Assange to face extradition

[Random]

Why would they need to? They have trumped up criminal charges which have actually undermined Assange's cause far more than anything they could actually extradite him for.

If you're arguing, like dylans, that the USA is seeking his extradition, then the fact that the USA is not seeking his extradition is a bit of a hole in your argument. I take your point that this ight be a smear; it might be. But the best way to stop this personal attack harming Wikileaks is to make the organisation's work less reliant on a squeaky-clean frontman.

 

[CyberRose]

It is well known that the allegations "do not meet the European law standard concept of rape". You seem to be arguing they do, or ought to, which I disagree with. Certainly, defending Assange in this case does not constitute "apologising for rape" but whether there is a spectrum of rape.

What are your thoughts on the definition of rape by British standards? Because what he is accused of would be rape here too...

Yes, but one of the cases were dropped for lack of evidence and then reinstated.

The vast majority of all rapes are dropped because of lack of evidence, does that mean they didn't happen?

 

[Poo Flakes]

You are wrong. You are not only wrong but you don't even have the basic details of the case right.

Stop posting until you get the facts right rather than parroting Assange's brief "it is well known..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q-and-a
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29iht-letter29.html

Start showing me some fucking links.

Actually if you can show me links to any official documentation relating to the case, in Swedish or English I will not think you are just some half-wit with an opinion like the rest of us.

 

[Poo Flakes]

The vast majority of all rapes are dropped because of lack of evidence, does that mean they didn't happen?

Yeah man, aren't we... like.. all rapists. Like how can we really know?

 

[elbows]

If we want the case details to emerge in full then he needs to face the Swedish justice system.

 

[elbows]

Yeah man, aren't we... like.. all rapists. Like how can we really know?

Pathetic.

 

[butchersapron]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q-and-a
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29iht-letter29.html

Start showing me some fucking links.

Actually if you can show me links to any official documentation relating to the case, in Swedish or English, and I will not think you are just talking out your arse.

Your links:

• That Assange "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

That he "deliberately molested" Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex

Thundering dolt.

 

[CyberRose]

Yeah man, aren't we... like.. all rapists. Like how can we really know?

Well you don't understand what rape is so what hope was there that you'd understand the context of my previous post (which you only replied to half of)?

 

[Poo Flakes]

Your links:

Thundering dolt.

Did you actually discover what those legal terms actually mean and their context in Assange's case?

Well you don't understand what rape is so what hope was there that you'd understand the context of my previous post (which you only replied to half of)?

Yes, because your previous post is such an excellent summary of the ambiguities around rape in law, I cannot begin to udnerstand the complexities of the argument.

 

[phildwyer]

The vast majority of all rapes are dropped because of lack of evidence, does that mean they didn't happen?

It means there is no evidence of it happening. Would you have us convict people on no evidence?

 

[phildwyer]

If you're arguing, like dylans, that the USA is seeking his extradition, then the fact that the USA is not seeking his extradition is a bit of a hole in your argument.

Of course the USA is seeking his extradition. What on earth makes you believe otherwise?

 

[butchersapron]

Did you actually discover what those legal terms actually mean and their context in Assange's case?

Certainly did and your claim that

One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex

simply doesn't stand up.Your own links killed you-they leave you looking a bit ill-informed and daft:

• That Assange "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

• That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

• That he "deliberately molested" Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

 

[CyberRose]

It means there is no evidence of it happening. Would you have us convict people on no evidence?

No, it means there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a rape happened. You don't seem to know how our (or other) legal systems work...

 

[phildwyer]

Not if it is consenting which she admits she did.

Dylans, I agree with your analysis of the case.

Having said that, it seems futile to me to even bother discussing the details of the allegations. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that this is a set up by the USA. To discuss the allegations in detail gives them a dignity they do not deserve.

 

[CyberRose]

Yes, because your previous post is such an excellent summary of the ambiguities around rape in law, I cannot begin to udnerstand the complexities of the argument.

It shows...

 

[CyberRose]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that this is a set up by the USA.

 

[phildwyer]

fuck you you dishonest coward. No rape occurred.

Rape is being used in the Assange extradition in the same way that womens rights were used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. It is a convenient excuse to pursue a ulterior agenda. It is an insult to the real victims of rape and it is a fucking disgrace that you are cheering it on.

100% correct.

It would be a shame if you left, Dylans. You´re the best poster here.

 

[butchersapron]

Does this poo flakes even read their own links:

Some, like Sweden, are somewhere in between, with force definitions [of rape] that include situations in which the victim is unable to consent — say, because they are sleeping or intoxicated.

What's wrong with you?

 

[elbows]

I'm sure women all over the world will be overjoyed to hear that their rights are revokable if the perpetrator is some sort of political hero to some.

 

[elbows]

And if you are convinced that its a setup by the USA then why wouldn't you welcome the chance to have the details of this exposed in a court?

If its a smear then Assange should welcome the chance to clear his name.

 

[phildwyer]

Oh alright, the USA is not seeking his extradition. They´re really not all that bothered about having their state secrets plastered all over the internet. And theirs is a remarkably forgiving justice system anyway. Obviously they´re just letting the Swedes get on with it. An of course Sweden is famous for pursuing anyone who had sex while their partner was asleep to the ends of the earth.

 

[phildwyer]

And if you are convinced that its a setup by the USA then why wouldn't you welcome the chance to have the details of this exposed in a court?

Because I know that any such trial would be subject to every kind of armtwisting, fixing, intimidation and lies, to the extent that a fair trial would be imposible.

