The whole section in the middle where you describe the relationship between Assange and the two women – I’m honestly not really sure what you want to say with that. Do you think those facts make it less likely that rape occurred?
None of the facts you presented would lead me to adjust the probability that a rape actually occurred down.
Most commonly rape happens between people who know each other, not in some dark alley between total strangers. The fact that the women knew Assange and even expressed that they liked him doesn’t make rape less plausible. I can’t see how that can be evidence for some sort of conspiracy.
Similarly, victims of rape becoming distraught with the process and essentially giving up on it – especially with one that is so very public – isn’t something that would surprise me, so I’m also not sure why that is evidence in favor of a government conspiracy.
I don’t really care whether Assange really raped someone (I think the very capable Swedish justice system is perfectly able to sort that out), I’m only interested in whether there is any evidence that points to a government conspiracy – and I honestly do not see anything.
In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception.
If these women approached a lawyer in the US with their side of what happened, the lawyer would advise not to bring the matter to criminal court, with civil court also being a waste of time.
That's like fucking a prostitute (somewhere where it's legal) and then refusing to pay her. You didn't rape her, you simply tricked (defrauded) her! Rape can't be decided upon after sex! (Unless you were legally unable to give consent in the first place.)
Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
It's always really entertaining to me to see a bunch of dudes moralizing over what does and doesn't constitute rape.
EDIT: Preemptively: yes, I know; men can be raped, and not just in prison. Believe me, I know this better than you even want to guess at or speculate about. That doesn't change one whit the fact that people tend to talk shit and judge the world from their own categories and preconceptions, and not others'. This (generally, not specifically; your comment was simply the one that pushed my "Okay, I need to say something about this nonsense" button hard enough to actually respond) is just one of the more egregious examples of that.
It's kinda important for us as well. Just as women are generally the victims of rape, men are usually the victims of false rape allegations (I'm not saying that they are either more or less frequent (in the Western world), probably rape is more frequent, but I guess we'll never really know. In any case, I'd guess that false rape allegation can be just as devastating, if not more, as a rape).
As a man, I'd just like to know when it's ok to have sex with a woman without risking being accused of rape. Therefore, my opinion is that rape can not be declared after the fact.
You won't be accused of raping a woman if you avoid lying to her about using a condom, avoid coercing her to do things she actually doesn't want to.. stuff like that.
If you feel that you won't get laid because women "always say no when they mean yes" you can remind them that nowadays, if they mean yes they'd better say yes, or THEY won't get laid.
We're not saying rape. We're saying våldtäkt (which is a broad term). The closest equivalent your language has is rape. Something apparently gets lost in the translation, as is so often the case.
Let me give another example of a broad term: Violence. It can mean one kid pushing another on the play ground. It can also mean dropping a nuclear bomb on a city. Do you also think it's disrespectful to the victims of Hiroshima to ask the boy on the playground to stop being violent?
> Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
I'm glad you've apparently surveyed every rape victim and asked them if this law is insulting to them. I'm sure you're not just talking out of your ass about an extremely delicate and traumatic subject.
In the wiki article, it says that it's only recognized in a few jurisdictions.
Thank god, I say (as a man, the sex usually accused of rape). Otherwise it would be too easy to accuse everybody of rape. I believe that a necessary ingredient of rape is intent, as well. So, if she seems willing to have sex with me (and she's not too drunk with me being sober), I will have sex with her, and it would be really bad form for her to come after me the next morning and say that she didn't really want to have sex. I can only hope that the law doesn't allow that.
Also, see above my example of a prostitute. Is that also rape by deception?
I can hardly fantom that regret for having had sex with someone can be as traumatic as being forced/drugged into having sex.
You, like a staggering number of men on the Internet, have developed some notion that women go around randomly accusing people of rape all the time— like it's such a common occurrence that we need to devote time and laws to prevent it. The exact opposite is true: Women are most often times afraid to come forward about a rape due to fear of being ostracized. In fact, even when reporting a rape accusation, officers will often times mark an accusation as "unfounded" just because the victim didn't fight off the suspect![0]
Women aren't going around changing their mind post coitus about whether they wanted to have sex with you just like you aren't about them. It's incredibly rare and a notion perpetuated by people who really don't want to face the fact that rape and sexual assault are problems in our society.
I admit that I probably am biased, mostly because of (1) "the fight for justice" (I feel the need to present the arguments for the "other" side, so that both sides have arguments), and (2) because I often reflect upon these situations from the first person (I would never rape someone), so I'm wondering, "could this happen to me with me being innocent?"
Also, I never said that rape isn't a problem. It is. But so are false accusations of rape. Maybe a smaller problem, but a problem nonetheless.
"In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception."
• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex.
• "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW).
• "Sexual molestation" - "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body."
• "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.
I'm pretty sure having sex with someone who's asleep is illegal in the USA as well. Various countries (incl. UK) have the "I'll have sex with you only if you use a condom", and then taking off a condom later, would count as sex without consent.
"Miscommunication"? You must be joking. They consented to have sex if he used a condom. He tricked one of them and forced the other one to penetrate without a condom. That is sex without consent. And AFAIK it is not the first time he did this. This seems to be his MO.
I am not saying he should be extradited to Sweden without a guaranty he will not be sent to the US. But the allegations are serious.
I don’t care about the details of Swedish law with regards to rape (or more specifically: I only care when someone really loudly exclaims that something that is obviously rape isn’t), I do care about evidence presented in favor of a conspiracy. I commented only on why I think the presented evidence is not convincing me of a conspiracy, not (e.g.) whether it convinces me of whether Assange actually raped or not.
Have you done research on this? Because I have, and short-lived outward displays that "Everything's GREAT!" are a very common response to psychological trauma. You see this in victims of many types of psychological trauma, including torture, violence, and yes, sexual assault.
Sorry - that doesn't cut it I'm afraid. When someone is accusing someone else of something as serious as "rape" - and it is simply "word against word" (no physical evidence, no witnesses, no violence, etc), one ONLY has the actions and credibility of the parties involved both before and after the events in question. In this case, it appears plain that the sex was consensual, in both cases. The behaviour afterwards (Willen refusing to sign a rail-roaded statement and Ardin continuing to cuddle up and have more sex) would seem to indicate all was well. In cases such as this, the CONTEXT of the behaviours before, during and after the events are ALL-IMPORTANT. And in THIS case, when you factor in the political gain to be had from smearing and legally debilitating Assange, combined with the absolutely clusterfucked process via which they (eventually) launched arrest warrants and red notices, combined with their leaks to the press and unwillingness to question Assange by phone, videolink or in person in the UK ... really leads one to believe there is more going on behind the scenes than can be seen. At the end of the day, a simple question suffices. Would any of this be happening if the guy involved was JOE BLOGGS, rather than Julian Assange? The simple answer to that is "of course not." So ... what are we talking about again?
Sorry, your rationalization doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
When someone has BEEN raped, and I know you don't want to hear this, there is very often a reluctance to admit that's what happened. And of course, a HUGE reluctance to be treated like a filthy liar by people who really want their hero to not have raped someone.
It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone to fuck up and create a situation that will be a huge political debility. It's perfectly possible that your idol- and mine-- isn't so great when his 'nads get involved.
It's been a while since I read through various reporting and accounts, but as I recall from memory, here are a few pertinent points:
- The two women involved asked whether Assange could be compelled to take a test for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). They did not allege rape.
- The initial prosecutor dropped their investigation as not meeting criteria that would merit its continuance.
- Later, a second prosecutor -- in a different district and with no prior involvement -- picked the case up and pursued it further. Why?
- Assange stayed in Sweden upwards of a month and did participate in questioning. He left after the case was supposedly dropped and he was told, in response to his question, that he was free to travel abroad.
- Subsequent to his travel to England, Swedish authorities reopened the case and sought him for further questioning.
- Assange was willing to participate in further questioning, but upon advice of his attorneys declined to return to Sweden. Swedish law permits questioning to procede under such circumstances.
- Up to this point, Assange was not charged with any crime. He was simply "wanted for further questioning". If anything, the Swedish prosecutors seemed to be going out of their way to avoid charging him with any crime -- perhaps seeking to avoid causing any "warning", either informally or in some legal sense.
- When Assange refused to return, Sweden finally issued an Interpol Red Notice. Red Notices are the highest level of Interpol "flag". They are very rarely used. This was issued for someone wanted for questioning regarding alleged rape -- an allegation apparently made by a prosecutor but not by the actual alleged victims.
- Some fairly convincing, if circumstantial, evidence has been identified and reported that the U.S. has indeed convened a grand jury. This includes someone having identified the specific grand jury identification number. Decomposition of said number (it's constructed using various aspects of the grand jury timing and topic) shows that the grand jury is investigating a topic pertaining the Espionage Act.
- Apparently (I've seen less on this), one of the women involved has refused to sign her initial statements or to participate further in the Swedish investigation. The other woman has left Sweden. Now, granted, publicity and "blowback" from Assange supporters might well be a cause for this. But we don't have any reports of this being the case nor of specific events that might show such activity. On the other hand, it does not present a picture of two victims of rape seeking justice (in Sweden, where women's rights are much more supported than in many countries).
--
I don't mean to minimize the very real crime and trauma of rape. But upon digging into the specific details and timeline of this situation, it really starts to stink.
P.S. I'm reading some of the more specific, step by step descriptions of the sexual activity allegedly involved. If Assange did indeed force intercourse without the use of a condom, then I'm all for him being charged. Although this still seems at odds with the publicly observed personal interactions that continued for days after the alleged events.
Even if this were to be the case, it does not mean that the U.S. is not leaving no stone unturned in its effort to get its hands on Assange. And, if nothing else, the treatment of Manning -- now formally classified as torture by the U.N. -- seems to provide clear indication that extradition to the U.S. might well result in the violation of Assange's rights.
This is what happens when a government stoops to criminal activity. It no longer has any credence, even were its case to be legitimate.
And finally, once again, I'll ask: Where are the reprimands and punishments for those responsible who mis-designed and mis-managed such a fucked up intelligence information system? And for those whose criminal activities were identified by the leaked information.
Most countries don't make such a big deal of talking about freedom and liberty and democracy etc. Most countries don't call themselves 'the land of the free'.
Comments
The whole section in the middle where you describe the relationship between Assange and the two women – I’m honestly not really sure what you want to say with that. Do you think those facts make it less likely that rape occurred?
None of the facts you presented would lead me to adjust the probability that a rape actually occurred down.
Most commonly rape happens between people who know each other, not in some dark alley between total strangers. The fact that the women knew Assange and even expressed that they liked him doesn’t make rape less plausible. I can’t see how that can be evidence for some sort of conspiracy.
Similarly, victims of rape becoming distraught with the process and essentially giving up on it – especially with one that is so very public – isn’t something that would surprise me, so I’m also not sure why that is evidence in favor of a government conspiracy.
I don’t really care whether Assange really raped someone (I think the very capable Swedish justice system is perfectly able to sort that out), I’m only interested in whether there is any evidence that points to a government conspiracy – and I honestly do not see anything.
In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception.
If these women approached a lawyer in the US with their side of what happened, the lawyer would advise not to bring the matter to criminal court, with civil court also being a waste of time.
Swedish law is totally fucked up.
That's like fucking a prostitute (somewhere where it's legal) and then refusing to pay her. You didn't rape her, you simply tricked (defrauded) her! Rape can't be decided upon after sex! (Unless you were legally unable to give consent in the first place.)
Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
It's always really entertaining to me to see a bunch of dudes moralizing over what does and doesn't constitute rape.
EDIT: Preemptively: yes, I know; men can be raped, and not just in prison. Believe me, I know this better than you even want to guess at or speculate about. That doesn't change one whit the fact that people tend to talk shit and judge the world from their own categories and preconceptions, and not others'. This (generally, not specifically; your comment was simply the one that pushed my "Okay, I need to say something about this nonsense" button hard enough to actually respond) is just one of the more egregious examples of that.
It's kinda important for us as well. Just as women are generally the victims of rape, men are usually the victims of false rape allegations (I'm not saying that they are either more or less frequent (in the Western world), probably rape is more frequent, but I guess we'll never really know. In any case, I'd guess that false rape allegation can be just as devastating, if not more, as a rape).
As a man, I'd just like to know when it's ok to have sex with a woman without risking being accused of rape. Therefore, my opinion is that rape can not be declared after the fact.
You won't be accused of raping a woman if you avoid lying to her about using a condom, avoid coercing her to do things she actually doesn't want to.. stuff like that.
If you feel that you won't get laid because women "always say no when they mean yes" you can remind them that nowadays, if they mean yes they'd better say yes, or THEY won't get laid.
eventually it will all shake out.
We're not saying rape. We're saying våldtäkt (which is a broad term). The closest equivalent your language has is rape. Something apparently gets lost in the translation, as is so often the case.
