Skip to main content

It was August 9th, 2010.  The events in Sweden that would lead to an international diplomatic incident were still days away, but there was already a revolt brewing on the Wikileaks team.  While the staff considered Assange's October 13th deadline for redacting personal information unrealistic and were afraid of the consequences to sources, Assange had already secretly given access to the unredacted Wikileaks database to newspapers.  When news of this came out, tensions boiled over.  One by one people start leaving the organization, not wanting to be associated with the consequences - and it didn't just stop at low-level volunteers.  It included the manager of the Wikileaks chatroom.  The developer of their redaction software.  Even Wikileaks' spokesman in Germany, Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Their concerns were founded.  After his legal troubles began, Assange put out an "insurance file", encrypted and containing all of the unredacted leaks, with the password to be published if he were to be arrested.  But a slip-up happend.  Assange directly handed the password to a journalist, and the journalist, not realizing how important it was, published it in a book on Wikileaks.  All of the cables were now available, unredacted, online.

Domscheit-Berg and other Wikileaks staffers were furious.  He and two others, among them the architect of Wikileaks' server system, seized the servers from Assange's control and destroyed documents to prevent their sources from being compromised.  "Children shouldn't play with guns," he said, in regards to taking control of the servers away from Assange.  Domscheit-Berg later went on to found a separate leak site, Openleaks, along with other disillusioned Wikileaks staffers.  Meanwhile other Wikileaks members continued to drop out of the organization for numerous other reasons, from Wikileaks support for a Belarussian dictator to the diverting Wikileaks funds toward his legal defense.  

But this isn't an article about departing Wikileaks staff.  It's not even an article about an offhand death threat from him to his then-roomate and coworker.  No, first, it is an article about cats.

Julian was engaged in a constant battle for dominance—even with my cat, Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Schmitt is a lovable, lazy creature, a bit shy, with gray-and-white fur and an extremely laid-back way of walking. Unfortunately he also has a neurosis stemming from the time when Julian lived with me in Wiesbaden. Julian was always attacking the poor animal. He would spread his fingers into a fork shape and pounce on the cat’s neck. It was a game to see who was quicker. Either Julian would succeed in getting his fingers around the cat and pinning it to the floor, or the cat would drive Julian off with a swipe of its claws. It must have been a nightmare for the poor thing. No sooner would Mr. Schmitt lie down to relax than the crazy Australian would be upon him. Julian preferred to attack at times when Mr. Schmitt was tired.

“It’s about training vigilance,” Julian explained.

Mr. Schmitt was a male cat, and male cats were supposed to be dominant.

“A man must never forget he has to be the master of the situation,” Julian proclaimed.

I wasn’t aware that anyone in my apartment or the courtyard had questioned Mr. Schmitt’s masculinity. What’s more, he was neutered.

(Source)

One thing that came out with the exodus of top-level Wikileaks staffers was a flush of insight into the off-camera views and attitudes of Wikileaks' "founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest," as Julian Assange described himself.

In an excerpt leaked to the Gawker website, Mr Domscheit-Berg writes: ‘Often I sat in large groups and listened to Julian boast about how many children he had fathered in various parts of the world.

‘He seemed to enjoy the idea of lots and lots of Julians, one on every continent.

‘Whether he took care of any of these alleged children, or whether they existed at all, was another question.’

The youngest child of the controversial Australian, who faces rape charges in Sweden, is understood to be six months old, while the oldest is 20.

...

In another excerpt from Mr Domscheit-Berg’s book, he writes: ‘Julian’s main criterion for a woman was simple. She had to be young. Preferably younger than 22. And it went without saying that she couldn’t question him. “She has to be aware of her role as a woman”, he used to say.

(Source)

Naturally Assange denies these allegations.  The problem is, other former staffers are saying the same thing:

However, his claim about the love children in his book, Inside WikiLeaks, tallies with that of other insiders.

Donald Bostom, a Swedish journalist and WikiLeaks volunteer, told police investigating the rape allegations that Mr Assange had ‘at least’ four children. Gawker said the figure had been ‘independently confirmed’ by a friend of Mr Assange.

According to a Gawker source, Mr Assange was obsessed with fathering children because he has a superiority complex. ‘He thinks he is so good that the world needs more of his kids,’ said the source.

If this whole thing rings any bells, there might be a reason.  Of course there's the accusation that he intentionally damaged the tip of the condom with a woman after trying to have unprotected sex with her.  But there's also the awkward conversation with a second woman after she claims she woke up to him having unprotected sex with her.  From the Police Protocol:
She said to him: What if I get pregnant?  In reply he merely said that Sweden is a good country to have children in.  She said jokingly that, if she is pregnant, he would have to pay off her student loan ... she was trying to minimize, in her own mind, the significance of what had happened. He, on the other hand, didn’t seem to care.  When he learned the size of her student loan he said that, if he were to pay so such money, she would have to give birth.  They joked about naming the child Afghanistan.  He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that were actually sugar pills.
S also told H. that Assange had spoken so strangely, as though he wanted S to become pregnant.  He said things that sounded like he wanted to make women pregnant.  He reportedly said that he preferred virgins, because then he would be the first to make them pregnant.
Indeed, the cat thing itself might sound a bit familiar:
1.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name
given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to
endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a
firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs  
whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from
moving or shifting.
(First charge against Assange in the European Arrest Warrant)

Of course, one doesn't have to listen to Assange's coworkers to get a sense of his views.  His old blog gives a good sense of his views on women on their own.  Let's pick a couple examples:

One of the devout was the lovely daughter of a New Castle minister. At some point in my unintended wooing of her, she looked up, fluttered her eyelids and said 'Oh, you know so much! I hardly know anything!'. 'That is why you believe in God," I explained.  This conversational brutality took her breath away and she swooned. I was exactly what she secretly longed for; a man willing to openly disagree with her father. All along she had needed a man to devote herself to. All along she had failed to find a man worthy of being called a man, failed to find a man who would not bow to gods, so she had chosen a god unworthy of being called a god, but who would not bow to a man.
Mathematics is a systemization of communicable human thought created by brain architectures that have male-type spacial abilities and extremised by the extremes within that group. Extreme female brain architectures would create a different sort of mathematics. It won't be created by the females currently in mathematics because they need a male type brain to thrive in the existing mathematical world.

Perhaps a good cognitive neuroscientist will do it for them.

(Source)

Why is it linked through the Internet Archive and not directly?  Because Assange went and deleted anything and everything he could that related towards his attitudes toward women (not even his years-old OK Cupid profile was spared).  Even seemingly harmless things related to dating became off-limits.  Famously litigious, some of his most recent lawsuits concern try to stop people from showing publicly available footage of him dancing in Iceland.

Back at Wikileaks, there was one person Assange personally brought into the organization that caused more controversy than anyone else: Israel Shamir.  Shamir is probably most famous for being notorious anti-semite and holocaust-denier, but there's a lot more to him than just writing things like "Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for world state headquarters" and refusing to acknowledge Auschwitz.  

Shamir has a years-long friendship with Assange, and was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables months before WikiLeaks made public the full cache. Such was Shamir's controversial nature that Assange introduced him to WikiLeaks staffers under a false name. Known for views held by many to be antisemitic, Shamir aroused the suspicion of several WikiLeaks staffers – myself included – when he asked for access to all cable material concerning "the Jews", a request which was refused.

When questions were asked about Shamir's involvement with WikiLeaks, given his controversial background and unorthodox requests, we were told in no uncertain terms that Assange would not condone criticism of his friend. Instead, a mealy-mouthed statement distancing WikiLeaks from its freelancers was issued. Still later, when damning evidence emerged that Shamir had handed cables material to the dictator of Belarus – a man he holds in high esteem – to assist his persecution of opposition activists, Assange shamefully refused to investigate.

The two remain close. Shamir reveals in his latest piece that he has spoken (on friendly terms) with Assange just days before his hearing. There is also a strange resonance in the two men's descriptions of women: Assange has referred to "timid" Guardian reporters failing his "masculinity test", and said "Western culture seems to forge women that are valueless and inane."

(Source)

Now wait, what's this about an article from Assange's friend, defending him?  Oooh boy, this one is a doozy.  Excerpting can't even do it justice; you really need to read the whole thing.  But I'll provide the "best hits":

Unmanning The Man

...

Swedish men have good reason to fear the Swedish justice system, and daily they grow more and more afraid of Swedish women. In response, they take foreign wives; they are also increasingly turning gay and adopting children from abroad.

What a shame! Sweden is home to the most dazzlingly beautiful women in the world: perfectly shaped, their blond manes blown by the wind; their blue eyes reflect frankness and encouragement.

Years ago, I was blown away after seeing them for the first time: dancing on a green lawn around a maypole, sun-tanning topless on a low wooden bridge protruding into a lake as blue as the sky above, and sitting like mermaids along the rocks

...

