Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know how Swedish law qualifies rape. Probably.



Em, no. Treatment of many diseases (taking HIV/AIDS, which is a prime example) can be quite successful if done quickly enough with prophylactics. It's an expensinve and grueling regimen, which can cut down infection risk by up to 80%.

The catch is that it takes 6 months to diagnose an HIV infection, but prohpylactics are only effective within the first three days after exposure - and they're most effective within the first day. I'm not sure if they caught this deadline in this case, but given his lifestyle, an HIV infection isn't exactly implausible.

There are also a number of other venerable diseases which might not manifest or be diagnosable until later, and both women and any sex partners they might have could be at needless risk.

McHrozni

If you don't give/take HIV post exposure prophylaxis by the third day, it is not given. HBIG for hep B needs to be given within 7 days. The incubation for herpes is less than 10 days and a condom won't protect from herpes very well if the women were relying on a condom anyway. Pubic lice, Syphilis, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia can be treated after they develop or one can offer the patient a course of antibiotics prophylactically without worrying about the partner's status. And the incubation periods are relatively short.

There is no prophy for hep C but it is extremely unlikely one would get it from a single sexual encounter. Generally it takes multiple exposures.

When did these women make these charges? Was it the morning after? "My boyfriend's condom broke last night and he won't get an STD test." That would have been conceivably reasonable. But that isn't what happened, is it?

Most people will have HIV antibodies by 10 weeks or less after exposure and there are newer tests like a P24 antigen which can be done as early as a week or two after exposure.

So this argument is full of holes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought about that.

I don't believe it was a pre-planned setup, because then I would expect the women to go to the police as soon as possible after the event. The fact they did not, and instead continued as usual for several days, is the weakest point of their case.

I think it's a combination of two spurned lovers, at least one of whom is very vindictive, and a guy who a lot of politically powerful people would very much like to see destroyed.

I thought more about this and it dawned on me that maybe the group of volunteers included a spy. Certainly one can imagine the US would have been interested in infiltrating this group long ago.

An infiltrator may have been aware Assange was porking the staff, and might even have stirred up some anger among the ladies.

Plausible, anyway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay. Treatment for other diseases can be more effective if the exposure is discovered very early.

But you can accomplish this by testing the women. I see people for blood exposures all the time and we don't always have a source to test. There's a protocol for when you don't know what a person may have been exposed to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find that a weak argument. She knew he has a nomadic lifestyle, that he was open to unsafe sex, and that he and her had sex only a few days after they first met....

I find it very sexist that the man would be seen as primarily responsible for a mutually consenting decision.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given Assange is a bit of a celebrity, he's good looking, I wouldn't be surprised if these two ladies both thought he was in love with them and he thought it was casual sex. That's a recipe for the fury of a woman scorned.

Granted this is the stereotype view, not an evidence based view.

 

[Beerina]

Anyone have any evidence Sweden has prosecuted anyone else for consensual sex without a condom? And this is an extraditable charge?

How can anyone take this charge seriously?

I can see pretending to have on a condom, or deliberately breaking one could be some kind of crime. Ignoring attempts at passing a disease (which could range all the way up through murder) deliberately risking a pregnancy or trying to cause one might be some kind of crime, maybe.

But rape it sure isn't. Claiming so demeans the violence and violation of real rape, it would seem to me.

 

[McHrozni]

When did these women make these charges? Was it the morning after? "My boyfriend's condom broke last night and he won't get an STD test." That would have been conceivably reasonable. But that isn't what happened, is it?

Three days later or so, maybe four. Too late for HIV, but in time for the others.

Most people will have HIV antibodies by 10 weeks or less after exposure and there are newer tests like a P24 antigen which can be done as early as a week or two after exposure.

So this argument is full of holes.

Not really. It still made sense to test the potential carrier.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

That's a very weak argument. It shouldn't make a difference. If you aren't in a monogamous relationship, you should protect yourself. It used to be that health care workers wanted to know which patients had AIDS so they could protect themselves but that is poor logic. The best thing to do is assume everybody has it and use the same protection ALL THE TIME.

Unfortunately this isn't always feasible. In this particular case you will notice both women attempted to do that, one protection failed and the other had intercourse without a condom for one reason or another (intoxication?).

The fact is that they made a mistake, realized it was a mistake, and attempted to remedy it the best they could. He refused to cooperate. That they (along with Asenage) made a mistake in the first place doesn't mean their attempts are somehow unjustified.

Has anyone asked him if he has been tested or if he is willing to be tested?

Yes. He refused, according to the article cited.

Why does it require a rape charge to protect women who didn't take responsibility for themselves?

I strongly suspect the rape charge has much more to do with Wikileaks than his bedding left and right. That said, he's still an irresponsible [bad word here].

McHrozni

 

[Varanid]

I think you've missed everything because I don't think anyone here is saying it was rape based on the information we have. No one appears jealous of his 'action'.

Unless you think calling him a prick must be based of jealousy of his actions, and not because his actions make him obviously a bastard.

So just to clarify (question open to everyone):

1) He is a "prick"/ "bastard" because he leaked sensitive info.
or
2) He is a "prick" / "bastard" for his sexual exploits.


Which is it?
#1 is debated in other threads, this thread is about the question of rape.

If #2, is it because
a) You feel he raped (assaulted, etc.) these women.
b) Don't like his sexual behavior (multiple partners, etc.).

I do not see rape (disclaimers for redacted portions, etc.). According to the quote above, I am not alone.

The very nature of rape makes investigating the facts difficult (at best). Accusations cannot be taken lightly in these matters.

Obviously rapist should be brought to justice. But false allegations (or even, over reaching accusations) are life changing for the one accused, even if not guilty of any crime.

