Julian Assange (Split from reactionary chatter 15 & 16)

[Module]

I have something to express but this is the only forum I am a member of so here I am to say:
I used to think Julian Assange was, if a bit weird, pretty cool.
But those allegations from Sweden make me think he's just a creep.
No, he couldn't be convicted of rape for what he did, but if its true, he's still a creepy little shit.
And the fact that he said that the two women had got into a 'tizzy', because they wanted him to get tested for STDs after he pressured both of them into having unprotected sex despite the fact both of them clearly didn't want to, and then they both found out he was having unprotected sex with (what could have been) multiple women, is just fucking ridiculous if nothing else.
No, it wasn't actually rape, but the mindset displayed is totally consistent with that which allows it. First of all, way too presumptuous of consent, and put both women in a position where it was easier to have sex with him than it was to refuse, apparently in the first instance by use of physical force. Then by getting on top of another woman who was still half-asleep in bed. Thirdly, putting his own desire to have sex without a condom above the expressed and strong concerns of both women for their own health.
If I was either one of those women, and I'd found out he'd done it to the other one, too, I'd bloody go to the police too, force him to get tested, if not for my own genuine fear (which would be completely and utterly justified) then at the very least out of principle.
If that behaviour he is accused of is accurate, Julian Assange is an absolute creep.

This does not influence my view of Wikileaks, or the justification of him being extradited to Sweden. Someone can be good in one area, and a misogynistic creepy fucktard at the same time. Perhaps some people ought to stop defending shitty behaviour towards women because the guy does some cool things.

[Module]

Ok can someone please put that post in the feminists discussing Julian Assange rape allegations thread in Politics, please? We need some intelligent discussion that only someone of my incredible calibre can provide

[Havet]

Everyone posting under this post is my personal private property. :cool:

Why, because you say so? Where's the thugs to enforce your will? :rolleyes:

Anyway, Module, how can you know that Assange really performed those alleged acts, and that its not all just an excuse to get him arrested (which succeeded, partially)?

[Jazzratt]

A favourite (if a bit too liberal) media blog of mine (enemies of reason, check it out) had an interesting article on Assange and the coverage recently:

Trying to make sense of Julian Assange and Wikileaks (http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/12/07/trying-to-make-sense-of-julian-assange-and-wikileaks/)

Now Julian Assange has been arrested in London, a few mysteries are over, and some are just beginning to unravel. But at the moment I think it's hard to be left with anything other than questions.
It's tempting to think that Assange's arrest might be the result of some kind of dark plot against him, and it does seem like a coincidence that these allegations should surface at a time when the Wikileaks organisation is angering a lot of influential people. But it may just be that, a coincidence. While it does tap into people's need to sniff out a conspiracy to think that the allegations against Assange are something to do with the powerful people he has annoyed and the boats he has rocked, that may or may not be the case.
But it's wrong to imagine that these allegations might be false, simply because of the timing. If there is a case to answer, he must answer it. If there are allegations, they must be taken seriously. Just as it would with any other person. Being the founder of Wikileaks shouldn't put you above suspicion; you should be treated just the same as anyone else. We don't know enough about these allegations in order to speculate about their veracity, or whether the acts contained within constitutes rape, or to make any such arguments. We simply don't know. Assange may be a sympathetic character to some people, and perhaps they err on the side of defending him; others, who don't approve of his organisation, may be quick to condemn him as guilty. Both responses seem equally wrong, in the absence of substantial evidence; and besides, it is for a jury to decide on these matters, if the process should get that far, and not us.
But Julian Assange is not Wikileaks, and that's an important thing to bear in mind during all of this. It is a crude personification of history to imagine that Assange is the only driving force behind the Wikileaks movement, or that without him it would all disappear. It's considerably more complicated than that; Assange is not a lone soldier battling governments and vested interests. He is just part of a movement. Perhaps he is too much of a figurehead, seen as too preening in public, too visible for something that shouldn't be personified or made into a one-man mission. But he is not Wikileaks. If he has committed a crime, that does not destroy Wikileaks; it may taint the 'brand', but it doesn't taint the actions of the organisation, whatever you think of their rightness or wrongness.
Of course it suits Wikileaks's enemies to portray the organisation as some kind of evil plot hatched by an unhinged marginal character; that may well be a strategy that is being employed at the moment during the latest revelations. Again, that doesn't mean that Assange is guilty or innocent of what he's accused of; the fact that it may well suit his enemies very nicely may simply be good fortune on their part or an opportunity they have seized. But it is worth bearing in mind when these things come to be discussed, and you hear the same arguments again and again, and wonder where they may have come from, and who has been briefed to say what.
Wikileaks does represent a sea change in the way we find out information. Previously, journalists were our gatekeepers, and they were fed information by government handlers and trusted sources. Things trickled out. You get stories like "The BBC understands" and "A senior source has told me..." and it's largely unsatisfactory, a nod here and a wink there, when all you want as a consumer of information, as a punter, is someone to front up and actually explain things rather than prodding a journo in a dark corridor somewhere. We live in a culture of secrecy, where millions of pounds and thousands of lives are chucked away because of 'intelligence' we are never allowed to see; we are just meant to take these things on trust from our masters.
It is completely unsatisfactory for us as punters, as citizens, as taxpayers, as people in whose name huge crimes are being committed, to be told that we simply cannot handle the truth. And you get secrecy on a different level - when a cop puts a couple of bullets in a citizen he is allowed to be completely anonymous when defending his actions (for which he won't get punished) and then make fun of the whole process by slipping song titles into his evidence. And there's nothing anyone can do to change any of that; that's just the way it is, these things have to be secret, and that's that.
The second Gulf War may have changed a lot - we are just left with the smug sureness of the people who took us to war, with no evidence to back it up at all, just the certainty of their convictions. But that simply isn't enough in the internet age. People want to see the data for themselves. They want to know what 'intelligence' it is that led to the tragedy of so many wasted lives. Being told that we can't handle the truth doesn't wash any longer. That's the culture into which Wikileaks has arrived, and why it is seen as such a sea change; it's seen as the handing over of information from those who want to keep it secret to the citizens who want to know, often by passing the journalists in the middle altogether. You can see why the secret-keepers and the journalists alike might be startled by this.
None of that, though, excuses Assange if he's guilty of what he's accused of. But at the moment it is "if". People's private lives are different from the actions of governments; individuals have the right to privacy and an expectation that these things should not be pored over in public. So if there is an investigation, a crime, accusations and so on, perhaps this is one instance where we don't have the right to know everything. We must wait and see what happens, and leave any assumptions aside.

[Module]

Here are the allegations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden). Sounds pretty plausible to me.
Furthermore, I don't see why those two women would be lying. They didn't go the police to ask Julian Assange be prosecuted, but for legal advice on forcing him to get an STD test. Apparently they're not even cooperating with the police anymore - this is Sweden's own thing now.
Besides, its pretty well known by now that Julian Assange is a (http://jezebel.com/5712947/assanges-rumored-dating-profile-sounds-like-real-assange-sex-musings) creepy (http://gawker.com/5714043/) twat (http://gawker.com/5712623/julian-assange-boasted-about-asian-teengirl-stalkers-in-online-dating-profile).
But obviously, you have to consider how few people are locked up in solitary confinement with a warrant for extradition to be questioned (not charged) about a sexual assault (not rape). If every sex crime was taken this seriously, the world would be a better place, I'm sure. But every sex crime quite clearly is not taken this seriously, and it is pretty obvious that this is being used as an excuse to extradite Assange to Sweden and then, probably, the USA.
I think its clear that Assange would not be convicted of rape on the basis of those complaints. Nor should he be, on the basis of those complaints. He's still a creepy arsehole, though, who clearly has an unacceptable attitude towards women.

[Havet]

Besides, its pretty well known by now that Julian Assange is a (http://jezebel.com/5712947/assanges-rumored-dating-profile-sounds-like-real-assange-sex-musings) creepy (http://gawker.com/5714043/) twat (http://gawker.com/5712623/julian-assange-boasted-about-asian-teengirl-stalkers-in-online-dating-profile).