The oaks are still leafy and mighty, the lakes still clean, the stone armada still standing amid green meadows, but the churches are empty. They have become clubs for old ladies, led by a lady pastor – as I witnessed last Sunday in a beautiful church near Vasteras. Men have been slowly pushed out of positions of power in the Church, and now the worshippers have lost interest.

It is not only Swedish churches that have lost their manly shepherds, Swedish newspaper owners prefer to hire and advance obedient women like Karin Olsson; there are few male editors, excepting the gays. Swedish publishers now only publish books that will appeal to women; books that glorify women and depict men as monsters, like the dreadful Millennium Trilogy written by the PR-savvy Stieg Larsson. Swedish museums exhibit the kind of art that is designed to appeal to a female-centric New Age audience. Swedish universities are dominated by female professors. In Sweden, it hurts your career if you are discovered to be a heterosexual male.

...

Sweden is not the only victim of this revolutionary zeal. Everywhere, all over the world, men are losing their place under the sun; it may be more than a coincidence that our freedoms vanish along with them.

Is there a method to this madness? The great conspiratorial mind and modern Russian prophet Alexandre Dugin declared that there is an ancient female conspiracy that aims to return us to a Matriarchy. Many conservative observers put the blame on feminists. Yet even though men have clearly lost the war, the victory of women wilts under examination. Once upon a time women had a choice: they could join the business world or stay at home with the kids.

...

I think the reality is worse than Dugin’s wildest conspiracy. There is an understanding between the holders of power that feminised men are easier to control. Unmanning men is a linchpin in the reprogramming of mankind into an obedient herd, because strong men are unpredictable. Strong men are prone to rebellion, ready for sacrifice and primed for action. It is no coincidence that the enemies of Empire are all masculine males, be they Qaddafi, Castro, Chavez, Lukashenko, Putin – or Julian Assange. It appears the men have been targeted for elimination; the working ants need no sex.

...

DSK must be quite a man, judging by his excellent, gifted, strong-minded, and successful wife. It may be he is a Zionist Capitalist beast, but as one man to another I can’t fault him for making a pass at a “talented journalist and novelist in France”, nor for flirting with “a brilliant Hungarian economist”. He is, after all, a Frenchman first. They each had their opportunity to say “non”, and so they did. In a healthy society this would suffice.

Did DSK’s advances constitute “harassment”? Perhaps, but so what?

...

The attacks on Assange, DSK and Qaddafi are all part and parcel of the campaign to unman humanity. The Empire hates Lukashenko and Putin not only because they do not let them seize the country’s assets, but also for their outspoken masculinity. Eric Walberg in his Great Games speaks of the deeper strategy behind the colour revolutions: their organisers “castrate modern states” in order to transform them into post-modern weaklings. This “castration” is an important plan of the rulers, far more profound than the ephemeral struggles over pipelines and resources.

The defeat of Julian Assange is a defeat for all the men, and a defeat for mankind, promising a bleak future – unless we shall do something about it. It is not only our freedom but our manhood is at stake.

(Source)

You can't make this kind of stuff up!  Sadly, even despite having a legal team you would think would shut him up, Assange has made statements reflecting his friends' attitudes, such as: "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism," he said. "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism.".

Thankfully, should he make it there, Ecuador's conservative attitudes about gender roles should prove a good fit.  And if he has still has trouble finding a woman who is "aware of her role as a woman”?

He can always get a cat.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  He can't be bad! He released all those documents!! (5+ / 0-)

    or maybe it's all some big conspiracy against him.

    •  First off... (10+ / 0-)

      You might want to read about Assange's paranoid fantasies.   (pg2)

      As for most of the rest, I mean, do we really need to start from the beginning here?  I think you need a beginners primer to get rid of the most glaring of the myths about the case.

      And really, your source of information on the Assange case ... is Assange's lawyer saying Manning's lawyer said something without evidence?  A different Assange attorney alter the story a bit:

      “That overcharging is designed, in Mr. Coombs’ opinion in his submissions before the court, to put pressure on Bradley Manning to implicate Assange,” she said.
      Still "an attorney-says an attorney-says...", but with a twist: this one makes its clear that it's the other attorney's personal opinion.  An attorney whose job it is to try to minimize the sentence his client gets.

      To reiterate: do you have any actual evidence?  And most importantly, what bearing would any of this have on... you know, whether Assange actually raped anyone?  

      Craig Murray's blog posts are full of the most basic bad-information about the case out there, even the "why can't they question him in Sweden" and "he was free to go" nonsense.  His examples of people being "falsely prosecuted" are also nonsense.  Ritter was first convicted of trying to sleep with an underaged girl in 2001, a year and a half before he became a political lightning rod.  His second conviction was in 2011, long after everyone forgot about him.  And he was tried and convicted in a civilian court of law both times.  If he doesn't want to go to trial for trying to hook up with underaged girls, he needs to stop trying to hook up with underaged girls!

      Janice Karpinski did lie about shoplifting.  She said it never happened on her report.  When the accusations came out, she still denied it happened, straight to reporters.  Now she admits that it did.  She did 100 hours of community service for her crime.  She lied on her record, period.  And while of course there were other people who were responsible for Abu Ghraib who escaped punishment who should have been, it's absurd to say that the brigade commander in charge of the brigade that ran the prison and who did nothing to investigate the abuse reports coming across her desk is blameless.

      People need to get used to the fact that people can do both good things and bad things.  It's not an either-or situation!  And yes, famous people tend to get more attention to them.  But it goes both ways.  How many accused rapists do you know who have the resources to flee a country, get housed for free in a countryside manor, get celebrities to post hundreds of thousands of pounds bail, more from donors for his legal fund, tons of pro-bono work, and his case heard all the way up to the supreme court even in the land fled to, and then when all that fails, having a friend who runs a sovereign state willing to shelter him?  It cuts both ways.  And it even cuts both ways on prosecution.  Assange supporters like to make it sound suspicious that the case was reopened.  No, what was suspicious was that the case was closed before even all of the witness statements were in the system, let alone before evidence had been collected and examined.

      As for the last link, in addition to the parts debunked in the aforelinked beginning-primer, it's all a bunch of stuff that to anyone who's actually been a victim of rape is incredibly offensive, about how rape victims are "supposed to behave" like it's some Hollywood movie.   Do you know how rape victims behave?  There is no single way, but if there had to be any single most common reaction, it's "shock", usually along with some combination of "denial" and "trying to pretend it never happened".  There's even a surprising number who I've met who ended up dating their rapist afterward, to try to make it seem less like rape.  So to hear this guy pontificate about the Hollywood-style behaviors a rape victim needs to have in order for it to be "legitimate rape", while doing extreme cherry-picking from the police record and omitting everything that supports the rape claims... it just really makes me sick.

      If you want, I can go down line-by-line with what's wrong with what he wrote, but I really don't have the time.

      •  Yup (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rei, G2geek, erush1345, wilderness voice

        The wheels of history are often pushed forward by complete assholes.

        And it's elementary ethics that a good deed in one area does not cancel out a bad deed in another, or buy the doer a free pass.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 07:13:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yo Rei - (0+ / 0-)

        I'm just getting back to this now after marking it earlier today.

        That line "this is a diary about cats" threw me: was it a snark diary?, a cat diary with a political headline?, or what?   I think you may have lost some readers at that point because it's such a non-sequitur and it's normally associated with humor, so the contrast between "serious headline" and "humor reference" is confusing.

        Anyway, I'm going to read this in a bit, have some work to wrap up first.

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 07:56:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK, read it, tipped & recced. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, Creosote, wilderness voice, Rei

        Shit!, I knew he was a bit of a narcissist and "rock-star personality," but this stuff takes the cake.

        From what you posted, he basically treats women as sperm-receptacles and incubators for his precious seed.  Gross, disgusting, and yeah he should face charges for that stuff.  Too bad it can't be disentangled from the extradition stuff, at which point his apologists wouldn't have something to howl over.

        And yes, he also took advantage of Bradley Manning.  But now we see a little more of the psychology of that:  Manning was having gender & sexuality issues at a time when being gay in the military was still a basis for getting thrown out.   I also believe, based on fairly detailed knowledge of the case, that Manning has undiagnosed bipolar disorder and that Assange took advantage of him when he was in a manic state.  

        More comments later, I have a scheduled phone call to make right now...

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 09:07:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This how I feel (5+ / 0-)

          It cannot be denied there is a reasonable basis for Assange to fear his return to Sweden might ultimately result in authorities handing him over the US to face espionage charges. How one feels about that is another matter.

          On the other hand, those denying he should be held accountable for his behavior (and I would underline that he has not been charged with rape but merely wanted for questioning)  and discounting his well-documented arrogant and anti-social behavior merely for partisan reasons really lack credibility.

          Ultimately I think we need to put faith in the rule of law and the system, and vigilantly monitor for abuse of the system.

          With the world watching, there is an argument such abuses become more difficult, but then the world is watching what happens to Manning and his past treatment in confinement suggests Assange's apprehensions have some credibility.

