'Sex by Surprise' at Heart of Assange Criminal Probe

(Dec. 2) -- The international manhunt for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a sex-crime investigation in Sweden apparently stems from a condom malfunction.

Assange's London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.

Assange is the subject of an international manhunt, as a result of Interpol issuing a "red notice," a warrant indicating the person should be arrested with a view to extradition.

"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.

"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."

The strange tale of Assange's brief flings with two Swedish women during a three-day period in mid-August -- and decisions by three different prosecutors to first dismiss rape allegations made by the women and then re-open the case -- has more twists, turns and conspiracy theories than any of Stieg Larsson's best-sellers.

True, one of Assange's accusers sounds tailor-made for those who think Assange is being set up in Sweden by dark CIA-backed operatives who want him smeared or silenced for his document dumping with WikiLeaks. She's a 31-year-old blond academic and member of the Social Democratic Party who's known for her radical feminist views, once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.

FULL STORY

Seriously...can we stop getting all worked up over this? It's stupid.

It's funny because the law that he supposedly violated would be normally attacked vehemently by those supporting his persecution.

"It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent, and I do not feel threatened by him," she told the newspaper in an interview that did not identify her by name. "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women."

Click to expand...

That's it. Attitude problems. Good grief.

I entirely agree, but when you go up against governments and especially corporations like he has you're bound to get smeared.

To be honest I was actually sort of taken aback by the "conservative" response to this. I can't believe that so many people would call for the imprisonment/execution/assassination of a man who has essentially done nothing wrong in the US, and hasn't been charged internationally. He's wanted for questioning over a relatively minor accusation. I saw someone on this site hoping he resists arrest and is shot in the street like a dog.

Sigh... it's not like the right hasn't done this sort of character assassination before. I suppose I'm just naive.

I'm confused why this is even being brought up in the public light with regard to WikiLeaks.

It has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLeaks at all.

Hoplite said:

I'm confused why this is even being brought up in the public light with regard to WikiLeaks.

It has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLeaks at all.

Click to expand...

The answer is undoubtedly because they can. Elite politics has been like this for as long as it's existed. It works.

Guilt by association is one of the most beloved tools of propaganda. Firstly you have to make an icon/keyword. An example of an icon would be George Soros. An example of a keyword would be welfare. Once it's been established, for whatever reason, that the icon/keyword is "bad" then you can get people fired and organizations taken down simply by linking the two.

Glenn Beck does it all the time. He says that a man that was once the head of a corporation that was the adult rendition of a corporation started by George Soros now CEOs a company that Wikileaks asked for donations from, but who refused. This is seen as a valid connection, and all of a sudden Assange is some Al Qaeda supporting left wing terrorist. It doesn't matter what Soros actually does, because he uses the concept rather than the man. Soros is a connection used to denote certain beliefs. If someone is connected with him, then he must hold these beliefs (that he hates America, wants capitalism to fall, etc).

It's very effective. People buy this stuff all the time. It's why he linked Soros to Obama, then later the First Lady. It works. Van Jones is a fine example, so is ACORN.

This reputation Obama has for being a Marxist and a Socialist is another example. It doesn't matter that Obama doesn't advocate the means of production being in the hands of the workers, nor that he takes every opportunity he can to screw over the middle/lower classes and provide incentive to the rich elite, whether through his healthcare program which didn't touch the actual problem but instead simply gave insurance companies more customers (While the US still pays extortionate amounts of money for healthcare and gets less returns on that money), or through his vast increase in military spending, or his deficit commission's proposal to drastically lower the tax rates for the rich while cutting programs for the poor, it doesn't matter. It's of no significance that a Marxist wouldn't do these things, and that socialism is essentially a commentary on the balance between labor and capital, because it's a label that gets people mad. That's it's intent and it works wonderfully. Not to say I care about Obama, this is just a fine example. Obama is just another bad president, but the other side acts like every single one of theirs for the past 100 years hasn't been just as bad.

If they want to smear Wikileaks they can. And will. And the Administration usually pays attention to it.

SirPwn4lot said:

I entirely agree, but when you go up against governments and especially corporations like he has you're bound to get smeared.

To be honest I was actually sort of taken aback by the "conservative" response to this. I can't believe that so many people would call for the imprisonment/execution/assassination of a man who has essentially done nothing wrong in the US, and hasn't been charged internationally. He's wanted for questioning over a relatively minor accusation. I saw someone on this site hoping he resists arrest and is shot in the street like a dog.

Sigh... it's not like the right hasn't done this sort of character assassination before. I suppose I'm just naive.

Click to expand...

If you read the story, then you know that one of he women he had sex with went to the police because, when his condom broke, she told him to stop -- and he didn't. This certainly has nothing to do with Conservative/Liberal politics. It has to do with assault. I find it interesting that you characterize it as a relatively minor accusation. Forcing a woman to have sex is rape.

As to those people who would have him shot like a dog in the street, don't even think about them....they're just idiots.

I meant "relatively minor" in comparison to the charge being accused by some on here of flat out non-consensual rape. I meant in no way to reduce the severity of the accusation. And they certainly don't warrant him being shot for resisting arrest.

That said, the details aren't exactly clear. The consent of both women has been confirmed, and she still bragged about her relationship with Assange after the instance.

I'll be interested to see how all this turns out.

