WikiLeaks Julian Assange fights extradition
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 4 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 6 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
33 Comments
Login to comment
-1
chewitup
“At best, the words ‘I let him,’ amounts to submission, not free consent,” she said.
Right. This is the 21 first century, and these days men are expected to read minds.
She was not passed out from drinking. She was not drugged. She was not some woman he had never met before. It is not like it was the first time they had sex.And don't ask me to believe that he was actually inside her before she woke up!
So while she cannot be bothered to say "Not now" he is supposed to constantly ask "Is this ok?"
My only problem is that he did not get permission to not use a condom first. For that I say extradite him, but on that grounds, he can't be. Not only was it a dumb move for himself, it was an extremely selfish decision to make over her head. All countries should require condom use by law UNLESS the woman has clearly stated its okay not to.
0
SuperLib
Or he could just wake her up first. No magic needed.
-1
chewitup
I don't know if you have any sexual experience, so I may explanations may not have any meaning to you. But you are attaching my words to a different aspect of the scenario than what I was referring to. It is standard to take a woman's silence as consent among people who have gotten past that first time. And that is all I was talking about.
As for being woke up to sex, what is the big deal? I have done it and I have had it done to me. If there is such an objection one might just sleep alone. Like I said before, don't expect me to believe that she woke up to find him inside her. It is remotely possible, but extremely unlikely. What she woke up to was almost certainly being touched and kissed, ie, he did wake her up first! Unless you think the way to do it is to shake her, look into her groggy eyes and ask " Is it ok if I do it now? I just need you to sign this form first..." Like I say, I don't know if you have any experience, so my words may be lost on you.
-1
Alphaape
I don't get it. Some people seem to defend Assagne for his actions behind the Wikileaks and exposing government secrets, but as pissed off at the papers that Murdoch controlled for basically doing the same thing. I don't get it.
-1
USNinJapan2
Wow.
0
chewitup
Alphaape, there is a difference agains invading the privacy of powerful organizations that have abused their trust and invading the privacy of powerless individuals who haven't.
-2
Zenny11
chewitup.
I would love to see you trying your arguments in a court of LAW.
Might be an eye-opener.
0
BreitbartVictorious
creepy like Assange.
-1
chewitup
It is a strange and interesting phenomenon how common everyday sexual practices become strange and unthinkable when spoken out loud.
I cannot remember ever asking for sex directly, like it were some 80's teen movie, and actually getting any. Consent, in my experience, is given with body language such as eye contact, and not all at once, but a little at a time. You go for a kiss, she does not retreat. Then she starts kissing you back, things like that. But to ask, "Can I kiss you?" Never worked for me.
The only women I even dated who did not like being woke up by kissing and touching followed by sex just didn't like sex at all. But no one ever complained. But just by voicing that, suddenly suspicions arise. I assure you, none are warranted. But some monkey thing tends to take over people's brains when it comes to sex. If not for that, written consent form might be common, and rape easy to prove thanks to them. Any of you ever use one? No? What is the problem? Its a mood killer, that's what. So is asking for sex with words rather than body language and touching. And I am not talking about hooking up with a woman on the street here. No. I am talking a woman you already know somewhat. But she pushes you away or says "no" and its not a play "no" like Japanese girls say "dame" and get mad if you stop, then that's it. But again, just saying it wakes up the monkey and people get strange ideas.
Assange is accused of rape with a woman he just had consensual sex with hours before as she lay in bed with him and he initiated sex while she slept. Surely she awoke before penetration. Then just acquieced but wanted it to stop? Give me a break. Please kill the inner monkey and think for God's sake.
0
BreitbartVictorious
I think it is more a case of like to like. Assange and his accuser are both extremists. If we are lucky maybe courts will remove both of them from the general population.
0
chewitup
How is Assange an extremist? What kind of extremist?
Its well known that one of his accusers is an ultra-feminist and wrote a blog on how to get men arrested by lying. But Assange does what? Exposes government lies? What is extremist about wanting the truth and exposes those who don't tell it? What have you got against the truth?
0
BreitbartVictorious
He employs Holocaust deniers, for starters. Try a search on the truly loathsome "Israel Shamir" a.k.a. Adam Ermash, a.k.a Jöran Jermas and then come talk about 'the truth.'
You really want more examples?
