.

The irony is that you're complaining about the "character assassination" of Julian Assange while also making bizarre claims about the substance of his allegations which directly slander and "character assassinate" his alleged victims. That is perhaps the most revealing indication of your actual commitment to justice here.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

This to me screams character assassination, getting someone from a country with definitions of rape that don't exist in America accuse him of rape for consensual sex because he didn't outright disclose he had an STD while people who hear about it think he actually had sex without consent in the US. It's propaganda.

Oh my god, the irony..

Okay, so two women Assange had sex with in Sweden went to the police to try and find him and ask him to get tested for STIs. The police couldn't do anything for them, but took statements from them anyway. Based on those statements, the police decided to open a criminal investigation into several possible crimes which were described in those statements, although the women at the time did not believe they had been victims of a crime. Much of the media response to the case has focused on this factor, and the fact that the two women didn't break of contact with Assange immediately. But this is actually incredibly common in sexual assault cases where people often have a warped perception of what does and does not qualify as criminal, and don't always understand their own rights.

So, according to the testimony of one woman, she allowed Assange to stay in her flat. They went out on a date, then went back to said flat. Although she was comfortable sleeping with him, she was alarmed when Assange forcefully undressed and restrained her (while she tried to stop him) and attempted to have unprotected sex with her. She managed to convince him to use a condom, but she claims he tampered with it, which caused it to break, but Assange continued to have sex with her regardless despite, she alleges, knowing that the condom was broken and that she did not want to have unprotected sex.

The second woman met Assange during his visit. After a date, they went back to her flat and had sex, during which Assange reluctantly agreed to use a condom after an argument. The next day, she woke up to find him having sex with her. She asked if he was wearing a condom, and he said no. She let him continue because she didn't want to have another argument about it.

The point in both cases is that, assuming these statements are true, Assange was entirely aware that his partners did not want to have unprotected sex, but beyond attempting to pressure them (which is shitty, but not criminal) he actively took steps to manipulate the situation so that he could ignore their preferences. That is the criminal mentality that constitutes a sexual offence, knowing that someone does not want something and doing it anyway because you think, or know, you can get away with it.

Sexual consent, in a modern legal system, applies on an act by act basis. The fact that these women consented to have sex with Assange does not mean they consented to perform any sex act he might want. Protected and unprotected intercouse is a different act from a legal standpoint. The fact that they did not instantly perceive their experiences as criminal also doesn't mean anything, despite forming much of the basis of the character assassination against them. You do not have to know the law to be a victim of a crime.

Now, it's possible the statements were not true or, more likely, that they were partial accounts of one person's perception of a complex situation. But there is sufficient evidence there to warrant a criminal investigation. There would be sufficient evidence in the US, or the UK, or any country with a functioning legal system.

The irony is that you're complaining about the "character assassination" of Julian Assange and making bizarre claims about the substance of his allegations which directly slander and "character assassinate" his alleged victims. That is perhaps the most revealing indication of your actual commitment to justice here.

In addition it is typically illegal, civilly and criminally, to knowingly or recklessly transmit an STD.

If he knew he had an STD and had unprotected sex with someone without telling them he had an STD then yes, he should be brought up on criminal charges of knowingly infecting someone with an STD.

 

[Schadrach]

So, it turned out those "insurance files" data includes a huge amount of unredacted information about ordinary people involved in criminal proceedings or in debt, including the names and personal details of rape victims and people with gay-sex convictions in Saudi Arabia which could be used to identify and locate them. Who was surprised?

Did a new insurance file get opened, or was it the one that had the password released to a journalist from the Guardian by a former member of Wikileaks several years ago?

Because as a general rule, the claim regarding the insurance files for specific releases is that they supposedly contain the raw data of the leak, before any real examination or redaction. The idea being you either let us go through this and release it, or you get an uncontrolled release of the full thing.

There's another one that's supposed to be revealed should there be a threat to the organization itself, not tied to trying to prevent a specific release.

He hid in the embassy until the clock ran out on the charge: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

"Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion against Mr Assange because they have run out of time to question him."

That's pretty much how he evaded something. Same with the rape case - they had to drop it as they couldn't formally notify him of it, which they have to do. Though I understand they're reopening (or planning to reopen) the rape case.

More specifically they were investigated, dropped, picked back up after Assange went to the UK, then one of them was dropped because the clock ran out and the other was dropped again after Assange was questioned about it while he was in the embassy. Now, if they reopen it again, that would be something.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

More specifically they were investigated, dropped, picked back up after Assange went to the UK, then one of them was dropped because the clock ran out and the other was dropped again after Assange was questioned about it while he was in the embassy. Now, if they reopen it again, that would be something.

Swedish media has already reported on the prosecutor wanting to re-open it, now that Assange can actually be extradited to be put on trial.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

This to me screams character assassination, getting someone from a country with definitions of rape that don't exist in America accuse him of rape for consensual sex because he didn't outright disclose he had an STD while people who hear about it think he actually had sex without consent in the US. It's propaganda.

Oh my god, the irony..

Okay, so two women Assange had sex with in Sweden went to the police to try and find him and ask him to get tested for STIs. The police couldn't do anything for them, but took statements from them anyway. Based on those statements, the police decided to open a criminal investigation into several possible crimes which were described in those statements, although the women at the time did not believe they had been victims of a crime. Much of the media response to the case has focused on this factor, and the fact that the two women didn't break of contact with Assange immediately. But this is actually incredibly common in sexual assault cases where people often have a warped perception of what does and does not qualify as criminal, and don't always understand their own rights.

So, according to the testimony of one woman, she allowed Assange to stay in her flat. They went out on a date, then went back to said flat. Although she was comfortable sleeping with him, she was alarmed when Assange forcefully undressed and restrained her (while she tried to stop him) and attempted to have unprotected sex with her. She managed to convince him to use a condom, but she claims he tampered with it, which caused it to break, but Assange continued to have sex with her regardless despite, she alleges, knowing that the condom was broken and that she did not want to have unprotected sex.

The second woman met Assange during his visit. After a date, they went back to her flat and had sex, during which Assange reluctantly agreed to use a condom after an argument. The next day, she woke up to find him having sex with her. She asked if he was wearing a condom, and he said no. She let him continue because she didn't want to have another argument about it.

The point in both cases is that, assuming these statements are true, Assange was entirely aware that his partners did not want to have unprotected sex, but beyond attempting to pressure them (which is shitty, but not criminal) he actively took steps to manipulate the situation so that he could ignore their preferences. That is the criminal mentality that constitutes a sexual offence, knowing that someone does not want something and doing it anyway because you think, or know, you can get away with it.

Sexual consent, in a modern legal system, applies on an act by act basis. The fact that these women consented to have sex with Assange does not mean they consented to perform any sex act he might want. Protected and unprotected intercouse is a different act from a legal standpoint. The fact that they did not instantly perceive their experiences as criminal also doesn't mean anything, despite forming much of the basis of the character assassination against them. You do not have to know the law to be a victim of a crime.

Now, it's possible the statements were not true or, more likely, that they were partial accounts of one person's perception of a complex situation. But there is sufficient evidence there to warrant a criminal investigation. There would be sufficient evidence in the US, or the UK, or any country with a functioning legal system.

The irony is that you're complaining about the "character assassination" of Julian Assange while also making bizarre claims about the substance of his allegations which directly slander and "character assassinate" his alleged victims. That is perhaps the most revealing indication of your actual commitment to justice here.

So, when did this rape happen exactly? During the time he had sex with her before she awoke to give begrudging consent or throughout the incident? Cause your description is fuzzy. In my eyes, her giving consent absolves him as it was all one act. Even if the consent comes in the middle it still applies to that same act.


Anyhow, I'm not assassinating the character of the victims, since as YOU just said they did not seek prosecution. It was the AUTHORITIES that CHOSE to do so. It was their discretion to seek punishment.

My contention here is that this act is in effect a ruse. Them trying to find the flimsiest of grounds to smear wikileaks by association. If I'm impugning anyone's character it is of those prosecutors, not of the alleged victims.


I think that a lot of people here are being useful idiots to the establishment, letting it trick them through their use of poundmetoo ideology into sabotaging the freedom of their press.

My contention here is that Assange is a victim of false accusations motivated by politics. I'll choose to believe the victim.

 

[Abomination]

My contention here is that Assange is a victim of false accusations motivated by politics. I'll choose to believe the victim.

I have to agree with this hypothesis. When someone is an opponent of those in power, do not be surprised when they are character assassinated for "lesser" crimes than treason.

If the government being whistleblown on was not the US or some other corrupt nation I would probably swing the other way - but not in this case. People are trying to play a zero sum game using ra-- sex while possessing an STD vs. war crimes to discredit Assange's whistleblowing.

 

[Saelune]

My contention here is that Assange is a victim of false accusations motivated by politics. I'll choose to believe the victim.

By this logic, Assange is the bad guy still, and Hillary Clinton is the one you should feel bad for.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

My contention here is that Assange is a victim of false accusations motivated by politics. I'll choose to believe the victim.

By this logic, Assange is the bad guy still, and Hillary Clinton is the one you should feel bad for.

If she had campaigned in every state and actually picked a progressive VP and so on then maybe you'd have a point. I think she ran her campaign so bad that it's silly to blame wikileaks for anything. I think if a guy in an embassy in London can make you lose an election you spent a billion dollars on there's a lot of other things going wrong in there too so whatever did or didn't happen it was ultimately negligible.