Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interpol Issues Wanted Notice For Julian Assange

Comments Filter:
  • Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cinderellamanson (1850702) <cinderellamanson@gmail . c om> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:09PM (#34398086) Homepage

    This seems to be blatant character assassination and should be beneath an international political body.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:17PM (#34398180) Journal

    There's a difference between not treating women with respect and raping them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:17PM (#34398186)

    You can tell from the progress against human trafficking ... rare to never.

  • Re:scary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wampus (1932) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:19PM (#34398206)

    Fabricating a sexual assault case is a whole lot harder than a bunch of much more effective ways to make him go away forever. People get killed in automobile accidents all the damn time.

  • I applaud Assange (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bogaboga (793279) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:19PM (#34398214)

    One thing I respect that dude for, is his ambition. Not even the 'strongest' nation on earth could derail him. Think about that for a second.

    A quote I remember in one interview he had with the BBC...

    "I get personal satisfaction when I expose what governments have denied the citizens they represent and will continue to do so till the very end."

    This dude is one hell of a dude. I wonder what governments really fear if all they are doing is 'doing good' as they say.

    One thing for sure: We now know what many governments were thinking despite the public rhetoric. I personally cannot wait for the financial documents to be exposed. My hunch...BoA.

  • by offrdbandit (1331649) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:21PM (#34398248)
    Our Justice Department is lead by a cowardly ideologue.
  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:22PM (#34398252)

    There's a difference between not treating women with respect and raping them.

    Apparently not in Sweden...

  • Re:scary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:24PM (#34398270) Homepage Journal

    If he suddenly dropped off the face of the earth it would just create a martyr out of him, something you cant fight. If he gets smeared into oblivion as a sick pervo that doesn't care about anyone else but himself its much less risky

  • Re:scary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by g4c (919548) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:24PM (#34398272)
    I don't think the goal is to make him go away. I think the goal is to publicly discredit him so Ma and Pa Amerkin will never listen to the information he releases that paints the U.S. government in a negative light. Given the stigma attached to sex crimes in the U.S., I think it is the perfect vehicle to try to discredit somebody. You never have to be charged or convicted to be considered guilty of sex crimes here. It is enough to be accused.
  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:26PM (#34398286)
    I applaud the government for not going after Assange. Any remotely free government should have first off released all the info that Assange has released first off, and secondly should admit to being wrong when it does break out. The only person that should be punished should be the US government.
  • Re:scary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:27PM (#34398296)

    If he ends up with a couple bullets in his head like Gerald Bull did, he won't be a martyr, he will be a footnote that there will be investigative documentaries about.

    "Julian Assange...oh yea, that dude that pissed off the wrong people and ended up dead in London...I think he had a website."

  • by jhoegl (638955) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:27PM (#34398302)
    Citation please... Or is that your opinion because of what he does.
  • Re:scary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:29PM (#34398314)

    If he suddenly dropped off the face of the earth it would just create a martyr out of him

    You mean except for the fact that especially in the US that most people despise him and Wikileaks and would be happy if he was killed?

  • Re:scary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:30PM (#34398328) Homepage

    Yeah, if I were him I'd avoid going anywhere right now. Homes aren't safe either, but they beat traveling. In fact, he probably is doing exactly that, considering he's cautious bordering on paranoid.

    Still, even if it were easier to murder Assange than to make charges stick, it would very much add to Wikileaks' credibility, moral high ground and popularity. Assange is already a popular hero; making him a martyr as well would be a stupid move.

  • KinkiLeaks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sanman2 (928866) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:32PM (#34398358)

    Does anybody remember that time some guy hid a camera in the gym that Princess Di was going to, and recorded her doing thigh contraction exercises?

    Some news show got revenge on him by inviting the guy over for an interview, while secretly hiding a camera in his hotel room, where they recorded him wanking off to a porn video offered on the hotel TV.

    So the moral of the story is that if you like to pry open the secrets of others, then others can pry open your secrets too. Turnabout is fairplay. Just because you're a crusader with a camera, pen, laptop, or website, doesn't mean you're above being reported on. Comes with the territory - you gotta be able to take it, if you wanna dish it out.

    I don't mind reading about Julian Assange's sex life. Enquiring minds wanna know.

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:33PM (#34398380)

    Well for one thing, when one considers some recent judgments relating to copyright law in Sweden they can have the impression that it has become the lap dog of the United States.

    Assange seems entirely willing to be interviewed, just not in person for fear of getting a bullet in the head on his way to the courthouse.

