Man accused of forcing unprotected sex against the will of women

[CabCurious]

Two women have accused a man of forcing unprotected sex AGAINST THEIR WILL. These are the charges:

1. That he 'unlawfully coerced' a woman by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner
2. That he 'sexually molested' woman by having sex with her without a condom when it was her 'express wish' one should be used
3. That he 'deliberately molested' woman 'in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity'
4. That he had sex with a second woman without a condom while she was asleep - considered rape in that country.

What if the public's reaction was to attack these women and presume they are lying?

The man flees the country during the police investigation and then starts holding press conferences about how it's all some kind of conspiracy by foreign intelligence agencies. He explicitly lies about how he believed the investigation was over when he left (something his lawyer later states wasn't true).

What would justify him being above the law?

Multiple associates of the man start speaking publicly about how he's been accused of similar sexual behavior before and even regularly bragged about having children all over the world. It turns out that a number of his colleagues consider him a megalomaniac.

What would justify him being above the law?

This man is a hacker who become internationally famous by publishing the leaks of whistle blowers (who sometimes themselves faced prison time). He published both specific leaks about government abuses as well as indiscriminately publishing many, many thousands of cables that had no real value other than to undermine global diplomacy. Nonetheless, he is heralded as some great defender of truth.

This is a man who is telling Sweden how to break their treaties, break international law, to run the investigation his way.

Is he above the law?

This man not only hasn't released bank records and other materials entrusted to him by actual whistle blowers, but he's using these documents as leverage against more serious criminal charges in the future. Instead of publishing leaks, he's now peddling in intelligence for his own personal benefit.

Is that justified? Is that principled?

Gandhi went to prison because he stood on his principles.
MLK went to prison.
Mandela went to prison.
Havel went to prison.
Aung San Suu Kyi went to prison.

The list of principled people going to prison is very long. Assange apparently thinks he should never go to prison for any reason. He doesn't even believe he should cooperate with an investigation into rape in Sweden.

So why are people defending Assange from extradition ABOUT SEXUAL COERCION?

Sadly, what I expect here on DU is the following:

A. I'll be called names
B. People will insist anybody critical of Assange is either uninformed or a neocon
C. People will hit reply and call the points BS without actually addressing them

Yes, it truly bothers me to see so many progressives basically engaging in behavior they would condemn if this were any other man.

[a geek named Bob]

1. sigh...

This wouldn't be about trying to get us riled against Julian Assange and Wikileaks, would it?

[CabCurious]

2. OP includes predictions on DU responses

[EOTE]

72. So you predicted that people would find your bullshit pablum to be bullshit pablum?

Wow, you must be like Nostradamus or something.

[CabCurious]

75. I predicted that people would focus on personal attacks rather than principled, fact-based address

[EOTE]

79. Learn what a personal attack is.

Utterly shredding your simple minded arguments is nothing approaching a personal attack. It's very sad that you can't note that simple distinction.

[CabCurious]

82. Yes, i am obviously too dumb to know what a personal attack is. THANK YOU FOR HELPING

[EOTE]

87. If you don't want to be talked down to, perhaps you should stop claiming that people are giving you

personal attacks when they're simply tearing apart your argument. Obtusity is not something to strive for, you know?

[CabCurious]

94. Do you think Assange is above the law or not? yes or no

Do you think these two women are lying?

Do you think Assange should be allowed to flee Sweden forever?

Yes or no.

Stop the personal attacks and address the real issue.

[EOTE]

110. Simple minds find repetition assuring.

And yes, I do think that the women are lying, at least to an extent. And yes, a political refugee should have the ability to flee a country which is persecuting him politically. Your thoughts on this matter are right wing talking points, you serve them quite well. I don't know whether you know it or not, but you're a tool of the military industrial complex. If you don't know it, that speaks very poorly of you. If you do know it, that speaks even worse of you.

[CabCurious]

115. simple minds. moronic. can you please repeat how i dont understand what a personal attack is?

[EOTE]

117. Yes, you clearly don't know what a personal attack is.

As from the very beginning of this thread you've been crying out "personal attack" (hell, even before the thread started), while people have been pretty much exclusively focused on how ridiculous your argument is. The "moronic" came into play when you demonstrated that you don't know what such a simple thing means. You came into the thread from the very start expecting to be a martyr, and wow, you somehow became a martyr. Good job, not everyone can play the persecuted victim as well as you can.

[CabCurious]

121. ...

I think this thread shows quite the contrary.

[11 Bravo]

149. "Bullshit pablum", "moronic", "simple-minded (twice)", nope, nothing personal there. HOLY FUCK ...

you are the living, breathing embodiment of reasoned discourse!

[EOTE]

161. Those were responses to the OP's incessant claims that he's being personally attacked

because people are shredding his arguments. Yes, you're damned right that making ignorant claims, having people tear apart those claims, and then whining non-stop that they're being attacked personally is moronic.

[11 Bravo]

201. So you opted to refute the claim that he was being personally attacked by personally attacking him?

Fucking brilliant!

[EOTE]

213. Describing why someone's argument is moronic is not a personal attack.

Every one of my comments has been about the OP's ridiculous OP and his subsequent endless whining about being attacked. If you're incapable of responding to attacks on the arguments that you make without acting like a petulant little child, then perhaps one isn't ready for the internet.

[joshcryer]

217. I do not see a description of a moronic argument.

Then, I do consider entire subthreads with no substance pretty moronic...

[EOTE]

227. The OP has agreed that Sweden's primary interest in Assange is not related to the rape charges.

And yet he still thinks that Assange needs to give himself up to the Swedes even if they won't agree not to extradite him. One either has to be obtuse in the extreme, or extremely ignorant on this matter to not see how this case is being handled worlds differently from every other rape case in the world. And then to pretend as if Assange is not acting honorably simply because he refuses to martyr himself is the icing on the cake.

[joshcryer]

231. I find it very Polanski-esque in nature. You can avoid judgement...

...if you have the right connections and power. And if you run.

I have mixed feelings on Assange because he tried to profit off of Wikileaks. I do not consider him capable of martyrdom or genuine superior ethics and it's one of the failings I found with the OP. It's also one reason I consider his privileged attitude indicated by inserting himself into a sleeping woman without his consent to be unsurprising or uncontroversial.

For what it's worth I expect him to be fully exonerated in the end.

[EOTE]

236. I don't know whether he's guilty of the charges against him or not.

I'm much more likely to believe he's innocent, however. That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. and Sweden's behavior regarding this incident tells me that they're not interested in Assange WRT rape. Assange needs to avoid judgement for that, if nothing else. I don't care if it's his connections and power that allows him to do that.

[joshcryer]

239. Fair enough.

Now that's a consistent position.

I think he's guilty. Society, while it has laws against date rape, and even marriage rape, and other types of rape where consent has normally been ignored, doesn't really uphold those laws effectively. There's a reason date rape is basically a taboo subject among young women, their entire lives get turned upside down for airing it. Slutty pictures, text messages, whole nine yards. So while I think he's guilty I don't see him being convicted.

I'm surprised Sweden hasn't lifted the warrant. This isn't like DSK where they changed their mind in a month or so when they vetted the victim. They appear convinced they have something.

[11 Bravo]

238. You haven't described shit. Post # 72 "Bullshit pablum" - no example ..

Post # 79 "Simple-minded arguments - again, nothing to back that up
Post # 87 "obtusity" - no example
Post # 110 Again with the "simple-minded", plus a dollop of "right-wing-talking points" - still no example
Post # 117 "ridiculous argument" - SHOCKER, no examples of same

Shit, I actually disagree with the guy, but the comical and increasingly desperate attempts to frame your spew as some kind of high-minded and incisive debate tactic are just too fucking funny to ignore!

[EOTE]

242. Most of those responses were to the OP's ludicrous claim that no one was criticizing his actual

argument. The actual arguments that have been made in that this is not being handled like any rape case anywhere in the entire world and that Sweden has had many opportunities to discuss the matter with Assange WITHOUT him risking losing his freedom for something entirely unrelated to the rape charges have been entirely ignored by the OP. The only time he DID address any of these is when he admitted that the charges against Assange ARE political and that the so-called rape victims are being used to shut up Assange. In spite of this, HE STILL continues to demand that Assange turn himself in. So he's effectively gone on a 3 week long tirade against Assange because he refuses to martyr himself. Sorry, but that's pretty fucking stupid.

