Did Julian Assange Rape These 2 Women
-
Read a fairly full account of the charges here. Do you think Julian Assange raped these 2 women? I personally think he may have violated their trust (unless they're lying, in which case they violated his), but I wouldn't go so far as to call what he supposedly did rape. I don't think I read anywhere in there that either of them said "no" (though the accusation of him having sex with one of the girls while she was asleep may change that somewhat). And one more queston. Do any of you know of a similar case we could compare this to?
-
Read a fairly full account of the charges here. Do you think Julian Assange raped these 2 women? I personally think he may have violated their trust (unless they're lying, in which case they violated his), but I wouldn't go so far as to call what he supposedly did rape. I don't think I read anywhere in there that either of them said "no" (though the accusation of him having sex with one of the girls while she was asleep may change that somewhat). And one more queston. Do any of you know of a similar case we could compare this to?
It isn't up to you to decide. The law in Sweden says that intercourse without a condom when the woman asks for one to be used is rape. Q.E.D.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Read a fairly full account of the charges here. Do you think Julian Assange raped these 2 women? I personally think he may have violated their trust (unless they're lying, in which case they violated his), but I wouldn't go so far as to call what he supposedly did rape. I don't think I read anywhere in there that either of them said "no" (though the accusation of him having sex with one of the girls while she was asleep may change that somewhat). And one more queston. Do any of you know of a similar case we could compare this to?
The significant part is that the first Swedish prosecutor said there was nothing to charge him with (they chose a woman for this, interestingly enough) and then she was replaced with another woman who did as she was told.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
It isn't up to you to decide. The law in Sweden says that intercourse without a condom when the woman asks for one to be used is rape. Q.E.D.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Reality isn't always that simple. The woman didn't say "we can have sex if you use a condom" and then Assange said "nope, we're gonna have sex without a condom" and the woman said "no" and Assange forced sex on her anyway. The stories (though varied depending on who is telling them) were more nuanced than that. In one case ("Miss A"), the condom supposedly broke (and the woman thinks but does not know that Assange broke it on purpose), and according to Assange he was not made aware of this fact:
Article stated:
The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
In the second case ("Miss B"), the matter is less clear. The woman told Assange to use a condom and he did a few times when they had sex. Then apparently Assange started having sex with the woman while she was asleep (he must be a pretty stealth guy), and after asking Assange if he was wearing a condom and him replying that he wasn't, the woman didn't tell him to stop (because she was tired of telling him all night to wear a condom):
Article stated:
She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night.
I find a few things suspect about each of these cases. For one, how many guys do you know that actually want to ejaculate in a woman with a broken condom (and risk having to deal with the child)? In the first case, it apparently wasn't about the sensation of not wearing a condom (that is what most guys are after), but about ejaculating in her. And in the second case, when did the woman wake up? When Assange flipped her over? When he was balancing over her about to put his penis in her? After a minute or two of intercourse? And if this woman cared enough to bring this to trial, then surely she should have cared enough to tell him to put a condom on once she woke up. If her only reason for not telling him to put a condom on was her being tired of telling him to do so, then isn't that her problem and not his? It's hard to judge what should hap
-
Reality isn't always that simple. The woman didn't say "we can have sex if you use a condom" and then Assange said "nope, we're gonna have sex without a condom" and the woman said "no" and Assange forced sex on her anyway. The stories (though varied depending on who is telling them) were more nuanced than that. In one case ("Miss A"), the condom supposedly broke (and the woman thinks but does not know that Assange broke it on purpose), and according to Assange he was not made aware of this fact:
Article stated:
The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
In the second case ("Miss B"), the matter is less clear. The woman told Assange to use a condom and he did a few times when they had sex. Then apparently Assange started having sex with the woman while she was asleep (he must be a pretty stealth guy), and after asking Assange if he was wearing a condom and him replying that he wasn't, the woman didn't tell him to stop (because she was tired of telling him all night to wear a condom):
Article stated:
She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night.