    The funny thing is how the U.S. and other countries think smearing Assange like this is going to do anything other than make him out to be a martyr... he'll be replaced just as quickly as he disappears.

  • What the fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:35PM (#34398408)

    Why is this story filled with assinine comments like this?

    Did you miss the part where Assange offered, through his lawyer, several times, to be interviewed by these prosecutors before he had left Sweden? And they weren't interested?

    There's no reason for them to go after him now, other than this:

    Wikileaks is releasing lots of shit that makes governments around the world look bad, and they apparently feel the need to DISTRACT PEOPLE with these trumped-up "sex" crime accusations, and try to smear Assange any way they can.

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MoonBuggy (611105) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:35PM (#34398412) Journal

    If he really was innocent why wouldn't he talk to the authorities?

    I'm not saying he is innocent - I don't think we have enough information to decide in either direction, although the manner in which the initial warrant was produced, then voided, then reproduced does seem a little sketchy - but he has perfectly good reason to be wary of hopping on a plane and putting himself in the hands of the police. It's by no means unreasonable for him to believe he'd find himself thrown in a cell somewhere in the custody of someone he's pissed off. The US, for instance, want him on espionage charges - apparently they're unlikely to stick, but for someone who's caused as much embarrassment as Assange I can quite easily see this resulting in two or three years in a cell while they come to a conclusion one way or another.

    All that said, though, he's courted publicity and then gone into hiding, which I'd say is a bad move. Either rely on anonymity or on your high profile - you can't have it both ways. As the Guardian article mentions, there are many (myself included) who think that on balance he'd be better off facing his accusation in as public a forum as he can make.

  • by g4c (919548) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:36PM (#34398426)
    The way I see it, governments kill all kinds of people directly and indirectly in secret--and the U.S. has a particularly rich history of this. As such, I want every government's secrets to be plastered everywhere. The number of people that may conceivably die as a result of these leaks is absolutely nothing compared to what has been done in secret for decades. Of course, I'm a pacifist and an anarchist, so I consider the idea of having to balance secrecy and disclosure so that the state can continue to exist in its preferred form (I believe it's called "national security") kind of moot. YMMV.
  • Re:This is scary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by euphemistic (1850880) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:41PM (#34398484)

    I don't understand - the condom broke in the middle so she asked him to stop, he didn't - and that's rape?

    Yes. If anyone in the middle of sexual intercourse says stop, you have to stop. If you choose to disregard this direct request, it's rape or at the very least sexual assault - no matter what point during intercourse it happens.

    Anyway, I have no clue whether these things happened or not, all I know is that Assange is in a world of trouble regardless. He has chosen one dangerous road.

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dondelelcaro (81997) <don@donarmstrong.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:41PM (#34398498) Homepage Journal

    If he really was innocent why wouldn't he talk to the authorities? His lawyer claims he'd talk to the authorities via skype, the Swedish Embassy in London

    You're the head of an organization which has managed to seriously piss off a few dozen countries. You have personally read and dealt with many documents which indicate that the countries you have angered routinely ignore their own rules when it suits their national interests. You are now being asked to place yourself in the custody of a country which has ties to (or is one of) the countries whose secrets you have exposed, and seems to be under serious pressure to make you go away.

    What would you do?

    I know I'd personally try to maintain my own personal security for as long as possible, while trying to resolve the situtation through public, legal means, even if I was certain that the acts in question were consensual.

  • Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oldhack (1037484) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:43PM (#34398512)

    Well, that answers the question of Sweden being the US stooge.

    I was gonna write "our stooge", but I'm ambivalent on this one, as I am ambivalent about the disclosure of secret diplomatic cables.

    Assange might be an asshole, but I want this guy protected.

  • Re:This is scary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koreaman (835838) <uman@umanwizard.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:43PM (#34398530)

    Of course it's rape; is that a serious question?

  • Good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TimeOut42 (314783) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:02PM (#34398796) Homepage

    He's a menace..... He thinks he's opening up communications and transparency. He's wrong, he'll just drive it deeper and encourage tighter controls and less information sharing across all industries and in government. He's also encouraged a number of people to co-opt their values for his child-like vision of a utopian society of no private information.

    TimeOut

  • Re:What the fuck? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:03PM (#34398808)

    Did you miss the part where Assange offered, through his lawyer, several times, to be interviewed by these prosecutors before he had left Sweden? And they weren't interested?

    There's no reason for them to go after him now, other than this:

    Did you miss the part about him being told to make himself available for questioning if needed? Or him leaving the country after having been told to keep in contact with the Swedish authorities?

    Since he, no doubt, read in the papers recently that a judge had been asked to request Interpol to bring him in for questioning, he should have had enough sense to get his lawyer and show up on his own, rather than waiting for the EU equivalent of the Feds to be sent after his ass....

  • Re:KinkiLeaks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Steeltoe (98226) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:03PM (#34398814) Homepage

    Actually, I'm much more interested what's going on behind closed doors in banks, financial institutes, Swedish courthouses and parliaments, than this guy's sex life. You've bought the "government" diversion hook, line and sinker my friend.

    Who's watching the watchers? Swedish surveillance on Skandinavian citizens' internet activity, how much money did this require? How much access do politicians have to USA and EU spy datacenters?

    Enquiring minds wants to know..

  • Re:Legit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whereiswaldo (459052) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:06PM (#34398842) Journal

    If he wanted a long, heathy and happy life, he could've remained in obscurity like all of us. I doubt that's his goal.

    There's a lot of ways to look at these leaks, and one of them is a wake up call to the people of the world of what goes on and how things are run (it's a lot more "high school" than I ever would have guessed).

    Things need to change.

  • Sex Crimes? (Lame) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LifesABeach (234436) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:12PM (#34398888)
    With all the resources of this planet available, and this is the best law enforcement can come up with? Ah, the good old days when the justice department could rationalise the rhetoric of, "it's for the children", or my personal favorite, "doing ... helps terrorists."
  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:12PM (#34398900)
    Considering that she's accused him of purposefully breaking the condom after finding out that he was having sex with somebody else, I think she doesn't deserve a whole lot of respect.

    Honestly, a good suggestion is that if you don't want to be treated like trash, perhaps you ought not to act like trash.
  • by Steeltoe (98226) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:13PM (#34398910) Homepage

    Naw, this is blown out of proportion. He might disappear though, to be on the safe side. It's rather ridiculous, like a book, like "1984" by George Orwell, or something like that, but there you have it.

    In 20 years, we will hear he's died from natural causes and went mad in the last years, like Fischer.

    In the meanwhile, he can serve as our society's Enemy. It's convenient for authorities to create such Enemies, like Obama Bin Laden. They don't really exist, because in reality they are not that powerful as our Overlords, but they're very convenient for them to divert our attention to something that is not really important.

    Oh look, someone's alleged of sex-abuse. They've not charged him, since both the girls rather enjoyed it, but they still wanna question him, just not when he agrees to it.

    Something is very very rotten here..

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:17PM (#34398964)

    well in the world I've you really don't get to dictate the terms of your questioning with the police.

    He is no longer located in Sweden. He left the country after being told he was free to go. Would you voluntarily travel to another country that had some interest in arresting you? Let's say you were accused by Chinese authorities of helping dissidents in Tibet. Would you travel to China and hand yourself over? Does agreeing to be interviewed in the headquarters of the largest police force in the UK not seem reasonable? London is not a renegade state, and Assange is not a fugitive from justice.

  • Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by copponex (13876) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:26PM (#34399064) Homepage

    If you can have sex with two women who will later regret it, can I kill a few hundred thousand Muslims and take a big hairy shit on the Constitution and International Law? Awesome!

    Oh, wait, those two things are probably not on par, are they? Tell you what... I'll throw in the complete destruction of your civil liberties, and you can have some self righteous celebrity gossip egged on by the establishment.

    It's a deal? Awesome!

  • by Aldenissin (976329) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:28PM (#34399104)

    That was before he released the volume of data that has been released this year and PO'd said governments to the degree he has now. You think for a second that if the US was willing to take out Saddam for never found WMDs over something that started in Afghanistan costing more lives on both sides than lost on 9/11, they wouldn't be willing to take out this blond guy that exposes their misdeeds? So, the question is, are you gullible, or astro-turfing, or both?

  • Re:What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aldenissin (976329) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:31PM (#34399134)

    Yea, convenient that in the middle of all of this data being released, they want to limit a man that travels extensively to do what he does to one country.

  • by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:33PM (#34399146)

    It's time for the gloves to come off... These people don't care how many people die as a result of their rampages.

    Soldiers kill thousands of innocent civilians and you say "oh, it doesn't matter, it's just collateral damage". An organisation leaks some heavily redacted information, putting maybe a handful of informants in possible danger (although no deaths have been attributed), and suddenly you care about responsibility towards human life?!?

