• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    William on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Catscatscats on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Catscatscats on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    riverdaughter on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Sweet Sue on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Sweet Sue on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Propertius on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Catscatscats on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    William on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    William on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    HerstoryRepeating on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Catscatscats on There are some days…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov   Jan »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      As usual, feel free to comment here on topics unrelated to recent posts.
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

More Assange


Nick Davies of The Guardian:

Jagger also insists that she has a right to know who leaked the file to the Guardian and says that the leak was part of “an obvious effort to conduct a smear campaign” against Assange. Setting aside for a moment the head-splitting hypocrisy that a supporter of WikiLeaks wants to hunt down the source of a leak, there are two similar problems with this claim. First, Jagger has no idea who leaked that file (and made no attempt to find out). Second, if she did know, she would discover that the source had no intention of smearing Assange in any way.

I am not going to serve up that source’s identity to satisfy Jagger’s temper. A police file like that gets widely distributed. It happened to make its way quite legitimately into the hands of somebody I have come across in the past. This person has absolutely no connection with the Swedish prosecutor or the Swedish police or any other individual or organization with any kind of antipathy to Assange. The source passed it on, and I got it translated.

Assange’s UK lawyer tried very hard to persuade us to suppress the file. He argued that since Assange had been a source for our stories, we should ‘protect’ him. I reckon that that is an invitation to journalistic corruption, to hide information in order to curry favor with a source. We were right to publish.

Jagger calls this ‘trial by media’. I call it an attempt to inject some evidence into a global debate which has been fueled by speculation and misinformation. On August 21, when this story first broke, Assange used Twitter to spread the idea that the two women who had gone to the police were engaged in ‘dirty tricks’. His lawyer subsequently claimed that a ‘honeytrap’ had been sprung. Assange’s celebrity supporters have announced to the mass media that the allegations are ‘without foundation’, that ‘there is no prima facie evidence’. These statements have gone around the world. Millions of well-meaning people have been persuaded to believe them. The two women, who have been identified on the Internet, have had their reputations ruined by the claim that they cruelly colluded to destroy an innocent man. The Swedish police and prosecutors have been held up to ridicule as corrupt and/or incompetent partners in the plot.

Some people got their knickers twisted last week over alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Turns out there was none.

Yes, I am smirking.

Raw Story:

Middle Eastern leaders who’ve become friendly with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could face severe retribution from their local populations if WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is killed or jailed for a lengthy amount of time.

That’s because, in a recent interview with Arabic news network Al Jazeera, Assange allegedly warned that he had a document which reveals the identities of officials who voluntarily cultivated relationships with the CIA.

“These officials are spies for the US in their countries,” he reportedly told the network.

β€œIf I am killed or detained for a long time, there are 2,000 websites ready to publish the remaining files,” Assange was quoted as having said. “We have protected these websites through very safe passwords.”

Of course nobody has tried to kill him yet, and the only charges against him are the ones in Sweden, but any minute now . . .

Bill Weinberg:

The most blatantly irritating thing is abject demonization of the women who have made the charges of sexual abuse against Assange. In any other context, the summary dismissal of a woman’s rape accusations would be seen as utterly politically incorrect. But Assange gets away with anti-feminist rhetoric that would do Rush Limbaugh proud. In an interview now receiving widespread coverage in the British press (e.g. The Telegraph, Dec. 26), Assange says: “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism… I fell into a hornets’ nest of revolutionary feminism.” Assange added that one of the women who said she was assaulted took a “trophy photo” of him lying naked in her bed.

Excuse me while I get out the brain bleach.


Advertisements

74 Responses

  1. blame the victim, men have been doing that for thousands of years. If a woman has sex with you once that doesn’t mean she wants to be assaulted in her sleep.
    Now can I have the brain bleach when you are finished with it?

    • Do you want the bucket too?

    • Can we please separate his two areas of responsibility? There’s wikileaks and then there’s the rape charges.
      I see a lot of gray in both areas. That doesn’t mean I support him but ge had the potential to expose the real secret government, the bankers, and he didn’t.
      And while he’s a creep, his sexual partners should have acted more responsibly if they no longer wanted to have sex with him. I’m not blaming them for what happened. I just want people of both sexes to conduct themselves with more discipline.
      And no, I don’t think you can be raped in your sleep unless you’re a really heavy sleeper. I need to be convinced by a physician.
      I urge women not to immediately label these actions rape until all if the facts are out. We shouldnt be assuming anything yet.

      • He’s a piece of shit either way.

        She says they had consensual sex but she woke up the next morning to find him having intercourse with her to which she had not consented.

        When she asked him if he was wearing anything, he had allegedly said: β€œI am wearing you.”

        • That’s an insult to pieces of shit. πŸ™‚

          • He reminds me of Obama.

