Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Sorry, still not rape. And sorry, but still no evidence.

He was clearly in the course of a consented sexual act, who ended in both case on friendly term, and eventually, according the accusation overstepped the boundaries and hurt the feeling of both women, made them risk a pregnancy and put their health at risk by not putting a condom.

But A) this claim is unprovable. No physical evidence, no witnesses, ...
B) they where in the course of a sexual intercourse, and the problem was not whether the intercourse should take place but how.

I'm not sure what it is, but it's not rape, and it seems to me like the perfect defamation for a man too careless with womens. For what reason I don't know. If it's true I don't know.
But given who is attacked, I'm careful.

Moreover, the review seems pretty damning, but try to see it with the eye of a man too confident in bed.
In both cases the damning penetration took place without them refusing consent verbally. He may have thought he had simply overcome her resistance.

[Vector]

I seem to remember something about having sex with her, condomless, while she was unconscious.

That would be rape.

[Nadaka]

Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him.

Hey, I must have missed the part of the constitution that gave the CIA the right to assassinate any foreign national they like.

I think Assange has a pretty damn good case for asylum should the US try to extradite him, considering several of these sources come from high ranking military officials.

Whoa... The inalienable rights enshrined in the constitution belong to all people everywhere and always have. The constitution did not create those rights. The idea that they do not apply to non US citizens is horrifying and WRONG.

[Phmcw]

I seem to remember something about having sex with her, condomless, while she was unconscious.

That would be rape.

While she slept naked right next to him, sober, right after having had sex?
Ok she said she wanted a condom, but , as they both admitted, she didn't say "no" afterward, therefore she consented to continue.

And once again, he probably thought something along the line of "I'm so smooth".

[Vector]

While she slept naked right next to him, sober, right after having had sex?
Ok she said she wanted a condom, but , as they both admitted, she didn't say "no" afterward, therefore she consented to continue.

Why, yes!  You have sex with someone's unconscious body, that's raping them!  Quelle surprise!

I find it hilarious that women are assumed automatically in a case of willing consent unless they say no--and even then, not necessarily.

[G-Flex]

Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him.

Hey, I must have missed the part of the constitution that gave the CIA the right to assassinate any foreign national they like.

I think Assange has a pretty damn good case for asylum should the US try to extradite him, considering several of these sources come from high ranking military officials.

Whoa... The inalienable rights enshrined in the constitution belong to all people everywhere and always have. The constitution did not create those rights. The idea that they do not apply to non US citizens is horrifying and WRONG.

So... is the Constitution divinely inspired or something? I don't get it. Are you nationalistic enough to think that the rights your own government/constitution guarantees are the only possible set of rights that could be used as the basis of a government, no more, no less, and no different?

Also: The Constitution doesn't talk about "inalienable rights" to begin with. It talks about certain rights, yes, but there is nothing about the Constitution or Bill of Rights that implies they all have to apply to all people, everywhere. Some of them very obviously don't make sense outside the context of US government and society, and some others could be made to apply to others but are still pretty specific to the US and might not apply very well elsewhere. Yes, there are some vague concepts like "free speech" that should apply to those elsewhere, but that's what international treaties and organizations are for.

tldr version: The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with anything except the United States and does not say anything about universal rights at all.

[Vector]

I believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are enshrined in this culture (through the Declaration of Independence, of course, but still...) for rights of all humanity.

Of course, that is not a legally binding document =/

[G-Flex]

Right, nor was there really a need for it to be, or to talk about the rights of those of other nations. We're talking the 18th century here, the world was a little less cosmopolitan.

And again, that's what international organizations and treaties are for.

[Phmcw]

Why, yes!  You have sex with someone's unconscious body, that's raping them!  Quelle surprise!

Hu? No? Seriously there is context. They had sex a few hour ago. A tentative to have sex again cannot be considered rape. Beside he did not "have sex with her unconscious body" he woke her up by having sex.

I find it hilarious that women are assumed automatically in a case of willing consent unless they say no--and even then, not necessarily.

Hmmm... ok, ok sex without consent is rape, but seriously in this case we are on the FAR boundaries of that definition. Consent is not supposed to be hinted, and you should not be thrown in prison of you take the hint wrong. There are plenty of games played in the bedroom and teasing, struggling, and other are among them.
If you're going to call rape, you'd better be clear in your refusal, and firm. In this case, there are hints of refusal, but nothing more.

[Nadaka]

No. It isn't divinely inspired, but it was rather well done.

I am rather Nationalistic, but that does not really enter into my concept of rights.

Everyone has rights, that may or may not be respected by their respective government. The constitution "enshrines" some rights by forbidding the US government from infringing on them. The CIA as part of the US government, does not get a free ride to violate that just because they are doing it to a foreigner.

[Vector]

Beside he did not "have sex with her unconscious body" he woke her up by having sex.

. . . Okay, I just don't have the energy to talk about this anymore.

[SalmonGod]

I thought he initiated while she was unconscious, and then she woke up during the act and made no objection.  The accusation is that there was some previous condom-only agreement, though it hasn't even been clear how that agreement was made or how strongly those wishes were expressed, and I image the reasoning for not objecting during the act would be that she either couldn't tell (which would be hard to believe...) or was just too caught up in the moment and developed regrets later.

Yeah, I see a lot of grey area there.

Less so with the other one, where it sounds like they were in a consenting situation, but at some point he held her down and she struggled.  The account is really vague, but there would be some heavy context required for that to be ok in any case.

I do really dislike the way the word rape works here... anybody too lazy to read up on it will hear rapist, and associate that with the worst possible definitions.  I know Vector hates that kind of talk, but I see it as a serious problem.

I don't see why someone else can't just take over his work.  Its not like he was the only person working on wikileaks.

As I understand, he's a founder of the organization, which he was able and motivated to accomplish due to some very unique qualities.

1.  His family traveled extensively and spent considerable time in hiding when he was young.
2.  He's a world-class hacker.
3.  Connections.

How many people like this exist, and of those, how many will be willing to fill in for a role in an organization left by someone whose character has just been publicly mutilated?  People may choose to form other organizations instead, but current efforts to do that are either horribly executed or intentionally set up for failure and it's unlikely that authorities will allow such an organization to gain significant public presence and momentum like this again.

[Leafsnail]

It's irrelevant what the constitution thinks about the murder of foreign nationals, since there are other legal frameworks in place that do acknowledge their rights as people.  Frameworks that noone gave the CIA permission to trample over.

[kilakan]

You know what really fucking bugs me Ninja's.  Especially chain ninja's where everytime you press post there's another one.

Basically this is a post to follow.

EDIT TWO FUCKING NINJAS!!!

[Phmcw]

Less so with the other one, where it sounds like they were in a consenting situation, but at some point he held her down and she struggled.  The account is really vague, but there would be some heavy context required for that to be ok in any case.

Seriously, not really. She didn't voice any objection. He could have thought it was ok.