Man, if we're judging people based on random crap they put in an OKC profile, I'm screwed. My entire "6 things I couldn't do without" section is about an alligator missile launcher, and according to my "What I do on a Friday Night" section, I trade children candy for guns.

[Module]

There were three links there! Three bits of creepy evidence!
But even so, disregarding all three what he is accused of is still in itself totally unacceptable.

[Jazzratt]

A whole load of the stuff surrounding Assange is basically "I love the idea of wikileaks how is it possible that the person who made it isn't a paragon of every virtue I can think of?" The truth is that it's entirely possible that Assange is a creepy misogynist weirdo who is likely to do this sort of thing. I mean, it's obviously handy for governments that have suffered embarrassment as a result of wikileaks to have this come up - but that doesn't mean that they aren't genuinely true. After all it was handy for the US government that 9/11 occured but you'd have to have a screw loose to suggest that they engineered the whole thing.

I don't really want to comment on the case, as I'm not furnished with all the evidence. I will say however that I don't think anyone should let Assange represent the wikileaks project. He can keep his creepy egoist hand out of it now that the ball is rolling, it's bigger than one slimy bloke with a dodgy haircut now.

[Havet]

There were three links there! Three bits of creepy evidence!
But even so, disregarding all three what he is accused of is still in itself totally unacceptable.

I have to say, to judge his interactions with her based purely on these e/mails don't really give me concrete evidence of anything other than he wrote her unless she faked them.

If she didn't, she obviously gave him her e/mail addy so she wanted some interaction with him. Until I see both sides of the conversation, I call it just some notes from a man with his head stuck in the clouds and his penis in his hand.

I have to admit, I like his writing. Seems to be pretty good with words, if not the ladies.

You can always count on an australian computer nerd for a fancy prose style.

[Dimentio]

Mild Asperger's coupled with Hyper-intelligence.

At least judging by the emails to miss Elizabeth.

[Jazzratt]

Mild Asperger's.

At least judging by the emails to miss Elizabeth. Even if you could diagnose something like that on that basis it still doesn't exonerate him entirely, if at all. It certainly doesn't mean he is any less likely to do what he's been accused of.

[Module]

I'm not suggesting that those links are evidence of him sexually assaulting those women in Sweden, just that there seems to be a pattern emerging that he has creepy views of women. There's no point having a debate on those links, I'm jjust saying I think he's creepy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even if he is a creep, the timing of all this is suspect. Assange has made enemies, and there are plenty of those with both the means and the motivation to smear him.

Still, I think Assange's imprudent behaviour certainly didn't help - what kind of idiot has sex with strangers when their line of work involves embarassing powerful people?

[synthesis]

One of those articles mentioned an allegation against Assange in The Guardian (from the police report) that he purposely ripped a condom at some point during sex. My only question is: who does that? And why? That seems really suspect to me.

[Dean]

The public nature of these sex acts before the charges came about, coupled with the bizarre turn of events (both women let him stay for days after the alleged assaults? what was to stop him again?) leads me to hold the charges fundamentally suspect. The charges were dropped the same day they were originally posted and a few days later the prosecuting team got their paperwork straight. It's a pretty clear case of grasping and at least one of the victims didn't even want to be involved with charges (well apparently neither did in the immediate aftermath).

Its not like anyone has ever used sex allegations as political tools before.

None of this detracts from some of the obviously self-aggrandizing, creepy and misogynistic shit Assange is known for. But I think the political structures surrounding the issue say a lot more about why whats happening is.

[Lt. Ferret]

some women decide its rape when they dont like the guy anymore.

hes a creep and theyre idiots. its still governments trying desperately to pin something on him for making them look like fools.

[Dimentio]

IanEpWajzsY

[Module]

some women decide its rape when they dont like the guy anymore. Um ... what the fuck?

1. No. No they don't.
2. Having sex with someone who is asleep is rape. There isn't any 'decision' to be made about that.
3. It is the Swedish prosecution who is accusing him of rape, not the women - they went to the police to see if they could force him to get an STD test.


