Wikileaks founder accused of rape

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry, the, what?

Di0genes wrote: »

No no no I know what the American Resistance Movement is, a bunch of idiot militia men. Can you show how Assange is a founding member of this group.

Who the hell said Assange is a founding member of A.R.M.? Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your greatest strength. The guy's name is Charles Dyer. He's a founding member of A.R.M. He was charged with raping a child, his own daughter I believe, by his ex-girlfriend.

For record, I don't know about Assange's guilt or innocence. But more than enough people seem to be leaping on the band wagon that this is a "set up" despite being equally in the dark about the facts of this case.

Because it's so obviously an attempt to discredit the guy that reveals the truth about the things going on behind the scenes.

Edit: I'll go edit my other post to avoid such misunderstandings.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Who the hell said Assange is a founding member of A.R.M.? Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your greatest strength.

No I can read just fine. Before you edited your post your entire reference was

your entire post pre edit wrote:

Funny how they accused one of the founding members of the American Resistance Movement

There was no mention of Dyer. If you're going go into rambling non sequiturs about completely different people, and events, and not explain yourself clearly, expect people to be confused.

The guy's name is Charles Dyer. He's a founding member of A.R.M. He was charged with raping a child, his own daughter I believe, by his ex-girlfriend.

And your entire defence of him is a video, of him speaking, and I quote.

Not what I would consider a child rapist to be honest.

Well seeing as your powers of perception are so keen, that you are able to clear a man of rape, merely by looking at a youtube video of him, perhaps your gift should be used in some kind of Crime Fighting capacity.

Because it's so obviously an attempt to discredit the guy that reveals the truth about the things going on behind the scenes.

Firstly how is it obvious?

And secondly how does it discredit wikileaks. Assange provided a forum for people to anonymously leak documents, this action in no way incriminates or taints wikileaks, which I suspect can carry on without his involvement, or innocence or guilt.

It's like claiming the work of a respected journalist is tainted because his newspaper's publisher, is a gambler.


What I do find distasteful is your list of potential innuendo about the motivations of two women, who have been potentially violated, and your willingness to besmirch their character before any facts about the case are known.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And secondly how does it discredit wikileaks.

Ridiculous question of the week time? :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

It's like claiming the work of a respected journalist is tainted because his newspaper's publisher, is a gambler.

That actually brought a wry smile coming from you. You are always the first to attempt to discredit any CT source based on some non relevant ideology or episode from their past.

demonspawn

Anyone who knows about the A.R.M. is quite familiar with Dyer's case. You obviously knew about the A.R.M. before my post (you even said so yourself) so why the confusion? I wrote that post to simply add that this is not an uncommon thing to use against people.

Well seeing as your powers of perception are so keen, that you are able to clear a man of rape, merely by looking at a youtube video of him, perhaps your gift should be used in some kind of Crime Fighting capacity.

Who says it's not being used? Oh, you haven't seen my costume yet? It's great! Spandex and rubber all over the place!

That last bit of your post isn't worth replying to in my opinion. Sorry.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ridiculous question of the week time? :rolleyes:

No apparently it's just your time of the month. If you're going to come out with snide sarky asides instead of answering legitimate points, I'll engage in the kind of juvenile antics you seem to enjoy

That actually brought a wry smile coming from you. You are always the first to attempt to discredit any CT source based on some non relevant ideology or episode from their past.

There's a world of difference between dismissing a source because of a proven bias, political ideology, or that it has been shown to be inaccurate or unfair, and dismissing a website designed to allow anonymous leaking of documents because the guy who came up with the concept is an accused rapist.

But these concepts seems beyond your ken. So I will use an analogy, it's akin to dismissing the internet as amoral because there's pornography on it.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Anyone who knows about the A.R.M. is quite familiar with Dyer's case. You obviously knew about the A.R.M. before my post (you even said so yourself)

Familiarity with an organisation does not mean I keep up with day events of the extreme right.

so why the confusion? I wrote that post to simply add that this is not an uncommon thing to use against people.

And neither case has been brought to trial. It's funny that the innocence or guilt of these two men has not yet been established and yet you seem utterly convinced both are being framed.

Who says it's not being used? Oh, you haven't seen my costume yet? It's great! Spandex and rubber all over the place!

What you get up to in your bedroom is between you, and well yourself.

That last bit of your post isn't worth replying to in my opinion. Sorry.

Why apologise? I mean you just ignored any substantive part of the argument laid out against your position, and instead got into pedantry.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

Firstly how is it obvious?

And secondly how does it discredit wikileaks. Assange provided a forum for people to anonymously leak documents, this action in no way incriminates or taints wikileaks, which I suspect can carry on without his involvement, or innocence or guilt.

It's like claiming the work of a respected journalist is tainted because his newspaper's publisher, is a gambler.


What I do find distasteful is your list of potential innuendo about the motivations of two women, who have been potentially violated, and your willingness to besmirch their character before any facts about the case are known.

I goes without saying that people will be less likely to disclose sensitive information to an alleged rapist. Anyone with any bit of sense can see that.

If he is falsely convicted, that's the end of wikileaks. Simple.

Some women lie, that's no secret. Some men lie, that is also no secret.
I just find it very strange how such a controversial figure can be accused of rape by some random person. These types of accusations can be very damaging to a person's public image, regardless of whether they are true or not. This is why they are effective, because they don't even have to be true.

In a series of other messages posted on the Wikileaks Twitter feed, the whistle-blowing website said: "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police", and that it had been warned to expect "dirty tricks".

Happy now?

Edit: Where does it say that there are two women involved? It simply states that there are two allegations, one for rape and one for molestation.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

I goes without saying that people will be less likely to disclose sensitive information to an alleged rapist. Anyone with any bit of sense can see that.

If he is falsely convicted, that's the end of wikileaks. Simple.

Okay right. So You have absolutely no concept of how wikileaks works. The site has over 1,200 volunteers, Assange is on a board of advisors.

It's not as if people e-mail him personally, and he alone decides what is and isn't published.

Some women lie, that's no secret. Some men lie, that is also no secret.

And some people commit rape

I just find it very strange how such a controversial figure can be accused of rape by some random person.

So your entire foundation for your position is your incredulity?

These types of accusations can be very damaging to a person's public image,

As can your insinuations about the character of the alleged victim.

Happy now?

Edit: Where does it say that there are two women involved? It simply states that there are two allegations, one for rape and one for molestation.

The women are the two women who made allegations about Assange and Dyer. What was it you said about reading comprehension?

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay right. So You have absolutely no concept of how wikileaks works. The site has over 1,200 volunteers, Assange is on a board of advisors.

It's not as if people e-mail him personally, and he alone decides what is and isn't published.

He pays the bills, if he goes the whole thing goes. Nobody's gonna work for a convicted rapist.

And some people commit rape

And some people lie. I'm finished with that argument.

As can your insinuations about the character of the alleged victim.

What victim? Who are they? Where are they? That's right, there's no basis for this accusation whatsoever. That's probably why Swedish Police aren't bothering with it.

The women are the two women who made allegations about Assange and Dyer. What was it you said about reading comprehension?

You didn't even know who Charles Dyer was before my post. How am I meant to know what the hell you're talking about? But hey, let's just make it up as we go along shall we?

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

He pays the bills,

No, no he does not.

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for Wikileaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to Wikileaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration to Wikileaks' personnel, corroborating the statement of the site's German representative Daniel Schmitt on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers

http://www.techeye.net/internet/wau-holland-foundation-sheds-light-on-wikileaks-donations#ixzz0td0dXhBx

I think at this junction, you should stop talking, go away, and read up on how wikileak actually works.

if he goes the whole thing goes. Nobody's gonna work for a convicted rapist.

No body works for him now.

What victim? Who are they? Where are they? That's right, there's no basis for this accusation whatsoever. That's probably why Swedish Police aren't bothering with it.

You seem incredibly confident and at the same time, don't seem to know the first facts about the case.

You didn't even know who Charles Dyer was before my post. How am I meant to know what the hell you're talking about? But hey, let's just make it up as we go along shall we?

You raised the Dyer case, I looked into it. You brought it up, and are now getting your knickers in a twist because I referred back to it. It seems someone wants to have and eat their cake.

demonspawn

Well if all his staff are volunteers then they'd be a lot less likely to work for a convicted rapist than a paid employee, right?

Di0genes wrote: »

No body works for him now.

I don't even know what that means.

You seem incredibly confident and at the same time, don't seem to know the first facts about the case.

Likewise. But of course, guilty until proven innocent right? Well in rape cases that's certainly the perception, and that's why they're used to discredit people. Get it now?

You raised the Dyer case, I looked into it. You brought it up, and are now getting your knickers in a twist because I referred back to it. It seems someone wants to have and eat their cake.

And it is at this point that I will take my leave because you're just making less sense with every post. Enjoy arguing with yourself.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Well if all his staff are volunteers then they'd be a lot less likely to work for a convicted rapist than a paid employee, right?

Christ you really don't get it. They're. Not. His. Staff. He. Doesnt. Run. Wikileaks.

I don't even know what that means.

Nobody is directly employed by Assange.

Likewise. But of course, guilty until proven innocent right?

No innocent until proven guilt. You seem to get alot of basic stuff mixed up.

Well in rape cases that's certainly the perception,

No it's not. And as you've clearly demonstrated with this comment

We all know pretty well that rape charges have been used in the past to get back at former boyfriends. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence to be considered in a rape case. Men have spent time in prison because of false accusations of rape, so maybe that's why the conviction rate for rape charges are as low as they are. Or maybe some women are just immoral liars willing to put a man behind bars to "teach him a lesson".

That you'd suspect the alleged victims motives before believing the charges against the alleged rapist.

and that's why they're used to discredit people. Get it now?

And you've given us two examples, neither of which have gone to trial so it's hard to see if they are either an effective tool to "discredit" people, or even if the charges have any merit.

And it is at this point that I will take my leave because you're just making less sense with every post. Enjoy arguing with yourself.

Actually you should have just given up when you exposed the fact that you don't even understand the basic model of how wikileaks works. No scratch that, you should have given up when you suggested that an alleged child rapist was "Not exactly what I would consider a child rapist to be honest." based on a youtube video taken at a public rally.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

Actually you should have just given up when you exposed the fact that you don't even understand the basic model of how wikileaks works. No scratch that, you should have given up when you suggested that an alleged child rapist was "Not exactly what I would consider a child rapist to be honest." based on a youtube video taken at a public rally.

I'm gonna ignore all the other stuff because it's just absurd. I base my opinion of Charles Dyer not an a Youtube video, but on the fact that we spoke regularly on the A.R.M. forums before his arrest. I know him and his friends in the U.S. fairly well by now. They all say he's not the type to do that and I wholeheartedly agree. I was actually planning on moving back to the U.S. and joining the A.R.M. before I found out about the tea party members that associated themselves with the movement. Now don't you feel like a complete tool? Well you should.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm gonna ignore all the other stuff because it's just absurd.

Me pointing out that haven't a bogs notion as to how wikileaks actual works is absurd?

I base my opinion of Charles Dyer not an a Youtube video, but on the fact that we spoke regularly on the A.R.M. forums before his arrest. I know him and his friends in the U.S. fairly well by now. They all say he's not the type to do that and I wholeheartedly agree. I was actually planning on moving back to the U.S. and joining the A.R.M. before I found out about the tea party members that associated themselves with the movement. Now don't you feel like a complete tool? Well you should.

No I don't. You taking the words of a bunch of fascist gun nuts militia types over the internet as proof that he's innocent is fecking hilarious.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

No I don't. You taking the words of a bunch of fascist gun nuts militia types over the internet as proof that he's innocent is fecking hilarious.

