Assange's Swedish sex crimes file is leaked online

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

STOCKHOLM – Leaked Swedish police documents on the Julian Assange sex cases raise key questions for both sides about the allegations.

Was one of the WikiLeaks founder's Swedish lovers asleep during intercourse? Did she consent to unprotected sex? Those answers will determine whether rape was committed under Swedish law.

The 39-year-old Australian denies any wrongdoing in separate encounters with two Swedish women last summer, and is fighting Swedish attempts to have him extradited from Britain to face questioning in the cases. He will appear in court in London on Monday and Tuesday in that extradition case.

In leaked police documents that emerged this week on the Internet, the Swedish woman accusing Assange of rape woke up as he was having sex with her, but let him continue even though she knew he wasn't wearing a condom.

She says she insisted that Assange wear a condom when they had sex in her apartment in the Swedish city of Enkoping on Aug. 16, and that he reluctantly agreed. The incident labeled as rape happened the next morning, when the woman claims she was woken up by Assange having unprotected sex with her.

"She immediately asked: `Are you wearing anything?' and he answered `You,'" according to a police summary of her deposition. "She said to him `You better don't have HIV' and he answered `Of course not.' She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue."

Having sex with a sleeping person can be considered rape in Sweden, but the details in the leaked transcript could explain why different prosecutors have made different assessments of the incident.

One Stockholm prosecutor threw out the rape case altogether. A more senior prosecutor later reinstated it, and asked for Assange's extradition from Britain so she could question him in the case.

It's unclear who leaked the police documents, some of which have been publicly released before but with key portions blocked out. It's also not clear which side the full police documents would help more.

"It is a complicating factor that this person when she wakes up in one way or another gives her consent," said Nils-Petter Ekdahl, a judge and expert on Sweden's sex crimes legislation. "Does the consent also apply to what happened when one was sleeping? This question has not been tested by the justice system."

The documents included a cover letter signed by Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjoern Hurtig.
"I can just say that I sent them to my client through his lawyer in London. But how it ended up on the Internet I don't know," Hurtig told The Associated Press. "It's incredibly unfortunate."

Assange is also accused of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion against another Swedish woman with whom he had sex in the same week. The leaked documents show she accuses him of deliberately damaging a condom during consensual sex, which he denies.
Assange met both women in connection with a seminar he gave on free speech in Stockholm after he and WikiLeaks made headlines around the world with the release of thousands of secret U.S. military documents on the war in Afghanistan.

His supporters say the allegations are trumped up and possibly politically motivated, charges that the women's lawyers have denied.
WikiLeaks has deeply angered the U.S. and other governments by publishing tens of thousands of secret military documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a massive trove of U.S. diplomatic cables.

Can't be tried now, case is compromised, wonder how long before he's charged with another 'crime'

[Dimentio]

In Sweden, cases could continue even if they are compromised.

Sweden, the country where a mental patient is given secret investigation material so he could "remember" the crimes he have claimed to have committed when he was under heavy influences of drugs.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

In Sweden, cases could continue even if they are compromised.

Sweden, the country where a mental patient is given secret investigation material so he could "remember" the crimes he have claimed to have committed when he was under heavy influences of drugs.

Justice at its finest. But this case was never really about Justice.

[bricolage]

still sounds like rape to me.

[Apoi_Viitor]

He should have at least given that poor woman a 'heads up' notice...

[Princess Luna]

still sounds like rape to me.
ummm no , she let him continue so its not rape

[Die Rote Fahne]

ummm no , she let him continue so its not rape

He stuck it in her while she was asleep.

That is rape, sorry, sexual assault IN THE LEAST. She was unable to give consent. Do you walk up to someone and stick your cock in her and when she says "no" you take it out and go on?

[∞]

We should wait to see if she gets pregnant, that may help.

[gorillafuck]

We should wait to see if she gets pregnant, that may help.That wouldn't be an indicator that would sway a case in any way, since condom doesn't always mean no pregnancy, and no condom doesn't always mean pregnancy.


In leaked police documents that emerged this week on the Internet, the Swedish woman accusing Assange of rape woke up as he was having sex with her, but let him continue even though she knew he wasn't wearing a condom.That's actually incredibly fucked up if it's true, and is rape.

Also does this woman who accuses him have any connections to intelligence agencies?

[Pretty Flaco]

I'm sorry, but fucking somebody while they're sleeping sounds so gross. Who does that for fucks sake?

[Princess Luna]

He stuck it in her while she was asleep.

That is rape, sorry, sexual assault IN THE LEAST. She was unable to give consent. Do you walk up to someone and stick your cock in her and when she says "no" you take it out and go on?
She consented to sex , they had sex , she fell asleep , he continued to have sex , she woke and ask what he was doing , he told her and she said "ok"
thats NOT rape because she consented before they had sex and after she woke up.

[gestalt]

"She immediately asked: `Are you wearing anything?' and he answered `You,'"A gentleman and a scholar.

[RED DAVE]

Sweden aims to extradite Assanage to US: lawyer - Hindustan Times

I can't understand why Sweden are suddenly being cozy with America. However I have said previously in this blog that the Swedish case was a ruse which would be cancelled due to the lack of evidence. One woman has disappeared and the other is retracting her testimony. So, inevitably the case must fall. But it looks very likely that Assange will, in fact, be extradited to Sweden to hear this good news. He will be in custody as a non trial date is set and America can then apply for extradition. Perhaps the fun loving Swedes will see sense and will refuse to extradite him !!!

I had thought that the Swedish case would have fallen sooner and then the UK would have sent him to America at their Master's bidding.perhaps the Liberal side of the coalition were against that move and Sweden is now the 'patsy.'(emph added)

http://thepaddyfieldsview.blogspot.com/2011/01/sweden-aims-to-extradite-assanage-to-us.html

Is this true?

RED DAVE

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm not sure this would or should qualify as rape, although what he did was pretty fucked up...

[ZeroNowhere]

These are charges, people.

[Political_Chucky]

I'm sorry, but fucking somebody while they're sleeping sounds so gross. Who does that for fucks sake?

I have and my ex has done it to me too. As a matter of fact, my ex had warmed up a hot cup of coffee, drank it, and gave me oral sex right after. Probably the best thing to happen to me since I learned how to walk.

Anyways, I don't understand how people are just jumping on Assange even when it has not been proven and can go either way. A more disturbing thought is how people don't read between the lines and allow themselves to be fed this shit without even questioning it. Isn't that basis for leftists at this stage to question what the higher powers that be? How do we know that there is something much more then Charges on Assange for rape?

[Demogorgon]

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this, the thing that strikes me as odd is that the extradition to Sweden is seen as an attempt to have him then extradited to America, looking at the facts, this does indeed seem to be a distinct possibility. But why is it being done like this? Surely it would be harder to extradite to America from Sweden than it would be from Britain? The bizarre extradition treaty Britain has with America means extradition is extremely easy whereas as far as I know Sweden has an ordinary extradition treaty.

[bricolage]

ummm no , she let him continue so its not rape
What it actually says is "She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue."

This doesn't sound like any real consent just a passive submission that she didn't feel she had the right/ability/power to stop it. If a woman is raped downstairs in a house while her children sleep upstairs but she 'lets' the attacker continue so as not to wake her children, is that not still rape? Consigning yourself to 'letting' someone do something to you is very different from fully consenting to it as an equal partner.

[Dimentio]

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this, the thing that strikes me as odd is that the extradition to Sweden is seen as an attempt to have him then extradited to America, looking at the facts, this does indeed seem to be a distinct possibility. But why is it being done like this? Surely it would be harder to extradite to America from Sweden than it would be from Britain? The bizarre extradition treaty Britain has with America means extradition is extremely easy whereas as far as I know Sweden has an ordinary extradition treaty.

He isn't accused of anything in Britain.

[Demogorgon]

He isn't accused of anything in Britain.
That doesn't matter, the point is what America wants with him. Getting him to Sweden and having the Swedish justice system deal with him shouldn't get him any closer to America and if the Americans request an extradition it would take longer to go through Swedish courts and have a higher chance of failure surely?

I believe Sweden is doing this at American behest, but I cannot understand the logic. The easiest way to get him would be to request Britain extradite him.

[Demogorgon]

I should mention as well that the process of extraditing someone to Sweden from Britain is harder than extraditing them to America. Blair signed a bizarre treaty with America letting people be extradited to America on very little evidence with normal process bypassed in "security cases", though not vice versa.

If the purpose is simply to harass Assange then this makes sense, but if America actually wants to go for him itself, it is not doing a very good job of it.

[Political_Chucky]

Well that's the point of it all. America can't do it without getting a huge backlash on its already fucked up reputation. If he goes to Sweden, the evidence won't matter in my opinion. He WILL be charged on rape, and that will make him lose any credibility, allowing the U.S. to come in and make the final strike to take him out.

[Demogorgon]

Possibly, but his supporters won't accept the rape charge anyway and of course it will be harder for America to actually get him. The whole thing seems a pretty incompetent way to get him. Perhaps they are just trying to break his will to keep up what he is doing.

[Dimentio]

That doesn't matter, the point is what America wants with him. Getting him to Sweden and having the Swedish justice system deal with him shouldn't get him any closer to America and if the Americans request an extradition it would take longer to go through Swedish courts and have a higher chance of failure surely?

I believe Sweden is doing this at American behest, but I cannot understand the logic. The easiest way to get him would be to request Britain extradite him.

If Assange is killed or extradited to America, then it would probably create public protests. The best thing is to drag out time, so that people will forget him.

Bourgeois republics could not act like tyrannies, and generally accomplish the same results as tyrannies by sowing division and confusion, generally through the mass media.

If China was like the USA for example, they would not have arrested Liu Xiaobo. They would firstly have let a Chinese equivalent of Glenn Beck attack his lack of patriotism and his writings, then if persistent have made a sex trap or something similar.

[brigadista]

hes being fitted up simple as

[Die Rote Fahne]

She consented to sex , they had sex , she fell asleep , he continued to have sex , she woke and ask what he was doing , he told her and she said "ok"
thats NOT rape because she consented before they had sex and after she woke up.

Honestly, I can't comprehend how much of an idiot you are.

1. Did she give consent to him to fuck her WHILE she was asleep? ("Yeah, if I fall asleep you can keep going"). No, they were done, and she fell asleep afterwards. She was in a state where she was unable to give consent.

-- If I get consent and then slip the girl a rohypnol and keep her drugged and fuck her over and over, I'm not raping her, because before hand she said yes? You're sick.

2. She gave consent afterwards, yes, that DOES NOT mean she gave consent before hand. Ergo, his actions beforehand were sexual asssault IN THE LEAST.

-- A Husband can't fuck his wife whenever he wants to just because she had kids for him and fucks him every other night.

--- Like I said, in your opinion it's okay to stick your penis in a woman's vagina that you do not know, on the street and proceed to fuck her until she says "yes" or "no".

3. Consent ends when the person's conscious state changes to here she is unable to permit or revoke her consent.

-- Once again, if you think it's okay to fuck sleeping women, you think date rape is okay.


---------

You're fucking sick.



NOTE:

If she had fallen asleep DURING, he should have woken her up. Otherwise he should have stopped.

If he was unaware that she fell asleep (which I can say is unlikely unless you SUCK at sex), then we can have a debate.

[∞]

We all know that is nowhere near the f'dupness of usual rape.

[Dimentio]

So, theoretically speaking, if a man - without permission - is grabbing a woman in an inappropriate place, and starts fondling her there, without her reacting on it for five minutes, and then she's giving her consent, is that molestation?

Well, we should have that every person before intercourse should write a testimony that it was voluntary and with pre-arranged consent.

Right now, there has been a case which is completely crazy in Sweden.

A comic translator has been jailed for child pornography. Hentai pictures...

[Quail]

We all know that is nowhere near the f'dupness of usual rape.
Any rape is fucked up.

[Demogorgon]

If Assange is killed or extradited to America, then it would probably create public protests. The best thing is to drag out time, so that people will forget him.

Bourgeois republics could not act like tyrannies, and generally accomplish the same results as tyrannies by sowing division and confusion, generally through the mass media.

If China was like the USA for example, they would not have arrested Liu Xiaobo. They would firstly have let a Chinese equivalent of Glenn Beck attack his lack of patriotism and his writings, then if persistent have made a sex trap or something similar.
Yes I know, but there has been a lot of talk about this being an attempt to set him up for extradition to America and his stated reason for so strongly opposing extradition to Sweden is that he is afraid America will then request extradition from Sweden. I am just commenting that there is something that doesn't seem right about that.

[Rottenfruit]

This case stinks and sounds like a frame up and why did the charges pop up so convetely right after that major leak , Since when did interpol put people on wanted top 10 for rape?

[Dimentio]

Yes I know, but there has been a lot of talk about this being an attempt to set him up for extradition to America and his stated reason for so strongly opposing extradition to Sweden is that he is afraid America will then request extradition from Sweden. I am just commenting that there is something that doesn't seem right about that.

I doubt Sweden want him extradited too. They really just want to nail him.

[Kalifornia]

I'm not sure this would or should qualify as rape, although what he did was pretty fucked up...

I hope non of you bastards work with kids

[Bardo]

ummm no , she let him continue so its not rape

Exactly. She let him continue. How does she scream rape after consensual intercourse? It was convenient of her to bring about accusations once Assange was on the world stage.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The absolute DISGUSTING sexism that is espoused in this thread by so-called "leftists" sickens me. Assange is not perfect, he is a human who has made mistakes, big mistakes.

The dogmatic nature that I see leftists put on Assange is sickening. He's nothing. It's his work, and wikileaks that we want to save.

[Political_Chucky]

The absolute DISGUSTING sexism that is espoused in this thread by so-called "leftists" sickens me. Assange is not perfect, he is a human who has made mistakes, big mistakes.

The dogmatic nature that I see leftists put on Assange is sickening. He's nothing. It's his work, and wikileaks that we want to save.

The complete ignorace of people, not "leftists" is whats worse when we absolutely know government is known for corruption.

When have you heard of a rapist put on interpol's most wanted list? Is this coincidence?
http://www.interpol.int/public/wanted/search/recent.asp


LYON, France - INTERPOL has made public the Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the request of Swedish authorities who want to question him in connection with a number of sexual offences.
The Red Notice for the 39-year-old Australian, which was issued to law enforcement in all 188 INTERPOL member countries (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/Members/default.asp) on 20 November, has now been made publicly available by INTERPOL following official authorization by Sweden.
All INTERPOL National Central Bureaus (NCBs) have also been advised to ensure that their border control agencies are made aware of Assange's Red Notice status, which is a request for any country to identify or locate an individual with a view to their provisional arrest and extradition.
Many of INTERPOL's member countries however, consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries.
INTERPOL cannot demand that any member country arrests the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty.



The majority of people here on revleft have not "OK'd" rape, we are clearly reading between the lines with the context of what Assanges situation is. No one has state Assange is the almighty Christ without sin, but to charge someone with rape, coincidentally at the time when some of the largest leaks in world history exposing government crimes(and not all the leaks did that), is a bit strange isn't it?

I do not agree with Bardo's or Karmorda's Statements that it is not rape if she just allows him to continue, but I do agree that the woman's statements might indeed be a lie or exaggerated greatly considering the context of the whole situation. For one of the women to continue to allow the man to stay in her condo and not say a word for week[s] is very suspicious. The fact they didn't even go to the police intending to charge him on rape is another big alert...the case just doesn't make sense.

[Rottenfruit]

The absolute DISGUSTING sexism that is espoused in this thread by so-called "leftists" sickens me. Assange is not perfect, he is a human who has made mistakes, big mistakes.

The dogmatic nature that I see leftists put on Assange is sickening. He's nothing. It's his work, and wikileaks that we want to save.


DO you really belive that it was only a coincident that Interpol put Assange on it´s most wanted list for rape right after a major leak of documents? Oh yeah i bet there was no bias involved in that deicison :laugh: SInce when did a person being charged for rape go on interpol most wanted for rape?

Look at this qoute from a articale on cnn.com (cant post links)


Sweden asked Interpol, the international police organization, to post a "Red Notice" after a judge approved a motion to bring him into custody.
Oh and of course THIS ALL HAPPEND RIGHT AFTER THE LEAK

[Die Rote Fahne]

DO you really belive that it was only a coincident that Interpol put Assange on it´s most wanted list for rape right after a major leak of documents? Oh yeah i bet there was no bias involved in that deicison :laugh: SInce when did a person being charged for rape go on interpol most wanted for rape?

Look at this qoute from a articale on cnn.com (cant post links)


Sweden asked Interpol, the international police organization, to post a "Red Notice" after a judge approved a motion to bring him into custody.
Oh and of course THIS ALL HAPPEND RIGHT AFTER THE LEAK

I dont base things in speculation. I base it on the idea that any accuaation of rape should be handled very seriously by the justice system.

If you think its a conspiracy, prove it.

[ZeroNowhere]

The absolute DISGUSTING sexism that is espoused in this thread by so-called "leftists" sickens me. Assange is not perfect, he is a human who has made mistakes, big mistakes.Notice the assumption. I think that perhaps you should reconsider before accusing others of dogmatism. In addition, your incessant assertions of your disgustedness are vaguely comical.


The dogmatic nature that I see leftists put on Assange is sickening. He's nothing. It's his work, and wikileaks that we want to save.I think that this instrumentalism is somewhat sickening itself, tbh.