 

[CyberRose]

An of course Sweden is famous for pursuing anyone who had sex while their partner was asleep to the ends of the earth.

I'd like to think any country would pursue someone for that, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Poo Flakes]

Does this poo flakes even read their own links:

What's wrong with you?

The question posed in Assange's case, "is he a rapist?", as it is described in the media is, at best, ambiguous. These kinds of examples are given by lawyers themselves when discussing the ambiguities about rape in the law. Dan Subotnik is, in my opinion, is accessible and worth a read.

I'm sure women all over the world will be overjoyed to hear that their rights are revokable if the perpetrator is some sort of political hero to some.

Feminist perspectives are probably the most interesting, though, as they extend rape to look at 'contextual constraints' (e.g. women's role in society and patriarichal structures). Feminist lawyers, from what little I know of their work, would probably not reach a consensus on Assange's case, as it is being reported, as it seems to be one which really cuts at the core of debates around rape.

butcher... You are simply arguing that consent must be affirmatively granted. Nothing wrong with that, I just find these ambiguities around Assange's case highly unfortunate, and if I am honest suspicious, given his political activities. Does it mean he is innocent? No.

 

[butchersapron]

The question posed in Assange's case, "is he a rapist?", as it is described in the media is, at best, ambiguous. These kinds of examples are given by lawyers themselves when discussing the ambiguities about rape in the law. Dan Subotnik is, in my opinion, is accessible and worth a read.

That's not the question we're on about. We're on about your inaccurate description of the case. You claimed that one of the struts of the case was:

One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex

Do you now accept - given the evidence that you've helpfully provided that shows this not to be true - that this was totally wrong? An do you solemnly undertake to get a bit better informed? What bearing does this have on your understanding of the rest of the case?Well,you've shown yourself to be incompetent in scrutiny of sources and presentation of info.

 

[butchersapron]

butcher... You are simply arguing that consent must be affirmatively granted. Nothing wrong with that, I just find these ambiguities around Assange's case highly unfortunate, and if I am honest suspicious, given his political activities. Does it mean he is innocent? No.

It's ok to recognise that you were wrong. Gracious little steps backwards.

 

[Poo Flakes]

That's not the question we're on about. We're on about your inaccurate description of the case. You claimed that one of the struts of the case was:

Do you now accept - given the evidence that you've helpfully provided that shows this not to be true - that this was totally wrong? An do you solemnly undertake to get a bit better informed? What bearing does this have on your understanding of the rest of the case?Well,you've shown yourself to be incompetent in scrutiny of sources and presentation of info.

You completely misunderstand the substance of the case. In one of the cases, and as per my understanding of the second, consent is not as big an issue as your making it to be. The cases are effectively considering the terms of a contract. The second is not even whether or not the woman consented (affirmitively) to have sex with Assange but whether she affirmitively consented to have sex later with Assange.

It's ok to recognise that you were wrong. Gracious little steps backwards.

The fact is you are speaking with a lot of conviction of a case which is highly ambiguous is just fucking weird. As to why it is ambiguous - read the fucking references provided. I do not agree, if the reporting is accurate, that Assange is a rapist unless we were to discuss contextual constraints, but then we would really be discussing whether a wealthy and poor person could ever have consensual sex. Assange's case might be a good point for such a discussion, but since you are speaking with a lot of conviction about an issue which is not as black and white as you are making out tells me you have no real interest in having a substantive discussion.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

That's not the question we're on about. We're on about your inaccurate description of the case.

Innit - the only reason his alleged actions are being discussed on this thread are because some people are claiming that his alleged actions wouldn't even constitute sexual assault, so therefore show strong evidence of a conspiracy. I've seen no-one claim he is definitely a rapist, and I haven't seen the media ask the question "is he a rapist?" either.

 

[butchersapron]

You completely misunderstand the substance of the case. In one of the cases, and as per my understanding of the second, consent is not as big an issue as your making it to be. The cases are effectively considers the terms of a contract. The second is not even whether or not the woman consented to have sex with Assange but whether she consented to have sex later with Assange.

You claimed that one of the struts of the case was:

One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex

This is not true is it? In fact it's the opposite of the case isn't it? I dare you, after the links you've posted, to repeat this claim. Go on, repeat it or take it back.

The fact is you are speaking with a lot of conviction which is - at best - highly ambiguous is just fucking weird. As to why it is ambiguous - read the fucking references provided. I do not agree, if the reporting is accurate, that Assange is a rapist unless we were to discuss contextual constraints, but then we would really be discussing whether a wealthy and poor person could ever have consensual sex. Assange's case might be a good point for such a discussion, but since you are speaking with a lot of conviction about an issue which is not as black and white as you are makign out, tells me you have no real interest in having a substantive discussion.

You what?

 

[Poo Flakes]

Innit - the only reason his alleged actions are being discussed on this thread are because some people are claiming that his alleged actions wouldn't even constitute sexual assault, so therefore show strong evidence of a conspiracy. I've seen no-one claim he is definitely a rapist, and I haven't seen the media ask the question "is he a rapist?" either.

From the Guardian:

None of those mentions rape, so why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist?

The accusation in the fourth point, involving Miss W, falls into the category of rape under Swedish law.

Twat.

This is not true is it? In fact it's the opposite of the case isn't it? I dare you, after the links you've posted, to repeat this claim. Go on, repeat it or take it back.

In both cases, Assange and the two women consented to have sex. In the first case they had unsafe sex, which the plaintiff alleges she did not consent to. Not sure what your point is.