Judgmental much? The fact is you have no idea who those guys are. I do. Yes, there are some nutters in there but Charles Dyer isn't one of them. I'm done speaking to you now, good luck finding someone else to entertain your ideas.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Judgmental much? The fact is you have no idea who those guys are. I do. Yes, there are some nutters in there but Charles Dyer isn't one of them. I'm done speaking to you now, good luck finding someone else to entertain your ideas.

But demonspawn you've clearly shown you had no idea how wikileaks was run. I have to admit I had no idea either but then i didn't make accusations like I knew.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

But demonspawn you've clearly shown you had no idea how wikileaks was run. I have to admit I had no idea either but then i didn't make accusations like I knew.

Accusations and assumptions are clearly two different words with two different meanings. I assumed this guy was the boss and wikileaks was a company he ran. I was mistaken. It really has nothing to do with the actual thread. As usual debunkers try changing the subject to suit their agenda.

Next.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

...I assumed this guy was the boss and wikileaks was a company he ran. I was mistaken. It really has nothing to do with the actual thread. As usual debunkers try changing the subject to suit their agenda.

Next.

But it has everything to do with the thread. If he doesn't actually run the wikileaks organisation then destroying his reputation will have little impact on wikileaks. And if it has little impact on wikileaks then there's little reason for anyone to frame him.

Changing the subject???!?!?

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

But it has everything to do with the thread. If he doesn't actually run the wikileaks organisation then destroying his reputation will have little impact on wikileaks. And if it has little impact on wikileaks then there's little reason for anyone to frame him.

Changing the subject???!?!?

You can't know the effect this will have on the site, so there's no point in sitting here making assumptions about it either way. It just stands to reason that the head of an organization is a reflection of that organization. When his character is called into question with a rape allegation, his reputation may crumble. Obviously a number of people believe he's the boss over at wikileaks, I've already proven that. I imagine people will be less likely to believe a story that's been broken on wikileaks if they believe the guy is a rapist. Public perception is everything in politics.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

You can't know the effect this will have on the site, so there's no point in sitting here making assumptions about it either way.

But you've been making assumptions from the start of this thread. He may be guilty of something or he may not, that's what a court of law is for. You've been assuming a fit up from the beginning using information that turns out not to be true.

demonspawn wrote: »

It just stands to reason that the head of an organization is a reflection of that organization. When his character is called into question with a rape allegation, his reputation may crumble. Obviously a number of people believe he's the boss over at wikileaks, I've already proven that. I imagine people will be less likely to believe a story that's been broken on wikileaks if they believe the guy is a rapist. Public perception is everything in politics.

The US government complaining about wikileaks has done more for it's popularity than any rape allegation on it's founder will tarnish it.

joebucks

Interesting point by Chomsky in relation to Wikileaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfYtvYRgdk



If you had confidential information that you wanted to leak would you feel confident in sending it to Wikileaks?

meglome

joebucks wrote: »

Interesting point by Chomsky in relation to Wikileaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfYtvYRgdk

Em he isn't really saying anything specific to wikileaks. He mentions a document which is available on it but his point isn't about wikileaks.

joebucks wrote: »

If you had confidential information that you wanted to leak would you feel confident in sending it to Wikileaks?

Is there a better place to put it?

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Accusations and assumptions are clearly two different words with two different meanings. I assumed this guy was the boss and wikileaks was a company he ran. I was mistaken. It really has nothing to do with the actual thread.

Actually how wikileaks operations, and what the repercussions of this rape allegation are to it's operation is the exact point of this thread.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

But it has everything to do with the thread. If he doesn't actually run the wikileaks organisation then destroying his reputation will have little impact on wikileaks. And if it has little impact on wikileaks then there's little reason for anyone to frame him.

Changing the subject???!?!?

Eh.. he's the editor of Wikileaks and the public face of Wikileaks - he is Wikileaks bar ownership.

You and Diogenes seem to be in a minority of two. Common sense dictates that any sex crime accusation, whether false or not damages the accused. Michael Jackson is the ultimate example of this. Seems that your opposal to any and all CT's is preventing you's from thinking clearly.

A la Operation Northwoods wasn't a conspiracy.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Is there a better place to put it?

Well yes. Any Swedish newspaper for a start. Even the one that Assange now works for, Aftonbladet. It was their main rivals Expressen that broke the rape story btw.

In Sweden sources are protected unconditionally by the constitution, provided you apply for some license. Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden yet apparently hasn't applied for this license yet for some reason.

joebucks

meglome wrote: »

Em he isn't really saying anything specific to wikileaks. He mentions a document which is available on it but his point isn't about wikileaks.

He was implying that the Wikileaks story was being used as a smokescreen to divert attention away from the Fallujah story. The fallujah document was not part of Wikileaks.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Eh.. he's the editor of Wikileaks and the public face of Wikileaks - he is Wikileaks bar ownership.

Where did you get he's editor of wikileaks? He's one of 1200 people albeit a public facing one. Yes he's obviously senior in the organisation but if he's gone nothing would change as far as I can see, other than someone else would be the public face.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You and Diogenes seem to be in a minority of two. Common sense dictates that any sex crime accusation, whether false or not damages the accused. Michael Jackson is the ultimate example of this. Seems that your opposal to any and all CT's is preventing you's from thinking clearly.

I don't think anyone suggested for a second that a sex crime accusation was a good thing. However Michael Jackson was in charge of his own affairs, sure he had lawyers, and bodyguards and hangeroners but the whole organisation was centred around Michael Jackson. Wikileaks is called wikileaks not Julian Assange.

My opposal to any and all CT's? hahaha. I have no doubt there are conspiracy's happening, each and every day. I have sighted in the past the price fixing that went on between British Airways and Virgin on transatlantic flights as a good example. But I have a problem believing nearly all of the vast conspiracy's that normally pop up in here. They usually lack evidence, often ignore science, they play fast and loose with truth and often directly contradict each other. And I have a major problem believing that numbers of power hungry people will all sit around a room and do what they are told and/or all agree on the same thing - human nature and history would tell me otherwise.


Wikileaks founder could be dumped
Bad attitude to women
http://www.techeye.net/security/wikileaks-founder-could-be-dumped

Assange's 20-year-old estranged son, Daniel, thinks his dad's claims about the alleged "dirty tricks" campaign are pants.

He wrote in a Facebook posting that Assange "does have a way of making a lot of female enemies".

The Daily Mail has managed to get its paws on copies of the police statements made by the two women at the centre of the claims. These indicate that Assange had consensual sex with the women but was reported to police after he refused to use a condom or, later, take an STD test.

Anna Ardin allegedly let Assange stay in her one-bedroom flat in Stockholm where they had sex, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split. His response was to refuse to do anything about it or have an STD test.

The other case, which initially caused Swedish coppers to call for Assange's arrest involved a complaint that Assange had sex with her without a condom, despite her insistence that he wear one.

All embarrassing but hardly the work of CIA spooks.

Looks like the guy may be a dick to women... see what can happen when we don't make assumptions and let fact get in the way of the CT.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well yes. Any Swedish newspaper for a start. Even the one that Assange now works for, Aftonbladet. It was their main rivals Expressen that broke the rape story btw.

In Sweden sources are protected unconditionally by the constitution, provided you apply for some license. Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden yet apparently hasn't applied for this license yet for some reason.

Again you're just exposing that you don't understand how wikileaks work

Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden, and several other countries. Aftonbladet could publish a story, but injunctions, could prevent the story being repeated in other countries. Take libel law for example. It's not uncommon for a story to be published in one country, and an injunction taken out in this country could prevent our press on reporting the case. Wikileaks, because it's hosted and mirrored on so many severs in so many countries means that it can operate with impunity.

And Assange isn't the editor btw, he sits on a board of advisers.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

see what can happen when we don't make assumptions and let fact get in the way of the CT.

People get smug with the benefit of hindsight?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

People get smug with the benefit of hindsight?

Yup pretty much.