          It's not a crime to be an arrogant pompous ass, a womanizer or to take advantage of people's weaknesses (and surely Assange exploited Manning and now wishes to avoid the repercussions of doing so). But he may have committed rape and may have violated international laws, and that might be what he actually fears.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:14:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think it depends on the legal definition (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, erush1345

        of rape applied to the case in Sweden

        To reiterate: do you have any actual evidence?  And most importantly, what bearing would any of this have on... you know, whether Assange actually raped anyone?

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:56:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The charge was determined by three (0+ / 0-)

          British courts of law (using British law) and two in Sweden (using Swedish law) to be rape.  The statements of the three British courts are available online, the most detailed being the lower court's.  As far as I know, the Swedish rulings aren't available online.  Sweden in general has  stronger privacy laws for protecting both the privacy of the accused and the accuser.

           Having sex with someone while they're asleep or impaired is illegal in both countries (as it should be), and it is merely listed as an "aggravating factor" that the sex was unprotected in violation of the accuser's expressed wishes while awake.

          Note that "dual criminality" (something being illegal in both countries) is not necessary under an EAW for an extradition on major offenses (count 4 in the EAW), only on minor offenses (counts 1-3 in the EAW).  

    •  To add a personal touch to "how a victim is (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      mookins, G2geek
      Hidden by:
      triv33

      supposed to behave"... link.  Even there I'm trying to excuse his behavior and blame myself.   Can you understand why it's so offensive to tell someone, "You didn't react like in a Hollywood movie, therefore, you weren't raped"?

      Anyway, to go a bit more into that Murray post.  He omits entirely where AA told a friend about the "violent" sex with Assange (those words).  That she ultimately moved out of her own apartment to get away from him.  That she lamented to friends that she didn't do it sooner.  That her main reason for going to the police was to support SW, not for her own charges, as stated to friends before going, to the police while there, and to the press afterwards.  

      Does this sound at all familiar?  Taking time to come to terms with someone who you liked violating your sexual integrity?  Which to reiterate, unlike in the movies, is very damned hard to do?

      Pretty much all of Murray's claims of "violation of police procedure" and the like are outright false.  So are his claims about the condom.  The forensic report says nothing about the condom being unused or not having any DNA on it.  I have it right here on my computer in Swedish if you want it.  Quite to the contrary, it said that they found "something" on it, but could not extract DNA, and then went into the reasons and how it's not the quantity of DNA-bearing material that matters in terms of isolation, but the conditions it's been left in.  The condom was sent in for a more detailed process that took two weeks.  The resulting more sensitive test was able to isolate mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).  Which also contrary to assange-echo-chamber myth, can be used to identify people in a court of law, and is not "only found in fingernails and hair".

      And oh, god, the "Cuban CIA agent" stuff again?  Really?

      Lastly, concerning the "trying to twist Wilén's story into a sexual assault": first, it IS a sexual assault, plain and simple, and if you think like Galloway, that it's allright to fuck a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to a particular sexual activity while she was awake, I hope you get hit by a bus.  Secondly, Wilén told friends and even a former boyfriend that she was raped before she went to the police station.  Both women have retained a lawyer who is pushing the charges for them.

      •  You hope who gets hit by a bus? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron, triv33, JesseCW, poligirl
        •  Anyone who thinks its perfectly okay... (4+ / 0-)

          ... to, if a person refuses to consent to a particular sexual activity, to wait until they fall asleep and then do it to them.  Like George Galloway (who still refuses to apologize for his "you don't have to be asked prior to each insertion" comments).

          I have no tolerance for bare rape-apologism like that.  To me that's so much worse than even Akin's "legitimate rape" comment.  In Akin's mind, there's a problem with lots of women lying about rape to have an excuse to get an abortion.  In Galloway's mind, once a girl does anything with you, you can do whatever you want to her.  To me that latter meme is more dangerous.  It's the attitude that most rapists take.

          •  I couldn't agree more- (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rei

            This little boys' power-trip will totally vitiate any progressive movement that tolerates it.

            They're like the guy Dylan describes in his line:

            'You just want to be on the side that's winning'.

          •  You may not to be asked directly each time-- (5+ / 0-)

            but the other party should at least be awake and thus able to issue objections which MUST be obeyed if it isn't to be rape.

            I have never been fond of Assange. Yes, some fo the stuff he leaked might be interesting and shed some light on the behind-the-scenes diplomatic world--but who appointed him  the World Decider of what gets released? In some ways he shares Dubya's arrogance.

            ANd he used Bradley Manning, knowing what would happen if he were caught and he had to guess at the man's mental health issues and he manipulated the poor guy into Leavenworth.

            The cat thing kinda summed it all up for me. I have evicted guests from my home for less.  I tend to figure if they'll mistreat someone else's animal, they'll be meaner to humans.

            The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

            by irishwitch on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:11:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then there's the recent attention-seeking (0+ / 0-)

              stuff... like the "childish prank" where they made a fake New York Times website and a twitter account that looked like that of a NYT journalist and posted a fake op-ed supporting Assange in the name of a NYT journalist... or more recently the comments on killing of the US ambassador to Libya.

              It's just sad to see what it's become.  I had so much hope for Wikileaks in the early days.  And some of the things they did were so important; transparency is a critical cause on the global scale.  But the organization has just driven into the ground.  Hopefully some of the new leaks organizations can take up the slack.

        •  hijack alert! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rei

          Digressive thread.

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:03:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you get hit by (5+ / 0-)

        a bus is not acceptable. Even if gooderservice did think that, which I don't think was even implied.

        I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

        by triv33 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 06:49:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to admit... (4+ / 0-)

          I do get a bit emotional around rape-apolgism.  And this topic brings a lot of rape apolgists out of the woodwork.  It's one thing to deny the charges.  It's another to say that, in essense, consent is optional once you get into bed.

          •  And for some reason... (4+ / 0-)

            ... I can't type "apologist" right.  Anyway, my main thing is, if I could take that line back, I would.  It was spoken out of emotion that was anyway directed more at people like Galloway than anyone currently in this thread (although sadly not at Daily Kos... I've seen some apalling rape-apologism here in some of these threads even worse than what Galloway said.  But not this thread so far, and not from gooderservice)

          •  That's laughable. (5+ / 0-)

            Because you say it's so doesn't make it true.  Trying to move the goal posts and make this into something it's not is absurd.

            And this topic brings a lot of rape apolgists out of the woodwork.
            Sweden wants him in order to turn him over to the U.S.  
            •  What's laughable? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, erush1345

              That rape apologism bothers me?  That Galloway said what he said?  I'm not following you.

              Sweden wants him in order to turn him over to the U.S.  
              Section "Sweden and Extradition".  Legal experts on the issue are consulted.  The concept makes no sense.
              •  I should have said disgusting, not ha ha laughable (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, poligirl

                If this really was only about an alleged rapist being brought to justice and people defended the rapist, then I would agree with you.

                But it's not and you know it, yet you start this meme of rape apologism.

                •  But it is rape apologism. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  erush1345, Bill W

                  "trying to twist Wilén's story into a sexual assault".  Wilén's story is that she spent the whole evening telling him no to unprotected sex, went to sleep, and woke up to him having unprotected sex with her.  You're free to not believe it.  But to say that that isn't rape is legally false, incredibly offensive, and morally reprehesible.  And it is the very definition of rape apologism.  

                  •  This is a much more complicated situation and (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poligirl

                    you know that, too.  

                    •  The accusations are not more complicated (0+ / 0-)

                      than that.  The EAW charge is:

                      4.  On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual    integrity.
                      Her statement is (skilling past the background details and the whole night of him trying to have unprotected sex with her and her refusing, and him agreeing reluctantly a few times to protected sex and ordering her around; also skipping the aftermath):
                      They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her.  She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”.  She said to him: “You better not have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”.  “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.  She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time.  She had gone on and on about condoms all night long.  She has never had unprotected sex before.
                      To reiterate: you're free to not believe it.  But to say that what is described isn't rape is is legally false (as demonstrated by several courts ruling as such), incredibly offensive, and morally reprehesible.
                      •  I don't know if a rape occurred, neither do you. (0+ / 0-)

                        We weren't there.  Someone alleges something.

                        And we both know it's more complicated than that.  Diplomatic asylum doesn't follow those allegations.

                        And then there's this today:

                        WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange has been offered an Aboriginal Nations passport in an inner-city Sydney ceremony after he was "abandoned" by Australian authorities.
                        •  To re-reiterate: (0+ / 0-)
                          I don't know if a rape occurred, neither do you.
                          "To reiterate: you're free to not believe it. But to say that what is described isn't rape is is legally false (as demonstrated by several courts ruling as such), incredibly offensive, and morally reprehesible."

