Do You Agree With Ecuador’s Decision to Give Political Asylum to WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange?

This is what I’ve read: two women …A & W.

Woman A agrees to sex but insists on a condom. The condom breaks. She believes Assange intentionally did something to break it, though she doesn’t describe what that something might have been or why he might have done it. According to him, he was unaware of the break, if there was one. Woman A admits to having consensual sexual relations with Assange. She didn’t make a complaint until six days after the ‘incident’. During those six days, Assange stayed in her flat and slept in her bed; she even held a party for him after the incident. During this time, Woman A spoke with high regard about him to her friends …that is, until she discovered he had spent the night with Woman W.

Now, let’s move on to Woman W. She contacted Assange, and by her own account willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema. She voluntarily took him to her flat where she stated they had consensual sex. She also indicated in a text message that she never suggested she had been raped; she only claimed that she had been “half asleep” and that she “thinks he may have ejaculated without using a condom.” She also waited several days before filing a report.

There are also reports that the women sent text messages to each other indicating a desire to sell their stories to a tabloid newspaper.

And let’s not forget the original arrest warrant was withdrawn in August 2010, with one of Stockholm’s chief prosecutors, Eva Finne (a woman), having said, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

I don’t claim to know what happened (unlike you), but what I’ve read seems a bit dodgy. I’d like to see justice served, but I’d like the rights of all parties to be considered and protected, including Assange’s …no apologies for that, I’m afraid. An accusation does not make one guilty.

As I’ve mentioned, Assange is wanted for *questioning* and he should be questioned. Swedish officials were invited to do so in London. Ecuador has also offered its embassy for that purpose. Sweden refused both offers without explanation, though they have travelled to question individuals in other cases.

If Assnage raped a woman, he should be held fully accountable for that, but you’d have to be a naive fool to think there isn’t more to this than the rape questioning. The truth is, Assange is ultimately facing extradition to the US for his Wikileaks activities, and he’s fully aware of that fact. He’s got every reason to be concerned for his safety and wellbeing. The US is no longer a principled nation; that’s no secret to the rest of the world. In 2001, the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which then handed them over to the Mubarak regime, which then tortured them. Assange has agreed to return to Sweden if he is given assurance that he will not be extradited to the US. At this point, Sweden has refused that request. Do you see why there might be some hesitancy on his part? There is absolutely no question what is going on here.

I wish this were as cut and dry as you’ve tried to paint it, but it’s not. The rape case against Assange must be resolved, but that’s a separate issue from it being used as justification to hand him over to the US. And make no mistake about it; that IS what this is about. If it weren’t, Sweden would have proceeded with questioning Assange in London …Ockham's razor, if you will.

Look, don’t take this too harshly; after all, this is only my opinion backed by facts. You’ve got no justification at all to suggest that I support rapists or rape, that’s absolute rubbish. But, certainly, you CAN hate me because I’m a liberal …that IS fact, and I won’t apologise for that either.

The rape charges are exposed for being the garbage they are. Yes, I think it was a ploy to allow extradition.

Now, on to the real truth. People are trying to treat this guy like he's Robin Hood, or some kind of hero. What is he really? He is a saboteur, a cyber terrorist and a fugitive from justice. Lets do the real math here, shall we? He hacked, or caused to be hacked (which by the way is a crime), sensitive documentation, that he had no right to have. He, and his cohorts, committed crimes against the country, not unlike any other cyber terrorist or criminal, and released the contents to the world. What would any of you want done to him, had these been your bank documents and personal information, or old letters you never intended to have sent?

This man is not a folk hero. He is a criminal, plain and simple. Had he been selling this information to a foreign country, all of you would have wanted his balls on a cross. Instead, you treat him and his crone's like they are hero's. His release of information could potentially put American personnel and civilians at risk, and show the world critical and crucial flaws in our network. This was selfish and reckless, and the bank he made ( oh, I'm sorry, the bank you morons donated), shows just how gullible you people really are. Are you all hurtin so bad for a hero, that common thieves are now candidate? Whats next? Guidance codes? Secret installation positions so the Iranians know what to bomb? I'm sure you will celebrate the triumphs of those "hero's" as well, right?...Just a thought...