It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Julian Assange hit with 18 federal charges in new indictment

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?



You are correct. It is smear. A common tactic used against whistleblowers.




posted on May, 24 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?


Actually, the fact that Assange did not use a condom is not rape. People focus on this to divert attention from the actual facts that he was alleged to have raped a sleeping woman. Here is the text from the EAW in his first hearing, noting that in Assange's extradition appeal it was reasserted that it would have been rape under English law.


4. On 17 th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.


Westminster Court Sweden V Julian Assange



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?



You are correct. It is smear. A common tactic used against whistleblowers.



Seeing as it hasn't been to court and Assange ran and hid for a few years who are you to say it's a smear? Were you there? If not you have no idea what happened, but nice to see that when a case of potential sexual abuse is raised you immediately believe the woman is lying, not.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?


Actually, the fact that Assange did not use a condom is not rape. People focus on this to divert attention from the actual facts that he was alleged to have raped a sleeping woman. Here is the text from the EAW in his first hearing, noting that in Assange's extradition appeal it was reasserted that it would have been rape under English law.


4. On 17 th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.


Westminster Court Sweden V Julian Assange


I may not always agree with you, on this though you have presented the elephant in the room that Assange's acolytes try desperately to avoid - watch how they will try and do that with your post.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




Seeing as it hasn't been to court and Assange ran and hid for a few years who are you to say it's a smear? Were you there


Try reading the court case files and then get back to me



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: uncommitted




Seeing as it hasn't been to court and Assange ran and hid for a few years who are you to say it's a smear? Were you there


Try reading the court case files and then get back to me


So you still think it's a smear then? Mainly because it's Assange and you believe he can do no wrong?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I dont really care what you think it is based on your imagination. As I said try reading the court notes. Then you will ad least be worthy of an opinion on the subject.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: uncommitted

I dont really care what you think it is based on your imagination. As I said try reading the court notes. Then you will ad least be worthy of an opinion on the subject.



I've read the Westminster ones which I'm happy to take as covering the accusation, and I can remember the initial court hearing. I see no smear, I do see someone who is narcissistic and who I have no doubt thinks he is some sort of celebrity but when it came down to accounting for himself he ran like someone who has something to hide. Perhaps you are one of his acolytes, that's really down to you, but to talk about me just using my imagination and not knowing the facts, you are the person that created a thread about the sphinx where you said it's not permitted to fly over it weren't you when a 30 second search shows differently?







 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join