How will Assange be punished for attempting to advance democracy?

This and That

This is one of those things that does, indeed, fall under the category of, "Really? This is news?"

But part of the whole outrage about WikiLeaks isn't just that they're releasing diplomatic documents, and such. After all, many opponents of WikiLeaks have suggested that there isn't anything new in the releases. And while some might point out that the war releases seem to include fifteen thousand civilian deaths not previously acknowledged, it's not like we didn't at least suspect.

The cables represent, in the Karzai issue, confirmation of what we already suspected. (I would say "knew", but, to be fair, that would be a loose and colloquial application of the term.)

There's a difference between people gossiping that your friend is stabbing you in the back—and obviously, at that—and actually having it spelled out in black and white. And I think that's what the governments are playing up now.

Yes, anyone who read the NYT is already aware of these stories, but how does that figure into the suggestions of grave damage done by the publication?

• • •​

Complete empowerment is the requirement I demand in sexual relations, and therefore complete consent.

I think part of the issue is that this is, indeed, touchy ground insofar as, while on the surface it meets my standard for rape, I wonder whether it will qualify in what court. That is, as an American, I'm aware that juries have ruled in the past that a woman was, indeed, "asking for it" because of her attire. So even though I look at this whole, "after the condom broke" argument and say, "Yeah, I think that qualifies," I have serious doubts about whether (A) an American jury would agree (don't know about the Swedish standards yet), and (B) whether any American prosecutor would go forward on such a claim (although on that aspect, the Swedish standard now seems ... well, sort of clear).

In the long run, yes, I think empowerment, consent, and timing are all important issues, but what is the history of the issue? It's hard, given that the Swedish government already dropped the case once, to counter the suggestion that this is a political prosecution. Is there new evidence? What else rekindles the issue, other than the suggested political motives?

And even presuming the charge legitimate, what is Sweden saying if this is a political rekindling? Are they really saying this wasn't worth pursuing before, and only in the heat of international controversy about something unrelated to the case do they now see the light?

I just think people will always be cynical of Assange's prosecution if the international politics of the WikiLeaks releases are instrumental to Sweden going forward (e.g., changing its mind and taking the complaint seriously).

And, frankly, I think that would be tragic for the alleged rape survivor: Your story wasn't enough to go on, then, but now that the Americans and everyone else want this guy put away, we'll see what we can do.

The Swedes might as well just go around slapping rape survivors for the hell of it, then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have wondered if the Swedish courts are motivated by an underlying desire to protect Assange's life, and his professional cause. Which would be overbearing, and doesn't make a lot of sense. Mostly I take them at their word, that they take rape investigations and prosecutions seriously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From what I've read, two women are pressing charges against Assange. Neither wanted to accuse him of rape. The first considered what happened harrassment or assualt as he alledgedly held her down after the condom broke and she wanted to stop. The second woman, (who was certainly raped in my book) wanted to legally force Assange to take a HIV test, someone else pushed for rape charges. Apparently they had sex one night and he used a comdom but he initiated sex with her again while she was asleep and did not use a condom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So why did they send exculpatory texts and ooze about him to their friends? What strange women!

 

Starstruck opportunists (possibly victimized) is my guess; cyber-groupies. WikiLeaks needs a front man who doesn't behave like a vain pop star.

 

Up to any point. A woman's body is her own. Period.

If she decides she doesn't want to have sex - for whatever reason, in whatever context - then that's that. If you overpower that decision, you're raping her.

Yes, supposing she expresses that wish and he refuses to accept it. It may well be selfish, or rude, or whatever, on her part, but it is still rape.

Right...

Does not compute. If you "fully accept that either party can change their mind at any time," then either party can change their mind at any time, and the other party has to respect that. If they don't, it's rape.

It may make a weak court case, exactly because of sexist attitudes like the ones you display, but that doesn't mean it isn't rape.

And, indeed, she'd also have been obligated to stop if he'd changed his mind. So I'm not seeing a double standard here.

But, adults or not, there is a power imbalance, in that a man can typically use physical force to overrule a woman's withdrawl of consent. And then there is of course the unequal power that flows from sexist social conceptions, like the idea that it's not rape if a woman initially consents and changes her mind, or whatever.