  • by arth1 (260657) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:38PM (#34399196) Homepage Journal

    No, it's not unreasonable. They turned down doing an interview by video camera, because if the questioning should warrant an arrest, there would no way to arrest him over video conferencing. This is entirely reasonable.

    As for why he's wanted, the two women in question seem to have no connections to those who oppose Wikileaks -- at least one of them is associated with a group that's highly critical of the US, and the other is or was part of the Swedish Wikileaks support organization (and is definitely not a plant).

    But if the accusations should turn out to be correct, and the leaks also correct, it doesn't appear to be rape as in forcing the women to have sex, but turning consensual sex into a "rougher" and "degrading" sex. The point is, it needs to be investigated, and Julian Assange was on Swedish ground and had consented to be governed by Swedish law during his stay.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wampus (1932) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:44PM (#34399268)

    he doesn't directly editorialise

    Sure, "Collateral Murder" is a nice, neutral name.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:45PM (#34399274) Homepage Journal

    Take your hate out on the Swedes.

    We can't really hate them for bowing to pressure from the most powerful country in the world.

    What a fascinating case this whole Wikileaks thing has become. While the leaks themselves have really been a lot more heat than light, the most interesting thing about this has been the repercussions around the world. The same way a bat squeaks and then gets a picture of the shape and size of his cave by the echoes, the perturbations created by the Wikileaks announcement (even moreso than the leaks themselves) is really giving us a picture of world, where the power lies, and who dances to whose tune.

    It's going to be even more interesting when Wikileaks starts releasing corporate leaks. If it serves to enlighten people that corporations have become the de facto world government for at least the last twenty years, then the leaks will have been the most important journalistic product in my lifetime. If they help people understand that we are living in a post-government, post-sovereignty world where the corporation is the only meaningful power (and help people act accordingly) then 20 years from now, we will look back at Wikileaks as the most important development in the history of the Internet.

    Or, we'll look back as Wikileaks being the end of the Internet.

    By the way, does Wikileaks change anybody's mind on the importance of Net Neutrality? Does anyone think that Wikileaks would ever exist in AT&T's Internet? Or in Apple's Internet? Or in Comcast's Internet? The jury is still out on Google, but I don't see any of the big companies that are opposed to net neutrality really having room for Wikileaks in their universe. Anyway, interesting times...

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Unkyjar (1148699) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:47PM (#34399302)

    I disagree with you, and I am under the firm impression that most feminists and woman's rights advocates would disagree with you too.

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:48PM (#34399310)

    I don't get why people say stuff like this. Assange was one of the mid generation hackers. I have some of his old publications. The guy wasn't a genius, but he wasn't bad. He wrote actual code. His big interest was...pretty much what he's doing today, only making it survivable. The generation *before* freenet and tor. The real hackers--2600, phrack. If somebody offs Assange I'd lay odds that within 72 hours his lawyer drops a URL on twitter that makes everything leaked so far look like a Disney cartoon from the 50's.

    And if his lawyer doesn't do it, there's probably 5-10 servers in dusty closest somewhere ready to do the same. The dead man's switch is a very old concept. Character assassination may be the only thing the government has. But please, people should do their duties and protect the man's character in the court of public opinion. The rape charges wouldn't be considered in any reputable nation or court, and the prosecution is clearly either making a spectacle or being leaned on. Give the man the credit he's due.

    If people have done any background research on this guy--disappearing him would be a FUCKING STUPID thing to do. I can't be the only person who's written a dead man's switch.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theshowmecanuck (703852) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:52PM (#34399340) Journal
    Also, both women are associated in some way with wikileaks. Leykis 101 [google.ca] says a guy should NEVER fuck any woman he works with. In fact, he should avoid talking to them if possible. This is the only sure way to avoid any bullshit from them; especially important if you will be seeing them every day at work.
  • Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates (198444) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:06PM (#34399462) Journal

    Is this really about him breaking a condom? Or is it about the UK and US extracting their revenge by making up a charge to arrest him by? My guess is the former and watch as he might mysterisouly be transferred to the US to be tried for American crimes on disclosing secrets.

    I smell a rat.

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:14PM (#34399530)

    I doubt the intention is just to smear him. The real intention is to silence and incarcerate him. If they incarcerate him for rape charges it frees them from having to explain the embarrassment that would result if it was revealed that those who push "freedom of press" etc. to China, etc. are doing everything to silence it.

    There is a difference in freedom of press when it just reiterates government supported propaganda and when it actually challenges the government.