                          What part of this are you having trouble with?  I pointed out right of the bat that you're free to not believe it.  But that what is alleged is unambiguously rape.  There is nothing about the allegations that is "complicated".  They are rape.  Period.  An allegation of having sex with someone who's asleep, especially in violation of her rules while awake, is an allegation rape, period.  No "complication" involved.  Are you not accepting this?

                          Now, if you're saying that the current situation is complicated, of course it is.  

                          "Diplomatic asylum" means "Ecuador decided to not hand him over to Britain".  It has no meaning beyond that.  There is no international "asylum" status.  The word has whatever meaning each individual country assigns it to.  Ecuador isn't exactly a paragon of women's rights, and Correa himself has said some pretty awful stuff about rape.  Not quite Galloway level, but approaching it.

                          Correa got what he wanted out of this - a way to boost his anti-western cred in Latin America.  He went from a figure that few cared about outsideof Ecuador to the next logical successor to Hugo Chavez as the unofficial "spokesman" of anti-western sentiment in Latin America, as well as distracting from his horrible free speech record at home.  

                          FYI, the aboriginal nations of Australia give them out to anyone, and they're not legitimate passports (at least not recognized by Australia itself).  And not like it matters anyway.  Is your argument really, "Because a person has fans, that means they didn't do anything bad"?

                          The way guilt is assessed is a court of law.  And that's what needs to happen.  And should have happened long, long ago.

                          •  The alleged victim could be lying. (0+ / 0-)
                            What part of this are you having trouble with?  
                            But apparently you've already tried and convicted him, so you got that going for ya.

                            Oh, that's all it means?  pfft.  

                            "Diplomatic asylum" means "Ecuador decided to not hand him over to Britain".
                          •  Your statement (0+ / 0-)
                            The alleged victim could be lying.
                            Which is why I wrote:
                            : you're free to not believe it
                            What part of that sentence are you having trouble with?  Again, my mind is boggling about how you're not understanding that.
                            Oh, that's all it means?  pfft.  
                            Yes, that literally is all it means.  It is not an internationally recognized status.  Most countries have their own internal definition, but apart from some local treaties, what one country declares about "asylum" has no bearing on others.
                          •  It's a she said/he said. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't have any "trouble" with anything other than the U.S. pressuring Sweden to get Assange back to Sweden so the U.S. can bring him to the U.S. and treat him like Bradley Manning or worse.

                  •  The deleted tweets, of course, never existed. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poligirl, gooderservice, triv33

                    ‎"I weep for you," the Walrus said: "I deeply sympathize."

                    by JesseCW on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 08:48:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  wrong. hell, "not even wrong." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rei

          It's not support of violence, it's support of karma.

          Nobody is suggesting it's OK for someone driving a bus to deliberately run over a rapist.  Nobody is suggesting that it's OK for someone to push a rapist into the path of a bus.   Clearly that would be way the hell off limits.  

          But it's perfectly acceptable to suggest that rapists deserve to meet untimely ends through pure accidents.  And it's perfectly acceptable to say "I hope (it happens)," because unless you believe that wishes alone cause physical events to happen with Newtonian regularity (in other words something more than macro-PK, which is only statistically measurable), those wishes cause exactly zero actual harm.  

          And anyone who believes that the statement "I hope (it happens) is sufficient unto itself to make it happen, is engaged in the worst kind of magical thinking.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 09:12:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not acceptable discourse here, just like (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl, gooderservice

            saying die in a fire isn't.  Everybody knows nobody means that literally, it's still not cool to say.

            You know what? If Rei was hoping to get some rape survivor's skin crawling with her writing, well then congrats, well done. Funny thing is, I can read the name Assange all over the web and it doesn't happen, but at this point, after reading a healthy sampling of Rei's work all I have to do is see the name Rei and my skin starts crawling and I'm done.

            I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

            by triv33 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 09:52:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the difference is that... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rei

              "I hope so-and-so dies in a fire" is damn close to a threat of arson, which is an act that is trivially easy to perpetrate (or hire some two-bit scumball to perpetrate), and therefore makes the threat credible.  

              "I hope so-and-so gets hit by a bus" isn't anywhere near being a threat of any kind, unless it's coming from a bus driver.    And "I hope that rapists in-general get hit by buses" is even further removed: it doesn't even specify a target.  It's a generic malediction.

              Keep in mind that the phrase "God damn (so-and-so)" is widely used around here, and it's a very specific malediction: it's a request to a named deity to punish a named target.

              If we tolerate "God damn" then logical consistency requires that equivalent maledictions are also permissible.  

              Have you ever HR'd someone for saying "God damn (so-and-so)!" ...?  If you're consistent, you must.  If you don't, you're not consistent.  

              But to assert that a wish is equivalent to an act, is devolving into magical thinking of the worst kind.  This is the reality-based community which means we do not make rules based on the premise that magic is real.  

              That also goes for grave-dancing.  Ultimately the taboo over grave-dancing comes from the magical fear that the spirit world or the deity will curse or put a spell on someone who dances on someone else's grave, and that the punishment will be collective.  And that's frank bullshit and bunk of the worst kind.  

              The reason we here tend to frown on grave-dancing some of the time, is simply that it could be used by our enemies to accuse us of having no sympathy for a dead arsehole's relatives.   But we don't frown on it all of the time, and the recent shindig over the grave of evil cult-leader Sun Myung Moon didn't raise any controversies to speak of.  

              As for Rei, I've never seen her writing before that I know of, but IMHO this diary was well done: it paints the picture of a creepy guy who views women as animals in the forest for his hunting pleasure, to use as sperm-receptacles and incubators for his precious seed.  And that's disgusting.  It makes my skin crawl, not about Rei for saying it, but for Assange for saying what Rei quoted.

              Methinks you're translating your general antipathy toward Rei into a trumped-up excuse to give her a donut.  And that's breaking the site rules: no donuts for personal fights, period.

              About which I should mention there's at least one person within a football's throw of here, who I have issues with, and who I did not throw a donut at tonight for just that reason.

              Given that you stated you have a generic antipathy toward Rei, I would seriously suggest removing that HR, because technically it's a no-no.  

              "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:55:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Apparently not. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rei

              You keep posting to her diaries. Just saying.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:32:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  FYI, triv33... (0+ / 0-)
              You know what? If Rei was hoping to get some rape survivor's skin crawling with her writing, well then congrats, well done.
              FYI...
          •  That wasn't the reply to me. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            triv33

            You said:

            But it's perfectly acceptable to suggest that rapists deserve to meet untimely ends through pure accidents
            And Rei's reply to me said:  
            and if you think like Galloway, that it's allright to fuck a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to a particular sexual activity while she was awake, I hope you get hit by a bus.
            And you recced the above the comment hoping I would get hit by a bus if I thought a certain way -- which was ludicrous for Rei to even suggest it.

            Getting back to the new topic you introduced here:

            But it's perfectly acceptable to suggest that rapists deserve to meet untimely ends through pure accidents
            There is no "pure accident" involved.  Again, you introduced a new topic.
            •  So... is your notion... (0+ / 0-)

              that I have plans to go hunt down people who hold views like George Galloway, steal a bus, and run into them?  Is that what you were picturing when you wrote:

              There is no "pure accident" involved.
              ?
  •  Wow! You really have a hard-on for this guy. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan, Dirtandiron, twigg

    As in, you really have it in for him.

    •  What that Rei quoted do you think is false? (5+ / 0-)

      ...Son, those Elephants always look out for themselves. If you happen to get a crumb or two from their policies, it's a complete coincidence. -Malharden's Dad

      by slowbutsure on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:25:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rei clearly doesn't like Assange at all. In other (4+ / 0-)

        threads as in this post, she has been aggressive in her dislike and disdain for the man. She seems quite knowledgeable, but her dislike is very clear.

        •  If the evidence she presented is correct... (9+ / 0-)

          then her distaste is well-founded, isn't it?

          The argument she has made, many times, is that the evidence against Assange from third parties with no axes to grind suggests that the rape accusations he faces are plausible, given his past behavior.  If so, then should he not face trial for them?  Or should his leadership of Wikileaks exempt him from even the possibility of consequences of such acts?  

          If the accusations were absurd, then Assange would be in a strong position.  They aren't; in fact, they're quite reasonable.  That being the case, is it not plausible that he's really a hero in one sense only -- but not a hero at all in another?

          •  Sure, but the charges he faces are misdemeanors. (4+ / 0-)

            And the fact that there is an Interpol extradition case for a misdemeanor is absurd. This isn't about Assange answering questions about whether or not he used a condom. It's about Wikileaks and about revealing documents what the US and others wanted to keep secret. Sweden will allow extradition to the US. It's naive and disingenuous to assume otherwise.

            To me, this reads like an ad hominem attack. It's like Monica Lewinsky. Sure, he's a sexist pig. Does that amount to treason to the US? Why would a non-American be liable for treason or espionage if he isn't in US jurisdiction to begin with?(Info on the indictment from the links provided upthread by gooderservice.)  Should he go to Guantanamo for being a jerk about women he sleeps with?  Being a sexist idiot is pretty common, and completely irrelevant to a request for political asylum, which I believe is legitimate in this case.

            There are a lot of misogynistic people out there to revile, not just Julian Assange.  

            •  Rape is not a misdemeanor. (5+ / 0-)

              And he's wanted for rape.  It's right there in the arrest warrant.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "answering questions about whether or not he used a condom.", and both Sweden and the UK have pledged not to extradite him to the maximum extent permissible by their laws** (plus there's both countries judicial systems in the way, plus the ECHR which exists specifically to prevent human rights abuses and political persecution).

              Again, it has nothing to do with "treason to the US".  He's wanted for rape.  R-A-P-E.  For pinning down a woman and trying to pry her legs open to force unprotected sex (no, that's not the rape charge),  two molestation charges, and for, after a woman refused all evening to have unprotected sex with him, waiting until she fell asleep and then started sleeping with her unprotected.

              •  He is not wanted for rape last time I checked. (8+ / 0-)

                He is wanted for questioning by the prosecutors.  He offered to answer their questions in England, but they refused, saying he had to come to Sweden to answer their questions.  After all the curtains have been ripped away, this is not about a crime in Sweden, but clearly a pretext to get him to a country that will extradite him to the USA.  England has refused to do so.  

                Assange may not be the cleanest shirt on the rack, but this is not about him.  It is about what secrets he knows, and more important, who he knows.  Also, I have seen that so called "password."  That is a false flag password if I ever saw one.  No skilled hacker would have created a password out of plain English words.  He would have created a password that is both highly complex and easily remembered. For example, something based on the Ulam Spiral, with integer sequencing changing based on the second letter in every third word in a passage of poetry.

                There has also been a release of a second "Insurance" file of 65 GB.  Also remember, he never released what he knows about Bank of America.  There are international bankers who are still staining their drawers over that.  

                The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                by Otteray Scribe on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 07:06:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK, this is something *I* know about (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rei, G2geek, slowbutsure

                  I don't know Julian Assange, but I do know the computer security world, white, grey, and black.

                  I've got news for you -- the passwords folks in that world adopt are every bit as weak as anyone else's.  To give a sense of sale, any 31337 haxx0r k1dd13 who got any one of my hundreds of distinct passwords and had a proper rainbow table could get all the others (except for four, which point to either much less secure data or much more secure data.)  

                  One of the reasons for that is that we know exactly how much use a password actually is -- they're eminently defeatable by any motivated attacker.  If you want security, use two factor auth.  A password is a device for slowing down an attacker, nothing more.

                •  Follow the link. It wasn't there just for (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  erush1345, wilderness voice

                  decoration.  You can boldface your false claim you want, but it won't change what the EAW says.  It was a link to the UK lower court ruling.  It directly quotes the European Arrest Warrant.  Which says he is wanted for rape, no ambiguity, and, and I quote:

                  B.  The aim of the EAW

                  5.  Julian Assange’s surrender is sought in order that he may be subject to criminal proceedings.

                  6.  A domestic warrant for the respondent’s arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden.  An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

                  7.  According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at.  Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”.  It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been   interrogated.

                  8.  The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial.  Once the decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court.  In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within two weeks.  Once started, the trial may not be adjourned.  It can therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings.  There is no easy  analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure.  I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

                  9.  It is submitted on Julian Assange’s behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance.  This is not an appropriate course in Assange’s case.  The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that it is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

                  10.  Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists.  Subject to any  matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be  indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter.  It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

                  11.  It is not correct to assert that Assange has made repeated offers to be interviewed.  In September and October 2010 I was in constant contact with   counsel Bjorn Hurtig.  It was not possible to arrange an interview because   Assange did not come back to Sweden, despite my request that he did.  Frequently, Hurtig was not able to contact Assange to arrange the details for him to attend for interview.  An offer of an interview by telephone was made by Hurtig.  I declined this offer for the reasons outlined above.  It  was because his failure to attend Sweden for interview and so that criminal proceedings could continue, that it was necessary for me to request from the court an order for his arrest.

                  Has it not occurred to you that getting your information from Assange's lawyer (which, if you'll read the document, also admitted to lying on several issues) may not be the best way to get information?
                  Also, I have seen that so called "password."  That is a false flag password if I ever saw one.
                  Sorry, but it's not only acnowledged, but Wikileaks went ahead and just published all of them unredacted as they were out there already anyway.
              •  The document in your link, UK arrest warrant, (3+ / 0-)

                cites three of the four charges as not reaching the standards required for extradition (so equivalent to misdemeanors) and only the fourth, the bit about "pressed his naked erect penis to her body" being the only charge that amounts to an extraditable charge, because she was "incapacitated" by sleep. It is clear from the document that Sweden intends to prosecute, although to me the evidence for the charge appears thin, maybe enough to prosecute but not enough for a conviction.  He-said-she-said, even with all the smarmy circumstantial evidence you provide. Apparently, it wasn't the sex she objected to, but unprotected sex, and she slept with him anyways, as in she didn't leave or make him leave. Who is surprised that a man has sex with someone he is sleeping with? Really? Really?

                I agree with Otteray Scribe entirely.  The charges are a  pretext to neutralize Assange.  

                •  You're mixing things up. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  erush1345, wilderness voice

                  Charge 3 is the "pressed his naked erect penis" charge, and is molestation.  Charge 4 is:

                  4.  On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
                  For charges 1-3, the document describes in detail that they are still extriditable under "double criminality" - that is, if they're illegal in the UK also - which the court then goes on to show they unambiguously are.

                  For #4, it's not necessary, but they do it anyway.

                  although to me the evidence for the charge appears thin, maybe enough to prosecute but not enough for a conviction.
                  Two Swedish courts have already looked at the evidence.  The Svea court looked at it in detail and ruled against Assange's request to terminate the investigation.  They appealed and lost the appeal to have it be heard.

                  Part of Assange's problem in regards to #4 is that his defense team has admitted too much already.  They haven't contested what happened before SW went to sleep, only trying to argue that she was in a state to consent and chose to consent to unprotected sex.  But this leads to a really implausible argument.  SW has a "paper trail" a mile long of being utterly paranoid of unprotected sex, including having a boyfriend of 2 1/2 years who not only did she never sleep with him unprotected, but even had him get STD tested before protected sex.  Adding to that a night of refusing unprotected sex, that puts his team in a very difficult situation to argue that she suddenly changed her whole philosophy in the middle of the night, and was cogent enough to consent in doing so.

                  Unfortunately, they were kind of put in a bind of admitting as much as they did because of the forensics.  They have a condom from Assange's earlier activities with her, with his DNA.  They also have a DNA swab from inside of her, matched to his DNA on the condom.  They could have tried to deny the protected sex the night before, but they'd be put at risk of being exposed timing wise.  And they clearly couldn't deny the later unprotected sex.  So they didn't really have many options.

                  Anyway, though, these are all issues for a court of law to take up.

                  Didn't leave or make him leave
                  Yes, this isn't Hollywood here, where rape victims run screaming, half-naked and bloody through the street straight to a police station.  Victims in the real world are in shock and confusion and have no clue how to react.  I let my rapist walk me back to my car.   I've known a number of women who even actually dated their rapist to try to make what feel less like rape.  At least one of whom is a fellow Kossack.  Want to tell her that she wasn't really raped?  Want to tell me that?

                  It is extremely difficult to come to terms with date rape.

                  Who is surprised that a man has sex with someone he is sleeping with? Really? Really?
                  Oh, pleeease don't tell me that you're actually going where I think you're going with this one....  Let me phrase this carefully: are you actually saying it is your view that if a person consents to something, then there's a free license to do whatever they want to them while they're sleeping?

                  Not even talking about legality (that's unambiguously illegal in most developed nations, including the UK and Sweden) - just about whether you actually support that.

                  •  Rei, as a point of pragmatism, it is ill-advised (0+ / 0-)

                    to sleep with another person if sex with them is out of the question. Seriously. It is ill-advised to be alone and vulnerable with someone you don't know at three in the morning. It is ill-advised to be asleep in bed with someone you don't know well.  Why? Because somebody might hurt you. Forget what should happen or what's right or not. This is basic survival.  

                    I'm not from Sweden and their sexual mores are probably different from mine, so maybe people flop in and out of each others' beds without a second thought, sleeping together without the expectation of sex all the time, or not. I suspect most of the world is not like that. I don't even know what the laws are where I grew up, but I am certain this situation there, unlike Sweden, would be laughed out of court, so let's not discuss legality. Hmm. I guess that would make my a priori assumptions different than a gently raised Swedish girl's, certainly less trusting.

                    To answer you question, I'm saying I'm not surprised at the outcome; it was extremely predictable. There is no "free license" even when people are awake, involved, and consenting. Reality bites, however. Not everyone deserves trust. It's probably better not to sleep with strangers, because they may not care what you want or don't want.  That's predictable too.

