In America, that is rape.

Here also, and believe me if he is guilty he deserves what he gets and more...but the more i read the more i suspect.

I will not lynch a man on hearsay no matter how much some dont like him.


heres a paragrapgh from the internet



As Swedish prosecutors' sex-crime allegations against Julian Assange play out, one aspect of the case merits serious scrutiny. We know Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, by name. But his two accusers are consistently identified only as "Miss A" and "Miss W" in the media, and their images are blurred. In the UK it is against the law to name an accuser in a sex-crime case once a complaint has been made; elsewhere – in the US, and much of Europe – media convention demands that accusers get the same protection. This is bad law and bad policy. Motivated by good intentions, the outcome harms women.

to be fair here is the page

Julian Assange's sex-crime accusers deserve to be named - Our Need to Awaken...

IM looking at the fact that usually people even those that are accused are also protected! strange he was not.

Basically im saying if he is guilty of rape or violence id would be the first to condem him.

but it is passing strange that his name is freely given from the start....

"think hes whatever....but hes hasnt even been given the rights of the most despicable person.

I just think it's too bad a major publication didn't release the info.
If the NYT had done it, I feel the situation would be entirely different.

I would not disagree at all. In the US, at least, some outlets have reported that his sex crime was that he had sex without a condom (which obviously is not a crime in the US). I have never heard he had sex with a woman while she slept before today. That would be considered a crime in most places, I bet.

The woman whom he allegeldy raped him is also suspicious.

Following the supposed incident it is said that she spent time with him afterwards of her own free will.

I agree...tho i may suggest that the non - use of contreptive (accidental or otherwise) on the male part is illegal and grounds for extradition is a first for me.

now if he did indeed have intercourse with somone thats was sleeping and did not give consent............as far as im concerned and i imagine everyone then that is rape.

and he deserves everything.



but if as ronin pointed out she was seen with him after? tho not evidence it did not happen questions would have to be asked.

but thats a different story


im saying maybe he was condemed before a trial.

hate him or not technically he has commited no crimes with wiki leaks

I agree with you. This is the modern world.

condoms
 

Hey, MEN !!!!! :)
Do you seriously believe that mr Assange could rape her?
Is he a complete pervert than, huh?
How much vodka one could drink to have a lust for having sex with such an unpleasant female person, I wonder?!

I don't understand why you think that just because you wouldn't have sex with this women (admittedly I haven't seen the pictures, or anything, but regardless) allows you to make the jump that no one would have sex with her ergo no one would rape her.