Wikileaks

[nerdanel]

That simply isn't true, Wilma. From everything that I have seen, these charges are quite serious, and I think it insults the women who were apparently victims of his assauts to call them bogus. If they had made these accusations against someone else, many of the people dismissing them would have been completely outraged. I find that quite distressing and unfair to these victims. If it had been your sister who had been forced to have non-consensual, unprotected sex, would you be so quick to dismiss it?

To be clear - I'm not sure if I sounded like one of the people dismissing the accusations - I'm not dismissing them. It's just that every news report I read characterizes the allegations differently, so I can't tell exactly what was alleged or how seriously to take the allegations.

My skepticism, at any rate, is not directed towards the women who made the allegations, but towards the governments of Sweden, Britain ... and the good old US of A most of all.

[Holbytla]

I'm all for being all open and having safeguards and watchdogs in place so no government can run amok. At the same time, I condone whatever means necessary to harness this criminal by whatever means and stop the leaks before more people get killed.

We spy. We have people killed. We manipulate elections. Our embassies do whatever they have to, to see that our countries interests are met.

So does every other capable country on the planet. That is how this world works. Julian Assange has stepped into a situation far beyond his means, and he is going to get swallowed up one way or another. And rightfully so.

[Hachimitsu]

On rethinking, I think a big part of my skepticism, is that I feel like my opinion is being manipulated. When i first heard of sexually based charges in the early fall, my first reaction was to believe he did do some sexual misconduct. Then they were dismissed.

My initial reaction on finding out Assange was in custody was that he was caught. Especially when the first headlines I read sort of said that and that his bail was denied. I thought no matter what, he should not have gone on the run. He deserved to get caught. Then I find out later the man turned himself in.

I sort of felt like I was played for some knee jerk reactions. Which I totally fell for. Because of that I have been extremely skeptical on just about everything and everyone involved since. The victims, the courts, Assange (I think he said some unfair things about Hilary Clinton), Wikileaks, anyone I may not have thought of right this second.

Especially, with sexually based charges/accusations they do illicit a serious knee jerk reaction from me. At this point if they came up with charges of shoplifting instead of sexually based crimes I think I would believe that more. If I come off as mean, or harsh or dismissive, so be it. I can't be naive anymore.

EDIT: I missed Holby's post.
I know that all governments do things like spying, secret killings etc. The US government is most certainly not alone in that. (In the back of my mind I have wondered if wikileaks had done this sort of leak on other countries.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think the women's stories have changed, only the media's reporting of them. And the political decision was to not charge him. The prosecutor that reviewed the evidence felt there was more than sufficient evidence to charge him. That was then overruled, and then eventually reinstated.

The fact that the women initially had consensual sex with him should not in any way preclude the charges. If a woman says no, that should mean no. Period. Even after initially saying yes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The thing that bothers me is that people seem to be buying into Assange's lawyers claim that this is a "honeytrap". And yet there is no indication whatsoever that either of these women either no each other or have any particularly political motivations. And their allegations are similar enough to indicate a pattern, but not identical enough to suggest a collaboration.

[vison]

There will be more Assanges. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

In the end, it will be a good thing. Whether it is or not, it will be reality.

[Holbytla]

There will be more Assanges. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

In the end, it will be a good thing. Whether it is or not, it will be reality.

Couldn't disagree more. They can't build a big enough yardarm to deal with this guy and any like him who under the pretense of "good" perform the most heinous type of espionage that ends up killing people.

How is the world a better place? He receives stolen goods in order to tell us about how pissed off Mohammar Quadaffi is that the murderer that killed 270 people in the Lockerbie crash may spend the rest of his days in prison. And?

How many deaths and potential deaths is Assange responsible for?

There are plenty of ways of exposing the wrongdoings of a country without endangering lives and reaping fame. Or better yet infamy.
This guy is scum and so are all who propose to "do good" regardless of lives they endanger.

I wish the reprehensible "alleged" sex crimes never came to light and this guy was extradited and convicted for espionage.

Yeah I pretty much hate his pretentious and murderous ways.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is a good article about the rape allegations against Assange:

What the Assange case reveals about rape in America

[nerdanel]

Thanks, V. If true, that helps. (You wrote earlier that the two women didn't know each other, but in one of the potentially incorrect articles I read, it stated that they met each other and went to the police together. As I said, what has actually been alleged remains unclear to me.)

As for the columnist's general points about rape policy, I agree with her general proposition that US rape laws are retrogressive and need updating. However, Sweden, like SF, is one of those charming, pointy-headed liberal places that I absolutely love, but that sometimes takes the liberal wackiness (I use that term affectionately) a bit too far. As in this:

In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it.

Say WHAT? As a diehard feminist, this is the sort of thing that makes me want to say to those involved, "Please stop being on my side."

(btw, the fact that the columnist noted this in a neutral-to-positive tone of voice made me discount her entire column just slightly.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, that's wacky (a technical legal term).

[elfshadow]

As an aside, I never know that sexual assault laws in Sweden were so ridiculous! From what I know, one woman accused Assange of having sex with her while she slept. Okay, if that's true, that is clearly rape to me. But the other is accusing him of not wearing a condom when he asked her to. Uh, what? That's sexual assault? If the guy doesn't want to wear a condom, don't sleep with him. That seems obvious. And if he did then force himself on her, then you would think he would be charge with rape straight out. I agree with nel. Laws like this aren't helping real rape victims at all. I won't comment on the validity of these accusations. However, I will say that I get VERY angry when I find out that someone has been falsely accused of rape. This completely undermines the egregiousness of rape and sexual assault, and makes people more likely to say, "She made it up! We had consensual sex!" and be believed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But the other is accusing him of not wearing a condom when he asked her to.

