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

[Crux]

Definitely worth a read: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...red/index.html

[synthesis]

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

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

Moreover:

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

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

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

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

[Crux]

And even though some people have tried to make it relevant in that context, so far no success. So as a result several articles just fall back on old rape-myths instead. http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2...een-raped.html

[synthesis]

Make it relevant in what context?

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

[Crux]

Make it relevant in what context?

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

there's no evidence to show that the case itself, not how it has been treated in the media, but the case itself is in fact connected to wikileaks. The claimed CIA connection is weak.
Definitely not, but I do believe these arguments gets brought out in the open and with far more credibility than it should have. Misogyny is misogyny.

[synthesis]

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

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

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

[Sosa]

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

[Diello]

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

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

[Crux]

And yet it doesn't actually prove anything.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

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

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


A Quote from a pentagon report into Wikileaks earlier this year

1+2=3

[~Spectre]

And yet it doesn't actually prove anything.

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

[VNHCM]

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

Indeed!

[synthesis]

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

[Diello]

Here-- Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer claims to have seen police documents proving that Assange's accusers were acting in bad faith.

[Crux]

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

In any case, I think that labeling people who are defending Assange as "anti-feminist"

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

Here-- Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer claims to have seen police documents proving that Assange's accusers were acting in bad faith.

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

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

[Diello]

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

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

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s lawyer says he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistleblower is innocent of rape claims made against him by two women in Stockholm.
...
‘If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade,’ he said. ‘If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.

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

[Crux]

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

Hence the we'll see part. Also, if this turns out to be a false accusation because one of the women wanted to get "serious" with Assange but felt neglected, well I don't see how that helps.

[synthesis]

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

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

[Crux]

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

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz17sR2Vp2q

Perfect example of what I am talking about.

[synthesis]

Perfect example of what I am talking about.

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

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