Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Manic Moran · 11-12-2010 07:32PM

Not even the Soviet Union or China has had to arrogance to lay claim that their laws are aplicable worldwide, why should the US be held different ?

They tend to have a rather more direct approach to dealing with people without the hassle and publicity of a trial. The fate of that journalist in the UK a year or two ago should be a case in point. No jurisdiction? No extradition? No trial? No problem! Surely the fact that the US is holding itself to a different standard and trying for legal routes is a good thing?

Wikileaks doesn't have an army, navy or an air-force. Assange can make all the claims he wants but as you say, correlation does not equal to causation. I don't know the man and neither do I care about what he's like as a person nor his motives, what I do care about is what the reaction is telling me about supposed freedoms and the like.

I don't believe that the distinction between correlation and causation can absolve you of irresponsibility. If RTE announced the name of a garda informant who suddenly turns up dead a while later, true you can't say rte caused any deaths, but you still have grounds to question the decision.

"Now, as I said before, there's always a downside to technology. It also means that terrorists are able to organize on the Internet in ways that they might not have been able to do before. Extremists can mobilize. And so there's some price that you pay for openness, there's no denying that. But I think that the good outweighs the bad so much that it's better to maintain that openness."

You're kindof stretching that. The ability to say what you want and to associate with whom you want with minimal government interference is a different kettle of fish to saying you have an automatic right to know everything that happens in confidence.

How about the US government warning employees not to look at Wikileaks, even though 3 million have access to the full set of cables just as part of their job? Or what do you think about students and potential employees being told not to mention Wikileaks on Facebook or any other social networking sites because it could impact future employment and they could be seen as security risks - just where is the freedom of thought and speech there, I don't see how anyone could justify this sort of frankly Orwellian and Kafaesque behaviour.

Without justifying it, because it is daft, it is easily explained by bureaucratic inertia. The governments current rules and laws were written decades ago and need to be updated. But that is still theset of government rules in operation

the_syco · 11-12-2010 08:24PM

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Or what do you think about students and potential employees being told not to mention Wikileaks on Facebook or any other social networking sites because it could impact future employment and they could be seen as security risks - just where is the freedom of thought and speech there, I don't see how anyone could justify this sort of frankly Orwellian and Kafaesque behaviour.

I'd see the reason is that I'd see "not writing sh|t about your current employer on the internet" as common sense. I was reminded by my boss not to look at it in work, as I work in a large American multinational, which I had no plans on doing anyhoo's, but rather safe than sorry.

Had some new piece of info come out, and it got traced back to me posting it at work, the US government may just give a contract to someone else rather than the company I work for. And in times like this, that would mean lay-offs. Nothing work could fire me for, but I know there are other ways to fire people if needed, so I'm not going to piss anyone off.

Overheal · 11-12-2010 08:36PM

I could understand that, I could even understand saying "You'll be dishonorably discharged for viewing this" but I don't understand threatening soldiers with Treason.

MackDeToaster · 11-12-2010 09:39PM

the_syco wrote: »

I'd see the reason is that I'd see "not writing sh|t about your current employer on the internet" as common sense. I was reminded by my boss not to look at it in work, as I work in a large American multinational, which I had no plans on doing anyhoo's, but rather safe than sorry.

Had some new piece of info come out, and it got traced back to me posting it at work, the US government may just give a contract to someone else rather than the company I work for. And in times like this, that would mean lay-offs. Nothing work could fire me for, but I know there are other ways to fire people if needed, so I'm not going to piss anyone off.

Ah now come on, you don't see the difference between saying personal sheet about someone you know, and holding a political opinion ? This isn't even about expressing an opinion, this is a threat about merely linking to information or discussing politics on "personal" time, not in the workplace.

I fully agree that you shouldn't be looking at this in work, but on your own time ? If you can't see the problem with this in a purported free and liberal western democracy then I despair.

