WikiLeaks.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I wonder if anyone accused of rape will ever get that much attention

It seems to be coming out that he had unprotected sex with them (not non-consensual sex).

 

[aborgman]

Occasionally... A question of rule and exception...Also happens over here, either by the state attourney without any trial or in court by a judge's decision.

Generally speaking we are to obey te law / to account for our acts in court where a jury or a judge will come to a verdict that is based on what the law says. Surely, in case of a conflict between law and morality, exceptions can be made.

The process to make these exceptions is part of the law itself. It can never be done by public or media judgement.

Sure the public can.

A jury of your peers (the public) can decide that even though you broke the law, you aren't guilty.

...and you won't get punished.

 

[mindbass]

I wonder if anyone accused of rape will ever get that much attention



... as seems to be shown by sown historic cases... But that will change soon enough. Classified information is property. In the near future, fence and thief will be treated in the same way.

show me a legal text that a) explicitly allows a state to have secrets (and who defines what a secret is), and b) that limits the press from publishing whatever it wants.

apparently Assanges lawyer hasn't been sent any papers that give any information about the actaul charges. Fishy, no?

 

[warnergt]

show me a legal text that a) explicitly allows a state to have secrets (and who defines what a secret is), and b) that limits the press from publishing whatever it wants.

apparently Assanges lawyer hasn't been sent any papers that give any information about the actaul charges. Fishy, no?

No, not fishy. In fact, it is quite normal. He hasn't been charged yet.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C.
793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over
any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
(etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor
has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States
or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc.
etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully
retains the same (etc) ..."

 

[warnergt]

The "rape" charges are a scam and that's painfully obvious to anyone with half a skillset from the neck up.

How could you possibly feel that way about rape charges?
Would you feel that way had your wife, sister, friend or relative had been raped?

 

[warnergt]

It seems to be coming out that he had unprotected sex with them (not non-consensual sex).

Not true. This is a bit of misinformation that is getting around.
The details are a bit sketchy but here is the way it is looking to me.
It may have started as consensual sex. There is talk of a broken condom.
Assange has been accused of holding her down and continuing to do
his business after she told him to "stop."

That qualifies as rape in my book.

 

[12bass]

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C.
793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over
any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
(etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor
has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States
or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc.
etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully
retains the same (etc) ..."

Assange is neither a US citizen, nor in the USA. How does this law apply in this situation?

 

[Phil Smith]

Does anyone have a link to some factual information that shows what Julian Asange has been charged with?

 

[warnergt]

Assange is neither a US citizen, nor in the USA. How does this law apply in this situation?

Assange need not be a U.S. citizen or in the U.S.A. Every nation has
laws against espionage being conducted against it. There are
international treaties that would allow Assange to be extradited to the
United States.

 

[12bass]

Assange need not be a U.S. citizen or in the U.S.A. Every nation has
laws against espionage being conducted against it. There are
international treaties that would allow Assange to be extradited to the
United States.

While it may be true that nations have extradition treaties, there is no evidence that such a charge has been laid against Assange. Nor has it been established that such a charge would be legally binding if applied to a person who is neither in the USA or an American citizen.

Are you of the opinion that US laws rightfully apply outside of the USA? If so, then surely, on pain of inconsistency, you must also agree that all other nations' laws also rightfully apply in the USA.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Does anyone have a link to some factual information that shows what Julian Asange has been charged with?

+1

 

[Nappa]

How could you possibly feel that way about rape charges?
Would you feel that way had your wife, sister, friend or relative had been raped?

I think rockstarbassist was expressing their feelings on the particular charges against Assange. Not rape charges in general.

 

[12bass]

The published details surrounding the sex-related charges against Assange actually suggest that the acts were perfectly consensual and that the accusers were both in fine spirits shortly after the fact.... that is until they realized that they had both been with Assange in recent succession. It appears that the motivation for the charges may be vindictive more than an indication of any real crime. While Assange may have acted like a hound, there's little evidence that his transgressions were criminal.

If anything, the claims of the Swedish women only serve to marginalize the plight of women who have suffered from genuine sexual assault.

 

[knumbskull]

Not true. This is a bit of misinformation that is getting around.
The details are a bit sketchy but here is the way it is looking to me.
It may have started as consensual sex. There is talk of a broken condom.
Assange has been accused of holding her down and continuing to do
his business after she told him to "stop."

That qualifies as rape in my book.

do you have a link for this? (my bold )

regarding the rape charges, according to this BBC report of 16th Dec he was questioned by Swedish police then freed, and then remained in Sweden for a month. he also asked, and was granted, permission to travel to the UK.

the judge said something like these were 'not the actions of a fugitive'.

if he goes down, it will be on espionage charges in the US IMO.

 

[Stinsok]

Anyone that would hire such a douchebag looking lawyer is guilty of something.

 

[Cabazon]

Anyone that would hire such a douchebag looking lawyer is guilty of something.

That's the most flawless logic I've heard all day.

 

[knumbskull]

 

[knumbskull]

interesting article on Bradley Manning, the 22 year old US army private who is alleged to have leaked some of the docs to Wikileaks.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

he has been held for 7 months in solitary confinement with no bedding, which some people are calling 'torture'. he has not been formally charged with anything.

 

[DwaynieAD]

Sure.... however, nothing in reality would change if the law proclaimed that white was black and black was white. The point I'm making is that legality and justice are not equivalent concepts. People should not be lulled into a false sense of security by the notion that because something is legal it is therefore just. Nor should people be lulled into a false sense of security by the notion that what is illegal is therefore unjust.

This is not an attempt to spin. Rather, it is a fact about the distinction between the law and the principle of justice. Many laws are unjust while many injustices are perfectly legal.

I should have finished what I was getting at. Mainly; complaining about it on the internet does nothing to fix the problem. And I mean that as no personal dig against you

On the issue of legality....

One prominent example is the Jim Crow laws which were in effect until 1965. Effectively, these laws represented legal racism, sanctioned by state and local governments. If one were to see the law as equivalent to justice, one would be forced to view Jim Crow laws as just. However, very few would hold that view today (for hopefully obvious reasons). Thus, it should be apparent that unjust laws can and do exist. Therefore, limiting one's view to distinguishing only between legal and illegal is effectively remaining blind to the reality that some laws are unjust.

If it is illegal it is illegal whether or not you believe it's just. "I know it's illegal but I do not feel that it is just" will not hold up in court and it would be pretty dumb to think you could get away with a crime because you think the law against it is wrong, whether it is wrong or not doesn't matter in this instance. I'm well aware that laws aren't perfect but that will not change the fact that illegal is illegal and legal is legal

Not a big fan of "jury nullification" then?

I point you to post #199

 

[12bass]

If it is illegal it is illegal whether or not you believe it's just. "I know it's illegal but I do not feel that it is just" will not hold up in court and it would be pretty dumb to think you could get away with a crime because you think the law against it is wrong, whether it is wrong or not doesn't matter in this instance. I'm well aware that laws aren't perfect but that will not change the fact that illegal is illegal and legal is legal

Correct... and a few decades ago, you could have been quite legally arrested for being in the wrong seat if your were African American.

But, as you say, illegal is illegal... so any person arrested under a Jim Crow law should have had the good sense not to break it, right? Rosa Parks was just another criminal, who knowingly broke the law, right? After all, what she did was clearly illegal....