re: #555 Obdicut

How so? Not from me, certainly, since I’ve repeated over and over we can’t conclude anything. So who are you talking to? Why are you responding to what you see as an unfair conclusion against Assange with a similar conclusion against the women?

Please, you’re not listening to me. Sweden has a weaker definition of rape than the US does. Please, please read this link.

[Link: www.thelocal.se…]

To be honest, I think this is a smear job based on a grain of truth.

The question is, how big is the grain of truth.
We’re seeing all sorts of differing stories out there?
Did he wear a condom did he not wear a condom?
Did it break? did he know it break?
Did she protest after the condom broke? did she not?

In the US, I can’t imagine a prosecutor touching this with a 10 foot pole. The fact that they had sex isn’t in dispute, that it was initially consensual isn’t in dispute. There is no other evidence of her protestation, IE a video or audio recording? So the prosecutor would have to look at her other behaviors. Did she continue to associate with the accused? What statements did she make after the date of the incident? how long did she wait to make the accusations? how long did she wait to go to the police to file a report?

That’s where things become a smear job. The terms Rape, Terrorist, Pedophilia etc. seem to be bandied about at the drop of a hat now. So those words are used to make the individual accused untouchable and indefensible. It’s a great way to isolate someone, and it’s particularly effective when the person isn’t someone you like very much anyway. After all, if he’s a bit of an asshole, we’re more likely to accept that he’s a rapist too, right? Even if you don’t get everyone to accept the charges and isolate him, it’s enough to diminish him because the focus then becomes him, and not the stuff he’s released.

It’s the ultimate ad hominem attack. and it’s frighteningly effective.