The public nature of these sex acts before the charges came about, coupled with the bizarre turn of events (both women let him stay for days after the alleged assaults? what was to stop him again?) leads me to hold the charges fundamentally suspect.
I don't disagree that these accusations are being used as political tools. They clearly are. But lets get our views on rape straight, first.
Many rape victims are 'friendly' with their rapists after the attack. They may have yet to come to terms with it, may see themselves as partly to blame, may be in shock, may feel vulnerable, may not want to face an uncomfortable confrontation with somebody within their close social circle, etc.
I don't think that either woman thinks that Julian Assange did rape them, but if you read the accusations, the first woman ends up sleeping at a friend's flat because Assange was sleeping in her's and she didn't want to be anywhere near him. So they weren't being 'friendly'. She had arranged for him to come to Sweden in the first place and originally was going to be away from her flat, which is why he was staying there, but she ended up coming back early. So there is nothing bizarre about what happened.

[Meridian]

The public nature of these sex acts before the charges came about, coupled with the bizarre turn of events (both women let him stay for days after the alleged assaults? what was to stop him again?) leads me to hold the charges fundamentally suspect. The charges were dropped the same day they were originally posted and a few days later the prosecuting team got their paperwork straight. It's a pretty clear case of grasping and at least one of the victims didn't even want to be involved with charges (well apparently neither did in the immediate aftermath).

Its not like anyone has ever used sex allegations as political tools before.

I heard something about a well known prosecutor in Sweden looking over the case and concluding that there is no case at all, not even a case for suspicion, only the day after to be replaced by another prosecutor..?

Assange claims something like this here (I don't have the time to find the exact quote at the moment):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mcSXge4Qo

[Lt. Ferret]

Um ... what the fuck?

1. No. No they don't.
2. Having sex with someone who is asleep is rape. There isn't any 'decision' to be made about that.
3. It is the Swedish prosecution who is accusing him of rape, not the women - they went to the police to see if they could force him to get an STD test.


I don't disagree that these accusations are being used as political tools. They clearly are. But lets get our views on rape straight, first.
Many rape victims are 'friendly' with their rapists after the attack. They may have yet to come to terms with it, may see themselves as partly to blame, may be in shock, may feel vulnerable, may not want to face an uncomfortable confrontation with somebody within their close social circle, etc.
I don't think that either woman thinks that Julian Assange did rape them, but if you read the accusations, the first woman ends up sleeping at a friend's flat because Assange was sleeping in her's and she didn't want to be anywhere near him. So they weren't being 'friendly'. She had arranged for him to come to Sweden in the first place and originally was going to be away from her flat, which is why he was staying there, but she ended up coming back early. So there is nothing bizarre about what happened.


1. yes they do. sex is a political and social weapon against men.
2. you dont have sex with soemone who is asleep. they wake up during sex. thats the nature of sex. my wife and i wake each other up with sexual intercourse all the time. its pretty rad, actually.
3. the swedish government is being pressured by the american government and others to find something, anything, to put this guy behind bars for.

[Havet]

2. you dont have sex with soemone who is asleep. they wake up during sex. thats the nature of sex. my wife and i wake each other up with sexual intercourse all the time. its pretty rad, actually.


There's a difference between your wife and someone you just met online/at a bar...

[Lt. Ferret]

you'd think so.

[Havet]

you'd think so.

Me and 99% of the population. The other 1% being creepy rapists and online porn fetishists

[#FF0000]

1. yes they do. sex is a political and social weapon against men.

lol wow


The Following User Says Thank You to Lt. Ferret For This Useful Post:
ComradeMan

I am so unsurprised it is unbelievable.

[Ele'ill]

and online porn fetishists

You can't fetishize porn and if you mean fetish porn I'm not sure what the issue is.

Also, I think there's entirely too much time being spent worrying about the person who had an idea and not enough time being spent on that idea.

[Ele'ill]

It's turned into celebrity voyeurism

[Ele'ill]

1. yes they do. sex is a political and social weapon against men.

I think this deserves an explanation. I seriously hope to god Comrademan was thanking point number three in that post.

[Jazzratt]

1. yes they do. sex is a political and social weapon against men. Oh wow. You got problems, man.

2. you dont have sex with soemone who is asleep. they wake up during sex. thats the nature of sex. my wife and i wake each other up with sexual intercourse all the time. its pretty rad, actually. You can't really universalise your sexual experiences and predilections to apply to all people. Most people recognise that sex with someone who is asleep (and therefore unable to give consent) is pretty much textbook rape.

[Lt. Ferret]

Oh wow. You got problems, man.
You can't really universalise your sexual experiences and predilections to apply to all people. Most people recognise that sex with someone who is asleep (and therefore unable to give consent) is pretty much textbook rape.

explain to me how you have sex with a sleeping person without the use of drugs or very very very excessive alcohol.

[Fabrizio]

To be honest the whole thing with the allegations are a character assasination in order to divert attention away from the leaks, so why buy into them? I couldn't give a shit if the guy is a "creep" or not, really, how does it affect anyone? On the other hand, the issue of free speech affects us all.

[Political_Chucky]

Fabrizio: People buy into them because people are susceptible controlling tools. But if you want to get away from the real issues at hand and dispute this, then ok.

Really, the fact that 1. He has not been CHARGED with any offense 2. The women did not STOP Assange or were FORCEFULLY made to have sex.

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.I think this is up to debate because if she ALLOWED her self to be undressed, which I believe many people do when they are willing, case is closed with this woman. Obviously she invited the man to stay at their flat, were engaged in some type of kissing before hand, and if made the attempt to undress her without any resistant actions then there was no harm. Now if she FELT like she was raped, but did not stop him, that is the same deal.


According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. 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.

Now what man would ever rip a condom and ejaculate into a woman forcefully? Rape is enacted on the victim because the predator wants power over the victim. Its a Dominance submissive type of thing. Whether he did anything to the condom or not is still something up for debate because its he said she said. Later the article claims he stayed at the flat for the following week and a torn condom was never mentioned. I think if someone was worried about contracting an STD or the possibility of a child from the seamen he just injected into her vagina, they would have at least said SOMETHING

[Political_Chucky]

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. 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. She had never had unprotected sex before."
Now this is a different case altogether and like I said before, its a he said she said argument. But after have sex the night before, it is not rape if he had sex with her again while she was sleeping as she consented already and really, if you need to ask for consent, "May I have sex with you today?" then that's utterly irrational as social beings do not act this way. Whether he put on a condom or not would constitute it as a rape though. I just don't see someone THAT naive to someone's protests against a condom. The story just points against the women.

[RGacky3]

1. yes they do. sex is a political and social weapon against men.


Is there something you wanna talk about buddy?


some women decide its rape when they dont like the guy anymore.


No, rape is non consensual sex, I'm pretty sure every woman would agree with that definition.

[Module]

I'm not going to participate in this thread any more; I've made my feelings known and I don't want to get involved in what sounds like is developing into a depressing rape debate with some members who clearly need to take a bit of a look at themselves ...

I think this is up to debate because if she ALLOWED her self to be undressed, which I believe many people do when they are willing, case is closed with this woman. Obviously she invited the man to stay at their flat, were engaged in some type of kissing before hand, and if made the attempt to undress her without any resistant actions then there was no harm. Now if she FELT like she was raped, but did not stop him, that is the same deal.So if a guy is initially violent towards a woman and intimidates her into submission, its not rape if he proceeds to have sex with her? That's a bit messed up ... also, it's incorrect. She stated that her encounter with him was "violent". That he initially held her down, broke her necklace after she tried to put some of her own clothes back on that he'd been tearing off. Now. I don't think that taking off her clothes is rape, but there is clearly an atmosphere of violence that is created that, as I said, may make a woman believe it is easier to submit than it is to resit. As I said in my initial post. That sort of thing should be acknowledged in any kind of rape discussion - firstly, intimidation, secondly, a disregard for physical resistance by the woman. It may not amount to rape, but it certainly amounts to unacceptable physical coercion. There is a degree to which physical coercion cannot be prohibited, for various reasons, like the fact it may be unclear at what point physical force becomes unacceptable and coercive if it doesn't amount to the full legal definition of rape.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be condemned in the specific cases that we can see that it has been used.
Lt. Ferret - you're a moron and I don't want to get into a discussion on the use of sex as a weapon because it is frankly depressing. But I'll just tell you to look at rape and sexual assault statistics, the manifestation of misogyny in every day life, especially group male intimidation of women and the targets of sexual commentary and insults and just ask you to reconsider your statement that sex is used as a weapon by women against men.
It is a clear symptom of rape's presence in social interaction between women that issues of consent and sexual assault are so often viewed as a conflict between the interests of men and the interests of women. As many feminists (and other normally intelligent, rational individuals) have pointed out, sex is not something that women do for men. It is something that two people both do together. Consensual sex should not be a conflict of interests.
I now exit this discussion.