[PhoenixAsh]

Honestly, I can't comprehend how much of an idiot you are.

1. Did she give consent to him to fuck her WHILE she was asleep? ("Yeah, if I fall asleep you can keep going"). No, they were done, and she fell asleep afterwards. She was in a state where she was unable to give consent.

Its not a black or white situation....and it is asinine to argue as such. If my one night stand and I fall asleep. And I wake up with her stroking me or whatever...she can assume consent...while the explicit intention was we having sex....until otherwise stated.

Its not a serial event UNLESS otherwise agreed upon. and it bloody stupid to argue complex human interaction as being such.




-- If I get consent and then slip the girl a rohypnol and keep her drugged and fuck her over and over, I'm not raping her, because before hand she said yes? You're sick.No...in fact you are dragging examples into the case which did not happen, which do not clarify the situation and which are aggravating in the absurd.



2. She gave consent afterwards, yes, that DOES NOT mean she gave consent before hand. Ergo, his actions beforehand were sexual asssault IN THE LEAST.See my answer to your paragraph above.



-- A Husband can't fuck his wife whenever he wants to just because she had kids for him and fucks him every other night.No...but he AND she...can assume that there is a general agreement that they love each other and that this indeed includes the sexual counterpart of them having sex and that it at least is ok to express the urge....and that there is a general assumption that it is ok to make sexual overtures to each other.

Again...it all depends on the mood, scene and situation...

Now...I love how you paint it like every man rapes his wife....and that women do never ever express sexual needs this way.




--- Like I said, in your opinion it's okay to stick your penis in a woman's vagina that you do not know, on the street and proceed to fuck her until she says "yes" or "no".Again...this did not happen. So your example is not applicable and in fact is absurd.



3. Consent ends when the person's conscious state changes to here she is unable to permit or revoke her consent.No...it really doesn't. It depends largely on the situation and the inter person relationships.




-- Once again, if you think it's okay to fuck sleeping women, you think date rape is okay.Your conclusion does not follow from the statement.



NOTE:

If she had fallen asleep DURING, he should have woken her up. Otherwise he should have stopped.

If he was unaware that she fell asleep (which I can say is unlikely unless you SUCK at sex), then we can have a debate.Highly moralistic and subjective. Not one of my many one night stands has ever objected of being woken with sex or did not wake me up with sex.

As such you can not make blanket statements.


The absolute DISGUSTING sexism that is espoused in this thread by so-called "leftists" sickens me. Assange is not perfect, he is a human who has made mistakes, big mistakes.

The dogmatic nature that I see leftists put on Assange is sickening. He's nothing. It's his work, and wikileaks that we want to save.


Yes...but the way you argue is simply validitating the side of the story of the supposed victim because she is a woman. Now if the roles were reversed I doubt you would get so upity upity about the whole case. Just wanted to point that out to you...

The reason I say this is because you are completely ignoring all the contradictions, all the strange circumstances and strange behaviour around this case...and keep on focussing on the truth of the stories without any form of critical analysis.

I suspect a line of reasoning that is as follows:

She is a woman who claims to have been raped. A lot of women are raped by men. Therefore her claims must be true.


Exactly. She let him continue. How does she scream rape after consensual intercourse? It was convenient of her to bring about accusations once Assange was on the world stage.

Not to mention the fact that the sms traffic of both women was not released but did, accoding to the lawyer,who did not get to make notes, include words like: revenge and getting money from Assagne.

I think this whole case stinks to high heaven and its not as simple as a rape case.


This case stinks and sounds like a frame up and why did the charges pop up so convetely right after that major leak , Since when did interpol put people on wanted top 10 for rape?

they should....but that is not the here and now.

What is strange that it is indeed a real deviation from protocol also because tehy never release an international warrant without an indictment.

[Crux]

I have and my ex has done it to me too. As a matter of fact, my ex had warmed up a hot cup of coffee, drank it, and gave me oral sex right after. Probably the best thing to happen to me since I learned how to walk.
Was this after you had only known here very briefly and had you made explicit statements about "no coffee" (compare with the "must use condom" of the Assange case)? As fascinating as your sex life might be I don't think it can be related to the charges against Assange, or at least for your partner's sake I hope it is not comparable to what Assange is accused of. Are you saying you are also currently facing rape charges?

[chegitz guevara]

They had sex at night. The alleged incident happened the next morning. Lots of people can change their minds after a night's sleep.

If events happened exactly the way it is claimed, then, indeed, it was rape, until she consented, however, from her own testimony, she seems to have retroactively consented. You can withdraw consent from from an act this is happening or will happen, but you cannot withdraw consent from an act that has happened. So retroactive consent, once given, cannot be withdrawn.

[Crux]

Now...I love how you paint it like every man rapes his wife....and that women do never ever express sexual needs this way.
By pressing rape charges?

[PhoenixAsh]

By pressing rape charges?

no...waking a partenr up with sex.

[Crux]

They had sex at night. The alleged incident happened the next morning. Lots of people can change their minds after a night's sleep.

If events happened exactly the way it is claimed, then, indeed, it was rape, until she consented, however, from her own testimony, she seems to have retroactively consented. You can withdraw consent from from an act this is happening or will happen, but you cannot withdraw consent from an act that has happened. So retroactive consent, once given, cannot be withdrawn.
Consent and not stopping someone who has initiated sex with you while you were unable to give consent is not the same thing. Further more note the explicit "not without condom" statement she apparently made the night before.

[PhoenixAsh]

Consent and not stopping someone who has initiated sex with you while you were unable to give consent is not the same thing. Further more note the explicit "not without condom" statement she apparently made the night before.

but he did stop...and then she gave consent...

[Crux]

but he did stop...and then she gave consent...
"She says she insisted that Assange wear a condom when they had sex in her apartment in the Swedish city of Enkoping on Aug. 16, and that he reluctantly agreed. The incident labeled as rape happened the next morning, when the woman claims she was woken up by Assange having unprotected sex with her.

"She immediately asked: `Are you wearing anything?' and he answered `You,'" according to a police summary of her deposition. "She said to him `You better don't have HIV' and he answered `Of course not.' She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.""

So yeah, having sex with someone who is asleep, without their consent, is still rape.

The issue up for debate is whetever her not stopping him makes it not-rape.

[PhoenixAsh]

"She says she insisted that Assange wear a condom when they had sex in her apartment in the Swedish city of Enkoping on Aug. 16, and that he reluctantly agreed. The incident labeled as rape happened the next morning, when the woman claims she was woken up by Assange having unprotected sex with her.

"She immediately asked: `Are you wearing anything?' and he answered `You,'" according to a police summary of her deposition. "She said to him `You better don't have HIV' and he answered `Of course not.' She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.""

So yeah, having sex with someone who is asleep, without their consent, is still rape.

The issue up for debate is whetever her not stopping him makes it not-rape.


If this is the exact version of what happened she clearly did NOT express non consent and consented with the act continuing. HER complaint is he did not have sex with a condom. Thats a whole different discussion than rape. According to this version of events the problem was not the sex...but the fear of STDs.


So we can end the debate.


edit: example.

biy and girl are having a steamy make out event. She says she doesn't want sex without a condom. They have sex with a condom. The next morning they make out and this leads to sex...only they do not use a condom. Now...arguing along the same lines...

Express non-consent was given for sex without a condom. Yet they did. Was there rape?

[Crux]

If this is the exact version of what happened she clearly did NOT express non consent and consented with the act continuing. HER complaint is he did not have sex with a condom. Thats a whole different discussion than rape. According to this version of events the problem was not the sex...but the fear of STDs.


So we can end the debate.


edit: example.

biy and girl are having a steamy make out event. She says she doesn't want sex without a condom. They have sex with a condom. The next morning they make out and this leads to sex...only they do not use a condom. Now...arguing along the same lines...

Express non-consent was given for sex without a condom. Yet they did. Was there rape?
So if you consent to having sex you consent to all sexual activites covered by the term "sex"? It is not a complaint, it is an explicit statement she made the night before and since he penetrated her while she was asleep he can hardly claim to have been given consent otherwise.

Only, the next morning "biy", whoever that is, penetrates the girl while she is asleep, without using a condom. How can you not spot the difference here?

[PhoenixAsh]

So if you consent to having sex you consent to all sexual activites covered by the term "sex"?

Yes. Unless you explicitly exclude them.





It is not a complaint, it is an explicit statement she made the night before and since he penetrated her while she was asleep he can hardly claim to have been given consent otherwise.

Yes...it is in fact is a complaint. The penetration is not the issue here (and is needed because otherwise there is no rape) its: not using a condom.

Therefore there is no rape.




Only, the next morning "biy", whoever that is, penetrates the girl while she is asleep, without using a condom. How can you not spot the difference here?

There is no difference. You take both stories "at face value"...thats my point.

[crazyirish93]

not sure if this has been posted already if it has please ignore .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/secret-texts-key-to-julian-assange-case-2208008.html
very interesting if true though

[chegitz guevara]

Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to everything. You could agree to vaginal intercourse and be anally raped.

She could have said no the next morning, but instead assented. If she had not, it would have remained an act of rape. You cannot rape the willing.

[Political_Chucky]

Was this after you had only known here very briefly and had you made explicit statements about "no coffee" (compare with the "must use condom" of the Assange case)? As fascinating as your sex life might be I don't think it can be related to the charges against Assange, or at least for your partner's sake I hope it is not comparable to what Assange is accused of. Are you saying you are also currently facing rape charges?

Dude, don't you ever get into debate to talk serious, or do you just like to argue with the majority or something? The whole point to my little story was that people get waken up for sex. Its not something that's rare or taboo. Couples, even couples who barley know each other, do it ALL THE TIME. The fact you bring up points that are not even relevant to the discussion just shows what type of person you are.

Honestly people, I would feel like my post was shit if I seen Majakovskij had just thanked it.

Yes I knew her briefly. No I didn't say anything about coffee. She surprised me which was good. Of course it cannot be compared to Assanges rape charges as I wasn't comparing them at all. No I am not facing rape charges. Fuckin idiot.

[Political_Chucky]

not sure if this has been posted already if it has please ignore .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/secret-texts-key-to-julian-assange-case-2208008.html
very interesting if true though
I hadn't seen them. Lemme post the article because it is relevant to the discussion.


A hoard of secret text messages could hold the key to finally clearing the name of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a court was told tonight.
The whistleblower's Swedish lawyer said investigators have collected around 100 messages to and from his two alleged victims that undermine the case against him.
Related articles



Soldier accused of leaks hopes to be freed over ‘denial of rights’ (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/soldier-accused-of-leaks-hopes-to-be-freed-over-lsquodenial-of-rightsrsquo-2207442.html)
Prosecutor fighting to extradite Assange 'has biased view of men' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prosecutor-fighting-to-extradite-assange-has-biased-view-of-men-2207441.html)


Bjorn Hurtig, 45, said the texts indicate the women expected to be paid, intended to get "revenge" and wanted to contact newspapers to "blast" his client's reputation.
But he told Belmarsh Magistrates' Court that prosecutors in Stockholm have not let him have copies, making it impossible for Assange to receive a fair trial.
He claimed Marianne Ny, who is behind the case against the former computer hacker, warned him not to disclose the contents of the texts as it may violate rules governing the conduct of lawyers.
Mr Hurtig said: "I have been briefly allowed to see other exculpatory evidence but I have not been permitted to make copies to show my client.
"I consider this to be contrary to the rules of a fair trial."
The claim was made at the end of the second day of a hearing to decide whether Assange should be extradited to Sweden to be prosecuted over claims of sexual assault.
The Australian, 39, faces three charges of sexually assaulting one woman and one charge of raping another during a week-long visit to Stockholm last August.
District Judge Howard Riddle, who moved the case from Westminster because of overwhelming media interest, adjourned the over-running case until Friday at 10.30am for a final session.
Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said there was no reason that Assange should not be sent overseas to answer the case against him.
She outlined how prosecutors tried more than 10 times over one week last September to arrange an interview with Assange before he left the country.
Assange's legal team claimed putting him into the hands of the authorities in Stockholm would be a "flagrant denial of justice" and breach his human rights.
They fear a move to Sweden could lead to him being taken against his will to the United States, detained at Guantanamo Bay and ultimately executed for spying.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, for Assange, said he was frustrated Ms Ny had not come to court. He called Mr Hurtig and a second witness, former Swedish prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem, to give evidence today.
Mr Hurtig said it was "outrageous" for a prosecutor to publicly confirm Assange was under investigation for rape, an act which is illegal but carries no punishment.
Mr Alhem said it was "quite peculiar" that Swedish investigators did not get Assange's side of the story before issuing a domestic arrest warrant.
But he admitted that if he was in the same position as Assange he would have gone to Sweden to "give my version of events" and to "clear my name".
Further evidence emerged in more than 40 documents, including witness statements and court paperwork, published by Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens.
In one statement, Mr Hurtig said Assange faced one of the "weakest" cases he has ever seen and claimed the alleged victims may have a "hidden agenda".

[727Goon]

Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to everything. You could agree to vaginal intercourse and be anally raped.

So a dumbass kid who doesnt know what he's doing sticks it in the wrong hole and hes technically a rapist?

[Political_Chucky]

So a dumbass kid who doesnt know what he's doing sticks it in the wrong hole and hes technically a rapist?


Dude, what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

[Rottenfruit]

I dont base things in speculation. I base it on the idea that any accuaation of rape should be handled very seriously by the justice system.

If you think its a conspiracy, prove it.
SO you just take everything the government says at face value :laugh:


It´s not speculation taht ASsange was puted on interpol most wanted for rape, never has interpol put anybody in it´s most wanted list for rape, that list is reserved for mass murderes, war criminals and such.

It´s not speculation taht Scotland Yard put a international warrant on Assange for rape, Since when did Scotland Yard put international warrent´s on somebody for rape?

It´s not speculation that high ranking members of the republican party (Mike Huckabee is one) have publicy called for the exuction of Assange,

It´s not speculation but a fact that the extrication laws in Sweden are very open and would allow Assange to be easily extridated to the Usa, while Austraila and Britian have much stricter policy on who they extride and why

[PhoenixAsh]

Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to everything. You could agree to vaginal intercourse and be anally raped.

As for your example...yes...its absolutely possible.

If you consent to sex you consent to having sexual interaction. You consent to everything that is considered "normal*" sexual behaviour and consent to people expressing certain sexual overtures....until you reject them as unwanted.

You do not have to get explicit consent on every single sexual act that may or may not come up during your love making.

To come back to your example...if you start tickling someones anus and he or she expresses non-consent...obviously continuing is considerable as rape or assault. If not...consent can be assumed.

Its all about communicating. If no non-consent is expressed in normal lovemaking (aka...not without physical or mental force) then you can not later claim it was rape IMO.


* By "normal" I mean what can be considered accepted in general and not a moral label. ...it depends largely on what both partners can assume to be acceptable to the other party and on context. As such...SM, masochism, sadism and watersports and such are IMO something you can not consider generally accepted as general sexual behaviour in many situations....but could be considered as such when you, for example, pick up your sex partner in an SM-club.

[PhoenixAsh]

So a dumbass kid who doesnt know what he's doing sticks it in the wrong hole and hes technically a rapist?

IMO only after he continues when his partner (m/f) expressed a wish for him or her (these days you have such wonderful utensils for that) to stop...

[Political_Chucky]

Rather new video from Assange
lISRo47zCjQ
EDIT: ALSO

-61lZoTCoiU

[chegitz guevara]

So a dumbass kid who doesnt know what he's doing sticks it in the wrong hole and hes technically a rapist?

If he continues when corrected and asked to stop, yes.

[chegitz guevara]

* By "normal" I mean what can be considered accepted in general and not a moral label. ...it depends largely on what both partners can assume to be acceptable to the other party and on context. As such...SM, masochism, sadism and watersports and such are IMO something you can not consider generally accepted as general sexual behaviour in many situations....but could be considered as such when you, for example, pick up your sex partner in an SM-club.

I agree, but if you've only had sex with someone for the first time, and haven't had a long term relationship of any kind, you've no basis to establish what is or isn't "normal" for the relationship. I might have been drunk last night and sober in the morning and realize, I've made a terrible mistake.

While I certainly don't cotton to considering something rape when you don't want to have sex but agree to do so anyway, what Assange did would be considered rape in many states in the U.S. ... until she consented. Once she decided to consent, it stopped being rape.

[Rottenfruit]

Can't be tried now, case is compromised, wonder how long before he's charged with another 'crime'
Assange was put on interpol most wanted, since when did interpol put a person wanted for rape on it's most wanted list, and person who has not even been convicted, See (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2010/12/interpol-puts-julian-assange-on-most-wanted-list-for-sex-crimes-charges/22081/)

RIght after the leak the rape charges pop up, a odd timing indeed
The woman who is charging him for rape has connections with Cia operatives, i bet that's all just a condience,

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

[Yazman]

He stuck it in her while she was asleep.

That is rape, sorry, sexual assault IN THE LEAST. She was unable to give consent. Do you walk up to someone and stick your cock in her and when she says "no" you take it out and go on?

I don't have much of an opinion on this case either way as its not public and I'm not involved, and none of us really know the full details so I don't feel it's appropriate to form a position just yet.

However, based on what we do know, you are misrepresenting the facts with your analogy. She didn't say "no", when she woke up she actually consented.

What Assange did may well be rape, but it very well may not. The purpose of this case is essentially to detemine whether, under Swedish law, consent is implied or not when a person is asleep and later consents. If she hadn't woken up and consented this would likely be a much more straightforward case, however the fact that she did actually consent to it once she woke complicates the matter and pushes this somewhat into "test case" grounds.

[∞]

^Sorry, but that is nowhere even remotely close to what rape is usually considered.

[Yazman]

^Sorry, but that is nowhere even remotely close to what rape is usually considered.

I didn't say it was, or that I thought it was, I was just explaining the real issues behind the case. At its core it's about consent.

[Iron Felix]

This whole thing wasn't designed to put him in jail or extradite him to Amerikkka or anything like that. It was designed spefically to fuck with his head. That's how they operate. And obviously they've fuck with his head, and besides that, Wikileaks is pretty much dead by now so a good job was done on that.

[Crux]

First off, fuck Julian Assange and his "a radical feminist conspiracy is out to get me"-bullshit and he and his lawyers deliberate lies about the swedish judicial system. But then again lawyers in rape trials tend to not play so nice. If Assange had any concern for Wikileaks he would have stepped down as soon as the allegations arose.

Furthermore retroactive consent is some pretty dodgy bussines. Or do you suppose you can't have consentual sex and be raped by the same person, in the same night even? In any case taking sexually advantage of someone who is sleeping, without their consent, is rape. Did Assange do this? It's possible (especially considering the tactic he has employed when defending himself publicly of not denying allegations but attacking the law). If he can't stand in a rape trial without pulling the rest of WikiLeaks down with him well that too says quite a lot about Mr Assange.

[A Marxist Historian]

He stuck it in her while she was asleep.

That is rape, sorry, sexual assault IN THE LEAST. She was unable to give consent. Do you walk up to someone and stick your cock in her and when she says "no" you take it out and go on?

I've only read the first few posts on this thread, so sorry if the obvious point has been made by others.

When you have files deliberately leaked by the police, why should anybody believe anything in them? And why should anybody believe anything from women whose ties to the authorities are such a poorly kept secret? The CIA and their subordinates in Swedish intelligence have been all over Wikileaks like a cheap suit.

the naivete of some people in this thread, at any rate the beginning of this thread, is amazing.

The funniest thing in this whole sick affair is how closely it mirrors the plot line in the second book/movie (or was it the third?) in the "hornet's nest" trilogy.

The trouble with Julian Assange is that he doesn't go to the movies enough. If he did, he'd know that if you want to be the boy that kicks over the hornet's next, stay outta Sweden!

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this, the thing that strikes me as odd is that the extradition to Sweden is seen as an attempt to have him then extradited to America, looking at the facts, this does indeed seem to be a distinct possibility. But why is it being done like this? Surely it would be harder to extradite to America from Sweden than it would be from Britain? The bizarre extradition treaty Britain has with America means extradition is extremely easy whereas as far as I know Sweden has an ordinary extradition treaty.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. The Brits, remembering that America was their colony once, are less slavish servants of America than are the Swedes.

Don't pay any attention to how the extradition treaties read in a case like this. Obama wants to rendition Assange, and the Swedes will be delighted to help. Remember, the law always reads the way the courts want it to read, and the fix is in.

the only thing that could prevent Swedish extradition of Assange would be massive Swedish opposition, and the rape charges are cleverly concocted to avoid that. Hey, they even affect people here on Revleft.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I should mention as well that the process of extraditing someone to Sweden from Britain is harder than extraditing them to America. Blair signed a bizarre treaty with America letting people be extradited to America on very little evidence with normal process bypassed in "security cases", though not vice versa.

If the purpose is simply to harass Assange then this makes sense, but if America actually wants to go for him itself, it is not doing a very good job of it.

Forget the law, it's irrelevant.

the British government can't extradite Assange to the U.S. There's probably a legal-technical reason, but the real reason is that the British public would be outraged, and after Blair and the Iraq war, British governments like to pretend that they are not just US poodles anymore.

In Sweden the political dynamic is different.

-M.H.-

[tobbinator]

It's not rape; it's just surprise sex.

On a more serious note, we can not really be certain whether these cases are politically motivated to get Assange out or actual crimes he has committed.

I personally think that he may have done it, but it's being blown larger than it is in order to achieve some agenda.

[bricolage]

I personally think that he may have done it, but it's being blown larger than it is in order to achieve some agenda.
more so that rape is on the whole blown smaller than it is so when a case is actually treated with seriousness everyone's shocked. it's pretty insulting to the millions of rape victims to say it's only important if your rapist is famous and a bit annoying to the powers that be, but lets not lie here assange is a rapist. fuck him.

[tobbinator]

more so that rape is on the whole blown smaller than it is so when a case is actually treated with seriousness everyone's shocked. it's pretty insulating to the millions of rape victims to say it's only important if your rapist is famous and a bit annoying to the powers that be, but lets not lie here assange is a rapist. fuck him.

The justice system cares not for the common victims of crime, including rape. It's quite disrespectful.

[Crux]

I've only read the first few posts on this thread, so sorry if the obvious point has been made by others.

When you have files deliberately leaked by the police, why should anybody believe anything in them? And why should anybody believe anything from women whose ties to the authorities are such a poorly kept secret? The CIA and their subordinates in Swedish intelligence have been all over Wikileaks like a cheap suit.

the naivete of some people in this thread, at any rate the beginning of this thread, is amazing.

The funniest thing in this whole sick affair is how closely it mirrors the plot line in the second book/movie (or was it the third?) in the "hornet's nest" trilogy.

The trouble with Julian Assange is that he doesn't go to the movies enough. If he did, he'd know that if you want to be the boy that kicks over the hornet's next, stay outta Sweden!

-M.H.-
Please do tell me how this is a plot from Stieg Larsson. And as I said before if Assange would have stepped down when the allegations arose this would not be a WikiLeaks issue. I am furthermore quite disgusted to see the blame the victim and rape apologist mentality among Assange fanboys, out of which some at least are supposedly socialists. Oh yes and of course conspiracy theories abound.

[aty]

Assange has hired a PR-company that is led by Harald Ullman and that is the same company hired by the Hotel and Restaurant-owners for combating the swedish anarcho-syndicalist union SAC.

FUCK ASSANGE!

[A Marxist Historian]

Please do tell me how this is a plot from Stieg Larsson. And as I said before if Assange would have stepped down when the allegations arose this would not be a WikiLeaks issue. I am furthermore quite disgusted to see the blame the victim and rape apologist mentality among Assange fanboys, out of which some at least are supposedly socialists. Oh yes and of course conspiracy theories abound.

Hey, read the books or see the movies yourself, get a life. The male main character gets set up by the Swedish authorities in similar fashion.

Conspiracy theories? Do you seriously think for one second that the CIA, MI5, and everyone else *aren't* out to get Wikileaks? You think they don't mind all their secrets getting revealed? If so, read the papers some times, they haven't exactly made a secret out of it. If the CIA *hadn't* been pulling this kind of stuff on Assange and Wikileaks, Congress would demand to know why and there would be congressional investigations. That's what it's for after all.

This sort of thing is classic in the spy vs. spy game, the term is "honey trap." It's what happens in the world that Wikileaks has bravely leaped into. Every day and twice on Sundays. Much fewer repercussions than just a mailbomb.

As for "Assange is a rapist," it's nice to know that, unlike the courts, you believe in guilty until proven innocent. And in this case the prosecutions case has so many holes in it that it looks like Swiss cheese.

Who is the victim here? Wikileaks, and all those seeking to expose the dark dirty secrets of US imperialism. Plain and simple. All those who accept the rape charges for good coin are patsies for the CIA. "Useful idiots" is I believe the expression in the trade.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

Be a bit more patronizing, why dont you? I have seen the films. So what? Yes this rape case has gotten more attention because it involves assange. Does that make it a "honeytrap"? Dont think so. Maybe you should spend less time reading spynovels and more time reading what assange himself says. He doesnt think its a cia plot but a feminist plot. Yeah. Plus he and his lawyers are going for the swedish sex crime laws are too strict -angle. In other words he is not really denying the charges. And if he did not want to pull wikileaks down with him he should have stepped. But i guess he was too afraid to stand trial alone without fanboys like you backing him up. And no i dont blame the victim. Even in celebrity rape trials.

[A Marxist Historian]

Be a bit more patronizing, why dont you? I have seen the films. So what? Yes this rape case has gotten more attention because it involves assange. Does that make it a "honeytrap"? Dont think so. Maybe you should spend less time reading spynovels and more time reading what assange himself says. He doesnt think its a cia plot but a feminist plot. Yeah. Plus he and his lawyers are going for the swedish sex crime laws are too strict -angle. In other words he is not really denying the charges. And if he did not want to pull wikileaks down with him he should have stepped. But i guess he was too afraid to stand trial alone without fanboys like you backing him up. And no i dont blame the victim. Even in celebrity rape trials.

Why is Assange trying to go after feminists instead of the fact that one of his accusers is tied to the CIA? Because he is no saint, and thinks that is safer. I support what Assange does, namely exposing the crimes of US imperialism, not every word that comes out of his mouth.

As for Swedish sex crime laws being too strict, that is an obvious legal angle, which anybody who has read this thread can understand. They are, obviously, too strict if the conduct he is *accused* of committing is described is rape.

Since this is a "he said, she said" case, and he didn't after all have a videocamera going during their sexual encounter, from a purely legal standpoint not calling that whore for the CIA who set him up a liar is probably a smart legal move.

I note you do not even bother to deny that she was CIA. Read the posting on that forchrissake.

Given that Wikileaks is a highly personal operation, like it or not, if they get Assange Wikileaks is over. That's reality. They have gotten him, and it is over, looks like. With a lot of help from people like you.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

Why is Assange trying to go after feminists instead of the fact that one of his accusers is tied to the CIA? Because he is no saint, and thinks that is safer. I support what Assange does, namely exposing the crimes of US imperialism, not every word that comes out of his mouth.

As for Swedish sex crime laws being too strict, that is an obvious legal angle, which anybody who has read this thread can understand. They are, obviously, too strict if the conduct he is *accused* of committing is described is rape.

Since this is a "he said, she said" case, and he didn't after all have a videocamera going during their sexual encounter, from a purely legal standpoint not calling that whore for the CIA who set him up a liar is probably a smart legal move.

I note you do not even bother to deny that she was CIA. Read the posting on that forchrissake.

Given that Wikileaks is a highly personal operation, like it or not, if they get Assange Wikileaks is over. That's reality. They have gotten him, and it is over, looks like. With a lot of help from people like you.

-M.H.-

it's like I don't even have to say anything. You've already exposed yourself as a misogynist little rape apologist. Truly disgusting. Oh and this CIA bullshit that's not you saying she deserves to get sexually abused because she once went to cuba? Because it sure sounds like. Even more disgusting is your general disregard for sexual abuse. So yeah as I said the big CIA scoop that makes our little spart here call the defendat in a rape trial a whore is that she once went to cuba and met, i think it was, the white ladies. An opposition group. So he is very much clutching for straws. I am wondering why he doesnt just go ahead and say that he defends rape and sexual abuse, at least when it is assange doing it.

[mrmikhail]

it's like I don't even have to say anything. You've already exposed yourself as a misogynist little rape apologist. Truly disgusting. Oh and this CIA bullshit that's not you saying she deserves to get sexually abused because she once went to cuba? Because it sure sounds like. Even more disgusting is your general disregard for sexual abuse. So yeah as I said the big CIA scoop that makes our little spart here call the defendat in a rape trial a whore is that she once went to cuba and met, i think it was, the white ladies. An opposition group. So he is very much clutching for straws. I am wondering why he doesnt just go ahead and say that he defends rape and sexual abuse, at least when it is assange doing it.

Exactly, this is a true Spart right here. Also note how he says that wikileaks is over, and then he blames *you* for it, because you disagree with him instead of the true reason, it is over because of Assange himself because he took wikileaks down with him by refusing to resign at the beginning.

[A Marxist Historian]

it's like I don't even have to say anything. You've already exposed yourself as a misogynist little rape apologist. Truly disgusting. Oh and this CIA bullshit that's not you saying she deserves to get sexually abused because she once went to cuba? Because it sure sounds like. Even more disgusting is your general disregard for sexual abuse. So yeah as I said the big CIA scoop that makes our little spart here call the defendat in a rape trial a whore is that she once went to cuba and met, i think it was, the white ladies. An opposition group. So he is very much clutching for straws. I am wondering why he doesnt just go ahead and say that he defends rape and sexual abuse, at least when it is assange doing it.

Anyone who reads the piece form Counterpunch will immediately see that Majakovskij is defending a woman with CIA written all over her. Utterly disgusting. And a gross insult to all real rape victims everywhere.

Why did I call her a whore? A whore is someone who has sex for money, and this woman is obviously CIA. Perhaps she does it for free, who knows, but I'd be very surprised if she didn't get a bonus from her employer for this one.

Actually, I hereby apologize to all whores everywhere for comparing them to her. There are a lot of women out there who sell their bodies to pay the bills and make ends meet, to feed their kids and stay off the street. She is just a counterrevolutionary ratfink doing the CIA's dirtiest work.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

Anyone who reads the piece form Counterpunch will immediately see that Majakovskij is defending a woman with CIA written all over her. Utterly disgusting. And a gross insult to all real rape victims everywhere.

Why did I call her a whore? A whore is someone who has sex for money, and this woman is obviously CIA. Perhaps she does it for free, who knows, but I'd be very surprised if she didn't get a bonus from her employer for this one.

Actually, I hereby apologize to all whores everywhere for comparing them to her. There are a lot of women out there who sell their bodies to pay the bills and make ends meet, to feed their kids and stay off the street. She is just a counterrevolutionary ratfink doing the CIA's dirtiest work.

-M.H.-
as i said. You are clutching for straws. And you desperatly want this unconvincing little cia whore conspiracy to be true, but you know what? You're not fooling anyone. Your assange fanboyism and sexism is showing clear as day. So drop the act please.

[A Marxist Historian]

Exactly, this is a true Spart right here. Also note how he says that wikileaks is over, and then he blames *you* for it, because you disagree with him instead of the true reason, it is over because of Assange himself because he took wikileaks down with him by refusing to resign at the beginning.

Perfect! Hewe we have "mrmikhail," the guy who posted that Occupy Wall Street is a rapefest with a rape every day, and whose evidence for this was ... a New York City police officer said so, coming out in Majakovskij's support.

so the guy who wants to frame up Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of rapists on behalf of the New York Police Department wants to help M frame up the head of Wikileaks on behalf of the CIA.

And M is duly grateful for this "support," issuing a thankee.

No surprise.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

as i said. You are clutching for straws. And you desperatly want this unconvincing little cia whore conspiracy to be true, but you know what? You're not fooling anyone. Your assange fanboyism and sexism is showing clear as day. So drop the act please.

Weird. I've been assuming that this is just a cynical political maneuver on M's part, due to his organization wanting to recruit some feminists or something, but it seems he actually believes his nonsense.

I guess the CIA never engages in conspiracies. Anybody who thinks that the CIA ever engages in any such thing, and especially against somebody as beloved by the CIA as Wikileaks, must be hallucinating.

The strange thing about all this is just how blatant and open it is. Back in the day, the CIA's tradecraft was a lot better, and they didn't engage in stuff so open and overt and obvious. They did a remarkably poor job of covering their tracks here, and I suspect her handler has been disciplined.

-M.H.-

[Nox]

To throw in my two cents, whether it's rape or not it's definitely borderline either way. I think there isn't enough that we know about to make a definite call on this.

I hope he never gets sent to the US. He will almost certainly be tortured and killed.

[Crux]

Perfect! Hewe we have "mrmikhail," the guy who posted that Occupy Wall Street is a rapefest with a rape every day, and whose evidence for this was ... a New York City police officer said so, coming out in Majakovskij's support.

so the guy who wants to frame up Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of rapists on behalf of the New York Police Department wants to help M frame up the head of Wikileaks on behalf of the CIA.

And M is duly grateful for this "support," issuing a thankee.

No surprise.

-M.H.-
Nice strawman. Having not seen the thread I'll just assume it is your own rape apologism doing the talking for you again. Regardless I cannot answer for what another poster said in another thread on another issue.


Weird. I've been assuming that this is just a cynical political maneuver on M's part, due to his organization wanting to recruit some feminists or something, but it seems he actually believes his nonsense.

I guess the CIA never engages in conspiracies. Anybody who thinks that the CIA ever engages in any such thing, and especially against somebody as beloved by the CIA as Wikileaks, must be hallucinating.

The strange thing about all this is just how blatant and open it is. Back in the day, the CIA's tradecraft was a lot better, and they didn't engage in stuff so open and overt and obvious. They did a remarkably poor job of covering their tracks here, and I suspect her handler has been disciplined.

-M.H.-
Of course you have since you don't understand the first thing about feminism, obviously.

So saying that your conspiracy theory is far fetched and does not hold water is the same as saying the CIA never engages in conspiracies? Hahahahahahahahah. You might not even realize it, but that's a massive strawman on your part.

Only it's not. So when you say Assange is no "saint" and you think that what he is accused of is "not rape" you are not being a rape apologist? Well, I'd wager you're one of the few seeing it that way. So why are you avoiding answering this and instead go on "the defendant is a CIA whore" rant worthy of any sexist defence lawayer? Well, I am pretty sure I know the answer to that one, but you go right ahead.

[NormalG]

Sex scandals--the easiest way to frame someone

[Crux]

To throw in my two cents, whether it's rape or not it's definitely borderline either way. I think there isn't enough that we know about to make a definite call on this.

I hope he never gets sent to the US. He will almost certainly be tortured and killed.
Whetever he is a rapist or not I unconditionally oppose any extraditon of Assange to the U.S. But, except to someone chasing CIA strawmen, that ought to be obvious.

[Crux]

Sex scandals--the easiest way to frame someone
Sexism, the prejudice and discrimination most easily excused and ignored on a male-dominated forum.

[Tim Finnegan]

I hope he never gets sent to the US. He will almost certainly be tortured and killed.
I don't think that even the US government are quite ballsy enough to try something that dramatic on somebody as high profile as this. What would they even have to gain from it, beyond spite?

[A Marxist Historian]

Nice strawman. Having not seen the thread I'll just assume it is your own rape apologism doing the talking for you again. Regardless I cannot answer for what another poster said in another thread on another issue.


Of course you have since you don't understand the first thing about feminism, obviously.

So saying that your conspiracy theory is far fetched and does not hold water is the same as saying the CIA never engages in conspiracies? Hahahahahahahahah. You might not even realize it, but that's a massive strawman on your part.

Only it's not. So when you say Assange is no "saint" and you think that what he is accused of is "not rape" you are not being a rape apologist? Well, I'd wager you're one of the few seeing it that way. So why are you avoiding answering this and instead go on "the defendant is a CIA whore" rant worthy of any sexist defence lawayer? Well, I am pretty sure I know the answer to that one, but you go right ahead.

It's not a "conpiracy theory," but a conspiracy fact, very well documented.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

Ms. Ardin worked for a Cuban group headed by a individual linked to the CIA.

http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/oh-what-a-not-so-tangled-web-we-weave/

As for the accusation, this is an extremely borderline affair. *If* we believe her current version, which I do not for one second, when the issue came up of whether to use a condom or not, he did actually ask her if it was OK, and she didn't object because she was too sleepy to argue with him.

That's rape? That's ridiculous. Only in Sweden would this be considered good enough reason to turn him over to the CIA for interrogation in the fashion of Bradley Manning, which has been branded torture by various international bodies.

As for what I understand about feminism, I'll stick with the Comintern position of Alexandra Kollontai and Klara Zetkin, that it is a bourgeois ideology counterposed to Marxism and to the liberation of women.

When I said Assange was "no saint" I was referring to his quite dreadful politics, not his personal life, which is nobody's business, any more than it was with Tommy Sheridan.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't think that even the US government are quite ballsy enough to try something that dramatic on somebody as high profile as this. What would they even have to gain from it, beyond spite?

Well, they have tortured Bradley Manning, to try to get information out of him. Granted, not anything as crude as waterboarding, but their treatment of Manning drew international censure as prisoner abuse.

Why wouldn't they do the same to Assange if they get hold of him? He knows everything that there is to be known about Wikileaks, and he knows lots and lots of names of people who they would like to see in prison. Hundreds in fact, if he were willing to testify against them.

The ruling class does not like to have its secrets revealed. And, as Tunisia demonstrates, revealing those secrets can definitely cost them.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Nice strawman. Having not seen the thread I'll just assume it is your own rape apologism doing the talking for you again. Regardless I cannot answer for what another poster said in another thread on another issue...


Well, if you had stopped at just pleading ignorance of his postings about how OWS is a rapefest that would have worked.

But no, you went on to "assume" that "it is your own rape apologism doing the talking for you again."

Now, I'm not one of those folk who want to win arguments with cheap debaters' tricks, like some folk I could mention here. So you have the full opportunity to check it out for yourself and find out if this "assumption" has any validity.

And hey, if you really have any trouble finding the thread I'll give it to you, if you ask nicely.

But, until you do, or until you withdraw that statement, yes, you bear full 100% responsibility for "mrmikhail"'s comments as to how OWS is a rapefest 'cuz a New York City cop said so.

Don't ever say you weren't given fair warning.

-M.H.-

[mrmikhail]

Nice strawman. Having not seen the thread I'll just assume it is your own rape apologism doing the talking for you again. Regardless I cannot answer for what another poster said in another thread on another issue.


Of course you have since you don't understand the first thing about feminism, obviously.

So saying that your conspiracy theory is far fetched and does not hold water is the same as saying the CIA never engages in conspiracies? Hahahahahahahahah. You might not even realize it, but that's a massive strawman on your part.

Only it's not. So when you say Assange is no "saint" and you think that what he is accused of is "not rape" you are not being a rape apologist? Well, I'd wager you're one of the few seeing it that way. So why are you avoiding answering this and instead go on "the defendant is a CIA whore" rant worthy of any sexist defence lawayer? Well, I am pretty sure I know the answer to that one, but you go right ahead.

And here we have "a marxist historian" resorting to strawman and ad hominem when his views are challenged. Just because *one* of the women who has been allegedly (must use allegedly, being he isn't yet convicted, though I believe he did commit the rapes) raped might have some loose relationship with the CIA, I can hardly call that a fucking excuse for his actions, and then to be outright sexist with his argument just shows "a marxist historian"'s true nature. This "person" cannot even keep the argument of this thread compeltely with this thread, he must throw in ad hominem from other threads to try and discredit you, for a "historian" you are a pretty sad case, I must say.

[A Marxist Historian]

And here we have "a marxist historian" resorting to strawman and ad hominem when his views are challenged. Just because *one* of the women who has been allegedly (must use allegedly, being he isn't yet convicted, though I believe he did commit the rapes) raped might have some loose relationship with the CIA, I can hardly call that a fucking excuse for his actions, and then to be outright sexist with his argument just shows "a marxist historian"'s true nature. This "person" cannot even keep the argument of this thread compeltely with this thread, he must throw in ad hominem from other threads to try and discredit you, for a "historian" you are a pretty sad case, I must say.

Almost funny. So "mrmikhail" *admits* that she "might have some loose relationship with the CIA," but still says that we should take her word for it.

After all, CIA folk are like New York policemen. They never lie about anything. Isn't in wonderful how our tax dollars are paying the salaries of these brave American heroes?

It's nice to know we have a poster standing up for these poor unfortunates, that so many folk on Revleft have such smallminded attitudes about.:rolleyes:

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

Almost funny. So "mrmikhail" *admits* that she "might have some loose relationship with the CIA," but still says that we should take her word for it.
As opposed to taking Assange's word that he isn't a rapist?http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

[Crux]

It's not a "conpiracy theory," but a conspiracy fact, very well documented.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

Ms. Ardin worked for a Cuban group headed by a individual linked to the CIA.

http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/oh-what-a-not-so-tangled-web-we-weave/

As for the accusation, this is an extremely borderline affair. *If* we believe her current version, which I do not for one second, when the issue came up of whether to use a condom or not, he did actually ask her if it was OK, and she didn't object because she was too sleepy to argue with him.

That's rape? That's ridiculous. Only in Sweden would this be considered good enough reason to turn him over to the CIA for interrogation in the fashion of Bradley Manning, which has been branded torture by various international bodies.

As for what I understand about feminism, I'll stick with the Comintern position of Alexandra Kollontai and Klara Zetkin, that it is a bourgeois ideology counterposed to Marxism and to the liberation of women.

When I said Assange was "no saint" I was referring to his quite dreadful politics, not his personal life, which is nobody's business, any more than it was with Tommy Sheridan.

-M.H.-
Yes, as I said, before you did. She has visited Cuba under guise of an oppoosition group. I can think of several other youth politician in sweden that has done this. This is, again as I said before, not in any way shape or form proof that they are CIA operatives. In fact your proof here is that the leader of the group might be working for the CIA. Fair enough. But it proofs very little about the defendent and again, as I said, you are clutching for straws.

Which of the cases are we now discussing? Let me first say that that first rawstory is full of the usual and long since refuted misinformation of "suprise sex" etc. In one case he held a woman down, this is however not the case labelled as rape but "merely" abuse and sexual abuse. In the other he engaged in sex with someone who was asleep, this is considered rape in sweden. But then again your sexism is peering through.

Kollontai and Zetkin were truly brilliant writers, but what you seem to be saying is rather that your views on feminism belong in the 1920's rather than you basing yourself on what these individuals wrote.

[Crux]

Well, if you had stopped at just pleading ignorance of his postings about how OWS is a rapefest that would have worked.

But no, you went on to "assume" that "it is your own rape apologism doing the talking for you again."

Now, I'm not one of those folk who want to win arguments with cheap debaters' tricks, like some folk I could mention here. So you have the full opportunity to check it out for yourself and find out if this "assumption" has any validity.

And hey, if you really have any trouble finding the thread I'll give it to you, if you ask nicely.

But, until you do, or until you withdraw that statement, yes, you bear full 100% responsibility for "mrmikhail"'s comments as to how OWS is a rapefest 'cuz a New York City cop said so.

Don't ever say you weren't given fair warning.

-M.H.-
:laugh:
Your attempt at sidetracking is pretty transparent you know. Sorry, you'll have to keep that bait for some other time when you're desperatly trying to fish for points.

[Tim Finnegan]

Kollontai and Zetkin were truly brilliant writers, but what you seem to be saying is rather that your views on feminism belong in the 1920's rather than you basing yourself on what these individuals wrote.
Oh, hush. Don't you know that inter-war era terminology defines all content always and forever?

[Luís Henrique]

As opposed to taking Assange's word that he isn't a rapist?http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

Well, yes. Allegations have to be proved, not the other way round. And so, she has to make a convincing case for her accusation; up to now, it doesn't seem likely.

Otherwise any woman could get any man jailed, just by having sex and then accusing him of rape. After all, most sexual relations have not witnesses, so...

Luís Henrique

[pastradamus]

Well, yes. Allegations have to be proved, not the other way round. And so, she has to make a convincing case for her accusation; up to now, it doesn't seem likely.

Otherwise any woman could get any man jailed, just by having sex and then accusing him of rape. After all, most sexual relations have not witnesses, so...

Luís Henrique

Absolutely.

Rape is always one of the hardest crimes to convict a person for. For a rape charge to go ahead these days you need massive amounts of proof. Genetic evidence must be supplied these days as well - and even that isn't enough on its own these days. The prosecution will be looking for witnesses also, because its that hard to prove.

Though Assange - as it stands is innocent. We must not forget this. People cant talk about his "guilt" as he has not been convicted and proven of wrong-doing - as it stands.

[Tim Finnegan]

I never meant to suggest that Assange shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, but that The Marxist Historian struck me as employing a double standard, absolutely dismissing the claims made by the woman on the one hand while asking that we accept Assange's claims virtually without criticism on the other. Both claims must of course be approached with scepticism, but that's entirely the thing: both. A respect for the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in no sense demands an uncritical acceptance of a defendant's claims right up until the point they are refuted in their entirety.

[Luís Henrique]

both.

Sure, as long as we understand that as long as both remain unproved, we presume the innocence of the accused.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Sure, as long as we understand that as long as both remain unproved, we presume the innocence of the accused.

Luís Henrique
I'd say that we should refuse to presume his guilt, which is a slightly different. We aren't bound to assume a definite binary between innocence and guilt as the courts are, because we aren't attempting to establish a legal conclusion.

[Nox]

Sure, as long as we understand that as long as both remain unproved, we presume the innocence of the accused.

Luís Henrique

Very well said. Innocent until proven guilty.

To add to the discussion that's been going on here, I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm starting to doubt that this could be classed as rape.

As someone said earlier, she agreed to having sexual intercourse with him, the only thing she disagreed with was the lack of a condom.

Rape means having sex with an unwilling participant. If it's not that, then it's not rape. Period.

Besides, coming from a totally neutral perspective it's likely that we will never know what really happened seeing as the only people who know the truth are the two people involved.

[pastradamus]

Very well said. Innocent until proven guilty.

To add to the discussion that's been going on here, I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm starting to doubt that this could be classed as rape.

As someone said earlier, she agreed to having sexual intercourse with him, the only thing she disagreed with was the lack of a condom.

Besides, coming from a totally neutral perspective it's likely that we will never know what really happened seeing as the only people who know the truth are the two people involved.

Thats just it I suppose. I'd find it shocking if Assange got convicted for this to be honest. Those kinds of rape cases never seem to hold up convictions. We always hear simular stories withs regards moviestars and sportsmen and they never seem to get done for simular accusations.

[Nox]

Thats just it I suppose. I'd find it shocking if Assange got convicted for this to be honest. Those kinds of rape cases never seem to hold up convictions. We always hear simular stories withs regards moviestars and sportsmen and they never seem to get done for simular accusations.

That's the problem with rape, the term itself is so vague and it's almost impossible to prove for certain that someone commited a rape as in almost every case there are only 2 people who know what happened.

I personally know someone who was wrongly accused of rape when he was 15, he could and probably would have have gone to prison for 10 years and had his life totally ruined if the girl hadn't withdrawn her claim.

Rape accusations are one of those things where ad hominem is reliable. For example, if the people involved are a married couple or were very drunk at the time, it's highly likely that the sex was indeed consentual. This is the main problem with rape, you have to use the little information you have to tip the balance to one side. It really is sad, but as a result so many people get either wrongly accused of rape or get away with it.

[pastradamus]

That's the problem with rape, the term itself is so vague and it's almost impossible to prove for certain that someone commited a rape as in almost every case there are only 2 people who know what happened.

I personally know someone who was wrongly accused of rape when he was 15, he could and probably would have have gone to prison for 10 years and had his life totally ruined if the girl hadn't withdrawn her claim.

Rape accusations are one of those things where ad hominem is reliable. For example, if the people involved are a married couple or were very drunk at the time, it's highly likely that the sex was indeed consentual. This is the main problem with rape, you have to use the little information you have to tip the balance to one side. It really is sad, but as a result so many people get either wrongly accused of rape or get away with it.

I think that what you've just said there sums up exactly what I was trying to say over the last few posts. Couldn't agree more with you Nox. Good post.

[Nox]

I think that what you've just said there sums up exactly what I was trying to say over the last few posts. Couldn't agree more with you Nox. Good post.

Yep, it annoys me when I see people on here rattling on about how "it's wrong to judge the character of the man/woman" or "it's wrong to use ad hominem".

That is a fair point, but that's the only information you've got in cases involving rape. Like I said, it's really sad that many people get away with rape because of this, but also many people get wrongly convicted of rape too.

It's a problem that will likely never be solved.

[A Marxist Historian]

As opposed to taking Assange's word that he isn't a rapist?http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

Well, yes. When you have one person who has ties to the CIA, and another one who is the head of Wikileaks, damn right I will take his word and ignore hers.

That is elementary solidarity vs. the ruling class, and anyone who doesn't understand that is a traitor to our class.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

That's the problem with rape, the term itself is so vague and it's almost impossible to prove for certain that someone commited a rape as in almost every case there are only 2 people who know what happened.

I personally know someone who was wrongly accused of rape when he was 15, he could and probably would have have gone to prison for 10 years and had his life totally ruined if the girl hadn't withdrawn her claim.

Rape accusations are one of those things where ad hominem is reliable. For example, if the people involved are a married couple or were very drunk at the time, it's highly likely that the sex was indeed consentual. This is the main problem with rape, you have to use the little information you have to tip the balance to one side. It really is sad, but as a result so many people get either wrongly accused of rape or get away with it.

...the fuck? If they're married or drunk it's probably not rape? Uh. What made you come to that conclusion? Statistically false rape accusations are as common as false accusations in other crime. Only in rape cases are sexist and irrelevant questions allowed. Anyway your description of what assange is accused of is not correct. The rape case is where he supposedly penetrated someone who was asleep. The other case is abuse and sexual abuse.

[Nox]

...the fuck? If they're married or drunk it's probably not rape? Uh. What made you come to that conclusion? Statistically false rape accusations are as common as false accusations in other crime. Only in rape cases are sexist and irrelevant questions allowed. Anyway your description of what assange is accused of is not correct. The rape case is where he supposedly penetrated someone who was asleep. The other case is abuse and sexual abuse.

What you're not taking into consideration is that I'm saying they have no choice other than to use ad hominem in judging rape cases, because like I said there is almost always nothing else to go off of.

He did supposedly penetrate someone who was asleep, but the person was fine with the penetration, what she had a problem with was the lack of a condom. That does not meet the definition of rape, no matter how you try and twist it.

Sexual abuse? Possibly. Rape? Definitely not.

Rape is thrown around so much as if its meaningless, if there is any disagreement whatsoever during sex then it is 'rape' (even if the sex is consentual, which totally contradicts the definition of rape) according to people like you.

Like I said before, rape = having non-consentual sex with an unwilling participant, nothing less.

[Tim Finnegan]

Very well said. Innocent until proven guilty.

To add to the discussion that's been going on here, I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm starting to doubt that this could be classed as rape.

As someone said earlier, she agreed to having sexual intercourse with him, the only thing she disagreed with was the lack of a condom.

Rape means having sex with an unwilling participant. If it's not that, then it's not rape. Period.
Her consent was conditional, those conditions were violated without her knowledge. As such, informed consent was lacking. Thus, rape. Very simple, if you understand that our objection to rape stems from its character as a violation of human autonomy, and not just because we're in the habit of arbitrarily declaring certain acts forbidden.


Well, yes. When you have one person who has ties to the CIA, and another one who is the head of Wikileaks, damn right I will take his word and ignore hers.

That is elementary solidarity vs. the ruling class, and anyone who doesn't understand that is a traitor to our class.

-M.H.-
"Unconditionally support this bourgeois liberal or you're a class traitor"? Spart logic at it's absolute finest, yes sir. :rolleyes:

[Rottenfruit]

As opposed to taking Assange's word that he isn't a rapist?http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif
It's more logical, Why the timing? T
Here's just too many condincedes to say this is just a normal rape trial

The cia connection, the timing, the extreme measures used to capture him(putting a rapist on interpol most wanted has never been done before), scotland yard putting a international arrest warrent on him for rape

WHen has there ever been such a combined international effort to capture a man wanted for rape?

[A Marxist Historian]

Her consent was conditional, those conditions were violated without her knowledge. As such, informed consent was lacking. Thus, rape. Very simple, if you understand that our objection to rape stems from its character as a violation of human autonomy, and not just because we're in the habit of arbitrarily declaring certain acts forbidden.


"Unconditionally support this bourgeois liberal or you're a class traitor"? Spart logic at it's absolute finest, yes sir. :rolleyes:

Firstly, her latest version (she keeps changing what she says) is that, yes, they did talk about and and she did consent to him going on without a condom, but that was just 'cuz she was sleepy.

But even parsing what this CIA-connected element has to say is ridiculous, she is going to say whatever she thinks she can get away with saying so as to get him extradited to the tender care of the CIA.

But saying we should wash our hands of this "bourgeois liberal" and let the CIA get their hands on him is insane sectarianism.

Is he a "bourgeois liberal"? Well, yes. So are a hell of a lot of the participants in OWS, most certainly including the Adbusters folk who started the whole thing in the first place, and who are if anything to his right. Assange's politics are just about *typical* for your average OWS protestor in New York, and you'd be hard to find an OWS protestor out here in Oakland who'd call him a "bourgeois liberal" for that matter.

So by that logic, when the cops bust their heads, we should all sneer on the sidelines.

And let's not hear any crap about how, well, I don't want to see him extradited, I just think he should be prosecuted for these rape allegations. It's transparently obvious that the whole thing was cooked up to get him to Sweden so he could be extradited to America. So if you support one, you support the other.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

It's more logical, Why the timing? T
Here's just too many condincedes to say this is just a normal rape trial

The cia connection, the timing, the extreme measures used to capture him(putting a rapist on interpol most wanted has never been done before), scotland yard putting a international arrest warrent on him for rape

WHen has there ever been such a combined international effort to capture a man wanted for rape?
You're conflating two very different points. It's fairly clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the breadth of interest shown in this case by various states is not just because they've suddenly decided that rape is of critical importance, but because it's a chance to nail Assange. But that is in itself no grounds for asserting Assenge's innocence, because it has absolutely no bearings on the details of the case itself, which remain as yet far from fully conclusive. It is entirely possible for Assange to be both a victim of political repression and a rapist. Whatever our strange little Spartacist chum may think.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, yes. When you have one person who has ties to the CIA, and another one who is the head of Wikileaks, damn right I will take his word and ignore hers.

That is elementary solidarity vs. the ruling class, and anyone who doesn't understand that is a traitor to our class.

-M.H.-

You are a sympathizer with the Sparticist League. The Sparticists are a split from the Socialist Workers Party USA. The SWP is a split from the Socialist Party of America. The SPA later split into three different groups, including Democratic Socialists of America. Irving Howe was a member of DSA. Irving Howe was an editor of Dissent magazine. Dissent received funding, unknowingly, from the CIA.

YOU are therefore linked to the CIA. Congrats.

[A Marxist Historian]

You're conflating two very different points. It's fairly clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the breadth of interest shown in this case by various states is not just because they've suddenly decided that rape is of critical importance, but because it's a chance to nail Assange. But that is in itself no grounds for asserting Assenge's innocence, because it has absolutely no bearings on the details of the case itself, which remain as yet far from fully conclusive. It is entirely possible for Assange to be both a victim of political repression and a rapist. Whatever our strange little Spartacist chum may think.

Well, yes, that is possible. Characterizing Assange as a "rapist" on the basis of these accusations strikes me as pretty bizarre.

But, if you seriously think that, for whatever reason, but are willing to oppose his prosecution on these trumped-up charges nonetheless, then at least you are on the right side of the class line.

I see no sign of that from "mrmikhail" and his fanboy Majakovskij however.

Their groups, the CWI and the IMT, have in common the amazing position that cops are part of the working class. It should be obvious to anybody with two brain cells to rub together as you put it that this is connected to their joint enthusiasm for rape frameups by the police in New York City and the CIA, MI6 and Swedish intelligence in Europe.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

You are a sympathizer with the Sparticist League. The Sparticists are a split from the Socialist Workers Party USA. The SWP is a split from the Socialist Party of America. The SPA later split into three different groups, including Democratic Socialists of America. Irving Howe was a member of DSA. Irving Howe was an editor of Dissent magazine. Dissent received funding, unknowingly, from the CIA.

YOU are therefore linked to the CIA. Congrats.

Chegitz, have you even read the expose about the accusers posted here? If you had, you'd know that the link is just a wee, wee bit closer, shall we say?

If you have, you are either being deliberately dishonest or very, very stupid.

Stooping to your level for a second, I will point out that the spelling "Sparticist" is the one always used in the FBI files on the Spartacist League. So what would that say about you?

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

That's the problem with rape, the term itself is so vague and it's almost impossible to prove for certain that someone commited a rape as in almost every case there are only 2 people who know what happened.

Now, I don't think this is true. Many, perhaps most, cases of rape are simply clearcut, with the victim carrying visible marks of the violence involved. Indeed, the problem seems to be the opposite, with people mischaracterising as "rape" other forms of sexual misbehaviour. It is not rape if John tells Jane he will marry her if she goes to bed with him, and then dumps her for no reason after she concedes, it is not rape if John and Jane go to bed consensually and after that John tells Jane to fuck off because she is, besides awful and repulsive, also a bad lover, and it is not rape if John and Jane start banging, consensually, and, in the middle of the thing, Jane changes her mind and wants to stop, but it is too late for John to hold his orgasm. Those things can be nasty, even awful, or not something a gentleman should do, but they are not rape, and cannot be punished, if at all, in the same way as forcing a woman to have a sexual relation at gun point, or by forcibly holding her, etc.

Luís Henrique

[mrmikhail]

You are a sympathizer with the Sparticist League. The Sparticists are a split from the Socialist Workers Party USA. The SWP is a split from the Socialist Party of America. The SPA later split into three different groups, including Democratic Socialists of America. Irving Howe was a member of DSA. Irving Howe was an editor of Dissent magazine. Dissent received funding, unknowingly, from the CIA.

YOU are therefore linked to the CIA. Congrats.

So an easily made mistake in spelling makes you an FBI informant

and being in either the CWI or the IMT makes you a supporter of the US and British intelligence agencies, and a supporter of police frame ups.

Yep, sounds like the typical Spart party line to me! :rolleyes:

[Crux]

Well, yes, that is possible. Characterizing Assange as a "rapist" on the basis of these accusations strikes me as pretty bizarre.

But, if you seriously think that, for whatever reason, but are willing to oppose his prosecution on these trumped-up charges nonetheless, then at least you are on the right side of the class line.

I see no sign of that from "mrmikhail" and his fanboy Majakovskij however.

Their groups, the CWI and the IMT, have in common the amazing position that cops are part of the working class. It should be obvious to anybody with two brain cells to rub together as you put it that this is connected to their joint enthusiasm for rape frameups by the police in New York City and the CIA, MI6 and Swedish intelligence in Europe.

-M.H.-

true to your conspiracy theory logic i see. So you defend assange, you are a selfproclaimed antifeminist and you dont think rape is rape, i am curious though what is it then? And why do you need the conspiracy theory? I think it is pretty obvious where you ar coming from with your whore claims and your accusations of changing the story etc. Textbook sexism

[Luís Henrique]

true to your conspiracy theory logic i see. So you defend assange, you are a selfproclaimed antifeminist and you dont think rape is rape, i am curious though what is it then? And why do you need the conspiracy theory? I think it is pretty obvious where you ar coming from with your whore claims and your accusations of changing the story etc. Textbook sexism

Just because these women are women, it doesn't mean that they are not CIA assets.

Indeed, the idea that women can do no harm, and can be no evil, is sexist itself - as if they were half-witted infantilised creatures.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Just because these women are women, it doesn't mean that they are not CIA assets.

Indeed, the idea that women can do no harm, and can be no evil, is sexist itself - as if they were half-witted infantilised creatures.

Luís Henrique

how you got that from what i wrote is beyond me.

[A Marxist Historian]

true to your conspiracy theory logic i see. So you defend assange, you are a selfproclaimed antifeminist and you dont think rape is rape, i am curious though what is it then? And why do you need the conspiracy theory? I think it is pretty obvious where you ar coming from with your whore claims and your accusations of changing the story etc. Textbook sexism

Reminds me of the line from the famous Scottish poet,

"Oh what a twisted web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

Or something like that.

I don't know what went down between these two consenting individuals, and neither do you. The CIA asset's latest version hardly sounds like something describable as "rape," though earlier versions are more arguable. But since one can be reasonably certain she is lying anyway, parsing it out as to exactly how to characterize it hardly seems worth the effort.

The point is, simply, are you in favor of Assange being prosecuted for rape or not. If you are, then you are in favor of his extradition to Sweden, the only place he could be thus prosecuted. And it is doubtful he would be in Sweden for more than the day or two needed to extradite him to the US, where he could face the accusation of treason, which carries the death penalty.

One of the reasons, come to think of it, why it may be trickier legally to send him into the CIA's waiting arms from England than Sweden.

Everything else you raise is just an irrelevant smokescreen to hide the only real issue.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't know what went down between these two consenting individuals, and neither do you. The CIA asset's latest version hardly sounds like something describable as "rape," though earlier versions are more arguable. But since one can be reasonably certain she is lying anyway, parsing it out as to exactly how to characterize it hardly seems worth the effort.
I like all your posts basically go "It doesn't count as rape and if did the ***** deserved it." Makes you sound real progressive, like.

[Luís Henrique]

I like all your posts basically go "It doesn't count as rape and if did the ***** deserved it." Makes you sound real progressive, like.

What about, "it probably wasn't rape if the supposed victim can't stick to one version of her story, and has a political interest to frame the supposed offender"?

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

What about, "it probably wasn't rape if the supposed victim can't stick to one version of her story, and has a political interest to frame the supposed offender"?

Luís Henrique
That would probably be an improvement, yes.

[Crux]

Reminds me of the line from the famous Scottish poet,

"Oh what a twisted web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

Or something like that.

I don't know what went down between these two consenting individuals, and neither do you. The CIA asset's latest version hardly sounds like something describable as "rape," though earlier versions are more arguable. But since one can be reasonably certain she is lying anyway, parsing it out as to exactly how to characterize it hardly seems worth the effort.

The point is, simply, are you in favor of Assange being prosecuted for rape or not. If you are, then you are in favor of his extradition to Sweden, the only place he could be thus prosecuted. And it is doubtful he would be in Sweden for more than the day or two needed to extradite him to the US, where he could face the accusation of treason, which carries the death penalty.

One of the reasons, come to think of it, why it may be trickier legally to send him into the CIA's waiting arms from England than Sweden.

Everything else you raise is just an irrelevant smokescreen to hide the only real issue.

-M.H.-

and if you would have been able to present any convincing evidence for your cia whore claim we might have that discussion. But you cant so all we are left with is you accusing one of the female defendants of being a lying whore. Not a direct quote, but you've said as much anyway. I dont see why this kind of discourse should be acceptable on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left. We dont accept other prejudice, even when presented behind the veil of a conspiracy theory, why should sexism be the exception? If there had been a supposed israeli connection would we have excused antisemitic slurs? I think not. And again your supposed cia conspiracy theory is more than a little flimsy.

[A Marxist Historian]

and if you would have been able to present any convincing evidence for your cia whore claim we might have that discussion. But you cant so all we are left with is you accusing one of the female defendants of being a lying whore. Not a direct quote, but you've said as much anyway. I dont see why this kind of discourse should be acceptable on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left. We dont accept other prejudice, even when presented behind the veil of a conspiracy theory, why should sexism be the exception? If there had been a supposed israeli connection would we have excused antisemitic slurs? I think not. And again your supposed cia conspiracy theory is more than a little flimsy.

Majakovskij, effectively a supporter of the CIA getting its hands on Assange and torturing him for all of Wikileak's secrets, is not in a good position to ask why anybody's posts should be allowed on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left.

Of course since he's the moderator, he can do whatever he likes. Like Stalin in the Soviet Union.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

Majakovskij, effectively a supporter of the CIA getting its hands on Assange and torturing him for all of Wikileak's secrets, is not in a good position to ask why anybody's posts should be allowed on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left.

Of course since he's the moderator, he can do whatever he likes. Like Stalin in the Soviet Union.

-M.H.-
hahahaha. My, you really are clueless? I ask for evidence and you say i am in league with the cia. So in other words you got nothing. Why did you stop using the cia whore tagline? It was much more appropriate for the blame the victim game you are playing.
And the "forum moderator" line just shows how far out of your depth you are. Which forum do i moderate? You don't know, because like with all else in this debate you're clueless yet terribly full of yourself. You are also full of something else.

[A Marxist Historian]

hahahaha. My, you really are clueless? I ask for evidence and you say i am in league with the cia. So in other words you got nothing. Why did you stop using the cia whore tagline? It was much more appropriate for the blame the victim game you are playing.
And the "forum moderator" line just shows how far out of your depth you are. Which forum do i moderate? You don't know, because like with all else in this debate you're clueless yet terribly full of yourself. You are also full of something else.

More than sufficient evidence has already been posted here, for anybody with two brain cells to rub together.
-M.H.-

[mrmikhail]

hahahaha. My, you really are clueless? I ask for evidence and you say i am in league with the cia. So in other words you got nothing. Why did you stop using the cia whore tagline? It was much more appropriate for the blame the victim game you are playing.
And the "forum moderator" line just shows how far out of your depth you are. Which forum do i moderate? You don't know, because like with all else in this debate you're clueless yet terribly full of yourself. You are also full of something else.

Duh! Don't you know that if you don't believe everything a Spart says you are automatically in league with the cia/fbi/bourgeois/fascists!

This guy is really a one man comedy show, as well as being against rape victims and a misogynist.

[Yazman]

Reminds me of the line from the famous Scottish poet,

"Oh what a twisted web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

Or something like that.

I don't know what went down between these two consenting individuals, and neither do you. The CIA asset's latest version hardly sounds like something describable as "rape," though earlier versions are more arguable. But since one can be reasonably certain she is lying anyway, parsing it out as to exactly how to characterize it hardly seems worth the effort.

The point is, simply, are you in favor of Assange being prosecuted for rape or not. If you are, then you are in favor of his extradition to Sweden, the only place he could be thus prosecuted. And it is doubtful he would be in Sweden for more than the day or two needed to extradite him to the US, where he could face the accusation of treason, which carries the death penalty.

One of the reasons, come to think of it, why it may be trickier legally to send him into the CIA's waiting arms from England than Sweden.

Everything else you raise is just an irrelevant smokescreen to hide the only real issue.

-M.H.-

Actually, Assange can't face an accusation of treason in the US since he isn't a citizen of the US. Treason is only applicable to those with citizenship. Which he doesn't hold.

[Luís Henrique]

Actually, Assange can't face an accusation of treason in the US since he isn't a citizen of the US. Treason is only applicable to those with citizenship. Which he doesn't hold.

Yeah, the idea that he was going to be extradicted to the US and tortured for information is kinda farfetched. It doesn't work like that, and they actually don't need to do anything else to him than what they have already done: glued a "rapist" label onto him, so that anything else he may say or do can be discredited and dismissed with a simple question: "Assange? you mean, the rapist guy, like Ted Bundy"?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

This guy is really a one man comedy show, as well as being against rape victims and a misogynist.

Nothing he has written here can lead any reasonable person into such conclusion.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

evidence

Both the women involved were fast to tweet boasting and bragging about their sexual "achievement", after the incident.

How many rape victims have ever done something similar?

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Majakovskij, effectively a supporter of the CIA getting its hands on Assange and torturing him for all of Wikileak's secrets, is not in a good position to ask why anybody's posts should be allowed on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left.

Of course since he's the moderator, he can do whatever he likes. Like Stalin in the Soviet Union.

-M.H.-
...Wikileaks has secrets? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif


Both the women involved were fast to tweet boasting and bragging about their sexual "achievement", after the incident.

How many rape victims have ever done something similar?

Luís Henrique
People: kind of complicated.

[A Marxist Historian]

Actually, Assange can't face an accusation of treason in the US since he isn't a citizen of the US. Treason is only applicable to those with citizenship. Which he doesn't hold.

True. But they could throw all sorts of other stuff at him. If they did want to kill him, which they don't, they want to extract info from him, they could always declare him an "enemy combatant."

That he is not a citizen makes him eligible for Guantanamo if the CIA gets its hands on him. Bradley Manning had some minimal legal protections as a US citizen, Assange does not.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

...Wikileaks has secrets? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif


People: kind of complicated.

Yes, Wikileaks has secrets. Like, just what are all its sources, all its computer passwords, etc. etc. And the names of everybody involved in any way, all of whom are prosecutable if Assange can be pressured to testify against them. Bradley Manning many not have been the only source for leaks, for all we know. Once they have Assange, Wikileaks is toast, and everybody associated with Wikileaks is liable to end up in jail as co-conspirators.

People are complicated, but when the feces hits the fan, the only question is the old coal miners question, "which side are you on?" Wikileaks is on one side, the capitalist governments whose secrets are being revealed are on the other.

"way down in Harlan County,
there are no neutrals there,
you're either on the union side
or you're a thug for J.H. Blair"

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Yeah, the idea that he was going to be extradicted to the US and tortured for information is kinda farfetched. It doesn't work like that, and they actually don't need to do anything else to him than what they have already done: glued a "rapist" label onto him, so that anything else he may say or do can be discredited and dismissed with a simple question: "Assange? you mean, the rapist guy, like Ted Bundy"?

Luís Henrique

Well, that's exactly what they did to Bradley Manning, so it does work like that. So far Manning seems to have resisted, despite everything they've done to him. Somewhat limited by the support everyone has given him, and the publicity about the case.

But your point is perfectly correct too, and if the world was in less turmoil and revelations from Wikileaks had been causing the ruling classes less trouble, Tunisia being the prime example, that might well be all that was going on. Of course now that Wikileaks is going out of business and its sources are drying up, perhaps they could go easy on him, figuring that Wikileaks is dead anyway.

But I think the powers that be are too paranoid at this point for that, and they want to make an example out of Assange, Manning and anybody else they can get their paws on to frighten anybody off from imitating Wikileaks in the future.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

Yeah, the idea that he was going to be extradicted to the US and tortured for information is kinda farfetched.

Luís Henrique
you dont say...but if it does come to that, as i have said from the begining, I, uncondiotionally, oppose any extradition of assange to the us. I am writing this on my cellphone, which is not optimal for foruming, so I will have to get back on the other points later.

[Luís Henrique]

People: kind of complicated.

Sure, but I don't think one should face criminal charges just because they went to bed with a complicated person.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Sure, but I don't think one should face criminal charges just because they went to bed with a complicated person.

Luís Henrique
Me neither. Raping them, though, is another question, and it's whether we're dealing with one or the other which is kinda the whole deal here, isn't it? http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

Pity the whole trial is such a complete farce, so we'll never really know quite what happened one way or the other. Likelihood is that both Assange and the women will ended up being tarred as villains by those wanting to see them that way.

[Yazman]

Innocent until proven guilty. All the people making claims about Assange and whatever bullshit you want to try and trot out to discredit him, is worthless, since the man has not had his day in court and has not been proven guilty of anything.

An accusation isn't a conviction, and unless you know Assange personally, I strongly suggest you quit pretending you know what he is like.

[Tim Finnegan]

Innocent until proven guilty. All the people making claims about Assange and whatever bullshit you want to try and trot out to discredit him, is worthless, since the man has not had his day in court and has not been proven guilty of anything.
Are you going to be serving on Assange's jury? I am not, so I don't think that I'm bound by that principal. As long as I remain sufficiently sceptical and reasonable, then I'm free to draw whatever conclusions I wish.

[Luís Henrique]

Me neither. Raping them, though, is another question, and it's whether we're dealing with one or the other which is kinda the whole deal here, isn't it? http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

Yes, and the allegations of the supposed victims seem contradictory, and do not match their behaviour after they were supposedly attacked. Yes, people are complicated, but when you have a person bragging around that they have gone to bed with someone, it is quite hard to believe that it was a rape instead of a consensual relation. Especially if there is no other evidence pointing otherwise.


Pity the whole trial is such a complete farce, so we'll never really know quite what happened one way or the other. Likelihood is that both Assange and the women will ended up being tarred as villains by those wanting to see them that way.Which means, in few words, mission accomplished. The target was hit, the two tools for doing it being mere collateral damage.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, and the allegations of the supposed victims seem contradictory, and do not match their behaviour after they were supposedly attacked. Yes, people are complicated, but when you have a person bragging around that they have gone to bed with someone, it is quite hard to believe that it was a rape instead of a consensual relation. Especially if there is no other evidence pointing otherwise.
Arguably so, and that is why this is such a complicated case. I don't pretend to know the whole truth of the matter one way or the other, and neither should any of us. All we can do is make estimates as to probabilities, and all I would say at this point is that I do not feel able to conclude decisively for one side or the other. I certainly don't think that arguments derived from how you expect a rape victim to act, as if there was some standard emotional response to this sort of thing, certainly doesn't provide enough weight to bring it down in Assange's favour.


Which means, in few words, mission accomplished. The target was hit, the two tools for doing it being mere collateral damage.

Luís HenriqueQuite so. As you commented previously, the real goal would seem to be discredit Assange as a figure of principled opposition to the American state, and by extension Wikileaks itself; actually having him banged up and so out of action would just be a bonus.

[Crux]

Arguably so, and that is why this is such a complicated case. I don't pretend to know the whole truth of the matter one way or the other, and neither should any of us. All we can do is make estimates as to probabilities, and all I would say at this point is that I do not feel able to conclude decisively for one side or the other. I certainly don't think that arguments derived from how you expect a rape victim to act, as if there was some standard emotional response to this sort of thing, certainly doesn't provide enough weight to bring it down in Assange's favour.

but tim, don't you realize that makes you a classenemy and cia stooge? Haven't you read anything "a marxist historian" has written?

[Tim Finnegan]

but tim, don't you realize that makes you a classenemy and cia stooge? Haven't you read anything "a marxist historian" has written?
Indeed. I solemnly await the people's justice. :(

[A Marxist Historian]

you dont say...but if it does come to that, as i have said from the begining, I, uncondiotionally, oppose any extradition of assange to the us. I am writing this on my cellphone, which is not optimal for foruming, so I will have to get back on the other points later.

A meaningless gesture, as, once he is extradited to Sweden, the US is the next stop. So if you were serious, you would have to oppose his prosecution for rape, something which could only be done in Sweden where the alleged rape allegedly took place.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

A meaningless gesture, as, once he is extradited to Sweden, the US is the next stop. So if you were serious, you would have to oppose his prosecution for rape, something which could only be done in Sweden where the alleged rape allegedly took place.

-M.H.-
Because your conspiracy theories, cop-baiting and misogyny is real meaningfull. Yeah you've not been posturing at all. Yeah I'll go on record saying I am ready to put action behind my words. Wouldn't be the first time I've taken part in blockading deportations from sweden. Oh and shut up about your alleged this alleged that, you've made your point clear already, you don't care whetever it was rape or not. I mean after all they were just CIA-whores amirite? :rolleyes:

[Crux]

Now, I don't think this is true. Many, perhaps most, cases of rape are simply clearcut, with the victim carrying visible marks of the violence involved. Indeed, the problem seems to be the opposite, with people mischaracterising as "rape" other forms of sexual misbehaviour. It is not rape if John tells Jane he will marry her if she goes to bed with him, and then dumps her for no reason after she concedes, it is not rape if John and Jane go to bed consensually and after that John tells Jane to fuck off because she is, besides awful and repulsive, also a bad lover, and it is not rape if John and Jane start banging, consensually, and, in the middle of the thing, Jane changes her mind and wants to stop, but it is too late for John to hold his orgasm. Those things can be nasty, even awful, or not something a gentleman should do, but they are not rape, and cannot be punished, if at all, in the same way as forcing a woman to have a sexual relation at gun point, or by forcibly holding her, etc.

Luís Henrique
Yes there are certainly other sexual crimes than just rape, although I am absolutly psoitive that it is far more complicating than rape just being comitted at gunpoint. In sweden the law was quite recently amended to consider having sex with someone who is asleep or drugged up to be considered rape whereas previously it was only considered sexual assault.
And what's this "gentelman" bullshit? Don't committ sexual assault and don't comitt rape. Simply as that. And yeah it is and should be crimes.
And the example you cite, about John continuing to have sex with and cuming inside Jane after she has said no even if there was consent initially, would be considered rape under most legislation I believe, few countries are as regressive as to not allow consent to be removed.

[Yazman]

Are you going to be serving on Assange's jury? I am not, so I don't think that I'm bound by that principal. As long as I remain sufficiently sceptical and reasonable, then I'm free to draw whatever conclusions I wish.

Conclusions that aren't based on any real deep knowledge. It's not going to be a public trial either. Nothing has been proven either way - you only know the allegations by both sides.

I do not believe either side because I don't have the ability to, not having enough information or knowledge to base an opinion on, and neither do you. I personally am going to wait until the verdict before I form an opinion on either the defendant or plaintiff. By then, somebody's position will have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Until then it's not fair to form an opinion when all we know are tiny bits and scraps of information.

[Crux]

Oh I think we are perfectly entitled to have opinions, specially with, just to take one example this fine quote: "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism," Julian Assange has said in a recent interview. "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism." (http://jezebel.com/5718817/assange-sweden-is-the-saudi-arabia-of-feminism)

It is thing's like this and more that has made me doubt Assange's innocence.

[Meridian]

That is rape, sorry, sexual assault IN THE LEAST. She was unable to give consent. Do you walk up to someone and stick your cock in her and when she says "no" you take it out and go on?
In basketball you should avoid physical contact when dribbling. After all, would you punch someone when walking past them in a grocery store? It is at the very least a foul.

[Tim Finnegan]

A meaningless gesture, as, once he is extradited to Sweden, the US is the next stop. So if you were serious, you would have to oppose his prosecution for rape, something which could only be done in Sweden where the alleged rape allegedly took place.

-M.H.-
And this is the rancid heart of your position: you don't give a shit whether it really was rape or not, because saving Assange's skin is the only factor to which you are giving any consideration whatsoever. The bodily integrity of these women- or of any further that Assange, if it is the case that he is a serial rapist, may assault in the future- is simply not a concern as long Assange can carry on doing his thing, which makes you a de facto rape apologist.

[A Marxist Historian]

Because your conspiracy theories, cop-baiting and misogyny is real meaningfull. Yeah you've not been posturing at all. Yeah I'll go on record saying I am ready to put action behind my words. Wouldn't be the first time I've taken part in blockading deportations from sweden. Oh and shut up about your alleged this alleged that, you've made your point clear already, you don't care whetever it was rape or not. I mean after all they were just CIA-whores amirite? :rolleyes:

Yes that's right, I am not concerned with the welfare of servants of the CIA, especially given the borderline nature of the accusations.

And no, I prefer not to use the term "whore" here again, especially with your buddy Tim using it as an excuse to eagerly introduce the genuinely sexist term "*****" here, which says IMHO more about him than about me, in this almost all-male forum. Especially since comparing paid servants of the CIA to sex workers is an insult to them.

Hypothetically, if Assange really were guilty as charged, which I don't believe for a second, then he deserves condemnation and criticism for his behavior. But still would have to be defended vs. the state, as larger issues are involved. And in any case he is of course innocent until proven guilty.

Black Panther Party leader Huey Newton did stuff that was much worse. Nonetheless, "Free Huey Newton" was the rallying cry for the American left for a decade.

So you'll throw up a picket line at the airport? How nice. A great photo op.

Extraditing Assange into the CIA's tender hands from Britain is essentially impossible. Not just legally but politically.

I won't pretend to understand the niceties of Swedish deportation law, but politically, being as Sweden has a right wing government firmer in the saddle than the Tories, is not living down the huge embarrassment of Blair's poodledom to the US over Iraq, and given that Swedish public opinion naturally tends to side automatically with a Swede vs. a foreigner over the "rape" charges, the Swedish government can extradite him to the US with much less difficulty.

I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't in Sweden long enough for you to know where to picket.

In case you hadn't noticed, in "security" cases lately, the capitalist classes are ignoring the law. All the CIA has to do is claim that Wikileak revelations were "facilitating terrorism" or something, and the law is irrelevant. That I assume is how they justified getting him on the Interpol list.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

Yes that's right, I am not concerned with the welfare of servants of the CIA, especially given the borderline nature of the accusations.

And no, I prefer not to use the term "whore" here again, especially with your buddy Tim using it as an excuse to eagerly introduce the genuinely sexist term "*****" here, which says IMHO more about him than about me, in this almost all-male forum. Especially since comparing paid servants of the CIA to sex workers is an insult to them.

Hypothetically, if Assange really were guilty as charged, which I don't believe for a second, then he deserves condemnation and criticism for his behavior. But still would have to be defended vs. the state, as larger issues are involved. And in any case he is of course innocent until proven guilty.

Black Panther Party leader Huey Newton did stuff that was much worse. Nonetheless, "Free Huey Newton" was the rallying cry for the American left for a decade.

So you'll throw up a picket line at the airport? How nice. A great photo op.

Extraditing Assange into the CIA's tender hands from Britain is essentially impossible. Not just legally but politically.

I won't pretend to understand the niceties of Swedish deportation law, but politically, being as Sweden has a right wing government firmer in the saddle than the Tories, is not living down the huge embarrassment of Blair's poodledom to the US over Iraq, and given that Swedish public opinion naturally tends to side automatically with a Swede vs. a foreigner over the "rape" charges, the Swedish government can extradite him to the US with much less difficulty.

I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't in Sweden long enough for you to know where to picket.

In case you hadn't noticed, in "security" cases lately, the capitalist classes are ignoring the law. All the CIA has to do is claim that Wikileak revelations were "facilitating terrorism" or something, and the law is irrelevant. That I assume is how they justified getting him on the Interpol list.

-M.H.-
so as we've said before you are clueless and a rape apologist. Not only that but you would readily excuse other sexists inside the left. In other words you have learned nothing since the bpp. There is an excellent article called why misogynists make great informants.
Anyway unlike you I am able to hold two thoughts in my head at the same time, unless you count your rape apologism and conspiracy theory logic. I support assange in any trial versus the state, but not versus his supposed sexual assault and rape victims. And you are a very good example why i dont.

[sulla]

Oh I think we are perfectly entitled to have opinions, specially with, just to take one example this fine quote:
It is thing's like this and more that has made me doubt Assange's innocence.

Him saying things like that has no bearing on his innocence to me.(I think modern feminism is a load of crap.) I do suspect his is a slimely little toad though. Not sure if the alligations are true against him though. I am reserve judgement over this one

[Crux]

Him saying things like that has no bearing on his innocence to me.(I think modern feminism is a load of crap.) I do suspect his is a slimely little toad though. Not sure if the alligations are true against him though. I am reserve judgement over this one
I am almost afraid to ask but what do you mean by "modern feminism"?

[A Marxist Historian]

so as we've said before you are clueless and a rape apologist. Not only that but you would readily excuse other sexists inside the left. In other words you have learned nothing since the bpp. There is an excellent article called why misogynists make great informants.
Anyway unlike you I am able to hold two thoughts in my head at the same time, unless you count your rape apologism and conspiracy theory logic. I support assange in any trial versus the state, but not versus his supposed sexual assault and rape victims. And you are a very good example why i dont.

I must say, every time Majakovksij calls this a "conspiracy theory" I have to wonder if he is just being utterly clueless to an extreme degree, which seems unlikely, or cynical and deceptive for opportunist reasons, which is more likely but does'nt quite jibe with the tone of his postings.

This is just about one of the most public "conspiracies" in history. The CIA is targeting Wikileaks and Assange, everybody knows that, it's a major CIA operation, with even Interpol dragged into it. And his accusers have CIA written all over them. That the CIA doesn't have the master hand in this would be almost impossible to believe even if it had managed to perfectly cover all its tracks and conceal all evidence of connection of the accusers with the CIA. Coincidences like that just don't happen in the real world.

And covering their tracks is something they have definitely not done!

M is now saying he supports assange in any trial vs. the state. Well, guess what, the alleged trial allegedly awaiting him in Sweden, which I doubt would ever happen, is a trial vs. the state, with Swedish state prosecutors trying to extradite him, allegedly for it. It ain't no workers tribunal.

-M.H.-

[Yazman]

I must say, every time Majakovksij calls this a "conspiracy theory" I have to wonder if he is just being utterly clueless to an extreme degree, which seems unlikely, or cynical and deceptive for opportunist reasons, which is more likely but does'nt quite jibe with the tone of his postings.

This is just about one of the most public "conspiracies" in history. The CIA is targeting Wikileaks and Assange, everybody knows that, it's a major CIA operation, with even Interpol dragged into it. And his accusers have CIA written all over them. That the CIA doesn't have the master hand in this would be almost impossible to believe even if it had managed to perfectly cover all its tracks and conceal all evidence of connection of the accusers with the CIA. Coincidences like that just don't happen in the real world.

And covering their tracks is something they have definitely not done!

M is now saying he supports assange in any trial vs. the state. Well, guess what, the alleged trial allegedly awaiting him in Sweden, which I doubt would ever happen, is a trial vs. the state, with Swedish state prosecutors trying to extradite him, allegedly for it. It ain't no workers tribunal.

-M.H.-

Not taking a side here, but I thought one of them had documented ties to the CIA?

[Crux]

Not taking a side here, but I thought one of them had documented ties to the CIA?
only if you go by the wishfull thinking logic of AMH here, which I imagine goes something like this, sarcasm warning "why would assange rape someone when it is clear that it would be bad PR?" To which I would answer rapist don't think in terms of PR. But following the conclusion that assange must be innocent, because he has nothing to gain from being guilty the question of course arises who stands to gain? The cia stands to gain, therefore this must be a cia plot. I mean all the attention this case has gotten is proof. I mean if they weren't clearly the media or interpol would never care about this.
And with these solid conclusions AMH and like minded individuals go looking for evidence. But even if they don't find anything, as AMH says that just means the CIA is real good at covering it's tracks. So as you can see even without a shred of evidence conspiracy theories remain convinced. So what is their oh so convincing evidence? That she once visited cuba, or more precisely an opposition group. That can only be "conclusive proof" to a conspiracy theorist, i e someone already convinced that assange cannot possibly be guilty. And even if he is guilty the cia still done it probably by flirting and wearing revealing clothing. Things that would make any man unable not to rape.

[Crux]

I must say, every time Majakovksij calls this a "conspiracy theory" I have to wonder if he is just being utterly clueless to an extreme degree, which seems unlikely, or cynical and deceptive for opportunist reasons, which is more likely but does'nt quite jibe with the tone of his postings.

This is just about one of the most public "conspiracies" in history. The CIA is targeting Wikileaks and Assange, everybody knows that, it's a major CIA operation, with even Interpol dragged into it. And his accusers have CIA written all over them. That the CIA doesn't have the master hand in this would be almost impossible to believe even if it had managed to perfectly cover all its tracks and conceal all evidence of connection of the accusers with the CIA. Coincidences like that just don't happen in the real world.

And covering their tracks is something they have definitely not done!

M is now saying he supports assange in any trial vs. the state. Well, guess what, the alleged trial allegedly awaiting him in Sweden, which I doubt would ever happen, is a trial vs. the state, with Swedish state prosecutors trying to extradite him, allegedly for it. It ain't no workers tribunal.

-M.H.-

well of course you would support him in any trial no matter what and no matter the evidence because you ard a little fanboy who "does not believe in coincidences". I however would only defend him against charges related to wikileaks. And I don't think sexual assaults is their new information gathering technique.

[Yazman]

only if you go by the wishfull thinking logic of AMH here, which I imagine goes something like this, sarcasm warning "why would assange rape someone when it is clear that it would be bad PR?" To which I would answer rapist don't think in terms of PR. But following the conclusion that assange must be innocent, because he has nothing to gain from being guilty the question of course arises who stands to gain? The cia stands to gain, therefore this must be a cia plot. I mean all the attention this case has gotten is proof. I mean if they weren't clearly the media or interpol would never care about this.
And with these solid conclusions AMH and like minded individuals go looking for evidence. But even if they don't find anything, as AMH says that just means the CIA is real good at covering it's tracks. So as you can see even without a shred of evidence conspiracy theories remain convinced. So what is their oh so convincing evidence? That she once visited cuba, or more precisely an opposition group. That can only be "conclusive proof" to a conspiracy theorist, i e someone already convinced that assange cannot possibly be guilty. And even if he is guilty the cia still done it probably by flirting and wearing revealing clothing. Things that would make any man unable not to rape.

Chill out, I am not taking a side on this particular issue until there's a verdict.

About the CIA thing, I never said there was "conclusive proof" or convincing evidence, I have just heard from a number of people that there's documented ties to the CIA, namely to Posada. I don't know if any of it is actually true, I was just saying that I had heard it was well documented.

I have also heard that it was initially dismissed by the prosecutor due to a lack of evidence, and only resumed later on by a different one. It's not something I've really bothered following myself though as I don't see Assange's personal matters as really being relevant to the public. If he's guilty then he's a slimeball and fuck him, if not then the accusers are slimeballs and fuck them, but it's really a personal matter for them to sort out.

Either way, I will wait and see the verdict before I form an opinion on this matter.

We should be concerned with a critique of wikileaks, not defending or destroying a cult of personality around Julian Assange.

[Crux]

And I would have preffered if the media, as is standard in sweden, had not revealed the name of the accused. But given the international scope of this well apparently different standards apply and even the defendants are fair game.

[A Marxist Historian]

Not taking a side here, but I thought one of them had documented ties to the CIA?

Yup.

Spent time in Cuba working with an "opposition group" funded by the US government and led by one Montaner with documented links to the CIA. And another supporter of this "opposition group" is the infamous gusano terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, revealed by FOIA to be a CIA agent, who has been convicted of downing a civilian Cuban airliner filled with innocent people, death toll about a 100. But nonetheless walks the street as a free man, last I heard, bourgeois courts like the one M wants to drag Assange in front of being what they are.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

-M.H.-

[Crux]

Yup.

Spent time in Cuba working with an "opposition group" funded by the US government and led by one Montaner with documented links to the CIA. And another supporter of this "opposition group" is the infamous gusano terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, revealed by FOIA to be a CIA agent, who has been convicted of downing a civilian Cuban airliner filled with innocent people, death toll about a 100. But nonetheless walks the street as a free man, last I heard, bourgeois courts like the one M wants to drag Assange in front of being what they are.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

-M.H.-
yes I believe rape cases should be tried in court. If you think that makes me a "class traitor", whatever. Never seen a celebrity rape trial where the sparts did not line up with the accused. And name me one of the "soc dem" or "liberal" opposition groups that are not headed by the CIA. Guilt by association, is, as you may know, not a very solid argument. You've posted your "proof" before. It wasnt convincing then and isnt convincing now. And certainly does not excuse your sexism.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yup.

Spent time in Cuba working with an "opposition group" funded by the US government and led by one Montaner with documented links to the CIA. And another supporter of this "opposition group" is the infamous gusano terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, revealed by FOIA to be a CIA agent, who has been convicted of downing a civilian Cuban airliner filled with innocent people, death toll about a 100. But nonetheless walks the street as a free man, last I heard, bourgeois courts like the one M wants to drag Assange in front of being what they are.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

-M.H.-
What bearing does any of this have on the case, exactly? Are you actually suggesting that law enforcement pursue rape cases is a bad thing, because it is something which occurs within a bourgeois system of law? Or, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, is this just a stream of conciousness that we shouldn't be expected to take too seriously?

[Yazman]

What bearing does any of this have on the case, exactly? Are you actually suggesting that law enforcement pursue rape cases is a bad thing, because it is something which occurs within a bourgeois system of law? Or, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, is this just a stream of conciousness that we shouldn't be expected to take too seriously?

Which system of law are you calling bourgeois, and why? There are many different legal systems in the world today. Or is it just "it's part of the current system, therefore it's necessarily bad"

[sulla]

I am almost afraid to ask but what do you mean by "modern feminism"?

Sanctimonious, gender generalising, wannabe sociologists. A lot of them see the world in black and white terms. They refuse to accept that there is such a thing as female privilege. I respect some individual feminists, but I'm turning against the current movement as a whole.

I know people will thing of me as reactionary, but this is how I honestly see things.

BTW not talking about feminists in third world countries, they have my full respect and support.

[Tim Finnegan]

Which system of law are you calling bourgeois, and why? There are many different legal systems in the world today. Or is it just "it's part of the current system, therefore it's necessarily bad"
Ask AMH, he was the one who brought it up.

[Yazman]

Ask AMH, he was the one who brought it up.

Oh yeah, sorry about that comrade. I misread your post, you were just responding to what he said though. Sorry about that.

[A Marxist Historian]

What bearing does any of this have on the case, exactly? Are you actually suggesting that law enforcement pursue rape cases is a bad thing, because it is something which occurs within a bourgeois system of law? Or, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, is this just a stream of conciousness that we shouldn't be expected to take too seriously?

That the CIA and Swedish intelligence is after Wikileaks, and and least one of the accusers has ties thereto, has no bearing on the case? No bearing on what credibility we should give the accusations of the accusers?

Here I'll give TF the benefit of the doubt, and figure that he doesn't realize what he is saying.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

yes I believe rape cases should be tried in court. If you think that makes me a "class traitor", whatever. Never seen a celebrity rape trial where the sparts did not line up with the accused. And name me one of the "soc dem" or "liberal" opposition groups that are not headed by the CIA. Guilt by association, is, as you may know, not a very solid argument. You've posted your "proof" before. It wasnt convincing then and isnt convincing now. And certainly does not excuse your sexism.

Oh please. Of course rape cases should be tried in court. Unless they are setups by the authorities vs. political opponents, which this one bears all the earmarks of.

I hope it is not true that all opposition to the Cuban regime is "headed by the CIA." And I don't think it's true either. I don't think this was true of the late Celia Sanchez for example. But to the degree that this is true, all such groups, like the one in question, are clearly infiltrated by the CIA and its allies like Swedish intelligence, and sensible people will assume all accusations like this from such quarters are phony until proven otherwise.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Sanctimonious, gender generalising, wannabe sociologists. A lot of them see the world in black and white terms. They refuse to accept that there is such a thing as female privilege. I respect some individual feminists, but I'm turning against the current movement as a whole.

I know people will thing of me as reactionary, but this is how I honestly see things.

BTW not talking about feminists in third world countries, they have my full respect and support.

No, there is no such thing as "female privilege," women are oppressed in all capitalist societies, not just in the Third World where it is often extreme. This does not mean that feminism is a working class ideology, any more than nationalism is, which often has its roots in national oppression, but is, like feminism, a bourgeois ideology and not socialist. The world is fundamentally divided into classes, not nations or genders, that is basic Marxism.

Not unrelatedly, I now at least see where Majakovskij is coming from. Not because of your unfortunate posting, but because I finally took a good look at the Counterpunch piece on all this. Counterpunch is probably the finest source of investigative journalism available in America, and authors Shamir and Bennett as usual for Counterpunch did a great job of researching the key facts of the case.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/

But there can be no denying that the piece has an unpleasant tone of hero worship towards Assange, and smells a bit of male chauvinism. Perhaps a number of Assange's "fanboys" have followed Shamir and Bennett and Assange's own lead in the tone of how they have talked about this, and M and TF are reacting accordingly.

But facts are facts, and more than enough facts are laid out to say that that is secondary, and the blatant conspiracy by the ruling classes vs. Assange and Wikileaks is what is primary.

Shamir and Bennett speculate that perhaps what is happening isn't only a conspiracy by the forces of the state, but that this might simply be a case of the wrath of a woman scorned, making up false accusations and not caring about the consequences. Frankly, I do think that's sexist of them.

Perhaps this is more complicated than simply a "honey trap," and perhaps Assange's accusers are being manipulated by others. But I refuse to believe that a Swedish university official, presumably making a good salary, would be trying to get Assange deported from England and then, obviously, into the hands of the CIA merely for "gold digging," or because he is a Don Juan who won't return her phone calls in the morning or pay for her bus ticket.

As she has changed her story on the condom business, now no longer claiming that she gave no permission whatsoever for him to have sex without a condom, rather that she was too sleepy to argue with him further about it, I dismiss that altogether. If having sex without a condom really freaked her out that much, that explanation makes little sense, and sounds like something whomped up for Swedish legal reasons to make the charge stick.

No, these women may not simply be whoring for the CIA, setting up a "honey trap" straight out of the CIA manual, but they are pursuing these charges for political reasons. Ugly ones, at the state's behest.

My guess is that the folk who planned all this are Swedish intelligence not the CIA. Very much the sort of thing that Swedish intelligence does, as described in Stieg Larsson's novels (and in the movies based on them, albeit in somewhat depoliticized and watered-down form). Every word of which, according to the widow of the author, was based on things that actually happened.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

That the CIA and Swedish intelligence is after Wikileaks, and and least one of the accusers has ties thereto, has no bearing on the case? No bearing on what credibility we should give the accusations of the accusers?

Here I'll give TF the benefit of the doubt, and figure that he doesn't realize what he is saying.

-M.H.-
My question in reference to your apparently irrelevant rambling about that Cuban terrorist chappie, which is not as far as I can see related to the case in question.

[Yazman]

My question in reference to your apparently irrelevant rambling about that Cuban terrorist chappie, which is not as far as I can see related to the case in question.

Not that I'm explaining it in his stead or necessarily agreeing with either of you, but it is related insofar as that it is circumstantial evidence for her being tied to/having worked for the CIA.

[Tim Finnegan]

Not that I'm explaining it in his stead or necessarily agreeing with either of you, but it is related insofar as that it is circumstantial evidence for her being tied to/having worked for the CIA.
But it wasn't. He made that point in the first sentence of his post, and the rest was just an unnecessary discussion of somebody who had nothing to do with either the woman or the case in question, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose except allowing a snide comment about "bourgeois courts", as if that provided any insight which we could not all have gleaned for ourselves.


Spent time in Cuba working with an "opposition group" funded by the US government and led by one Montaner with documented links to the CIA. And another supporter of this "opposition group" is the infamous gusano terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, revealed by FOIA to be a CIA agent, who has been convicted of downing a civilian Cuban airliner filled with innocent people, death toll about a 100. But nonetheless walks the street as a free man, last I heard, bourgeois courts like the one M wants to drag Assange in front of being what they are.

See what I mean? Regardless of what we think of his claims of "CIA links", the second part of this post has nothing to do with anything. It's pure arsegravy.

[mrmikhail]

Not that I'm explaining it in his stead or necessarily agreeing with either of you, but it is related insofar as that it is circumstantial evidence for her being tied to/having worked for the CIA.

And it is nothing more than just that, circumstantial, but AMH's ramblings are that this entire case is null and void and a big conspiracy frame-up to get Assange extradited to the US....without ever making an argument how and on what charges. the us government has nothing on Assange since he is, after all, not an american citizen so he didn't commit treason, and he didn't steal the information so he did not commit a crime of espionage, he merely posted it which is not a crime. AMH is honestly just grasping for any straw he can to argue for Assange, even if he has to resort to sexism and rape apologism.

[mrmikhail]

See what I mean? Regardless of what we think of his claims of "CIA links", the second part of this post has nothing to do with anything. It's pure arsegravy.

It is obvious! This woman has some small link to the group that that guy was apart of, he shot down airliners and thus, by connection, was a murderer, so of course by association, she must be one too! makes perfect sense! (in the illogical mind of a spart)

[Yazman]

But it wasn't. He made that point in the first sentence of his post, and the rest was just an unnecessary discussion of somebody who had nothing to do with either the woman or the case in question, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose except allowing a snide comment about "bourgeois courts", as if that provided any insight which we could not all have gleaned for ourselves.

I totally agree.


See what I mean? Regardless of what we think of his claims of "CIA links", the second part of this post has nothing to do with anything. It's pure arsegravy.Oh, the stuff about Posada is of course incidental, it's not really relevant. I just mean the stuff about her working with anti-Cuban groups etc is circumstantial evidence of CIA ties. There doesn't seem to be any direct evidence.

Besides, you don't need stuff like that to maintain a case of innocence for Assange. He gets that assumption in law anyway. When he's proven guilty I'll believe he's guilty. Let the accusers lawyers prove their claims - they are, after all, the ones making them. He might be guilty, he might not. We'll find out once the trial happens.

[A Marxist Historian]

But it wasn't. He made that point in the first sentence of his post, and the rest was just an unnecessary discussion of somebody who had nothing to do with either the woman or the case in question, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose except allowing a snide comment about "bourgeois courts", as if that provided any insight which we could not all have gleaned for ourselves.



See what I mean? Regardless of what we think of his claims of "CIA links", the second part of this post has nothing to do with anything. It's pure arsegravy.

A truly bizarre post. Nothing to do with the woman or the case in question? The connectons with the CIA and anti-Cuban terrorism have everything to do with the case. In fact, they are all that matters, and the only thing worth paying attention to.

Why? Because there were no witnesses and no material evidence.

So going on and on and slavering about the details of what actually happened between the two of them on the night in question, something neither we not any possible court could ever establish beyond possible doubt, is simply irrelevant.

The only thing worth talking about is who the accusers are and who the accusees are, and what credibility we should give which side.

When you have the leader of Wikileaks on one side and people connected with the CIA on the other, nobody on Revleft ought to have any question about which side they are on.

Just as (and here is where Luis may have a point in thinking he is unlikely to be deported to America, though I think he greatly underestimates just how badly the CIA wants to get its hands on Assange) there is no way a Swedish court could possibly find for Assange.

On the one side you have a respectable Swedish citizen, official of a university, on the other side you have a foreigner who has been branded as aiding terrorists against Swedish troops in Afghanistan by identifying them by name in Wikileaks. Given that this totally boils down to who you believe, just who do you think even an honest Swedish judge is going to believe?

Hell, even M our Norse Marxist poster is dismissing CIA involvement in this affair as a "conspiracy theory."

As in most bourgeois courts, trying to defend oneself with the truth is a mistake. Dubious legal maneuvers work better. Basic rule of bourgeois justice is that the side with the better lawyers and the deeper pockets for the legal bills wins.

Unless you can mobilize the masses on Assange's behalf. To some degree this is why it isn't possible to extradite him from England to America, as English public opinion won't tolerate that. But it doesn't seem as this will work too well in Sweden.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

And it is nothing more than just that, circumstantial, but AMH's ramblings are that this entire case is null and void and a big conspiracy frame-up to get Assange extradited to the US....without ever making an argument how and on what charges. the us government has nothing on Assange since he is, after all, not an american citizen so he didn't commit treason, and he didn't steal the information so he did not commit a crime of espionage, he merely posted it which is not a crime. AMH is honestly just grasping for any straw he can to argue for Assange, even if he has to resort to sexism and rape apologism.

On what charges? You really haven't been following this case at all, have you?

The charge is that Wikileaks has been aiding and abetting terrorism vs. US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, by publishing the names of US soldiers and CIA agents and such who have committed atrocities. That's how Wikileaks got famous in the first place, by publishing a concealed video of US soldiers in Iraq murdering innocent civilians and gloating about it. A charge the Swedes would be highly sympathetic to, as they have soldiers of their own in Afghanistan, who doubtless have been committing their own racist atrocities vs. Afghan civilians.

Yes, the US government has made a formal request for his extradition on such charges. Much more serious than this borderline alleged rape, so extraditing him to the US instead of trying him before a Swedish court makes perfect technical legal sense, if the Swedes want to do that.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

A truly bizarre post. Nothing to do with the woman or the case in question? The connectons with the CIA and anti-Cuban terrorism have everything to do with the case. In fact, they are all that matters, and the only thing worth paying attention to.
How in the name of great screaming Christ do some vague links between Montaner and Carriles have anything at all to with this woman? There is nothing there. You have nothing useful to say. All you have is dreary could be-therefore-is conspiracy theorising and grotesque rape-apology, repeated at great length between grossly dishonest red herrings. This is pathetic.

[A Marxist Historian]

How in the name of great screaming Christ do some vague links between Montaner and Carriles have anything at all to with this woman? There is nothing there. You have nothing useful to say. All you have is dreary could be-therefore-is conspiracy theorising and grotesque rape-apology, repeated at great length between grossly dishonest red herrings. This is pathetic.


Sigh.

OK, here's another source, hot off the presses, the latest info, and certainly not from any "fanboy" of Assange. Adds lots of new facts confirming the picture I've drawn here.

I had no idea that the main accuser was connected to a former minister in the Swedish government, or that, even more interesting, she has a cousin who is actually the liaison between NATO and Swedish forces in Afghanistan.

Or that Ms. Ardin had in the past advocated "The Big Lie" as a way to deal with men who allegedly mistreat women.

Or that Swedish feminists, such as "Women Against Rape," have doubts about this case.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html

I hadn't studied this case this closely before, I confess, I just thought the whole thing stank. But the closer you look, the stinkier it gets.

This Australian reporter smells conspiracy, but being an employee of the bourgeois press, has to do so in very carefully measured tones, with all the usual "one the one hand on the other hand." Here on Revleft we can tell it like it is.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

And yet again we are offered conjecture and possibility, and not a shred of hard evidence, but still asked to accept with minimal criticism a set of dubious conclusions simply because they put us on the right side of the "class line". Ironic, or perhaps merely hypocritical, given that you have such a meal out of the reliance of Assange's prosecutors on claims of just that nature.

You continue to make it embarrassingly clear that whether or not a rape actually took place is of no interest to you, because the bodily autonomy of women is entirely second to protecting this progressive bourgeois of which are so very fond. "Class line" indeed!

[Crux]

I am right now not in a posistion to post at length but I will have to say this, I have never heard of this "women against rape" group and given the kind of individuals the international press has been digging out to comment on the case I will try and see what I can find out about them until tomorrow.

[A Marxist Historian]

And yet again we are offered conjecture and possibility, and not a shred of hard evidence, but still asked to accept with minimal criticism a set of dubious conclusions simply because they put us on the right side of the "class line". Ironic, or perhaps merely hypocritical, given that you have such a meal out of the reliance of Assange's prosecutors on claims of just that nature.

You continue to make it embarrassingly clear that whether or not a rape actually took place is of no interest to you, because the bodily autonomy of women is entirely second to protecting this progressive bourgeois of which are so very fond. "Class line" indeed!

To the best of my knowledge, Ms. Ardin and her cohort are not facing any charges, so the "innocent till proven guilty" standard hardly applies.

Before a workers tribunal into the doings of Assange and Ms. Ardin and her ally, all this could be gone into and proper punishments meted out as necessary. However, that is not a possibility unfortunately. Since the charges are, quite obviously, made for political reasons, and there is no evidence whatsoever behind them other than Ms. Ardin and her ally's sayso, the informal court of public opinion should ignore them.

The second paragraph of TF's screed, in which he refers to Assange as "this progressive bourgeois," demonstrates what this is really all about. TF does not believe that the work of Wikileaks is anything that the working class should support.

Well, he isn't a bourgeois, a petty bourgeois would be accurate I suppose. But so what if he was? When Captain Dreyfus was framed up by the French military, only sectarians were running around saying to hell with him, he's just a bourgeois French army officer.

And, of course, they were dismissing all the evidence produced by his defenders that there was a conspiracy against Dreyfus as a "conspiracy theory."

-M.H.-

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Creep

[Tim Finnegan]

To the best of my knowledge, Ms. Ardin and her cohort are not facing any charges, so the "innocent till proven guilty" standard hardly applies.
Did I suggest that it should? I've specifically argued that "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to the "court of public opinion" in Assange's case, so it would be very odd if I tried that tactic here. :confused: My complaint, rather, is that your proposition that they are guilty of... Whatever it is you're accusing them of, exactly, hinges on the conflation of the possible with the true; that because it is hypothetically possible that they could be CIA lackeys, they must be CIA lackeys. It's conspiracy theorising so cliché as to be actually embarrassing.


Before a workers tribunal into the doings of Assange and Ms. Ardin and her ally, all this could be gone into and proper punishments meted out as necessary. However, that is not a possibility unfortunately. Since the charges are, quite obviously, made for political reasons, and there is no evidence whatsoever behind them other than Ms. Ardin and her ally's sayso, the informal court of public opinion should ignore them.The red and the blue are very different points, and demand very different reactions. Your casual conflation merely bares out your basic indifference to the accusations themselves, and your casual acceptance of rape-apologism as the necessary price of furthering a political position.


The second paragraph of TF's screed, in which he refers to Assange as "this progressive bourgeois," demonstrates what this is really all about. TF does not believe that the work of Wikileaks is anything that the working class should support.

Well, he isn't a bourgeois, a petty bourgeois would be accurate I suppose. But so what if he was? When Captain Dreyfus was framed up by the French military, only sectarians were running around saying to hell with him, he's just a bourgeois French army officer.

And, of course, they were dismissing all the evidence produced by his defenders that there was a conspiracy against Dreyfus as a "conspiracy theory."My point was that all your wittering about "class line" in defence of somebody who is neither a leftist nor a worker was rather silly. I believe that Wikileaks is worthy of support, to the extent that it is useful, but I don't believe that Julian Assange is himself Wikileaks- a bizarre conflation- or that that support should be so unconditional as to lead us into an ideological commitment to rape-apologism.

And out of interest, do you actually know anything about the Dreyfus case? Do you know the support for Dreyfus was not simply for his own sake, but in opposition to nationalist anti-Semitism? What, then, is the analogue to this anti-Semitism? Is Assange perhaps accurate in his bizarre comment about "revolutionary feminism"? I would very dearly like to know.

[chegitz guevara]

AMH is using guilt by association, two people belonged to the same organization, and one of them was known to have ties to the CIA (there's no doubt about Posada). Therefore, SHE has ties to the CIA ...

That's a logical fallacy. Given the six degrees of separation hypothesis (which has held up in every test so far), everyone on Earth has ties to the CIA.

I personally think the accusations against Assange are a way to get him to a country which has an extradition treaty with the U.S., but his reasoning is flawed. He has no real evidence other than his logical fallacy. I don't pretend my belief is anything more, and I don't believe it on the basis of BS CIA links.

That said, as the women said they consented, I don't see how there's even a question of rape, regardless of how much of an uber dick Assange is. He's a libertarian, they're notoriously anti-women. Doesn't mean, therefore, that he's a rapist. The logic is just as bad as AMHs.

[A Marxist Historian]

AMH is using guilt by association, two people belonged to the same organization, and one of them was known to have ties to the CIA (there's no doubt about Posada). Therefore, SHE has ties to the CIA ...

That's a logical fallacy. Given the six degrees of separation hypothesis (which has held up in every test so far), everyone on Earth has ties to the CIA.

I personally think the accusations against Assange are a way to get him to a country which has an extradition treaty with the U.S., but his reasoning is flawed. He has no real evidence other than his logical fallacy. I don't pretend my belief is anything more, and I don't believe it on the basis of BS CIA links.

That said, as the women said they consented, I don't see how there's even a question of rape, regardless of how much of an uber dick Assange is. He's a libertarian, they're notoriously anti-women. Doesn't mean, therefore, that he's a rapist. The logic is just as bad as AMHs.

It's more than that. The opposition group in question is anti-Communist, has the kind of politics the CIA likes, and is *headed* by a guy who smells CIA. It's not just a matter of some secret infiltrator or other. So it ain't "six degrees of separation."

What's more you have all of the accusers' connections to Swedish major politicians and the Swedish military. And all sorts of other suspicious details too. The more you look at this affair the more suspicious it gets.

Granted there's no absolute proof here, but in deciding whether or not to oppose the extradition you don't need any absolute proof. The rule that applies here is the classic one:

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action."

Then, as the cherry on top, you get the strange and interesting legal detail that the Swedes are demanding extradition but have yet to formally charge Assange with any crime! Which led extradition experts to think, incorrectly, that the Brits would be unlikely to extradite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-extradition-attempt

Thereby making it a lot easier, legally speaking, for the Swedes to simply question Assange, drop the charges -- and pack him off to the cell across the hall from Bradley Manning, or maybe Baghram.

The fix is in.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I am right now not in a posistion to post at length but I will have to say this, I have never heard of this "women against rape" group and given the kind of individuals the international press has been digging out to comment on the case I will try and see what I can find out about them until tomorrow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech?INTCMP=SRCH

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Did I suggest that it should? I've specifically argued that "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to the "court of public opinion" in Assange's case, so it would be very odd if I tried that tactic here. :confused:

Not only would it be very odd, it is very odd, and that you apparently don't realize what you have effectively been saying is your problem.



My complaint, rather, is that your proposition that they are guilty of... Whatever it is you're accusing them of, exactly, hinges on the conflation of the possible with the true; that because it is hypothetically possible that they could be CIA lackeys, they must be CIA lackeys. It's conspiracy theorising so cliché as to be actually embarrassing.

(Quote from me:

"Before a workers tribunal into the doings of Assange and Ms. Ardin and her ally, all this could be gone into and proper punishments meted out as necessary. However, that is not a possibility unfortunately. Since the charges are, quite obviously, made for political reasons, and there is no evidence whatsoever behind them other than Ms. Ardin and her ally's sayso, the informal court of public opinion should ignore them.")

The red and the blue are very different points, and demand very different reactions. Your casual conflation merely bares out your basic indifference to the accusations themselves, and your casual acceptance of rape-apologism as the necessary price of furthering a political position.

Casual conflation? What is this, a high school debaters' team that is supposed to follow some sort of rules so that the referees can score points? Peoples' lives are at stake here.

What's the issue here? It is whether or not one should support extraditing Assange to Sweden. I am against, you are in favor. Both of the above arguments, the red and the blue, are among the strongest of the umpteen arguments I have raised here against that, which you shrug your shoulders about, demonstrating an essential indifference to what happens to Wikileaks and Assange if the extradition goes through.

You say they "require different responses." No, they only require one response, and it is exactly the same response, to oppose the extradition.

Moreover, they are in fact integrally related, even in your terms, insofar as I understand them.

Why?

Because red would be besides the point if blue were not the case. If there really were any material evidence of rape (and even the Swedish prosecutor can't decide whether to charge him with "rape" or something else, the legal excuse used for the sinister and suspicious failure to actually charge Assange with anything yet) then one would have to say it doesn't matter what Ms. Ardin and cohort really are.

Rape, torture, mass murder etc. are against working class morality, even if the class enemy are the victims.

I earlier raised the example of the Black Panthers. 99% of the charges against them were just COINTELPRO frameups, a bigger, nastier, bloodier and uglier version of what is being done to Assange. But some were not baseless. The Black Panther theory of the lumpenproletariat as the vanguard of the revolution had unfortunate consequences sometimes.

And yes, the left at the time automatically supported the Panthers in knee jerk fashion without thought. There may have been some cases (the Alex Rackley case for example) where this was a mistake.


My point was that all your wittering about "class line" in defence of somebody who is neither a leftist nor a worker was rather silly. I believe that Wikileaks is worthy of support, to the extent that it is useful, but I don't believe that Julian Assange is himself Wikileaks- a bizarre conflation- or that that support should be so unconditional as to lead us into an ideological commitment to rape-apologism.

And out of interest, do you actually know anything about the Dreyfus case? Do you know the support for Dreyfus was not simply for his own sake, but in opposition to nationalist anti-Semitism? What, then, is the analogue to this anti-Semitism? Is Assange perhaps accurate in his bizarre comment about "revolutionary feminism"? I would very dearly like to know.

"to the extent that it is useful": an interesting out clause.

No, the analogy to the Dreyfus case is not perfect, score one high school debaters' point for you, as if anyone should care.

The main point about the Dreyfus case was that it was a frameup on behalf of the French military, just as this is a frameup on behalf of the US, Swedish and generally world capitalist military, diplomatic and spying apparatus, damaged by Wikileaks. The biggest difference is not the nonrole of anti-Semitism or anything similar, but that Assange is a leftist and Dreyfus most certainly was not.

As for Assange's allegedly bizarre comments on "revolutionary feminism," I can't help you there, as I know nothing about them, and care even less.

You accuse me of bringing up irrelevancies. What on earth difference do political comments by Assange have to do with the accusations?

I suppose you maintain they prove he is a male chauvinist. Well, in case you haven't noticed, the great majority of the male population of planet Earth are male chauvinists, and the vast majority of that majority are not rapists.

As for "revolutionary feminism," I don't know about Sweden, but in the US no such animal exists, and hasn't for decades. You don't even have any feminist groups which call themselves revolutionary these days. Not one, as far as I know.

The main concern and big issue of American feminists over the last few years was supporting Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. If that's not "bourgeois feminism," what is? And last year, Sarah Palin was announcing to the world that she was a feminist victim of male chauvinism...

Hillary is currently in charge of the State Department, the overseer body for US foreign relations, and therefore naturally the invidual in the US government most concerned about Wikileaks. We'll never know most likely, but it is a good guess that she gave the marching orders for what is being done to Assange. She does think of herself as a feminist, especially after the Bill Clinton situation, and the whole thing has her touch.

So there is the "feminist" component of Assange's persecution.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

A bit more on Dreyfus...


...
No, the analogy to the Dreyfus case is not perfect, score one high school debaters' point for you, as if anyone should care.

The main point about the Dreyfus case was that it was a frameup on behalf of the French military, just as this is a frameup on behalf of the US, Swedish and generally world capitalist military, diplomatic and spying apparatus, damaged by Wikileaks. The biggest difference is not the nonrole of anti-Semitism or anything similar, but that Assange is a leftist and Dreyfus most certainly was not...

-M.H.-

Actually, there are some more extremely important parallels with the Dreyfus case.

What was Dreyfus accused of?

Leaking secret military info to the Germans.

What is Assange accused of?

Leaking secret military, diplomatic and government info to the world.

Of course Assange, a leftist, proudly admits to his role in exposing government secrets, whereas Dreyfus, a politically conservative bourgeois Jewish officer, was innocent of this alleged crime.

And there is in fact a close parallel to the role of anti-Semitism in all this, but not in Assange's case, but in the closely connected case of Bradley Manning.

The whole Bradley Manning affair virtually stinks of gaybashing. Just as the French military claimed Dreyfus sold secrets to the Germans because he was Jewish and Jews do things like that if you give them money, the US military has basically been saying that he gave government secrets to Wikileaks not because he believes in the Wikileaks cause, but because he was gay, and that's what happens when you have gays in the military, they are unmanly, psychologically screwed up and unreliable. And Obama has raised no objection to this.

And, in fact, Manning like Dreyfus has never fessed up to being the leaker. He probably is, but that is an extralegal judgment, and those Manning supporters running around calling him a hero because he leaked stuff to Wikileaks are not exactly helping his defense case.

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

And the example you cite, about John continuing to have sex with and cuming inside Jane after she has said no even if there was consent initially, would be considered rape under most legislation I believe, few countries are as regressive as to not allow consent to be removed.

The Brazilian Penal Code, in its article 213, defines rape:


Constranger alguém, mediante violência ou grave ameaça, a ter conjunção carnal ou a praticar ou permitir que com ele se pratique outro ato libidinosoOr, in English,


To force someone, through violence or serious threat thereof, to have sexual commerce or to practice or allow to practice a different libidinous actSo, at least in Brazil, what is constitutive of rape is "violence or serious threat thereof". Evidently if it is the case that John uses violence or threats of violence against Jane if she doesn't allow the continuation of the sexual relation, then it is rape according to the Brazilian legislation, but not otherwise.

Edit: and here the French Penal Code:


Tout acte de pénétration sexuelle, de quelque nature qu'il soit, commis sur la personne d'autrui par violence, contrainte, menace ou surprise est un viol.

So again it seems that violence or threat of violence is constitutive of the crime of rape.

Luís Henrique