            Someone can truthfully say “Obama didn’t break the law” but lots of the things he did were not right.

            Like what he did to Alice Palmer.

        • Am I arguing that he is not a piece of shit? No, I am not. That statement would creep me right out.
          BUT, the time to ask the question was BEFORE they started having sex.
          Haven’t we all had incidences like this? Sex a few hours before, sleep, sex a little later on. This is not all that unusual. If you fall asleep naked, that doesn’t automatically mean consent but it’s not exactly making a statement either, is it?
          What might she have done differently? She could have gotten out of bed after fuck#1 and told him he had to go home. She could have gotten dressed after fuck#1 before she got back into bed, clearly indicating that negotiations for fuck#2 had to start at square one. She could have kept a condom on her side of the bed in an easy to reach place.
          But no, she did none if these things. She went to sleep without clearly indicating that he was a lousy lay and age didn’t want to have sex with him again. Then she claims that she slept through his humping her leg before he had sex with her again. I’m sorry, where’s the rape?
          I’m not saying it’s all her fault. I’m saying that women should accept some of the responsibility for what happens to them. For it to be rape-to ME- there has to be a degree of forced coercion. Waiting until the penis is in the vagina to object doesn’t feel that forced to me. Asking him to stop without effect might be rape. I need to hear all the facts.
          That doesn’t make him any less detestable. I only wish women would stop acting like they’re always being violated in circumstances where they failed to assert their authority early and forcefully. It’s your sexuality. You control it. If you don’t want sex, don’t trap yourself.
          But I wasn’t there and I’m not Sweden. Assange needs to abide by its rules.

          • >”Asking him to stop without effect might be rape.”
            I totally agree. I would definitely consider that rape. What we’re told in the police report is instead. “”According to her statement, she said: ‘You better not have HIV’ and he answered: ‘Of course not,'” but “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night.”

            Another thing I find slightly odd. In her blog, one of the accusers (A) outlined something very similar to the reported scenario in advance (in 2006).
            http://(deleted).wordpress.com/2006/06/01/valdtakt/
            Basically, she asked – if sex begins (with consent), and in the middle of sex the woman is no longer interested in continuing, and stops responding and eventually tries to push the guy away, but says nothing (i.e. doesn’t tell him to stop – e.g. perhaps because afraid this might make the guy angry) – would it be possible to convict the guy of rape under Swedish law. One of the comments to this blog entry is an extremely long IM conversation between someone who describes herself as a close friend of A and a second party, in which they dissect possible scenarios in a detailed fashion and link to the appropriate legal texts.

            When A went to the police, she asserted that it was just to see if there was some way to require Assange to get an STD test. That she was just going for “advice”, as opposed to going to report a crime. Given her prior blog entry (with detailed dissection of scenarios and linking to legal text in the comments)….I’m skeptical. It seems pretty clear that she would have known exactly how it would play out, having posted about and analyzed such a scenario in advance. The whole thing is odd.

          • Actually “we” are not told anything in the police report, and it’s not for “us” to determine whether it’s rape or not.

            What I find more than just slightly odd is, why you, or anyone else for that matter – who, I presume, wasn’t there – have to dig, and in your case back to 2006, to find something “incriminating” about, you know, the victim. If you’ll pardon me, isn’t it a bit like a cyber substitute for going through her drawers?

            I also find it not only odd but unacceptable that you put up the full name of the accuser. I know others have long since done that, but repeating it doesn’t make it any more legitimate.

            The rumour and gossip free facts are:
            Someone reported something to the police in Stockholm. The police decided that the incidents reported seemed not quite right and furthered the report to the on-duty prosecutor. The prosecutor agreed and put out an arrest order on Julian Assange, accusing him of rape and sexual harassment.

            Part of the initial accusation (rape) was reversed (and the arrest order dismissed), and then later reversed back again (yes, this really does happen sometimes within the justice system).

            As for now the accusations, which can still change as the case progresses, are as follows:
            One count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape.

            I’m quite confident that the Swedish Prosecution Authorities are very well equipped to judge in this case – and abide by Swedish law. And they, btw, not the accusers nor reporters or bloggers decide the content of the charge.

            Now, if only Assange would go to Sweden and be questioned.

          • You mean alleged victim. Right now, she is a plaintiff, am I right, myiq?
            So far, it has not been established that she was harmed.
            I think there is a real danger when women do not critically examine the accusations. It hardly leads to equality if we are constantly portraying ourselves as victims whose version of events must never be questioned. If we do not assign some responsibility in ambiguous cases like these, we remove agency from the female. Is this REALLY what we want?
            That’s not to say “she asked for it”. It means she may not have made her intentions clear. Assigning responsibility and weighing each parties culpability is fairer to me and leads to a better outcome.
            That being said, Assange would get some form of punishment if I were the judge. But I would be careful to not call it rape because from the details we already know, that’s not what this is.
            They’re not crazy. They’re not vindictive. They do seem to be pushing the envelope though.

          • The term is “complaining witness” because the people are the plaintiff.

            Juries are given very specific instructions as to what the elements of the alleged offense(s) are. Their job is to decide whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the case.

            They DO NOT get to decide what the elements SHOULD be, but juries sometimes ignore the instructions and refuse to convict because they don’t like the law. That’s called “jury nullification.”

          • People have put up the full name of the accused all over the place (which was released by prosector’s office on day one, contrary to Swedish law). I don’t see anyone complaining about the use of the full name of the accused. As far as the accuser’s full name – it’s even been published in the NY Times. If it’s unacceptable that we mention her name, we should also probably not be talking about Assange.

      • It really is a crying shame that from the very start most found it so hard, not to say impossible, to differentiate between:

        a) Julian Assange accused of rape and sexual harassment and – Julian Assange the founder of Wikileaks.
        b) Assange the p e r s o n and – Wikileaks the o r g a n i z a t i o n.
        c) The Swedish Prosecution Authorities wanting Assange for questioning and – the US Government, a l l e g e d l y, wanting him.

        As for the accusations we really don’t know the details except that he is accused of rape which, if convicted, can give him up to 4 years in prison. It’s because of this, the seriousness, that Interpol got involved.

        • The problem is that Assange made himself indistinguishable from the organization.

          He IS WikiLeaks.

          • Pretty much. He’s the face of wikileaks cosmetics. I haven’t seen the organization reach him with another model yet.
            They’re probably all sitting around saying, “whoa, so glad I’m not Julian. Dude, he is the poster boy. Thank god Interpol isn’t looking for my characteristic white hair and broken rubbers. Thanks for taking one for the team, bro!”

        • Wow, that’s one of the most sensible comments I’ve read on the subject.
          Well, that and myiq’s clear headed analysis of the situation.

        • Assange is a sexist creep. I don’t care about him. I do care tons about indiscriminate leaking and irresponsible acts that put lives at risk. I think Wikileaks has already made the left look foolish and out of touch. I think Assange has hurt the anti war movement…if he really cared about the movement more than his ego.

  2. I went to talk left last night. The sort of universal support everyone there was giving him freaked me out.
    It reminds me of he support so many on the left gave Reverend “Hillary ain’t never been called a N*gger” Wright before he was thrown under the bus by Obama.
    I just don’t get it.

    • It seems to me that TL is an outlier these days.

      After the Guardian article lots of people realized that guilty or innocent, Assange is a piece of shit.

      It went from “Free Julian” to “Julian who?”

      They’re still stuck on WikiLeaks though.

      • Well, at lest some on the left are learning. The previous guy they should have seen for an idiot is still a hero to many of them. As for TL, they’ve been down the wrong path for a while. It would be nice if the turned that boat around.

        • And yes, I mixed my metaphors on purpose. πŸ™‚

          • After the Polanski Wankfestivus I think hope is gone.

          • Hey maybe they can get Assange and Polanski together. A match made in…. TL?

          • I took a short glance at them earlier in the week. Michael Vick was the topic….the double standard was hurting my eyes. Bristol Palin has no right to speak to teens on the subject of abstinence (because she knows the consequences of careless), but Vick is awesome in all he is doing for dogs today.

            It has reached a level of stupid over there that isn’t worth trying to sift through.

          • TL used to be one of my favorite blogs.

            Then Jeralyn lost her mind

          • And still hasnt found it after three years.

          • “TL used to be one of my favorite blogs.”

            Mine too! It had a fabulous commentariat during the primaries. That site and this saved me, and helped me trust my own eyes and ears during that period!

    • Hey – I keep getting “yelled” at by Anne (a person whose comments I usually enjoy, FTR) because I just like to “play gotcha” when I find little facts that make Assange (gasp!) look bad.

      They still really want to hero-worship him over there. He is a hournalist of the highest order, doncha know!

      • Does that reaction remind you of anything?

        (Ob*m* s*pp*rt*rs)

        • I’m waiting for the equivalent of the race card with this guy. I’m not sure what it will be, but it will probably be creative, since it’s the creative class. /snark

        • The funny thing is – some of Assange’s biggest defenders are not Obama supporters on that site.

          They are shocked that governments might have an interest (rightly or wrongly) of shutting this guy up and seeking retribution!

          • That doesn’t surprise me.

            You can only belong to one cult at a time

          • I’m feeling so left out. Why don’t I feel comfy in a cult like so many do?

