Re: I don't know...
"if the (Sweedish) charges against him hold any water, they do seem flimsy to me."
Really? Have you done a search on them?
"She told the court the first complainant, identified only as Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 this year in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home."
It appears that there is a consistent theme in both allegations, inasmuch that Assange is alleged, in different places, on different times, to have committed the same offence, namely having sex without a condom with a woman, on one occasion against her will, on another occasion without consulting the woman. That is not flimsy. You might want to say that these two women are in cahoots, but this dewy eyed defence is very often the sort of thing put up by people who can see no wrong in an individual, no matter how much evidence is produced to the contrary. Need I dig into the history box and show you some examples? Would you like some show and tell? Would you like some examples from forensic psychology on categories of offence, offender types and profiling? It's very specific, the failure to use condoms either lacking consent or being denied consent Will you deny point blank? I suspect from what I have read here that you and others will. I am far more cynical.
Sexual health and hygiene is particularly important in Scandinavian countries, whose people collectively understood the need to use condoms long before the advent of HIV, YMLT remember that as you read about events in the next few days.
What is needed is a proper trial, in the jurisdiction, where the evidence is, not the nay saying of a lot of people rooked by the thought of 'infowars' to change the world, because they feel that state secrets have the same status as MP3s and any other data they care to illicitly access and pirate.
Elsewhere another Reg poster claimed that, because the women are anarchists, they can't be trusted. This is a classic form of argumentum ad hominem, namely arguing against the person rather than the facts, plus it is a smear. In addition to this, no one has paid attention to the fact that rape victims rarely come forward and, when they do, they are very reluctant and feel extremely humiliated. It is most easy to deter them from going any further.
I've seen little sign if any of the pro leaking lobby sticking to facts, though I've seen a lot to suggest they believe they have a right and as self appointed protectors of several billion people I can see this becoming more than a little farcical. It's childish, ill thought out, lacking in a coherent supporting argument, beginning with initial premisses founded on empirical facts, running there from through an unbroken logical/theoretical chain of a priori justification and ending with some truth.
It will end in tears, I'm sure of that.