He’s not bin Laden.

But *Assange* doesn’t have to feel that way. But I see that I didn’t wrote that clearly before.

And you are absolutely right, no arrest warrant has been issued, except for the arrest warrant that the Swedish courts issued. Oh, wait, never mind.

And, of course, one might be confused by the idea that the United States, which is apparently capable of getting someone extradited from the UK for copyright violations, needed to gin up rape charges against him in Sweden so he could be extradited there and then to the US even though the US hasn’t bothered to actually file charges or issue a warrant against him, but it makes perfect sense because black helicopters.

Any women in Ecuador that Assange might end up dating are on their own, however.

Presumably, Theranthrope enjoyed the sexual encounters with “my girl”. Therefore, it is, at best, an ignorant distraction to bring those encounters into a discussion of a case where a person claims that they have been raped. It’s like saying, “My friend borrowed my car once without asking first,” in response to a person who complains about a carjacking.

No arrest warrant has been issued as it’s not clear if there is even a “crime”
(actually, it’s pretty clear there isn’t one)
as he’s not a “suspect” or ” a person of interest” he’s currently only a: “witness”.

The most irritating thing about your comment is the smugness that accompanies the utterly banal and intellectually void argument that you are trying to make. It’s like you are presenting me with a small turd, dipped in perfume, except the perfume is rancid.

Apparently, making sure an accused rapist is able to avoid being questioned for his (alleged) crimes is worth enough to Ecuador to screw up their diplomatic relations with the UK. Their call.

At the same time I would like to think that I would have the integrity to defend O Reilly were his brand of journalism to put him in danger of being sentenced to death.

EDIT: To be clear, I would not defend Assange’s behaviour were I of the opinion that he actually did initiate sex with an unconscious woman. Based on what I believe to be the actual testimonies I do not find the accusations to be credible.

I deliberately used the word assume. If it were demonstrated that the transcripts from that source were false then my opinion would change.

For the record, I find the use of the word man hater to be unfair and distasteful. The actual transcripts appear to be accurate though.

If you could be convinced of their accuracy, and given that they contradict your understanding of what is claimed, would your opinion change?

I assume it to be accurate and my skepticism…

[Emphasis added]

Your skepticism… is selective? And apparently not for sources that uses phrases like “man-hater”? Regardless, information from that source does not magically undo what his lawyer said. Either that or he’s a bad lawyer who ouright denies versions of events by not denying them. He wants us to know that the takeaway from the allegation is that it can’t be rape because she didn’t stop him. He doesn’t seem to have much to say about whether that part of the report is factual.

Edit: Pretty my words not so.

Like I said earlier, I still don’t know if he’s a criminal. But I’ve seen enough to conclude that he’s almost certainly a dirtbag.

Can you imagine any of Assange’s supporters rallying to the defense of, say, Bill O’Reilly if the Fox pundit found himself in a similar legal jam?

http://rixstep.com/1/20110201,00.shtml

I assume it to be accurate and my skepticism of the rape claims are largely based on the information on that site. I am happy to be corrected though.

EDIT: I dont think I made myself clear though. I was not suggesting that Assange would have been justified in starting to rape a woman as long as she let him continue. I was saying that, in a he says / she says situation once she claims that she consented it is a blow to her case. That is why the lawyer brought it up. He was not, as I understand it, giving Assange’s side of the story.

Basically irrelevant to the issue of whether penetration of someone who is unconscious is rape. You are missing something. The article states that the quote is a response to accusations, not that it is a summary of them.

I assume you mean that you feel that waking someone up via penetration should be considered rape. I would agree with this.

Can we also agree that any guy who has condom-less sex with multiple women who clearly prefer safe sex and then refuses to get an HIV test at their behest is pretty much acting like a huge dirtbag?

I also agree that that is quite explicit but its a little sneaky to describe this as “his own lawyer’s description of events”.

Unless I am missing something Assanges lawyer was not giving Assanges version of event but those of his accusers. He was pointing out that even the accuser states that she was comfortable for him to continue.

This is her testimony as I understand it:

They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked ‘are you wearing anything’ and he answered ‘you’. She told him ‘you better not have HIV’ and he replied ‘of course not’. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.

From my possibly biased perspective, I would classify the US as being between Equador and Russia in terms of freedom of the press.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but independent international watchdog groups such as Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders rate Ecuador’s freedom of press much worse than that of the United States. Both rank much better than Russia, however.

Arguments that such fears are unfounded basically revolve around that Sweden is just to darn nice to do this, and anyway Guatanoma is about to be closed. Also, he couldn’t possibly be afraid of a death penalty, even though the US has a proven track record of execution, assassinations and current politicians calling for his death.