    Most people in the U.S. think they have freedom because they see pictures on TV of people protesting, etc. They seldom realize that most of them are supporting one or the other party and allowed to do so for votes and ratings. They don't ever see how heavy the hand is that slams in on those that really challenge the government.

    It wouldn't amaze me if Assange ended up in prison for rape, and conveniently decided to commit suicide - seeing as he's now the front man for the group thats going to challenge major players in the U.S. banking system, he might not even make it to prison.

  • by arth1 (260657) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:18PM (#34399554) Homepage Journal

    Which is why there's not an Interpol arrest record for him either, but a request for apprehension and extradition. Along with thousands of other suspects and witnesses.

  • I'm realistic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:19PM (#34399566)

    I've seen shit like, say, Russia killing a former spy who was not at all in the public eye. If the government wanted to kill him, they'd do it. This "Oh but they'd get me while walking to the courthouse, but not while I'm attending TED," is rather stupid.

  • by mysidia (191772) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:19PM (#34399572)

    No, it's not unreasonable. They turned down doing an interview by video camera, because if the questioning should warrant an arrest, there would no way to arrest him over video conferencing. This is entirely reasonable.

    In civilized societies there is a right against self-incrimination, and a right not to answer any questions that could lead to self incrimination.

    If they want to question him, a video conference should be fine. It is sufficient to question him, which he has no obligation to assist with anyways

    If they want to arrest him, they should get a warrant. They are independent actions. questioning someone is not related to arrest.

    Julian Assange was on Swedish ground and had consented to be governed by Swedish law during his stay.

    Yes. During his stay. Once his stay is over, however, and he is out of the country, he is no longer subject to Swedish law, including requirements to report for questioning.

    Accusing someone of a crime is different from seeking to question someone about a subject they might know something about

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:21PM (#34399588) Homepage Journal

    I would call it rape if she could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he kept going after she had said stop. That is almost never the case because people tend to prefer to have sex without witnesses - or at least one of the partners does, or they can't find willing witnesses - and I can't imagine any sort of physical evidence that could prove that particular accusation.

    And that's the point, I call shenanigans whenever someone makes any accusation that they clearly haven't even bothered to think about how they could prove. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen.. that's the law, you should have come to understand this before you started getting pimples, and yet people still seem to be baffled by it.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:21PM (#34399594)

    He had the opertunity to speak to the weeds in person as they requested, but declined. This is the result.

    By that reasoning -- he offered the US govt an opportunity to vet the disclosures and redact information that might reveal the identities of agents, collaborators or sources. The govt refused.

    Ergo, if any of those agents, collaborators or sources get assassinated, their blood is at least equally on the hands of the US govt which refused to cooperate in an action which may have saved their lives.

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:26PM (#34399632)
    Wait what? This happened TWICE while he was in Sweden? Was it 2 women in a single encounter? Or 2 women at separate times? How huge is this mans penis that he's breaking condoms left and right? And how on earth is this even remotely provable? "Hey, we were having consensual sex and half way through I changed my mind. Throw that guy in jail!" Finally, they charge him 2 DAYS AFTER HE RELEASES THE LARGEST GOVERNMENT LEAK IN HISTORY?!?!? Is that not even remotely fishy?

    I HATE Conspiracy theories, but this is just a little to ridiculous for even me to fall for.
  • Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by snuf23 (182335) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:30PM (#34399668)

    As a man, if I was really drunk and had sex with someone and then in the morning was disgusted by the act could I then claim rape?

    I fail to see the difference between that and your example using a woman.

    Of course as a man I would be laughed out of court.

    Also I find the implication that a drunk woman having sex is any different than a drunk man to be degrading to women. You are implying that women are weak and if they do something stupid they aren't able to take the responsibility for it.

  • Re:This is scary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by EvanED (569694) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .denave.> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:31PM (#34399672)

    [Note: this post is written pretty disconnected from the charges against Assange. I don't mean to suggest his guilt or innocence on the matter; I find it way more interesting to talk about questions of law rather than questions of fact.]

    Of course she can change her mind, but saying that the guy who didn't stop when his GF asked him to stop in the middle of sex is exactly the same type of asshole who stalks your GF in a dark alley, hits her over the head, drags her to a corner, strips her and sticks his willy inside her body while she is crying and begging - if we are using the exact same word to describe both guys and we think they both deserve the same punishment, then I'm sorry - but something here is very wrong here!

    No, the two acts are not on the same level. Fortunately, the two acts would very likely not result in the same sentence even ignoring the fact that your first example would get charged with a whole host of other charges.