                    It is difficult to come to terms with date rape.  I read your very poignant diary when you posted it, but hadn't connected it with the poster who despises Assange until you provided that link. I can see where this is more personal for you, then, and perhaps your crusade against him is part of your process of coming to terms with harsh events, but please don't make the mistake of thinking others don't understand rape.

                    You've made a good case for Assange being a jerk, and I even agree with you, he's a pig.  He may even be guilty, in Sweden or the UK, and deserve a maximum of two years (I believe that's what the document said, but you would be the authority on that; I defer to your closer reading)  but that's not why he is being extradited. They couldn't extradite Pinochet for murder, for heaven's sake!

                     Assange is right to seek asylum.  The danger he faces in extradition to the US far outweighs the charges against him. Not being a trusting sort, I would not rely on the UK to save him from the Americans.

                    •  Whether or not Assange is guilty isn't my issue. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      erush1345, wilderness voice, Rei

                      THIS piece of BD IS what I object to in your statement here, the notion that it iis ill-advised

                      to sleep with another person if sex with them is out of the question. Seriously. It is ill-advised to be alone and vulnerable with someone you don't know at three in the morning. It is ill-advised to be asleep in bed with someone you don't know well.  Why? Because somebody might hurt you. Forget what should happen or what's right or not. This is basic survival... There is no "free license" even when people are awake, involved, and consenting. Reality bites, however. Not everyone deserves trust. It's probably better not to sleep with strangers, because they may not care what you want or don't want.
                      I don't think you intend to do this (at least, I hope you don't) mean to imply that the victim deserved it. Or that consent to sex once is consent to sex always? Because it sure sounds like it when you say this occurrence is extremely predictable.

                      Maybe with a guy like Assange it is. But I've NEVER had a man I've slept with for the first time ignore my wishes about condoms nor try to have sex with me while I was asleep. I'm not a slut but at 62 I've had enough sex partners to have some awareness of reality.  On the other hand, I am not attracted to arrogant assholes who view themselves as arbiter of knowledge for everyone else--and I wouldn't have let Assange come anywhere near me for the same reason I don't sleep with Republicans.

                      On the condom thing not really being rape because she'd consented to protected sex earlier and Assange apparently prefers bareback--I wrote an article years ago on rape for a start-up magazine in Baltimore County, circa 178. One of the people I interviewed was the Asst. State's Attorney for Baltimore COunty who was in charge of rape prosecutions. He was currently prosecuting a case in which the victim met the rapist at a club, had breakfast withhim, invited him in for coffee and things got hot and heavy. Clothing was off, and the woman said, "I need to put my diaphragm in before things go any further." SHe tried to get up. He pinned her (and my husband  and I did a re-enactment of this one night; it is well-nigh impossible for a woman to break out of a hold in which the man has her arms pinned and is sitting/kneeling on her legs--and I fought like hell) and forced himself into her despite her objections.

                      At the moment she voiced objections, her consent was withdrawn and it became rape.

                      The ASA KNEW it was an uphill fight because it had been a pick-up in a club, but he also knew it was rape and believed the  perp deserved to be brought to trial.

                      I am inclined to say that if Assange KNEW she wouldn't agree to sex without a condom and proceeded anyway, he KNEW she would not consent and went ahead when she was unable to protest. IF he pinned her, it would have been hard for her to push him off and she may have chosen not to fight for fear of being hurt.

                      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                      by irishwitch on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:34:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where I stopped reading was: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bluedust
                        I'm not a slut but at 62 I've had enough sex partners to have some awareness of reality.
                        So how many sex partners does a woman need to have before she's a slut? I completely reject this framing. Do we really have to define our sexuality in 'male' terms?
                        •  Get over it. I'll match my feminist (0+ / 0-)

                          credentials against any here. The point I was trying to make is that I DO have some experience--and the person to whom I was responding is the sort who DOES seem to see things in male terms.

                          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                          by irishwitch on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 01:54:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My comment (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bluedust

                            was not an attack on your feminist credentials but on your framing of female sexuality. I understood your point and the fact that you took this as an attack on your feminist credentials is a failure to communicate properly on my part. We all could do with confronting and rejecting the way we have socialised and internalised norms about our sexuality.  The point is that in that sentence, you were participating in rather than rejecting male-centric views about the expression of female sexuality and women's sexual choices and by doing so, reinforcing and legitimising those views. You were also reinforcing the views of one faction of Assange's supporters who attack and denigrate the 2 women who are accusing Assange by calling them, among other things, sluts.

                          •  You are mistaken. (0+ / 0-)

                            I have some experience myself and because of that this is advice I give my kids, because right or wrong is meaningless at the moment you are holding a broken injured soul.  I would rather keep them safe in a harsh world, and believe me, I know how harsh and ugly that can be, and how long the wounds take to heal into scars.  I think your anecdote actually supports my statement. Of course it was rape, although as your ASA pointed out, somewhat hard to prosecute. It would be better if she were not raped, but that's not what happened, because some guy was a dirt bag.

                            I  conclude that some people are total dirt bags and not to be trusted and sometimes it's hard to tell who they are.  That's not a male point of view.  It's the point of view of many many victims of rape.

                      •  Didn't I say there is no "free license"? (0+ / 0-)

                        That means no blanket consent. I'm not blaming the victim either. Not everyone as fortunate as you, in terms of luck and judgement. In a world when one in three women, an unknown number of men, and a high percentage of the middle ground is a victim of sexual assault in a lifetime, the reality indicates that there are a lot of bad people out there who will exploit an individual's vulnerabilities.  

                        I think it's a bad idea to sleep with strangers for safety reasons, not moral ones.  The odds are not good.

                        I don't see anyone here trying to give Assange a free pass for rape. I see a concern that he will be extradited to the US and charged with espionage, an event that would have a chilling effect on journalism and free speech, and since Sweden has not been forthcoming in assurances to refuse to extradite Assange to the US, it's a credible threat.  If those assurances were given, Ecuador would send him to Sweden for trial.

                        •  If you don't see anyone (0+ / 0-)

                          trying to give him a pass for rape, you haven't been paying attention.  Even in this thread someone included a link to Craig Murray trying to argue that the women weren't really raped and are just lying sluts.

                          . I see a concern that he will be extradited to the US and charged with espionage,
                          Yes, this is the paranoid fantasy being pushed by his defense team.  The argument is all based on that Sweden - because it had one incident 12 years ago where two people, in the country illegally, who were identified to them as convicted terrorists, were handed off to be sent back to their countries where they were abused - and when the truth came out, they cut off all cooperation with the US on such issues (in 2006, as leaked by... wait for it... Wikileaks!), gave the victims residence, and paid them a large financial compensation.  

                          This is the single most controversial event in the entire modern Swedish judicial system, 12 years ago.  Every country has something you can point to, and most have a damned lot more than that.  The International Justice Project ranks Sweden #1 in the world in basic civil rights.  Assange had thought so much of it that Wikileaks referred to the Swedish judicial system as their shield.

                          But it wouldn't just be Sweden.  For Assange to be extradited to the US, all of the following would have to happen:

                          1) The US would have to actually request him, which is far from certain.

                          2) The Swedish Judicial system would have to approve.  In Sweden, as per all of the EU, it is illegal to extradite where there is a risk of human rights abuses or the death penalty.  It's also illegal in Sweden to extradite for intelligence or military issues.

                          3) The Swedish government would have to independently approve.  They have already pledged to the Australian foreign minister that they wouldn't if the situation was in violation of the abovementioned Swedish or EU laws, which is the maximum amount they could legally pledge to do without directly pledging to violate their extradition treaty

                          4) As the "sending state" of the EAW, the British courts would have to approve.  In Britain, also as per the European standard, it is illegal to extradite where there is a risk of the death penalty or human rights abuses.

                          5) The British government would likewise approve.  They have pledged in a written letter to parliament not to do so within the aforementioned bounds, which again, is the maximum they can legally do.

                          6) The European Court of Human Rights would have to approve.  The court exists precisely for the purpose of preventing people from facing human rights abuses or political prosecutions, and is far more often accused of overstepping its bounds in blocking legal actions than of the opposite.

                          It would be difficult to conceive of a more difficult extradition system if you wanted to.  The easiest way to have extradited Assange to the US would have been from a friendly non-European nation - no constraints (Assange famously being a jetsetter, this would not have been a challenge).  No appeals, no EHCR, nothing.  The next easiest would have been a more US-friendly country in Europe than Sweden, with no complicating charges like rape.  Sweden would have been even harder because not only are they generally less compliant on extradition requests, they also have the no-intelligence-extraditions complications on their extradition treaty.  Then it'd be even harder while he was still in Sweden but was facing complicating charges of rape, which would have priority.  Then it becomes even harder when he gets to the UK with international warrants.  And then it gets even worse after being extradited to Sweden under an EAW.  