Let me give another example of a broad term: Violence. It can mean one kid pushing another on the play ground. It can also mean dropping a nuclear bomb on a city. Do you also think it's disrespectful to the victims of Hiroshima to ask the boy on the playground to stop being violent?
> We're not saying rape. We're saying våldtäkt (which is a broad term).
Better. Somethings really are lost in translation, I guess.
However, extraditing someone for questioniong for an alleged våldtäkt (not rape) case? I'm guessing there's more than meets the eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
> Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
I'm glad you've apparently surveyed every rape victim and asked them if this law is insulting to them. I'm sure you're not just talking out of your ass about an extremely delicate and traumatic subject.
In the wiki article, it says that it's only recognized in a few jurisdictions.
Thank god, I say (as a man, the sex usually accused of rape). Otherwise it would be too easy to accuse everybody of rape. I believe that a necessary ingredient of rape is intent, as well. So, if she seems willing to have sex with me (and she's not too drunk with me being sober), I will have sex with her, and it would be really bad form for her to come after me the next morning and say that she didn't really want to have sex. I can only hope that the law doesn't allow that.
Also, see above my example of a prostitute. Is that also rape by deception?
I can hardly fantom that regret for having had sex with someone can be as traumatic as being forced/drugged into having sex.
You, like a staggering number of men on the Internet, have developed some notion that women go around randomly accusing people of rape all the time— like it's such a common occurrence that we need to devote time and laws to prevent it. The exact opposite is true: Women are most often times afraid to come forward about a rape due to fear of being ostracized. In fact, even when reporting a rape accusation, officers will often times mark an accusation as "unfounded" just because the victim didn't fight off the suspect![0]
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_st...
Women aren't going around changing their mind post coitus about whether they wanted to have sex with you just like you aren't about them. It's incredibly rare and a notion perpetuated by people who really don't want to face the fact that rape and sexual assault are problems in our society.
I admit that I probably am biased, mostly because of (1) "the fight for justice" (I feel the need to present the arguments for the "other" side, so that both sides have arguments), and (2) because I often reflect upon these situations from the first person (I would never rape someone), so I'm wondering, "could this happen to me with me being innocent?"
Also, I never said that rape isn't a problem. It is. But so are false accusations of rape. Maybe a smaller problem, but a problem nonetheless.
"In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception."
Actually no, that's not what he's been 'charged' with. Read the appeal to the extradition ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ). He's been 'charged' with:
• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex. • "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW). • "Sexual molestation" - "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body." • "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.
I'm pretty sure having sex with someone who's asleep is illegal in the USA as well. Various countries (incl. UK) have the "I'll have sex with you only if you use a condom", and then taking off a condom later, would count as sex without consent.
"Miscommunication"? You must be joking. They consented to have sex if he used a condom. He tricked one of them and forced the other one to penetrate without a condom. That is sex without consent. And AFAIK it is not the first time he did this. This seems to be his MO.
I am not saying he should be extradited to Sweden without a guaranty he will not be sent to the US. But the allegations are serious.
As a Swede I do not think this is true. Do you have any source?
Many myths about Swedish law floating around in these comments.
Again, I don’t really care. I do not see how that’s relevant to the question of whether there is a government conspiracy or not.
If you don't really care, why was the vast majority of your comment concerning it?
I don’t care about the details of Swedish law with regards to rape (or more specifically: I only care when someone really loudly exclaims that something that is obviously rape isn’t), I do care about evidence presented in favor of a conspiracy. I commented only on why I think the presented evidence is not convincing me of a conspiracy, not (e.g.) whether it convinces me of whether Assange actually raped or not.
The UK extradition judge said the same act would be an offence in the UK as well.
> The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".
Really? that doesn't say ANYTHING to you?
the day AFTER. Very few people go out of their way to advertise how cool their rapists are.
Have you done research on this? Because I have, and short-lived outward displays that "Everything's GREAT!" are a very common response to psychological trauma. You see this in victims of many types of psychological trauma, including torture, violence, and yes, sexual assault.
So no, that doesn't say anything to me.
Sorry - that doesn't cut it I'm afraid. When someone is accusing someone else of something as serious as "rape" - and it is simply "word against word" (no physical evidence, no witnesses, no violence, etc), one ONLY has the actions and credibility of the parties involved both before and after the events in question. In this case, it appears plain that the sex was consensual, in both cases. The behaviour afterwards (Willen refusing to sign a rail-roaded statement and Ardin continuing to cuddle up and have more sex) would seem to indicate all was well. In cases such as this, the CONTEXT of the behaviours before, during and after the events are ALL-IMPORTANT. And in THIS case, when you factor in the political gain to be had from smearing and legally debilitating Assange, combined with the absolutely clusterfucked process via which they (eventually) launched arrest warrants and red notices, combined with their leaks to the press and unwillingness to question Assange by phone, videolink or in person in the UK ... really leads one to believe there is more going on behind the scenes than can be seen. At the end of the day, a simple question suffices. Would any of this be happening if the guy involved was JOE BLOGGS, rather than Julian Assange? The simple answer to that is "of course not." So ... what are we talking about again?
Sorry, your rationalization doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
When someone has BEEN raped, and I know you don't want to hear this, there is very often a reluctance to admit that's what happened. And of course, a HUGE reluctance to be treated like a filthy liar by people who really want their hero to not have raped someone.
It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone to fuck up and create a situation that will be a huge political debility. It's perfectly possible that your idol- and mine-- isn't so great when his 'nads get involved.
Very few people go out of their way to advertise how cool their rapists are
Sure they do. "Oh he's a good man really, he doesn't mean to beat me, it's just that he gets angry sometime"
It's been a while since I read through various reporting and accounts, but as I recall from memory, here are a few pertinent points:
- The two women involved asked whether Assange could be compelled to take a test for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). They did not allege rape.
- The initial prosecutor dropped their investigation as not meeting criteria that would merit its continuance.
- Later, a second prosecutor -- in a different district and with no prior involvement -- picked the case up and pursued it further. Why?
- Assange stayed in Sweden upwards of a month and did participate in questioning. He left after the case was supposedly dropped and he was told, in response to his question, that he was free to travel abroad.
- Subsequent to his travel to England, Swedish authorities reopened the case and sought him for further questioning.
- Assange was willing to participate in further questioning, but upon advice of his attorneys declined to return to Sweden. Swedish law permits questioning to procede under such circumstances.
- Up to this point, Assange was not charged with any crime. He was simply "wanted for further questioning". If anything, the Swedish prosecutors seemed to be going out of their way to avoid charging him with any crime -- perhaps seeking to avoid causing any "warning", either informally or in some legal sense.
- When Assange refused to return, Sweden finally issued an Interpol Red Notice. Red Notices are the highest level of Interpol "flag". They are very rarely used. This was issued for someone wanted for questioning regarding alleged rape -- an allegation apparently made by a prosecutor but not by the actual alleged victims.
- Some fairly convincing, if circumstantial, evidence has been identified and reported that the U.S. has indeed convened a grand jury. This includes someone having identified the specific grand jury identification number. Decomposition of said number (it's constructed using various aspects of the grand jury timing and topic) shows that the grand jury is investigating a topic pertaining the Espionage Act.
- Apparently (I've seen less on this), one of the women involved has refused to sign her initial statements or to participate further in the Swedish investigation. The other woman has left Sweden. Now, granted, publicity and "blowback" from Assange supporters might well be a cause for this. But we don't have any reports of this being the case nor of specific events that might show such activity. On the other hand, it does not present a picture of two victims of rape seeking justice (in Sweden, where women's rights are much more supported than in many countries).
--
I don't mean to minimize the very real crime and trauma of rape. But upon digging into the specific details and timeline of this situation, it really starts to stink.
P.S. I'm reading some of the more specific, step by step descriptions of the sexual activity allegedly involved. If Assange did indeed force intercourse without the use of a condom, then I'm all for him being charged. Although this still seems at odds with the publicly observed personal interactions that continued for days after the alleged events.
Even if this were to be the case, it does not mean that the U.S. is not leaving no stone unturned in its effort to get its hands on Assange. And, if nothing else, the treatment of Manning -- now formally classified as torture by the U.N. -- seems to provide clear indication that extradition to the U.S. might well result in the violation of Assange's rights.
This is what happens when a government stoops to criminal activity. It no longer has any credence, even were its case to be legitimate.
And finally, once again, I'll ask: Where are the reprimands and punishments for those responsible who mis-designed and mis-managed such a fucked up intelligence information system? And for those whose criminal activities were identified by the leaked information.
U.S.A. -- land of hypocrisy.
Hey nice post but ... what country isn't the land of hypocrisy?
Most countries don't make such a big deal of talking about freedom and liberty and democracy etc. Most countries don't call themselves 'the land of the free'.