Granted, the implications for Mr. Assange are different than they would be for Joe Q. Public. Personally, I will find it disgusting if this is just a means to addressing the leak issues.

 

[fuelair]

But you can't extradite someone to the US for an alleged crime in Sweden.


Publication of information is not terrorism.

If fuelair wants mr Assange locked up indefinately without legal justification, I want him to state that explicitely.

Unlike most suspects of terrorism, mr Assange is a high-profile target. I think a lot of people who don't support his publications will still be appalled if he gets locked up for it indefinately without legal justification.

Sorry, either that or dead. Unable to engage in any further acts of terrorism/espionage (you can pick which - both are illegal and harmful). I assume, by the by, that you don't keep up with my writings here on terrorists - I want all of them dead. Don't care whether they are mafias, Shining Path, street gangs, religious fundies, Basque Seperatists, old IRA, etc.

Assuming you don't follow why I put this slime in with terrorists, the released material gives evidence that Saudi's and others support Iran being attacked, bluntly. That gives Iran further support they might not have had from other terror groups and therefore endangers US citizens as well as citizens of other countries working with Saudi Arabia, etc. Giving out the info about the little slime ball Kharzai makes it more likely the AlQuaeda things will feel more empowered. Knowledge is power - you do not give that knowledge to the bad guys. Assange has done that, I have no use for him.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sorry, either that or dead. Unable to engage in any further acts of terrorism/espionage [...]

You are dangerously disconnected from reality. Assange is not Wikileaks. Killing him won't kill Wikileaks. Hell, Wikileaks isn't even leaking this information.

Also, and this might be better off in the other thread, Wikileaks has consulted with 5 top news outlets around the world, including the New York Times, regarding the most recent leaks. These organizations also plan on publishing some of the leaked information. Should the people involved be killed, too? Where does it end?

 

[Toontown]

Assange looks and behaves like a rat. Scurrying about, crouching in various hidey-holes, grabbing a chunk of cheese or bread here and there, defecating on and infecting the entire diplomatic process, breeding like a rat at every opportunity. Rat nose, buck teeth, dark beady eyes...

Has some mad molecular biologist genetically engineered a human/rat hybrid?

You'd all better hope not. His spawn would breed like rats and consume like humans. We must all hope Assange is just an average anarchist - defecating upon all that which he does not rend asunder.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Assange looks and behaves like a rat. Scurrying about, crouching in various hidey-holes, grabbing a chunk of cheese or bread here and there [...]

A rather bizarre analogy for someone that gives frequent interviews and can generally be considered a celebrity of sorts.

And for someone who does not want to get involved with the whole Wikileaks discussion, because you think it's nonsense, you sure do put yourself into the middle of it. Politics makes people crazy; some more than others, it seems.

 

[Toontown]

A rather bizarre analogy for someone that gives frequent interviews and can generally be considered a celebrity of sorts..

I don't give frequent interviews.

And for someone who does not want to get involved with the whole Wikileaks discussion, because you think it's nonsense, you sure do put yourself into the middle of it.

A few sentences isn't that much.

Politics makes people crazy; some more than others, it seems.

Make fun of a rat-man, get called crazy. All in a day's work.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So just to clarify (question open to everyone):

1) He is a "prick"/ "bastard" because he leaked sensitive info.
or
2) He is a "prick" / "bastard" for his sexual exploits.

3) He is a "prick" / "bastard" for his behaviour towards and treatment of women.

Which is it?
#1 is debated in other threads, this thread is about the question of rape.

If #2, is it because
a) You feel he raped (assaulted, etc.) these women.
b) Don't like his sexual behavior (multiple partners, etc.).

c) Because you don't live and sleep with one woman and go and sleep with another one at the same time, and you don't refuse to prove that you haven't endangered their health when they find out that you're a cheating prick.

 

[Travis]

Would there be a public backlash in Sweden if this all just trumped up?


For the record I am the one person who is jealous of his "action."

 

[little grey rabbit]

Given that its difficult to see anyone being convicted on the basis of this you wonder what the point of all this melodrama is.

Having Mr Assange to be acquitted of a ludicrous sex molestation charge is only going to burnish his cult of personality even further. Probably won't hurt his chances of getting laid either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Three days later or so, maybe four. Too late for HIV, but in time for the others.



Not really. It still made sense to test the potential carrier.

McHrozni

In time for what others?

Hep B - anyone sexually active should be vaccinated ahead of time.

In this country you cannot demand an STD test of your sexual partner whether the condom broke or not. AFTER a person is convicted of a sex crime, STD tests can be ordered. If a person has reason to believe they have been criminally exposed there may be some means of ordering a subpoena for specific STD test. Some prison staff are allowed to order STD tests if it affects where they are going to house prisoners. And if you expose someone to your blood during an assault, after you are convicted, the victim can ask for a court ordered test of blood infections.

If you are exposed doing your job, you can get a court ordered blood pathogens test on the source. It wouldn't include STDs not spread via blood. The laws vary by state.

So I'd be surprised if Sweden has a law that says, have sex and you can demand an STD test of your partner.

People have very much TV or movie perceptions of these issues. Reality differs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

3) He is a "prick" / "bastard" for his behaviour towards and treatment of women.



c) Because you don't live and sleep with one woman and go and sleep with another one at the same time, and you don't refuse to prove that you haven't endangered their health when they find out that you're a cheating prick.

If the one sided story we are hearing is true. But there are other scenarios where these women may have been vindictive because they were not 'loved' when they wanted to be 'loved'. It is possible they imagined he was coming on to just them, while Assange was clear he just wanted sex.

I'm not saying that makes him a good guy. He wouldn't be my type of good guy. But what's with all the blame falling on one side here as if only women are victims in sexual relationships?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Of course Anna Ardin is the press officer for the Swedish "Brotherhood Movement"