And let me remind you again, this isn't idle gossip, nor lies, nor propaganda, this is the truth, from a government which has given itself to power to store and read every American's communications on the internet, and no doubt as much of the rest of the world as they can as well. A government which has given itself the power to force libraries to hand over lists of what books you have read.
If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide eh ? So, what has the US government to fear? Is it democratic and accountable to the people ? Why doesn't it want it's own citizens, to whom it is supposedly accountable, to know what it's doing in their name ? Or is it a case of do as I say, not as I do.

MackDeToaster · 11-12-2010 09:43PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

They tend to have a rather more direct approach to dealing with people without the hassle and publicity of a trial. The fate of that journalist in the UK a year or two ago should be a case in point. No jurisdiction? No extradition? No trial? No problem! Surely the fact that the US is holding itself to a different standard and trying for legal routes is a good thing?

Once again, kidnapping and Guantanamo bay. I've already posted a link about an innnocent German man who was kidnapped, brought to Afghanistan, tortured and raped, then dumped on the roadside in Albania once they found he wasn't who they were looking for. And you're telling me the US is holding itself to a different standard ?

the_syco · 11-12-2010 11:43PM

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I fully agree that you shouldn't be looking at this in work, but on your own time ? If you can't see the problem with this in a purported free and liberal western democracy then I despair.

Sorry, wasn't told not to look at this is my own free time. Was just told not to do so in work.

Now for the fun part: if you know about X, and X is written about in the wikileaks, do you think you can now talk about X, or do you think the contract you signed to stating that you cannot talk about X outside of work, or post about it online, suddenly doesn't matter as it has already been published?

I'm not sure myself. I'd say you'd be still forbidden from discussing it, as it hasn't been released through official channels, and thus, for all purposes will still be regarded as classified information?

Biggins · 12-12-2010 12:49AM

WikiLeaks 'rape' victims had hidden agendas ... and I've seen the proof says Julian Assange's lawyer

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s lawyer says he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistleblower is innocent of rape claims made against him by two women in Stockholm.

Björn Hurtig, who is representing Mr Assange in Sweden, said the papers, which form part of the official Swedish investigation, reveal both women had ‘hidden agendas’ and lied about being coerced into having sex with Mr Assange, 39.

The freedom of information crusader is being held in Wandsworth jail in London while fighting extradition to face the accusations, which his defenders say are part of a plot to stop him releasing more embarrassing information on his website about governments worldwide.

Australian Mr Assange met both women at a seminar in Stockholm last August. After having intercourse with each, at different times, he faced sex charges – which he strenuously denies – that were withdrawn and then reinstated.

Mr Hurtig said in an exclusive interview from his Stockholm office: ‘From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place.

‘It was, I believe, more about jealousy and disappointment on their part. I can prove that at least one of them had very big expectations for something to happen with Julian.’

He has asked for Swedish prosecutors’ permission to disclose more ‘sensational’ information.

‘If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade,’ he said. ‘If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.

‘But at the moment I’m bound by the rules of the Swedish legal system, which say that the information can only be used as evidence in this country. For me to do otherwise would lead to me being disbarred.’

Mr Hurtig, a top sex-crime defence lawyer, is ready to fly to London and present the evidence when Mr Assange appears in court this week – if he is given the all-clear.

Mr Assange has not been charged yet. Mr Hurtig said that when they met, ‘I was struck by how good-looking he was. He gave off an aura of someone who was very self-assured and comfortable with himself – the way famous people do.

‘He denied vehemently that he had raped or in any way indulged in non-consensual sex. He was very upset. He kept saying, “How can they do this to me? I’ve done nothing wrong. They are trying to destroy my credibility.” He kept saying it was a witch-hunt and we must fight it.’

One of the women, a political activist in her 30s described as Miss A, claims she was unlawfully coerced and subjected to sexual molestation and deliberate molestation. The other woman, Miss B, who is in her 20s, has alleged he had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping.

Mr Assange told Mr Hurtig he had a brief affair with Miss A – who had organised a seminar for the Centre-Left group Brotherhood Movement – while staying in her flat.

