Wikileaks...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:34 am

PhoneLobster wrote: MUCH harder and more valid cases of rape fail in court all the time with such ludicrous and unsupported counter arguments as "everyone knows she's easy".

Or the fantastic one of "She was wearing jeans. You can't rape someone wearing jeans."

I had no idea they bestowed such a super power.

Can't remember where that case was. I want to say that it was in the Middle-East, but given that doesn't go to court, you just stone the victim, it's unlikely, and chances are it was an Australian case. Stay classy, Australia.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:13 am

That was actually Italy.

Edit: no wait, that was Australia too.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:02 pm

And this is why I welcome climate change: the sooner Ausfailia is destroyed and rendered uninhabitable, the better.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:23 pm

It must be mentioned that the actual reason that the prosecution failed was that it was a classic he said/she said and their witness was torn apart on the stand.
One of the issues was whether the defendant could have torn off the jeans as the witness described.
Rape cases are hard.

Of course, there are many other reasons to laugh at Australia. They mainly live in Cronulla.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 8:37 am

It's worth noting that Assange got charged only after two of his victims/lovers/whatever talked to each other and realized he had slept with both of them without a condom without consent.

Which makes the case a bit stronger than a mere he said/she said - as now there's also Assange's pattern of behavior to take into account.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 8:43 am

Zinegata wrote:It's worth noting that Assange got charged only after two of his victims/lovers/whatever talked to each other and realized he had slept with both of them without a condom without consent.

Which makes the case a bit stronger than a mere he said/she said - as now there's also Assange's pattern of behavior to take into account.

That's hardly a point in favor of the accusation at all.

If you don't think you are raped until after the person who "raped" you does something else you don't like, it's likely you weren't raped.

"My ex husband raped me every night. I thought it was consensual, but then I found out he wasn't paying his taxes, so it turned out I retroactively wasn't consenting."

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 8:55 am

Not exactly. The thing that people are missing about the Swedish Rape charge is that it's not actually a "beat the woman up and do what you want with her" sort of rape.

It's more of a "Men aren't allowed to sleep with women without a condom unless the woman agrees".

So it's not as though both of these women didn't want Assange to sleep with them. They just wanted to make sure they wouldn't have kids with him

.

And in this case, pattern of behavior actually aids the case. If the condom broke and Assange went ahead anyway, Assange can always claim that it was the heat of the moment and the woman can opt to turn a blind eye. ("Meh, the condom broke and he really wanted to go.")

But if it's established that he does in fact keep sleeping with women without a condom and without consent, then it's not just an accident. It's actually something he does on a regular basis.

tl;dr: The Swedish rape case is really more akin to a traffic light violation. If Assange ignored a red light the first time and claimed he didn't see it, then maybe you can give him a pass. But if it's established that he keeps running the red light for shits and giggles, then you know that he's a jackass who keeps maliciously ignoring traffic rules.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:01 am

Problem:

They both consented to sex without a condom.

Solution:

You can't claim that you didn't consent when you did.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:11 am

Nope. They did not consent to sex without a condom. Your statement is an outright falsehood now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world ... .html?_r=1

One was asleep when Assange slept with her without a condom.

The second explicitly told Assange to get another condom after it broke, which he refused.

So really, unless you actually start looking at the facts of the case, I'm just going to go back to ignoring you again. Because really, the idea that this is all a CIA plot rather than the Swedes taking their law seriously is becoming so discredited that the only people who still believe it is fucking 4chan.

And again: This isn't a "Beat the woman up and rape her" case. This is really more of a sexual misbehavior case. Anywhere else in the world, Assange would probably just get slapped but the woman would still be friends with him afterwards. But in Sweden, it's an actual crime.

So if there's anyone to blame for trying to "kill" wikileaks, it's actually Sweden's feminists and Assange's inability to control his cock, as opposed to the CIA.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:35 am

Zinegata wrote:Nope. They did not consent to sex without a condom. Your statement is an outright falsehood now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world ... .html?_r=1

One was asleep when Assange slept with her without a condom.

The second explicitly told Assange to get another condom after it broke, which he refused.

Except of course, that they both consented to sex without a condom. The first one explicitly told him that it was fine without a condom, and the second one told him to get a condom, upon which he said "No" upon which she said "Oh, well then in that case I consent to sex without a condom."

Zinegata wrote:So really, unless you actually start looking at the facts of the case, I'm just going to go back to ignoring you again.

Unless you start paying attention to the part where they both consented to sex without a condom, nothing will happen, I'm just using the unless framework to point out that you are ignoring facts.

Zinegata wrote:Because really, the idea that this is all a CIA plot rather than the Swedes taking their law seriously is becoming so discredited that the only people who still believe it is fucking 4chan.

This has nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever. There is no reason for you to even say this.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:42 am

Yeah, Kaelik's opting to ignore the actual police report and to suck Assange's cock now.

And he's also choosing to ignore the New York Times article (not exactly a conservative newspaper) which explains why this case actually has merit and is the result of the unique Swedish rape laws (which was passed by Sweden's feminists).

Which isn't surprising since he seems to prefer useless data dumps like Assange's instead of actual journalism.

Should have known it was a complete waste of time to even begin this conversation. Nobody gives a shit about some disembodied angry voice on the Internet spouting outright lies.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:56 am

Zinegata wrote:Yeah, Kaelik's opting to ignore the actual police report and to suck Assange's cock now.

Oh, you mean the police report based on the she said half of the he said/she said? Yes. We should just completely ignore the testimony of one of the two present individuals and just assume that she in fact did not consent to sex without a condom, was awake, and he had sex with her without a condom, and she did not consent or resist or report it as rape, and then she paid for his train ticket afterword.

Zinegata wrote:And he's also choosing to ignore the New York Times article (not exactly a conservative newspaper) which explains why this case actually has merit and is the result of the unique Swedish rape laws (which was passed by Sweden's feminists).

So...? Why does it matter that NYT is not conservative? This isn't a conservative vs liberal issue. To the extent it is, it would be specifically liberals who would be most likely to favor taking the females accusation of rape as superseding evidence.

Why does it matter if Sweden's feminists passed a law? Does that have any bearing at all on the fact that one party claims that consent was given, and another denies it, but did not deny it until after she discovered a completely irrelevant fact about his actions involving another person?

Zinegata wrote:Which isn't surprising since he seems to prefer useless data dumps like Assange's instead of actual journalism.

1) "actual journalism" like, oh, I don't know, the New York Times, also engages in useless data dumping the exact same material.

2) Why would my preference, if it existed, have any bearing on the fact that one party alleges consent was given, and the other alleges it was not? My preference for or against a site that I have never visited is completely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:01 am

Oh, look, Kaelik still thinks his opinion matters.

*ignores any further Kaelik stupidity in this thread*

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:11 am

0% of my last post involved my opinion in any way. But I can see how the facts of the case don't paint the picture you want, so you will ignore them in favor of attempting to be insulting.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:30 am

Yes, there is no legal requirement to report a crime STRAIGHT AWAY.

She was obviously pissed about the entire thing, but wasn't going to press charges until she discovered he was routinely banging people without a condom. Hence the whole ho ha about the STD test.

As you can see, subjecting yourself to a rape trial is actually a really big deal for any female victim, and is probably one of the reasons why the survey'ed rate of rape is so much lower than the reported.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:45 am

Just be aware that what we read in the news about a court case most likely is not that correct. I have seen too many factually wrong reports of cases I was involved with to trust the media that much anymore - even some written by reporters actually present in the court room.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:23 pm

The NYT is basing their article off a leaked copy of the written police report - there aren't court room transcriptions yet.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:57 pm

cthulhu wrote:As you can see, subjecting yourself to a rape trial is actually a really big deal for any female victim, and is probably one of the reasons why the survey'ed rate of rape is so much lower than the reported.

I'm assuming this is why one of the victims is currently off in Palestine instead of anywhere near her own court case.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:36 am

That's actually already been disproven. Ardin never went to Palestine.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... -in-sweden

CBS confirms it

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... ontentBody

Crickey jumped the gun on this one and a lot of Internet news sources picked it up, but when put under the scrutiny it proved to be false.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:31 am

Not that I particularly care one way or the other, but I find it interesting that regardless of which story you read, the implication is that no one has talked to Ardin.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:38 pm

It's not an implication. Neither Crickey nor CBS talked to Ardin directly. This is fact.

But Crickey's story claims that she went to a particular Palestinian relief group - which CBS was able to contact, and they confirm she hadn't gone to them.

And the lawyer also acknowledged that Ardin had planned to go to Palestine, but cancelled the trip in light of the rape trial.

All in all, the evidence weighs much more heavily towards the CBS article - simply because they've disproven the only bit of evidence on Crickey's side and her Swedish lawyer (who is in many ways her spokesperson) denies the claim.

Besides, the Crickey article was apparently so inaccurate that they posted a picture of Sharon Stone instead of the real Ardin. Huffington Post copy-pasta'd the article and the picture, only for their readers to notice the gaff.

Frankly, there's an awful lot of disinformation going out about this trial, so it pays to double-check.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:31 pm

cthulhu wrote:She was obviously pissed about the entire thing,

So pissed she bought him a train ticket the next day?

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:40 pm

Kaelik wrote:
cthulhu wrote:She was obviously pissed about the entire thing,
So pissed she bought him a train ticket the next day?

Indeed, and pissed enough to file charges later!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:19 pm

cthulhu wrote:Indeed, and pissed enough to file charges later!

Oh you mean after she found out he had already slept with her friend?

Seriously, how fucking retarded do you have to be to not see cause and effect:

1) Had sex without condom.
2) Bought Train Ticket, not pissed off.
3) Found out slept with friend, who has posted online about her pursuit of revenge.
4) Suddenly really pissed off now, clearly 1 was the cause of this, not 3. No way did her friend out for revenge convince her at all.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:37 am

cthulhu->

Really, you need to stop wasting time with Kaelik.

Ardin going to a revenge site is so far a pretty unsubstantiated allegation, which appears mostly in Internet blogs as opposed to real news outlets.

There are also other claims she had comments on her blog on how other girls can get revenge on guys who take advantage of them (which were subsequently deleted), but to be blunt I haven't seen these accusers present us with any actual evidence (like say, screen shots).

I will also note that practically all of the blogs that report these "facts" are unequivocally supportive of Assange because of what he does with Wikileaks. Not because of the actual merits of the case.

So talking to Kaelik really doesn't do more than give him the opportunity to spout more of his lies. He states that the women "constented to sex without a condom" as fact even though the police report outright states the opposite from two seperate women he slept with. Similarly, he's now stating that Ardin is some kind of revenge-fueled maniac, when there is again nothing solid backing up the claim.

-------

Moreover, reading the NYT article makes it clear that the reason why Assange is being charged with rape (and it's of the least severe kind) is because he did the act while the woman was asleep and unaware. Which very much goes into date rape territory. That's not a decision made by the women accusing Assange BTW. The decision to include the rape charge was made by the prosecuter.

So again, until somebody like the NYT publishes more about this case, I'd take everything "reported" in the Internet about this case with a massive grain of salt.

As the NYT noted, this is not a grand conspiracy of any sort. Sweden really just has very, very strict laws regarding what men can and cannot do while having sex because of their strong feminist movement. And this isn't somethin that's just coming from the Swedes themselves. The independent legal experts the NYT consulted agreed that the Swedish laws were kinda weird, but they're also sort of a landmark as they're very protective of women.

Another good article on the whole issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02571.html

One of the key facts mentioned by the Post which isn't reported elsewhere: The women slept with Assange in August. They already reported it to the authorities within the same month. It was actually the authorities that were late in pressing charges.