This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Arrest Warrant for "Sex Crimes" Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is Only for "Sex Without a Condom"
Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for "sex crimes".
Everyone assumed it was for rape.
But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom.
As Newsweek wrote in August:
A
Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations triggered a
sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has
given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-the-record
confirmation of the allegations that led to the issuance—and then rapid
cancellation—of a warrant on a rape charge and to a parallel
investigation into alleged “molestation." Claes Borgstrom of the
Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women
who said they had sexual relationships with Assange, said his clients
complained to the police of Assange's reluctance to use condoms and
unwillingness to be tested for sexually transmitted disease.
***
Borgstrom
said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet
appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal
concern the women had about Assange’s behavior—which they reported to
police in person—related to his lack of interest in using condoms and
his refusal to undergo testing, at the women’s request, for sexually
transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the women’s
alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with
consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was
nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom—was published
on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange’s declining to submit to medical tests.
Similarly, the Daily Mail reported in August:
'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
Whatever
her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at
the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty
blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
***
The [second] woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange
seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and,
she said, would look at her ‘now and then’. Eventually he took a closer
interest.
***
What he did not tell her was that the
party was being hosted by the woman he had slept with two nights before
and whose bed he would probably be sleeping in that night.
***
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,’ she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’
One
source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a
condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed
unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
And today, a former attorney for Assange has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom. He notes that:
The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
He also accuses the prosecutors of "making it up as they go along",
and said that Sweden's justice system is destined to become "the
laughingstock of the world" for pursuing the case against Assange.
So Assange might be a cad
for sleeping with 2 women within a couple of days, and he might be
irresponsible for having sex without a condom and then failing to submit
to HIV tests afterwards.
But he has not been accused of rape under any traditional meaning of that term.
»
- advertisements -
So when, then, is the Bernank and the Fed going to be charged with 300,000,000 cases of rape as well?
And they didn't even buy me breakfast.
+ Dow 36,000
Now that's certainly a quick deal of the joker . . . off the bottom of the deck.
The traditional definition of rape (where adults are the parties) is by force or meaningful duress.
There has been no claim yet about this fundamental traditional element.
Oh horseshit. Consent is consent, period.
The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be.
Lao-Tzu
The son of a bitch will be worth a million or two when this blows over. Hell, next time we see him, it will be on "Dancing with the stars".
He should def get an agent. I smell product endorsement.
http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/phpthumbnails/92563_2_468.jpeg
He'll be "ribbed" for it.
With a name like Julian Assange, I would say he was French...tickler.
"Bust a condom, go to jail". Seems fair to me.
I am thinking Kobe Bryant would be proud.
Raw doggin a couple of randos? I thought that was the new killin it.
I think wiki is garnering more attention than deserved..and I agree with Young of Cryptome in his assesment of wikileaks.
So much drama, and diversion as the FED's evil information is disclosed....and the support of SO MANY in attacking Iran.C'mon, it should be obvious now.ZH has exposed so much of what is wrong with Wall St/banking today that we know they are coddled criminals already.And Assange is given so much attention why?I would like to beleive a serious leak spreader is online...but in wiki's case....it just smells too much.
Cryptome is good, and I wish there were more like them.But wiki does not pass the smell test for me.Look at their funding for one thing...yikes!Too much money for too little truth.Visit Cryptome for an education in spooky leakage....they are the real deal.And need a tiny fraction of what wiki "needs".
We should stay focused on what is important...namely the FED's evil machinations as recently revealed.Julian is a distraction...and brings little to the table.
I predict that if wiki nukes a bank, it will be an eminently nukable one, one TPTB want gone anyway.
Actually Wikileaks have already gone after several banks.
If WikiLeaks was the 100% real deal they would have leaked documents surrounding what happened on 9/11.
Instead, when asked about 9/11 Assange downplayed it. No. 1 proof that he is supplying disinformation, withholding information, or acting as an agent provocateur.
At the very least he is withholding information that was given to WikiLeaks.
http://psychonews.site90.net
PsychoNews: Exposing the Oligarchy, one Psycho at a time.