Miss B admitted in her police statement that she sought out Mr Assange after seeing him on TV and, clearly infatuated, attended the seminar he was giving. They had a ‘sexual encounter’ in a cinema on their first meeting and two days later had protected sex at her flat, 40 miles from Stockholm. But the woman told police that she woke up next morning to find him having sex with her without a condom.

‘This is what they are saying is rape,’ said Mr Hurtig. He said Mr Assange and Miss B parted on good terms, with Miss B buying his train ticket back to Stockholm. But Mr Hurtig said that after Mr Assange reneged on his promise to call her and failed to return her phone calls over the next few days, the drama took a ‘bizarre’ turn.

Miss B called the office of Miss A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar, asking the whereabouts of Mr Assange. During the conversation they realised that they had both been ‘victims of his charms’.
Mr Assange told Mr Hurtig he refused their request to take a test for sexually-transmitted diseases.

He said Miss B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy. It was then that
she and Miss A walked into a police station and told their stories.

Mr Hurtig said: ‘I don’t believe Miss B felt she had been raped until she went to the police station. She was encouraged by a policewoman and a junior female prosecutor to think that way. While I don’t think there was any conspiracy, Julian says he is being victimised because of his role with WikiLeaks. The fact that he has a high profile has made him a target for opponents.’

Mr Hurtig said that before leaving Sweden to lecture in Britain at the end of September, Mr Assange tried in vain several times to arrange an interview with Stockholm police.

The strong sense of women’s rights in Sweden means 53 rape allegations are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe.

Also, under Swedish law there are gradations of rape. There is the most serious kind, involving major violence, ‘regular rape’, which could include a degree of violence, and ‘unlawful coercion’, which might involve putting emotional pressure on someone.

The case may turn on whether consensual sex turned into non-consensual sex – and whether a man’s decision not to use a condom can amount to a crime.

But Mr Hurtig remains confident that Mr Assange will get a fair hearing in Sweden.

‘This is not a banana republic,’ he said. ‘It’s just that when it comes to sex crimes, the police and prosecutors and members of the court seem to lose their ability to think logically. That said, I’m convinced that as soon as the case is heard in Sweden it will be thrown out.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html

blacklionboy · 12-12-2010 01:15AM

anyone eles getting the piosin pill?

Gigiwagga · 12-12-2010 01:27AM

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Once again, kidnapping and Guantanamo bay. I've already posted a link about an innnocent German man who was kidnapped, brought to Afghanistan, tortured and raped, then dumped on the roadside in Albania once they found he wasn't who they were looking for. And you're telling me the US is holding itself to a different standard ?

Not really much point arguing with Mr Moran I'm afraid, he's a hardline Uncle Sam man till the last breath kinda thing, and I mean the last breath.
You may as well eat a piano leg. Black is white etc.
The kings shill...

Augmerson · 12-12-2010 02:14AM

Why hasn't anyone made a video of Wild wild west by Will Smith except it's WIKI WIKI WILD WILD LEAKS!

Nodin · 12-12-2010 02:15AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

They tend to have a rather more direct approach to dealing with people without the hassle and publicity of a trial. The fate of that journalist in the UK a year or two ago should be a case in point. No jurisdiction? No extradition? No trial? No problem! Surely the fact that the US is holding itself to a different standard and trying for legal routes is a good thing?

..well its a pleasant change to the last administrations efforts. However its hands are not entirely clean either.

Manic Moran · 12-12-2010 08:09AM

the_syco wrote: »

I'd see the reason is that I'd see "not writing sh|t about your current employer on the internet" as common sense. I was reminded by my boss not to look at it in work, as I work in a large American multinational, which I had no plans on doing anyhoo's, but rather safe than sorry.

No, the idiocy comes from the fact that the policy doesn't make any accounting for how public the information is. It's not a matter of talking about it, it's a matter of knowing things you're not supposed to know. In a relatively confined knowledge area it makes sense. With something like this, however, it just means that the government employees are the least informed people on the planet.

