Free Julian Assange!

[Karl Renegade]

Someone should start a more organized international support group to free Julian Assange from the threat of extradition to the US. just an idea.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Get working, comrade! ;D

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Erm. While obviously Assange shouldn't be extradited to the United States, I feel like he's something of a cause célèbre, and, in any case, has asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. Probably there are other political prisoners worthy of our attention and aide. There are lots of radical prisoners who don't already have the rich and famous throwing down money for them. Prisoners, in many cases, who aren't bourgie white misogynist douchebags (though that shouldn't necessarily warrant not supporting him vis- the US).

I guess what I'm getting at is - fine, if you want to support Assange, and organize around him, feel free. But probably your time would be better spent by going down to your local Anarchist Black Cross or Secours Rouge meeting, and working on something closer to home.

[Fourth Internationalist]

bourgie white misogynist douchebags

Wtf is wrong with that?

[Comrade #138672]

Wtf is wrong with that?VMC did not say that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

VMC did not say that.

Why is that something that was needed to be mentioned? He clearly included it with other negative characteristics as if it was negative itself.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's not "negative" - it just means that he has access to huge amounts of social capital that he would not if he were a POC. For it example, the narratives surrounding his rape trial would almost entirely different if he were a black man.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's not "negative" - it just means that he has access to huge amounts of social capital that he would not if he were a POC. For it example, the narratives surrounding his rape trial would almost entirely different if he were a black man.

But you can see that the way you used it in no way indicated anything about the false sexual assault accusations, and was used along with words describing him as "mysoginistic," and "a douchebag," making "white'" look like another negative part of him, right?

Be more careful with your language, I've seen leftists use "white" too many times negatively, whether intentional or not.

[Ostrinski]

But you can see that the way you used it in no way indicated anything about the false sexual assault accusations, and was used along with words describing him as "mysoginistic," and "a douchebag," making "white'" look like another negative part of him, right?

Be more careful with your language, I've seen leftists use "white" too many times negatively, whether intentional or not.Man get the fuck out. Him being white has a whole lot to do with the way a lot of people understand the issues surrounding his rape allegations. VMC was just throwing 'white' in there as a rhetorical method of communicating that fact, and your protest toward it only demonstrates your disagreement with the notion that this is the case.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Man get the fuck out. Him being white has a whole lot to do with the way a lot of people understand the issues surrounding his rape allegations.

I do not disagree. However, he did not indicate that's why he included it, and thus to people not familiar with the issue will think he's being racist, and that will continue the idea to many rightists that leftists are racist against whites


VMC was just throwing 'white' in there as a rhetorical method of communicating that fact,

Do you think that the way he included it is the best way to point that out? Do you not see how it appears to be racist to someone without prior knowledge of Julian Assange, though it was not?


your protest toward it only demonstrates your disagreement with the notion that this is the case.

Disagreement that white people are viewed differently when accused of sexual assault or that his intent was to point that out?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Do you not see how it appears to be racist

Comrade, the vast majority of people who think pointing that out whiteness is "racist" are either a) working through bloody awful white guilt, or b) still on "How come there's no Straight Pride Parade?" kicks. C'mon, f'real.
In any case, even if you don't know about the sexual assault charges, the meaning should be obvious in a post about prison support. Y'know, cause, guess what colour most people in prison aren't?
Obviously, white prisoners need support, obviously there's nothing wrong with being white, and obviously I don't think we need to bring up skin colour every time anything political happens to anyone. In certain contexts, however, it doesn't take a graduate degree from tumblr to see that something is "up" w/r/t who gets celebrities and British nobility to act as their sureties.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Comrade, the vast majority of people who think pointing that out whiteness is "racist" are either a) working through bloody awful white guilt, or b) still on "How come there's no Straight Pride Parade?" kicks.Pointing it out mixed with negative characteristics looks racist to others when the reason for it is not justified within the text, or are given two different possible justifications to draw from said text.


In any case, even if you don't know about the sexual assault charges, the meaning should be obvious in a post about prison support. Y'know, cause, guess what colour most people in prison aren't?