No, Elsha, that is not what the woman is saying. That is what people like Glen Beck are saying that she is saying. What she is saying that he held her down and forced her to have sex with him after she said she did not want to do so. In other words, that he raped her.

[River]

The way I read the article, she consented to sex if and only if a condom was used. Assange then neglected to put the condom on and she noticed after they started. She told him to stop. He didn't.

I asked my husband what that's called. He looked at me like I was stupid and said, "That's rape." And while he's a very progressive sort of guy, he does come from a rather patriarchical cultural background. If he can tell the difference, why can't the American press?

More to the point, why couldn't I?

[elfshadow]

Okay, I appreciate the clarification and that certainly changes my opinion the accusation. Anytime either partner says "no" or "stop", regardless of the reason, and the other partner does not stop, it is rape. The description of the accusations that I have heard on the news certainly make them seem far less serious. It has been very difficult to find a clear explanation of the charges at all, outside of the article that Voronwë posted.

[Hachimitsu]

Agian waht hasben reported seems unclear. From what I had read, it was said that the condom broke during sex (I am guessing this is the consensual part). After it broke (or split) one of the victims said stop (the non-consensual part) and he continued. That is rape. That most certainly does not seem right to me. Also like Nerdanel, from what I understood, the women met each other and went to the police together. *confused* I had heard about the asleep story, but not about the other victim being consciously awake saying no. From what I understand the women didn't go the police crying rape. It seems they went to police feeling that something was wrong though.

The thing that makes me doubt a great deal of what everyone is saying is there isn't one agreed upon story of what the victims have actually said available in the press. It seems as if there at least 3 accounts reported by news outlets as what the victims have said. Why can't reporters get it straight to see that a crime has clearly been committed? Where are there reporters getting their information from? Also at lest one of the accounts seem very very difficult to prove. How is a court going to prove a condom broke or spilt and prove what was done after? It seems something totally based on the opinion of the accuser and accusee's character, unless there is video evidence. Other allegations of physical coercion can be proven if injuries are documented.

Mind you I do not believe all of what Assange's lawyers are saying either, but it's hard to figure out who's part of what story is being verified or contradicted when no one seems to really know what the story is.

Also the timing of this case and particularly the confusion around this case seems extremely convenient. It just does.

*sorry if my posts seems a bit scattered (I am supposed to be studying).

[nerdanel]

What we really need is a leaked, exact copy of the police allegations. Where's Wikileaks when you need them.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is not unclear what the women are alleging, despite the muddled media reports. The allegations are serious. What of course is less clear is whether what they are saying really happened. But the fact that Assange's lawyer's strategy is pooh pooh what they said happened, rather than deny that what they said actually did happen, makes me more than a little suspicious.

[nerdanel]

Several things are unclear to me.

First, with respect to the woman with whom Assange allegedly had sex while awake:

- Did she originally object to the use of condoms, but then proceed voluntarily despite her preference for condoms? (if the latter, then initial consent was given even if the sex wasn't what she believed ideal)
- Was a condom allegedly used and did it break (would make Assange seem less culpable), or was a condom not used at all?
- If the former, did it allegedly become clear while sex was still ongoing that the condom broke? Clear to whom - Assange, the alleged victim, or both? Was Assange asked to stop and did he in fact not stop? (was consent withdrawn at some point?)
- Did Assange at any point allegedly use force to continue having sex with this victim?

With respect to the victim who was asleep (insert allegedlys throughout):

- Did she have a prior history with Assange that included consensual initiation of sex by one partner while the other partner was asleep? (in other words, was there any initial presumption of consent)
- What had she communicated to Assange about the use of condoms?
- Did she wake up at some point, and if so, what did she communicate to Assange at that point? Did she ask him to stop? If so, how did he respond? (in other words, was any initial consent that may have been given clearly withdrawn, and did he continue past that point)
- Did Assange at any point use force to continue having sex with this victim?

Apart from those specific allegations, it would be helpful to know with respect to both victims:

- What were the circumstances under which they reported these incidents to the police? Does their conduct indicate that they initially believed that they had suffered rape?
- Were they aware of each other (and each other's sexual relationships with Assange) before they went to the police? If they had communicated, what was the substance of their communications?

Unless you can furnish clear answers to these questions from a non-editorial source, I don't see how you can possibly claim that it is clear what the victims are alleging. The answers to these questions are not clear to me, and so long as they are unclear, I cannot form an opinion on the seriousness of the allegations. Again: this is not skepticism directed at the women. That'd be the case if I was clear on their actual allegations and was discounting them. I am pre-any state of skepticism towards the women because I still do not know what they have alleged.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is no evidence that I know of that either of these women were engaged in a long-term relationship with Assange. There is no evidence that they met before separately reporting the incidents to the police. To the best of my knowledge, based on the original charges (before they were overruled for political reasons) both were clear that they had communicated to Assange that they did not have sex, or to continue to have sex. That's good enough for me. From everything that I have seen, all of the information to the contrary is being disseminated by Assange's lawyer, engaging in the common practice of villainizing the victims. He has a been amazingly successful in that strategy, at least in the court of public opinion. But I see it so often that I am more skeptical of it than most.

[Túrin Turambar]

Personally, I'm going to hold off judgement until the trial itself. I'm going to wait and see what actually gets said in response to direct questions under oath.