    But they're both rapists.

    We could also classify the guy who didn't stop as being rude and insensitive and she shouldn't have sex with him again. There are a lot of rude people out there and they don't go to jail for it.

    Whoa, after that first paragraph ranting about how the word "rapist" was used to describe two rather different acts, you go and describe failure to stop sex when consent is withdrawn (especially because of a perceived condom break) as merely "rude" and "insensitive"?!

    Shouting "fuck you, now get out" after sex is rude and insensitive (and not illegal). Refusing to stop sex when your partner says "stop" is in an entirely different ballpark; I'd suggest that the difference between those two acts is at least as big as the difference between the two acts you talk about in the first paragraph.

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gustgr (695173) <rondina.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:35PM (#34399706) Homepage

    He is accused of proceeding with intercourse when the partner explicitly has asked him to stop. That alone is a crime, aggravated by the fact that the partner has made such request after the condom broke. Since when such act is not a crime? It constituting a crime has nothing to do with Mr. Assange. It is a crime in the whole lot of the civilized World, including Sweden. Period.

    Now, he is accused of given crime. That is also a fact. What is not a fact is that the crime took place at all and that he was the culprit if it even happened. These questions only Justice will answer -- and I hope for an unbiased trial here, it should be made clear if one is innocent of serious accusations.

    Other than that, I was just pointing out the stupidity of the parent on writing such idiotic comment, not demoting Mr. Assange in any way or implying that he is guilt. Please, read the post twice before replying and preferably give it some thought, even if it is just a few seconds.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:08AM (#34399982) Homepage Journal

    I think the problem is that you're refusing to say what you expect anyone to do about a rape accusation where there's no proof.

    I'm saying doing anything is bad for society.. what are you saying?
     

  • Re:"Sex crimes" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by isorox (205688) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:09AM (#34400000) Homepage Journal

    I'm not saying he is innocent - I don't think we have enough information to decide in either direction,

    In which case he's innocent, you haven't proven him guilty.

  • by GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) <almafuerte@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:10AM (#34400012)

    Are you kidding me? One of them is a right-wing feminist (yeah, weird) who has been outspoken about how woman should use rape accusations to destroy man.

    This is the US trying to bring him down with its usual tactics. Next is a bullet in the head, like they used to do in the good old days before the media become their best weapon.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by suso (153703) * on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:23AM (#34400090) Homepage Journal

    Better in Swedish prison than just disapear. This asshat has pissed off just about every country in the world,

    Its not Asshat, its Assange. Actually, I don't want to make fun of someone who I think is a hero. He seems like a level headed guy and it takes a lot of bravery to do what he does. Its not like he's a guy with nothing to lose. As Wikipedia quotes him: "the more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie". Obviously this is the case as there seems to be a bigger panic by this by our government and others.

    This sex charge is obviously a low blow smear campaign against him, but the thing is. What does it matter, its not like public opinions are going to make the facts private again. Sure, your grandma won't read them, but she probably wouldn't anyways. But at least with the documents more in the public eye they can be scrutinized.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:27AM (#34400142)

    In particular since the video shows nothing of the sort. It shows just how nasty of a business war is, but if you weren't aware war was a nasty business you had your head in the sand. However it doesn't show the aviators doing anything wrong under the rules of war, which one must remember are very different from civilian rules. Killing someone in a war is not murder, of that all national and international laws are quite clear on.

    While the aviators are cold and callous (war will do that to people) they obey the rules. They fire on targets that they believe to be legitimate, and hold fire, though prepared to open fire if the target grabs a weapon.

    That's not murder, it is war. That doesn't mean it is a GOOD war, as I said war is messy business and people need to appreciate that because of that it needs to be fought only in extreme cases. However it does mean it isn't murder, and calling it such is either editorializing, or rather severe ignorance of international law.

  • philosophy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:41AM (#34400252) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, it could be a serious question, but many people are unwilling to consider serious questions about topics which make them uncomfortable, emotionally. See the philosophers:
    • William Saletan of Slate, who has generated some amount of controversy by discussing the moral philosophy of subjects such as murder of abortionists, statutory rape and the age of consent, and other topics; and
    • Peter Singer who discusses bestiality (aka "zoophilia"),
    • and the intellectual at large, Christopher Hitches who openly asserts that religion, by its nature (indoctrinating the very young with factually incorrect beliefs), is immoral.

    One might be deeply suspect of people who attempt to deflect the rational discourse of such charged topics, but for some reason the converse tends to be the general response.