There are lots of radical prisoners who don't already have the rich and famous throwing down money for them. Prisoners, in many cases, who aren't bourgie white misogynist douchebags (though that shouldn't necessarily warrant (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#) not supporting him vis- the US).

Except you threw in all those negative characteristics next to it, which would mean either a) being white is negative, or b) being a misogynist and a douche bag are characteristics that get more people to sympathize with someone, excluding who would have already sympathized with that person. Both of which are false.


Obviously, white prisoners need support, obviously there's nothing wrong with being white, and obviously I don't think we need to bring up skin colour every time anything political happens to anyone. In certain contexts, however, it doesn't take a graduate degree from tumblr to see that something is "up" w/r/t who gets celebrities and British nobility to act as their sureties.This is just an assumption. Assange did very great things that could not and would not simply be overlooked by the people of the world if he were black. To assume his whiteness is what drew him support (from "celebrities") is both assumptive and unjustified.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Fine, you caught me! I'm subconsciously self-hating.
Thank god someone rushed to the defense of the white race. :rolleyes:

I'm glad you've also brought your cutting analysis of misogyny to the thread. You know, next thing, somebody might have gone all feminist ***** and suggested that, actually, misogynistic behaviour does elicit sympathy. Like, you know, they might have invented a theoretical situation, not based at all in real life, where portions of the left rush to the defense of some white dude who practiced "bad sexual etiquette".

Woops, there goes my self-hate again, dividin' the class.


OK, no, for real, take me to your planet where white supremacy and patriarchy don't exist any more. I'll drink whatever Koolaide is necessary.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Fine, you caught me! I'm subconsciously self-hating.
I caught you unnecessarily using race terms that appear racist due to the fact that they used wrongly, not being racist. I'd recommend therapy if what you say is true, though.


I'm glad you've also brought your cutting analysis of misogyny to the thread. You know, next thing, somebody might have gone all feminist ***** and suggested that, actually, misogynistic behaviour does elicit sympathy.Only from other misogynists to the degree he supposedly was about the issue to which he was supposedly misogynist, which most people are not.


Like, you know, they might have invented a theoretical situation, not based at all in real life, where portions of the left rush to the defense of some white dude who practiced "bad sexual etiquette".You actually believe the accusations?


OK, no, for real, take me to your planet where white supremacy and patriarchy don't exist any more. I do not recall myself ever stating that they don't exist, just that many people have gotten past that. The people who almost exclusively care about his cause are almost always socially left-wing/liberal, btw, so I don't think his race would be an important part of the issue.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A'ight, this is pretty derailing/derailed. Continuing either by PM or in another thread.

[redredred]

He needs to be questioned. Rape is a serious allegation and it is sad to see people on here not give a damn that a crime against two women may have been committed. Penetrating a woman without her consent is rape.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I do not recall myself ever stating that they don't exist, just that many people have gotten past that. The people who almost exclusively care about his cause are almost always socially left-wing/liberal, btw, so I don't think his race would be an important part of the issue.
Would it be the decisive aspect of the issue? No, I don’t think it would. But the defense of Assange on one hand should not blind us to the fact that the bourgeois media used the scandal to push the myth that most rape allegations against celebrities (or in general) are either false or greatly exaggerated on the other.


Woops, there goes my self-hate again, dividin' the class.
You know, your condescending sarcasm isn’t helping me understand your position any better. I support the use of privilege identity analysis, but it does not stand apart from, nor is it a substitute for class analysis. You’re speaking as if they have nothing to do with one another. If your point is to not to ignore the former, mission accomplished.

[Fourth Internationalist]

He needs to be questioned. Rape is a serious allegation and it is sad to see people on here not give a damn that a crime against two women may have been committed. Penetrating a woman without her consent is rape.

Which is why he was willing to go to Sweden to be questioned, however, the Swedish government refused to promise not to send him to the US.


But the defense of Assange on one hand should not blind us to the fact that the bourgeois media used the scandal to push the myth that most rape allegations against celebrities (or in general) are either false or greatly exaggerated on the other.