"If WikiLeaks was the 100% real deal they would have leaked documents surrounding what happened on 9/11."
Of course (assuming that the event was other than the MSM say) wikileaks may not have leaked any secret documents for the simple reason that no one has forwarded them any.
They can't leak what they haven't received, right?
Your problem is that you know nothing; you have no engineering knowledge, no physical science knowledge. In thirty five minutes you can find out exactly what happened to all three major buildings on 9'11; but you're an idiot; so you won't. There's nothing to comment on; nothing to reveal; it was a successful attack involving passenger aircraft; and the sulfer in the fuel, and in the diesel fule stored in building seven, but you have your little ignorant opinion, so anyone who doesn't provide "evidence", there is not evidence, must be a bad guy. What a sad waste of a human brain.
Most oil has some sulfur content. Still doesn't make diesel very flammable. Do you have engineering knowledge? Refining processes exist to remove this chemical (acid rain)
Comically, I suspect he is referring to the erosion caused by the action of thermate, and is trying to blame the sulfur in the fuel for this.Proving conclusively he is a ignoramus of the highest order when it comes to chemistry.And controlled demolitions.911 is the best example of excellent controlled demolitions in history.Many demolitions fail with far less imposing structures...google it.But on 911, they worked perfectly.
If you are a moron, and really think fire caused the collapse, then by all means please explain why building codes were not revised in the aftermath.Why only on 911, and no other time in history, did high rises fail due to fire.
Building codes exist for a reason...and the structures that failed were very well engineered...state of the art in fact.But fail they did...and in the case of WTC7 without plane impact.How odd.....
Just because peer reviewed papers found thermite in the dust is no reason to abandon the preposterous theory put forth by the Holy and Just Government is it?
Is it?
The steel from the WTC was shipped off immediately afterwards. You know, to keep tests from being done. That steel would have answered a lot of questions, so getting rid of it doesn't make sense, if one WANTS answers to a lot of questions.
Also, anecdotally, did Larry Silverstein take out a NEW insurance policy in July 2001, which covered the WTC against Terrorism, or did he not?
What about the unusual option trading before 9/11? Al-Qaeda? Knowing it could be tracked? They would potentially reveal their attack through gambling on the stock market? Seems highly unlikely.
What was inside WTC7? Did it have anything to do with the trillions unaccounted for/missing from the Department of Defense?
But hey, thanks for proceeding with personal attacks. Stay classy.
http://psychonews.site90.net
PsychoNews: Exposing the Oligarchy, one Psycho at a time.
I am the one junking all you tinfoil-hat fuckwits.
You're a real big help. Thanks.
these are good points, particularly about bldg 7 and the treatment of after the fact evidence. and even if you're wrong, the absolute best that can be said for the government at the time is that they had a good idea it might happen and, basically, welcomed it as it supported their prospective agenda and made work for the mic while providing demons for the pawns to hate.
+14.5 (you missed the decimal point!)
Yeeeeep..
It is his civil duty to release the information to the public. That should be a charge to him.
I think you should rethink your view about whether removing a condom without partner consent should constitute a valid form of "statutory rape" or is merely the behavior of a cad.
In Hong Kong it is a form of rape and probably for good reasons from the perspective of a working girl.
On a different note, Assange evidently has much staying power since he has been sitting on the BAC Hard Drive since at least October 2009 according to the NYT.
Outrageous!! This man deserves hanging!! We CAN NOT allow semen spillage!!!
By the way, anybody got the statistics on the amount of oil spilled in the GOM by BP?
Hey billy, I always thought you were a talentless photoshop-dweeb, but now I know for a fact, that you are also an idiot sack-of-shit. Nice job; you ever want to learn a thing or two, see dees on rense, then try again.
I think Hong Kong and Singapore should check out this idea:
http://hivprevention.co.uk
Two people who are infection-free can never pass on infections.
I am positive Singapore has one of the lowest STD infection rates in the world. Prostitution in Singapore requires regular health certifications and condoms are mandatory in brothel establishments which are located in one district that is monitored by the health authorities. Typical Singapore.
