General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo Let Me Get This Straight !!! - Re: Julian Assange
Julian Assange founds WikiLeaks.org, exposes a Swiss Bank, releases text messages from 9/11, releases a video of U.S. forces murdering Iraqi citizens and journalists (Bradley Manning), releases links between Pakistan and the Taliban...
THEN gets accused of rape...
And recently, WikiLeaks produces 5 million e-mails from Stratfor revealing a privatized version of the NSA called TrapWire, and is then DDos attacked at 10Gb/sec shutting it down for a week until CloudFlare comes to their rescue, Ecuador gives Assange asylum from the threats inherent in handing him over to Sweden, Great Britain, and PARTICULARLY the U.S., which is now creating such an international diplomatic crisis that the entirety of South America is going to meet and discuss in "extraordinary session" at the United Nations this coming weekend, and hopefully BEFORE GB violates all normally respected protocols of Embassy sovereignty...
Now don't get me wrong... one of my sisters, and a couple of past girlfriends were all raped in their lives. I DO NOT take the charge, or the crime, lightly.
That said...
This has to be the single most important rape charge in the history of mankind.
The woman who was held hostage and raped by Blackwater/Haliburton didn't get anywhere NEAR this type of governmental attention that these two Swedish women are getting, nor do the female members of our very own military, nor the hundreds of thousands of women whose rape tests kits languish in evidence lockers all over this country because of... what... lack of funding... interest... what ???
Here's the timeline of the Julian Assange story: http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/16/julian-assange-and-wikileaks-timeline-of-events/
And I'm sure it's probably missing some stuff, but as it suggests... these rape charges came AFTER Assange started upsetting the Powers That Be...
That makes the WHOLE thing mighty suspicious... don't ya think?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
2on2u
(1,843 posts)whole thing out. Really. 
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
PDJane
(10,103 posts)The whole thing reeks to high heaven.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Swamp Lover
(431 posts)Just because he has done things I approve of and appreciate, does not mean he gets a walk when he is accused of a horrendous crime. That is the sort of thing the other side of the aisle does.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...dissappeared or renditioned in the middle of the night. Because that is what he is afraid of and that is what would most likely happen.
The American Military-Industrial Complex does NOT like anyone revealing their dirty secrets for all to see and hear.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)after all evidence is explored... see just WHO ends up in jail.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Come on...if the US were a country that actually cared about international law, bush*, cheney*, rice*, rumsfeld*, yoo* and a host of others would be spending the rest of their lives in prison for their WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)changed into rape. They are not really rape charges.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In Sweden, promising to use a condom and then not using one is a form of rape.
The fact that it is not rape in the US really doesn't matter in Sweden.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)AND...
It makes this whole thing even worse...
Do you think that most people that are against forcible penetration are aware of the fact you've pointed out???
Because I don't... and I don't think most people think that that IS rape.
I sure hope he didn't have a cigarette after having consensual sex without a condom.
Because he could be in REAL trouble.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So what if he lied to get in to their pants? They said "yes" so he can just jamb it in wherever he wants. Those sluts are lucky he didn't try anal!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)First of all...
Wow... really ???
Second...
Have you, or anybody you know... been raped ???
Exactly how do you come to your conclusions of jamb it in, sluts, and anal???
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)rape happened. Alledgeedly a condom broke during consensual sex, and he did not put on another. THAT IS NOT RAPE.
RAPE IS A TERRIBLE THING. A broken condom might lead to pregnancy or a disease. But it did not.
rape is sokemthing else entirely.
klook
(12,153 posts)This should be obvious to everybody here.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Not sure what to call it, but rape is not what it was. The "victims" didn't even want to press charges. Initial charges were dropped, Assange was allowed to leave Sweden, before a higher-up decided to issue another warrant.
It has all the aspects of a setup.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the computer system foiled the attempt.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml
leveymg
(36,418 posts)They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn't say when he'd done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)One of the women says she had consensual intercourse, with a condom, fell asleep after, and woke up to find Assange penetrating her. A sleeping person cannot consent. Prior consent is irrelevant. This allegation would constitute rape under English law as well (a consideration at Assange's extradition hearing).
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Only Sweden is "investigating" this still. The women refuse to participate since they've said to the investigators and press they neither fear Assange nor do they think he is any kind of threat (to them or others).
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)their lawyer seems to think differently (and he probably has a much more informed view than you do):
"They are disappointed, but they are getting used to this by now," said Borgström, who has represented the women throughout Assange's sequence of appeals against extradition in the British courts.
"They know that all they can do is wait. I have told them I am not sure, but I think he will still be extradited … it is a tragedy for the women. I don't know how long it will take for him to be extradited now. Victims want to put these things behind them in order to be able to get on with their lives. The tragedy is that he doesn't take his responsibility. He should have come to Sweden."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-tragedy-lawyer
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)well, you folks are relentless, I'll give you that, but that is all.
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #111)
backscatter712 This message was self-deleted by its author.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It was published in Swedish and has been virtually ignored by western media. Here's a snippet from the article
"One of two women involved told Aftonbladet in an interview published today that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: “It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”
Speaking anonymously, she said each had had voluntary relations with Assange: “The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women.”
Sources close to the woman said that issues arose during the relationships about Assange’s willingness to use condoms."
I presume the lawyer is speaking of his clients' desire to be finished with the case. One of the women, Anna Ardin is no longer in Sweden and won't return for the case. You do know the women aren't even a party to the case don't you? Its the Swedish state that's opened this back up (after initially finding there wasn't a case there).
The paternalistic GALL of the Swedish state bringing this case on, against the wishes of the women when real rape victims often wait (forever) for justice.
This political stunt is hideous, especially in its treatment of women. Especially the women involved in the Assange case, who've been told by their paternalistic state that they don't really know that they've been "raped"! And that despite the women's adamant desire to NOT press charges, the paternalistic state believes it can supersede the wishes of its own citizens and advance the case FOR them). I can't even imagine being the women involved - if this ever comes to a resolution in Sweden they will be forced to become hostile witnesses (if they can be found. One of them has fled the country and vows to not return) detailing their sex with Assange?!
Ick. Just completely patriarchal and disgusting.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and a regular volunteer at my local women's shelter have taught me to be respectful of the WOMEN themselves and their own definitions.
You?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Oh and rape is a huge issue in my family, so tread lightly with your higher than thou attitude. You can say anything you want and so can I, and it means nothing. I know what RAPE is!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The women in this case themselves don't call it rape. Nothing else you or I say matters.
So therefore in this case, you nor I should call it rape.
Unless you are a paternalistic entity who believes you know better than the actual people involved. Are you?
tama
(9,137 posts)that is paying for Bostrom, who complained about prosecutor dropping the case and got inserted as lawyer representing both(!) women.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I've said it before, I'll say it again: I am quite frankly shocked and a little disgusted at how many so-called progressives are claiming that penetrating a sleeping woman (who by definition can't consent) is not rape because there was consensual sex when she was awake.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)no penetration of a sleeping person, etc.
The police statement of Anna Ardin.
Then they lay in the bed. Anna was on her back and Assange was on top of her. Anna thought Assange wanted to immediately put his penis in her vagina which she didn't want as he didn't have a condom on....
Assange asked after a while what Anna was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him. Anna felt a huge unexpressed reluctance from Assange to using a condom which led to her getting the feeling he didn't put on the condom she'd given him. She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange's penis to check if he'd really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought 'hope it's over soon'.
Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.
After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn't have semen in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broken the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn't look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. She says that even the bed sheets used on that occasion are most likely still in her hamper.
After the above mentioned incident Anna says she and Assange didn't have any more sex.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,02.shtml
3. The ‘charge sheet’ against Assange, the witness statements, and the police interviews with Assange and the two complainants were leaked and found their way into the public domain. (Darker Net was able to source these easily and published them at the time).
It transpired that the Swedish police had leaked details of the charges to the right-wing tabloid, Expressen, the day after Ardin and Wilen were interviewed. (Here is the transcript of the interview conducted by the Swedish police with Mr. Assange.)
On 10 March 2011, Expressen published a story about the personal and political connection between Irmeli Krans, the police officer who led the interrogation of the two complainants, and Anna Ardin. Krans went on to post negative remarks about Assange on social networking sites.
4. Sofia Wilen’s interview with the police had not been read nor approved by her and her interview was interrupted by Krans when it became clear that she was upset upon being informed that an order for the arrest of Julian Assange had been issued.
Subsequently, it has emerged that the original statements and the ones that were released to the press differed significantly.
5. Here are the testimonies of Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen and Julian Assange, which include additional commentary by Rixstep.
6. The original testimonies from the nine witnesses are available here and include additional commentary from Rixstep.
7. For complete listing of the political and legal anomalies re. the Assange case, click here and here.
http://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/wikileaks-under-ddos-attack-swedish-lawyer-prosecutor-and-police-under-investigation-the-details/
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Who is quite clearly the other woman. So whatever you happen to be posting related to "Miss A" is irrelevant and totally beside the point. (NB that the allegation of rape relates to Assange's alleged penetration of "Miss W" while she was asleep.)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Suddenly Julian said he was going to go to sleep. She felt rejected and shocked. It came so suddenly, they'd had a really long foreplay and then nothing. She asked what was wrong, she didn't understand.
He pulled the blanket over himself, turned away from her, and fell asleep. She went out and got her fleece blanket because she was cold. She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends...
She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex. She'd earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex....
They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she's not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice....
They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be...
They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again.
She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn't say when he'd done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.
She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he'd have to pay her student loans...She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone.... When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she'd have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they'd name the baby Afghanistan....
http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml
According to the interrogator, they got the news that assange would be arrested during the interrogation and the woman was upset and afraid assange would be angry with her; she left without having the statement read back to her or signing it.
Subsequent to that, the interrogator attempted to alter portions of the testimony on the orders of her superior...
2010-08-23 08:27 IK to MG
Hi, I hope I've done it right now and the document will get to you as it should. Please send an acknowledgement. About the verbal presentation for the prosecutor, I have no further information other than what's already been done by telephone by Linda Wassgren at some time during the interrogation. I don't know what was presented as Wassgren doesn't want to communicate with me. An opportunity to classify the crime with the prosecutor was not given me but I was told it would be classified as rape according to a directive by the prosecutor. Greetings, Irmeli Krans
2010-08-24 09:33 MG to IK
Do like this. Paste this into your interrogation and sign it. It'd look funny if I signed it. I'm attaching the old interrogation.
2010-08-24 13:38 IK to MG
Hi, I might be thick but I don't really understand what you mean. Anders Ringkvist is trying to help me and we've tried contacting you without being able to resolve the issue.
2010-08-24 13:44 MG to IK
Create a new interrogation. Paste in the text and address the interrogation to the case. And sign the interrogation.
2010-08-24 16:35 IK to MG
OK but then there'll be two interrogations. But there's only been one formal interrogation, by me at any rate. Where does the other interrogation disappear to? If it's to be done right then I assume I have to make modifications in the original interrogation and sign it. With the risk of appearing difficult I do not want to have an unsigned document with my name circulating in DurTvå space. Particularly not now when the case has developed as it has.
2010-08-30 09:32 MG to EF
The case...
(Rest deleted - the subject line is 'The Case' (Ärendet). The body text was removed by the judicial authority at the behest of the chief prosecutor.)
2010-08-30 09:33 EF to MG
The complaint about molestation isn't here.
2010-08-30 09:35 MG to EF
OK I thought you wanted the case that had been dismissed. Delete what you received and you'll get a new one.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110831,00.shtml
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)her insistence on the use of a condom; the fact that she was asleep. He penetrated her, while she was sleeping, without a condom. This is rape. She in her own words did not resist because "she felt it was too late"; it's quite understandable that a woman who has found herself being raped might not wish to aggravate her rapist. Acquiescence is not consent. And in any case it is a matter for the court to decide; the prosecutor has found that there is probable cause for bringing charges.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)comment. and had allowed sex multiple times. and did not ask him to pull out and put on a condom though she was awake to say "you better not have hiv."
she didn't try to get away or boot him out the door.
and after this 'rape' they joked about names for the baby and him paying her student loans.
she fixed him breakfast.
she asked him if he would call her.
i'm a woman; this isn't rape.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And sleeping persons cannot consent. She was awake because he woke her up by penetrating her. I do not understand why you seem to not be able to grasp this. And personally I can understand why she would not want to invite anger from someone who'd already shown himself quite capable of ignoring her express and explicit wishes regarding sexual contact and who was prepared to just take what he wanted from her without her consent. (The law here disagrees with you, also; penetrating a sleeping person is rape, because a sleeping person cannot consent nor be presumed to.)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)head of the penis is not sex with a condom.
and if penetrating a sleeping woman that you've already been familiar with is rape, i've been 'raped' many times. typically you wake up as soon as penetration is initiated and are able to say 'no' if you don't want to continue. she didn't, and not because she was incapable of speech, as she said "you better not have hiv."
she could have said "stop". she didn't.
there is no indication in any of her testimony that he forced her to do anything. he was persistent, and she was wasn't. that's not rape.
she didn't say no. she didn't tell him to stop. she didn't tell him to put on a condom.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Consent once given is not permanent. And I suppose this explains why she filed a police complaint for rape. ("Rape" is the word used in Swedish press reports at the time.)
See also: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the influence of drugs or alcohol, in full possession of her faculties, who can't decide if she wants to have a relationship with this guy more than she wants to have safe sex.
thus the joking around, the breakfast, the asking him to call her.
and thus the fact she said she wasn't raped. she's not the person pressing the charges, the government is. and that's why she said she got upset when she heard assange had been arrested, she just wanted him to take an hiv test. she wasn't calling it rape.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)intercourse were on the same night. once she'd allowed him to have sex without a properly placed condom once why wouldn't he think he could do it again?
if you've let a guy have sex 3 times in one night, once without a properly placed condom, that kind of leads him to believe you won't mind a 4th time.
he wasn't attempting to have sex with someone who was drunk and passed out; she was quite capable of telling him to stop. and there's no indication that he wouldn't have, as earlier when she'd clearly asked him to use a condom, he had.
Being a sleazy persistent asshole doesn't constitute rape. Half the men in the world would be up on charges if that were the case.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)NB that the Swedish prosecutor in re the case of Miss A intends to bring charges of sexual assault and molestation but not rape against Assange. Which is a crucial difference.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)You shouldn't need your hand held to be able to find it yourself.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)brush
(53,758 posts)You need to watch this video called "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange." It will bring clarity to you about the whole matter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
brush
(53,758 posts)This video documentary clears up the whole women accusers/Assange matter. Many posters here have their facts wrong. Journalist Assange went against powerful forces and the charges may . . . well, just watch the video and make up your own mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Meanwhile, in Sweden, proceedings have begun to investigate Marianne Ny, the chief Prosecutor in the Julian Assange case, and to discipline Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer representing Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, the two women who made complaints against Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks. The Swedish police may also come under investigation.
On August 2nd, journalists Helene Bergman and Anders Carlgren, via a submission to the Swedish Ombudsman, requested that Marianne Ny be investigated for improprieties with regard to her handling of the Assange case.
Claes Borgstrom is currently facing a legal enquiry into his handling of another, high profile case – that of Thomas Quick. Borgstrom was also recently called to the Swedish Bar Association for defamatory declarations he made (and which were published by Aftonbladet) against Assange.
3. The ‘charge sheet’ against Assange, the witness statements, and the police interviews with Assange and the two complainants were leaked and found their way into the public domain... It transpired that the Swedish police had leaked details of the charges to the right-wing tabloid, Expressen, the day after Ardin and Wilen were interviewed. (Here is the transcript of the interview conducted by the Swedish police with Mr. Assange.) On 10 March 2011, Expressen published a story about the personal and political connection between Irmeli Krans, the police officer who led the interrogation of the two complainants, and Anna Ardin. Krans went on to post negative remarks about Assange on social networking sites.
4. Sofia Wilen’s interview with the police had not been read nor approved by her and her interview was interrupted by Krans when it became clear that she was upset upon being informed that an order for the arrest of Julian Assange had been issued. Subsequently, it has emerged that the original statements and the ones that were released to the press differed significantly.
http://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/wikileaks-under-ddos-attack-swedish-lawyer-prosecutor-and-police-under-investigation-the-details/
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)like rape.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)she didn't say no, what don't you get?
what she did do is make him breakfast, ask him to call her, and joke with him about names for the baby.
yeah, i always act like that with my rapist.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And in fact British law. It doesn't matter what your opinion of the accusations and/or charges happens to be. All that matters is that under Swedish law there as found to be a probable cause for prosecution, and that Assange has a case to answer. It is now a matter for the court to decide, and public opinion either way is irrelevant.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)You're calling it 'rape' when even the complainant didn't.
You are becoming more transparent by the post.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And according to her lawyer. There is a prosecution; the warrant was found valid. If it wasn't rape, then let Assange assert it at trial; if the facts are in his favour he should be acquitted, that is the way the legal process works.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)So for that matter is mine; there is a prosecution, a warrant has been issued, Assange will be arrested for extradition and probable trial to Sweden when and if he sets foot outside the Ecuadorean embassy. At that point it is a matter for the court to decide.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)That's the only opinion that matters at this point.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)brush
(53,758 posts)This video documentary clears up the whole women accusers/Assange matter. Many posters here have their facts wrong. Journalist Assange went against powerful forces and the charges may . . . well, just watch the video and make up your own mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Under Swedish law, the accusations actually don't rise to what they consider to be rape. The actual accusation against him is "sexuella ofredande" in Swedish, which translates directly to "Sexual Molestation", but in meaning generally means undesirable sexual acts, misconduct, or harassment.
Rape, in Swedish, is "våldtäkt". Sexual assault in Swedish is "sexuella övergrepp". They aren't accusing him of those, and have instead alleged a less serious crime (less serious legally anyway).
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)See the website of the Swedish Prosecution Authority, here:
Marianne Ny orders the arrest of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to order the arrest of Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations, including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)He is wanted for arrest and interrogation before a judge. Formal charges take place at the stage of indictment. Sweden is not a common law country. I am not sure why you can't grasp this.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the one pushing prosecution.
i
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)If the stipulation for consent is a condom, and the condom breaks, there is no longer consent. At that point terms need to be re-negotiated and measures taken to re-establish consent. I don't know what happened, but I think it's entirely possible for such a situation to become rape.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And a paternalistic state telling the women that they were "raped" despite their very own statements staying they weren't, is the very definition of patriarchy. Not only that, but going ahead and preparing a case, despite the women's desire to NOT proceed, thereby exposing them to a hideous court process of being hostile witnesses talking in public about their sex lives with Assange... well, in my view, real progressives should shun this.
Beyond using the women as political pawns, a particularly patriarchal technique, the case is a transparent attempt to shut down whistleblowers and leakers. There have been a ton of posts on this in the past 48 hours, you may want to read them.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Nothing.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)If you are telling them that you know better than them in defining their sexual experience, then that's patriarchal bullshit.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)That is all I said. I didn't speculate or say anything about this particular case. My point was about condom-contingent consent in general.
Clearly Assange is being persecuted. I don't dispute that. I dispute that continuing to have sex with someone once a condom has broken can never be considered rape. Of course it can.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)it's rape to make a move on a sober woman when she's sleeping -- even when you've been in bed with her having consensual sex all night long.
you must always clearly ask permission before touching anything, doncha know.
if only these men were so scrupulous in real life.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It would work if Women's Rights Orgs had not supported Assange and people like Naomi Wolf, because she actually followed the case, saw all the exculpatory information some of which was even on the internet, until they erased it, agreed with you. And if there had not been a CIA memo published by Wikileaks laying out the plans to use 'rape' to 'get him'.
And if the prosecution would just file charges. You would think if they cared about the women, they would file charges and convict him. But after two years, they still have not done so, they lied about their reasons, claiming they could not interview Assange in London, AFTER having refused to interview him Sweden. That lie has been debunked, the prosecutor's latest excuse is that 'Sweden's laws are confusing'.
The problem they are having is that people no longer have to rely on the US MSM to get the facts in a case like this. The actual facts have been available from the beginning.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Except they didn't. One has said she didn't want charges pressed, the other has not denied the charges.
How DARE the Swedes follow Swedish law!!
The prosecutor who didn't interview him had decided charges were not warranted - it was going to end up he-said-she-said and thus not likely to get a conviction. Thus no interview. That prosecutor was overruled after Assange left Sweden, so now they are seeking an interview.
The other problem is people blindly supporting Assange are making shit up that makes no sense, and then ranting about how evil the US is when someone asks them to explain their theory.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)text messages reveal that they were in no way threatened, that an invitation for Assange to stay in a different apartment was turned down by one of the women stating that she wanted him to stay with her. Three days after the alleged 'rape'.
Lots of exculpatory evidence that there was no rape. Much of it has been erased from the internet, but I saw it before that. And Assange's lawyers have even more.
And that is why Sweden has refused to file charges. They have no case.
Btw, why has the US not prosecuted war criminals who raped Iraqi women and for which there is actual video evidence?
Have you raised any questions about why no one has been brought to justice for those crimes, filmed on video which even Rumsfeld described as so bad that he felt if those videos were released it would cause immense anger around the world.
Anyone who has defended or remained silent about the lack of accountability for the war crimes exposed by Wikileaks and from Abu Ghraib who now claims to be so outraged over these allegations, has zero credibility imo.
The Obama administration has chosen to move on from all those crimes. I find that to be unacceptable, women were raped, young boys sodomized, people tortured to death. In the Wikileaks War Logs crimes were exposed, but the same people claiming such outrage over these trumped up charges where there was definitely no rape, are remarkably silent on actual rape and murder.
.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Irrelevant in Sweden.
The specific crime is promising to use a condom, and then not using a condom. Threat is not necessary.
Swedish law is not US law.
Swedes file charges after interviewing the suspect. No interview, no charges.
Because the rape occurred in Iraq. Iraq would have to prosecute, except in a few special cases. Such as the rapist being subject to the UCMJ.
But I find it so fascinating that you wanna quickly move on to other subjects. Why run away from this case if your disappearing evidence is so strong?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was in control. If this were the case, the few soldiers who went to jail would not have been prosecuted here.
The US is responsible for crimes committed by its military. Even they have not denied that, but have simply decided that the rapes and murders in Iraq are not that important. When Spain which also has jurisdiction over those crimes, filed charges against the authors of Bush's torture policies, the US Government, as revealed in the Wikileaks cables, intervened, pressuring Spain not to prosecute them. That case is still open.
As I said, anyone who makes excuses for those barbaric crimes, but claims to be so upset over these bogus charges, has zero credibility as far as I am concerned.
I am well aware btw, of Sweden's laws and so are the smear-mongers, which is why they continually use the word 'rape' knowing the impact of the word in the US. Fortunately however, a majority of people around the world were never fooled, we have told too many lies and show no interest in applying the rule of law to egregious crimes, so the US and Britain and now Sweden have failed in their mission to discredit Assange.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)brush
(53,758 posts)This video documentary clears up the whole women accusers/Assange matter. Many posters here have their facts wrong. Journalist Assange went against powerful forces and the charges may . . . well, just watch the video and make up your own mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
1monster
(11,012 posts)stridently insisting that he is guilty of rape. They ignore the facts repeatedly because the the facts do not support their version of what happened. They intentionally make up "facts" and post them over and over and over again, hoping the'll take root and grow. And when those "facts" are debunked, they just repost the same made up "facts" as if they were new evidence.
And then they twist a thread into the minutia of esoteric hypothetical details.
Make no mistake: they already know the actual facts that are outlined in the video. They are informed. Their purpose on these threads is not gain knowledge; it is to muddly the waters and to influence people on their feelings about Assange.
brush
(53,758 posts)Imonster, it seems you are right. At first I thought these posters were somewhat uninformed people influenced by the rape accusations floating around out there about Julian Assange. Thanks for raising my awareness of "agenda posters" that are determined to drive their agenda despite the facts. Perhaps some of them are even paid.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)"Making up my own mind" doesn't involve a video spoon-feeding me what I'm supposed to believe.
Assange's story is utter crap.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)they bragged about sleeping with Assange to their friends, attended a party days later in Assange's honor.
This is the Swedish state that's revived the allegations (after the first prosecutor didn't find enough evidence to charge Assange with anything) coincidentally after Wikileaks published the war crimes video of the US hunting and slaughtering in Iraq.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yet he's really working hard to not have a trial.
Oh, and if you're gonna claim he fears the US, you've got tow gaping holes:
1) The UK would extradite him to the US far more easily than Sweden. They are our closest ally.
2) What would they extradite him to the US for? He hasn't broken any US laws.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)As you said, he hasn't broken any US laws. What he's afraid of (legitimately IMO), is rendition and indefinite detention in some CIA hell hole.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, the UK is much friendlier to the US than Sweden. So if we were going to do something extra-judicial there's no reason to wait for Sweden.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)is trying to get Assange.