It's not unique to the US. When I bought an FAL rifle, which came in pieces, my first point of call was to check in with a few of my friends from the Irish Army in the FAL days to see if they had a manual they could give me. However, by default, everything issued in the Irish military is classified, so they couldn't let me see it. Instead, I ended up finding a copy of the manufacturer's manual for use and maintenance online.

I've already posted a link about an innnocent German man who was kidnapped, brought to Afghanistan, tortured and raped, then dumped on the roadside in Albania once they found he wasn't who they were looking for. And you're telling me the US is holding itself to a different standard ?

An individual of such fine moral upstandingness that he's currently doing two years in a German prison. His detention is certainly undeniable (It's not as if he was kidnapped, he was initially detained by Macedonian immigration), though the rest of his story is questionable.

You may as well eat a piano leg

I recommend Dijon mustard.

NTM

FlutterinBantam · 12-12-2010 10:21AM

Gigiwagga wrote: »

Not really much point arguing with Mr Moran I'm afraid, he's a hardline Uncle Sam man till the last breath kinda thing, and I mean the last breath.
You may as well eat a piano leg. Black is white etc.
The kings shill...

He is perfectly entitled to his point of view.

No need to insult the guy.

chicken fingers · 12-12-2010 10:49AM

Be fair, this is a mid level career military guy. He is usually fair and posts on the mil forum indicate 20+ years service, but also no higher than o3.

There is no way that he will ever bend on anyting. He is not here to learn, he is here to counter any argument with his own point (ie, what all mid level military heads will say). He is also here to give his thoughts and share his knowledge on a great variety of military topics of which he has a great knowledge. On the military forum he is a different guy.

He sounds reasonably smart on some aspects and he can cleverly dodge issues, as well as the best of them. He´d be more use to them in a PR room

My own background I worked in the 90s for years for dod contractors in IT, involving overseas travel to warzones etc. I was at one time a fairly stoic conservative. Were rich, let the fookin peasants eat cheetos, smoke crack and other chit.

I can understand the need for diplomatic privacy, but **** it. Publish the lot. People get killed, but the world does need some balance. Its just a pity that the clearance level doesnt go to TS, we would have gotten much juicier stuff then.

And yeah, I do understand the hypocrisy in bitching about the americans with one face and eating their fat (probably directly netted 7 figures just from the dod stuff) chorizo with another. Screw it, I´ve grown and changed and now my mind is open, politically and emotionally to new ideas and methods of governance.

FlutterinBantam · 12-12-2010 11:55AM

chicken fingers wrote: »

Be fair, this is a mid level career military guy. He is usually fair and posts on the mil forum indicate 20+ years service, but also no higher than o3.

There is no way that he will ever bend on anyting. He is not here to learn, he is here to counter any argument with his own point (ie, what all mid level military heads will say). He is also here to give his thoughts and share his knowledge on a great variety of military topics of which he has a great knowledge. On the military forum he is a different guy.

He sounds reasonably smart on some aspects and he can cleverly dodge issues, as well as the best of them. He´d be more use to them in a PR room

My own background I worked in the 90s for years for dod contractors in IT, involving overseas travel to warzones etc. I was at one time a fairly stoic conservative. Were rich, let the fookin peasants eat cheetos, smoke crack and other chit.

I can understand the need for diplomatic privacy, but **** it. Publish the lot. People get killed, but the world does need some balance. Its just a pity that the clearance level doesnt go to TS, we would have gotten much juicier stuff then.

And yeah, I do understand the hypocrisy in bitching about the americans with one face and eating their fat (probably directly netted 7 figures just from the dod stuff) chorizo with another. Screw it, I´ve grown and changed and now my mind is open, politically and emotionally to new ideas and methods of governance.

That is big time hypocrisy in fairness.

Was it only after the dollars dried up that you got this 'Pauline conversion'or is there another reason??

MackDeToaster · 12-12-2010 02:23PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

An individual of such fine moral upstandingness that he's currently doing two years in a German prison. His detention is certainly undeniable (It's not as if he was kidnapped, he was initially detained by Macedonian immigration), though the rest of his story is questionable.

NTM

So you admit he was kidnapped, how else can you explain him being shipped to Afghanistan and tortured ? Was it the Macedonian border guards that did that ?
And there is nothing questionable about his story, unless you want to now try and explain how the German authorities accept that his story is true, issued arrest warrants for thirteen CIA operatives but acquised to American political pressure, and that Spain has a warrant out for them ? This is all questionable I suppose ?

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831

All I see here is that you're compartmentalising what's going on.
Whatever the man did afterwards is utterly irrelevant, the basic fact remains that he was removed, extra-judicially and without due process of law, to a foreign country, where he was tortured, and that this was done by the CIA.
This is plain fact, and renders your claims that the US is somehow 'different' to China and other regimes to be a case of the Emperors new clothes.

So much for innocent until proven guilty, let alone the more proper innocent unless proven guilty. And the same goes for the shutting down of Wikileaks without any charges being laid or them being given a chance to defend themselves in court - if this isn't totalitarianism then I don't know what is.

Shall we compare the treatment of Assange in Britain to another recent high-profile case..

Assange - Hands himself into police on foot of an Interpol warrant regarding a hearing ! Not a charge or anything, just a hearing, about a case which the Swedish prosecution had previously dropped.
Is promptly arrested, denied bail due to risk of flight (although he had just presented himself to the police and had assurances from several very highly respected people that he wouldn't flee) and put into solitary confinement.

Shrien Dewani - Wanted for murder by South Africa. Released on bail by the very same court several days later after they had locked Assange up.

Or how's about Augosto Pinochet - Dictator, torturer and murderer. Warrant issued by Spain for the murder of several of it's citizens. This wasn't judged important enough for the British police to arrest him though, let alone stop him fleeing the country.

If Assange is guilty of espionage (which he isn't, Manning will be undergong trial for that) might I ask where are the charges being laid against Hilary Clinton for ordering UN diplomats be spied upon ? Why has the US pressurised Germany to drop charges against 13 CIA operatives who kidnapped and tortured a man ? The US is speaking with a forked tongue.

Anyways I'm done with this as I see that some just don't want to believe. Neither do I want to believe this of the US - if they're no different from anybody else then what hope liberty and democracy - but its happening right in front of me and I'm not going to cover my eyes and pretend it's not.

gizmo · 12-12-2010 06:02PM

Assange has gone too far... :pac:

Gigiwagga · 12-12-2010 06:25PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

He is perfectly entitled to his point of view.

No need to insult the guy.

Peas in a pod.

Wonder is there any mention of you guys in the leaks.

Manic Moran · 12-12-2010 11:23PM

MackDeToaster wrote: »

So you admit he was kidnapped, how else can you explain him being shipped to Afghanistan and tortured ? Was it the Macedonian border guards that did that ?

The Macedonians detained him in good faith. They thought he was trying to enter their country under a false passport. The internal mechanisms for transfer to US control are not referenced in the various articles, it doesn't mean to say that there aren't any which are legal under Macedonian law.

And there is nothing questionable about his story, unless you want to now try and explain how the German authorities accept that his story is true, issued arrest warrants for thirteen CIA operatives but acquised to American political pressure, and that Spain has a warrant out for them ? This is all questionable I suppose ?

I can certainly understand that the Germans might want to question the various CIA personnel involved. After all, a request to Interpol does not automatically infer anything more than a desire to ask questions, the current case of Mr Assange goes and shows that. The German investigation of 2006 simply concluded that there was no evidence to disprove the allegations, the investigation did not conclude support of them.

As an aside, I have not found any evidence indicating that Spain has actually issued any warrants. I have found numerous articles from May indicating that a prosecutor was looking for them, but none that they've been signed. In any case, the requested warrants are for travelling under an assumed name, not for kidnapping or torture.

Whatever the man did afterwards is utterly irrelevant, the basic fact remains that he was removed,

True

extra-judicially and without due process of law

Possibly true, I don't actually know what agreements Macedonia and the US have.

to a foreign country

Probably true.

where he was tortured, and that this was done by the CIA.

Alleged.

Shall we compare the treatment of Assange in Britain to another recent high-profile case..

Assange - Hands himself into police on foot of an Interpol warrant regarding a hearing ! Not a charge or anything, just a hearing, about a case which the Swedish prosecution had previously dropped.
Is promptly arrested, denied bail due to risk of flight (although he had just presented himself to the police and had assurances from several very highly respected people that he wouldn't flee) and put into solitary confinement.

I believe he was denied bail because there was no evidence of his having entered into the country to begin with. Pretty much standard process that if it's possible that someone's travelling around on a false passport that bail would be denied.

Shrien Dewani - Wanted for murder by South Africa. Released on bail by the very same court several days later after they had locked Assange up.

Yes, under the same due process of British law that the judge evaluates all circumstances. Mr Dewani is not Mr Assange; for starters, 'home' for Mr Dewani is the UK.

Or how's about Augosto Pinochet - Dictator, torturer and murderer. Warrant issued by Spain for the murder of several of it's citizens. This wasn't judged important enough for the British police to arrest him though, let alone stop him fleeing the country.

History Fail. He was arrested. The greatest-achieving UK judge ever, Lord Bingham (The only UK judge ever to be Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice, and Senior Law Lord) ruled that Pinochet was entitled to immunity as a Head of State under UK law and the extradition was denied.

If Assange is guilty of espionage (which he isn't, Manning will be undergong trial for that) might I ask where are the charges being laid against Hilary Clinton for ordering UN diplomats be spied upon ?

1) This assumes that the instructions actually constituted espionage.
2) Ask someone at the UN, I have no idea what their legal thinking is.
3) On a practical level, I can't see any country trying it: They all keep a close eye on each other, so I can understand why they wouldn't want to start some sort of process wherin they would have to stop!
4) The US' legal definition of espionage can include Wikileaks' actions. The big question is that of jurisdiction, not whether the charge could apply if Wikileaks happend to find itself in a US court.

Why has the US pressurised Germany to drop charges against 13 CIA operatives who kidnapped and tortured a man ? The US is speaking with a forked tongue.

Presumably because they could do without any more bad PR. Even if the allegations are later shown to be false, the PR would be horrible.

NTM

Star Bingo · 12-12-2010 11:31PM

Assange > violated flange

chin_grin · 12-12-2010 11:39PM

I'll just leave this here.

Einhard · 13-12-2010 12:08AM

I think the following should be required reading for all those who automatically jump to the conlcusion that Assange is innocent of all charges made against him purely because he is Julian Assange. I really think it's shocking that some people think that, purely because of who he is, he shouldn't have to go through the same judicial process that the rest of us have to face. I accept that there's a possibility that this is an attempt to stitch him up, but there's also a chance that the claims are genuine. And yet, purely because of who he is, people are claiming that he should be allowed to waltz away without even the most cursory of investigations. Worse still, they are making the potential victims of a terrible crime into the guilty parties. Anyway, interesting article, and given its provenance, can hardly be labelled as partisan or anti-Assange.

The arrest of Julian Assange has escalated to a new pitch of intensity a controversy already beyond precedent. The arrest of the WikiLeaks founder over sexual offences allegedly committed in Sweden this summer was already fiercely contested. But in the 48 hours since he was remanded in custody in London pending extradition proceedings, those denouncing his prosecution as malicious and politically motivated have grown angrier and ever more profuse. An unlikely coalition has formed around Assange and, whether explicitly or implicitly, against his two accusers.

The veteran journalist John Pilger, who – along with filmmaker Ken Loach and charity fundraiser Jemima Khan – offered bail sureties to the court, dismissed the charges as a "political stunt". The author and activist Naomi Wolf condemned the women for "using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appear to be personal injured feelings". Human rights champion Bianca Jagger tweeted about one of the complainant's supposed links with the CIA. In a letter to the Guardian, the British campaigning organisation Women Against Rape queried "the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued".

These models of leftwing and liberal opinion find themselves, intentionally or otherwise, shoulder to shoulder with a motley assemblage of conspiracy theorists and internet attack dogs that has been mauling the characters of Assange's accusers since their complaints were first lodged in August. Barely established online niceties regarding the discussion of sexual assault cases were overturned: the women's personal photographs, CVs and blogposts have been dredged for evidence of sexual deviance, mental instability and vengeful intent. Claes Borgström, the women's lawyer, told the Guardian yesterday that his clients were "the victims of a crime, but they are looked upon as the perpetrators".

In circumstances as volatile and globally significant as this, it is practically impossible not to see these charges in conjuction with the broader political accusations levelled at Assange and his website. The alacrity with which the British justice system has pursued this warrant when it is so notoriously slow to respond to similar complaints made by its own citizens doesn't deserve to pass without comment and, as Women Against Rape noted in their letter, there is an ignoble tradition dating back to the racist lynch mobs of the American Deep South of using sex crime allegations to furnish political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety.
But Assange's status as embattled warrior for free speech is taken as giving permission – by those on the left as well as right – to indulge in the basest slut-shaming and misogyny. It's terrifying to witness how swiftly rape orthodoxies reassert themselves: that impugning a man's sexual propriety is a political act, that sexual assault complainants are prone to a level of mendacity others are not (and, in this case, deserving of the same crowd-sourced scrutiny afforded leaked diplomatic cables), that not all forms of non-consensual sex count as "rape-rape".
The latter phrasing comes courtesy of Whoopi Goldberg,

who coined the term last autumn in a defence of film director Roman Polanski, then facing extradition to the US after his arrest in Switzerland over a 32-year-old statutory rape charge. It feeds the narrative that consent is so difficult to prove in cases where the victim knew her attacker, or was drugged or drunk, and the violation so much lesser, that the only crimes worth prosecuting involve violent strangers in dark alleys. It also underlies the assumption that a man's good behaviour in public life somehow neutralises bad behaviour in private, thus recasting the domestic assaults of footballers like George Best and Paul Gascoigne as indecorous, rather than violently criminal.

By this measure, rape allegations against a maverick internet provocateur are diminished in the context of his crusade for truth instead of, albeit unpalatably, being capable of existing alongside it.

In defence of Assange, the Wikiblokesphere has fixed on the details of the cases available in the public domain, in particular consent to intercourse only with a condom, as proof of a spurious "non-rape-rape" charge. In fact what is significant about the Swedish system is not that it employs a broader definition of rape than in other countries – it doesn't – but that prosecutions are based not on consent but whether a complainant's "sexual integrity" has been violated. In addition, alleged victims can instruct their own lawyers, who often seek second opinions after an initial dismissal, which may offer a rather more pedestrian explanation for why the cases have been re-opened now.

The speed with which this latest episode in the WikiLeaks saga has been reduced to weary tropes about honeytraps, castrating feminists and undeserving victims is depressing. In an apparent plea to haul the debate back from the soup of smear and counter-smear, Naomi Klein argued that "defending WikiLeaks is not the same as defending rape". But the fact that the defence of Assange has spawned such naked and vitriolic misogyny should be of concern to all women and men who find it as distasteful and counter to the pursuit of truth as the attacks on WikiLeaks itself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/09/nobody-gains-from-misogynist-defence-of-assange/print

Manic Moran · 13-12-2010 01:44AM

chin_grin wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

Someone whose home is within the jurisdiction and who is not believed to be travelling outside of the immigration system is given bail, whilst someone whose home is outside the jurisdiction and who may be travelling under a false passport is not given bail.