HK on the other hand has all kinds of female tourists from China who come to work for 2 weeks then go back to China.
Okay William,
You've really got me wondering how it is that you know so much about the Singapore sex industry...
:o/
This is true of the government approved prostitution in Geylang, but the prostitution on Orchard rd. is very unregulated and rampant.
Mr. Banzai, I'd be grateful for a link to the Hong Kong law...
My guess is that the law is that it is illegal for a PROSTITUTE to have sex without using a condom.
It is specifically intended to thwart Johns from forcing unprotected sex on prostitutes and there are warning signs publicly posted around brothels. I believe Singapore has a similarly strict interpretation of rape in commercial sex transsactions.
I sincerely apologize for my insensitivity. But the 2 women pressing charges against Assange were not prostitutes.
No need to apologize ;-) Just pointing out that under certain legal schemes the intentional removal of a condom during the act without consent, can constitute a form of rape, irrespective of whether prostitution is involved.
Who knows what the facts were in this case. In these situations it is impossible to know. But I question whether those two women complained initially based on their ideological objections to WikiLeaks.
Bottom line, this guy Assange should know better. He has more enemies looking for an excuse to nail him than anyone could ever imagine.
He allowed himself to be compromised based on a one night stand.
On a different note, I find his motives puzzling. If he really wants to change the world he should release the information freely instead of funneling it through MSM channels.
I would like to know exactly what his financial arrangements are with the various media outlets. Of course we will never know.
Bottom line, he has been sitting on that bank hard drive for over one year now. Has he been shopping it around? Why can't he just release it?
If he really wanted to impact financial reform etc, it would have been much better to release it before or during the public discussion.
Guess we're all gonna have to encrypt our condoms (or sex acts) from now on! :>D
you make good points (and wonderful art) but doesn't the method of release, once released, make some sense?
give it (or, even better, sell it) to major, relatively better, msm. this way some of it gets into the more accessible distribution channels where it is given front page headline treatment because it's a "scoop" and thus starts significant discussion among those who work less hard for their news.
meanwhile release the whole (or at least a less filtered) data dump on the wikileaks web site.
this way the findings get as much coverage as possible with the added benefit of holding the chosen msm channels (like the zionist nyt which actually got the stuff from the guardian) up to telling criticism by investigators who compare newspapers, etc. with the data on wikileaks (see the fair website on the nyt's iranian missile coverage).
I just don't have a positive gut feeling about the way it is being done. And where is the data dump site?
I am really annoyed that he has been sitting on the Bank data for over a year as well.
Assange is a shill.
So, now both the Swedes and Interpol are laughing stocks for issuing arrest warrants for someone who had consensual sex without a condom. Did the women say "no"? Apparently not.
The Swedes need to fit everyone with crotch-cams to ensure obedience to their sex laws.
Careful there Bart. Don't be giving bright ideas to Homeland Security and the TSA!
;o)
If I was in Sweden I would be considered a serial criminal, considering the several times I've had sex without a condom.
I might even be high on the Most Wanted list.
I hate to over lawyer this. But it is not a question of sex without a condom.
If a woman says OK, but only with a condom and then the man (a) proceeds forcefully without a condom or (b) removes the condom midflight without consent, like it or not, there are other legal issues than can arise.
Assange, should know better since he is a high profile target.
WB7, I agree with your interpretation of the statute and also, regardless of statute, I believe that regardless of the reason for revoking consent, sex without consent is rape.
But from reading the description of the charges above I didn't get the sense that any 'force' was involved. The post-coital behavior of the women would also bear this out.
Regret, yes; rape, no.
Geez, if it was a crime to have sex with a woman who later regretted it, I would be serving multiple life sentences.
The blurb, towards the bottom, says that prosecutors have admitted to the accusers' sexual consent... at a cursory inspection, it seems much of the commentary is irrelevant.
Seems like most of the world's powerful men possess an Achilles' heel in their pants. Like Clinton, they should know better but they can't resist their urges.
Hmmm. Surely "(a) proceeds forcefully without a condom" is rape by virtue of 'forcefully'?