You know, I thought that I was done being surprised by humanity. This article showed me that I was wrong. I mean come on..."Sex by surprise"? It is a crime for a condom to break? Get F'ing real. :roll: What makes it even more idiotic is that they issued a warrant that goes across several countries for it.

Kal'Stang said:

You know, I thought that I was done being surprised by humanity. This article showed me that I was wrong. I mean come on..."Sex by surprise"? It is a crime for a condom to break? Get F'ing real. :roll: What makes it even more idiotic is that they issued a warrant that goes across several countries for it.

Click to expand...

It probably has something to do with the Swedish equivalent doesn't quite translate to English.

Like when the Chinese used KFC's slogan, "Finger Lickin' Good," and it translated as "Eat your fingers off."

MaggieD said:

If you read the story, then you know that one of he women he had sex with went to the police because, when his condom broke, she told him to stop -- and he didn't. This certainly has nothing to do with Conservative/Liberal politics. It has to do with assault. I find it interesting that you characterize it as a relatively minor accusation. Forcing a woman to have sex is rape.

As to those people who would have him shot like a dog in the street, don't even think about them....they're just idiots.

Click to expand...

You've got it a bit wrong there. The gal that those two had the condom break did not want any charges brought up and never said no when the condom broke. It was the other gal that said no when at one point during thier sexual encounter that he was not going to use a condom that she said no but they went at it anyways.

Which honestly sounds wierd to me. Why would he not use a condom when he had already been using one and started using them again after that one specific sexual act? With her agreeing to more sex once the condom was put back on? That doesn't sound like an assualt to me. If it was an assault then why would she continue to have sex with the guy willingly after a condom was put back on? Is it possible that he wasn't going to use a condom, inserted his penis, was told no and he put the condom on but she is still considering it like one single sex act? And because of that he's getting this criminal charge brought up against him?

Sorry but that encounter seems awefully fishey to me.

MaggieD said:

It probably has something to do with the Swedish equivalent doesn't quite translate to English.

Like when the Chinese used KFC's slogan, "Finger Lickin' Good," and it translated as "Eat your fingers off."

Click to expand...

I would think that by now it would have been corrected though, wouldn't it? Still, a condom breaking is no reason to issue any kind of warrant. Much less call rape.

Kal'Stang said:

You've got it a bit wrong there. The gal that those two had the condom break did not want any charges brought up and never said no when the condom broke. It was the other gal that said no when at one point during thier sexual encounter that he was not going to use a condom that she said no but they went at it anyways.

Which honestly sounds wierd to me. Why would he not use a condom when he had already been using one and started using them again after that one specific sexual act? With her agreeing to more sex once the condom was put back on? That doesn't sound like an assualt to me. If it was an assault then why would she continue to have sex with the guy willingly after a condom was put back on? Is it possible that he wasn't going to use a condom, inserted his penis, was told no and he put the condom on but she is still considering it like one single sex act? And because of that he's getting this criminal charge brought up against him?

Sorry but that encounter seems awefully fishey to me.

Click to expand...

. The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange "did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use."

Click to expand...

It's convoluted -- I'll give you that. Ha! ;-)

Kal'Stang said:

I would think that by now it would have been corrected though, wouldn't it? Still, a condom breaking is no reason to issue any kind of warrant. Much less call rape.

Click to expand...

There is certainly a great desire by much of the world's governments and the corporate world to have him silenced. That's why I don't like his accusation. I take it with a colossal grain of salt until something has actually been proven. As it stands he has no charges against him, just accusations and a government that wants to talk to him.

So many people just assume that because the notice they sent out saying they want to speak to him had "sex crimes" on it that he's committed some sort of horrible rape, and that he's guilty just because someone threw accusations at him and a government wants to talk to him.

There aren't many conservatives in this conversation, I'd like to hear their opinions.

This says nothing of the fact both of these women sought him out for sex and neither knew about the other. Considering he is famous and they went to nothing but female law enforcement officials who were all zealots on feminist issues kind of makes the whole thing fishy.

Just so everyone knows, Wikileaks is down but was put back up at a different address.

The temporary address is www.wikileaks.ch

Khayembii Communique said:

It's stupid.

Click to expand...

What is truly stupid is thinking that the crafting of a euphemism for an action changes the nature of the action.

Should we start referring to murder as "surprise life termination" as well?

Gardener said:

What is truly stupid is thinking that the crafting of a euphemism for an action changes the nature of the action.

Should we start referring to murder as "surprise life termination" as well?

Click to expand...

I don't know if you've been following the conversation, but he didn't grab a woman and force her to have sex with him against her screaming. A condom broke. I find it absolutely absurd to categorize this as "rape" in the same category as the instance I outlined above. How can you not agree?

MaggieD said:

It's convoluted -- I'll give you that. Ha! ;-)

Click to expand...

They both admitted that the sex was completely consensual. What this tells me is that she first said she didn't want to and then they went at it anyways with her consent. **** happens all the time.

For example, if a girl says she doesn't want to have sex, and you just mess around for a bit and get her really worked up, and she takes your dick and shoves it in her vagina, is that rape?

These days, most times I have sex, it's a surprise!

I gotta admit, I find it interesting that no one that has been vehemently against assaunge has commented is this thread.

Kal'Stang said:

I gotta admit, I find it interesting that no one that has been vehemently against assaunge has commented is this thread.

Click to expand...

I agree, I'd love to hear their input.

Sir Pwn4lot said:

There aren't many conservatives in this conversation, I'd like to hear their opinions.

Click to expand...