  • Re:This is scary (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:43AM (#34400270)

    And second if the condom broke... it broke. Stopping would probably have a negligible impact as its already broke...

    Do you understand how sex works?

    See, when the guy "finishes" there's this liquidy stuff that gets shot out of the man's penis into the woman's vagina. It's this liquidy stuff that will (1) make it possible to get pregnant and (2) increase the chance of STD transmission from the man to the woman quite a bit.

    Okay, sarcasm off. So presuming that the condom broke before ejaculation, it certainly would make one hell of a difference. Considering that they were continuing intercourse (we know this because otherwise they already would have stopped), it seems likely that it broke prior to ejaculation.

    Any woman acting as consensually already knows there is a risk just because it happened doesn't mean this Assange should be strung up.

    That's true -- about the condom breaking. That is a risk that both parties consented to.

    However, after the withdrawl of consent, it became rape. If the accusation is true, then Assange certainly deserves to be strung up for it. I can't understand how you could reasonably think otherwise.

    A woman never loses the right to say no but that is between the man and woman the government has nothing to do with it unless an STD is contracted or pregnancy occurs.

    Um you'll need to explain that one a bit more. How is rape not a matter for the government?

    Say we're talking about a couple where the girlfriend has never consented to sex. The man holds her down and forcibly rapes her. I assume you don't think that "the government has nothing to do with it unless an STD is contracted or pregnancy occurs" doesn't apply in this scenario. (If you do think that then I should just give up because there's no hope for you.) What's different?

  • Re:HA! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MachDelta (704883) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:08AM (#34400470)

    And in today's world, "yes" means "sure, but I might change my mind later and there's fuck all you can do about it!"

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:13AM (#34400498) Journal

    You don't have to incriminate yourself, but you can't lie to them, or outright evade being brought in for questioning.

    In America the response would be "Charge me with a crime or I'm not coming in."

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wampus (1932) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:15AM (#34400522)

    Why would I? I'm merely pointing out that Assange certainly does editorialize, and to claim otherwise is a little ridiculous.

  • by Rakshasa Taisab (244699) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:16AM (#34400532) Homepage

    A few things you're missing (or ignoring) here...

    First, swedish police had lots of opportunities and offers to interview him while he was still in Sweden. For some reason they didn't do it, probably mostly cause the accusations were vapid.

    Second, what he is under investigation of is not 'rape' and is very unlikely to give any prison time at all even if convicted afaik. Well, that is unless they want to throw the book at him to cause as much damage as possible instead of giving out blind justice.

    Not unreasonable? Depends on what you really are after.

  • Re: Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:25AM (#34400604)

    Sure, "Collateral Murder" is a nice, neutral name.

    Yeah, it should have just been "murder".

    How would you feel if some other country was killing your relatives and neighbors, for any reason whatsoever?

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MaskedSlacker (911878) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:34AM (#34400670)

    That is the most stupid line of reasoning I have ever heard.

    I hope you're referring to YOUR line of reasoning, because none of your analogies hold up. The parent was clearly talking about changing your mind AFTER the event had taken place. The day after. Every one of your piss-poor analogies uses a change of mind before the act, and are thus irrelevant to the discussion.

    So, yes, if you decide that playing russian roulette was a poor decision AFTER the trigger was pulled, too bad for you. If you decide robbing a bank was a bad idea AFTER you robbed it, too bad for you. If you decide adopting a dog was a bad idea AFTER you'd taken it home, and it'd shit on the rug, too bad for you.

    If you decide the morning AFTER you wish you hadn't done something, too bad for you. You're the one who did it.

    None of this applies, of course, to women who decide they don't want to have sex BEFORE or even DURING. But if they change their mind the day AFTER, then yeah, too bad. That's not rape.

  • Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:43AM (#34400754)

    He was in Sweden and prosecution waited until he left Sweden to start making demands. Probably specifically to get Interpol involved and limit his movements. You knew this guy was going to get nailed for what he was doing. This is the beginning. Paint him as a child molester because nobody feels bad for one of those. A classic first step. Limit his movements, deny him places to be. Eventually he'll wind up somewhere with an extradition treaty and that will be that.

    Also, if there are any Interpol people who happen to read this - I know of an actual child molester you could go pick up pretty easy if this is the sort of thing that actually interests you. [wikipedia.org]

    No? Not interested? Hypocrisy. Imagine that.