I find a few things suspect about each of these cases. For one, how many guys do you know that actually want to ejaculate in a woman with a broken condom (and risk having to deal with the child)? In the first case, it apparently wasn't about the sensation of not wearing a condom (that is what most guys are after), but about ejaculating in her. And in the second case, when did the woman wake up? When Assange flipped her over? When he was balancing over her about to put his penis in her? After a minute or two of intercourse? And if this woman cared enough to bring this to trial, then surely she should have cared enough to tell him to put a condom on once she woke up. If her only reason for not telling him to put a condom on was her being tired of telling him to do so, then isn't that her problem and not his? It's hard to judge what should hap
aspdotnetdev wrote:
It's hard to judge what should hap
He should be put on trial. Then a judge and possibly a jury will decide his guilt or lack thereof. It may or may not be justice, but it will be according to the law.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
The significant part is that the first Swedish prosecutor said there was nothing to charge him with (they chose a woman for this, interestingly enough) and then she was replaced with another woman who did as she was told.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Indeed, one thought the case didn't deserve the time of day, and the next thought a case should proceed. One wonders why that is. Perhaps the high profile nature of the case. Hopefully, it's because new evidence was presented (though I can't imagine what evidence would be new, as both of these cases rely purely on testimony from 2 women in addition to some tangentially related testimony from those who were in contact with Assange and the women at times other than the incidents in question).
-
Indeed, one thought the case didn't deserve the time of day, and the next thought a case should proceed. One wonders why that is. Perhaps the high profile nature of the case. Hopefully, it's because new evidence was presented (though I can't imagine what evidence would be new, as both of these cases rely purely on testimony from 2 women in addition to some tangentially related testimony from those who were in contact with Assange and the women at times other than the incidents in question).
aspdotnetdev wrote:
as both of these cases rely purely on testimony from 2 women in addition to some tangentially related testimony from those who were in contact with Assange and the women at times other than the incidents in question).
How is that any different from 90% of all rape cases? Should we ignore all accusations of rape unless there are 3rd party witnesses?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
The significant part is that the first Swedish prosecutor said there was nothing to charge him with (they chose a woman for this, interestingly enough) and then she was replaced with another woman who did as she was told.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
You're probably right. Violence against women isn't anything to get upset over, is it?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
as both of these cases rely purely on testimony from 2 women in addition to some tangentially related testimony from those who were in contact with Assange and the women at times other than the incidents in question).
How is that any different from 90% of all rape cases? Should we ignore all accusations of rape unless there are 3rd party witnesses?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
My point was not that this should not go to trial the evidence is insufficient, my point was that the nature of this case means that there was probably no new evidence, which is why I find it strange that one person would deem this unworthy of a trial while the other thinks it is.
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
It's hard to judge what should hap
He should be put on trial. Then a judge and possibly a jury will decide his guilt or lack thereof. It may or may not be justice, but it will be according to the law.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
I meant the ultimate outcome, not the intermediate steps to reach that outcome. And I was speaking as an outside observer given only the partial evidence I've seen so far, not as somebody who has been fully informed and can make the decision of whether or not the case should go to trial at all. When somebody is presented with the full evidence, they can decide "there might be an argument for this" or "this evidence will be insufficient for a trial". What I want to discuss is what decision you would make given the evidence as it has been presented so far.
-
You're probably right. Violence against women isn't anything to get upset over, is it?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Exploiting it for espionage is something to get upset over. This then cheapens it when it really happens.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
Exploiting it for espionage is something to get upset over. This then cheapens it when it really happens.
Neither you, nor I, are as omniscient as you seem to think you are. As aspnetdev points out, we do not know all the facts. But we do know, or should know, that two women filed this complaint last September. Ask yourself whether, if the charge had been made against someone who was considered conservative and it had been dismissed, whether or not you would be in the forefront of those demanding that they have their day in court. Instead, this seems to be another case where almost any other progressive cause trumps any consideration of a woman's right to be treated with respect.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
My point was not that this should not go to trial the evidence is insufficient, my point was that the nature of this case means that there was probably no new evidence, which is why I find it strange that one person would deem this unworthy of a trial while the other thinks it is.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
My point was not that this should not go to trial the evidence is insufficient, my point was that the nature of this case means that there was probably no new evidence, which is why I find it strange that one person would deem this unworthy of a trial while the other thinks it is.