Of course Assange is not afraid of Sweden.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hoping for a trial to exonerate himself. But the Prosecutors do not want a trial, they can't even file charges, because they would have to show their evidence. They have consistently refused even Assange's lawyers, to provide what evidence they have.
We know all the exculpatory evidence and it is extensive. But no one knows what the mysterious evidence these Prosecutors, so afraid to talk to Assange they keep refusing to, and so afraid to file charges after two years, they still won't do it.
Just file the charges, lay out your evidence and then maybe, people will take you seriously, in the meantime a vast majority of people continue to believer this is nothing more than witch hunt. Two years is plenty of time to show the world, or at least Assange's lawyers, exactly what they are talking about.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)The UK would gladly extradite him here, but they are party to and agreement to never extradite anyone to a country where the death penalty is a possibility.
So they can't.
As for your second point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-cables-founder-julian-assange
Your ignorance of the situation renders your opinions worthless.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)From your link:
Asked if he might mount a prosecution under the Espionage Act, Holder said: "That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools at our disposal." Holder added that he had given the go-ahead for a number of unspecified actions as part of a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks. "I personally authorised a number of things last week and that's an indication of the seriousness with which we take this matter and the highest level of involvement at the department of justice," he said.
He refused to say whether the Obama administration would try to shut down WikiLeaks. "I don't want to get into what our capabilities are," Holder said. "We are looking at all the things we can do to try to stem the flow of this information."
Swagman
(1,934 posts)although of course in the UK it's not even that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Prosecutors in Sweden aren't going to get far without the women testifying.
So again we're left with extradition from Sweden, or something extra-judicial from Sweden.
Those fail because he has broken no US law for extradition, and extra-judicial wouldn't bother waiting for Sweden. The UK would happily hand him over.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)its clearly got precedent happening from there.
And the US will simply make Assange an enemy combatant or some such ridiculous legal term - I'm sure the grand jury has come up with something to suit.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you are going to attempt an extra-judicial maneuver, are you going to do that with a fairly friendly country, or a country that loves you so much that they invaded Iraq with you knowing it was a bad idea and you were lying?
If you're going extra-judicial, why wait for Sweden? The UK would send him over with a gift bow stuck on his head.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you think the UK wouldn't happily render Assange, I've got some bridges to sell you.
frylock
(34,825 posts)read the fucking words. read them again. learn them, then drop your fucking bullshit argument.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And they have on multiple occasions.
Sorry it doesn't work in your "they're out to get Assange!!!" narrative.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
You think the rules we all grew up with still apply ???
Wow...
God I hope you are correct, but currently... I do not.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)or it makes more sense to do something extra-judicial from the UK.
In neither case would going to Sweden put Assange in danger from the US.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)That didn't take any help from the US. His massive ego was quite sufficient on its own.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)massive egos, it's almost a requirement to put yourself in the public eye, that would include politicians, movie stars etc.
As for 'screwing over Wikileaks'. They don't seem to think so and appear to be 100% behind him in this fight. In fact, there is currently a fund raiser for Wikileaks, which was actually screwed over by major Corporations such as Pay Pal eg, being circulated by Just Foreign Policy since the screwing of Wikileaks by major Corps have made fundraising difficult for them.
There is also the fact that the US Government has made requests of Twitter and FB to turn over the info of all those of us who follow Wikileaks and read their blog. I guess that puts me on a list somewhere. And if I donate to them, that will probably get me some extra attention from our government.
So I don't think it's Assange who's doing the screwing of Wikileaks.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Of course Wikileaks currently supports Assange. He drove out the other founders when they disagreed with him. It's really easy to get support from an organization after you've driven everyone else out for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization" - that's a quote from Assange, btw.
Having done something good once doesn't mean you're a saint in everything.
Keep an eye out for those black helicopters. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they throw you in
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for information on those who follow Wikileaks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_subpoena
Twitter subpoena
Twitter appealed against the accompanying gag order in order to be able to disclose its existence to its users, and was ultimately successful in its appeal. Subsequent reactions included the discussion of secret subpoenas in the U.S.,criticism of the particular subpoena issued, an immediate, temporary 0.5 percent reduction in the number of Twitter followers of WikiLeaks, and calls for the recognition and emulation of Twitter's stance.
I think that's when I started following them, along with thousands of others. Never cave to that kind of intimidation, which is all it is. I think their numbers went way up as the news went around. They really should learn something about human psychology.
And more on the snooping around twitter accounts by the DOJ:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/07/twitter-informs-users-of-doj-wikileaks-court-order-didnt-have-to/
I am not worried, you seem to be though, enough to be in denial that it is occurring and most of us don't give a damn.
I'll leave the black helicopters to you. I did see one once though, it was spooky, ominous looking. They had it in a small military museum in a very small town in NY.
I don't know where you get your info, but I suggest you find some more reliable sources. Assange drove no one away. One 'defector', who everyone knows, who caved to the pressure, did the rounds of the media, claiming to have quit, delivered the required 'criticisms' of Assange, but stole the Bank Docs, claiming to be holding them until Wikileaks improved security. No one believed him, and they were right. He bailed out the Big Banks by destroying the material.
He now wanders around the internet trying to restore his reputation. Set up his own Wikileaks, but no one in their right mind, trusts him. No one likes a snitch. Poor guy, saw him recently on a remote blog trying to explain his actions. He didn't even bother to try to smear Assange anymore, as he knows his credibility is now zero.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)People with security clearances commit a felony if they read leaked documents outside approved facilities and don't report it. The DoJ has an interest in finding such people, because they're EXTREMELY vulnerable to blackmail. That's not something you want in a cleared person.
If you can't even bother to read the Wikipedia entry on Wikileaks, you should not lecture people about their sources. There's even a specific section on their internal discord, incomplete as it is.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)practice. Although it has been infiltrating the 'left' at an alarming rate over the past few years. Weak people use mockery, which is a cruel practice btw. Fortunately for you I have extremely thick skin and you are wasting your 'mockery' skills on me. The question is though, why would you have a need to engage in such behavior.
You were WRONG, period. There was no CT. I know you all love to throw that talking point around hoping to discredit people you do not agree with. But it simply doesn't work, sorry.
I could 'mock' you for some of the ridiculous comments you've made, instead I chose to provide you with facts. Any moron can engage in mockery but why would any intelligent person, especially one of strong enough character to be able to empathize with other people, even want to?
There is internal discord in every Organization. And there are two sides to every story. It is instructive to read your posts though. Your bias against Wikileaks blinds you to the fact that it takes two to tango. You're not interested in the other side. What I admire about Assange as opposed to the whiners who claim to have issues with him, is he has rarely said a bad word about any of them. He was too busy with more important things. That makes him a bigger person.
I gave you an example of the most prominent 'defector/whiner' who was the most vocal in his smear campaign against Assange, until he himself was exposed as the liar and the informant and the anti-Wikileaks idea of a free press after lying to everyone and of course, being coddled by the Wall Street corruption supporters.
That one situation made me wonder how Assange ever tolerated him. Says a lot for his patience. But then, he trusted people. Honest people tend to trust others because they can't conceive of being so dishonest themselves. Dishonest people suspect everyone, projecting always their own deceiving ways onto others.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We mock the Republicans constantly. Get off your high horse.
No, you've provided a selective grouping of facts that supports your worldview. You're ignoring the facts that you don't like.
For example, Asssange didn't set up anything in regards to Wikileaks. Assange was brought on to be the "PR Guy". He quickly declared Wikileaks his and drove off the technical people who actually did the work.
But you'll toss that into the "doesn't fit my view" bin.
I'm not biased against Wikileaks. I'm biased against people taking credit for other's creations. Ever had a boss claim your work as their own? Well Assange did that with Wikileaks. That makes me not like him, which means I don't inherently trust his story.
Without that inherent trust, I'm going to turn a critical eye on it, just like I'd turn a critical eye on any other public figure's story.
And his story makes no sense. There's no legal mechanism for the US to grab him, and illegal mechanisms would be easier from the UK or Australia (where he was before the UK). Also, a honeypot would be set up with clear victims going public with obvious claims. The story out of Sweden is far too complex and requires far too much knowledge of Swedish law if the goal was to entrap Assange.
The story Assange is telling just does not add up.
Most recent is not most prominent.