  • by Totenglocke (1291680) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @03:52AM (#34401492)

    But if the accusations should turn out to be correct, and the leaks also correct, it doesn't appear to be rape as in forcing the women to have sex, but turning consensual sex into a "rougher" and "degrading" sex.

    So, lets say this is worse case scenario and he had rough sex with a girl - where the fuck is the crime there? Is doggy style going to be criminalized next? What about anal, is that still cool or do we need to revive the anti-sodomy laws?

    Nothing screams "bullshit charge" than trying to arrest someone for having rough sex.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @04:48AM (#34401792)

    It's interesting how much you know about a person you never met.

    If the "news" about various figures certain governments don't like told me one thing it is not to listen to the "expert witnesses" and "friends and family" testimonials. As soon as a person is to be demonized, you may rest assured that whatever has ever been said about him will be twisted around.

    What did his friend exactly say? He's paranoid and borderline insane? Did he say that? Or was it something like "Well, recently, he's become more and more cautious, and I guess he feels like he stepped on too many toes and now someone's out to get back at him"? Because that can easily be retexted into "friend thinks he's paranoid", it fits the description of paranoid quite well. But it also makes sense that he feels like this because it is most likely even true to some degree.

    So, if anything, I want to hear the interview first. I want to know just WHAT his friend really said. After that I want to know whether he really is (still) his friend or whether he still was at the time of the interview.

    Too much bull has been flying around lately and we all too readily sucked it up. Once such bull even led us into a war. Remember? Iraq? Why did we go there again? Right, WMDs. Were they there? Not really. Who said they were there? Ayad Allawi. Who was that? Former buddy of Saddam who was kicked out 'cause Saddam didn't like him anymore. What became of him? He became Prime Minister of Iraq after we hung Saddam.

    Am I the only one who can spot a rather big interest in telling us bull so we kick Saddam out of office? And am I the only one who thinks that (former) buddies of someone are not really the most reliable source of information, even if interpreted correctly?

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @05:15AM (#34401924)
    lame. Just because a child died doesn't mean a crime was committed, the pilots couldn't see that they were in the van from the video (I watched it - scary). Collateral murder is an oxymoron anyway. It's like saying consensual rape.
  • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by michelcolman (1208008) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @06:18AM (#34402212)

    That's quite incredible. I agree that, if a girl asks you to stop, even if you're five seconds from orgasm, you should stop, and you are an asshole if you continue anyway. However, equating this situation (you are already having consensual sex, and you just keep going a bit longer than she wants) to an actual rape (she really never wanted to have sex with you at all) is pushing politcal correctness a bit too far.

    When a girl is actually raped (forced to have sex with someone she never wanted to have sex with in the first place), this can be an extremely traumatizing experience. Merely being forced to continue a sexual act you have already engaged in, is more on the level of "being forced to do something you do not want to do" without all the "oh my god he's touching my vagina" feelings associated with a real rape.

    Both are bad, but I think it's quite obvious that a real rape is orders of magnitude more serious, and punishment should be adjusted accordingly.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by horigath (649078) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @06:37AM (#34402298) Homepage

    You know what feminists really do hate, though? When other people, especially men, assume that they can speak on the feminists' behalf even though they have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @07:58AM (#34402680) Journal

    How the hell do they prove something like that? "He said" + "She said" == Acquittal (proof beyond *reasonable* doubt!)

    It's pretty easy, actually. You just assume that all men are liars. It has been "working" here in the US for years. The Duke Lacrosse Case [wikipedia.org] is a good example of how the system really works, and fortunately, justice was somewhat served at the very end, after ruining a lot of lives and careers.

    I am not sure if it is some kind of collective guilt or what, but in rape cases, the woman is usually believed even if she is a bad liar.

  • by rwa2 (4391) * on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @09:40AM (#34403302) Homepage Journal

    Oh, I bet Julian Assange fully expects to be martyred "for the cause" at some point. He probably has some interesting "dead man's switch" set up to do something amusing after he goes... if it could make some point about how the world isn't ready for transparency then so much the better.

    If these things don't go through WikiLeaks, they'd just go through something else. Hey, maybe his dead man's switch unleashes some sort of decentralized P2P leak site :P

  •     No, there are only two things to say.

        1) "Am I free to go?"
        and
        2) "I have nothing more to say without my lawyer present."

        Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing you can say to help yourself. Any statement you make can only be used against you. It won't possibly help you. By the time you're being questioned, they already have evidence against you.

        They can plaster on the national news that you are a suspect. The worst thing you can do is comment, even to deny it.

Only God can make random selections.

Working...