5 ms·

The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when

by nirvana 14y ago

The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is, or that this came up after he became very famous, or that the US might be trying to extradite him. None of that matters- there isn't even an alleged crime here[1]. [1] I'm using the word "crime" here in the moral sense. There are lots of things that are not crimes but that are against the law. Since governments are not beholden to morality, laws that cause the violation of rights are themselves crimes. So, something simply being illegal doesn't make it a crime.

kalleboo 14y ago
Courts and policemen don't make decisions based on interviews with the press, or what some internet commenter thinks is a crime or not. There's a reason trials exist, to find out if a crime was committed or not. Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. From what I've read it's pretty hard to convict people using the existing rape laws in Sweden, since you need a lot of evidence and stuff.
- nirvana 14y ago
  I think you missed my point. My point is that a crime was not committed, based on the present facts. The law itself criminalizes a non-crime. I'm not saying trials are unnecessary, I'm pointing out there isn't any dispute on the basic facts of the case. In almost every trial there is- the prosecution says he did it, the defendant says he didn't. Here both sides say the same thing about what happened. IT is the law that is the crime, but the law will not be put on trial if there is a trial. (They don't even do that in the USA anymore, even though that was the foundation of our system.)
  - kalleboo 14y ago
    You don't need facts to be in dispute for there to be a case. E.g. in a patent lawsuit nobody's debating that Android doesn't have slide to unlock. The debate is if it's an infringement. Similarly, here the trial isn't what he did, it's if what he did was unlawful. Obviously someone thinks it was, and someone doesn't.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    It's good to know that you, single-handedly, have decided that no crime was committed based on an incomplete knowledge of all of the facts of the case. There is a reason we have criminal trials: it is to allow for the exposition of all of the facts of the case, not just the ones selectively released by the prosecution or defense. And, based on my reading of the facts currently available, it sounds like Assange may have been guilty of rape by fraud, if he misled either of the women about why he was not using protection. As to your final, comment: even a cursory glance at the news will suggest how ridiculously untrue it is. Laws, even those that have been on the books without issue for decades, are regularly challenged by defendants in the U.S. The trial court then holds a hearing on the law itself. Only after the challenge to the law has been resolved does the case proceed to trial on the substantive issues.
- artsrc 14y ago
  > Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. Assange thinks he will be convicted of a crime. He thinks he will end up being imprisoned for the rest of his life in the United States for releasing secrets. The issue is not Swedish rape laws, it is Swedish extradition laws.
  - kalleboo 14y ago
    > The issue is not Swedish rape laws, it is Swedish extradition laws. Agreed. And that's what we should be discussing, not the rape laws.
three4s 14y ago
>I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this I can't be assed to properly asses the situation so let me give you my uneducated opinion. Fix'd
- nirvana 14y ago
  Oh, sorry, I am not uneducated. I have read a great deal of accounts on this issue back when the charges were first leveled. I have heard the story from both sides in interviews, saw the tweets, looked into the charges and the law itself. I have no idea whether this program is good or not, but there is a key point about the situation, and I made it. I find it interesting that you assume that because I didn't watch this particular program I'm "uneducated".... yet you have no problem giving me that derogatory characterization without actually showing where I was in error on anything I said. This isn't reddit. Yet.
  - three4s 14y ago
    >This isn't reddit. Look how intellectually superior I am to everyone else. Fix'd
    - nirvana 14y ago
      Generally responses where you mischaracterize what someone has said are not preferred on this forum. That is what I'm saying, and you continue to do it. Effectively, you're just calling me names. In this example, you're claiming that I'm saying I'm "intellectually superior" as a way of implying that I don't have any argument other than being smug. In doing so, you cut out my actual explanations and have ignored my arguments. If you're going to disagree with me, I have no chance to even understand why, unless you explain your position. You have not done so.
      - three4s 14y ago
        Why, this the internet is serial business for you huh?
mtgx 14y ago
The video shows how the first woman even accompanied him to other events the next couple of days or so and tweeted about it. That doesn't exactly sound like what a woman who was "sexually assaulted", let alone raped, would do. And he slept at her place again after that, too.
michael_nielsen 14y ago
Please don't write a (top-level) comment if you don't have time to read the article. EDIT: The parent comment has now been edited to remove the original starting sentence: "I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this...".
- loceng 14y ago
  It's interesting to get a perspective of what a sample of the general population might believe though - unless we should start censoring people, though that's not a great road to go down either.. probably worse than trolling even..
- nirvana 14y ago
  I did read the article. I saw nothing in it that contradicts my position. I haven't seen any statements from others that contradict my understanding of the facts. Your comment doesn't provide me any understanding of your disagreement with my position.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - michael_nielsen 14y ago
    Your original comment began by stating "I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this...". You have since edited that out. So you appear to have read the article after writing your comment. On your last sentence: I didn't comment on your position one way or the other.
gadders 14y ago
I don't think your reading of the offence is correct Certainly the UK Extradition Judge in his first hearing thought he had a case to answer, and had the offence occurred in the UK it would probably be classed as sexual assault.
- nirvana 14y ago
  How can consensual sex be assault? Even in the UK?
  - loeg 14y ago
    The same way as in this case… sex under false pretenses is not consensual; i.e., it is sexual assault / rape. An example of this might be pretending to be someone's wife to sleep with him. While this might appear consensual to you, this is sexual assault because the victim may have chosen not to consent if he had been given the truth at the time of the assault.
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    How can consensual sex be assault? Even in the UK? Assange is alleged to have had sex with one of the women whilst she was sleeping[1]. That is very much considered rape in the UK. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q-and-a http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by nirvana 14y ago

kalleboo 14y ago

Courts and policemen don't make decisions based on interviews with the press, or what some internet commenter thinks is a crime or not. There's a reason trials exist, to find out if a crime was committed or not. Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. From what I've read it's pretty hard to convict people using the existing rape laws in Sweden, since you need a lot of evidence and stuff.

nirvana 14y ago
I think you missed my point. My point is that a crime was not committed, based on the present facts. The law itself criminalizes a non-crime. I'm not saying trials are unnecessary, I'm pointing out there isn't any dispute on the basic facts of the case. In almost every trial there is- the prosecution says he did it, the defendant says he didn't. Here both sides say the same thing about what happened. IT is the law that is the crime, but the law will not be put on trial if there is a trial. (They don't even do that in the USA anymore, even though that was the foundation of our system.)
- kalleboo 14y ago
  You don't need facts to be in dispute for there to be a case. E.g. in a patent lawsuit nobody's debating that Android doesn't have slide to unlock. The debate is if it's an infringement. Similarly, here the trial isn't what he did, it's if what he did was unlawful. Obviously someone thinks it was, and someone doesn't.
- rprasad 14y ago
  It's good to know that you, single-handedly, have decided that no crime was committed based on an incomplete knowledge of all of the facts of the case. There is a reason we have criminal trials: it is to allow for the exposition of all of the facts of the case, not just the ones selectively released by the prosecution or defense. And, based on my reading of the facts currently available, it sounds like Assange may have been guilty of rape by fraud, if he misled either of the women about why he was not using protection. As to your final, comment: even a cursory glance at the news will suggest how ridiculously untrue it is. Laws, even those that have been on the books without issue for decades, are regularly challenged by defendants in the U.S. The trial court then holds a hearing on the law itself. Only after the challenge to the law has been resolved does the case proceed to trial on the substantive issues.
artsrc 14y ago
> Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. Assange thinks he will be convicted of a crime. He thinks he will end up being imprisoned for the rest of his life in the United States for releasing secrets. The issue is not Swedish rape laws, it is Swedish extradition laws.
- kalleboo 14y ago
  > The issue is not Swedish rape laws, it is Swedish extradition laws. Agreed. And that's what we should be discussing, not the rape laws.

three4s 14y ago

>I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this I can't be assed to properly asses the situation so let me give you my uneducated opinion. Fix'd

nirvana 14y ago
Oh, sorry, I am not uneducated. I have read a great deal of accounts on this issue back when the charges were first leveled. I have heard the story from both sides in interviews, saw the tweets, looked into the charges and the law itself. I have no idea whether this program is good or not, but there is a key point about the situation, and I made it. I find it interesting that you assume that because I didn't watch this particular program I'm "uneducated".... yet you have no problem giving me that derogatory characterization without actually showing where I was in error on anything I said. This isn't reddit. Yet.
- three4s 14y ago
  >This isn't reddit. Look how intellectually superior I am to everyone else. Fix'd
  - nirvana 14y ago
    Generally responses where you mischaracterize what someone has said are not preferred on this forum. That is what I'm saying, and you continue to do it. Effectively, you're just calling me names. In this example, you're claiming that I'm saying I'm "intellectually superior" as a way of implying that I don't have any argument other than being smug. In doing so, you cut out my actual explanations and have ignored my arguments. If you're going to disagree with me, I have no chance to even understand why, unless you explain your position. You have not done so.
    - three4s 14y ago
      Why, this the internet is serial business for you huh?

mtgx 14y ago

The video shows how the first woman even accompanied him to other events the next couple of days or so and tweeted about it. That doesn't exactly sound like what a woman who was "sexually assaulted", let alone raped, would do. And he slept at her place again after that, too.

michael_nielsen 14y ago

Please don't write a (top-level) comment if you don't have time to read the article. EDIT: The parent comment has now been edited to remove the original starting sentence: "I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this...".

loceng 14y ago
It's interesting to get a perspective of what a sample of the general population might believe though - unless we should start censoring people, though that's not a great road to go down either.. probably worse than trolling even..
nirvana 14y ago
I did read the article. I saw nothing in it that contradicts my position. I haven't seen any statements from others that contradict my understanding of the facts. Your comment doesn't provide me any understanding of your disagreement with my position.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- michael_nielsen 14y ago
  Your original comment began by stating "I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this...". You have since edited that out. So you appear to have read the article after writing your comment. On your last sentence: I didn't comment on your position one way or the other.

gadders 14y ago

I don't think your reading of the offence is correct Certainly the UK Extradition Judge in his first hearing thought he had a case to answer, and had the offence occurred in the UK it would probably be classed as sexual assault.

nirvana 14y ago
How can consensual sex be assault? Even in the UK?
- loeg 14y ago
  The same way as in this case… sex under false pretenses is not consensual; i.e., it is sexual assault / rape. An example of this might be pretending to be someone's wife to sleep with him. While this might appear consensual to you, this is sexual assault because the victim may have chosen not to consent if he had been given the truth at the time of the assault.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  How can consensual sex be assault? Even in the UK? Assange is alleged to have had sex with one of the women whilst she was sleeping[1]. That is very much considered rape in the UK. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q-and-a http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]