[joshcryer]

244. I think the reason it's unusual is that Assange ran three times.

In a region of the world where law is complicated to fuck and back.

He literally threw a wrench so hard into the proceedings on the arrest warrant that it's a joke.

[EOTE]

246. What's a joke is how Sweden is handling this.

Dropping the case and then opening it back up when it's clear that this could be used to either embarrass or trap him. And this is more than unusual, it's literally unlike any other rape case in the world. That alone should tell you what the true motives are.

[joshcryer]

249. The warrant was dropped but the women, the alleged victims, appealled the same day.

Why it was dropped I don't know. I really don't understand that part of it. It could be they didn't think they had a case (apparently in Sweden you have to be arrested to be charged, it's strange, I know).

It took them months to decide whether to put out another warrant.

Now mind you all this time Assange was in hiding for the most part. He'd make appearances now and again but once the investigation was reopened he went into hiding as far as I recall.

edit: and if it was the whole fact that the young women didn't know they were raped or injured legally, that shit would be used against them. "No harm no foul" type of arguments. Rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute.

[sabrina 1]

203. Do you think a person should be convicted based on ever changing accusations?

[Riftaxe]

241. People should be convicted on evidence

not exonerated because they run a good web site, nor exempt from investigation based on their celebrity status.

[sabrina 1]

251. Did someone say a person should be exonerated if they are guilty?

The claim here is that Assange is guilty of the latest, revised allegations, but as you said, a person should be convicted based on evidence. When I ask for evidence the only answer I get is 'she said'. Can you, maybe, provide some of the evidence which has convinced you that he is guilty? I know what 'she said', this time. I mean real evidence which as you said, should be a requirement for conviction.

I eg, can provide some of the evidence that has created doubt about this case for millions of people who have actually taken the trouble to view that evidence.

The response of DU's judges and juries who have convicted Assange based only on allegations is 'you have a schoolgirl crush on Assange' etc. When I see responses like that, they provide me with an answer to my question, that those individuals have no evidence, thus the old tactic of resorting to what they believe absolves them from having to present any.

I hope our conversation will be more productive than all the others so far. A real discussion of the facts, not lame ad hom attacks which merely shows they have no facts or they don't care about facts. If you have some evidence and facts to present, that I am wrong. But so far 'you are a fan' or 'Julian can no wrong' just isn't convincing and I'm sure you agree, is not enough to convict someone with.

[randome]

252. There is no claim that he's guilty.

That's for a jury to decide. It's a simple matter that has been conflated by Assange's actions into something much more than it deserves.

Now that Assange has backed himself into a corner in Ecuador, he should release the 'poison pill' file he claims to have. Except he won't because he doesn't have anything. That's the single, most damaging part of his character that I have seen. He tried to bluff to keep himself from having to face charges in Sweden.

For a defender of transparency, why is he continuing to hide the 'poison pill' documents?

That's a red flag for me.

[Riftaxe]

253. Doubt among millions will not trump

evidence and testimony provided in court proceedings, no matter how much others might wish it so.

I do not suspect he will disappear if remanded to Sweden, I suspect he will not only be able to present a first class defense but one that might possibly clear him.

The support he has garnered just for being a fugitive is disturbing, as it means there is a significant slice of people who firmly believe that celebrities should be above such mundane things as laws; such a trend cannot end well.

[99Forever]

3. SSDD

[a geek named Bob]

4. Assange

Must have something really really

BAD

that TPTB are worried about.

[99Forever]

7. It isn't just what he has that they are trying to stomp down.

It's a message to ANYONE and EVERYONE that would dare to expose the duplicitous, evil and murderous things they do.

[CabCurious]

9. Yet whistle blowing continues without the vast, unproven conspiracies cracking down on them

[LanternWaste]

42. r at least the American, Ecuadoran, Swedish, Russian and British governments

"without the vast, unproven conspiracies cracking down on them..."

Or at least the American, Ecuadoran, Swedish, Russian and British governments getting involved... probably happens in most alleged rape cases.

[CabCurious]

53. Hard to disregard the law and then expect governments to help you...

I personally separate the wikileaks issues and the sexual coercion ones, on principle.

And I also acknowledge that publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents will probably have consequences some day.

[sabrina 1]

204. Yes it is. And the Swedish Prosecution has disregarded the law and actually lied about it.

on several occasions. Do you know eg, what the law is regarding the EAW that the prosecution issued?

[CabCurious]

258. That would be news to me. Feel free to explain (and not just attack like the others)

My point is simply that NO man should be above the law, especially in cases of alleged sexual coercion.

What I also know is that Sweden DROPPED the case at one point but the accusers demanded it be picked up again...

[a geek named Bob]

12. The cat's out of the bag

The whistle blowers can get more and more info out,

over open networks, and deep webs.

This ought to be fun.

[pnwmom]

143. Or maybe it's just that people who like his politics are willing to give him a free pass

on his personal life, no matter how loathsome. It wouldn't be the first time a hero had clay feet, or legions of followers available to lick them.

[99Forever]

155. And maybe monkeys flew out of his butt.

Kinda like...

... "some people say."


Where have I heard that before?

[sabrina 1]

205. Or it could be that people who support the 1% ignore all the real evidence and keep pushing

mere accusations while ignoring the mountain of exculpatory evidence.

[pnwmom]

209. I wouldn't know about that because I don't support the 1%.

But I do believe that when women make accusations of rape, they should be listened to and taken seriously.

And there is no "mountain" of exculpatory evidence. There's no doubt that he was with them and he had sexual encounters with them. All I've seen so far is he said/she said. We won't know all the evidence on either side until a trial, if it gets to that point.

[joshcryer]

215. Are you accusing the poster you responded to of "supporting the 1%"?

If so, please out and say it, as I have no problem calling rape apologists what they are. Rape apologists. We should all move our level up discourse up from mere innuendos to straight up calling shit out for what it is.

The poster in question merely wants to see justice, if there can be. The alleged victims are sticking with the case and appear to be willing to take it to trial, in direct conflict of those who claim otherwise. Why can they not have their day in court?

[treestar]

5. No surprise that replies are of no substance

You've stated it straightforwardly. That is not to be borne. There won't be a single direct reply, just "sighs" and accusations of being paid. Some people are really in love with this guy. Personally, I think he's a toad.

[seabeyond]

36. i think he is, too. in all his action, he lacks integrity. and beyond. total egomaniac. nt

[CabCurious]

77. bingo... and more progessives need to be brave enough to speak our minds

in spite of the extremely disturbing mob mentality of the Assange defenders.

I support whistle blowing. I support what wikileaks ORIGINALLY was about.

[LaydeeBug]

6. Please. Stop. Patronizing. Women. It's. Absurd.

These women have said it wasn't rape. As a rape survivor, I will take THEM at THEIR word. It's incredible how you won't.

And telling.

[CabCurious]

8. Read it before attacking me, please

Are you suggesting this women aren't accusing him of something?

And no, I don't personally agree with Sweden's definition of rape.

But nor am I going to call these women liars... which is precisely what you are doing if you support Assange's plea to not having to face charges.

[a geek named Bob]

11. I'll read your work

when you bother to post some non RW taking points.

If Assange goes to Sweden, there's a good chance he'll disappear.

There's a difference between what Revered King faced, and what Assange faces.

Please bother to look up the difference.

[CabCurious]

13. So you think he's above the law (& heaven forbid you respect progressive arguments against Assange!)

I must be uninformed. I'm using republican talking points.

What's obvious is that you're making this about wikileaks and completely denying the rights of the women and the justice process by presuming they must be liars... and suggesting that his actions as a publisher of leaks makes him above the law.

[randome]

14. He's a freaking celebrity! How will he disappear?

[CabCurious]

16. anybody who disagrees is a republican... and not worth respecting

And he says he read what i wrote, but I know better...

[a geek named Bob]

19. Dude

I don't disrespect you because you are a republican.

I disrespect you because you:

1.) ignore what the women in question have stated
2.) use flawed logic and purple prose
3.) try to equate what MLK (peace be upon his name) dealt with.... with what would happen to the wikileaks crew

THAT'S why I disrespect you.

[CabCurious]

27. Yet more personal attacks...

[EOTE]

76. Do you even know what a personal attack is?

No one is attacking you, they're attacking the utterly ludicrous and incredibly simple minded arguments that you're making. Learn the difference.

[CabCurious]

81. ad hominem... be honest

argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

[EOTE]

85. Another term I'm certain you know nothing of.

Once again, pointing out how utterly moronic your ARGUMENTS are is not a personal attack. Nearly everyone here who has a problem with your OP is pointing out the myriad flaws in what you consider to be logic. Don't post moronic right wing drivel, have people call you out on it, and then expect to get sympathy for receiving "personal attacks". Let me repeat this, it's your arguments which are moronic. We can't help it if it tends to be mostly morons and right wing trolls who make moronic arguments.

[CabCurious]

86. calling an argument "moronic" is not actually making an argument

[EOTE]

88. What's moronic is you saying that people are providing personal attacks

when they're simply tearing apart your argument. I used the term because of your constant cries of harassment. It's moronic to think that if your foolish arguments aren't taken seriously, you cry harassment. Really, if you're going to make such an argument, you should be prepared to have it torn apart.

[CabCurious]

96. Do you think Assange is above the law or not? yes or no

Or are you just going to keep repeating the word "moronic"?

[EOTE]

108. I think that's utterly beside the point.

I don't think that ANYONE is above the law. I also believe that Sweden and the U.S. are subverting the law so that they can attack and destroy Assange. Let me ask you another question: Do you think that Troy Davis was above the law? He wasn't just like anyone else, and the U.S. murdered him. So, I guess because you think that the law is so important that he deserved to die, right? I mean, according to your ridiculous logic, the U.S. or Sweden never goes after innocent people, right? Assange is avoiding a political prosecution, he's doing the right thing by that.

[CabCurious]

109. Obviously you think it's beside the point... but some of us think that is the point.

And your response is to attack us.

[EOTE]

113. Once again, I'm not attacking you.

Just the utterly moronic arguments that you're making. You have this incredibly ignorant notion that world governments never attack people who make them look bad. And, like a good right-wing authoritarian, you are outraged that anyone would dare question the motives of the sweet, dear U.S. who could never possibly lie to the American populace.

[CabCurious]

116. you're not to be taken seriously if you cant even admit the hostility and personal nature of...

"your arguments."

[EOTE]

118. Sorry, I don't suffer fools gladly.

I suppose you're used to people taking you seriously? You might want to be a little more selective of your company if that's the case.

[treestar]

40. +1 that is about as stupid as the one where the US will extradite him from Sweden

when it has not done so from the UK

[CabCurious]

57. the CIA's scheme was to accuse him of using a broken condom devoid of DNA just so...

they could drag him to Gitmo using secret indictments where he would vanish for eternity or be beheaded.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. You left out Obama

Since it obviously makes no sense ot accuse the guy we're all voting for in 2 months of being part of the nefarious plot the CTers have to claim there is a deep-rooted conspiracy in the CIA and elsewhere moving the machinery of government against Obama's knowledge or will. Sure, Obama can sign an EO using prosecutorial discretion to not deport non-criminal undocumented immigrants but he's powerless to put an end to an extradition effort that doesn't even exist.

A conspiracy so vast the POTUS is rendered an impotent, feckless by-stander.

[CabCurious]

98. Obama was too busy coordinating the fake OBL murder, so he delegated Condomgate to others

[treestar]

97. The first person brought to Gitmo who had nothing to do with terra, 911 and

the first person brought to Gitmo by Obama (who wants to close it and can't due to Congressional obstruction)!!!

Julian is just THAT important.

Next will hear that the sole reason President O. failed to close Gitmo - he's holding it open for Julian!

[a geek named Bob]

45. too easily

The USA would wait until assange is in Sweden, get an extradition order, and then put him in a very dark and forgotten cell.

Celebrity doesn't mean much, in the face of an NDAA order.

[treestar]

46. +1

He's certainly worked hard at it, too! The appeals in the UK, the Ecuador thing, anything to get attention. If he disappeared his adoring throngs would be right on it!

I think his next trick may be to run off and hide. That'll get him a few more headlines. Or he'll just go to Sweden, since, running out of tricks, that'll be the only way to get another set of headlines.

If Sweden decides not to go ahead or acquits him, and the US does nothing to him, it will be time. All that drama over nothing!

[pnwmom]

147. So it wouldn't matter if he raped 10 women then, because if he goes

to Sweden he might disappear?

[a geek named Bob]

169. geee...

more delicious words put in my mouth...

nice try...

The women in question in being ignored. I seem to remember reading they didn't want the charges pressed, had him staying on, after the alleged events.

The British Prime minister called it: they want to get rid of of whistle blower? him him with a sex charge.

How about we change venue, and have this tried at the Hague?

[pnwmom]

177. They do want the charges pressed, and Sweden is perfectly capable of handling

its own rape case.

Immediately after their assaults, they were still processing what had happened to them, and they didn't know the details of criminal law. So they didn't use the word rape. But the details of what they described clearly fit the legal definition, and so the prosecutor applied it.

From an interview this June:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-tragedy-lawyer

Julian Assange's decision to seek asylum in Ecuador is "a tragedy" for the two women who have accused him of sexual assault in Sweden, their lawyer has said.

Claes Borgström, who represents the two unnamed women with whom the WikiLeaks founder had sexual relations in Stockholm in August 2010, told the Guardian the women were frustrated and disappointed by Assange's decision to seek asylum rather than face investigation in Sweden over claims of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

"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."

[joshcryer]

185. I'm trying to figure out where the women said that it wasn't molestation and rape.

This keeps being touted here and at first I believed it but since the women are anonymous (except for an attempt by an Assange shill to give a name out) I can't find it.

If that is the "source" for "they said it's not rape."

Then you know what? Fuck every single person who uses that fucking bullshit argument. Fucking bullshit assholes.

How many young women get raped daily over shit like date rape and then they just forget about it or keep it to themselves? How many? It is fucking ridiculous how bad it is. 54%, never reported.

[pnwmom]

207. It's been kind of shocking to me to see

how much denial there is here about date rape. Lots of people here have insisted that even if everything that the women said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it still wouldn't be rape. That if they had sex the night before, then he could assume he had permission to penetrate her in her sleep. That even if she'd insisted on a condom and he didn't use one, that was okay because she didn't stop him once she woke up to find him on top of her and inside her. That she must have been sleeping naked, because otherwise he couldn't have entered her while she was sleeping. And on and on and on.

It feels like I'm on the freeper site.

Thanks for getting it, joshcryer.

[joshcryer]

212. It's a weird double standard.

I've stayed out of it because it's just fucking a shitfest of fucking crazy hatemongering that is beyond belief. This is probably my one and only time in these debates, btw. OP might even be a troll that gets banned for all I know. I don't care.

If it gets to a court those girls are in for hell if Swedish rape cases are anything like American tabloid-through-the-mud bullshit.

[pnwmom]

225. You might be interested in this article.

Among other things, it explains why, as a purely practical matter, it doesn't make sense that the US would conspire with Sweden to get him extradited to Sweden from the UK, instead of using our own extradition agreement with UK to get him extradited directly here. If he ends up in Sweden, we would have to get approval from both the UK and Sweden to get him sent here.

Also, his grandstanding is making it harder for Obama just to let this whole matter die down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/wikileaks-assange-usa-idUSL2E8JL96820120822

If Sweden took custody of Assange from Britain and then received a U.S. extradition request, Stockholm would have to go back to Britain to seek its permission before acting, she said.

Swedish law, she said, forbids extradition in cases where the accused might face execution or where the alleged crimes could be deemed "political."

[joshcryer]

235. Yeah, I know.

And there's also a bit of stuff here about it: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Glen Greenwald (LOL) attempted to falsely say that it wasn't true, but don't buy him. Follow https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen for accurate reporting on this issue, as GG is a fucking shill who invents shit: http://charonqc.wordpress.com/

It's all much to do about nothing.

[backscatter712]

230. Exactly Dr. King didn't go to jail for rape... but J. Edgar Hoover's FBI tried to nail him...

Remember COINTELPRO.

They put King under surveillance, tried to discredit him through exposing extramarital affairs - like Assange, MLK Jr. was a bit of a party animal. They tried to destroy his marriage, they sent him anonymous letters encouraging him to commit suicide. And this wasn't some half-witted group of racists, this was the FBI!

But of course, if I suggest that our government, the governments of the UK and Swedent, or interested corporations, or anyone else would do anything like trying to dishonestly discredit Assange by taking what should be a private matter between Assange and those two women and making it into an international manhunt, that's just conspiracy theory.

