They shouldn't. But we shouldn't lump these guys in with others who have done the legwork to expose corruption and illegal behavior that has happened in governments.[/QUOTE]
That is what I'm thinking. What I am wondering is that WHY IN THE HELL THESE DOCUMENTS ARE KEPT IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!?!
You don't have to be formally charged to start the process. Further, these cases have been winding their way through the Swedish courts for months now. He's known of the allegations for some time (which is why he left Sweden to go to London) but the prosecutor has not yet filed charges for some reason (and there are lots of good reasons to wait some time before filing charges).
Yea. I was following it for a bit, it is kinda interesting that this surface much much later when the event occur. (I think it was like weeks later) which was interesting. normally this stuff get reported asap.
That is the only thing they got him on so far. That is why I think there is more to this "charge" The Swedish government doesn't want to officially charge him for the wikileaks (again.... my personal conspiracy theory) so they want him to be brought in physically and then go from there.
Nah.... they would have called double rape!!
But their complaints stem from his condom use (or misuse, or lack thereof). If the allegations are true, there is a basis for a rape charge, even if they didn't immediately go to police, and even if they only did it after they found each other out, and even if the prosecutor is doing everything in their power to get the women to testify for whatever external reasons the prosecutor may have.
I'm pretty sure they can't prove he purposefully split that condom or mislead the other woman into think he was wearing one without a confession on his part... which means they really have no case at all. If they didn't need it, he'd have been charged. This seems more like a planned opportunity for INTERPOL to bring him to one of their facilities and then let the CIA/FBI wait outside to drag him to the US after they are done wasting his time.
Various articles suggest that at some point during the act the woman told him to stop due to the condom issue, and he did not. While the condom usage may have been the reason for saying stop, the fact that she did not want him to continue and he refused to stop constitutes rape. It appears that both women had a similar experience in this regard.
Perhaps, but the fact that they haven't charged him still shows that they lack faith in their case. I doubt they'd even be doing it if he wasn't making waves.
All it shows is that they want to question him prior to charging him. True, if they had a very strong case then they'd charge him right now, but the lack of formal charges does not indicate guilt or non-guilt, nor even the strength of their case. There are good reasons to delay formal charges even with a strong case - especially in situations where you expect the criminal to flee once formal charges are made.
The U.S. may charge him for espionage, but probably going to wait until he shows up in Sweden and get hand over by the Swedish government.
believe it or not that happens with every person that commits a crime.
Some conflicting information, including a statement from Robert Gates.
Interesting point of view.
There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.
Or when the women saw his face all over the news and internet, the recognized him and asked the police to press charges again.
There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.[/QUOTE]
There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.[/QUOTE]
There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.[/QUOTE]