 

Those sluts! They were obviously asking for it! Just look at the way they were dressed! Shame on them!

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/what-is-slut-shaming/

Let's try to bear in mind that it is perfectly possible for Julian Assange to be both a crusader for public information who is being singled out for politicized prosecution AND a sleazebag rapist. Maybe these charges are simply a political hit-job with no substance, or maybe not. Even regular rape cases are difficult to assess from the outside.

 

Heh, I'm obviously biased here. But I cant see the connection between a woman who texts her friends after the crime that she is with 'the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!' and then cries rape. Shouldn't she be calling her friends and telling them he was an asshole who forced her? Or is that not the normal reaction of women who have been raped?

 

Yes you are. Your overt sexism has been noted repeatedly over the years. It would be positive if you'd subject it to some critical scrutiny, instead of indulging it.

Rape victims do all kinds of things that don't conform to your imaginary narrative of how a rape should proceed - including making a point of denying that they were raped, even to close friends and family. Many come out believing that what happened was their fault, or somesuch. It can take a lot of time to come to grips with what occurred and suitably process it - and sometimes that never occurs at all, especially when the victim remains subject to her rapist's influence and presence. This is one of the keys to how rape is used to systematically control women in sexist societies: you rape a few women and then make them complicit under threat of severe social sanctions (slut-shaming - preferably and typically done by other women, to reinforce their own position in the sexist hierarchy), and thereby subvert female autonomy in the entire society.

In this case, one victim apparently claims that she initially wrote the incident off as an accident/heat-of-the-moment type of thing, until she learned that he'd done exactly the same to other women. At that point, she became convinced that it was a premeditated pattern, and so deserving of a rape accusation.

 

Or just a normal horny guy like billions in the world. :m:

The fact that bail has been refused is indicative of what this is about.

 

You're right, it may sound sanctimonious but I believe a woman controls her sexual relationships. I impatient of women who lead on or play the tease, either say no and mean it or think before jumping into bed.

Again agreed. But I encourage women to know their own minds and freely express them. Not everyone can be as big a pain in the butt as I, but they can at least try.

Or he has poor impulse control or as it appears at least one of them works for the CIA it is entrapment. Still it is a more plausible explanation than finding him so beautiful one minute after sex and feeling coerced into it after some thought. I find it hard to understand how a woman can doubt if she is coerced. Either you wanted to do it or you did not. But again, everyone is different and I'm fastidious and picky but decisive so I cannot relate to people who change their minds without ever making them up

I am not of the opinion that one should automatically hold a man responsible if accused. There is a very large margin of opting out of sex with a man before you begin intercourse. If you're saying Yes all this time and No when you're halfway through, maybe you should get a dildo instead. Its not about apportioning shame, but about taking responsibility for your decisions and not using people as a personal dildo.

 

"Control of her sexual relationships" includes the autonomy to lead on or tease, if that is what a woman wants to do. Men are not mindless animals that cannot control the urge to have sex once aroused, or whatever.

The narrative here would be "after some new information arose," not "after some thought."

The doubt in question was to whether said coercion deserved a formal rape charge via the police, not whether it existed in the first place.

Or, you initially wanted to do it, under certain cicumstances, but then he unilaterally altered certain salient circumstances (the use of protection, specifically), and you reappraised your consent.

Nor is anybody else. Assange is entitled to a fair trial.

Or, get a sex partner that does take off the requisite condom halfway through. This is not simple capricious withdrawl of consent - the circumstances of the encounter materially changed, and the woman didn't want to continue. That is a very different matter than your imaginary scenario.

Still sounds like slut-shaming to me, given the variance with the actual facts alleged, and the emphasis on portraying her sexual gratification as greedy and dirty.

 

It needs a Keyser Söze but any "Yuri" will do.

What is rather interesting is the reason why Assange wasn't Bailed according to the BBC website:

[source: BBC]

The usage of people already suffering from psychologically determined ailments has been known to be used to assassinate people very much like the fictional Manchurian Candidate, it can even be questioned how and why Anna Lindh was murdered in 2003.