          • Bad upbringing.
            Fuck, how do I know?? I’ve Been trying toneork that out for several years now and everytime I think I have a handle on it, it turns out I leave something out. Fir example, why is it that I’m the only sibling who hasn’t 1) become a born again Christian who 2.) become a republican and 3) become a Glenn Beck fan? We all had the same parents. But my brother and sister are much more like my mother and I’m just not.
            I’m beginning to think there’s a nature element to this that we have overlooked. We’re just wired differently. I probably got my cult resistance from my father.

          • We moved around like crazy when I was a kid. Well as an adult too come to think of it. Always changing social setting…that’s where I probably get my resistance to koolaid.

      • Everyone has a subject that makes us batshit crazy. Stay at home moms are my nolo me tangere area.

      • hournatlist? That was a Freudian slip if I ever saw one.

  3. MontanaMaven:

    Montana played a huge part in suppressing free speech during WWI. In light of all the noise about Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and Joe Lieberman’s “upgrading” The Espionage Act of 1917, it ‘s probably a good idea to take a look backwards to the Montana Council of Defense. (Yes, President Obama and MSNBC, it’s a good idea to look backwards because leaning forwards can more often than not have you falling on your face.)

    I don’t disagree with what MM has to say. I’m not in favor of stricter laws, in fact I’m worried that WikiLeaks will result in them.

    I don’t know if Assange can actually be prosecuted for anything in the U.S. I certainly don’t think he’s a terrorist.

    If he was extradited here it would be interesting to see what happens when cults collide. It would be the Obama administration prosecuting him so which side would the Obots come down on?

    Let’s not forget that Assange hates Hillary and was hoping to force her to resign or be fired.

  4. So, Assange has decided to hold our CIA hostage, eh? Way to go, Julian. That’s right, make it even harder to track uranium and keep an eye on the global nutcases.
    I think he’s crossed the line. He has no sense of responsibility. If he did, he would have released the bank leaks first.
    What did he accomplish?

    • He got a book deal

    • The responsibility issue is a big one. But not leaking the bank stuff first, you know the thing that would get at the real power and money behind a lot of crap going on, is telling. So far it seems to be all about him and perhaps all about starting a war with Iran.

      • This is why I don’t understand the “He’s a journalist!” argument. If he was truly doing all this because he believed transparency is good for democracy (as he says), then he would have released everything. But this piecemeal crap is all about him getting famous, and now getting a book deal. It has nothing to do with integrity or journalistic ethics.

      • I believe his son, Daniel, was actually pretty close to the truth about his dad and his motives, when he tweeted:

        “I think he just has a tendency to follow the path of highest resistance, simply for the sake of defiance.”

        • That could be a key insight into his character. So when a woman insists on sex only with a condom, does his defiant streak kick in then too?

          *****A

          • well no, RD thinks that if you have sex with someone once you should leave or it is your fault if they assault you in your sleep. Yes, and remember not to wear short skirts or go to bars……there are situations when men just can not be expected to control their penises,

        • Isn’t that some sort of pathological personality disorder. Saw that on an episode of Law & Order.

    • I agree that the banks should have been first. I mean, why not focus on the government’s owners, instead of the government?

      Incidentally, if the BoA material comes out and is exculpatory toward the execs, I’m putting on my foil hat and proclaiming the guy a mole.

    • “Our CIA”? Really?

      • Paid for by our tax dollars whether we like it or not. It’s *your* government too Lambert. I assume you’re not blogging from somewhere in New Zealand.

    • He and his supporters in this have the same problem that true-believer ideological conservatives have. He starts from the premise that “govt is bad and wicked and intrinsically evil and oppressive”, therefore harming it in any fashion is a moral act, and consequences are not a consideration for the pure-of-belief.

      If you think about it, although his beef with govt is not the same tickboxes as the uber-righties’ beef with govt, the moral compass is similar. Ideology trumps common sense.

      • The world through my eyes at age fourteen. I remember it well. Sorry to be so blunt. πŸ™‚

  5. A police file […] happened to make its way quite legitimately into the hands of somebody I have come across in the past. This person has absolutely no connection with the Swedish prosecutor or the Swedish police or any other individual or organization with any kind of antipathy to Assange. The source passed it on, and I got it translated.

    !? How can a police report be “legitimately” passed on? At one point it must have been illegally leaked and then, in my perception still illegally passed on?

    But apart from that I don’t remember Ms. Jagger making a fuss when the initial police report was leaked to a Swedish tabloid. You know the leak that made the whole world wide media blow up in horrified accusations of “conspiracy”, “US Government plot”, “CIA”, “Pentagon”, “He better watch his back” and what not. Did she ever complain about the initial – and ongoing! – β€˜trial by media’ where the two Swedish women, and not Assange, are the vilified, defamed, smeared victims?

  6. The leaked police report reminds me of the saying: What’s good for the goose . . .

    Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: