I think you're being downvoted unfairly. It seems likely he crossed serious boundaries. Forcing or sneaking unprotected sex after being asked repeatedly to use a condom is pretty damned rape-y, and in some jurisdictions is legally rape (and by my personal definition, it is rape...consent can be withdrawn by either party at any point in the interaction).
So, yeah, he probably should answer for that behavior. I'd be willing to believe that one woman lied to discredit him...I'm less willing to believe that two women did so. Unless they were actually in the employ of government agencies, in which case, he's merely imprudent.
Assange is, unfortunately, a very flawed sort of protagonist. Snowden and Manning seem vastly more sympathetic, to me. Where Assange has a massive ego, Snowden and Manning seem extremely humble...and I have a difficult time imagining either being assholes that force themselves on others sexually. It's a shame they're the ones facing the most serious charges.
I used to agree when people would say things like you just said. It sounds so reasonable.
Honestly, if you had NSA-level ethics, and wanted to discredit Assange, how would you do it?
I agree with you on the NSA-level ethics concept. I believe there are people within US intelligence agencies that would stoop this low without a second thought.
But, it's also plausible that Assange is an abusive asshole. Given the circumstances, and the story of the women involved, I'm inclined to believe he's an asshole more than I'm inclined to believe the NSA planted two women into the circle of people supporting him in Sweden. I strongly suspect something would have come out by now to give us some indication if that were true.
I've been involved in activist groups. Including some that have been infiltrated by local, state, and federal agents. It tends to come out. There tend to be clues. It may take years (and we may still find out at some point that these women really were honeypots set by some government), but it usually does reveal itself. It's difficult to maintain a completely artificial life and story for a long period of time. I know that cops, feds, spooks, will do horrible thing...but, there are limits to what they can do without being found out.
Is this one of those cases? I don't know for sure. But, I'm inclined to say no. I could be wrong.
One of the women was singing Assange's praise on Twitter the days before, and it seems she only got upset once she found out he'd slept with another woman during his stay. Even then, the question was initially just about getting him tested for STDs, as it was an overzealous prosecutor who turned it into a rape case.
So it seems like it wasn't an NSA plant, but rather, a case of a politicized investigation over a narcissist sleeping with two adoring fans, tinged by Swedish institutional feminism, which the US then ran with. We already know the US has wound Sweden around its fingers.
Why do you even talk about infiltration? That is such a ridiculous straw man. No, it's far more likely the women were bribed to talk about rape after the US got pissed off at Assange.
Anyway the whole case is really fishy if you look into it, whether they were bribed or not. One of the women (the one with the dildo shoes), for example, actually blogged about accusing men of rape as a valid way of getting back at them. Does that seem legit to you?
I wouldn't use two women who could, at any time, very publicly expose the conspiracy.
I don't particularly believe the rape story, but I also don't believe the NSA had anything to do with it, though I'm sure they greatly enjoyed the fallout.
Ardin described a method for revenge against an ex on her blog prior to the Assange case that was very similar to the events in questions. It seems quite possible to me that the two women both were angry after finding out he had sex with both of them, and decided to teach him a lesson, and that it went too far.
Especially given that one of the women have categorically refused to sign the police interview report and refused to have anything further to do with the police after she learned the police was pursuing a rape investigation, and that neither woman alleged rape when they approached the police. Exactly as Ardin had previously described on her blog, they "just" described events to the police that were sufficiently ambiguous to get the police to start an investigation. An investigation that was closed until a prosecutor with a long time political agenda of massively tightening Swedish rape laws got hold of it.
Couple that with Assange acting like quite the asshole and being paranoid about the US, and it was all set for plenty of drama.
> I'd be willing to believe that one woman lied to discredit him...I'm less willing to believe that two women did so.
One needs to consider the circumstances.
Would you believe a woman wearing dildo shoes who's accusing a world famous journalist for rape? Yes, dildo shoes. I'd say it affects my view on what has been said.
http://lolpics.se/pics/76665.jpg http://lolpics.se/pics/76665.jpg
Assange should take note of this advice and protect the truth.
http://raincoaster.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/julian-assange-protect-the-truth.jpg?w=558 http://raincoaster.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/julian-assang...
Whatever transpired, calling it rape is offensive to all the women out there who was violently forced to submission.
The most disturbing thing about this "case" is that the Swedish police published Assanges name in the world press on suspicion of rape, even before a court had seen any evidence. What about the right to a fair trial? Assange certainly was judged without one.
The Swedish police stubborn refusal to interview Assange in the UK is also suspicious. Authorities have no such inhibitions in other less high-profile cases.
My advice to all of you is to keep your d*ck in your pants when visiting Sweden and meeting a girl wearing dildo shoes.
This is similar to slut shaming. How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance. You could walk around in bondage gear all day, it doesn't mean you're asking to be raped, or change the legitimacy of accusations of rape. If someone has sex with you against your will (or in this case, they don't use protection and claim they did), it is a crime. Full stop.
> How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance
It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty. Once upon a time, the burden of proof was on the accuser. When Mr Assange is accused of rape, with no proof except the accusation, Mr Assanged is asked to prove his innocence.
I dare say that how someone acts before sex is the most significant indicator on if sex was consensual that we can find.
> (or in this case, they don't use protection and claim they did), it is a crime.
Mind you, would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it? Let's not keep double standards for the lying men and lying women.
Well, you might, but I can not label this as "rape". If someone lies about using protection, it makes them liars but not rapists.
The original post was about being charged in US. The rape acquisitions are between the Swedish government and him.
The whole story is extremely messy on many levels. I think that I buy more the accuser's story. Assange is obviously an asshole. But the Swedish government IIRC has repeated refuse to promise not to extradite him to the US. And I definitely see why he cannot afford to go to Sweden to defend himself against the charges.
The point that consent can be withdrawn at any point during the interaction - I am not sure it is biologically feasible to have such high standard - a person can rarely be accused of clear mind near and during the climax.
Here is the view on the case from a female journalist who has covered rape law for 23 years and is supporting women at rape centers (Naomi Wolf):
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/ http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with...
Assange isn't even charged with anything, he is wanted 'for questioning' and he has agreed to be questioned over video link but for some reason the police demands that he comes here to Sweden to be questioned.
It's purely political, and the second he sets foot in Sweden (heck, probably outside of the Equador embassy) he will be shipped off to the US.
These are valid concerns, and makes a pretty good case for it being politically motivated, and possibly even government plants making the accusations.
Assange isn't even charged with anything
This is due to differences in the procedural law. Under the Swedish system, he can't be charged until he's arrested and interrogated.
According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be
taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at.
Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary
investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is
surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
The "but they haven't even charged him" is just disinformation.
for some reason the police demands that he comes here to Sweden to be questioned.
"Some reason" being that he's a suspect who has evaded an arrest warrant.
First off it's a lie that Assange needs to come to Sweden for interrogation, we (sweden) interrogate people abroad all the time, it's called 'Mutual Legal Assistanced Treaty'.
So he can be interrogated in England or at the Equador embassy just fine.
After the first chief prosector dismissed the case directly, and another prosecutor (Marianne Ny, who is a close friend of the womens attorney) brought it up again a week later, Assange stayed in Sweden and was available for questioning for four whole weeks!
Then he was told by swedish authorities through his lawyer that he was free to leave Sweden and did, for England.
Three months later prosecutor 'Marianne Ny' issues a european arrest warrant for suspicion of sexual harassment, so that they can question him which they according to the prosecutor was unable to do during the four weeks he remained in Sweden.
Also, neither of the two women went to the police to issue a rape accusation, they wanted to know if they could force Assange to take a HIV test, as they both had unprotected sex with him (the women were also friends).
Here is the actual preliminary investigation on which this 'case' is based, it's in swedish naturally, but if you are able to read it/translate it you will be absolutely clear on how this is all a sham and not even remotely sexual harassment.
http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange?file=files/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avs...
When the police announced that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation, one of the two women became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.
That women is the same one who only went to the police because she was concerned that Assanged might had ripped the condom intentionally, and wanted to get Assange to make a HIV test (which he later agreed to).
I don't see much of an argument that this is really two women crying rape. The first woman and the case around if she was sleeping and thus in an helplessness state will likely be argued in court. The other woman is unlikely to even show up in court, and since the testimony has not been signed, its even a question if any case can be made without her.
Two women who knew each other, and who both found out that he'd slept with both of them. If it had been two strangers who did this independently of each other, I'd have agreed with you, but it was not.
It is also worth pointing out that it is not clear that they lied. They did not allege rape. They asked questions of the police that led the police to unilaterally start a rape investigation that was subsequently shut down by the senior prosecutor for lack of any evidence.
It was first when a second prosecutor unusually decided to override and take over the case that police against started going after Assange and the case escalated.
One of the women furthermore has refused to sign her statements to the police, and there are allegations that the interviews were carried out in violation of police procedures (a friend of one of the women worked at the police station in question and was involved in the interviews).