My article was more recent, the person who made my comment was a former attorney of the wikileaks owner, not a current one, and he mentioned the charges brought against him which are not what you think they are.

Also that's the woman's claims, which she'll have to prove are true (like a medical report saying that she had visible signs that she was physically hurt and a psychological report (saying that she suffered trauma), which is highly unlikely she will be able to, considering she had no problem going to a store, buying groceries, and then making the guy breakfast (like any rape victim does, right)?

I've heard both sides of the story, and I've made up my mind about what happened, you've made your mind up, now let's leave it to the courts and go back to the juicy leaked info about the US Governemnt and their crazy shenanigans.

You do realize that if he was just being charged for sex without a condom he couldn't have a warrant out for his arrest right?

In the EU You can't extradite someone to another EU country unless the crime they committed caries with it at least 2 years maxium Jail term.

The thing you are talking about carries a penalty of 750 dollars or so and wouldn't fit the statute.

As for the bolded, acually yes.  That does happen to some rape victims.  it's just another sign of your ignorance on the matter... you could use a psychology of rape class... well if you want to pretend your an expert on how rape victims act anyway.

It's also great that you've made up your mind... what you being the legally appointed judiciary of Sweden right?  You are argueing that a man not be sent back to sweden based on a proven false letter by his ex attorney.

Again though, care to argue against why the above 4 part statement isn't rape?

Even in just a hypothetical case.

Just to put it up again.

1) Sex without consent = rape.   

2) Saying you will only have sex with a condom = Consenting to have sex, only with a condom.  True or False?

3) Not wearing a condom while saying you were going to, or intentionally damaging it = Not having sex the way that was consented via your actions.

4)   Sex without consent = Rape.

Any disagreements with that?  Just as a hypotetical, not related to the case.  If so, which number?

At the end of the day, because of the realties of rape, the low conviction rates, and the easy "blame the victim defense".  Every alleged rape victim deserves their day in court.  Period.

Blame the victim defenses are easy and make every woman look bad...

also based on the psyhological reactions of rape, the only things you can trust are a criminal pattern and the events of the night.

Rape often causes people to go into denial for MONTHS.

A woman could act normal towards people and even her rapist for MONTHS before she admits she was raped... and that's violent rape.  Complaining that a rape victim acted normal to her alleged rapist for a couple days is... really misinformed.

@Kasz216:

As for the bolded, acually yes.  That does happen to some rape victims.  it's just another sign of your ignorance on the matter... you could use a psychology of rape class... well if you want to pretend your an expert on how rape victims act anyway.

I think you've been reading to many books and the subject, and ironically it's clouded your judgment. Wouldn't the type of victim you're talking about have had a long lasting relationship with the abuser (you know, like being married to him and all)? Would this woman (who had just met the guy and had a simple one night stand with him) react that way?

It's also great that you've made up your mind... what you being the legally appointed judiciary of Sweden right? 

I have a right to an opinion on a matter, just like everyone else has.

You are argueing that a man not be sent back to sweden based on a proven false letter by his ex attorney.

Proven false by whom? The woman's testimony?

1) No.  Not at all.  It happens more often with them... but it happens to all rape victims... including those who are taken off the streets and raped.  It's a common reaction.

Like I said, you should try and read just one book on rape... it'd probably help.  I find it funny that you think my knowing something about the psychology of rape is clouding my judgement... vs your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.  Reminds me of the creationist vs big bang theory arguements.

2) And those women deserve their day in court, like everybody else.  It's fine for people to have an opinion but to suggest that the laws of a country should be subverted for the intrests of one guy... gee isn't that the kind of stuff wikileaks is supposed to be against?

3) The Swedish government.  They've issued an arrest warrant for rape.  Not sex without a condom... which isn't counted as rape... (but should be if the agreed to sex was only on the condition a condom is used).   Evrything that lawyer said has been disporven by the fact that they are arresting him for crimes serious enough that he could be extradited.

As for the actual leaks... this one is pretty hilarious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11917398

It makes the UK government sound like... I dunno. 

"we're still super special best friends right?"

This is my point though, about stuff that's funny... but there was no real reason to release it.

Hello Kaz. I can see your once again defending democracy hating elite centres of power from criticism.

As for this post, this is one of the many thousands of documents released. I don't think WikiLeaks cherry picked what and what not to release. The fact that the UK state funded BBC decided to focus on this particular story well you have to take it up with the BBC.

Oh and you and I have quite different tastes in humour.

Democracy hating elite centers of power?  Huh?  I'm not even sure who you are referring to here.

Also, actually that's my point.  Wikileaks SHOULD cherry pick what to release and what not to realse.

The majority of this stuff being released serves nothing excpet making private conversations inside governments impossible... which is needed for diplomacy.

I mean, imagine a sports league like the NBA trying to carry out trades with other teams if everything they said had to be public at all times.  You'd never get any deals done.

A certain level of secrecy before the deals are public is needed for negotiating... the only kind of closed diplomacy that is bad is deals that STAY secret.

It's irresponsible to just post any and all secret information you gain, even if that information is not a crime.

If your taking about best weapons of all time than for tanks it's surely got to be the T-34.

If your talking about best weapons right now than for assault rifles there is too much competition to name any one. Maybe the H&K G36, An-94 or the M4 Carbine.

As for tanks I'd agree with the Leopard 2 or M1A2. Challenger 2 is up there too. But there are many more very good tanks.

KAZ

Not gonna quote anything, I mostly agree with you, but I think you may be a bit extremist or maybe passionate about this feminist/rape thing.

Do you think it's just as bad if you forcibly rape someone (withouth a condom) as if you "simply" deceive them and don't use a condom? I'm by no means saying the later is acceptable or anything near it, but I think there's a difference. Do you?

Also, is it normal for the Interpol to look for this kind of thing? I'm really asking as I don't know.

Anwyay, what I really wanted to say and my point on you being a little over board was that, yeah, it's kind of hard to convict for rape on these cloudy situations, but you can't really go all out and simply punish the guy by default. The way it is some women you abuse it (it's not most cases, I agree). If it was actually easy to convict it would happen a lot more, and that would really, really suck.

It's also completly against the well respected principle that you can't convict someone of a crime unless there's really good evidence, the whole burden of proof thing, etc, that's in place for any other kind of trial. These things just can be really nebulous by their nature but your approach seems to be the wrong one. I'm all for equality, but reversing the burden of proof in something this shady (not this specific case) is all but equality.

Edit: Oh, I do find the UK thing funny. There, I made an on-topic comment :P