Theaetetus: THE GREAT NAME: Theaetetus: pippi longstocking: This has to be a bogus charge, all this effort for an allegation of some guy touching a girl..not even rape.

Actually, the allegation is non-consensual penetration, so... yeah, even rape.

Actually. the allegation is not non-consensual penetration, so... go rubber stamp some stupid inventions, you rape-liar.

The allegation is that he penetrated some woman while she was sleeping, after she told him not to before they fell asleep, so, do you have a different name for that?

/and your impotent rage is misplaced: the patent examiners would be the ones rubber stamping things

That is not part of the allegations.

tenpoundsofcheese: footshot: imontheinternet: TimonC346: Oh, and is Bradley Manning still in solitary?

Yes, and the UN recently denounced his treatment as torture.

Also,

[0.polizeros.com image 320x573]

Awesome picture, awesome thinking :) Did the corps cover up underhand dealings that isn't acceptable to any decent human being?

So you okay with the police illegally obtaining information about people, and widely disseminating that info in order to stop them underhand dealings or illegal activity. Same thing.

No, I'm saying anything of the sort. I believe both governments, and corporations, have a duty to act in a responsible way that the voters/customers/shareholders would find acceptable. They don't, I'm not naive enough to believe they do.

To me, wikileaks facilitated exposing areas of those governments and corporations that clearly don't hold the same regard for responsibility that I do. I like it for that.

I think rape is a bad thing, no arguments there! And that we should let the justice system run it's course. It seems to be doing so.

I also think we'd be naive to assume there isn't a connection between heading up wikileaks and such vehemently pursued extradition procedures.

I also like the picture :)

I also think you won't be in the slightest bit interested in what I think. And I'm cool with that :)

THE GREAT NAME: Theaetetus: THE GREAT NAME: Theaetetus: pippi longstocking: This has to be a bogus charge, all this effort for an allegation of some guy touching a girl..not even rape.

Actually, the allegation is non-consensual penetration, so... yeah, even rape.

Actually. the allegation is not non-consensual penetration, so... go rubber stamp some stupid inventions, you rape-liar.

The allegation is that he penetrated some woman while she was sleeping, after she told him not to before they fell asleep, so, do you have a different name for that?

/and your impotent rage is misplaced: the patent examiners would be the ones rubber stamping things

That is not part of the allegations.

"Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no."

tenpoundsofcheese:
Don't bother. The fark misogynists are you in full force today.

No misogynists here. Just people who rightly question rape-liars and those who distort the rape issue for personal gain.

Many men distort the rape issue -it isn't just women who can be rape-liars. For example, males may do it to gain political ground among femi-leninists or to appear superior in internet debates. As you are doing here.

footshot: I also think we'd be naive to assume there isn't a connection between heading up wikileaks and such vehemently pursued extradition procedures.

It's certainly possible, if not likely. One potential counter-argument is that if Assange wasn't famous, it's not that the extradition procedures wouldn't happen, but that they wouldn't be news: we'd never hear about them, a nobody wouldn't have the giant legal defense fund for an appeal, etc. It may be tough to say either way.

THE GREAT NAME: tenpoundsofcheese:
Don't bother. The fark misogynists are you in full force today.

No misogynists here... femi-leninists...

Shouldn't you put down the Vicodin and start preparing for your show, Rush?

Theaetetus: THE GREAT NAME: Theaetetus: THE GREAT NAME: Theaetetus: pippi longstocking: This has to be a bogus charge, all this effort for an allegation of some guy touching a girl..not even rape.

Actually, the allegation is non-consensual penetration, so... yeah, even rape.

Actually. the allegation is not non-consensual penetration, so... go rubber stamp some stupid inventions, you rape-liar.

The allegation is that he penetrated some woman while she was sleeping, after she told him not to before they fell asleep, so, do you have a different name for that?

/and your impotent rage is misplaced: the patent examiners would be the ones rubber stamping things

That is not part of the allegations.

"Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no."

Sometimes I am reminded that I associate with pedos and rapists on fark. I put the great name on ignore for this reason. You are favorited though for being intelligent. Don't waste your time with this fool.

footshot: So you okay with the police illegally obtaining information about people, and widely disseminating that info in order to stop them underhand dealings or illegal activity. Same thing.

No, I'm saying anything of the sort. I believe both governments, and corporations, have a duty to act in a responsible way that the voters/customers/shareholders would find acceptable. They don't, I'm not naive enough to believe they do.

To me, wikileaks facilitated exposing areas of those governments and corporations that clearly don't hold the same regard for responsibility that I do. I like it for that.

Got it.
You don't believe in laws deciding what is right and wrong, you believe the standard is to "act in a responsible way".

You don't believe in due process, you are okay with an individual or even a group or a government getting information any way they can to expose companies who don't "act in a responsible way".

Well of course people should act in a responsible way, after all companies are made up of people, so it should be okay for someone, or a government to cast a wide net, collect all that data and then put it up on wikipeopleleaks for all to see! This way the people can see which other people are acting in an irresponsible way.

ace in your face: Sometimes I am reminded that I associate with pedos and rapists on fark. I put the great name on ignore for this reason. You are favorited though for being intelligent. Don't waste your time with this fool.

Which fark commentors do you claim are pedos or rapists? Do you have evidence, or are you just another rape-liar and pedo-liar?

NAME is on ignore like pigs fly. You are reading this because you are afraid THE GREAT NAME might discover and publish the truth about you.

The US government brought the whole diplomatic cable leak upon themself. The only reason it was even news, or of any value to Wikileaks, is because information in the cables contradicted statements and claims that the government had made publicly. If you believe that democracy is the founding principle of our government, and that its citizens are the final boss, then it is NEVER acceptable for the government to lie the populous. That doesn't mean the government has to make every bit of information it has public, but it means that when questioned by the public, the government's only options for answers are the truth or "no comment".

Now, there are some people who will say that a government needs to be able to lie in order to engage in foreign relations or wage a war, but those people would be wrong. Lying may make those endevourers easier for certain people involved, but the country would surely not collapse, or even lose much of its power on the world stage, just because it was no longer able to lie to its citizens. If not having the ability to lie means that the government can't get it's military aparatus, diplomatic agents, and coporate representatives involved in hundreds of countries aroudn the world, then so be it. The democratic princible, the founding bedrock of the government, takes priority over all those things. The public is the boss, ALWAYS. The government serves the people entirely at the people's leisure. The government has no justifiable mandate for authority both at home and on the world stage outside the will of the people, and when the government lies to the people, it perverts and oppresses that will, and removes legitimacy from any actions it takes. Any claim of necessity or expediency is a claim that democracy should be subverted so that the few can rule the many, and such claims should NEVER be tolerated.

ace in your face: Sometimes I am reminded that I associate with pedos and rapists on fark. I put the great name on ignore for this reason. You are favorited though for being intelligent. Don't waste your time with this fool.

Fair 'nuff. :)

There wasn't enough evidence to suggest a crime had taken place, even by sweden's broad definition of rape the first time around. With no more evidence, the case was politically motivated to reopen the case and now they want to extradite him without charges being laid. They didn't even want to question him in the UK, which Assange made himself available for.

pippi longstocking: This has to be a bogus charge, all this effort for an allegation of some guy touching a girl..not even rape.

And by "not touching", you mean "boinking her after she says no and did not change her mind."

Theaetetus:
"Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no."

So this is rape? This is the thing that's supposed to be worse than anything any man can even visualise? The thing that's supposed to destroy a woman's life, give her post-traumatic symptoms for 10+ years, make her unable to feel attractive, trust a man or form a relationship. This?

Is this so bad that innocent men must rot in jail just in case something like this goes unreported? Sufficient that the principles of justice for all, forged though centuries of debate and precident since the Magna Carta should be turned on their head?

This woman is mildly irritated, and anybody who even compares this to a real rape, knowing all the issues surrounding real rape, is a rape-liar. Never mind mysoginy or misandry, anyone who swallows this nonsense must hate the very essences of humanity and reason.

Theaetetus: footshot: I also think we'd be naive to assume there isn't a connection between heading up wikileaks and such vehemently pursued extradition procedures.

It's certainly possible, if not likely. One potential counter-argument is that if Assange wasn't famous, it's not that the extradition procedures wouldn't happen, but that they wouldn't be news: we'd never hear about them, a nobody wouldn't have the giant legal defense fund for an appeal, etc. It may be tough to say either way.

Yeah, fair shout, also possible. You're absolutely right, tough for anybody to say with any degree of certainty. My inherent mistrust of government in general makes me raise an eyebrow, but that's totally my taint.

....we'll only know for sure if somebody like wikileaks exposes the internal memos ;)

Silverstaff: This guy seems to think he's above the law. Do anything he wants and just justify it as a "greater good". Leak state secrets and endanger field operatives, damage diplomatic relations and push nations towards war: it's all good because he's exposing "secrets and lies", as if it's always bad to keep secrets and it's always bad for states to lie.

He even looks like an arrogant, smug weasel.

With his bent towards rationalizing everything I could certainly believe those sex charges. It would be really easy for him to think "no means yes", "she really wants it even if she says she doesn't", or "I'm a hero to the world, whatever I do is morally acceptable".

He (or his supporters) try to spin these charges as somehow created by the CIA as retribution for what he did. I think it's more of the idea he thinks he's somehow above the rules and is so arrogant he doesn't think that women could even turn him down. He then appeals to conspiracy theorists by saying that all charges against him are planted.

Did the CIA create the charges? Probably not. Are they quite happy that there are people complaining against him and he's going to take a fall? Hell yeah.

His supporters include about 80% of the Australian population. Do you really want to piss off your allies again, after your military had two innocent Aussies tortured in Egypt and sent to Gitmo for 5 years ?

tenpoundsofcheese: footshot: So you okay with the police illegally obtaining information about people, and widely disseminating that info in order to stop them underhand dealings or illegal activity. Same thing.

No, I'm saying anything of the sort. I believe both governments, and corporations, have a duty to act in a responsible way that the voters/customers/shareholders would find acceptable. They don't, I'm not naive enough to believe they do.

To me, wikileaks facilitated exposing areas of those governments and corporations that clearly don't hold the same regard for responsibility that I do. I like it for that.

Got it.
You don't believe in laws deciding what is right and wrong, you believe the standard is to "act in a responsible way".

You don't believe in due process, you are okay with an individual or even a group or a government getting information any way they can to expose companies who don't "act in a responsible way".

Well of course people should act in a responsible way, after all companies are made up of people, so it should be okay for someone, or a government to cast a wide net, collect all that data and then put it up on wikipeopleleaks for all to see! This way the people can see which other people are acting in an irresponsible way.

No you don't got it, that's not what I believe, but never mind.

Me: I think rape is a bad thing, no arguments there! And that we should let the justice system run it's course. It seems to be doing so.

The rhetorical question being how the hell did you decide I was some kind of anarchist from that? Heh. Doesn't matter :)

Voiceofreason01: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Yea, cuz all those undercover field operatives he got killed in Iran is just small potatos anyway.

If he's being framed for a crime he didn't commit, or even being railroaded for a relatively minor crime, he's still being actively and personally persecuted and silenced for exercising the rights that, ostensibly, those agents are working to protect. THIS IS NOT OK.

The problem is that because they pressed the big "RAPE" button, all the politically correct crypto-marxists and rape-liars are coming out of the woodwork against him, JUST because he's on the wrong side of society's latest medieval witch-hunt. Just for pointing this out, user "ace in your face" has tried to call me a rapist and a pedophile. Presumably the pedophile bit was just to get the right rhetorical rhythm going in her comment - I've never even commented in a pedo thread. Not that I can remember anyway.

THE GREAT NAME: This woman is mildly irritated, and anybody who even compares this to a real rape, knowing all the issues surrounding real rape, is a rape-liar.

Your shtick got old by your 2nd post in this thread. All I hear from you now is some sort of P.O.E. rant delivered by a fat guy with nothing better to do than try to get attention.

For the record, and not addressed to one-trick troll, I think the charges are by and large ridiculous. But Swedish law makes it quite clear what constitutes consent. He has been accused, and now he will stand trial. Guilt will be a hard thing to prove, and the Swedish judicial system isn't one to go by faith. Chances of a conviction are tiny, and, even if he is found guilty, it is unlikely he would do time. He would be ordered to pay restitution to his victim(s).

swahnhennessy: THE GREAT NAME: This woman is mildly irritated, and anybody who even compares this to a real rape, knowing all the issues surrounding real rape, is a rape-liar.

Your shtick got old by your 2nd post in this thread. All I hear from you now is some sort of P.O.E. rant delivered by a fat guy with nothing better to do than try to get attention.

For the record, and not addressed to one-trick troll, I think the charges are by and large ridiculous. But Swedish law makes it quite clear what constitutes consent. He has been accused, and now he will stand trial. Guilt will be a hard thing to prove, and the Swedish judicial system isn't one to go by faith. Chances of a conviction are tiny, and, even if he is found guilty, it is unlikely he would do time. He would be ordered to pay restitution to his victim(s).

So, is Swedish rape law an ass, or isn't it?

I only ask because you seem to be hiding an authoritatian position behind a rationalist facade.

ginandbacon: Rape-liars? Seriously?

Why not that term? We have had plenty of high-profile false rape accusers over the past decade. Duke team, Kobe Bryant, Assange(?). Being a "rape-liar" ruins lives due to the fact it is such a heinous crime that we as a society peruse it vehemently and run a poor bloke over the coals. Even if they are found obviously innocent their reputation is ruined, they may have had jail time, and they have little to no recourse.

imontheinternet: TimonC346: Oh, and is Bradley Manning still in solitary?

Yes, and the UN recently denounced his treatment as torture.

Also,

[0.polizeros.com image 320x573]

this

Kazrath: ginandbacon: Rape-liars? Seriously?

Why not that term? We have had plenty of high-profile false rape accusers over the past decade. Duke team, Kobe Bryant, Assange(?).

Well, if you want to stay away from legitimate accusations of hypocrisy, you should admit that none of the accusers in these cases have ever been convicted of perjury, charged with making false statements, or even lost a defamation suit. Innocent until proven guilty applies to both the defendant accused of rape and the defendant accused of making a false accusation, you know.

Being a "rape-liar" ruins lives due to the fact it is such a heinous crime that we as a society peruse it vehemently and run a poor bloke over the coals. Even if they are found obviously innocent their reputation is ruined, they may have had jail time, and they have little to no recourse.

This is a legitimate problem, but by attacking the accuser, you're going after someone who is legally innocent and has not been shown to be guilty. It opens you to accusations of misogyny and hypocrisy, and is ultimately useless* since the accuser is not the person that is "run[ning] a poor bloke over the coals." The media is.

The real subject of your legitimate ire should be the media, who publicly convict the accused of rape before a trial even begins. This spoils the witness pool, and encourages district attorneys seeking re-election or higher office to over-charge or even hide exculpatory evidence for political reasons. And, whenever anyone accuses the media of going overboard, they issue a 6 point retraction on page 52, at most.
The damages you note are not caused by the accuser, but by the media, and the media should be held accountable for their defamation. We need to dial back the higher standard for libel when the subject is a "public figure" as a unwilling defendant is not the same as a willing politician.

*useless if your goal is to protect innocent defendants. Useful if your goal is to discourage women from bringing any accusations of rape.

Whenever I see articles about Obama's kill list, I always think of Julian Assange.

/this from a bleeding heart liberal

angryjd: ginandbacon: FlameDuck: His next leak will be in sweden.

But will he be leaked to the US?

No. That is Republican Propaganda. He hasn't broken any US law. They would have no idea what to do with him if they had him.

How many people are now dead because of the information he published? Hint: more than zero.

Whether he broke laws or not is for a court to decide, but he has blood all over his hands and isn't one bit ashamed about it. I hope he gets the max. Hell, I hope more women come forward and he gets sentenced to consecutive terms.

hdhale: angryjd: ginandbacon: FlameDuck: His next leak will be in sweden.

But will he be leaked to the US?

No. That is Republican Propaganda. He hasn't broken any US law. They would have no idea what to do with him if they had him.

How many people are now dead because of the information he published? Hint: more than zero.

Whether he broke laws or not is for a court to decide, but he has blood all over his hands and isn't one bit ashamed about it. I hope he gets the max. Hell, I hope more women come forward and he gets sentenced to consecutive terms.

You wish more women had been raped? I know it's Fark and all, but you're farked in the head.

hdhale: Whether he broke laws or not is for a court to decide, but he has blood all over his hands and isn't one bit ashamed about it. I hope he gets the max. Hell, I hope more women come forward and he gets sentenced to consecutive terms.

I think Manning and Assange were/are douches, but he really broke no law.

He's protected by the same Journalist Shield Laws that shielded the guys who leaked the Pentagon Papers, IIRC.

hdhale: angryjd: ginandbacon: FlameDuck: His next leak will be in sweden.

But will he be leaked to the US?

No. That is Republican Propaganda. He hasn't broken any US law. They would have no idea what to do with him if they had him.

How many people are now dead because of the information he published? Hint: more than zero.

Whether he broke laws or not is for a court to decide, but he has blood all over his hands and isn't one bit ashamed about it. I hope he gets the max. Hell, I hope more women come forward and he gets sentenced to consecutive terms.

I hope some wingnut kills him. if for no other reason than I hate cocky douches.

Silverstaff: This guy seems to think he's above the law. Do anything he wants and just justify it as a "greater good". Leak state secrets and endanger field operatives, damage diplomatic relations and push nations towards war: it's all good because he's exposing "secrets and lies", as if it's always bad to keep secrets and it's always bad for states to lie.

He even looks like an arrogant, smug weasel.

With his bent towards rationalizing everything I could certainly believe those sex charges. It would be really easy for him to think "no means yes", "she really wants it even if she says she doesn't", or "I'm a hero to the world, whatever I do is morally acceptable".

He (or his supporters) try to spin these charges as somehow created by the CIA as retribution for what he did. I think it's more of the idea he thinks he's somehow above the rules and is so arrogant he doesn't think that women could even turn him down. He then appeals to conspiracy theorists by saying that all charges against him are planted.

Did the CIA create the charges? Probably not. Are they quite happy that there are people complaining against him and he's going to take a fall? Hell yeah.


You sound mad. And ignorant.

SharkTrager: It was a bit more than touching, but a bit less than rape.

A woman who told you she'd only have sex with you if you used a condom, who wakes up with you inside her sans condom, does have a legitimate complaint. And he did it twice.

/allegedly
//but that's still not what this is about


Meh a woman once demanded sex when the condom broke and I said no. If I would have agreed could she wake up and blame me and cry rape?

this was a targeted campaign against his character to distract him from doing his job. It was the first strike in a PR campaign war that the American military will never stop fighting.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Yea, cuz all those undercover field operatives he got killed in Iran is just small potatos anyway.


You mean all the idiots in CIA who blew their cover and put their contacts at risk because of their ignorance and bad work is all the fault of Wikileaks? Wow you people are retarded.

tenpoundsofcheese: Got it.
You don't believe in laws deciding what is right and wrong, you believe the standard is to "act in a responsible way".

You don't believe in due process, you are okay with an individual or even a group or a government getting information any way they can to expose companies who don't "act in a responsible way".


HAHAHAHAHHA

due process. Laws. responsible.

Except when it comes to enemies of America. Lock them up, throw away the key and torture away!

natas6.0: I want him to enjoy obscurity...and SOON


Good idea. Any journalist who dares report embarrassing information on your favorite country should die.

Assange is a shiathead, but that's completely divorced from this particular case. Push comes to shove he did commit a crime, but the only reason they're pursuing it so zealously is because corporate and government powers don't like wikileaks.

And like it or not, wikileaks is a net good.

intelligent comment below: Except when it comes to enemies of America.Illegal combatants who are not entitled to any of the protections of the conventions of war and international law by both written clause and unwritten tradition. Lock them up, throw away the key and torture away!

There. Fixed that for you.

We treat them far better than we have historically treated spies, saboteurs, and infiltrators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

I'll save you a little reading: We fried them like bacon. Crispy Nazi Bacon.

intelligent comment below: SharkTrager: It was a bit more than touching, but a bit less than rape.

A woman who told you she'd only have sex with you if you used a condom, who wakes up with you inside her sans condom, does have a legitimate complaint. And he did it twice.

/allegedly
//but that's still not what this is about


Meh a woman once demanded sex when the condom broke and I said no. If I would have agreed could she wake up and blame me and cry rape?

this was a targeted campaign against his character to distract him from doing his job. It was the first strike in a PR campaign war that the American military will never stop fighting.

I'm trying to understand how you could possibly think that is a similar situation in any way....

BronyMedic: There. Fixed that for you.

We treat them far better than we have historically treated spies, saboteurs, and infiltrators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

I'll save you a little reading: We fried them like bacon. Crispy Nazi Bacon.


Illegal combatant is not an actual term recognized by anybody except the US military.

So it looks like you want to play the semantics game rather than admit you don't believe in law and justice after all. "but he's bad too" is not what adults who believe in freedom say.

ace in your face: I'm trying to understand how you could possibly think that is a similar situation in any way....

Assange had sex with a woman without a condom. She claimed it was against her will but it's just a case of she said he said. It would certainly be the same situation if the girl woke up and accused me of the same thing.

intelligent comment below: ace in your face: I'm trying to understand how you could possibly think that is a similar situation in any way....

Assange had sex with a woman without a condom while she was sleeping. She claimed it was against her will but it's just a case of she said he said and Assange admits this. It would certainly be the same situation if the girl woke up and accused me of the same thing while she slept.

FTFY.
According to Assange's lawyer, during the court arguments:
"12.07pm: Emmerson is now explaining the alleged victim SW's witness statement. Emmerson says:

"They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration."

His whole argument was that he penetrated her while she slept, without her consent, but because she didn't fight him off upon waking, that travels back in time and obviates her lack of capacity due to unconsciousness:
Ben Emmerson QC, his barrister, admitted that the women involved may have found Assange's behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing, or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" - discussing, for example, Assange's initiating sex with one woman while she was asleep - but maintained that no crime had been committed under UK law.

And let us not forget the other victim:
Of the encounter on 13 August between Assange and AA, Emmerson said:

The appellant [Assange]'s physical advances were initially welcomed but then it felt awkward since he was "rough and impatient" ... They lay down in bed. AA was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her ... AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom ... She did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration ... AA tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.

But crucially, Emmerson said, there was no lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation, because "after a while Assange asked what AA was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA told him that she wanted him to put a condom on before he entered her. Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found her."

Again, the argument is that there was no attempted sexual assault because her lack of consent at the time was obviated by consent later on.

The moral of the story is "don't have sex with someone who's asleep who hasn't given you explicit consent to do so." The only shocking thing is that some people still need to learn that.

intelligent comment below: Illegal combatant is not an actual term recognized by anybody except the US military.

You really shouldn't be lecturing me on semantics playing this game.

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Pay careful attention to that part, ICB.

But it goes on even further.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

intelligent comment below: rather than admit you don't believe in law and justice after all. "but he's bad too" is not what adults who believe in freedom say.

I believe I just quoted the law. Believe in freedom? Cool. I can get that. Follow the laws of war and conflict, wear a uniform, and don't use women and children to blow shiat up with suicide vests.

intelligent comment below: ace in your face: I'm trying to understand how you could possibly think that is a similar situation in any way....

Assange had sex with a woman without a condom. She claimed it was against her will but it's just a case of she said he said. It would certainly be the same situation if the girl woke up and accused me of the same thing.

You think it's ok to penetrate people while they are sleeping then? As someone who was assaulted this way, I am quite interested in your answer.

Theaetetus: The moral of the story is "don't have sex with someone who's asleep who hasn't given you explicit consent to do so." The only shocking thing is that some people still need to learn that.

Sounds like an international conspiracy and a war crime! Call INTERPOL!