11 ms·

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts. But legal issues or not: Y

• thom 14y ago
  As a general gauge, I think a lot of people are hugely offended by the idea that some forms of non-consensual sex aren't rape.
  • tomjakubowski 14y ago
    Under what insane set of morals or laws is having sex with an unconscious person not considered rape?
    • rsynnott 14y ago
      In some countries it may not be _called_ rape (which is sometimes subject to rather strange and archaic definitions) but it will generally be an equivalent form of sexual assault. In any case, it's rape in the UK.
    • freehunter 14y ago
      Well non-consensual doesn't necessarily imply unconscious. There are levels of force that could be considered rape, although some countries has laws on the books saying only women can be raped. I don't want look that up for proof at the moment, as I'm sitting at work.
      • sigzero 14y ago
        I don't think you even came close to answer his question.
        • freehunter 14y ago
          Where did his parent mention unconscious? He specifically called that out, so I responded with "unconscious isn't the only form of rape, and what people might call rape isn't always legally rape". His question was a fallacy, I just pointed that out.
      • rmc 14y ago
        > Well non-consensual doesn't necessarily imply unconscious Correct. But non-consensual means rape.
    • tomjen3 14y ago
      Never had your girlfriend wake you up with a blowjob?
    • rmc 14y ago
      If you believe that men are now being prosecuted and hounded by all those nasty nasty feminists who just want to castrate all men. It's just another conspiracy theory, like the Jews did 9/11 and Obama is a secret muslim. Nutcases.
  • nollidge 14y ago
    People also get confused by the idea that some types of non-married men aren't bachelors.
  • rmc 14y ago
    I am offended by the ideal that there are people who think non-consensual sex doesn' count as rape. What's next? "Some forms of non-consenting taking of property shouldn't count as theft", etc.
• citricsquid 14y ago
  > This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would lead to an international manhunt through Interpol. This is not a "normal" crime situation, as a commenter put it yesterday: no embassy would normally grant a third party protection when there is an arrest warrant for rape involved, nor would this situation "normally" have so much media attention. Replace Assange with someone else equally as politically relevant (say G .W. Bush) and the situation would be identical. > In the interest of gauging people's opinions, does anyone disagree with this particular point? This article explicitly states that Assange is just as safe in Sweden from America (if not more so) as he is in England. He chose to stay in England until an arrest warrant was issued; if he believed his life was in danger why was he happy to stay in England until the arrest warrant? Why didn't he flee before? If Sweden is willing to disregard all their laws to extradite him why didn't England? His behaviour seems like the behaviour of someone that wants to avoid being taken to the place that he is wanted for arrest and that the wikileaks involvement is one big cover, the reasons relating to Wikileaks have been shown in articles like this to be irrelevant, articles like this have shown that the supposed concerns are not legitimate, so the only conclusion I can come to is either Assange believes he is going to be found guilty of his supposed crime, or that he thinks Sweden is willing to break lots of laws that England aren't willing to break, yet this article again shows that is very unlikely. His behaviour is inconsistent, therefore I am not 100% sure that this is all one big play to get him to America to be murdered. I think it's just as likely that his "fame" is the problem. > The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. So clearly they won't. The article explains that they can't make that promise and it also explains why such concerns are of little relevance.
  • Tycho 14y ago
    Just because the article explicitly says Assange is safer in Sweden than in the UK, doesn't mean it is true. By the letter of the law it might be a simpler case in the UK, but the British press is a different beast and the public is already extremely sensitive to their government's coopereation with American extraditions. These are factors which are in Assange's favour which change the equation significantly.
• tptacek 14y ago
  The Swedish government cannot guarantee Assange won't be extradited; it falls on the Swedish judicial system to do that. Your comment again puts forward the idea that the political forces aligned against Assange are so great that no amount of critical thinking, due process, or countervailing concern for the rights of victims can apply: it is, to use your word, "obvious" that the case isn't about "rape", but about an undocumented (and undisclosed) but nevertheless clear and immediate effort to haul Assange to the US and try him with espionage. No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way. Regardless, that concern has very little to do with this particular article, which catalogs and rebuts specific "misconceptions" about the legal issues faced by Assange. Those rebuttals are either compelling or they're not. What do you think about them?
  • hnolable 14y ago
    > No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way. So why does Ecuador see it that way? Are they stupid or easily fooled? Do they want to start political controversy? Some other conspiracy?
    • tptacek 14y ago
      This is a little like asking why Burma wasn't consulted in the extradition. The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material. Yes, I think the issue here is that Ecuador wants to start a political controversy. There is prima facie evidence, compelling and voluminous, that the principals Ecuador is "standing up for" in granting asylum are very much at odds with the principals Ecuador is itself governed by. Occam's Razor more or less demands that we look for motives other than press freedom principals.
      • wes-exp 14y ago
        "The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material" On the contrary, Ecuador's independence from the controversy makes them seem more impartial and credible.
• ChuckMcM 14y ago
  A couple of things, one of the tenants for democracy was that a government elected by the people is more trustworthy than a self selecting government. There are lots of discussions on why this may (or may not) be true, but historically it comes down to whether or not you believe the people are willing (and able) to replace an ill-behaving government. The point about Assange being 'easier' to extradite from the UK than from Sweden is pretty key here. The US is on much better terms with the UK government and any extradition that would be possible in Sweden would be even easier to do in the UK. So I agree with the OP that its unlikely he is ever going to be extradited here, or perhaps even charged here. A much simpler explanation however is that Assange uses his situation to both keep himself in the spotlight (attention on him and by reflection his cause) and to promulgate a message. The way he currently positions himself is as a persecuted rebel fighting the good fight, its a much better and engaging narrative than narcissistic dilettante with poor impulse control. Not being inside his head we cannot know which characterization is closer to the truth of course but we do know what he would like us to believe.
• chimi 14y ago
  My question is: If Sweden wants Assange, why is Britain the one saying they'll invade the embassy? Shouldn't it be Sweden who is invading the Ecuadoran Embassy instead of Britain? I really don't see Britain bending over backwards to break the diplomatic status quo for Sweden, but I do see them doing that for the U.S. or themselves and that's why I think this is about more than a rape case in Sweden.
  • tptacek 14y ago
    Did this really seem like a good question when you typed it? "If Sweden wants Assange, why don't they send armed people to UK soil in order to violate the privileges of Ecuador's diplomatic mission to the UK?"
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • chimi 14y ago
      Do the words you put in quotes actually sound like what I said to you? Bit of a straw man. But even if you want to argue to that extreme, then well, yeah if you consider the USA sent its military into Pakistan without them even knowing. The USA does that kind of stuff all the time and at least in this case, the UK will know about it and is cooperating with Sweden on the issue. Even further, Sweden has an embassy there already with armed guards that could very well likely beat up Ecuador's armed guards, so no one needs to be sent there -- they are already there.
      • tptacek 14y ago
        Has that ever happened in the history of modern diplomacy? The guards of one embassy sent to invade another embassy? This doesn't sound silly to you?
        • chimi 14y ago
          Things happening that have never happened before occur so frequently they invented a word for it: Precedent. And yes, the whole fiasco is silly. Do you actually think this is about Sweden wanting to extradite him for accusations of rape? Seriously, compare this to Roman Polanski, who was actually convicted of the crimes and the Swiss still rejected extradition. And no, for the record, I don't think the UK saying, "Okay Sweden, if you want him, he is in the Ecuadoran Embassy. Our relationship with Ecuador and honoring centuries of diplomatic customs between nations is a bigger deal than your rape case." Rape is horrible and I acknowledge that. I also see that diplomatic relations are way heavier than crimes of that magnitude -- even greater magnitude -- and are consistently prioritized as such in countless diplomatic immunity cases throughout history. Frankly I don't care what kind of clout you have around here, your condescending tone is unwarranted. Your superficial comments make you look like an arrogant dolt.
• lolcraft 14y ago
  Now, if you wanted to argue that the rape charges look strange, because those charges were dismissed at first, both victims do not want to prosecute further, the accussed is kind of a target, so on... well, OK. But your argument here amazes me. Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on. And it should. I would be surprised and enraged if the Interpol had an arbitrary threshold of violence by which it would decide to act or not, as if they were nobles graciously granting the plebs the gift of international justice. Now, I don't buy that this rape accussations are pretexts. If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pressure the U.K. to extradite him? Sweden is now full of U.S.'s lackeys, but the U.K. isn't? Or, shit, just send a CIA agent there and get him on a plane. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.
  • white_devil 14y ago
    > Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? When does the Interpol ever get involved in a rape case? Especially one where someone is suspected of not-actually-rape -"rape", and supposedly only wanted for "questioning"? What the fuck? Does this not sound suspicious to you at all? > If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pressure the U.K. to extradite him? Who knows? Maybe they came up with the bullshit rape charges in Sweden first, before someone thought of doing that? At least at this point, they kind of have to go through Sweden to maintain any tiny shreds of credibility.
    • thomasz 14y ago
      Read the article, it answers those questions.
    • scott_s 14y ago
      Sweden does not want him for questioning. They want to arrest him for rape.
      • white_devil 14y ago
• nollidge 14y ago
  What if he really did commit rape, and Sweden really does just want to arrest him for that, and has no plans to extradite him? How would this situation look different to you? > The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. And here's where you reveal that you did not read the article.
  • thro936287Waway 14y ago
    There is agreement that both parties consented to having sex and that there was no violence involved. A strange kind of rape, isn't it? The point here is, even if it turns out to be "rape", everyone has a certain picture of it in their mind. That is a picture of the random stranger preying on a woman. Or of parents/relatives abusing a girl. Or whatever. So speaking of rape is very misleading, bordering on lying. Better call it was it was: consentual sex, supposedly started without a condom (contrary to agreement) and then continued after the women agreed.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      Because an instance of rape does not follow your exact mental picture of what "rape" is, it does not follow that the allegation of rape is "bordering on lying". Very similar arguments were made during the formation of US jurisprudence on spouse rape (an unprosecutable offense in many states until the 1970s!) and "date"/acquaintance rape. If you had read the article, you'd see it contained a prominent link to Sweden's court considering exactly the issues of whether Assange's conduct constituted rape under Sweden's statutes. Not only does it, but the same conduct alleged also constitutes rape in the UK, where "sleep rape" has been prosecuted for years.
      • thro936287Waway 14y ago
        I thought you would say this. First, I have read the article. Second, spouse rape is different: a) If reported, it will always be reported, that the victim was the spouse. Therefore people adjust their mental picture and have a correct grasp of what happened. This is very important. b) In spouse rape, again, the sex will happen against the will of the victim (usually using force and in broken relationships). This is very different from failure to use a condom. So why is it so important for you to call it rape? Just describe what happened, and don't lead your readers astray!