Barely any media in the US has talked about it because what he does challenges them, not help them! If anything, saying he's a rapist would greatly help the capitalists destroy WikiLeaks's credibility, which is why these accusations were first made.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Would it be the decisive aspect of the issue? No, I don’t think it would. But the defense of Assange on one hand should not blind us to the fact that the bourgeois media used the scandal to push the myth that most rape allegations against celebrities (or in general) are either false or greatly exaggerated on the other.

This is right on. We can defend Assange vis- the United States without playing apologist for his behaviour.


You know, your condescending sarcasm isn’t helping me understand your position any better. I support the use of privilege identity analysis, but it does not stand apart from, nor is it a substitute for class analysis. You’re speaking as if they have nothing to do with one another. If your point is to not to ignore the former, mission accomplished.

I mean, I don't really support "privilege identity analysis", or, at least, not in the way it often manifests as "grad school liberals dressing up radical chic" - divorced from class analysis.
Of course, I can understand that it would be easy to miss the class implications of what I'm saying if you understood the two as "separate but related" rather than integral. "Whiteness" (a historically flexible category) has largely been a marker of class, and a means of establishing a dividing line within and between classes. While the emerging neo-colonial world order has certainly blurred these lines, it hasn't erased them. When we talk about Assange's whiteness, we're not (just) talking about the colour of his skin but his position vis-a-vis the capitalist totality. Not coincidentally, we could also add that Assange is a petit-bourgeois liberal. He is the child of petit-bourgeois academics, he has founded and owned multiple companies, and his politics include unashamed partisanship on behalf of the "free market".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Leaving aside the case against Assange, an issue I'm not going to touch with a ten-foot barge pole, I think it's a mistake to focus so much on one man, in regards to the project of Wikileaks. Wikileaks is bigger than one guy and building him up as a figurehead or whatever isn't a good thing, IMO.

I do think that if he were to be prosecuted somehow in the USA (which I don't think is going to happen, but was mentioned by the OP), that would have a huge chilling effect on whistleblowers that would extend well beyond Assange as one man.

[Crux]

Here's a video from a " free Assange" demo in Sweden:
ZSRe19JJv78
Maybe there are neo-nazis in your area into that too.

Guilt by association you say? It would be if the official wikileaks twitter and fb account hadn't linked a swedish neo-nazi papers on multiple occasions.

(http://wikinews030.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/what-does-the-link-to-a-neonazi-page-do-in-the-wikileaks-tweetfeed-just-another-not-that-easy-topic/) Of course, there are more problems than "just" the nazi connection (http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/assangistas/rixstep-and-the-nazi-website/):
No exception for Assange: Rape apologetics and the left (http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2013/02/no-exception-assange-rape-apologetics-and-left)

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

This is right on. We can defend Assange vis- the United States without playing apologist for his behaviour.
What behavior are you speaking of?


I mean, I don't really support "privilege identity analysis", or, at least, not in the way it often manifests as "grad school liberals dressing up radical chic" - divorced from class analysis.
To clarify, I use privilege identity analysis as a supplement to class analysis.


When we talk about Assange's whiteness, we're not (just) talking about the colour of his skin but his position vis-a-vis the capitalist totality. Not coincidentally, we could also add that Assange is a petit-bourgeois liberal. He is the child of petit-bourgeois academics, he has founded and owned multiple companies, and his politics include unashamed partisanship on behalf of the "free market".
You seem to have reified race in a way that supersedes, or can supersede class, or else adding Assange’s class position as an afterthought wouldn’t make any sense. This reification of race into a property right has theoretical consequences. Though it is true that the institutional racism of the US tends to give white people a better economic advantage, for me race is largely ideological under capitalism.

So for now, I can’t agree with the term “whiteness”. Despite your claim that it is “historically flexible”, it has the danger of implying a sort of transhistorical essence of an exploitative role to white people. This is the same error that some branches of feminism commit when they speak of “maleness”. Race and gender privilege are pervasive throughout class society, but they are not eternal categories, and that was the problem I had with your presentation. And if you’re aware of how much confusion the term can cause, then I don’t think you should use it.

This is not to say that race is “less” important; after all, the traditional Marxist conception of the relationship between base and superstructure is one of dependence, not importance. But I see no justification for bringing in Assange’s “whiteness” here, nor why it should be used against him. It would be unwise to assume that Assange is completely conscious of the privileges he has reaped as a white person and it would be even worse to say that the bourgeois core of his thought can be explained by these privileges. Really, it just comes off as petty ad hominem.

@Majakovskij: Forgive me, but you have done this before in another thread, hence my skepticism. If it isn't guilt by association, then could you present evidence that the Wikileaks project has done more than link to fascist websites on occasion? I find it hard to believe they have fascist connections, especially considering that they've provided leaks on numerous Neo-Nazi groups over the past few years.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Dude should get a fair, honest, rape trial. Anyone who disagrees in the slightest out of support for wikileaks is braindead.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Dude should get a fair, honest, rape trial. Anyone who disagrees in the slightest out of support for wikileaks is braindead.
Exactly! He offered to go to Sweden for questioning, etc. as long as he was promised he would not be sent to the US. But the Swedish government refused to promise not to send him if he went back there for the trial! If this was about rape and not WikiLeaks, then the Swedish government would agree not to send him to the US.

[Crux]

@Majakovskij: Forgive me, but you have done this before in another thread, hence my skepticism. If it isn't guilt by association, then could you present evidence that the Wikileaks project has done more than link to fascist websites on occasion? I find it hard to believe they have fascist connections, especially considering that they've provided leaks on numerous Neo-Nazi groups over the past few years.
Why would you need more? The point isn't that wikileaks are nazis, it is that they are opportunist to the point of promoting swedish nazis if they want to "free" Assange. And of course that they have not distanced themselfes from the nazis in the slightest. I guess Julian can't be that choosy with supporters these days.
Which in turn puts into question what an "international support group" for Assange would be.

[Crux]

Exactly! He offered to go to Sweden for questioning, etc. as long as he was promised he would not be sent to the US. But the Swedish government refused to promise not to send him if he went back there for the trial! If this was about rape and not WikiLeaks, then the Swedish government would agree not to send him to the US.From the piece I linked:
The oft-repeated claim by Bjorn Hurtig that Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny had given Assange permission to leave the country is false, as is the claim that Ny had refused to arrange for an interview with Assange. According to the court record (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf) :

The lawyer gave live evidence covering in some detail the attempts made to secure an interview with his client. On 15th September Ms Ny told him there were no “force measures” preventing Julian leaving the country, i.e. he was allowed to leave. He asked when his client would be interrogated but was told the officer she needed for the investigation was sick. He phoned his client to say he was free to leave the country to continue his work.
As for the claim that Ny ‘refused’ to interview Assange:

In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr. Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

…Mr Hurtig was asked why he told [former Swedish judge] Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her…He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind.
Hurtig’s antics led the judge to rule that Hurtig made “a deliberate attempt to mislead the court” and in fact did mislead expert witnesses Brita Sundberg-Wietman and Sven Allam. Hurtig received a disciplinary warning (http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=4548384) from the Swedish Bar Association
What of the claim that Sweden would extradite Assange to the U.S.? Isn’t it reasonable for the Swedish government to issue a guarantee before Assange is extradited to Sweden? Is their refusal to do so a sign of complicity with the U.S. government, and that the charges are ‘really’ about Wikileaks? It is our argument that such claims are absurd and would not be raised by progressives in any other context.
With regard to the guarantee, Glenn Greenwald (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition) demanded that Green retract his “clear and crucial falsehood” that the Government does not have a final say in the extradition process and thus can issue such a guarantee. In a critique of Greenwald, Stockholm University law professor Mark Klamber (http://klamberg.blogspot.ca/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html)g notes:

The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.
And Pal Wrange (http://palwrange.blogspot.ca/2012/08/can-julian-assange-be-extradited-from.html), also of the Stockholm University law faculty, points out , while it is true that the Government makes the final decision:

Even if the Government has leeway under national law, it is bound by international law. Both the Swedish and the UK Governments have extradition agreements with the US, and these agreements provide that extradition shall take place, if the legal requirements are met. Hence, the Government could not provide a guarantee, without potentially violating an international obligation.
It is difficult, to put it mildly, to take the claims that Assange would simply be handed over to the U.S. seriously. Espionage is considered a political crime in Sweden and Swedish law as well as its extradition treaty with the U.S. prohibits extradition for political crimes.


Consider the case of Edward Lee Howard, a CIA agent who sold secrets to the Soviet Union, devastating U.S. operations in Moscow, and who was arrested for overstaying his visa in Sweden. The U.S. government requested Howard’s extradition, which Sweden refused. The prime minister of Sweden at the time was Carl Bildt, the current Foreign Affairs Minister who Assange supporters claim is a U.S. ‘lapdog’ who would immediately extradite Assange after “a single phone call” from the White House.
One final question that is never answered by Assange supporters: wouldn’t it have been far easier to extradite Assange to the U.S. from the U.K., which is much more of a ‘lapdog’ than Sweden? The U.K., unlike Sweden, does have an extradition treaty with the U.S. for espionage. Indeed, it would be much more difficult to extradite Assange from Sweden, as it would require the support of the governments of both Sweden and the U.K. Both are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights which forbids the extradition to countries where the accused could face the death penalty. He cannot just simply be handed over to the U.S.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You know, despite the fact that we use written English to communicate, it is clear that we aren't speaking the same language.

Why would you need more? The point isn't that wikileaks are nazis, it is that they are opportunist to the point of promoting swedish nazis if they want to "free" Assange.
Okay, I can agree that Wikileaks' method of propagandizing for Assange is opportunist. The trouble, however, is that you didn't say that. You provided a video of fascists, used the words "nazi connection" in relation to Wikileaks. Exactly what other conclusion was I supposed to draw from this?

You could argue that I didn't ask. True, I could have asked. But the position I thought you were stating is perfectly in line with what you did in another thread labeled "julian assange - neoliberal utopian (http://www.revleft.com/vb/julian-assange-neoliberal-t174605/index.html)". You just rattled off a bunch of apparently right-wing names in order to make it seem that since Assange apparently has right-wing bourgeois ties, he is likely to be more guilty of rape. Then, you said, and I quote (in response to my notion that Wikileaks isn't "in the camp of fascism"):

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.
I waited for this "longer article" in vain.

If you were honestly trying to express that Wikileaks is opportunist, or that Assange was, you were doing a very poor job, because that is not how it came off. Or perhaps you changed your position after that thread. Even then, you didn't give me much to go on. So I think it's unwarranted for you to act as if I should have understood you when there was barely anything to understand.

And of course that they have not distanced themselfes from the nazis in the slightest. I guess Julian can't be that choosy with supporters these days.
Which in turn puts into question what an "international support group" for Assange would be.
Oh, give me a break. You're only assuming what you claim to prove, and it's really obnoxious; it's called "begging the question (http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html)". Again, Wikileaks has published several leaks of Neo-Nazi groups in the past, so it doesn't make that much sense that they haven't at all "distanced" themselves from these social layers (see the Stratfor leaks regarding the movements of fascist groups in Finland, among other countries). Next, where are you getting the notion that Assange is fairly light on supporters (or has little support) to the effect that he or Wikileaks tolerates or seeks the fascists? True, he's lost the support of several of celebrity supporters. But as I see it, that's a long way from supporting your narrative.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Exactly! He offered to go to Sweden for questioning, etc. as long as he was promised he would not be sent to the US. But the Swedish government refused to promise not to send him if he went back there for the trial! If this was about rape and not WikiLeaks, then the Swedish government would agree not to send him to the US.

yea i'm not on your side, you've got me misconstrued
fuck assange, probably

[human strike]

Free Roger Pion!