                          In short, the conspiracy is precisely the opposite of anything that makes sense.  It gets even crazier when you extend the conspiracy to believing that the women are really secret CIA agents as part of an elaborate setup.  Lets see if I've got the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy(TM) down pat.

                          1) For reasons only beknownst to them, they can only nab Assange from Sweden, not the US's biggest partner in the global extradition scheme, the UK, or any of the vast numbers of countries that Assange regularly globetrots to.  No, it has to be
                          Sweden.  Let's just take that as a given for some Unknown Shadowy CIA Reason.

                          2) Now, Assange was applying to live in Sweden when the Shadowy CIA    Conspiracy decided, "Instead of waiting until we're ready to nab him for our charges, since he's planning to live here, wouldn't it be so much more fun to  frame him for rape? "

                          3) They furthermore decide, "Let's not only do that, but let's frame him for rape that's not like a Hollywood-style rape, but like rape in real life where there's consent to certain actions but not to others, where there are delays and complications and in general the women live their livesas though they're about to be judged in a trial, instead of trying to make an open-and-shut phony "knife to the throat" type rape case."  Why?  Because the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy just rolls that way.

                          4) Now, let's install CIA plants all throughout the Swedish judicial system to keep the case going.  We can then have our CIA Plant, Ms. Ny, prosecute him.  But let's have her take several weeks to do so, and let's let the news totally leak out during the time that they're getting ready to arrest him so that Assange can run.  And
                          let's just let him flee the country, and not tell Sweden so that they can stop him, even though it'd totally derail our plans if he decided not to come back.

                          To people who believe that it's a giant conspiracy, I ask, is this how it went down, in your mind?  Great job, Shadowy CIA Conspiracy.  Who's heading the CIA these days, Bozo the Clown?

                          The reality, which I know is very hard for many people to accept, is that famous people, even ones who've done good things, do actually still sometimes also do terrible things.  And we exist in a world where we care about the rule of law, and the rule of law involves people not picking and choosing whether they want to face trial because they've also annoyed other people elsewhere in the world.  In a world with the rule of law, if there's an arrest warrant for you, you go to jail and face trial.

                          And sort of a tangent, but:

                          I think it's a bad idea to sleep with strangers for safety reasons, not moral ones.  The odds are not good.
                          Please be so kind to recognize that different countries have cultural differences.  In conservative places where there's no acceptable sex before marriage, they'd apply that same argument to American cultural attitudes toward sex.  Here in Iceland, on the other side of the spectrum, the standard order is "Meet -> Sex -> Get to know each other (over sleeping together several more times) -> Going places together -> Kids -> Possibly get married, but probably not".  
                          •  I think you have more faith in governments (0+ / 0-)

                            than I do.  As you correctly pointed out, extradition is difficult from the UK, so much so that, as I pointed out, General Pinochet, a dictator known to have tortured and murdered his opponents was unable to be extradited, in part because he was a friend of the US establishment, Kissinger to be precise. Nevertheless, Assange is to be extradited for a much much lesser crime. When I juxtapose those two occurrences, I find myself more cynical about governments than you appear to be.  

                            I agree that Assange should go to trial for rape. I looked at your previous post on the assurances to the Australians that Sweden would not extradite, and I appreciate that you have laid out the procedure here.  First, I point out he doesn't have to be extradited for espionage; he could certainly be extradited for a lesser charge, such as an obstruction of justice charge that falls short of the death penalty. Since America no longer binds itself to the Geneva Convention, the definition of human rights abuse is up for grabs. An obstruction of justice charge would not trigger the carefully worded UK assurances either, since the death penalty is not in play, so neither the Swedish nor the UK protections would apply. Once in the States, anything could happen; Assange has made a lot of powerful enemies. Second, assurances given to the Australians are immaterial. Sweden should properly direct itself to Ecuador, and preferably put the assurances in writing. Ecuador has indicated that upon receiving such, they would return Assange to Sweden. Significantly, that hasn't happened.  Third, although you are correct that famous people who do some admirable things can also be cretins and that Assange is no exeption, it is no longer true that America adheres to the rule of law. We have one illegal war, Iraq, numerous violations of the Geneva Convention, criminal fraud by banks unpunished and more. Doesn't Assange claim to have dirt on BofA? So what then? If you can, you try to face trial when you are certain everyone else will adhere to the rule of law. I am positive that he will eventually be brought to court for that charge.

                            Other people have laid out arguments like this, probably much more elegantly and cogently than I have, and you seem unable to accept any nuance in the debacle. It's interesting that you are so narrowly focused on prosecuting Assange for rape, that you cannot see any information that complicates or delays that end.  Nevertheless, thank you for the abundant information and thought provoking discussion.  I am certainly better informed than I was. I doubt we will ultimately agree on every part of the issue, so I think we will have to agree to disagree.

                            Tangentially, since I brought up the cultural differences myself, you can assume I am most aware of them.  It occurs to me that cultural differences may be partly responsible for some of the derision that Assange's charges have been subject to, especially in the non- developed world. I note the more liberal mores didn't prevent these two women from getting hurt, although they could certainly prosecute after the fact.

                            Good luck to you.

                          •  No, Pinochet was not extradited... (0+ / 0-)

                            because he qualified for the health exemption in British extradition law.  Same as the Libyan bomber who got out for the same reason.  Now, if you think Assange is dying, maybe you could recommend he try to qualify for the same exemption.

                            Laws are not "make them up as you go along".

                            First, I point out he doesn't have to be extradited for espionage; he could certainly be extradited for a lesser charge, such as an obstruction of justice charge that falls short of the death penalty.
                            Can't do that.  Just ignoring that your example doesn't work on its own (obstruction of justice must have what justice they're obstructing tied to it, and it would also fail the "double criminality" test), you should google "doctrine of speciality".  If a person is extradited, the country must promise to prosecute them only for the crimes they applied for them to be extradited for, and then either be allowed to leave or returned to the country from which they were extradited.
                          •  Also, about Pinochet, that's a great example of... (0+ / 0-)

                            how hard it is to extradite anyone controversial.  In his case, the courts (actually, at the time, the House of Lords) ruled that he needed to be extradited.  But the British government overruled them.  It also could have been the other way around, the British government thinking he needed to be extradited but the judicial arm overruling them and blocking any extradition.

                            In this case, there's not just 2 bodies with the ability to be "showstoppers", but a whopping five.    Plus the complication of being wanted in Sweden, plus the complication of Swedish extradition law banning extradition for military or intelligence offenses.

                          •  In the event that Assange winds up in the US (0+ / 0-)

                            in Quantico or Guantanamo, explaining what other secrets he has and how he got them to people without a sense of humor at all, I will expect a long carefully cited diary from you that details every step of how he got there and what circumstances allowed the laws to be circumvented. And promise me you will stand firm and suffer through eating crow if and when it happens.  :)

                            In the meantime, I will enjoy your diaries, on this issue as well as others.

                          •  Deal, if you'll pledge... (0+ / 0-)

                            that when he's convicted of rape in Sweden with no US extradition request, you'll make a donation to or volunteer for RAINN or another rape support group.  Sound fair?

                          •  Absolutely. We have a deal. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rei
                        •  I wasn't fortunate. I was smart in the men (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Rei

                          I chose. I am also a former rape crisis hotline volunteer, so I know the facts pretty damned well.

                          Yes, there are bad people, and not all of them look like bad people. But from the interviews I've seen with Assange, he comes across as an arrogant, superior ass with a major god complex. That type is NEVER someone who respects women--hell respects anyone who doesn't worship at his feet. Avoiding men like that  is a good place to start--along with never leaving your drink unguarded or accepting a ride home with strangers.

                          My point was simply that contrary to what a lot of people were implying, it is NOT all right to do what Assange plainly did (DNA samples do not lie).

                          My issue isn't extradition. It's rape. PERIOD. THE END> GET THAT? Yes, I am shouting.

                          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                          by irishwitch on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 03:14:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmm. I meant you were fortunate to have good (0+ / 0-)

                            judgement.  Clearly others are not so well-endowed, including those with the misfortune of sleeping with Assange and many other types of asses.  

                            I'm happy that you advocate for these others; it has made a huge difference for many women.

        •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          We also have the Assange partisans and apologists here.

          Is it a crime or violation of site rules to like or dislike someone/something?

          I really dislike Romney.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:18:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But like him or loathe him ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... someone who has dirt on a big US bank has good reason to fear going to a country where they are subject to being extradited to the United States and having their civil rights abused.

            The diary argues that he's a horrible person, but being a horrible person is no guarantee against having your rights abused by the US government if you have dirt on a big US bank.

            Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

            by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 07:31:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He's been in countries subject to extradition to (0+ / 0-)

              the US almost his entire life.  Being wanted in Sweden and transferred there under an EAW is probably the most difficult legal situation one could conceive of to extradite to the US, with five separate bodies that must all concur on an extradition, two of which have already pledged not to extradite him under any of the conditions he's stated having a fear of, and all of which are bound by law not to extradite him if there's any risk, again, of the conditions he's stated having a fear of, two of which are banned from extradition for intelligence matters, and one of which has the sole purpose of preventing violations of human rights and political prosecutions.

  •  Kind of reminds me of Ira Einhorn. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CoyoteMarti, demimondian

    A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. - Greek proverb

    by marleycat on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:35:08 PM PDT

  •  Wow. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rei, SoCalSal, erush1345

    "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

    by glorificus on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:35:37 PM PDT

  •  Wow- eye opening stuffs (5+ / 0-)

    Regardless of his work at Wikileaks- this man has some serious right wing misogynist jerk tendencies.

  •  Preponderance of witness accounts suggest (4+ / 0-)

    Assange is a jerk.

    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 07:05:13 PM PDT

  •  He does seem like a very bad person (4+ / 0-)

    But that should not discredit  Wikileaks.

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 07:05:50 PM PDT

  •  sounds very familiar, as though i've (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rei, CoyoteMarti, wilderness voice

    heard it before. oh, wait, i have heard it before! ayn rand, and her objectivist heroes.

    geez, these guys can't even be originally obnoxious.

  •  Another hit-piece (7+ / 0-)

    that makes zero effort to provide a balanced view of the issues involved.

    Made up allegations about "rape apologists" is particularly egregious when it has been pointed out to the diarist many times that no one wants Assange to evade the criminal charges, yet she ignores the political aspects as if they do not exist.

    The history of Wikileaks is pretty well known. Julian Assange is, by all accounts, an arrogant ass, yet some of those senior staff who left did so under pretty dubious circumstances.

    Still ... as a one-sided, slanted and aggresively anti-Assange Diary, it's not bad at all.

    The great shame is that Diaries like this polarise opinion in the most unhelpful manner possible ... almost as if we are being "dared" to disagree for fear of being labelled a "rape apologist".

    The Diarist has extensive knowledge, yet she uses it not to help the site reach an informed view, but merely to present her own view as the one and only truth.

    That is a shame.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24:26 PM PDT

    •  Oh give me a break, Twigg. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice

      That's a bit of a red herring.

      Do we now have a "fair and balanced" rule here?

      Pretty much any dairy about Wikileaks and Assange has a partisan viewpoint and I have not read one that did not descend into partisan bickering in the comments, leaving precious little space for those of us with more moderate or nuanced opinions (and you may judge my comments for yourself).

      Honestly, if we are going to adopt a "fairness doctrine" here the front page will get very, very boring.

      Appreciate your sentiments, but I don't think it's a major flaw for the diarist to express her viewpoint provided there is some reasonable basis in fact. There are plenty of people here that would excuse Assange of murder just because and they balance the argument.

      I won't name names, but at least one of the posters to this tread populates every such diary I have read and defends Assange staunchly without so much as a nod to the facts as we know them, I trust this user will not give up or back down any time soon.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:31:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever happened (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, Otteray Scribe

        to "Reality based community"?

        I have no issues with Diaries being written from a particular point of view ... We are Liberals, and we write from that standpoint all the time.

        If that is all this Diary was, then I would not have commented.

        But it isn't. It's mean and nasty, it ignores cogent points that the Diarist is well aware of, and I am left to conclude that the intention was not to hold an honest debate, but to poison the well.

        There are no users here who would excuse Assange of murder, but there are those who have, apparently, already convicted him of rape.

        They will probably be some of the same users who scream for Guantanamo to be close because it strips detainees of due process.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:46:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree this diary/diarist is partisan (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice, Rei

          And you may note I neither tipped or rec'd it for that reason, but did post at least one substantive comment expressing my own opinion.

          But honestly, can you show me the diary on this subject that isn't? Were it that this diary was the outlier amongst them I'd probably be more in agreement with you but I seem to have missed the moderate/factual ones.

          There are no users here who would excuse Assange of murder, but there are those who have, apparently, already convicted him of rape.
          Afraid I have to disagree on this point: there are some (or have been ... some seem to have left the room) highly partisan defenders of Assange that totally deny relevant facts and have gone way off the tracks making outrageous claims and accusations about the victims of these alleged crimes being the perpetrators, including characterizing them as "sluts" (which might logically raise the question if Assange seeks out such women). We have also had much wild speculation about Assange being a target for extraordinary rendition buy the US government in terms that verge on irrational CT.  

          One such person posts here today using a more moderate tone (indeed I tipped one comment) but if you checked the comment history you would find my above description accurate; it would not surprise me to find some people rushing to Assange's defense under almost any circumstance, they are that polarized. So I don't find it surprising that some on the other side react in kind.

          We should all be as fair and reality-based as you suggest, really, we are in agreement there. But failing that, I can accept partisan diaries with some reasonable basis and letting the points be argued in the comments.

          IOW, I dislike censorship. Let antagonists make their cases.

          No doubt Rei dislikes Assange. But there is some basis.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 12:40:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  such as what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rei
          it ignores cogent points that the Diarist is well aware of,
          I have read all the comments to this diary.  Perhaps I have missed it but I did not see anyone disputing the alleged facts.
          •  Read the comments again (0+ / 0-)

            Nearly all the "facts" are allegations.

            When it is pointed out that the criminal charges are, in Sweden, fairly minor "misdemeanors" that comment is pounced on with "rape is not a misdemeanor".

            Yet Assange hasn't been charged with anything, he is wanted for questioning on a charge that is nothing like rape as we understand it ... the language is used to incite.

            Virtually every other allegation against him amounts to nothing more than the suggestion that he is a bit of a jerk.

            What the Diarist willfully ignores is the political implications of the extradition warrant.

            Those implications are major, and they are real

            Bear in mind that a sovereign government gave him asylum based solely on the political implications in this case ... hardly something that we should simply dismiss.

            In every Diary about wikileaks or Assange, commenters have consistently said that JA should face a Swedish Court ... everyone.

            Yet the Diarist ignores this, and calls people "rape apologists".

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            by twigg on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:09:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It also ignores (0+ / 0-)

              something else the Diarist is well aware of.

              Both Assange and his lawyers have offered his return to Sweden with one simple condition ...

              That at the end of any proceedings, whatever the outcome (which at worst would be a very short prison term), that Julian Assange is granted safe passage out of Sweden.

              Sweden has consistently refused to accept that, and they have lied about the reasons that JA couldn't be questioned in London.

              They have never given a decent explanation as to why they have lied, and I wouldn't trust a single word on any court or other document from the Swedish authorities.

              Something about this case smells very bad, and I will not be sidetracked by emotive responses to sex crime allegations.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              by twigg on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:14:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That is simply not true. (0+ / 0-)

                Sweden has guaranteed to the Australian foreign minister no extraditions where there's a risk of death penalty or other human rights violations or where the charges have to do with intelligence or military matters, which is the maximum extent permissible by Swedish law.  The British government, which also has to approve the request, has issued a written statement guaranteeing no extradition where there's a risk of death penalty or other human rights violations, which is the maximum extent permissible by British law.  To ask more of either of them would involve telling them to tear up their extradition treaties.  Beyond that, the Swedish courts would also have to approve (under the same Swedish standards), the British courts would have to approve (under the same British standards), and the European Court on Human Rights, whose entire purpose is to prevent human rights abuses and political prosecutions, would have to approve.

                They have not once lied about the reasons he can't be questioned in Sweden.  It's very explicit in the prosecutor's initial filing:

                B.  The aim of the EAW

                5.  Julian Assange’s surrender is sought in order that he may be subject to criminal proceedings.

                6.  A domestic warrant for the respondent’s arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden.  An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

                7.  According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at.  Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”.  It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been   interrogated.

                8.  The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial.  Once the decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court.  In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within two weeks.  Once started, the trial may not be adjourned.  It can therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings.  There is no easy  analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure.  I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

                9.  It is submitted on Julian Assange’s behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance.  This is not an appropriate course in Assange’s case.  The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that it is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

                10.  Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists.  Subject to any  matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be  indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter.  It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

                11.  It is not correct to assert that Assange has made repeated offers to be interviewed.  In September and October 2010 I was in constant contact with   counsel Bjorn Hurtig.  It was not possible to arrange an interview because   Assange did not come back to Sweden, despite my request that he did.  Frequently, Hurtig was not able to contact Assange to arrange the details for him to attend for interview.  An offer of an interview by telephone was made by Hurtig.  I declined this offer for the reasons outlined above.  It  was because his failure to attend Sweden for interview and so that criminal proceedings could continue, that it was necessary for me to request from the court an order for his arrest.

                Swedish law requires the trial begin within two weeks of the charges being filed, which happens at the end of the second interrogation according to Swedish law.  Thus questioning not in Sweden would be an absurdity, since, as explicitly stated, the point is to charge, not just to get information.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site