2
YuriOtani
It does seem strange to me. Suppose in countries like Sweden one is going to have and keep an log of permissions. So he needs to get permission to have sex without a condemn? Does this need to be notarized? Heard the Europeans have strange thoughts but this is too much. Think the only reason they are after him is because of all of the leaks. However their laws makes me understand why their population is going away. Soon there will be no native Swedish people, too bad. Everyone knows once he gets to Sweden, he will be taken to an unmarked Jet and sent off to one of the CIA's "processing facilities" where he will be tortured for information.
0
chewitup
Yes! But first you might want to answer my questions rather than try to make this about a completely different man.
What kind of extremist is Assange? Be clear dang it!
0
gonemad
Alphaape, it is quite simple. The journalists who work for the Murdoch papers have broken laws in order to obtain their information. Assange, or Wikileaks for that matter, have not broken any law. There is nothing wrong with authorities going after Bradley Manning.
0
Alphaape
@chewitup: I don't agree. In both cases, someone has violated the privacy of others. There is no difference in someone putting a password on their smartphone or home wifi or a company keeping their records private. Probably the only difference is the level of security that is provided for each.
Just as the media is trying to bring down Murdoch with his problems in England, they are doing the same to Assange. I am not saying what Assange did was right, but they are finding ways to get to him.
0
SuperLib
You can take the simple black and white approach if you want, but just remember that you're going to go up against others who will take the same approach and ask you why you support rape. The fact is that both accusers are operating in the gray areas of the law and they're trying to manipulate other people's sensibilities. Against Assange? Oh, then you don't support the truth. Against the women? Oh, well you support rape.
I haven't seen too much in the way of the truth being exposed from Wikileaks. Some bits and pieces here and there, but mostly collateral damage from people who neither lied or committed a crime other than giving their honest opinion in diplomatic circles. Yet if you call that into question you immediately get asked why you don't support "the truth" and yadda yadda yadda. I do support the truth and exposing those who break the law. But most of the time I'm wondering how that has anything to do with what Assange is doing. Most people have lost their jobs by giving their opinion rather than breaking any law.
As for these women, I'm sure if the man were anyone other than Assange they wouldn't be pressing charges. They see their chance for fame like Assange and they're going to ride it out to the end using his playbook. Their sentence should be 3 years time in a jail cell...together.
-1
chewitup
You will have to forgive me, by my mind only twists so far. I have no idea how you are doing this contortion.
Oh. So you have not had "enough" truth to give them a thumbs up? Is that it? Did you ever think heels dragging might be the problem?
How about when the U.S. military killed two Reuters journalists, then claimed they were fired upon? Lie exposed. And after the video gets out? The military concludes it was all good anyway. So why did they cover it up and lie?
Wikileaks told us that some prisoners at Guantanamo were denied Red Cross access. Up to then, the military told us all prisoners were accessible. Lie exposed. And don't tell me it was legit. If it was legit there is no reason to lie.
Wikileaks let us know that the Coalition had been hiding hundreds of civilians deaths, those who died as the result of coalition bombing in Afghanistan. I am sure many war supporters would swear up and down that hundreds of deaths could not just be "covered up". But there it is. We know now thanks to Wikileaks. But we don't know if Wikileaks got all the information. Who the hell knows the grand total of hidden deaths?
They have only been around a short time. As such a lot of their data is being cached as an insurance policy. No doubt you think that is a dishonest practice, and favor a quick release and suicide. Right? Well they are not so stupid and neither am I so tough luck.
Huh?
-2
chewitup
Police violate people's privacy all the time. Its simply a matter of having cause. Who polices coalition militaries at the top? Groups like wikileaks. The day some non-government org is given the power to investigate and expose military cover-ups is the day you have a case for militaries. But that leaves plenty of other orgs with no policing.
1
johninnaha
Rape has nothing to do with this.
That's a smoke screen.
As Yuri points out, what they want to do is get him out of the U.K. ship him off to Guantanamo or something similar and give him some good old, legal waterboarding.
Julian Assange is a very brave man. He knows the odds, but instead of kowtowing to the bullies, he's standing up to them.
And I'll bet he has a lot more to tell!
-2
BurakuminDes
Assange is the proverbial little Aussie Battler, the type famous around the world for years....fighting against the machine! Go Go Assange!
0
Deplore
Actually it was all good. Weapons were recovered off the dead bodies. The journalists were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Watch the extended (20 min) video of the incident and you'll say how Assange MANIPULATED the video to make it look way worse than it actually was. For example, in part of the video the gunner I think says he sees a RPG being pointed at them. Assange edited that part so it doesn't match up with helicopter camera showing the guy leaning around the corner w/ a bulky camera pointed at them. Assange also edited out the part where the helicopter crew hears over the radio about gunfire a few hours before in the same area.
1
SuperLib
Most of the information released has not involved any lawbreaking or coverups. Obviously one can understand why a document or video showing the killing of two journalists would be a good idea. But I don't understand why he's releasing things like the location to areas of national interest or disclosing private memos from Ambassadors that simply give their embarrassing, yet completely legal opinion on a particular matter. In the end it just gets them fired for being honest. He should have some discretion and he doesn't and that's what makes me wonder if he's the right guy for the job. I personally don't trust him and I don't think he's completely honest with his intentions.
I wouldn't necessarily be against a suicide. It's his choice in the end. And if he doesn't release the information, then he doesn't. I guess he needs the insurance, right?
-2
chewitup
Yeah. He does. The whole danged org does.
Well, that is a bold claim. And I note this time you used the word coverups instead of lies. Might be because you talked about the diplomatic cables?
The bulk of the diplomatic cables might be useless. But that batch of cable sparked the Arab Spring which started in Tunisia.
And there is other information I would also prefer Wikileaks did not release, but guess what? They don't have the manpower to pick and choose and worse, when they reach out and ask for help sorting and erasing names, they get none. That being the situation, you are simply going to have to take the good with the bad. Or, you can join Wikileaks and give them a hand. I am content to support them because I think we are far better off with them than without, and I guess I am just don't think I have the computer savvy to keep the authorities off my trail so I am not joining.
Well who the hell do you trust? Who is completely honest? What do you think his sinister goals are? At least he is not bombing people in Afghanistan and trying to cover it up!
1
SuperLib
A lot of people defend governments by saying that.
They guy is creepy. He smiles when he talks about "taking down a bank or two." He gets off on this and he doesn't care about the collateral damage. He's on trial for rape and all he wants to talk about is how the CIA is after him. The smokescreens are obvious yet when you call him into question in any way his drone supporters are there to label you "anti-freedom" because you applied some basic common sense to the situation. In that sense you guys are like Palin supporters....just keep throwing the bumper sticker phrases at people with your fingers in your ears. The man is not above criticism and he's not above scrutiny.
See?
0
Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land
Pro-wikileaks is anti-authority and vice versa. Some people just naturally take the side of government/big business/towing the line etc... and some people take the side of the individual rebelling against authority.
Anti-wikileakers are gonna be mainly conservative and supporters are gonna be on the liberal side.
Personally, I'm on the anti-authority, anti-stay in your place, anti-conformity side.
0
johninnaha
Deplore - there's no way you can pretty up that video. The guys on the helicopter sound like junior high school kids playing a video game. They were having a great time shooting up those guys.
Real bravery in the face of action! Sitting in an armored helicopter firing on a group of unprotected civilians.
There were children in that van.
It was murder and should be treated as such.
Though the people most responsible are those who are unlikely ever to be brought to justice - those who started this "war" based on lies. "Hussein has WMDs. We even know where they are!"
Wikileaks did us a service by making this war crime known.
1
BreitbartVictorious
I'm OK with Wikileaks.
The info they released basically vindicated Bush on Iraq.
Assange is a creep though.
-1
chewitup
This is your great example?
Was this before or after the helicopter shot those people up?
I am sure if YOU were wondering around Iraq, you would do so unarmed, right? Is carrying weapons in a war zone an offense now? You actually going to support that? I bet you had no problem with armed civilians when Saddam was in power!
-1
chewitup
You must be joking!
Why should anyone take the good with the bad if they don't have to? No one is taking the good with the bad of government so much that they advocate the police have no authority over politicians are they? If you don't want to take the good with the bad with Wikileaks, you have to replace Wikileaks with something effective, or, you can get off your hinny and go help them.
Since even the Guardian can be gagged about illegal toxic dumping off Ivory Coast, I am afraid Wikileads is all we got and you are just a foot dragger.
0
Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land
Saddam-era Iraq had a very high rate of gun ownership. That's why it was so safe. ;)
0
chewitup
Most probably true. I will be happier when someone can do what Assange does from the goodness of their hearts takes over. Until that happens, I live with Assange as hisk ind of collateral damage does not lead directly to dead kids. At best that would be indirect and a result of what other people did with information, ie, not his fault.
This Holy Terror over information does nothing but make me FURIOUS. Civilians get blasted to bits in Afghanistan and the military tried to hide it, and you big concern is that too much inconvenient truth might get out?? Come on!
-1
CHAMADE
Wikileaks will do itself in. Assange will also accordingly probably disappear.
Back to top