[RGacky3]

BTW, don't get me wrong, I think these rape alligations should be taken extremely seriously, but along with the context, i.e. former submissions to the judge (that threw it out), the fact that the woman was working for the CIA and has changed her story, and so on, its not up to us really, its up to a SWEDISH judge.

Me personally, I see a lot of fishy things going on, but I'm not a judge.

[Political_Chucky]

So if a guy is initially violent towards a woman and intimidates her into submission, its not rape if he proceeds to have sex with her? That's a bit messed up ... also, it's incorrect. She stated that her encounter with him was "violent". That he initially held her down, broke her necklace after she tried to put some of her own clothes back on that he'd been tearing off. Now. I don't think that taking off her clothes is rape, but there is clearly an atmosphere of violence that is created that, as I said, may make a woman believe it is easier to submit than it is to resit. As I said in my initial post. That sort of thing should be acknowledged in any kind of rape discussion - firstly, intimidation, secondly, a disregard for physical resistance by the woman.

I totally agree that if there was a violent situation where she tried to put her clothes back on and he still tore them off, then of course that is rape. But like many mysteries in life, that may never be solved since this there really is no evidence for what she says because 1. Didn't report it when it happened and continued to allow him in her home and 2. Did not actually file any charges. The women only wanted to make him take an STD test and the police were the ones who pursued the allegations of rape.


BTW, don't get me wrong, I think these rape alligations should be taken extremely seriously, but along with the context, i.e. former submissions to the judge (that threw it out), the fact that the woman was working for the CIA and has changed her story, and so on, its not up to us really, its up to a SWEDISH judge.

Me personally, I see a lot of fishy things going on, but I'm not a judgThe main point here is Extradition. The Swedish government want Julian Assange for Questioning because that is the only way the U.S. is going to be able to extradite him here. No country has to or may extradite a political prisoner. And because laws are different then what they are in London, that is the only way its going to happen

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/nestmann11.1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/nestmann11.1.html)

&
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.
The state requesting for extradition must show that there is reason for extradition in the specific case. The outcome of the crime investigation in the requesting state - generally a conviction or a detention order - must be enclosed with the request for extradition. When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.
As I see it, The U.S. wants to charge Julian with political charges and I don't see any way of them going around these rules. But that explains why there is this big WHo HA about killing him illegally and condemning him as a terrorist on most American Media outlets, primarily Fox News. When the U.S. can't abide by the rules, then they break them.
ZlOI1s3ZLPk

FOX NEWS

"The other thing is, who gets hurt here? The American people. The way to deal with it is pretty simple. We have special OP forces. I mean, a dead man can't leak stuff. This guys a traitor, a treason-ist, and he has broken every law in the United States, and I'm not for the death penalty[...] Illegaly shoot the son of a *****."Sorry for the long post, but I think this illustrates how the U.S. is really trying to frame anything on Julian because there is nothing they can do.

[Che a chara]

Ok, i'm seething a bit with anger after reading some of the apologist comments for the apparent charges of rape by Assange over on the 'Politics' section (http://www.revleft.com/vb/assanges-swedish-sex-t149475/index.html)... The main discussed charge itself, if it did or did not happen, whether or not it's true, is IMO, a definition of rape. It is non-consensual, it is creepy and disturbing and is a form of holding power/dominance over an unaware/barely conscious individual.

How can anyone try and excuse this act ? it's a thin and dangerous line in my opinion.