Stick to worrying about whether George Bush planned 9/11. The idea that two prosecutors may have different opinions about a case is neither wondrous, or strange, nor is it evidence of a conspiracy.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
as both of these cases rely purely on testimony from 2 women in addition to some tangentially related testimony from those who were in contact with Assange and the women at times other than the incidents in question).
How is that any different from 90% of all rape cases? Should we ignore all accusations of rape unless there are 3rd party witnesses?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
How is that any different from 90% of all rape cases? Should we ignore all accusations of rape unless there are 3rd party witnesses?
Well said, Oakman. On this we agree entirely. If he is exonerated on these charges, in which case the argument exists that this was an underhanded or vindictive attack by the women on him, then I think they should have to face some legal repercussions because of this. It is far too easy for people in many situations to make false claims against someone they are angry with without much of a result for their actions.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Oakman wrote:
How is that any different from 90% of all rape cases? Should we ignore all accusations of rape unless there are 3rd party witnesses?
Well said, Oakman. On this we agree entirely. If he is exonerated on these charges, in which case the argument exists that this was an underhanded or vindictive attack by the women on him, then I think they should have to face some legal repercussions because of this. It is far too easy for people in many situations to make false claims against someone they are angry with without much of a result for their actions.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
in which case the argument exists that this was an underhanded or vindictive attack by the women on him, then I think they should have to face some legal repercussions because of this.
I certainly believe that false rape and false abuse charges are two of the more heinous accusations that some unethical women use to get revenge on, or extort money from men. However, I cannot go so far as to assume that because a man or women is judged to be not proved guilty (which is a far cry from being proved innocent) that their accusers deserve punishment. Such a law, if instituted across the board would discourage women (and kids) from coming forward after being abused.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Marcus Kramer wrote:
in which case the argument exists that this was an underhanded or vindictive attack by the women on him, then I think they should have to face some legal repercussions because of this.
I certainly believe that false rape and false abuse charges are two of the more heinous accusations that some unethical women use to get revenge on, or extort money from men. However, I cannot go so far as to assume that because a man or women is judged to be not proved guilty (which is a far cry from being proved innocent) that their accusers deserve punishment. Such a law, if instituted across the board would discourage women (and kids) from coming forward after being abused.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Read a fairly full account of the charges here. Do you think Julian Assange raped these 2 women? I personally think he may have violated their trust (unless they're lying, in which case they violated his), but I wouldn't go so far as to call what he supposedly did rape. I don't think I read anywhere in there that either of them said "no" (though the accusation of him having sex with one of the girls while she was asleep may change that somewhat). And one more queston. Do any of you know of a similar case we could compare this to?
-
This is a very good reason for anonymity in such cases - too often people are tried by the media.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
This is a very good reason for anonymity in such cases
I believe the concept of anonymity of accusers would be a great perversion of our legal system. One of its basic tenants is that the accused and accusers must confront each other in open court. Or so my understanding of the 6th amendment to the Constitution goes.
Trollslayer wrote:
too often people are tried by the media.
Julian Assange would disagree. I am surprised you do not support his belief that nothing should be hidden from the media. I think that the laws forbidding newspapers from publicizing the names of women who say they have been raped have much to recommend them, though the 1st Amendment seems to be violated by such legislation. I wonder though, why men accused of rape (sometimes unjustly as you believe to be true in Assange's case, I think) are never shielded from public approbation. Any thoughts?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
I meant the ultimate outcome, not the intermediate steps to reach that outcome. And I was speaking as an outside observer given only the partial evidence I've seen so far, not as somebody who has been fully informed and can make the decision of whether or not the case should go to trial at all. When somebody is presented with the full evidence, they can decide "there might be an argument for this" or "this evidence will be insufficient for a trial". What I want to discuss is what decision you would make given the evidence as it has been presented so far.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
What I want to discuss is what decision you would make given the evidence as it has been presented so far.
My "decision" would be that I have not heard all the evidence. But then, I have excellent impulse control, and seldom shoot my mouth off before I am reasonably sure I know what I am talking about.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
It isn't up to you to decide. The law in Sweden says that intercourse without a condom when the woman asks for one to be used is rape. Q.E.D.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin