The U.S.'s Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, December 18, 2010 06:08
VIEWED: 3822
PAGE 5 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I guess what I'm saying is that even well meaning laws meant to protect freedoms, can in practice take more freedoms from us.
And when they do, they no longer serve their purpose and should be removed - but they never are.
That is why Anarchists find the "Rule of Law" to be so reprehensible, because laws that wind up in opposition to the purpose for which laws are made, to protect people, their rights, and their property - or wind up enforced in direct contravention to those things... are allowed to stand unchallenged, till "The Law" becomes more important than the things that law was made to protect.
And THAT, is why Anarchists do not respect the law as a concept.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
I thought you were opposed to all laws.
Specifically, laws like this swedish law are an open door to declare a sex act rape retroactively, as in this case, a year later or so, based on nothing but heresay.
The iPad wants to turn heresay into heresy.
Anyway, first think about the abuse that allows. If roughly half of all break ups are bad, and the average person has 8 childless relationships for every parental one, both of which are statistical, than this practice would be very effective as a eugenics technique,
Anecdotally, I can name four friends off the top of my head who decided to declare something rape after the break up, one was because of a miscarriage and blackout that resulted from drug use, and had nothing to do with the guy who was a pushover, two were from women who later had restraining orders against them to protect said men, and the third was a psycho who later tried to kill the guy, so her credibility is questionable as well.
I think this line of reasoning comes from "the girl is always right" school of thought, but sometimes the girl is insane. People are not rational, and they will allow their emotions to get the better of them, and will abuse a system if it is open to abuse. Rape is pretty clearly an act of violence, and it is safe to say that some sort of violence is required. If theres no standing domestic abuse case, then I think its highly improbable that the claim is valid.
Besides, this is quite frankly a waste of time, its clearly the US manipulating Sweden to manipulate it's legal system to get Julian Assange on something that would generate human revulsion in a way in which their actual hacking charges would not. They are doing exactly what Margaret Atwood had hem do 20 some years ago in the Handmaids Tale which she did to protect us from being this dumb when it actually happened.
Sorry for being grouchy. I have to get back to studying the brain. The outlook is not good if I don't come up with a solution myself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I thought you were opposed to all laws.
But if we're going to have laws, then laws against murder, rape, and robbery would be at the top of the list for laws I like.
Quote:Is that what this Swedish law does? That was not my understanding.
Specifically, laws like this swedish law are an open door to declare a sex act rape retroactively, ....
I have not researched Assange's sex life, so I could be wrong. But I thought I saw somewhere that the women contacted the cops shortly after the sex, but cops did nothing until Assange became more famous.
Anyway, all I was saying is, I like laws that penalize all non-consentual sex (if we are to have laws). Now how "non-consentual" is defined, we could debate that further.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow DT.... I think maybe you need to stop hanging with crazy women.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think a lot of rape is difficult to prove. Hevertheless, non consensual sex is rape, regardless of at what stage it becomes non consensual.
These laws are difficult ones, and open to abuse, like a lot of things. However, the indicators show that women actually don't report a lot of rape because of the difficulty of prosecuting and the stigma attached, so it kind of swings both ways. There is still a strong school of thought that still say 'girls ask for it' by their behaviour or dress or being drunk and so on. I do believe Sweden is a little ahead of other places with breaking that kind of mentality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think a lot of rape is difficult to prove. Hevertheless, non consensual sex is rape, regardless of at what stage it becomes non consensual.
Does that include after the sex? Cause after is just as much a stage in the process as before.
As a Prosecutor my policy is 'regret is not rape.'
Rape is difficult to prove if there is no physical evidence. If the accused claims the act was consensual, then we need some sort of physical evidence to support the victims side of the story. These can include defensive wounds, evidence of a struggle or violence, perhaps the presense of some sort of date rape drug.
I once tried a rape were the fella had sex with a passed out bridesmaid. I could prove she was passed out and in Ohio you can't consent if you are not awake...this is not true everywhere.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No after is not as much a stage as before, and you know it.
As I said, rape is difficult to prove. Having defensive wounds may or may not occur, because you can use threats, drugs and down right terrify your victim so that they don't fight back or struggle.
Having sex with an unconscious person would certainly constitute rape here, and quite rightly. In fact there was a serial rapist who was recently imprisoned. He used to drug his victims with hot chocolate and film them as well. Talk about multiple violations. Many of them didn't even know they had been raped until they were shown the footage. It was still rape and he was still prosecuted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree completely.
Originally posted by Hero:
As a Prosecutor my policy is 'regret is not rape.'
Quote:This goes to my point that I appreciate the more rigorous laws against non-consentual sex. I think it SHOULD be true everywhere.
in Ohio you can't consent if you are not awake...this is not true everywhere.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
Quote:
Is that what this Swedish law does? That was not my understanding.
Yes, it's a heresay crime, all heresay crimes are open to widespread abuse. The way to make it not a heresay crime would be to have the partner register a discontinuation of consent, sort of like a divorce for relationships. That, as a law, I could support.
Atwood's point was that the powers that be would never use actual treason charges because that would be ineffectual in getting we the people to turn against our own advocates. Labeling them as sex offenders would be much more effective.
Quote:
I have not researched Assange's sex life, so I could be wrong. But I thought I saw somewhere that the women contacted the cops shortly after the sex, but cops did nothing until Assange became more famous.
This is not the case. The two were still together when he had to leave the country. He was being pursued by western spies. She bought him the busfare to the airport and covered for him after he left. The only reason it changed was that her name appeared in an article about him, and someone got to her undoubtedly because of that. Who knows what they may have offered her or threatened her with.
There's a simple logic here: People who are in the business of fighting the powers that be know that they don't have the option of slipping up on stuff like this. Ralph Nader says that he has lived a celibate life for this reason only. Now that's a sacrifice for your cause. But still, it's pretty well known that you don't get any screw-ups when you're on a crusade, so, no, I think a rapist would intentionally opt for a much lower profile, unless he was a moron, like members of congress or former US presidents. But Assange is clearly not a moron.
Quote:
Anyway, all I was saying is, I like laws that penalize all non-consentual sex (if we are to have laws). Now how "non-consentual" is defined, we could debate that further.
We could, but I don't have the time. I hope my above description will suffice.
I have some new rather radical demands on my time now, and there's no room in it for politics. Maybe after this whole ordeal, if we can find a cure that works.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Story,
I've known a lot of women. There are worse things than crazy, but I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME