Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative

[Sosa]

One of the women accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
James D. Catlin, a lawyer who recently represented Assange, said the sex assault investigation into the WikiLeaks founder is based on claims he didn't use condoms (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-threatens-release-poison-pill-arrested-killed/) during sex with two Swedish women.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

[Burn A Flag]

I knew it would have been just too convenient for Assange to have actually committed rape around the time he pissed off a great imperial power.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

How suprising.

[Sasha]

extensive (yet seeming a bit demisve of actual sexism) article on counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir09142010.html

sounds like an textbook honeytrap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting#Love.2C_honeyp ots_and_recruitment), if not instigated by the CIA then at least by an adventurous wannabe spy.

[Sasha]

Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/author/glenn_greenwald/index.html)




http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/md_horiz.jpg AP
WikiLeak's Julian Assange.

(updated below - Update II - Update III)
(1) In The New Republic today (http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/79678/data-isnt-everything-wikileaks-julian-assange-daniel-ellsberg), Todd Gitlin writes an entire anti-WikiLeaks column that is based on an absolute factual falsehood. Anyone listening to most media accounts would believe that WikiLeaks has indiscriminately published all 250,000 of the diplomatic cables it possesses, and Gitlin -- in the course of denouncing Julian Assange -- bolsters this falsehood: "Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate" and Assange is "fighting for a world of total transparency."
The reality is the exact opposite -- literally -- of what Gitlin told TNR readers. WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 (http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html) diplomatic cables it has. Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, the NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.). Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm. Here is an AP article from yesterday (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0Vruimmvy8loGklsz34QyGDKMDA?docId=120c7bf5d 3a34dbaadf1280dace2e456) detailing this process:


[T]he group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.
"They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper's Paris headquarters. . . .
"The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's website Friday.
Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/wikileaks), WikiLeaks -- according to AP -- "appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released." Although the U.S. -- again -- refused to give such guidance, WikiLeaks worked closely with these media outlets to ensure that any material which has no valid public interest value and could harm innocent people was withheld. And Assange's frequent commitments to engage in "harm minimization" (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/afghanistan-documents-assange) when releasing documents gives the lie to Gitlin's assertion that he is "fighting for a world of total transparency."
I understand that the media has repeated over and over the false claim that WikiLeaks "dumped" all 250,000 diplomatic cables on the Internet -- which is presumably how this falsehood made its way into Gitlin's brain and then into his column -- but that's no excuse for him and TNR editors failing to undertake the most minimal due diligence (such as, say, checking WikiLeaks' website) before publishing this claim. I've emailed Gitlin and TNR Editor-in-Chief Franklin Foer early this morning and advised them of the need for a correction, but have heard nothing. I will post any reply I get. They're entitled to condemn WikiLeaks all they want, but not to propagate this factual falsehood.

(2) According to The New York Times' Brian Stelter (http://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/12114470503452672), Matt Lauer -- when announcing Assange's arrest in London this morning -- proclaimed: "The international manhunt for Julian Assange is over" -- as though Assange is Osama bin Laden or something. I don't know if it's sheer empty-headedness or excessive servile-to-power syndrome -- probably both, as is usually the case -- but that claim is both painfully dumb and misleading. There was no valid arrest warrant in England for Assange until yesterday; he then immediately turned himself into British law enforcement. There was no "international manhunt." How long before Matt Lauer and his friends start featuring playing cards with all the WikiLeaks Villains on the them (http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/iraqi55/) ("and here we have Julian Assange, the Terrorist Mastermind, who is the Ace of Spades!")? Answer: as soon as the Government produces them and hands them to the media with instructions to use them.

(3) Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein ran today to The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop) to call for the prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917. Legal experts overwhelmingly believe that any such prosecution under that law would be extremely difficult (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45843.html) and "extremely dangerous," (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/30/wikileaks_espionage_act/index.html) but that's of no concern to the Surveillance-State-protecting, Iraq-War-supporting, defense-contractor-plutocrat: the "liberal" Democratic Senator from California. To argue this, she invokes the most tired and simple-minded platitude beloved by all those who want to curtail basic press and speech freedoms: "Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security."
Every line of pro-prosecution rationale cited by Feinstein applies equally to journalists -- including especially the newspapers from around the world which are publishing all of the same diplomatic cables as WikiLeaks is, and which are publishing them before WikiLeaks even does. How can it possibly be that WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for espionage, but not The New York Times, or The Guardian, or any other newspaper that publishes these cables?
In 2006, Alberto Gonzales threatened to prosecute The New York Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html) for revealing Bush's illegal NSA program, and The Weekly Standard ran numerous articles calling for the prosecution of NYT journalists and editors (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp) under the Espionage Act for having done so. Bill Bennett demanded the prosecution (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_05_21-2006_05_27.shtml#1148648350) of The Washington Post's Dana Priest for revealing the CIA black sites. How can all the Good Democrats who condemned that mentality possibly not condemn Dianne Feinstein and those who think like her? What's the difference?

(4) Here is the American justice system under Obama in a nutshell:
The New York Times, January 11, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5H0pA0FwI/AAAAAAAACxU/W-BDkA-gxqw/s400/wl4.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5H0pA0FwI/AAAAAAAACxU/W-BDkA-gxqw/s1600/wl4.png)
The New York Times, June 11, 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html?_r=1):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5HP-bPxwI/AAAAAAAACxM/6_78gqnjbyM/s400/wl2.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5HP-bPxwI/AAAAAAAACxM/6_78gqnjbyM/s1600/wl2.png) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5HMp2-NzI/AAAAAAAACxE/G_zxm66BYao/s400/wl3.png (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5HMp2-NzI/AAAAAAAACxE/G_zxm66BYao/s1600/wl3.png)
Salon, yesterday (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/06/holder_on_assange_again/index.html):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5Gui6_ufI/AAAAAAAACw8/uFpIgnR7zH0/s400/wl.png (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TP5Gui6_ufI/AAAAAAAACw8/uFpIgnR7zH0/s1600/wl.png)
To recap "Obama justice": if you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected. But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions -- by publishing the truth about what was done -- then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution.

(5) I was on Democracy Now this morning talking about Assange's arrest; in particular, I was describing why and how I believe that these attacks on WikiLeaks are a literal war over who controls the Internet and the purposes to which it can be used (see my post yesterday (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/06/wikileaks/index.html) for some of that explanation):

At 11:30 am this morning, I'll be on Al Jazeera debating WikiLeaks.

UPDATE: Visa has now joined Master Card (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2010-12-07-visa-wikileaks_N.htm) -- and Paypal -- in refusing to process donations to WikiLeaks or Assange. Assange has an Op-Ed in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332) today that is very worth reading. And Assange was denied bail today (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336509/Julian-Assange-WikiLeaks-extradition-court-case-ends-bail-denied.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) by a London court despite having several people willing to post a $150,000 bond for him; as a result, he will remain in jail until at least December 13, though WikiLeaks will continue publishing cables.

UPDATE II: In an excellent comment here (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/permalink/59b6f0ff3104bda74fab62aab2e5e50b.html), Evan Harper documents how dishonest was Feinstein's Op-Ed.

UPDATE III: Several hours ago, Gitlin emailed me to say: "I'm thinking about your points, and will reply more discriminately, as it were . . . ." He then complained that I accused of him of "lying" -- as opposed to making false statements unintentionally -- which I didn't do. The full email exchange is here (http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2010/12/email-with-todd-gitlin-ccd-franklin.html). He must still be "thinking," because, hours later, there's still no correction to his false statements. Just take your time, New Republic, and allow knowingly false claims to sit there without any correction: no need to hurry yourselves.
Meanwhile, on FOX News today, Joe Lieberman suggested (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates) that not only Assange, but also The New York Times, may have committed crimes by publishing these cables (see the 5:15 entry). Journalists cheering for the prosecution of Assange are laying the foundation for the criminalization of their own profession, or at least of the few who actually do investigative journalism. There is simply no coherent way to argue that what WikiLeaks did with these cables is criminal, but what the NYT, the Guardian and other papers did is not.
Finally, in light of all of this, I challenge anyone to get through this State Department Press Release (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm) without repeatedly cackling aloud. I don't believe it can be done.



More: Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/author/glenn_greenwald/index.html)




Related Stories



WikiLeaks: Assange's arrest won't stop group (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/07/wikileaks_16/index.html)

Spokesman says arrest will not derail the release of more secret documents
Associated PressTuesday, Dec 7, 2010
Read all of Salon's WikiLeaks coverage (http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html)

Sunday, Dec 31, 1899






307 comments (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/view/?show=all)
Print (http://www.salon.com/print.html?URL=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks)
Permalink (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html)
Short URL (http://salon.com/a/sIR8fAA)






source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html

[Wanted Man]

extensive (yet seeming a bit demisve of actual sexism) article on counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir09142010.html

I'd say the article actually points out actual sexism, but doesn't expand on it further because it's not really the scope. But yeah, it's a good piece of exposure that explains a lot.

It's not even really conspiratorial, it's just that different types of scum tend to interlink. That's why one can easily find seemingly surprising overlap between Cuban "dissidents", Cuban-American terrorists and the effort to smear Assange. Interesting stuff indeed.


source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html

That's a brilliant article that deserves to be reposted again and again and again, just like this one (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks/index.html). I say we forget about this socialism stuff and make Glenn Greenwald king of the world.

[Os Cangaceiros]

To recap "Obama justice": if you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected. But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions -- by publishing the truth about what was done -- then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution.

Haha, damn.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

That's a brilliant article that deserves to be reposted again and again and again, just like this one (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks/index.html). I say we forget about this socialism stuff and make Glenn Greenwald king of the world.

I'd go much further. Every column Glenn writes is a brilliant article that deserves to be reposted again and again by people who care about the world even the slightest bit.

[~Spectre]

source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html

Greenwald has been the best guy to read on this. He was an elite lawyer and his arguments are superb.

[~Spectre]

Really wish the original source was better than Shamir though. Holy hell will they discredit the fuck out the source once the article becomes more widespread.

[bloodbeard]

Regarding the "rape" cases, really sad thing to have happened. I'm sure Assange knows what he's doing though, by turning himself in... I honestly don't think he will go to jail over this. It is too ridiculous.

Btw, does any one kno how often people are sentenced to jail in sweden for consensual sex without condom? I don't have time to research it myself.

[bloodbeard]

Just to add, it does indeed seem like a honey trap and he certainly took the bait. For that I cannot offer any support for him regarding the case, however it doesn't taint his image as a journalist and a whistle blower in my eyes.

[Obs]

Btw, does any one kno how often people are sentenced to jail in sweden for consensual sex without condom? I don't have time to research it myself.
Uh, never.

[RadioRaheem84]

Can someone plz elaborate the sex case for me. I am thoroughly confused as to how someone can go to jail for not using a condom during consensual sex!

[The Vegan Marxist]

Can someone plz elaborate the sex case for me. I am thoroughly confused as to how someone can go to jail for not using a condom during consensual sex!

Swedish prosecutors aren't calling it rape anymore. They're calling it "sex by surprise"! :laugh:

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

[Raúl Duke]

I think the case is flimsy, in fact I heard Sweden dismissed charges at one point (and now are re-making them; some claim allegedly due to US/etc pressure). If they put him in-jail for


consensual sex without condomthat's obviously just ridiculous.

The way the US government, pundits, et.al. reacts and suggest what should be done should be shocking to normal citizens (it's seemingly like what a totalitarian state would do, when it comes to serious shit the US will act just the same as a totalitarian state), but no. (Aside from the stupidity of US politicians saying that Assange, a foreigner, should be tried for treason...hahah)

[synthesis]

The whole case is based on the plaintiffs' claims that the sex was initially consensual but that Assange later continued without a condom, or something.

[~Spectre]

Can someone get a copy of the actual warrants? The reporting on this has been so bad.

From what I gather, the latest charges hinge on the following:

1) That the condom broke with the first woman, she said stop, and he pinned her down.

This is ridiculous on every level one thinks about it, and apparently runs counter to how she behaved over SMS texts, twitter, and at a party she threw for him after the incident. Coincidentally, of course, she was one of the organizers responsible for bringing him into Sweden in the first place.

2) That he had sex with the second woman while she was sleeping, without a condom.

This is also contradicted by how she behaved afterword and previous testimony given.

The Swedish government is going to force these women to most likely perjure themselves.

[Wanted Man]

Swedish prosecutors aren't calling it rape anymore. They're calling it "sex by surprise"! :laugh:

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

Well, that certainly explains why his attorney feels "as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls". :lol:

Anyway, if he is sent to Sweden, it can have some consequences. After all, as Assange noted in his opinion piece (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php/australianmedia/comments/julian1/), "Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament." Olof Palme may be turning in his grave, but Sweden's neutrality and ability to deal with Assange fairly is very much in doubt. But I suppose that is not very surprising when they arrest him on unclear charges of "surprise sex"...

[svenne]

Yeah. Of course females lie when they say they are raped or getting sexually abused. It's so good to be back in the 19th century again! Next time someone is acused of being a rapist and says he's not guilty, i really hope you guys come to his support.

I am pretty much horrified at how people has reacted to this, and i hope you know that you're part of an anti-feminist crusade. Frankly, get a fucking grip of reality and realise that Assange's the biggest threat to Wikileaks today, and nothing else.
It really wouldn't be the first time someone with power (and yes, Assange has that) fucks everything up by trying to use it for his own gain.

Just because someone messes with the United States and the west, doesn't mean they're somekind of saint...

And by the way, Olof Palme was involved in anti-communist operations in Sweden, read this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair

[Sasha]

I think Naomi Klein said it really well "rape is being used in this case the same way women rights where used as an pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan", we aren't making this something else than an rape accusation, they did.

It may very well be that assange is an narsistic bastard that took advantage of those women. But that's not why they locked him up now and if you think they did you really need to pull your head out of your arse.

[Sean]

Yeah. Of course females lie when they say they are raped or getting sexually abused. It's so good to be back in the 19th century again! Next time someone is acused of being a rapist and says he's not guilty, i really hope you guys come to his support.

I am pretty much horrified at how people has reacted to this, and i hope you know that you're part of an anti-feminist crusade. Frankly, get a fucking grip of reality and realise that Assange's the biggest threat to Wikileaks today, and nothing else.
It really wouldn't be the first time someone with power (and yes, Assange has that) fucks everything up by trying to use it for his own gain.

Just because someone messes with the United States and the west, doesn't mean they're somekind of saint...

And by the way, Olof Palme was involved in anti-communist operations in Sweden, read this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair
Svenne you've hit the nail on the head here: This whole thing is an elaborate rape conspiracy created by all the evil anti-feminist men of the world because only men are capable of being liars and opportunistic fuckers and its frankly oppressive to believe the woman with CIA ties who writes (since deleted) manuals on how to get ex's in trouble with the law could be anything but a victim here.

[syndicat]

the accusation is that when he was having sex with a woman and the condom broke, he didn't stop as she requested but used the force of his weight to continue the sex against her wishes. If this is true, then I'd have to say this is rape. another accusation is that he had sex with a woman when she was asleep.

in any event, lots of people and tabloids are making all kinds of speculative statements without first hearing the actual evidence against him, that is, in absence of actual evidence. the accusation that one of the women must be a plant because she had "links" to the CIA was farcical if you actually read what the supposed basis for this claim is.

take a look at this piece by Kate Harding:

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-rush-to-smear-assanges-rape-accuser-by-kate-harding

[Wanted Man]

Yeah. Of course females lie when they say they are raped or getting sexually abused. It's so good to be back in the 19th century again! Next time someone is acused of being a rapist and says he's not guilty, i really hope you guys come to his support.

I am pretty much horrified at how people has reacted to this, and i hope you know that you're part of an anti-feminist crusade. Frankly, get a fucking grip of reality and realise that Assange's the biggest threat to Wikileaks today, and nothing else.
It really wouldn't be the first time someone with power (and yes, Assange has that) fucks everything up by trying to use it for his own gain.

Just because someone messes with the United States and the west, doesn't mean they're somekind of saint...

This post a is a bit short on the facts, but high on the innuendo and vague, paranoid accusations. If anything, a familiar scene from the media hype around Wikileaks.

Whether Julian Assange is a saint or not is completely irrelevant. I know too little about the man's background to say anything sensible about that. What is clear however is that he has taken on the role of the person who gets all the shit for what Wikileaks does, and that is indeed what's happening at the moment. With the way he is being persecuted, it would be insane to lean back in our armchairs and fling unsubstantiated shit at him. Of course he's not a saint, but if the devil got treated this way, I'm sure I could think of some good things to say about him as well.

If people are trivialising rape, or entertaining the "male rights" idea that female alleged rape victims should be barraged with questions about their personal integrity, then that is wrong; but the reason people cast doubt on this case has nothing to do with that at all. What is even worse in any case is the assumption of guilt on Assange's part, which is always the more dangerous because it could see someone tried or even sent to a country where a significant amount of people support his extrajudicial execution, simply for publicly representing a website that helps publish the truth about what governments are up to.

Much has been made in the media about the supposedly "feminist" rape laws in Sweden. Perhaps someone can explain these a bit better? That kind of influence on legislation can be positive, because it can free these cases from the kind of bullshit that you sometimes see in less "feminist" countries, where the defence tries to establish the alleged victim as a "slut" or some such.

On the other hand, there should be no illusions that this somehow frees Sweden from either capitalism or patriarchy and all the effects that this has on law; and considering Sweden's participation in the imperialist world like any other country (in this case, as a covert member of NATO, an organisation that wants to carry on without scrutiny from parliaments and journalists and other nosy bastards as the cables show), "feminist" legislation can easily be used to send a perfectly innocent person to jail.

If these interests were representative of "feminism", then an "anti-feminist crusade" would certainly be in order, but let's not be silly here.


And by the way, Olof Palme was involved in anti-communist operations in Sweden, read this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair

A bit of poetic license to mention him, true. But "neutral" countries that are actually subservient to US interests are really going above and beyond the call of duty with regards to Assange at the moment.

[Sasha]

the accusation is that when he was having sex with a woman and the condom broke, he didn't stop as she requested but used the force of his weight to continue the sex against her wishes

After wich she throws him an party, continues to meet up with him, let's her friend sleep in the same bed as him "who he rapes too" and then have consensual sex with him again (!) during wich the exact same scenario (!)happens again?
Sorry but pull the other one, it has bells on it.

[Burn A Flag]

We would be anti feiminists IF he actually comitted rape. Even Sweden can't charge him with rape.

[Tatarin]

In this case, if it wouldn't have been women it would've been that he had been with a man, or more men, or of both sexes, or that he himself is a sexual minority, or a muslim, socialist, etc. It doesn't matter what - there is simply one global law in this new free world: you do not fuck with the rulers. (Hmm, no, that's been pretty much the only rule in all of human history now that I think of it...)

There are basically countless cases where heads of gangs and mafias, murderers and rapists "get away", yet there are no hardcore spotlights on them. The very nations we all live in commit crimes on huge scales and sums, yet some information is branded as even more dangerous than al-Quaeda? I mean, why aren't there warrants out for Blair's and Bush's asses now that it is widely known that they committed crimes that are still ongoing? They've basically given their concent to countless of rapes on women in Iraq and Afghanistan by British and American soldiers, yet that isn't an international crime? What "may be rape" is?

Also, no one is saying that rape can be overseen if the person in question is "good elsewhere". But then who here can raise their hand and say that no innocent man, woman or child were killed or raped or tortured by revolutionaries in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc? Or in liberation wars, or in any other case for that matter? Thus, the real battle here is the documents and their unmasking of the governments (or government, I really can't tell any difference in the west anymore) which certain groups are trying to change into one bad soldier (who, once again, may not have done anything).

[synthesis]

Yeah. Of course females lie when they say they are raped or getting sexually abused. It's so good to be back in the 19th century again! Next time someone is acused of being a rapist and says he's not guilty, i really hope you guys come to his support.

I am pretty much horrified at how people has reacted to this, and i hope you know that you're part of an anti-feminist crusade. Frankly, get a fucking grip of reality and realise that Assange's the biggest threat to Wikileaks today, and nothing else.
It really wouldn't be the first time someone with power (and yes, Assange has that) fucks everything up by trying to use it for his own gain.

Pretty convenient timing, though.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah. Of course females lie when they say they are raped or getting sexually abused. It's so good to be back in the 19th century again!

Some women do lie about getting raped, believe it or not. To believe otherwise is to infantilize women (in the words of Tragic Clown way back when).

[RadioRaheem84]

Especially women who are probably under pressure from higher ups.

[Crux]

The link to the CIA is not as clear as you think it is.

And really you people are convinced he is innocent? You hardly have any proof to back that up. So feminism goes out the window just because the guy happens to be wanted by the powers that be? Sad.

For my part I wish he is innocent, but I don't base my opinion on wishful thinking, so far we do not have conclusive proof either way.

[Sosa]

base solely on the evidence that is available and has been released it seems that this is a fallacious charge, which is why it was dropped in the first place. again, this is just based on what we know and has been released.

[Diello]

base solely on the evidence that is available and has been released it seems that this is a fallacious charge, which is why it was dropped in the first place. again, this is just based on what we know and has been released.

This is similar to my viewpoint: there's little evidence available, but what evidence there is seems to imply Assange's innocence.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The link to the CIA is not as clear as you think it is.

And really you people are convinced he is innocent? You hardly have any proof to back that up.

I personally haven't seen any evidence that he's guilty (which is what counts), other than the flimsy accounts given by the accusers. Their stories don't make a great deal of sense when looked at in the context of the events surrounding the supposed incidents. Perhaps you and svenne have read something in the Swedish press that we aren't privy to?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Something tells me that if he gets put into prison, he is going to get "lost" in the system. If he isn't convicted, then I suspect he'll be assassinated. Either way, it goes to show what the government that the right worships as being the greatest ever truly is... and it reveals the fact that America is by far no better than any nation. Fuck, if those fighting the wars and those in power followed the rules and did things the right way, they wouldn't have had anything to fear... but I guess when you're all powerful, you have a "right" to play around the rules and fuck everybody else.

[Property Is Robbery]

Yeah. Of course females lie when they say they are raped or getting sexually abused. It's so good to be back in the 19th century again! Next time someone is acused of being a rapist and says he's not guilty, i really hope you guys come to his support
Of course not every time..

But you have to be pretty damn foolish to believe that this man conveniently got thrown in jail directly after a huge leak.

And also he isn't actually being charged with rape or sexual abuse. The allegation says it was consensual.

[~Spectre]

And really you people are convinced he is innocent? You hardly have any proof to back that up.


The proof is that all parties admit to the sex having been consensual, and then their behavior after the fact (sending SMS texts where they brag about having sex with him, tweeting praise about him, throwing a party for him, and one girl letting her friend sleep with the "rapist") all seems to cast serious doubts on the allegations.

And that's under NORMAL circumstances. With what we know about how the case was originally dropped, and testimony that they didn't even want to press rape charges PLUS Assange being a major target...and yeah.

[syndicat]

The proof is that all parties admit to the sex having been consensual,

but they don't admit this. in reality nobody who has posted here has any real idea of what actual evidence the Swedish prosecutors have. everybody is simply speculating.

[synthesis]

The link to the CIA is not as clear as you think it is.

And really you people are convinced he is innocent? You hardly have any proof to back that up. So feminism goes out the window just because the guy happens to be wanted by the powers that be? Sad.

For my part I wish he is innocent, but I don't base my opinion on wishful thinking, so far we do not have conclusive proof either way.

Have you ever read about the "fallacy of silent evidence"? As observers, we can and should make inferences based on our impression of the context surrounding something about which we are unsure. Of course, argument from fallacy is a fallacy in itself, but it's something to think about.

And it's not just that he "happens to be wanted by the powers that be."

Why kill someone if you can just ruin their reputation? Is it so hard to believe that the same element of rape that so commonly benefits men - that it's difficult to conclusively prove either way - could be used by the ruling class in the opposite way as well?

[Crux]

I personally haven't seen any evidence that he's guilty (which is what counts), other than the flimsy accounts given by the accusers. Their stories don't make a great deal of sense when looked at in the context of the events surrounding the supposed incidents. Perhaps you and svenne have read something in the Swedish press that we aren't privy to?
Well, the counter-accusation would be that it is made up, or at least influenced by the CIA? A honey-trap and whatnot. For me, I've read some good blog articles on it, none of necessarily brings any new facts, but it sort of brings it beyond the senasationalism that's been pretty prevalent elsewhere.


And also he isn't actually being charged with rape or sexual abuse. The allegation says it was consensual. He is. And it doesn't, it says it started out consensual.

Synthesis: And would you say you are in a position of both understanding of the subject matter in general and this specific case so that you could make a reasonable judgment? Allusions has been made to teh women's behavior. I don't think it necessarily proves anything, that which we know at least. Rape victims or victims of sexual molestation does not per definition have to break down or even break-off all contact with the perp.
Now I would be the first to say there is something fishy about this case, but we have to also accept that coincidences like this do happen. Assange is not necessarily a saint and we have to be ready for the possibility that he is in fact guilty.

[Crux]

Definitely worth a read: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html

[synthesis]

Allusions has been made to teh women's behavior. I don't think it necessarily proves anything, that which we know at least. Rape victims or victims of sexual molestation does not per definition have to break down or even break-off all contact with the perp.

I think it has more to do with context; for example, the fact that the case was dropped shortly after the release of the 400,000 Iraq War documents and then resumed shortly before the release of the diplomatic cables.

Moreover:


And really you people are convinced he is innocent? You hardly have any proof to back that up.

I just generally don't think that's a good mentality for dealing with accusations of criminal behavior, especially when there is an obvious and immense incentive to do so falsely.

Of course you are right in that there's no conclusive evidence either way; perhaps JFK really was killed by Oswald and Oswald alone.

I also don't necessarily think that Assange needs to be defended as extensively as he is. In my opinion, he knew what he was getting himself into when he decided to become the face of an organization designed to reveal the secrets of the world's most powerful people. Wikileaks can continue without him.

[Crux]

And even though some people have tried to make it relevant in that context, so far no success. So as a result several articles just fall back on old rape-myths instead. http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-must-she-behave-to-have-been-raped.html

[synthesis]

Make it relevant in what context?

Obviously if people are largely dismissive of one specific rape charge, then certain arguments will emerge which are characteristic of those who are dismissive of all or most charges of rape. It seems like you believe that this fact invalidates all other arguments that the one specific allegation is politically motivated - am I wrong?

[Crux]

Make it relevant in what context?

Obviously if people are largely dismissive of one specific rape charge, then certain arguments will emerge which are characteristic of those who are dismissive of all or most charges of rape. It seems like you believe that this fact invalidates all other arguments that the one specific allegation is politically motivated - am I wrong?
there's no evidence to show that the case itself, not how it has been treated in the media, but the case itself is in fact connected to wikileaks. The claimed CIA connection is weak.
Definitely not, but I do believe these arguments gets brought out in the open and with far more credibility than it should have. Misogyny is misogyny.

[synthesis]

Well, the circumstantial evidence in favor of the case being connected to Wikileaks is that the case gets mentioned in literally every news item about the diplomatic cables, usually before the content of the cables themselves. If you don't believe that this could have been premeditated, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The case isn't ultimately up to us to decide anyways.

In any case, I think that labeling people who are defending Assange as "anti-feminist" is more or less analogous to labeling people who defend Palestinians as "anti-Semitic." For some people, you might be correct, but you must also consider the incentives that empires provide to do so.

I'm honestly wondering: What evidence could possibly prove that Assange is innocent?

[Sosa]

First off, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish his guilt, not the other way around. You don't prove your innocence, the other party has to prove your guilt and I don't see that happening with the info that has been available (which amounts right now to he said/she said)

[Diello]

I'm honestly wondering: What evidence could possibly prove that Assange is innocent?

I think that the behaviour of the accusers immediately following the alleged rape is probably as close as we could realistically hope to get to conclusive proof of Assange's innocence.

[Crux]

And yet it doesn't actually prove anything.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.

-group: United States Army Counterintelligence Center, Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch; Department of Defence Intelligence Analysis Program


A Quote from a pentagon report into Wikileaks earlier this year

1+2=3

[~Spectre]

And yet it doesn't actually prove anything.

The proof is decidedly skewed in favor of Assange. No amount of nitpicking and you only addressing small parts of arguments can change that.

[VNHCM]

The proof is decidedly skewed in favor of Assange. No amount of nitpicking and you only addressing small parts of arguments can change that.

Indeed!

[synthesis]

I think it is perfectly possible to strike a balance between challenging elements of misogyny in certain arguments against the case, on the one hand, and beating people over the head with "the possibility that he's guilty" on the other.

[Diello]

Here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html)-- Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer claims to have seen police documents proving that Assange's accusers were acting in bad faith.

[Crux]

Well, the circumstantial evidence in favor of the case being connected to Wikileaks is that the case gets mentioned in literally every news item about the diplomatic cables, usually before the content of the cables themselves. If you don't believe that this could have been premeditated, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The case isn't ultimately up to us to decide anyways.

In any case, I think that labeling people who are defending Assange as "anti-feminist"
Only I am not.
And media logic has nothing to do with whetever the case is real or not.
And I do believe it could have been premediated. I also believe it has brought out a far amount of good old misogynic rape myths from his defenders that do his case no service. I happen to think that if he is indeed guilty he should be sentenced. If he is not then this is an outrage.


Here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html)-- Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer claims to have seen police documents proving that Assange's accusers were acting in bad faith.

‘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.’

If that's his proof, he'll have to do better. I guess we'll see.

[Diello]

If that's his proof, he'll have to do better. I guess we'll see.

No, of course not. Here, I'll quote from the link:


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.
...
‘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.’

[Crux]

No, of course not. Here, I'll quote from the link:
Hence the we'll see part. Also, if this turns out to be a false accusation because one of the women wanted to get "serious" with Assange but felt neglected, well I don't see how that helps.

[synthesis]

I also believe it has brought out a far amount of good old misogynic rape myths from his defenders that do his case no service.

That's what happens when you "move the goalposts" so that people are essentially forced to defend either the U.S. government or the act of rape. Again, it's not hard for me to see how this in itself could have been premeditated.

[Crux]

‘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.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html#ixzz17sR2Vp2q

Perfect example of what I am talking about.

[synthesis]

Perfect example of what I am talking about.


Sure. He's a high-profile sex-crimes defense lawyer, who has therefore almost certainly had decades of experience in appealing to misogyny. He is being paid to exonerate his client by any means necessary, no matter how sexist the reasoning he utilizes. I don't even think that's his worst quote in the article:


‘This is what they are saying is rape,’ said Mr Hurtig.

[Dimentio]

This post a is a bit short on the facts, but high on the innuendo and vague, paranoid accusations. If anything, a familiar scene from the media hype around Wikileaks.

Whether Julian Assange is a saint or not is completely irrelevant. I know too little about the man's background to say anything sensible about that. What is clear however is that he has taken on the role of the person who gets all the shit for what Wikileaks does, and that is indeed what's happening at the moment. With the way he is being persecuted, it would be insane to lean back in our armchairs and fling unsubstantiated shit at him. Of course he's not a saint, but if the devil got treated this way, I'm sure I could think of some good things to say about him as well.

If people are trivialising rape, or entertaining the "male rights" idea that female alleged rape victims should be barraged with questions about their personal integrity, then that is wrong; but the reason people cast doubt on this case has nothing to do with that at all. What is even worse in any case is the assumption of guilt on Assange's part, which is always the more dangerous because it could see someone tried or even sent to a country where a significant amount of people support his extrajudicial execution, simply for publicly representing a website that helps publish the truth about what governments are up to.

Much has been made in the media about the supposedly "feminist" rape laws in Sweden. Perhaps someone can explain these a bit better? That kind of influence on legislation can be positive, because it can free these cases from the kind of bullshit that you sometimes see in less "feminist" countries, where the defence tries to establish the alleged victim as a "slut" or some such.

On the other hand, there should be no illusions that this somehow frees Sweden from either capitalism or patriarchy and all the effects that this has on law; and considering Sweden's participation in the imperialist world like any other country (in this case, as a covert member of NATO, an organisation that wants to carry on without scrutiny from parliaments and journalists and other nosy bastards as the cables show), "feminist" legislation can easily be used to send a perfectly innocent person to jail.

If these interests were representative of "feminism", then an "anti-feminist crusade" would certainly be in order, but let's not be silly here.



A bit of poetic license to mention him, true. But "neutral" countries that are actually subservient to US interests are really going above and beyond the call of duty with regards to Assange at the moment.'

Sweden has strict laws on rape and sexual harassment, but really bad conviction rates. That is because Sweden is using a system where the judges and the jurors (which are composed of politicians) could basically set whatever sentence pleases them (which means that a murder could yield everything from six months to 20 years).