Fundamentally, the thing we're lacking here is proportionality. Was Assange's actions with those two women douchey? Yes, but not criminal, certainly not something on the order of magnitude of seriousness that would suggest that Assange be treated like Ted Bundy. If it were anyone but Assange, this would be a matter between him and the women, there would be no criminal charges at all. Maybe some lawyers and a civil suit, but nothing that the press would give a shit about.

The people screaming "RAPE!" clearly have a core agenda that is not about those two women - they're using this as a political football, and as a COINTELPRO style discrediting campaign.

[a geek named Bob]

234. I figure TPTB are starting to look

at their piles of lies...

and the cracks in the wall that hides them.

Sunlight's a-coming.

[99Forever]

18. I've read plenty of your bullshit.

You ignore ALL of the facts and run on purely unsubstantiated allegations. For the thousandth time, Julian Assange HAS NOT been charged with ANYTHING, period. NOTHING. You've already convicted him with your lies.

What is YOUR motive in trying to railroad a legitimate journalist with nothing but pure smear?

[a geek named Bob]

22. In the older detective movies

You knew the PI was hot on the trail, when the bad guys started sending heavies to rough him up.

I figure there's going to be a LOT more assange character assassination before this is done.

[CabCurious]

29. Yet more personal attacks... now EVERYTHING i had ever said is "bullshit"

[99Forever]

37. You said it.

"now EVERYTHING i had ever said is "bullshit""

See, we can agree on something.

[CabCurious]

59. And everything you've said was predicted in the OP

[99Forever]

64. So what?

What is that supposed to prove?

(That's rhetorical.)

You wanted to be sure you would be able play "oh noes, I'm a po' po' victim" card.

Who is it you think you are fooling?

[CabCurious]

67. Instead of continuing with your flames... answer two simple y/n questions

1. Do you believe these two women are lying?

2. Do you believe Assange is above the law and justice system? (pertaining the sex allegations)

[99Forever]

74. I don't answer loaded bullshit questions.

Assange HAS NOT been charged with ANY crime. PERIOD.

[CabCurious]

83. Correct, he's just fleeing an investigation with pending charges

Yet you'll probably be the first to insist the US has secret charges and intentions to execute him.

[99Forever]

119. Another lie.

He is a political refuge taking refuge in an embassy.

Why do you keep lying?

What IS your agenda?

[CabCurious]

122. Oh right, I forgot... it's known fact that this is all about the USA extraditing him for execution

[99Forever]

128. What is your agenda?

Quite clearly, it isn't about justice or honesty.

Why are you smearing a man who has yet to be charged with ANY crime?

[CabCurious]

131. To take accusations of sexual coercion seriously.

[99Forever]

141. What is your REAL agaenda.

There has been NO charge of "sexual coercion" brought or ANY other crime for that matter.


WHAT IS YOUR REAL AGENDA?

[CabCurious]

144. To get more progressives to take these accusations more seriously? IDK, you tell me...

since you think you know.

[99Forever]

154. Not too good at the..

... bait thing, are you.

What is your REAL agenda?

[treestar]

41. Sweden is pursuing him

Not mere DU posters.

[treestar]

47. Read the article on Swedish procedures

A lot of the claims of persecution are based on just not understanding that.

[pnwmom]

148. Swedish law doesn't work just like American law. They can't charge him till they arrest him.

In America, charges come early in the process. Then they build the case. In Sweden, charges come late in the process, in the late stages of an investigation, but they can't charge until there has been an arrest. They can't arrest him while he's in another country.

So first they have to arrest him, then they can charge him. Assange knows that's what they're intending to do, and that's why he doesn't want to go there.

[99Forever]

153. Oh goodie!

Another apologist for dirty political gamers smearing a man who's only "guilty" of shining a light on their evil deeds.


I've read the timeline, save the bullshit for the gullible dupes. We know what is being tried and why, as does any honest person with a functional brain.

[pnwmom]

157. Oh goodie. Another apologist for the legions of fans

happy to lick their hero's clay feet.

[joshcryer]

168. Assange has an arrest warrent. Can't be charged in Sweden until arrested.

If he ever gets extradited it'll be interesting to watch the two girls in the case be thrown under the bus.

[99Forever]

175. The TPTB apologists need to get some fresh material.

This crap has been debunked dozens of times already. It's getting boring.

[joshcryer]

182. Are you calling me a TPTB apologist?

Why don't you come out and say it?

I'll happily call anyone who apologizes for Assange's rape a rape apologist.

[99Forever]

190. I couldn't care less what you call me.

I do however, have a problem with people who insult my intelligence with bullshit.

[joshcryer]

194. You haven't provided me any evidence to those ends.

All I get are smears from you.

If you don't want to "rehash" something with me when I've avoided these debates then fucking don't.

Don't pretend that you are some arbiter of knowledge and try to shut me down by flagrantly insulting me.

I'm prepared to refute any of the nonsense that you want to throw at me. Particularly because I am simply unconvinced you know what you're talking about.

Everything I have said is factual.

[99Forever]

196. Go hump somebody elses leg..

... I'm not interested.

Good bye.

[joshcryer]

198. As I suspected.

You got nothing.

[randome]

200. As I posted a few days ago...

...it's the pro-Assange posters who more often resort to insults and invective and 'Ignore'.

Progressives should respect one another and debate, not denigrate.

[joshcryer]

202. Oh snap, you're right, I just got ignored. Haha, awesome.

Another person I won't be needing on my jury.

I've followed the threads and noticed that as well, hateful, just really cruel vindictive shit for people who just want to see justice served. If the women are "lying money grubbing whores" as some pro-Assange sites are trying to make them out to be then the jury will decide, right?

[Riftaxe]

248. Assange cannot be charged until he is on Swedish soil

but you knew that...that is the reason he fled Sweden.

[99Forever]

254. I know that's the phony excuse people like you are using.

Oh and btw, that bullshit has been debunked MANY times and I'm not interested in wasting my time with people who won't listen anyway.

Good bye.

[a geek named Bob]

10. Ladybug

1.) Sorry to hear about your misfortune.
2.) I agree with your points. When folks like the OP just run on with the anti Assange points, I figure TPTB are worried sick about the possible outcomes

[CabCurious]

15. "folks like the OP" (once again, you all rely on personal attacks... of fellow progressives who...)

Are simply saying "you know, this guy MIGHT be a creep and the women MIGHT be telling the truth."

You all continue to argue he's above the law... and that we're all just supporting the evil empire or something by being "anti assange."

[a geek named Bob]

17. MMM... yum yum yum

Those words you keep putting in my mouth are tangy and delicous.

1.) Ladybug pointed out that you are ignoring what the women in question are saying. Why is that?
2.) I have no problems with a trial. I have problems with kangaroo courts, and with Assange getting disappeared by the USA's extraordinary rendition program, because Sweden's too gimpy to follow human rights.
3.) "MIGHT be a creep" is no basis for legal action. We need facts. Otherwise, hypothetically, We could have you locked up, because you MIGHT be a drug dealer that peddles drugs to kids, while disguised as a nun.

[CabCurious]

21. Im not ignoring what the women accused him of... yet you are

If you agree that he should go to Sweden and defend himself, then stop attacking me.

Because you're certainly not being reasonable or based on facts. I personally suspect that he'd be done with this whole legal mess if he hadn't fled,because there's apparently a very weak case in terms of actual evidence against him.

But the point I'm making is that FOLKS LIKE YOU are attacking EVERYBODY who says this man is not above the law.

And yes, I do suspect he's a creep but I also recognize that I could be wrong. Can you?

[fascisthunter]

23. Interesting how this poster ignores those facts

Isn't it!

[CabCurious]

25. Do you believe he's above the law?

[a geek named Bob]

26. If the OP ignores those facts

He hasn't got much of a case for his smear attempts.

[CabCurious]

32. What facts? All I've seen are personal attacks... heated ones

[a geek named Bob]

39. I'll give you points for trolling

but...

1.) you've ignored what the women in question have said... repeatedly dancing around it
2.) apparently, if we don't agree with you, we are attacking you
3.) you seem to believe that the USA won't make assange vanish

Maybe logic and facts aren't your thing. (I'll give you points for Pro-Am purple prose)

[treestar]

49. The women want the government to proceed

That's the biggest lie the adorers are onto.

[a geek named Bob]

52. ummm

are you saying that the women don't want the trial to proceed?

[treestar]

92. They do want it to proceed

[CabCurious]

66. It's the most disturbing and shocking of the claims, too

Here we have a rape victim passionately attacking ME while claiming that the ACCUSERS aren't actually accusing him of anything.

This is genuinely the most disturbing phenomenon I've ever seen in progressive politics.

[treestar]

95. If what these women said happened and it is a violation of Swedish law

I'm having a hard time with the idea of them not wanting anything to happen to him. I mean it's like they would be condoning it. Who would do that? There are women who drop charges or don't report rapes and liberals usually know that for the most part that is due to fear of the abuser or the way they will end up on trial themselves. Which some are doing to these women, blaming them or accusing them of lying just like a Todd Akin would.

[CabCurious]

106. I agree, but governments are going to kick him around... and that's all his supporters want to see.

The sad thing is this could all boil down to an innocent guy having very poor manners and communication skills when it comes to sexual relationships. Those incidents involved consensual sex where he engaged in suspicious behavior... from a guy who apparently just went onto the next lady while visiting. Thus, two women felt abused and now he's getting this incredible heat... simply because he was scared and poor at personal relations. That's possible.

But there's almost no way he's going to prison for these charges, if there is no DNA on the condom in question.

Meanwhile, governments are absolutely going to give him a hard time which will continue to validate the views of those who think this is ONLY about attacking wikileaks.

[treestar]

112. And it's part of civil disobedience to deal with the heat

And it's not like our government is totalitarian and unelected. It is not all unmitigated good, either. I understand some informants were exposed. We have a system for classification of documents - some of them may not have been classified for long, or if they were, do we want him to decide when everyone finds out about it, including other governments? And why not limit the leaks to the really bad things, instead of just dumping a lot of stuff? It seems neither he nor Manning put a lot of thought into this and they appear just motivated by rage (or in Julian's case, dramatic "celebrity" of a twisted kind).

[CabCurious]

120. A M E N

As for Manning, I think he genuinely wanted to expose abuses that he personally witnesses. I believe he contacted Assange's people who really fluffed him up to be the next superhero of america. He apparently gave them all those cables as encrypted documents.

And now Manning goes off to do the time for Treason, while Assange insists as "a-matter-of-principle" that he can't talk about Manning or come to his defense. To do so would be to "compromise" Manning's defense, right?

It was that entire series of events that made me start to question Assange.

In other words, I totally agree and I think he's done HARM to the mission of wikileaks and whistle blowers.

[joshcryer]

191. Yeah, when the warrant was withdrawn they appealed.

They appear to actively be seeking Assange's arrest and they appear willing to testify at trial.

They will be vilified as "whores" most likely.

It's going to be interesting if they ever get their day in court.

edit: looks like that's already happening with "AA" because she deleted some tweets.

[CabCurious]

54. I welcome DU jury to decide which of us is flaming and trolling

I sincerely am bothered by the behavior on these Assange threads and the hostility against ANYBDOY who dares to question assange.

[backscatter712]

214. Upton Sinclair's quote couldn't be more fitting...

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[a geek named Bob]

232. what gets me about the RW-spinners...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316

and then they reopened the case, 11 days later. I figure something * cough * USA CIA * cough * got to the swedish prosecutor.

Let's try this whole thing at the Hague, where there won't be any funny business about "investigations" by the USA.

[joshcryer]

240. The victims appealed for it to be reopened.

They may not have been convinced the victims were serious about the matter.

Why the victims appealed is anyones guess.

I am willing to accept a conspiracy.

Just need evidence.

[a geek named Bob]

243. Okay

Then we take the whole thing to the Hague, and we're done.

Gimme time to put on my tin foil hat, and I'll start spinning a theory...

[joshcryer]

245. I think it was young stupid shit that sucks.

The girl didn't know she was being raped because she isn't aware of the eccentricities of the law. Once the police / lawyers made it clear to her she was wrong she decided to appeal when it was dropped.

There may also be a future book deal and a potential payout for it, as well.

And all that will be aired in the court to slander / shame the young victims.

If it ever goes to court.

[a geek named Bob]

247. this is one of those times...

When I propound the use of truth serums...

[joshcryer]

220. What are the "women in question saying"? Got a link?

[treestar]

44. Pot calling kettle black

Some people are always pro-Julian, to the point that he's above the law, so why is it wrong to post only against him?

I'm against random publishing of documents, as it can have good as well as bad effects, and it's just a dump, nothing like Ellsberg (who faced the music). I do not believe the US is a rogue state that will "disappear" him and that it won't proceed against him or if it did would do so with our system with all its rights and checks and balances. And I certainly think he should face the charges in Sweden. IMO the bullshit is to insist everything is a conspiracy against him and that he's a heroic martyr.

[treestar]

38. Nope

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1162179

[CabCurious]

56. True. What Sweden calls "rape" is not what Americans do... and so i find it really disturbing that.

People are suggesting these women aren't accusing Assange of sexual coercion.

To be honest, I didn't even realize how serious these charges were until i went back and looked them up.

[redqueen]

99. We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange?cat=commentisfree&type=article

I've been just hiding most of these threads but now I think I'll link to some educational reading before doing so.

This shit is insulting.

[pnwmom]

150. This screed is repeating the myth that there is some advantage to the US

in having Assange in Sweden for extradition purposes rather than the UK. If the US wanted to extradite him, they could have done it during the many months he was walking around in the UK. It serves the US no purpose to conspire to get him to Sweden where, if extradition is required, we would then need to get approval from both the UK AND Sweden.

[pnwmom]

145. The women are anxious to have him prosecuted for rape, molestation,

and assault. Why don't you believe them?

Immediately after their assaults, they were still processing what had happened to them, and they didn't know the details of criminal law. So they didn't use the word rape. But the details of what they described clearly fit the legal definition, and so the prosecutor applied it. You're the one who isn't believing the women. They want him to be prosecuted, but you want Assange to have a free pass.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-tragedy-lawyer

Julian Assange's decision to seek asylum in Ecuador is "a tragedy" for the two women who have accused him of sexual assault in Sweden, their lawyer has said.

Claes Borgström, who represents the two unnamed women with whom the WikiLeaks founder had sexual relations in Stockholm in August 2010, told the Guardian the women were frustrated and disappointed by Assange's decision to seek asylum rather than face investigation in Sweden over claims of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

"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."

[fascisthunter]

20. Boy are you transparent

[CabCurious]

24. Yes... another personal attack of a progressive who DARES to say... you know, maybe they aint lying

[a geek named Bob]

28. Dude

At the moment, you are about as progressive as I'm still catholic...

No proof given for statement.

[CabCurious]

30. Right... now im a liar... im not even progressive... back to me being a republican lol

[a geek named Bob]

33. No

I won't nail that last nail in your martyr's cross.

I just stated you haven't shown proof for your assertions that you are a progressive.

[CabCurious]

35. So while you smear and attack, i must "prove myself" to you

[a geek named Bob]

197. you still have yet to engage in factual arguments...

Please feel free to drop the purple prose

[a geek named Bob]

31. I'm waiting for the next step in the smear train

"They're attacking me! WHY are they being so mean?"

[CabCurious]

34. You think he's above the law, then? You yourself are running out of smears

I consider it very possible that he's completely innocent, once again.

[a geek named Bob]

43. Wow

Calling you on your smears is smearing you... You really must love that martyr's cross.

See, that's why I don't respect you. The stupid burns.

Also, you seem to have no trouble with extraordinary rendition. Kind of figures.

[CabCurious]

50. I made reasoned points and asked sincere questions. You've done nothing but flame and smear

Again, I even consider it possible that Assange is completely innocent.

I happen to believe that he needs to go to Sweden, either way, regardless of US efforts or intentions.

[a geek named Bob]

55. Ah...

1.) you haven't made reasonable points. You've made insinuations.
2.) You've ignored what the women in question have said. (Tip of the hat to Ladybug.)
3.) Sweden can't guarantee assange's safety from the USA disappearing assange "for national security reasons."

Calling you on your propaganda is flame and smear? Nice try.

Any time you want to stop peddling the RW talking points, feel free.

[treestar]

51. So are you

isn't it the pot calling kettle black!

[CabCurious]

48. For those who GENUINELY believe these accusations against Assange actually hurt women

I understand that some people presume these women are either lying or don't accuse him of "rape" as more commonly understood, which thus makes this case into something that undermines the seriousness of rape. Nonetheless, they did accuse him of the things listed in the OP. And those things are serious.

Either way, Assange's refusal to cooperate with Sweden isn't helping the matter. ANd no, he doesn't get to sit in the UK and only cooperate on his own terms (by demanding Sweden break treaties and international law just for Special Him).

More importantly, why avoid these charges at all?

There isn't DNA evidence on the condom in question. Almost everything else is he-said, she-said in situations involving consensual sex. The chances of him going to prison are slim, regardless of what actually happened on those nights. If they are actually lying or if this was honest misunderstanding, then it seems like his best interest to take these issues seriously... and to defend himself.

If you see my logic there, Assange would be doing JUSTICE to himself and to the wider cause by facing the charges.

The question is whether people believe that's secondary to any potential extradition to the USA.

[xchrom]

63. I'm sorry. It just sounds like you want the dirty, nasty

Details of what went on in the sack.

[a geek named Bob]

65. EWWW

[xchrom]

68. Right? But this OP has a way of coming across

As having sexualized this whole thing.

[CabCurious]

70. it must be ME who is "sexualizing" a sex coercion case...

rather than insisting it's entirely about wikileaks and US conspiracy theory.

[a geek named Bob]

71. Good point.

On the other hand, argument by pathos is a long standing tradition.

Also, it worked so very well in the Lewinsky case. (During that time, A buddy of mine and I had a restaurant bet that Star would release porn vids. I lost the bet. Restaurants are pricey in mid town Manhattan.)

[CabCurious]

73. "argument by pathos" (+1 for irony)

[a geek named Bob]

80. Goodie!

My first +1!

And offered by someone trying to cause trouble!

I'll put this new +1 on my mantelpiece.

When you'd like to show actual facts, we can talk about argument by logos.

Until then, I await your next stentorian utterance of argument by pathos.

[CabCurious]

69. Fair cynicism (and I hadn't honestly even thought about that aspect)... but no

I personally don't even think the prosecution has enough evidence for him to be found guilty, but then again I am not that familiar with Sweden's justice system.

[JoeyT]

58. I'd take the attempt to extradite him a lot more seriously,

if this were routinely the way rape charges were handled.

As it is, it just looks like they were hunting an excuse, any excuse. If these women were raped by someone that wasn't famous for embarrassing governments, I wonder how many people would be on their side. Most rape victims have trouble getting their rapist arrested, and we're expected to believe there's nothing unusual about threatening to raid an embassy to get one?

I'd be fine with Assange facing rape charges. In fact, I would prefer Assange's accusers get the opportunity to face him in court. If he did it, he *should* go to prison. What he shouldn't face is rendition without a trial and torture. We're assured that won't happen, but we were also assured Saddam had WMDs, we never tortured people, we stopped torturing people, we never disappeared anyone, etc. I have basically zero trust in our government or the Swedish government's desire for justice of any sort.

Sure we haven't formally started extradition attempts with Sweden (Who doesn't have him.), but "We aren't even trying to get him legally" rings hollow as a defense when it's made by a country that's been kidnapping people and holding them without trials for the last decade.

Can you honestly tell us that you find *nothing* suspicious about multiple governments suddenly caring about rape victims this much when they obviously didn't care last year and you know damned well they won't care next year?

[CabCurious]

61. This is Swedish law, not American law

What he's being accused of isn't rape by our definitions. And they don't handle justice in the same procedures that we expect.

And no... I don't find it "suspicious" that a lot of countries are happy to see this man dig himself in a hole after he's gone from being a legitimate leak publisher into the business of both indiscriminately publishing classified information (that had no bearing on abuses) and NOW currently peddling intel for his own personal gains/leverage.

I am not inclined to believe this is all some conspiracy, no.

There isn't even DNA on the condom in question. This isn't some sophisticated political hit job. I also believe that if the USA wanted him in prison pertaining wikileaks then they'd be a LOT more open and direct.

[JoeyT]

89. I didn't say it was rape by our definitions,

thought from the description of events I'd consider it rape by my definition. What matters is whether the victims consider it rape by their definitions, though they're not even in the top ten considerations when it comes to getting a guy that embarrassed us while our guy was president. Especially since part of that showed the extent of the lawlessness of the previous administration, which we don't have the guts to do anything about.

Your second paragraph pretty much says it all: We don't care about rape victims, but we'll sure use them to shut someone up when it's convenient.

See, that's the problem I have with this. Strangely all the people that think he should be going back to face rape charges are exactly the people that would be ok with him being kidnapped and tortured without a trial too. It doesn't take much poking to deflate that balloon.

[CabCurious]

100. Agreed on all points... and I do agree that these governments want to shut him up

But... you don't get to publish hundreds of thousands of classified documents from around the world and continue living a playboy lifestyle on the run forever.

I don't see ANYTHING actually principled about this man.

Like many PROGRESSIVES, his behavior increasingly became suspicious when wikileaks increasingly became about his press conferences, his face, and leaks that didn't even expose genuine government abuses. I even suspect Assange manipulated Manning into doing something way beyond what Manning originally intended (which was very honorable).

As for all this stuff about him being kidnapped and tortured, I'm just not buying it.

[Raster]

187. Ok, so you agree with JoeyT..."agreed on all points...and I do agree that these governments....

...want to shut him up

But... you don't get to publish hundreds of thousands of classified documents from around the world and continue living a playboy lifestyle on the run forever.

I don't see ANYTHING actually principled about this man."

So all your window dressing protestations aside, it really just boils down to piss and envy?

[truebluegreen]

180. Excellent, cogent response. Thank you. n/t

[Fumesucker]

60. Fifty eight replies and zero recs so far..

Evidently even the Assangeophobes don't buy your arguments..

[CabCurious]

62. And that matters how? As predicted...

[Fumesucker]

78. I never said it did matter..

But it's quite clear very few DUers agree with the analysis in your OP.

[CabCurious]

84. And yet you obviously think it matters... but those of us (and im not alone)...

Will continue to stand on principle on this, while we watch so many progressives defending this man and insisting he's above the law and diminishing the accusations against him for sexual coercion.

And again, I consider it possible that he's completely innocent of the accusations. That's doesn't mean he gets to be above the law.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

91. I'm glad he's above the law when the accusations are bullshit...

Just as I'm glad Chen Guangcheng was above the law when we protected him.

I absolutely love jurisdiction and diplomacy laws for precisely this reason.

[CabCurious]

107. So the women are lying and he's absolutely above the law. Got it.

He's a real civil rights hero... withholding banking records and other leaks for his own personal protection and leverage.

[Fumesucker]

103. It wouldn't surprise me if Assange is guilty of something in violation of Swedish law..

However the extraordinary behavior of both Sweden and the UK in this matter make me think there is something else, some other factor involved in this pursuit of Mr Assange.

I trust the US government in this matter just about as far as I could throw the national debt if you converted it to one extremely large gold monolith.

[CabCurious]

111. It could be BOTH him running from honest accusations & governments wanting to crush

And let's be honest.

These accusations are not going to hold up well in court if there's not even DNA evidence on the condom.

That doesn't exactly sound like a very good conspiracy to send him to Gitmo.

[HangOnKids]

173. Check Out The Recs Now

Of course you can guess who is there!

[joshcryer]

158. I support Assange but I'll give it a rec even though it's not as well stated as it could be.

The people saying "the girl doesn't think it's rape" to be "penetrated without a condom while sleeping after explicit consent was given only if a condom was used" are simply wrong.

That's the single qualifying definition of rape. To do sexually insert without consent.

Now, people will again say "the girl says it wasn't rape!"

So the fuck what? How many teenagers or young adults get date raped and then go into denial about it? Oh yes, there are so many cases out there that when the girl comes out about it days later the defense effectively uses it to trash her, denigrate her, insult her, the list goes on. It's one reason that so many women keep a tight lip about these things because society doesn't want to deny men what they want. (Society being ruled mostly by men after all.)

The fact is the girl wanted an HIV test for an unwanted non-condom protected penetration.

She was raped. It doesn't matter what she says. It's a fact. It was non-consensual.

The patriarchy thrives on women not standing up for themselves and allowing themselves to be denigrated over things like this.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

90. Correctly predicting disagreement with you does not negate the responses...

Maybe you and the other people on DU that obsessively post about Assange can start a forum somewhere and obsessively discuss your hate for Assange all you want.

It shouldn't take much bandwidth for 3 users. Maybe some intelligent agency moles can join in on the fun.

[CabCurious]

101. They aren't disagreements... they are 99% personal attacks and ad hominem arguments

[EOTE]

124. You do know that ad hominems and personal attacks are the same thing, right?

And you do know that pointing out how incredibly ignorant your arguments are is nothing approaching a personal attack, right? Also, you're aware that rather than reply to any of the substantive facts which completely negate your OP, you've spent this entire thread whining about how people are personally attacking you, right? Just checking because it seems extremely clear that you aren't aware of those facts.

[CabCurious]

132. not always... sometimes attacks are just attacks and not even trying to connect to arguments...

or the topic.

[EOTE]

160. By definition, an ad hominem argument does not pertain to the topic.

So yes, they're one and the same.

[CabCurious]

162. how about we give it a rest?

[EOTE]

166. Once again, the purpose of an ad hominem is to attack the messenger, IE a personal attack.

Or are you suggesting that people here are simply calling you a dick, yet claiming that has nothing to do with your argument?

And by the way, I present your arguments for the tripe that they are so that people can see through your sad attempts to protect the MIC. Whether you know you're doing so or not is irrelevant.

[EOTE]

167. Who is this "we" you speak of, you got a hamster in your pocket?

If you'd like for me to stop, you're more than welcome to stop playing stooge for the MIC. Until then, I don't think it's likely I'm going to stop calling out bullshit where I see it.

[a geek named Bob]

105. I'm SOOO getting the popcorn

[janlyn]

102. zero trust

I simply find that a man who is wanted for questioning with NO charges as yet brought against him, is such an importance that a country would threaten to raid an embassy, very suspicious!!

Do I also find that he is a bit egotistical and probably not a very nice person? from everything I have seen on him,that is probably true as well.

The question you should ask yourself is...do you trust your Government? Do you honestly believe that they don't do things slightly illegal and against human rights?

You have to know they do,or you have been living under a rock....


So with that being said,don't you think that it is within the realm of possibility that this is all trumped up to burn him??

remember,just because a man is paranoid,does not mean he is without enemies.

I have my suspicions,but I will reserve full judgement either way.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. Why is the US government so concerned about a nobody who is alleged to have committed a crime

in Sweden?

[CabCurious]

114. What's the relevance to the accusations and Sweden's justice system?

Is Assange above the law?

Do you believe this is all some conspiracy to drag him to Gitmo using secret indictments?

The best the USA could come up with is a broken condom devoid of any DNA evidence in a he-said, she-said case in Sweden?

The USA and UK couldn't come up with something that allows the UK to extradite him directly to the USA?

Or maybe... we should respect the fact that two women are accusing him of sexual misconduct and stop arguing that he's above the law because of wikileaks politics?

[janlyn]

129. No evidence

So by your own admission all the swedes have is a condom with NO DNA,and NO formal charges brought against him..

So why are they trying so hard to get him based simply on a she said, he said accusations..

Do you not find THAT just a tad bit suspicious???

[CabCurious]

142. That's the irony. It's just an investigation and the evidence is almost entirely heresay.

I'll go so far as I predict that they cannot find him guilty on pure hearsay.

I even believe it's possible that this was entirely a misunderstanding between consenting adults.

Yet Assange is fleeing the country, making threats to release documents (that he was supposed to release anyways as a truth warrior), and generally getting in front of cameras with conspiracy theories.

[Warren Stupidity]

179. the relevance is obvious. Why is the US government so very concerned about this case?

[randome]

184. Who says they are?

A couple of mid-level diplomats made some reckless statements but that's about all. Oh, and Biden waded into it when he shouldn't have but do you really think that was a calculated statement to air their dirty linen in public? That was just Biden being Biden.

So if you think the U.S. government is 'very concerned', what makes you think that?

[Warren Stupidity]

255. "A couple of mid-level diplomats made some reckless statements"

wow. Is that the official explanation or have you gone off on your own?

[Bonobo]

123. To be frank, I think I had your number when you wrote this response to me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1184964

Something about the way you said "many democrats" made me pretty damn sure you were referring to the "other".

Could I be wrong? Oh yes. The Joe Biden thread was a good move on your part.

Do I trust my radar? You bet your ass I do. I've been around the block and age does bring some things besides sore knees. Usually you have seen the same type of behavior before and have the advantage on those that overestimate their own cleverness.

[a geek named Bob]

125. What Bonobo said!

[EOTE]

130. Not very subtle, is he?

Ahh yes, the man who brought us welfare reform, NAFTA and the Telecom Act of 1996 brought the center of this country to the left.

[CabCurious]

139. Yes... i MUST BE a republican who is insincere!!!!

How could any progressive POSSIBLY question Julian Assange on matters of sexual coercion accusations?

[EOTE]

163. How could any progressive focus SOLELY on Assange for hundreds of posts

when there are dozens of far more important issues? And how could any progressive possibly believe they're not being manipulated with regard to Assange if he/she has been conscious for the past 12 years or so? And in case you're wondering, yes, these are rhetorical questions.

[HangOnKids]

171. Hey Give Cab A Break He's Been Here 3 Weeks Posting 30x A Day

I'm sure he's worn out.

[EOTE]

174. And not a single post that I've seen that doesn't pertain to Assange.

Apparently being progressive means making an excuse for every awful thing our military does while ignoring literally everything else. I'm utterly shocked that there are so many here who fall for it hook, line and sinker.

[HangOnKids]

176. Oh No He Has Been Very Active In Zimmerman Threads As Well

CatWoman and I were just chatting about that. Don't be shocked by the people falling for it, they aren't, they are SUPPORTING it. You know same agenda.....

[EOTE]

183. Do I even want to know the position on Zimmerman?

I'm just going to take a wild guess and say that it's that Zimmerman was solely defending himself and exercising his 2nd amendment rights as a patriotic American?

[HangOnKids]

195. Cab Wants All The Facts!

[EOTE]

211. And we all know that facts have been really hard to come by in that case. NT

[CabCurious]

186. What nonsense... seriously... you should be ashamed

But of course you aren't.

Go back to studying my posts for your unprincipled defense of Assange.

[HangOnKids]

193. Go Play In Traffic Cab

[randome]

178. Funny. I haven't seen much from you about anything else lately.

And it doesn't matter to me what you post on any more than I care about anyone else's post count or subject matter of interest.

What should matter to all of us who claim to be Progressive is a reasonable discussion of the issues, nothing more.

[EOTE]

181. OK, I've been waiting for a reasonable discussion of the issues for a while.

And all I get is ridiculous right-wing talking points and nothing but from this particular poster. How odd that I'd be distrustful of someone who solely posts on this subject and by default takes the exact same position of those who defend the MIC. Odd.

[randome]

188. I didn't think this thread was about the military. I thought it was about Assange.

Many heroes have personal flaws. I think Assange is one such person.

[EOTE]

210. I don't doubt that Assange has flaws, probably loads of them.

But that doesn't change the fact that the reason that he's wanted by the Swedes has nothing whatsoever to do with rape.

[randome]

216. You don't know that. There is no evidence to support that.

And anyways, that shouldn't matter for a true hero of the people. You know the main reason I believe Assange to be full of shit? His 'threat' to release damaging info into the world.

Now if he was truly a man of the people who wanted to expose wrong-doing, why would he sit on this info? Was it to use as a bargaining chip?

Now that he's run himself into a corner in the Ecuadorian embassy, he may as well let the info out.

But he won't because he has nothing.

[EOTE]

222. He sure as hell has every right to protect himself.

You, and many other here, seem to want to shit on Assange simply because he won't martyr himself. Let me clue you into something, Assange can get a hell of a lot more accomplished if he's not spending the rest of his life in jail.

[randome]

229. My point is that his 'protection' is mute now that he's trapped himself in the embassy.

So full steam ahead, I say! Except there is no steam in him, only a personal embarrassment that runs too deep.

That's the way I see it, anyway. I understand if you feel differently but to me Assange has shown all the signs of being a narcissist who enjoys playing celebrity.

And that has nothing to do with my support of Wikileaks.

[CabCurious]

133. keep up with the "he's a republican" personal attacks... keep searching, digging...

anything besides respectfully acknowledging my sincerity and points.

[CabCurious]

134. Seriously... think about how crazy this is, bonobo

All i am doing is questioning 1 man who has fled a country because of sexual coercion cases.