 

Involuntary protective custody seems a far-out legal limb, even for the most activist of judges. In more tangled branches of twisted jurisdiction (pure conjecture here) there is also the hostage angle- that someone pulling strings wants to strike some bargain with or for Assange, at the emergence of some historic sort of information-commodities event-horizon. I don't really think these things are very likely, but all sorts of convoluted theories will obviously abound before more comes out from the courts. My guess is still that the Federal Crown Attorney simply takes rape cases very seriously whatever the circumstances.

 

Maybe so - I don't know British Law for squat - but the premise that he's a flight risk would seem difficult to dispute.

 

I haven't really followed the story. I usually keep track of all current events, but been too busy with being one myself. But for spreading classified documents? I don't know, have his own personal life made public? For rape? If it was rape that is, you know how women tend to make up stories like this to get attention. But if it was rape, he should get raped himself. But then the person who rapes him also must be punished. I suppose that's why we have prisons, one punishment for all crimes. But for advancing democrazy? I don't know, get nominated to Mr. Burns- lookalike of the year.

 

655. Bin Laden and Julian Assange, False flag and living plant (12/7/2010)

On 12/4, I wrote an article "Wiki-Leaks is another false flag" and posted it in APFN. One hour later, I was surprised to find the topic was replied by Julian Assange. I don't think it was Assange himself did it. He is on the run. Most likely it is the work of his handler - the Feds. The purpose is to link me to a would be "criminal". Assange is a living plant like Bin Laden. Here is the topic:

Bin Laden is a living plant.

In 1990, Soviet bloc collapsed. US intelligence turned its resource which used to deal with Soviet bloc to the new target - Mid-east countries which are rich in natural resource. Bin Laden, an asset of the CIA in Afghanistan war(agaist Russian), was revived in this new project as a false flag - Islamic extremist. He went to Sudan first in 1991.

Saudi and US didn't take the offer with various excuse because Bin Laden is a living plant they deployed there.

In 1995, Bin Laden tried to set up a connection with Saddam but was refused.

Sudan may have felt the danger to accomodate Bin Laden. In May 1996, the Sudanese asked bin Laden to leave. He went to Afghan and stay there until now.

In August 1998, Sudan and Afghanistan were bombed by US missiles.

In 2001, after 911, Afghan, facing US invasion, made an offer but failed.

In Bin Laden's recent 20 years, the countries he went or tried to go, have something in common: They all have rich natural resources. Sudan and Iraq have oil. Afghan has rich mine. '

He didn't go to Yemen, Somali or Syria for his "revolution" because they are resource poor countries, not in US interest list. He didn't go to Saudi or Kuwait. Because they are US allies. He only went to Sudan, Afghan, or Iraq (intended to) because these three countries were not controlled by US at that time. As a living plant, he gave US the excuse to activate attack on these three countries. (Even Saddam realized that Bin Laden was a dangerous living plant and rejected him, Iraq at last was invaded with an unexisted WMD)

Julian Assange is another false flag and living plant. The target is not to control natural resource but to control the free speech kindom - the Internet. If you have noticed that in last month, the events come with the Wiki-leaks' third leaking. '

What will be their next step? Feds will upgrade the secret level of the leaking document to their puppet Assange. That will finally justify the legitimate of control of the Internet. When you saw that Wiki-Leaks is moving from this server to that, this web site to other, do you realize all thes sites could be potential victims of the next wave of Internet censorship and seizure? Assange does same thing Bin Laden has done.

I always say that I am the most wanted of the Feds. Though I am always under the surveillance of the Feds, to set up an internet communication with a "criminal" could justify their action and turn an unreasonable search into a reasonable one. On 12/5, (next day that Assange post reply on my article) A working van of "Direct TV" parked at my front door. Technician installed something in my neighbor's house. (we share one roof and the wall) I think that they were installing detective instrument. My neighbor has had a dish satelite antena already.

 

Same as all freedom fighters and political prisoners, US will send him
to Guantanamo Bay detention camp and torture him until he tells
them what they want to here.


God bless you Julian.

OM

 

I guess there are different ground rules to casual sex and different risks attached to the same.

 

Bullshit Sam, I got halfway through with my partner and something (which I can't rember right now) turned me off so I stopped. She wasn't happy but that's just to.bad, I wanted to stop so I stopped. She has the same right legally just like every other person in every civilized country in the world