Sex without consent is rape. The now condomless man continuing to have sex with a woman who did not want to have sex with him if he wasn't wearing a condom? A rapist.
I suspect this point will seem obvious to many of you: the fact that the charges are (apparently) politically motivated is indeed a reason to regard them skeptically, and they make it less likely — perhaps much less likely — that Mr. Assange is guilty of them.
Bob Woodward's entire purpose in life is to cajole government officials to tell him secrets he publishes - is he a criminal conspirator?
"I seriously believe Julian #Assange won't be happy until he's nailed to a cross by Obama himself."
Mr Assange told Channel 4 News he fears a fresh attempt to detain him and have him sent to the US is imminent.
He expalined: "Let me make a clear warning. There is an ongoing attempt in the US to work out a way to extradite me to the United States - extradition is much more likely to occur if I am already in Sweden.
"Since this case has activated there has been argument time and time again that there is no need to present any evidence whatsoever....
"Rape is what the allegation is - let's see the evidence. There has never been a single page provided to me in an any form to me. We still do not have the evidence - even in Swedish.
"This is a clear abuse of process - we have received intelligence that there will be another attempt to abuse that process in the next 24 hours."
While traditional media outlets focus on publishing newsworthy information to educate the public, WikiLeaks focuses on obtaining and disclosing any official secrets.
The media also gather news about sensitive areas of government operations through investigative reporting, he said, while WikiLeaks uses encrypted digital drop boxes to encourage disclosures of sensitive government information and circumvent laws prohibiting such disclosures.
The media also typically limit disclosures only to sensitive information that specifically relates to a particular story deemed to be of public importance, Wainstein said. WikiLeaks, however, releases troves of documents with little or no regard for their relevance.
Of course, if Julian Assange accepts his extradition, travels to this liberal hell-hole [sarcasm] and answers the relevant questions, something approaching the facts might be established. Why doesn't he just do it?
18 U.S.C. section 797. Publication and sale of photographs of defense installations.
On and after thirty days from the date upon which the President defines any vital military or naval installation or equipment as being within the category contemplated under section 795 of this title, whoever reproduces, publishes, sells, or gives away any
photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of the vital military or naval installations or equipment so defined, without first obtaining permission of the
commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station concerned, or higher authority, unless such photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation has clearly indicated thereon that it has been censored by the proper military or naval authority, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The plans for a nuclear bomb? The plans to invade Normandy? Should those be allowed to be published without fear of criminal sanction? I say no.
The Pentagon said Tuesday it would be "hard to quantify" the danger posed by the WikiLeaks release of secret documents but insisted the information would be used by US adversaries.
"If someone has been killed as a result, it's very tangible and very quantifiable," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan told reporters.
"But how do you quantify information that our adversaries have got about how we operate? How do you quantify some other damaging elements like learning how we gather information and intelligence, altering their behavior because of things that they've learned?" he said.
"We do know from various means that our adversaries are out there actively mining this for information."
In the latest bombshell release from WikiLeaks is a massive list of infrastructure deemed ‘critical’ by the U.S. State Department. The list, which was compiled in 2009, outlines infrastructure “whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States.” Critics of WikiLeaks has said the release could help terrorists by giving them a list of targets for future attacks.
Mr Assange claimed that the Swedish authorities had asked that his Swedish lawyer be "gagged", adding that his offers to be interviewed by video link or by Swedish officials in Britain had been rejected. "I don't need to be at the beck and call of people making allegations," he said. "I don't need to go back to Sweden. The law says I ... have certain rights, and these rights mean that I do not need to speak to random prosecutors around the world who simply want to have a chat, and won't do it in any other standard way." Mr Assange said that one account of what occurred in August was that after having discovered they had each had sex with him, the women had got into a "tizzy" about the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases.
The team was briefed on the RAB's efforts to incorporate human rights training into the curriculum at the training academy and at the unit level. This training, some of which is conducted by a local human rights group, is given to all new personnel transferring into the RAB. (Note: Although it shares our concerns, the British High Commission has already started a pilot round of Human Rights training with the RAB; the British will closely monitor program impact before launching a second round, which will require Ministerial approval
« Older "The Festival of Lights is an annual event taking ... | Dmitar Sasselov is an astrophy... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt