julian assange - neoliberal utopian

[ed miliband]

earlier today libcom posted this on their facebook page. it came up on my feed on my phone and i didn't have time to read the comments, but it seemed to cause a shitstorm. later libcom deleted the link, so i dunno what the comments were saying, but here is the article:

http://libcom.org/library/julian-assange-also-neoliberal-utopian

i think the 'kittens' (who also operate under the names 'junge linke' and 'london wine and cheese society') article, referenced in the piece above, is actually better tbh:

http://libcom.org/library/wikileaks-state-persecutes-its-idealists-junge-linke

so yeah, "anti-imperialist" or not, assange's politics aren't that sound. opinions?

[Igor]

Well yeah the guy is a self-described libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Political_and_economic_views) so no news here. It really baffles me how the guy is actually a subject the left has to debate about and I'm sick of threads about the guy.

[ed miliband]

Well yeah the guy is a self-described libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Political_and_economic_views) so no news here. It really baffles me how the guy is actually a subject the left has to debate about and I'm sick of threads about the guy.

well basically he might be a rapist but also he hates amerikkkan imperialism so some people dunno what to do, right?

[Lucretia]

Yeah, and my sister is a conservative, but I don't use that as a rationale for criticizing her volunteer work at a soup kitchen, or assume that when I ask her what time it is, that her response to me is a lie.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My impression is that people like him because he pisses off America. That's pretty much the only reason. I've never seen anyone defend his politics.

[Igor]

Yeah, and my sister is a conservative, but I don't use that as a rationale for criticizing her volunteer work at a soup kitchen, or assume that when I ask her what time it is, that her response to me is a lie.

nobody is criticizing his work in the wikileaks though

we're criticizing him for being a rapist and it's not at all cool to compare giving soup to people to rape dude

also your sister probably has some schemy CIA links anyways due to his politically questionable background and probably would lie to you about time anyways. women do that

[Positivist]

nobody is criticizing his work in the wikileaks though

we're criticizing him for being a rapist and it's not at all cool to compare giving soup to people to rape dude

also your sister probably has some schemy CIA links anyways due to his politically questionable background and probably would lie to you about time anyways. women do that

What are you even saying in the second paragraph?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah have you considered that she may not be your sister? I wouldn't ask her the time if I were you.

[Lucretia]

nobody is criticizing his work in the wikileaks though

we're criticizing him for being a rapist and it's not at all cool to compare giving soup to people to rape dude

also your sister probably has some schemy CIA links anyways due to his politically questionable background and probably would lie to you about time anyways. women do that

It's also not cool to assume Assange is guilty of rape just because he is accused of it. Not even the Swedish government thinks there is enough evidence at the present moment to even charge him with the crime, much less convict him. So I guess you know something about this case that they don't.

The assumption seems to be (and it's the one I was countering with my example) that, "Well, Assange is a right-wing libertarian type so I guess he must have raped her!" Just like I have to assume that my sister lies to me about the time because she's right-wing.

Yeah, they are different levels of offensive behavior, but the principle is the same. And it's the absurdity of that principle which I was pointing out.

[Silvr]

I think both sides of the Julian Assange debate are equally obnoxious. people who are trying to use faux concern about rape to justify something which is obviously politically motivated, and people like George Galloway, pretty much deserve eachother. I just wish I didn't have to hear about it.

[Crux]

It's also not cool to assume Assange is guilty of rape just because he is accused of it. Not even the Swedish government thinks there is enough evidence at the present moment to even charge him with the crime, much less convict him. So I guess you know something about this case that they don't.

The assumption seems to be (and it's the one I was countering with my example) that, "Well, Assange is a right-wing libertarian type so I guess he must have raped her!" Just like I have to assume that my sister lies to me about the time because she's right-wing.

Yeah, they are different levels of offensive behavior, but the principle is the same. And it's the absurdity of that principle which I was pointing out.
Except there is and you don't understand legal practice so you jump to a conclusion instead.

No the assumption is, since his lawyer has gone down the "it wouldn't be rape in england" route, combined with admitting parts of the charges, like penetrating one of the women while she was sleeping, combined with Assange's own blatant sexism makes it increasingly likely that he is guilty. Which should piss some of his backers off or at least so you would think, a sthat would mean he has effectively used them and Wikileaks to shield him from facing a rape trial, oh wait that's true anyway. The biggest mistake Wikileaks made was making this guy their "public face".

[L.A.P.]

Well yeah the guy is a self-described libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Political_and_economic_views) so no news here. It really baffles me how the guy is actually a subject the left has to debate about and I'm sick of threads about the guy.

Not only that, he specifically considers himself to be influenced by American libertarianism

[L.A.P.]

question

Why is George Galloway mentioned everytime I see an article or thread regarding the definition of rape?

[Crux]

question

Why is George Galloway mentioned everytime I see an article or thread regarding the definition of rape?
Because you don't have to ask before every insertion of George Galloway.

[Lucretia]

Except there is and you don't understand legal practice so you jump to a conclusion instead.

No the assumption is, since his lawyer has gone down the "it wouldn't be rape in england" route, combined with admitting parts of the charges, like penetrating one of the women while she was sleeping, combined with Assange's own blatant sexism makes it increasingly likely that he is guilty. Which should piss some of his backers off or at least so you would think, a sthat would mean he has effectively used them and Wikileaks to shield him from facing a rape trial, oh wait that's true anyway. The biggest mistake Wikileaks made was making this guy their "public face".

You proceed to tell me my position is wrong (my position in this thread is, literally and simply, that being right-wing does not mean that rape allegations against you are automatically true). Then ramble on against the arguments presented by Assange's lawyer. Sorry to break this to you, M, but I am not Assange's lawyer, and I fail to see how what he says in defense of Assange in his briefs has any bearing on my quite simple but undeniably obvious point about assumption of guilt. Now go find somebody else to stalk across the forum.

[Crux]

I am not Assange's lawyer.
You're not? Really? You sure act the part.

[Silvr]

Because you don't have to ask before every insertion of George Galloway.

:lol:

[A Marxist Historian]

What are you even saying in the second paragraph?

It's supposed to be a "joke," but it's actually a Freudian slip, Igor admitting that he secretly hates women and is a sexist pig.

-M.H.-

[Crux]

It's supposed to be a "joke," but it's actually a Freudian slip, Igor admitting that he secretly hates women and is a sexist pig.

-M.H.-
:laugh: Projecting much, comrade AMH?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It's supposed to be a "joke," but it's actually a Freudian slip, Igor admitting that he secretly hates women and is a sexist pig.

-M.H.-

Wut?

-N.C.-

[Silvr]

Trash plz

[Crux]

Wut?

-N.C.-
AMH is projecting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection). Freud would have a field day with that guy. Obviously being called out on his nonsense touched a raw nerve and now he is flailing about, as he tends to do on this subject.

[James Connolly]

What were you guys expecting? Did you think he was an Anarchist or something?

-R.A.-

[ed miliband]

question

Why is George Galloway mentioned everytime I see an article or thread regarding the definition of rape?

because he said that a man who has sex with a sleeping woman isn't a rapist but just has bad manners. that was his defence of assange.

[Buttress]

Hey, all anti-imperialism is good anti-imperialism.

[Crux]

Oh and the Swedish PR assistant for Assange is Harald Ullman, rightwing socialdemocrat and who was also working for Berns with PR spreading lies about SAC. Also the offical wikileaks twitter has linked Fria Tider, a swedish nazi paper associated with several fascist orgs in sweden.

[Krano]

Alright he's a nazi rapist apparently, imperialist propaganda is best propaganda.

[Bronco]

Meh I don't think anyone here has denied he has shit politics

[ed miliband]

difference is, people here are usually spitting blood over right-wing libertarians; why is this one worthy of defence, especially given the allegations against him?

[Crux]

Alright he's a nazi rapist apparently, imperialist propaganda is best propaganda.
Look up Fria Tider yourself then. I saw it with my own eyes. Here's a news report on it. (http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/internet/723159-wikileaks-lankar-till-hogerextrem-nyhetssida)

[Bronco]

I don't see how it's relevant to the ongoing witch hunt (for want of a better word) against him though. Yeah he's a libertarian idiot, he may well be a rapist too but that's not the reason he's being pursued with such zeal by the authorities, they're just using the accusations and taking advantage of the women involved to further this political persecution of Assange and against Wikileaks in general, his libertarianism shouldn't allow us to lose sight of that

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I have no way of assessing Assange's guilt or innocence, but he did the world a great service. And I would take the legal charges against him with a huge grain of salt.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Oh and the Swedish PR assistant for Assange is Harald Ullman, rightwing socialdemocrat and who was also working for Berns with PR spreading lies about SAC. Also the offical wikileaks twitter has linked Fria Tider, a swedish nazi paper associated with several fascist orgs in sweden.
I think you should reconsider using this "guilt by association" tactic. From what I've read so far, Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer for the women, is also a right wing Social Democrat. So by your logic, his political leanings immediately make the women's claim of sexual assault less credible. But is this really the case? Certainly not. It doesn't amount to more than superficial criticism.

[Crux]

I think you should reconsider using this "guilt by association" tactic. From what I've read so far, Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer for the women, is also a right wing Social Democrat. So by your logic, his political leanings immediately make the women's claim of sexual assault less credible. But is this really the case? Certainly not. It doesn't amount to more than superficial criticism.
Oh I thought this thread was about how shit Julian Assange is politically (which includes alot of sexism to be sure) and that other thread was about how he is probably a rapist and it's pretty sad so many on the left go along with his conflating of himself and Wikileaks?

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Oh I thought this thread was about how shit Julian Assange is politically (which includes alot of sexism to be sure) and that other thread was about how he is probably a rapist and it's pretty sad so many on the left go along with his conflating of himself and Wikileaks?
Well, it's true that this thread is about Assange's politics. But I don't think that really invalidates what I said before. What I was trying to get at is that you're limiting yourself to politics, and it comes off as petty ad hominem. I demonstrated that this "guilt by association" tactic could just as easily be used against the women regarding their lawyer, and it would look just as silly. In my view simply ascribing damnation simply by virtue somebody's political stance is insufficient in making an informed judgment. It cannot be but a caricature of Marxist analysis.

I agree that conflating Assange with Wikileaks carries certain risks. I also think that you should double-check what you say before you post:

Also the offical wikileaks twitter has linked Fria Tider, a swedish nazi paper associated with several fascist orgs in sweden.If you are against this practice of conflation, why bring up the Wikileaks twitter entry at all, and in the same breath as Assange? I'm not convinced you made any distinction there at all. It seemed as though you were trying to paint Assange and Wikileaks as fascist sympathizers. Assange may be many things, but the notion that he is "fascist" does not really ring true to me.

And I don't think Wikileaks is, either. Up until that point they had generally posted bourgeois left wing articles that were supportive of Assange, though they have definitely done this in a very haphazard fashion. I think they're guilty of not checking their sources carefully, but I don't think they are in the same camp as fascism.

[Crux]

Well, it's true that this thread is about Assange's politics. But I don't think that really invalidates what I said before. What I was trying to get at is that you're limiting yourself to politics, and it comes off as petty ad hominem. I demonstrated that this "guilt by association" tactic could just as easily be used against the women regarding their lawyer, and it would look just as silly. In my view simply ascribing damnation simply by virtue somebody's political stance is insufficient in making an informed judgment. It cannot be but a caricature of Marxist analysis.

I agree that conflating Assange with Wikileaks carries certain risks. I also think that you should double-check what you say before you post:
If you are against this practice of conflation, why bring up the Wikileaks twitter entry at all, and in the same breath as Assange? I'm not convinced you made any distinction there at all. It seemed as though you were trying to paint Assange and Wikileaks as fascist sympathizers. Assange may be many things, but the notion that he is "fascist" does not really ring true to me.

And I don't think Wikileaks is, either. Up until that point they had generally posted bourgeois left wing articles that were supportive of Assange, though they have definitely done this in a very haphazard fashion. I think they're guilty of not checking their sources carefully, but I don't think they are in the same camp as fascism.
If you have check Wikileaks twitter and facebook lately you'll know that 99.9% these days is just them posting articles about the great hero Assange. Again, biggest mistake Wikileaks ever made was letting this guy become their public face.

Furthermore, no it's not the same or equal. And soc. dem. ties have been used to somehow justify outlandish conspriacy theories, when Assange's own PR person is from the hard right of the socialdemocrats.

I saw a longer article on Assange a bit mroe shady and far-right connections. I'll see if I can find it again. And no I don't think linking Fria Tider was merely a mistake.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

If you have check Wikileaks twitter and facebook lately you'll know that 99.9% these days is just them posting articles about the great hero Assange. Again, biggest mistake Wikileaks ever made was letting this guy become their public face.
I have been following the twitter posts on Facebook. I agree that a lot of it is schlock. As for the public face issue, I guess time will tell. I can't really say.

Furthermore, no it's not the same or equal. And soc. dem. ties have been used to somehow justify outlandish conspriacy theories, when Assange's own PR person is from the hard right of the socialdemocrats.
I would argue that it is the same thing, and the way you presented it makes it pretty obvious why. But that's not really the point I was trying to make. I was specifically referring to your use of reductionist-style analysis by only concentrating on politics. I don't think it is ever adequate for anything, especially here. It is a poor method.

But the next part of your argument is very odd to me. Are you saying that one should fight "conspiracy theories" with more in kind? That doesn't move the debate forward at all, it only deepens the quagmire. The more one struggles to be free, the more one sinks.


I saw a longer article on Assange a bit mroe shady and far-right connections. I'll see if I can find it again. And no I don't think linking Fria Tider was merely a mistake.
Well if you say so, though I think you're reaching a little. But you must admit that it appears baffling for somebody to adopt a position--not to conflate one with the other--only to contradict it immediately after. Of course, it's possible that I've misunderstood your arguments. But if that's the case, please take greater care in writing them. I have seen that many posters here have had a lot of misunderstandings with you, especially regarding Assange. I myself find that debating with you is like being trapped on a merry-go-round. Perhaps that pattern can stop here.

[#FF0000]

difference is, people here are usually spitting blood over right-wing libertarians; why is this one worthy of defence, especially given the allegations against him?

because people on this forum don't know anything about consistency and despite calling themselves 'marxists' or 'anarchists', or whatever, don't have any coherent world view beyond "side with whatever looks anti-establishment or anti-fascist even when it is not"

[DaringMehring]

It is not about defending a person but protecting a resource for the class struggle, namely, Wikileaks.

Assange is shit.

Wikileaks does things that advance the proletarian side of the class struggle regardless of Assange's politics. Whatever personal disgust for Assange, the disciplined and correct thing to do is put material action in the class struggle above personal feelings.

[Crux]

It is not about defending a person but protecting a resource for the class struggle, namely, Wikileaks.

Assange is shit.

Wikileaks does things that advance the proletarian side of the class struggle regardless of Assange's politics. Whatever personal disgust for Assange, the disciplined and correct thing to do is put material action in the class struggle above personal feelings.
The OP does examine that a fair bit, which I think is worth considering.

[DaringMehring]

The OP does examine that a fair bit, which I think is worth considering.

The article says how Assange thinks he's creating "perfect markets" or some such voodoo by "freedom of information" which is stupid and reactionary. And that some leftists like Chomsky think that "freedom of information" automatically counters tyranny and oppression, which is naive.

But the information does provide a tool for people who are class struggle fighters to use. Whether Assange is trying to or not, the exposure of video of laughing helicopter gunners massacring civilians provides an impulse and weapon for anti-imperialist resistance -- again, only a weapon, despite Chomsky who might think exposure automatically wins on its own (if so then his books should have won the battle decades ago).

Free Bradley Manning, hands off Assange, no repression of Wikileaks!

[ed miliband]

The article says how Assange thinks he's creating "perfect markets" or some such voodoo by "freedom of information" which is stupid and reactionary. And that some leftists like Chomsky think that "freedom of information" automatically counters tyranny and oppression, which is naive.

But the information does provide a tool for people who are class struggle fighters to use. Whether Assange is trying to or not, the exposure of video of laughing helicopter gunners massacring civilians provides an impulse and weapon for anti-imperialist resistance -- again, only a weapon, despite Chomsky who might think exposure automatically wins on its own (if so then his books should have won the battle decades ago).

Free Bradley Manning, hands off Assange, no repression of Wikileaks!

you seemingly just read the first bit. the rest:



The centre of the critique is that, for Kittens, Wikileaks subscribes to two false ideas. The first that if something is successfully exposed, then something will be done about it, that exposure promotes resistance to the current state of affairs. But the fact remains that Wikileaks only exposed what was already well known about the war on terror. That potentially millions of people have died as the result of Western imperialist excursions particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Wikileaks did nothing more than add more evidence to the substantial pile that the global ruling class is tightly knit and does not play by its own self-presented rules in the field of finance. That American foreign policy is conducted in the nation’s self interest and that its view of other nation states is rather less than one might summise from its official communications. And so on, simply put, “most of the data that reached the public through WikiLeaks only confirmed what everybody knew already”. This is a common tactic outside of Wikileaks, indeed, Assange’s defenders on the Left such as Noam Chomsky also subscribe to this vision - successful exposure of the facts about the situation of global capitalism will, among other things, lead somehow to its defeat. In this instance, Kittens correctly highlights that, pace Zizek’s critique of Chomsky, that facts are not self-interpreting, but read through ideology. A right winger could happily accept the slaughter in Iraq but say this was the lamentable consequences of a neccessary war, indeed, this was the reaction of many right wingers to Wikileaks’ ‘revelations’. Certainly there is a value in exposing the contradictions in ruling class ideology, but exposing contradictions remains at the level of ideology itself, rather than the battleground of material class struggle. Moreover, the greatest and most obvious of crimes often occur openly, sometimes without even a gloss of ideology, and yet do not cause dissent. Whistleblowing traditionally refers to highlighting a unknown problem in a supposedly smoothly running system - Wikileaks for the most part brought no especially new information into circulation.


What Kittens do not do is link this desire for transparency, openess and avoidance of corruption to their basis in free market ideology. Rather, Kittens note that Wikileaks’ aims towards transpency are entirely consistent with the idea of the modern American-style democractic state - openess, checks and balances, the avoidance of corruption - and that “WikiLeaks’ fight against corruption indicates support in principle for those organisations once they are free of corruption”. The US and other democratic states are “running a campaign against people who have the highest admiration for its principles”. To which I add: Kittens have misinterpreted Wikileaks as a project in line with the classical self-presentation of the liberal democractic state founded on the balance of powers and so on. In Assange’s reading of his own organisation, this openess is not animated by a care for the classical principles of liberal democracy, but rather for the neoliberal principles of free information on open markets.


tl;dr: very little of what wikileaks leaked was actually that surprising, to the extent that people could quite happily respond to certain stories with 'well yeah, that sucks, but that's war...'

[DaringMehring]

you seemingly just read the first bit. the rest:




tl;dr: very little of what wikileaks leaked was actually that surprising, to the extent that people could quite happily respond to certain stories with 'well yeah, that sucks, but that's war...'

The same people who said it was "understandable" and "that's war" the day after, were the ones who said it was "unthinkable" and "unpatriotic slander of the troops" the day before.

Having proof is good. Let them try to downplay it -- but make them acknowledge from their own mouths that it is true. Not proceed like you are probably a lunatic for believing it.

And -- the main objection to Wikileaks that the reactionaries made, was that it was "endangering American military lives" by revealing the information. In short, that it was a material force for anti-imperialism. They recognize that, of course wrapping themselves up in pretend care for American soldiers' lives, and that is why they work so hard to discredit and silence Wikileaks.

[Luís Henrique]

My impression is that people like him because he pisses off America.

And some of us dislike him because he pisses off America... more than we do.

Luís Henrique

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Assange may or may not be a rapist, there is no way that we can determine this. I read through the police interviews and there is no clear evidence to suggest it either way. As it stands, the case is that of an accusation against an individual and their resultant denial. As such, the people that are writing off Assange as a rapist without the evidence are as stupid as the people that write off the accusers as being CIA puppets or whatever. We have no evidence to make a judgement either way, so it is foolish to take any position.

An interesting thought is that the very media practice which Wikileaks undertakes is what could potentially lead to that information being available, and that is where my concern on the matter is focused: the practice of whistle-blowing to inform the public of the very factual reasons they should be organizing against governments - making accessible the very information which western governments and media keep bushed under the carpet, pulling the wool over the eyes of the same oppressed people that rally behind their wars, vote for their elected officials and read the same warmongering/bank-apologist/pro-establishment newspapers on their way to work.

Assange is a libertarian, but his politics don't counter the fact that Wikileaks represents a shift in the democratization of information, which allows for investigative journalists to access and share an incredible amount of information, sensitive to the power structures we identify as abhorrent, by standards that are historically profound. Julian Assange is just a man, his politics are against ours but his media practice and involvement in the subversion of ruling class/state hegemony of information is valuable to us. It is not about being blindly anti-imperialist, but rather pro-information. As revolutionary anti-capitalists, we need to be in tune with the modern technologies which help us to make a case against the ruling class and Wikileaks, despite the leanings or criminal accusations (still without evidence or trial), embody the most advanced technological practices in that regard, and as such, we should pay attention to the information that they release and also defend Wikileaks' right to exist. This is not rape-apologism or misguided anti-imperialism, just a defence of the right to transparency which, to any decent socialist, is a key factor in subverting class society which is based on all kinds of monopolies, be they economic or informational.

Revleft is such a great caricature of the left: constantly bickering in relation to binary-oppositional arguments with slander and judgements that lack the very nature of rational and critical thought that our whole 'movement' was pretty much founded upon. Why do we always have to pick sides, black and white, whilst missing the grey areas? Why does one have to blindly back the Syrian Rebels or the Assad regime without being able to understand any clear ideological reasons for doing either (I back the working class - the grey area in that conflict)? Why does Assange have to be a sick, libertarian rapist or just merely a subject of an advanced CIA plot? I can see there being elements of truth to both hypotheses, but I would be a fool to assume either as being true without any coherent evidence presented before me.

I feel that there is a lot of ego behind the way discussions are conducted on this forum. I can't see why else people would so aggressively and arrogantly defend a position without real evidence.

[A Marxist Historian]

Assange may or may not be a rapist, there is no way that we can determine this. I read through the police interviews and there is no clear evidence to suggest it either way. As it stands, the case is that of an accusation against an individual and their resultant denial. As such, the people that are writing off Assange as a rapist without the evidence are as stupid as the people that write off the accusers as being CIA puppets or whatever. We have no evidence to make a judgement either way, so it is foolish to take any position.



There's plenty of evidence that there is a CIA conspiracy vs. Assange, indeed I think nobody here on Revleft would dare to deny it.

The evidence that Ms. Arditi is a central player in the conspiracy is all circumstantial, true, but it's highly persuasive. The American courts execute people based on circumstancial evidence all the time. They shouldn't, but then again it's Assange on trial not Arditi.

And besides, why on earth should revolutionaries be "objective" between radicals making extreme trouble for the world capitalist classes like Wikileaks and Assange and somebody with all those well known connections to the CIA and the Swedish military and Swedish top politicians like Arditi? If it looks liike a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

In a bourgeois courtroom, we should uphold guilty until proven innocent for everyone.

In the court of public opinion, in a case where you've got Assange and Wikileaks on one side and the American, British and Swedish capitalist classes on the other, we should assume Assange is innocent till proven guilty and Arditi is guilty till proven innocent.

Why? Because we are revolutionaries and leftists. In fact, that's who Revleft is supposed to be for.

-M.H.-

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I would say that there is actually more evidence in favour of a CIA conspiracy than there is of Assange being a rapist, but there still isn't enough evidence to say that it's true - the former case is based on two accusations which are being dealt with by the Swedish police and the latter is based on apparent ties between one of the accusers and the CIA. For all we know, there could be truth behind the rape allegations but also that there's a CIA conspiracy - my point is that to dogmatically hold either position as a truth is contrary to rational assessment.

Sure, we can hypothesize, but I'd rather view this case in relation to its multi-dimensional nature. As such, we have to consider the allegations, who is making the allegations, what Assange and the organization he fronts represent, what the international relations features are behind this case, wikileaks, the leaking of sensitive information and more. The result is a blurry picture with a rape allegation on one hand and a US witch hunt on the other. It could still be that Assange is a rapist and that the western campaign against him has a convenient case as a veneer for his extradition or it could be that the whole case has been fabricated, but we can't be sure.

Assange may be a rapist but that accusation should be dealt with independently of the broader conspiracy which surrounds him.

For now he is nothing but a man who runs an international media organization which leaks sensitive governmental information who is accused by two women of rape (or sexual assault) and this is how we should view him as an individual. In a political sense, he is the enemy of the powers that be and they are very much concerned with stopping his work, as seen with the financial embargo against his organization, amongst other things. As such, the Julian Assange case can't be summed up by calling him either a rapist or as being a subject to a CIA conspiracy - it is far more complicated than that and dogmatically assuming one position over the other contradicts rational thought, something that comes before emotional/ideological feelings. The CWI actually posted a decent statement on the case, as I saw in the other thread. At least they refuse to turn this question into an 'I'm right, you're wrong' debate, rather viewing the complex nature of the situation in analysing it.

[A Marxist Historian]

I would say that there is actually more evidence in favour of a CIA conspiracy than there is of Assange being a rapist, but there still isn't enough evidence to say that it's true - the former case is based on two accusations which are being dealt with by the Swedish police and the latter is based on apparent ties between one of the accusers and the CIA. For all we know, there could be truth behind the rape allegations but also that there's a CIA conspiracy - my point is that to dogmatically hold either position as a truth is contrary to rational assessment.

Sure, we can hypothesize, but I'd rather view this case in relation to its multi-dimensional nature. As such, we have to consider the allegations, who is making the allegations, what Assange and the organization he fronts represent, what the international relations features are behind this case, wikileaks, the leaking of sensitive information and more. The result is a blurry picture with a rape allegation on one hand and a US witch hunt on the other. It could still be that Assange is a rapist and that the western campaign against him has a convenient case as a veneer for his extradition or it could be that the whole case has been fabricated, but we can't be sure.

Assange may be a rapist but that accusation should be dealt with independently of the broader conspiracy which surrounds him.

For now he is nothing but a man who runs an international media organization which leaks sensitive governmental information who is accused by two women of rape (or sexual assault) and this is how we should view him as an individual. In a political sense, he is the enemy of the powers that be and they are very much concerned with stopping his work, as seen with the financial embargo against his organization, amongst other things. As such, the Julian Assange case can't be summed up by calling him either a rapist or as being a subject to a CIA conspiracy - it is far more complicated than that and dogmatically assuming one position over the other contradicts rational thought, something that comes before emotional/ideological feelings. The CWI actually posted a decent statement on the case, as I saw in the other thread. At least they refuse to turn this question into an 'I'm right, you're wrong' debate, rather viewing the complex nature of the situation in analysing it.

Yes, I actually thought the CWI statement wasn't awful, just a bit on the wimpy side. Unlike the statements of our self-appointed CWI rep Majakovskij.

The trouble with the way you're treating the issue is that you are treating this like some abstact issue in outer space for historians to write analyses of. This is a major immediate issue of world politics, with the British police actually threatening to storm the Ecuadoran embassy, which if Ecuador wasn't such a small and weak country would be considered as an act of war.

No, it's necessary to take a position based on the best information we have, and in any case it is necessary first and foremost to side with Assange and Wikileaks vs. the imperialists. Everything else is secondary, and will remain such unless and until actual proof of the accusations against Assange were to surface.

Which I don't believe would ever happen, as I find the circumstantial evidence that Assange is being framed extremely plausible, and the evidence against him produced thus far to be almost laughably fraudulent.

Believing that there is likely to be anything resembling an impartial judicial investigation into the charges against Assange any time soon, or in fact ever when you get right down to it, is naive.

And the world is not going to stand still while we wait for solid facts to resolve all the unresolved mysteries of this case, which may never happen.

-M.H.-

[Rottenfruit]

nobody is criticizing his work in the wikileaks though

we're criticizing him for being a rapist and it's not at all cool to compare giving soup to people to rape dude

also your sister probably has some schemy CIA links anyways due to his politically questionable background and probably would lie to you about time anyways. women do that
Again how do you know he is a rapist? Innocent until proven guilty

[The Jay]

Isn't the whole scandal about him supposedly not putting a condom on while having consensual sex? The story changes pretty often I think.

[Crux]

Isn't the whole scandal about him supposedly not putting a condom on while having consensual sex? The story changes pretty often I think.
No, no it's not. What he is accused of is rape and would be legally classified as such in most countries. Holding someone down and penetrating them, then removing your condom and cuming inside them is rape. because as you well know even legitimate rape cause pregnancies. Secondly penetrating someone who is asleep, doing so also without a condom despite that being their express request before is definitely rape. Here are the actual protocols: http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

He claims to have been given consent retrospectively. A dubious claim at best. His lawyers have also gone down the line of trying to argue that "it wouldn't be a crime in the UK". Which it would, but that sounds like at least a half-way admission to me.

[Blackburn]

He's a rapist is he?

I'm sorry, has there already been a trial and a verdict?

[The Jay]

No, no it's not. What he is accused of is rape and would be legally classified as such in most countries. Holding someone down and penetrating them, then removing your condom and cuming inside them is rape. because as you well know even legitimate rape cause pregnancies. Secondly penetrating someone who is asleep, doing so also without a condom despite that being their express request before is definitely rape. Here are the actual protocols: http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

He claims to have been given consent retrospectively. A dubious claim at best. His lawyers have also gone down the line of trying to argue that "it wouldn't be a crime in the UK". Which it would, but that sounds like at least a half-way admission to me.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I knew that he was a bit arrogant, but I didn't think he was a predator.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

He didn't necessarily 'remove' the condom though. In fact, that whole accusation is based on the woman thinking that he removed the condom, checking, finding that it was still there but then believing that Assange tore it mid-penetration and then cummed inside her, because she saw a wet stain on the bed. So that particular case is based on the woman accusing Assange of tearing the condom and then penetrating her again until ejaculation and Assange was seemingly confused by the accusation, claiming that it was her wetness on the bed. Read the police interviews and quote them properly before you assume that Assange removed the condom and re-entered, because even the woman didn't say that.

The second accusation is that Assange entered the woman while she was sleeping, but I read that interview and it was pretty sketchy anyway, at several points the woman couldn't remember certain things and made some assumptions. So that is obviously something that will have to be talked about further, because so far it is based on one statement and one reply, plus some character witness statements which don't really point us any further to the truth.

I'd say that the first accusation (which is actually the second accusation, which was a woman firstly supporting the first woman who made the actual rape claim - this supporter, who initially put Assange up for somewhere to live, said she wouldn't make a complaint of her own but later did) will be tossed out. Unless they could find evidence of a condom broken mid-penetration or if Assange admitted it, then there's no basis.

The other accusation has more basis, but Assange denies it and was seemingly perplexed by it in the interview, so I can't imagine that there will be much evidence in favour. That's the most serious accusation though and it's the one that is a rape accusation - the fact that the second woman made this claim as well does seem sketchy and she is indeed the woman who people believe to have CIA ties. I'm not sure of that, but after reading the police interviews, the whole thing is far too simplistic for us to make any kind of real judgements. Even one of the character witnesses who was friendly with the second accuser (the condom-break accuser) thought that the whole thing didn't add up. It appeared that the second accuser suddenly changed her mind about Assange when the first woman made an accusation.

We certainly can't draw from this that Assange tore a condom off mid-penetration because that isn't even the actual accusation. People that are saying that are morons. We can't even call him a rapist yet, because he has been accused of it in a short statement which hasn't even been tried yet.

What we need to demand is for Assange to be able to answer these allegations WITHOUT being extradited to the US. Its as simple as that - the Swedish police can interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy, or he can go with the guarantee that he wont be extradited. Sweden wont do that, though. So what Assange is now is an accused sexual offender and a political prisoner who is facing extradition to the US.

He is not a rapist. Not yet, anyway. But he is and has been a political prisoner for 632 days without charge.