And your response is to PATHETICALLY dig through my forum posts? And accuse me of being a republican troll because i used nouns in a suspicious manner?

I've noticed your posts and them have usually seemed spot on and reasonable. I hope you can think about this.

[joshcryer]

159. Don't worry, if they can't refute the argument they resort to attacks.

Now, you could well be a troll, I don't know.

I don't really care though because you're basically rehashing the court documents and no one here can refute them.

They have to deflect with bullshit about how the women are claiming it's not rape.

Yeah, some women claim their husbands don't beat them either.

Women are also known to completely hide the fact that they were raped because rape culture makes it perfectly acceptable to let a rapist get away with it.

There's a reason rape is so prevalent. It's the rape apologists.

[CabCurious]

164. It's just depressing

And I do consider it possible that these women are basically misunderstanding him.

And I also question the prosecutions case, both in terms of their handling of it and the evidence against him.

However, I will NEVER apologize for standing on the side of these women's right to a fair investigation.

[HangOnKids]

172. The Biden Thread Was 4th Grade Brown Nosing Tripe

Anybody who didn't catch the stench there needs to go back to 3rd grade.

[CabCurious]

189. yes... keep on this "he is obviously a troll and must be attacked" rationalization

of your baseless flaming and abuse.

All in the name of truth and justice, right?

[HangOnKids]

192. Go Play In Traffic Cab

[fascisthunter]

256. Yup....

...they really think we are THAT stupid. HAHAHA... They suck at what they do.

[Dash87]

126. I believe in what Wikileaks is doing.

I followed them even before they got popular.

However, Assange should give himself up and be brought to justice. It's not for us to decide if he's guilty or innocent - that's what a court is for. The US should keep their hands off of him, though.

There's nothing worse than idealizing a human being, rather than idealizing an idea. Assange deserves the same scrutiny as anyone else.

[CabCurious]

137. Exactly.

And I honestly think his personal character flaws have undermined wikileak's credibility and mission.

Then again, I also suspect the charges in Sweden will fail to stick. It's a very weak case.

AND it's entirely possible that it was all a misunderstanding, but running didn't help matters.

[kestrel91316]

127. I can and do separate the man's good works with Wikileaks from

his bad personal behavior.

I'm pretty sure people on the RIGHT do this all the time with people they like. Heck, we on the left pretty much did it with President Clinton.

But carry on with your flamebaiting and shitstirring. While you can.

[CabCurious]

136. It certainly is shitstirring... but yet important

And I think you would agree that it's important.

[randome]

135. The truth about Assange has nothing to do with the U.S. or even with sexual improprieties.

The reason Assange will hide forever inside an Ecuadorian embassy is because he doesn't want to face the fact that women fall asleep when they are in bed with him.

[magical thyme]

151. ok, that made me lol!

thank you.

[randome]

165. I'm serious, though.

Some people's egos are far more important to them than anything else. Some will die rather than admit to a personal failing. And sex is one of those areas that makes the human mind crazy.

[magical thyme]

257. I doubt that's the reason here. One of the"victim's" tweet record apparently shows

that she was not asleep before the alleged "sex by surprise."

And neither victim went running to the police until after they discovered he was dating them both. In fact, they made plans to meet with him at parties and whatever later. Again, until they discovered he was dating them both.

Assange volunteered to be questioned while in Sweden, and the police declined.

Sweden continues to be free to question him in the UK. They refuse.

Various US leaders have made it clear they want him jailed, prosecuted, executed, etc. He has pissed off a lot of people in power. He has good reason to be afraid.

Since when has rape become an interpol issue? Never mind, "sex by surprise?"

[pnwmom]

138. Excellent post, CabCurious. Thank you for pulling this all together. n/t

[CabCurious]

140. Thanks... it sure doesn't feel nice having so many attacks... and accusations...

[pnwmom]

146. When people know the facts aren't on their side, they resort to personal attacks.

It's sad to see, but there are lots of hero worshippers here, who will excuse anything he does.

[HangOnKids]

170. Ugh. Off to ignore. I don't have to explain why.

[valerief]

152. No reason to believe the charges considering the Wikileaks issues. Duh. nt

[bemildred]

156. Yawn.nt

[backscatter712]

199. Got it. If you're skeptical of the charges against Assange, you're a misogynistic woman-hater.

Didn't you know? This issue is all black and white. No shades of grey. No allowances for complex situations, or in this case, hidden agendas.

This is the OP in short. Agree with me on Assange, or I'll label you as a sexist pig.

Don't think we're not wise to your bullying tactics. Better switch to another sockpuppet.

[joshcryer]

208. For what it's worth I'm highly skeptical of the charges against Assange.

Particularly because it's damn fucking rare that a high profile white male goes down for rape. If it ever goes to trial the alleged victims will be slandered to fuck and back, mercilessly. Assange will very likely get off.

What people are arguing for is for it to have its day in court.

Some people here think some deserve impunity.

[Puglover]

226. + a brazillion!

[aquart]

206. Hysteria much? Total failure to grasp the big picture much?

It's awful the way so many are so easily distracted by a twirling, bright shiny object.

[4th law of robotics]

218. If the "victims" said they weren't raped is it still rape?

[joshcryer]

219. Link?

[4th law of robotics]

221. Just going by what I've read

An extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.[240][241] At the hearing, Assange's defence raised a variety of objections, including mismatches between the EAW and the original accuser statements to the Swedish police[242][243] that exaggerated the nature of the complaints.[244][245] In particular they argued the original police reports showed - contrary to the EAW - absence of alleged rape; absence of alleged force or injury; admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations; and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one.

The defence also highlighted evidence that: plaintiff 2 had later admitted to being "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep"; that the plaintiffs had originally been seeking to compel Assange to take an STD test rather than prosecution;[246] and that plaintiff 1 had thrown a Crayfish party for Assange at her home the evening after the alleged incidents, from which she tweeted: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" and invited Assange to stay in her room afterwards.[247]

On 24 Feb 2011, the court upheld the extradition warrant.[248][249][250][251] On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged papers at the High Court challenging the ruling to extradite Assange to Sweden,[252] saying the allegations were "without basis".[253][254] After a hearing on 12 and 13 July 2011, the High Court reserved its judgement. On 2 November 2011 the High Court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds of appeal presented by Assange's legal representatives. Costs of £19000 were also awarded against Assange.[255]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault

[joshcryer]

224. Yep, and the initial arrest warrent was dropped. They appealled it a few days later.

When the young women realized what Assange did was illegal they appealed the arrest warrant and appear to be fully willing to testify at trial.

[LadyHawkAZ]

223. Some of us prefer evidence to hysteria, sorry

..actually, no I'm not a bit sorry. All evidence points to this being a bogus pursuit. If you have some that points to why this case is so unique that a country notorious for its poor rape prosecution record is creating an international crisis over it, please feel free to share.

[CabCurious]

228. And some of us remember that we're not actually the court system. Right?

I absolutely agree that he may be innocent.

I would go so far as to say the prosecution has behaved inconsistently and has weak evidence.

Nonetheless, this man is not above the law.

[LadyHawkAZ]

233. Great

So you're agreeing with me that the evidence thus far supports it being a strictly political pursuit, but you want him handed over anyway and you call that "the law". And you don't see anything at all weird about that.

No, I'm not the court system but neither are you and you seem to have developed an opinion.

[EOTE]

237. Yep, you've got the OP pretty much nailed down.

I'm guessing that if Troy Davis managed to escape jail and flee to a country without the DP, the OP would have been demanding that he come back to the U.S. so that he can face justice and let the U.S. kill him.

[AtomicKitten]

250. I will not comment on Assange but I wanted to say that

I think the charge of rape should be taken seriously and it makes me really uncomfortable when I see its definition parsed (a la Akin), rationalized, minimized, or marginalized to protect the alleged aggressor. That must be decided in a court of law. As it stands, victims already face an uphill battle within the legal system and that effort is further undermined when the charge of rape is regarded in such a way.

[Denzil_DC]

259. K&R

This thread has consisted of the most concerted attempts at bullying of an OP I've ever seen on DU.

If anyone feels driven to try to attack me because I've pointed that out and I'm one of the members who's now recommended the thread, go right ahead, but I've bitten my tongue at this behaviour numerous times over Assange/Wikileaks threads over the last couple of weeks, and it's getting pretty damn tired.