And that's a travesty of justice? Seems like the bail system working more or less as it should.

He is usually fair and posts on the mil forum indicate 20+ years service, but also no higher than o3.

Just ten, with the US. I'm quite happy with my rank.

NTM

chicken fingers · 13-12-2010 04:44AM

fair play your knowledge on military matters is second to no other regular on here.
But you never say anything unpredictable. IMO all of your political opinions are absolutely guessable. Which is a shame because I´ve met 30 year guys who describe themselves as "political radicalists" and have open minds to the possibility that what the gov tells you is not the real or full story.

On the same note, however I do agree. Assange might be in on a trumped up charge fuelled by jealousy, but it was right to deny him bail. The "killer" in south africa so far has little evidence presented against him so it is right to grant him bail.

Manic Moran · 13-12-2010 05:19AM

IMO all of your political opinions are absolutely guessable

Only the ones which I tend to post here, namely the ones which are often in opposition to the dominant view of the Boards membership. Posting in agreement of everyone else is hardly going to stimulate discussion, is it? Not to say I never do, but someone has to stick up for the minority viewpoints!

NTM

Thrill · 13-12-2010 05:37AM

WikiLeaks: Adams 'an IRA commander', ambassador told

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/wikileaks-adams-an-ira-commander-ambassador-told-485440.html

The government had “rock solid evidence” Gerry Adams was a senior member of the IRA as recently as five years ago, according to the latest US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

The Sinn Féin president and Martin McGuinness were also aware the £26.5m (€31.73) robbery in the Northern Bank in Belfast of 2004, which was blamed on the IRA, was going to be carried out, officials in Dublin told the US ambassador James Kenny.

Mr Kenny’s cable referred to a meeting with a senior Irish government official which focused on then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern’s concerns about the peace process.

The ambassador recorded: “He said that the GOI (government of Ireland) does have ’rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain they would have known in advance of the robbery.”

While Mr McGuinness, Stormont’s deputy first minister, has admitted being an IRA commander, Mr Adams has long denied he was even a member of the organisation.

The WikiLeaks claim, reported in the Guardian newspaper, comes as the Sinn Féin president prepares to take a political gamble by resigning his Westminster seat in west Belfast to stand in Co Louth in the forthcoming election.

The move is part of Sinn Féin’s strategy to build its electoral support south of the border.

A party spokesman dismissed the claims last night as “utter nonsense”.

“There is not a shred of evidence linking republicans to the Northern Bank robbery and Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams have both made their positions crystal clear in relation to these matters in the past,” he said.

WikiLeaks: Sinn Fein Leaders Knew of Bank Heist

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025428-503543.html

The Guardian reports Sunday that Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness carried out negotiations for the Good Friday agreement with Irish then-prime minister Bertie Ahern while the two had explicit knowledge of a bank robbery that the Irish Republican Army was planning to carry out. The information comes from a WikiLeaks cable.

chicken fingers · 13-12-2010 07:09AM

to be fair, thats news to nobody.

sponsoredwalk · 13-12-2010 07:39AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Why has the US pressurised Germany to drop charges against 13 CIA operatives who kidnapped and tortured a man ? The US is speaking with a forked tongue.

Presumably because they could do without any more bad PR. Even if the allegations are later shown to be false, the PR would be horrible.

NTM

Wow...

Nodin · 13-12-2010 10:10AM

Thrill wrote: »

WikiLeaks: Sinn Fein Leaders Knew of Bank Heist

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025428-503543.html

Actually it says Bertie believed they knew, which is rather a different thing...

Bottle_of_Smoke · 13-12-2010 10:28AM

Nodin wrote: »

Actually it says Bertie believed they knew, which is rather a different thing...

He effectively said it publically at the time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4154657.stm

Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said trust and confidence in the peace process had been damaged.

"An operation of this magnitude... has obviously been planned at a stage when I was in negotiations with those that would know the leadership of the Provisional movement," he said.

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments