Julian Assange Rape Accusation Thread

  On 12/18/2010 at 12:38 AM, disparaissant said:

lost all the italics (there was a BUNCH of angry italics) but you get the idea. it's been a frustrating day and i have lost friends for daring to say that maybe, just maybe, we should wait until we hear what evidence there is against him to start calling him a rapist. christ almighty.

being level-headed > having vindictive friends

it's too bad there aren't more level-headed people in the world or we might actually think a bit more about what justice means, theories of punishment, captive audience etc

Don't worry disparaissant, you're safe here on watmm

aw now i got the warm fuzzies.

and yeah, it's about justice. there isn't a lot of justice for rape victims, but locking up anyone who has been said to have raped someone based on words alone is just taking it in the other direction. these are the same people who cry foul when people are exonerated after execution, what's the difference?

i dont understand the part about the girls wanting him tested for STD. Cant they test themselves?

  On 12/18/2010 at 5:59 AM, marf said:

i dont understand the part about the girls wanting him tested for STD. Cant they test themselves?

it's not about the girls. it's about sweden giving assange to america on a silver platter. look behind the curtain of the media.

  On 12/18/2010 at 12:38 AM, disparaissant said:

actual quotes

  Quote

And there you have it. EVEN IF HE DID ACTUALLY RAPE THEM, the women saying in a court of law that they were raped are not enough evidence to convict him.

 

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK. What evidence is satisfactory? Video? Having the shit beat out of you? Oh but wait, that only proves you had the shit beat out of you. That doesn’t prove you were raped. So … that leaves … video? Eye witnesses? And how often do rape cases have video or eye witnesses? Exactly.

 

This is why rapists are hardly ever convicted or serve jail time. This fucking attitude right here.

 

It’s just SO FUCKING REASSURING to know that if I am raped, I am not sufficient evidence to get a conviction. Because I am OBVIOUSLY LYING, I’m sure. I mean, I’m just a vindictive feminist out to bring someone down, and I totally want THE ENTIRE WORLD TO KNOW about things like my sexual history, etc., which will inevitably come up in stories about my rape allegations. Hey, maybe I work for the CIA! YOU NEVER KNOW!!

 

RAPE ACCUSERS JUST DO IT FOR THE FUN, AMIRIGHT?

 

my response

  Quote

this is literally the most ludicrous argument i have seen, and i once had a 6 hour argument with my roommate about whether or not gasoline can explode. six hours. and i even showed him a video of a ford pinto being rear-ended. and that didn’t even convince him.

 

yes lets make it so that all you need to do is say someone raped you to get a guaranteed conviction. that’s not overcorrecting or anything. yes, there is a massive problem with the justice system when it comes to rape accusations, but holy hell, making it so that anyone can be convicted on someone’s word alone is just… mind-bogglingly stupid.

 

a testimony is not just a black and white “he raped me/he didn’t rape me” situation. there are myriad variables that go into determining whether someone’s testimony is sufficient enough to press actual charges against someone. stuff like alibis, story changes, details of events; all of these are important in determining whether or not someone’s testimony is sufficient enough to formally accuse someone of a heinous crime. and, i’m sorry, but in this case - even though most major governments in the world want him out of the picture - it seems apparent that the testimonies alone were not sufficient in charging assange.

 

this isn’t the end of the world, though! he’s only out on bail. the investigation continues, and there may well be enough evidence uncovered to charge or even convict him. who knows? i certainly don’t. no one does. so, until he is actually convicted, i’ll do him the favour of not outright calling him a rapist. is that really so out there? is it so utterly impossibly hard to maybe hold off on judging someone - on either side of this situation - until we actually have details on the situation?

 

fuck.

 

also, i’m not even going to get into it, but given how the judicial system is skewed against people of colour, how do you think making it so that all one needs is a victim’s testimony to get a conviction would really work out? just some food for thought, there.

 

lost all the italics (there was a BUNCH of angry italics) but you get the idea. it's been a frustrating day and i have lost friends for daring to say that maybe, just maybe, we should wait until we hear what evidence there is against him to start calling him a rapist. christ almighty.

man that is so frustrating, right off the bat she's making several assumptions that a) what he was being questioned for was rape, not consensual sex b) the women in question were making a claim of sex by force when in actuality it was concern over STDS. IF i was that feminist you are arguing with i'd be more pissed at the (hehe) male dominated media and PR establishment of the US government trivializing rape accusations ( something that should be taken very seriously) to try and censor freespeech and investigative journalism. And i believe i've just repeated the point already brought up in the previous aborted wikileaks thread.

  On 12/18/2010 at 9:42 AM, goDel said:

  On 12/18/2010 at 5:59 AM, marf said:

i dont understand the part about the girls wanting him tested for STD. Cant they test themselves?

it's not about the girls. it's about sweden giving assange to america on a silver platter. look behind the curtain of the media.

Oh, i know, but its a shitty excuse. Couldn't they think of something more creative?

you'd think, but honestly the overall effect of trying to pin rape on him has had a resounding effect. it's such an emotional subject for feminists and progressives that it's turning a massive amount of people who would otherwise be reading and spreading and propagating the cables that have leaked are instead just screaming at eachother about rape apologism and other unrelated bullshit.

by taking this investigation the way they are (i.e. the way ALL rape investigations really should go, when they have merit) they're legitimizing it even more.

  On 12/18/2010 at 5:59 AM, marf said:

i dont understand the part about the girls wanting him tested for STD. Cant they test themselves?

Some infections dont show up on tests until they've been in the body for several months, so that would be a reason for getting Assange tested rather than testing themselves.

  On 12/18/2010 at 3:59 PM, disparaissant said:

you'd think, but honestly the overall effect of trying to pin rape on him has had a resounding effect. it's such an emotional subject for feminists and progressives that it's turning a massive amount of people who would otherwise be reading and spreading and propagating the cables that have leaked are instead just screaming at eachother about rape apologism and other unrelated bullshit.

 

by taking this investigation the way they are (i.e. the way ALL rape investigations really should go, when they have merit) they're legitimizing it even more.

i believe someone posted this earlier but it is certainly relevant:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

when will we see military contractors tried in two separate countries...? symbolically I think the missing condom speaks pretty well to the whole situation...

and yes, a most serious slap in the face to anyone who has ever sought any sort of justice in a rape case

  On 12/18/2010 at 5:59 AM, marf said:

i dont understand the part about the girls wanting him tested for STD. Cant they test themselves?

But then they would have to admit to being giant whores.

well, he clearly did something inappropriate, he was blinking like a motherfucker when the guy raised the issue, classic tell. Last time I　saw someone blink that much was when I saw Lance Armstrong asked about steroid use

i thought he always blinks though?

i must agree with kaini's previous assertion

the alleged sexual offenses and acts of coercion

herp derpa derpa derpa derpa derpa derr

its harder than it looks

it's very inspiring watching this all unfold. in a way we've been there since the beginning with his OK Cupid profile and the early "celebrity" style interviews. this man started like any one of us stupid bastards and now he's up against the world - he's really fighting and giving it all his effort! in the face of almost infinitely terrible odds he continues to fight! it's a true inspiration for all of us to stand up to expectations and to do something great, even if it means you might die sooner than you thought.

One question... Where's the ASSANGEMOBILE?!!

ah here it is

Hahaha

WTF that was a link...

Second try

  On 12/19/2010 at 5:51 PM, Kcinsu said:

Swedish police report re:Assange leaked

WTF that was a link...

Second try

Thats similar to (and partially based on) this Guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

The most important point here is this: "it is understood [Assange's] Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian."

That makes his claim that no evidence has been presented look very dodgy.

Well that's not evidence... That's accusations...

That is some perfectly written spin.

Notice how they push the idea that WikiLeaks supporters must also be Assange supporters, and that if he did in fact commit sexual assault, then obviously WikiLeaks supporters are willing to ignore sexual assault.

More importantly though, as has been stated before - this whole circus takes away from the impact the leaks should have.

and zazen - quote in full makes it seems different:

"Stephens has repeatedly complained that Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations against him, but it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian. He maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team and may not have been seen by the Guardian."

Documents does not equal evidence, and if not all documents have been seen by the Guardian, then not all documents have been seen by his defense team.

  On 12/19/2010 at 9:42 PM, chenGOD said:

and zazen - quote in full makes it seems different:

"Stephens has repeatedly complained that Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations against him, but it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian. He maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team and may not have been seen by the Guardian."

 

Documents does not equal evidence, and if not all documents have been seen by the Guardian, then not all documents have been seen by his defense team.

OK, that makes a bit more sense.