So....you smitten like a schoolgirl with Assange? Because these sentences sure do look like it. Don't you think that might cause a bit of bias on your part?
Just because the guy's done something good in one area does not make him a saint in all areas. LBJ is probably the most striking example of this: Passed most of the Great Society and lots of great civil rights laws while doing absolutely evil shit in Vietnam.
The fact that Wikileaks has done some good does not mean Assange only ever does good. He's human. He has flaws. Whether or not those flaws lead to rape in Sweden is up to the Swedish judicial system to decide.
Finally:
You've attempted to "debate" me several times on several different subjects. You NEVER answer questions from "the other side". You NEVER engage in any debate. You always continue to say the exact same set of facts, over and over again. Even when provided with contradictory information.
Hence, the mocking. You are not interested in anything like debate, so there's no reason to engage in one with you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You're working hard, and it really shouldn't be so hard, to try to make them go away.
Thank you, that is because the facts never change. Yours otoh, are based on the ever shifting stories of the prosecution.
Exhibit #1 of the talking point of those who have no interest in facts. Funny how they all use the same talking point. Known as 'attempt to distract' by shifting the debate to the person. Also known as Ad Hom. And always a sign to the target that the opponent cannot hold up their side of the debate with facts. The rules of debate, never resort to ad hom attacks, you immediately lose the debate. Especially do not use a well known talking point.
So let me ask you a question according to what you consider 'debate'. Are you jealous of Assange? We know he is extremely popular with women, even according to some of the evidence in the case. Not my type, and I already found my ideal man, but for some reason he is extremely attractive to a whole lot of women. Is that the reason for the hatred some men, and I have to say most of them are right wingers, have for him?
tama
(9,137 posts)how completely ridiculous DOJ is. This is first time ever when docs have been leaked and published by Times, Guardian etc. etc. and US gov is still acting as they were state secrets. They are also after librarians and students, with threat and blackmail that if you get caught of reading the leaked material, there is no hope of ever getting a government job. They really are desperately hysterical, so what does your defense of DOJ make you?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Actually, no. That's US law. Leaking is not declassification. Thus they are still state secrets. If you happen to have a security clearance and read these documents on Wikileaks at home, that's a security breach you have to report.
So when do the black helicopters take away these poor librarians and students who read wikileaks?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)mean he raped anyone, and it doesn't mean he's not being set up for political reasons.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and must be getting set up for political reasons. And have constructed an elaborate conspiracy against him requiring lots and lots of people who don't even know each other to be working together to get Assange.
Yet you find that much more plausible than the guy doesn't like condoms.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm sorry you don't think it's legitimate rape. Doesn't change Swedish law.
Now, if it was a set-up, do you think they'd have such a lame story to set him up? Don't you think they'd have some women come forward with a really clear-cut story that doesn't require understanding the nuances of Swedish rape law?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)my definition of rape is pretty much the same as the definition in swedish law.
you're blowing a lot of smoke.
for those people who'd actually like to read what the women said, and the other testimonies the original police investigation took, and information about police attempts to alter the reports, links are here:
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If it's a set up, why is it such a badly-done set up?
If it's a world-spanning cabal of enormous numbers of people with vast resources, don'tcha think they'd do a better job than this? Take a look at what Rove did to Siegelman, and then look at this.
As for rape or not, you are literally arguing that you know Swedish law better than Swedish prosecutors and the UK's highest court. Forgive me if I believe them over you.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)including the testimony of the women themselves.
i haven't said one word about any "set-up," any "cabal," anything like that.
i've said neither of those women were raped, by their *own* accounts.
and i've said the definition of rape in sweden is quite similar to the definition in the us.
You on the other hand have made up shit, like "in sweden it's considered rape if you promise to use a condom and then don't."
who's pretending to know swedish law?
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Aboslutlwy terrifying. demenaing. pianful. you tkae shower after shower and can't get rid of the feeling of dirty. Having sex without a condom has nothing to do with anything going on with Julian Assange. Why did one of the "raped" women come back a second time? You do not ever want to see a rapist again. Believe me.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Would you like us to apply Saudi Arabia's definition of rape in the US? No? Well then why do you demand the Swedes follow the US definition of rape?
Except for the whole promising to use a condom to get in their pants part.
I do not pretend that I can read other people's minds when it comes to such matters.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)been tested in a court room because the Prosecutors continue to refuse to submit these claims to a court of law?
Anyone can type up a list of allegations about anyone but that doesn't mean anything, at least not to those of us who respect the law.
The fact is not a single allegation made has ever been proven. And those allegations differ from the early statements of the women. A fact that the loony lawyer representing them was asked about last week. 'Why do the allegations differ so much from what people already know about the case'? He became defensive, angry and refused to respond. Why won't he respond? What is he waiting for? He would not even confirm that he could prove them.
Surely you are not advocating believing allegations with zero evidence for anyone, regardless of whether you support them or not?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)It means the Swedish word for rape doesn't translate perfectly into the English word for it.
Assange is a douche bag, there's no doubt, which has no bearing on the larger question here. He's right to be afraid of being turned over to the US, especially after so many of our leaders said he should be assassinated.
BTW, it's not a real bench warrant that's been issued for Assange. It's a "prosecutor's warrant." We don't have any such thing here, but it means that the evidence and the issue isn't even strong enough to gain charges, yet.
Sweden won't promise Ecuador that Assange won't be turned over the US, which confirms US extradition has been their object all along.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)They just wanted him to take a test for possible STDs.
If the women don't feel they were raped, who decided otherwise?
This is the nub of the matter.
brush
(53,758 posts)This video documentary clears up the whole women accusers/Assange matter. Many posters here have their facts wrong. Journalist Assange went against powerful forces and the charges may . . . well, just watch the video and make up your own mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)US:
Every state has its own statutes. In about half, the term rape has been replaced with the wider term sexual assault... Where rape is still used, it is reserved for forcible sexual intercourse...
Main difference between states is whether "forcible compulsion" is required to show rape has taken place... Eight states require evidence of victim resistance, six others use similar terminology, and resistance is relevant to definitions of force and consent in another 16... Some states do not distinguish between submission and genuine consent...The question for courts is whether the defendant could reasonably assume the victim has consented...
Across the country, conditions such as inebriation, illness or being asleep are deemed to prevent genuine consent....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439
The criteria in both cases = use of force/threats a/o inability of the victim to give real consent (due to helplessness as in being passed out, under the influence, asleep, etc.)
There is only one point in either case that touches the definition of rape, and it is strongly mitigated by other facts, per the woman's own testimony.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Somehow, I'm gonna take the Swede's opinion on their laws over yours.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the higher-ups that reopened it for obscure reasons -- obscure because neither of the women came to the police alleging rape -- they wanted to see if they could get assange to take an hiv test.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)In that case Assange should stay as far away from Sweden as he can. Assange doesn't need to go to Sweden to find out if he's guilty. He already knows the answer.
It's obvious that this is not about the rape charges. Government officials are going after Assange for exposing their criminality. They've put out a hit on Assange.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)Assange has always said that he would return to Sweden to face questioning.
He wants some sort of government re-assurance he will not be extradited to a third country and as I know you always pay attention, you will be aware that many foreign citizens have been bundled onto planes in third countries and ended up languishing in GITMO.
No re-assurance will be given by the right wing Swedish government.
Therefore he has a genuine fear and Ecuador- and again I know that you respect them- has accepted that fear.
There is one thing I think you may not be aware of: the dominating right-wing Swedish media has run a shocking campaign of denigration of Julian Assange almost weekly ala in the style of Fox News.
FACT : the right wing prosecutor driving this matter (the Swedish chief prosecutor is on record as saying the 'charges' would not be sustainable in a Swedish court) has a murky history of involvement with Karl Rove
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Wikileaks exposed that.
And now Assange is supposed to ASSume that Sweden won't rendition him to the US?
No way. I'd make sure Sweden signed a non extradition treaty also before I went there. Assange is perfectly fine with going to Sweden to answer their questions, take a blood test - whatever. But first he wants an assurance he's also not going to be renditioned himself.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the OP) also face charges for their alleged crimes?
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)No one is above the law.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)tsuki
(11,994 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)He has not been charged with anything. And even the women who went to the police to ask if they could compel him to take an HIV test have said that they do not feel that they were raped. In fact, one of the women refused to sign the police report that was written by the interrogator.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)
librechik
(30,674 posts)I'm a feminist, but that simply doesn't make sense to me. And he has hardly gotten "a walk" If they were to bring actual charges against him that he had to face there would be no confusion. But they only want to question him. No charges have been brought. And if you examine the police reports of the incidents, you can see why charges have not been brought. There is no there there. The Swedish police reports are easily available online.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Is your ignorance deliberate?
brush
(53,758 posts)You need to watch this video called "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange." It will bring clarity to you about the whole matter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
brush
(53,758 posts)This video documentary clears up the whole women accusers/Assange matter. Many posters here have their facts wrong. Journalist Assange went against powerful forces and the charges may . . . well, just watch the video and make up your own mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
villager
(26,001 posts)...this type of governmental attention that these two Swedish women are getting"
And that little fact tells us everything -- everything -- we need to know about what's really going on.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You really shouldn't pretend that the situations are similar. Assange is accused of doing something that's technically rape in Sweden - promising to use a condom and then not using one. It's not rape in most countries.
Jamie Leigh Jones was in a country with little rape protection that also happened to be a war zone. And rape projection usually gets even worse in a war zone.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)what it tells us is that Sweden is as corrupt as anywhere else where politics are concerned.
Unless you have Swedish prosecution figures at hand (although you seem to ignore the fact the first prosecutor dismissing the matter and the chief prosecutor claiming charges would not be sustainable.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The investigation and civil suit resulted in a he-said-she-said situation and thus Jones lost.
This relates to rape laws in Sweden how?
Swagman
(1,934 posts)with no proof.
Alternatively it could indicate the very opposite : that a Swedish prosecutor doesn't give a flying fig about rape victims anywhere as she is determined to get Assange back to Sweden, and that is her only concern and the alleged victims are mere pawns in a game.
And the indications of this (to me and many others) is -
1.a previous prosecutor examined the case and questioned Assange and concluded no charge could be sustained in a Swedish court
2. The Swedish chief prosecutor says the same.
3. however as Swedish prosecutors operate independently as in the US, the case has been taken up with gusto by a well known right-wing prosecutor who is a close friend of Sweden's right wing Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt who has in the past praised someone called Karl Rove.
4. The Swedish prosecutor has refused to send officials to London (short flight) to interview Assange (not an uncommon act)
Now the delays and complications go on and on and the alleged victims are a forgotten entity except for those looking for any morsel to criticize Assange.
But you may know differently.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Go look up a couple posts. How many countries were named? Two. How, exactly, is that "any other country"?
So if you can't bother arguing using the truth, why should we listen to anything else you're arguing?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Are we talking about the same Sweden? Their track record on rape is HORRIBLE.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)and it shames the alleged victims and indeed all victims by not clearing up this matter asap by traveling the short distance to London to interview Assange just as investigators do so in a routine matter around the world.
I know a detective who investigate sex crimes and the victim id foremost in his minds and he will never extend the matter longer than necessary.
But any morsel is snatched up by Assange's detractors to weave a simple framework and deny the bigger picture.
so the fact he has already been interviewed and the claims dismissed by Sweden's chief prosecutor,
the fact Ecuador has every right and duty to investigate his fears and has concluded they are genuine at great diplomatic risk to them (but done lawfully) means naught.
the fact Bradley Manning has been basically mentally tortured for going on 2 years is an indication of nothing to Assange's detractors.
villager
(26,001 posts)...of rape?
What's that I hear? Crickets?
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)but that isn't saying one hell of a lot and its track record is not a good one. It IS true, however, that the law is certainly being applied in an exceedingly scrupulous manner where Julian Assange is concerned.
The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention claims that it is not "possible to evaluate and compare the actual levels of violent crimes... between countries", but that in any case the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definition of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes. It asserts that comparisons based on victim surveys place Sweden at an average level among European nations.[41]
The boldface is mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#Sweden
The point of this whole convoluted exercise seems to be to get Assange to Sweden from which point he can be extradited to the US to be charged with crimes against the US, courtesy of a special US treaty with Sweden signed under Raygun. The US and the UK, along with Sweden, will have a lot of egg on their collective faces before this whole silly scene is finished and they are not gaining friends or influencing people in any positive manner by their actions. So long as our US Iraqi war criminals and rapists are at large, we here in the US have no moral standing whatsoever in the eyes of the global community.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The sheer scale of rape in the US, during our wars hell even Sweden (which has some of the worst rape prosecution stats in Europe) and everyone's getting worked up over THIS case?
My heart just breaks for real rape victims who often wait (forever) for justice.
This political stunt is hideous, especially in its treatment of women. Especially the women involved in the Assange case, who've been told by their paternalistic state that they don't really know that they've been "raped"! And that despite the women's adamant desire to NOT press charges, the paternalistic state believes it can supersede the wishes of its own citizens and advance the case FOR them). I can't even imagine being the women involved - if this ever comes to a resolution in Sweden they will be forced to become hostile witnesses (if they can be found. One of them has fled the country and vows to not return) detailing their sex with Assange?!
Ick. Just completely patriarchal and disgusting. I'd bet a million dollars that virtually all of the posters pressing that this "rape" case go forward are all men - despicable, sexist, voyeuristic men.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)....VERY suspicious.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)written spy stories, they would have been less obvious than the "example" being made of Julian Assange.
And here we are in the 21st century with large numbers of intelligent, thoughtful people buying into this outrage.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Even ones that calls themselves "democracies" and claim that a "well informed electorate" is their foundation.
But, there is much to be said for the irony of the "enlightened" West going to these lengths to silence a couple of whistleblowers.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Can't say we weren't warned.
Remember the threats against the Banking Institutions.
Challenging Money is how he reaped the whirlwind.
(yes, I find it "odd".)
heaven05
(18,124 posts)good for you. tell it like it is.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)at least one of the accusers is on record stating she wasn't raped...among other reasons).
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Swagman
(1,934 posts)evidence (whatever it is) and they believe he is at great risk and that the pursuit of the allegations is a cover for other reasons
In doing so they risk the wrath of the USA, UK and Sweden (his homeland has abandoned him) all friendly countries.
Ecuador has done this knowing there could be recriminations which are indicated by the hysteria and bullying of the Foreign Office letter.
At the same time the UK must enforce it's own laws however distasteful they are. (there is a great lesson here : once in this world you could guarantee your safety in your country of residence but now in this globalized atmosphere you can be extradited for 'crimes' that are not crimes where you live).
Overall, given that Ecuador has given Assange refuge it indicates Assange tells the truth however distasteful that is for those who dislike him, believe he is arrogant etc etc.
However now prepare for a racist trashing of Ecuador in the world's media.
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)....and we waste all of that time and money presenting various sides of a controversey, allow all sides to be heard, apply due process and allow an objective ruling on a matter in a court of law. We could save a lot of hassle with that "independent nation" concluding thing.......
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)I don't think he believes he'll ever make it to a court of law (whatever that happens to be in these days and times). And I don't blame him. He will probably wind up in Gitmo or worse and nobody will ever know it or hear from him again.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)How many "Independent Countries" ARE there these days ???
Swagman
(1,934 posts)
vanlassie
(5,668 posts) Swagman
(1,934 posts)denigrate Assange by any means.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)If this was all some elaborate conspiracy for the US to get Assange concerning Wikileaks Sweden would not be needed (the US could far more easily obtain Assange from Britain where he's been languishing for two years now since the incidents in Sweden far more easily than from Sweden seeing as the UK is the closest ally of the US and would have no problem handing him over). If the US wanted him so badly they'd never go through a ridiculous round-about and completely unnecessary and time consuming manner as have Sweden find two women to sleep with him and then make sexual charges against him that are weak to begin with (why the hell not claim violent rape with claims of him holding a knife to their throat and slapping them around if it was all some "honey trap"???), then have to go through Britain to send him to Sweden so that Sweden can then send him to the US... come on. It's ludicrous. WAY beyond ridiculously elaborate, expensive to execute with FAR too many people and documentation involved with lots of courts and lawyers wasting time and money for absolutely no purpose whatsoever. If the US wanted him so badly they just would have asked Britain for him, Britain would quietly hand him over, and no one would know anything about it. The end. There is simply no need to go through all this nonsense just to get him to the US. Period.
What makes a hell of a lot more sense is that while Assange was in Sweden he had sex with two women who made allegations against him, and he fled the country before he could be formally questioned and his DNA taken by Sweden's prosecution knowing that after that he would likely be arrested and jailed. Once the story came to light he then made the ridiculous claim that it was all a ruse by the US, Sweden and Britain to try to get him to the US. And because for no other reason than who he is he is believed regardless or what a stupid claim it is but one he knew would gain him public support from his fans in which he looks a total innocent and couldn't possibly have sexually assaulted or raped anyone... because for his supporters to believe that would sink his reputation endangering his support regarding Wikileaks. Yep, it makes a hell of a lot more sense that his fleeing Sweden and all that has occurred since with the extradition and his jumping bail and seeking asylum in Ecuador is nothing but fear that he may actually have to answer to the allegations of rape in Sweden and may even be found guilty.
Frankly, the more he resists going back to Sweden to be questioned the more guilty of the allegations he appears. He may be a lot of things but stupid in the ways of the world and governments is hardly one of them. He knows very well that if the US really wanted him they'd have a far more easy time having Britain just hand his ass over the moment it was requested of them, and we'd all be speculating here why he disappeared... or forget all about him which is what the press would do. WE know, and HE knows that's exactly how the US operates and how its closest ally, Britain, complies. Throwing Sweden and sexual assault allegations from two women he acknowledges having had sex with into the mix for absolutely no reason, but made him a convenient though logically absurd excuse for why he is so desperately trying to keep from going back to Sweden to answer to the allegations makes the most sense by FAR... don't ya think?
If this was not Assange but some person we a) didn't like, or b) couldn't care less about, this illogical and ridiculous conspiracy theory would be seen as exactly that, and we'd all be laughing hysterically about how totally absurd it is and that the idiot jackass was probably guilty as sin and making this far fetched excuse and going through all this desperation to avoid going back to Sweden to answer to the allegations because he was scared shitless he'd be found guilty and go to jail. And that is a very sad yet predictable of DU fact.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)the weakness of the allegations make the simple proxy prosecution ridiculous
and
assange has guilty reason to fear extradition
say what you mean
sin cere
Swagman
(1,934 posts)LA detectives investigating an alleged offense want to interview a suspect in NY : do they ask him to travel to Calif or go to NY ?
British detectives want to interview a suspect in Antgua or Australia : do they invite the suspect to the UK or travel to the suspect?
ps : what is Assange's guilty secret ?.please illuminate.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)these are two contradictory things TorchTheWitch says
proxy persecution of assange would be ridiculous because charges are weak, maybe trivial
assange hides in fear and guilt from serious charges
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Reading comprehension, please.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)and take him into the LA precinct. Actually, it would be the state of California that would extradite from the state of NY. That's how it's always done. Why in the world would it be done otherwise? California has no jurisdiction in NY, so how can they possibly go into NY's jurisdiction and interrogate a suspect without NY's permission, guidance and outside NY laws? They must obtain formal written permission in the form of an extradition warrant agreed to by NY for the suspect to be sent to LA for interrogation. LA would most certainly not go into NY and attempt to interrogate them there and then perhaps arrest them and bring them back to LA. Sorry, but that's not legal procedure and not how it's ever done.
This interview Sweden wants with Assange is a mandatory procedural matter required by law before charges can be filed and the suspect to be charged and arrested. It isn't a "hey, we want to ask you some questions about this" kind of interview. In the interview the investigated evidence must be made available to the suspect, and the suspect is given the opportunity at that time to refute it as well as name witnesses on their behalf. It's a much more fair procedure than we have where charges are filed and the suspect arrested and given no opportunity to see what the evidence against them is nor given the opportunity to provide any evidence of their own that could at that time prove their innocence sufficiently so that the case could be dismissed. Instead, in the US the suspect is either allowed out on bail with conditions and a hefty load of money handed over or made to sit in prison until they finally get the opportunity to refute the charges which doesn't happen until trial, which can be for a very long time.
British detectives would extradite a suspect from Antigua or Australia if they had sufficient evidence that warranted extradition. However, Britain does not have the formal interview process that Sweden does in which the suspect is required to undergo a face to face formal interview in which the suspect must be presented with the evidence of the investigation, given the opportunity to refute the evidence, name witnesses on their behalf, etc. before a final decision can be made as to whether or not charges can be levied and an arrest made. British detectives have no jurisdiction in any country outside Britain and cannot then go to any country and interrogate a suspect according to British law while under the laws, without the permission of, and not under the strict guidance of that other country. This is what extradition is FOR whether it is extradition from another country, another state or another county.
You seem to be under the impression that the interview for which Assange has been lawfully extradited from Britain to Sweden is just some little "hey, we just want to ask you some questions" type of interview. I honestly have no idea how anyone paying attention to this case could possibly have missed that the interview is not that at all particularly after all this time unless they were willfully refusing to acknowledge that information. Again, it is a mandatory procedural interview at the end of the investigation for the purpose of giving the investigative findings to the accused, allowing them the opportunity to refute, etc., etc. before any final decision on whether or not charges are warranted can be made and either the case dropped or charges levied and an arrest made. It cannot be done over the phone or in any other jurisdiction other than Sweden because Sweden HAS no jurisdiction outside of Sweden to conduct criminal proceedings under Swedish law anywhere but in Sweden, and if the decision to arrest is made following that interview, obviously that arrest should be in Sweden since Sweden has no authority outside of Sweden to arrest anyone under Swedish law.
Do you seriously not understand the concept of jurisdiction nor the purpose of extradition?
As for your ps "what is Assange's guilty secret", I have absolutely no flippin' idea what on earth you're talking about. Kindly elaborate.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)In actual full sentences even. However, since you asked...
The whole conspiracy theory of Sweden trumping up sex allegations against Assange just for the purpose of his being sent to the US concerning the documents exposed on Wikileaks is absurd on its face since any involvement of Sweden or trumping up erroneous charges is wholly and completely unnecessary in order for Assange to be sent to the US if the US wanted him so badly. It is further ridiculous that the supposed trumped up sex allegations against Assange for this conspiracy theory would be ones so weak in criminality... if you're going to trump up fake sex allegations why in the world would those trumped up allegations not be REALLY gross much more criminal allegations that would be far more likely to stick? Why would these women trump up these supposed fake charges for the purpose of having Assange sent to Sweden and then on the US and not claim the supposed fake allegations were flat out indisputable really horrid allegations for which no one could find any sympathy for the accused? After all, if this was supposed to be some honey trap just for the purpose of the big international conspiracy theory why in the world would the allegations be the weakest of all the allegations one could make up, that may actually see Assange walk away from, and why in the world would the women supposedly in on the whole international conspiracy theory honey trap specifically say they didn't want any criminal charges brought against him and only wanted him to be forced to take an STD test? If this is an international conspiracy honey trap just to get Assange into the hands of the US it fails miserably no matter how you slice it, and is just about the weakest most ridiculous honey trap one could possibly dream up.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The deportation of Assange is being attempted under a "European Arrest Warrant" which does not require a full extradition hearing. The EAW was issued on the grounds that Mr Assange did not return to Sweden for questioning. The EAW has been issued not for rape or attempted rape or non-consensual sex, only for failing to go to Sweden for questioning about such an accusation.
The hearing regarding the EAW only examined if that warrant was lawfully issued under the treaty. Assange appealed on the grounds that such a warrant and such a lack of full hearing was unlawful and in breach of his human rights. All those appeals were turned down. Assange has never had a full extradition hearing regarding the charges for which he is supposedly being questioned, this would would require evidence of his criminality being presented in open court.
Under the treaties governing extradition between the USA and the UK the US government would have to reveal evidence of Assange's guilt in open court and also accept that no evidence obtained by torture would be used against Mr Assange. The treatment of Bradley Manning would be regarded as torture and any evidence obtained from him or from his trial could never be used against Mr Assange.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Britain cannot extradite him because we have the death penalty here. The ONLY way to get Assange is to find some excuse to get him to a country the US can extradite him from.
Which is exactly what we have done.
There is no other explanation for the reemergence of accusations, without ANY charges, btw, that he was excused from years ago.
Your ignorance of this situation makes your opinions on it rather worthless.
struggle4progress
(118,268 posts)(like other European states) does not extradite in potentially capital cases without a guarantee that the accused will not be subject to execution
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)And since "the US doesn't torture", we can be sure that Sweden will get any guarantee they want.... and then Assange will be tortured.
What you don't seem to understand is that all indications are that Sweden is willing to hand him over regardless. I think Madame Secretary's visit just days after the extradition hearing made sure of that.
struggle4progress
(118,268 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)appear to be involved int?
Of all of those extradited to the US, how many were wanted for capital crimes?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)the suspicious number of people who suddenly appear on progressive boards to revile him whenever he's in the news.
lunatica
(53,410 posts) Good observation 
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)What's green and artificial and used to substitute for grass on sports fields?
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)Response to uponit7771 (Reply #92)
Post removed
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)the utterly predictable contributions from our long-term apologists for all right-wing, neocon, and authoritarian policy coming out of a Democratic administration.
That the largest Democratic site on the internet now continually enables and defends this corporate authoritarian garbage, just because a Democrat is now in office, is a sign of how desperately sick, corrupt, and infiltrated our party has become.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Or that people will have a difference of opinion on a story that is more complex than "Republican Official Says/Does Something Stupid/Illegal/Offensive?"
redqueen
(115,103 posts)No other rape case has ever been handled this way, ever.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:15 PM - Edit history (2)
This is about someone revealing "transparency in government" and "informed electorate" for the sham they really are. This is about the unmitigated gall to lay bare the banksters and their international dirty dealings. This is about revealing that a noble war effort to liberate a people is nothing more than a war of greed and vanity to liberate a sovereign nation's natural resources. This is about silencing an information source that dares challenge the 1% and their collaborators and protectors.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)But this whole case is too bogus to be anything but a set-up.
Uncle Joe
(58,328 posts)Thanks for the thread, WillyT.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Boudicca?
mother earth
(6,002 posts)& bankster crimes don't garner this much scrutiny by the govt's or the media. Something huge is coming me thinks.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe he just did these things. Why does Sweden have to fail to enforce its law? Maybe they really think he did this. And they are just following through with their law.
You can't be serious.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Are you serious?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)All evidence points to the fact that the case against Assange is obviously total bullshit.
Seriously, I don't see why or how y'all can't see this case is bullshit, and how you can have such constant unquestioning faith in corporations, governments, and all authority.
Did you grow up in some alternate reality where Vietnam, Iraq, Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Rove, the PNAC, etc. never happened, J. Edgar Hoover was Andy of Mayberry, and the "Great White Fathers" in Washington always kept their word and didn't break every single treaty they ever made with American Indians?
Did they stop teaching history in schools or something? Or did the RW finally succeed in completely sanitizing it?
Seriously, WTF?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Everything any government does is wrong? Really?
So there are no real sexual assaults, they are all made up by the governments involved.
If you think things are that simple and really see things that way, you're as faith-based as any right winger.
Government may to wrong from time to time and that is what makes the news.
There are real criminals out there.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Julian makes up a lot of things in order to create victim status and gain more attention and try to aggrandize himself. He really needs psychiatric attention.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)What's the game?
"Julian makes up a lot of things in order to create victim status and gain more attention and try to aggrandize himself. He really needs psychiatric attention.
Prove it.
Seems Julian is not the one who is making things up.
Pot, meet kettle.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Then his head gets really big as many people start pretending he's a hero. He thinks he can do anything he wants. Then he goes too far with a couple of women, who, it turns out, aren't thinking he's so great that they'll put up with anything from him. He gets entangled in a legal proceedings. Rather than facing up to it, he leaves the country and gets into an extradition proceeding in the new country.
He starts claiming potential persecution from the United States, a country he's never been to, and which has made no moves to even prosecute him for anything and whose law provides no basis for prosecuting him. But he starts playing the martyr and his followers blindly believe him. By now, they can't believe he would do anything wrong sexually. So it has to be persecution, since their hero would do no wrong. Perhaps some of them think it would be so great to sleep with him that they can't believe some who actually did had a problem with some of his shenanigans.
However, if he were sane, he would simply go to Sweden and clear it all up. There's no excuse. If the US wanted him, he'd be in the US already. That's so blatant you have to be one of his most dedicated followers to fail to see that.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)And this is a particularly sketchy case that cannot be even prosecuted.
Honestly, your adamant concern is absolutely unbelievable here.
I do declare...I must confess that I have some nagging reservations about your motivation for your great concern about Julian's circumstances.
&feature=related
:kick:
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)the trolls. Who do they work for though? The lying is incredible and obvious.... I guess we are supposed to just dismiss the peculiar attacks as just a different pov... hahahahaha.
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #110)
backscatter712 This message was self-deleted by its author.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)...thread was locked. Yeah, we all know, but most aren't willing to make any acknowledgement on here of such a thing. These fucking trolls have been here forever and yet they somehow never get detected by the mods.... gee, I wonder why not?
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #127)
backscatter712 This message was self-deleted by its author.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He isn't through reminding us of his opinions!
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)but maybe they feel now is the time to take a stand, much like the repubs decided to take a stand on debt reduction once a black democrat became president.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)brush
(53,758 posts)This video documentary clears up the whole women accusers/Assange matter. Many posters here have their facts wrong. Journalist Assange went against powerful forces and the charges may . . . well, just watch the video and make up your own mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101750458
Zorra
(27,670 posts)job it is to continue the propaganda campaign against Julian, from continuing to do what they are paid for.
They generally never quit repeating their talking points until the last nail of fact is hammered into the coffin of their bullshit. They are the mouthpieces of the status quo, whose job it is to help spread propaganda in order to help protect the interests of the status quo. The use of a myriad of clearly identifiable deceitful propaganda tactics are the continuous, shameless MO of these paid shills on all issues that are of substantial concern to the status quo.
A primary identifying characteristic of this type of propaganda is that it is almost universally supportive of conservative positions espoused by RW organizations such as the Third Way and republican parties.
After a substantial period of time, the pattern of most propagandists compensated for shilling for the status quo becomes obvious, and their chronic repetition of non-factual memes supportive of the status quo become a pathetic joke to the long term observer of their information spreading activity.
Unfortunately, hired propagandists sometimes catch innocent, naive individuals in the web of scripted lies they repeat over and over.
These misled individuals represent the successes of the propagandists.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I have stayed completely out of the Assange thing but on your recommendation I watched the video.
Almost all the interviews were with Assange's international attorneys. Right out of the box, the narrator refers to Assange as a "rock star" and that women were "enthralled" by his presence. The interviewer actually assisted one of Assange's attorney's in pronouncing the word "consensual," how they characterized and summarily dismissed Assange's encounters with these women.
There was no hard-hitting journalism going on here. It was a rather self-serving puff piece that provides further evidence that this cynical parsing of the definition of rape is the strategy of choice. While Assange has become a demigod to some so-called progressives, I see him as a mixed bag. There is an unspoken bond among women on this most serious issue of rape and I stand in solidarity with that.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)assange actually raped anyone?
by the testimony of the women involved, he did not.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)
mean you wouldn't be able to throw around vague and dire comments about the terrible things assange supposedly did to these women that somehow justify an international incident and the storming of an embassy.
big bowl of crap.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)About time - this story was starting to get awfully boring.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)...the terrible things assange supposedly did to these women that somehow justify an international incident and the storming of an embassy
The "international incident" was precipitated by Assange himself when he jumped bail, and no embassy has been stormed and won't be.
And for that matter, this "storming the embassy" meme is ridiculously melodramatic, and has been going unchallenged for too long. What the British actually threatened was to de-recognize the diplomatic status of the premises using a domestic law. This would involve (much) more legal wrangling since the law in question is very controversial and with almost no guiding precedent, and a period of time for the staff and contents of the embassy to be moved to another location. Not cops with riot shields kicking down the doors in the middle of the night.
Granted, it was a stupid and irresponsible threat, but they backed off from it pretty quickly.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)assange "legal".
iow, storming the embassy.
if you read the police testimony of the women involved, it's impossible to believe that these "rape" allegations are the reason for such unprecedented threats.
brush
(53,758 posts)Even the women involved didn't want him charged with rape. Did you watch it? They went to the police because of their concern about STD. They wanted the police to get Assange back to take an STD test. The police "told" them they were raped. The women wanted no part of those charges.
tama
(9,137 posts)from female "groupies" are citations of people close to Assange, from the police interview files; people who adviced Assange to be very careful about the groupies, not least in fear of honey traps. Where also Anna Ardin is joking about the "Cashmere Girl" groupie Sofia Wilen.
Male celebs doing sexy idealist things like taking on US gov DO get lot of female attention, just a fact of life.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)it's blatantly obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that the way the accusations against him have been handled is motivated purely and solely by politics.
