Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Animavore]

What is more likely, that a noted egotists convinced of his own righteousness and superiority refused to wear a condom under a law not to dissimlar to laws that exist in, just domestically, a number of states in Australia.

OR

That Sweden drums up a rape charge, finds two women and coerces them to play along, all under pressure from the US Government in order to exact revenge on Assange in a way which will accomplish nothing, send no message to him or Wikileaks and play no role in diminishing the capacity or force the closure of wikileaks?

I think we both know the kind of answers you're going to get around here...
:sighsm:

WTF!? How is this in anyway rape?

[Trolldor]

Presumably because he forcibly coerced them.

[Animavore]

Sounds like bullshit to me (without buying into the conspiracy theory, of course).

[Hermit]

What is more likely, that a noted egotists convinced of his own righteousness and superiority refused to wear a condom under a law not to dissimlar to laws that exist in, just domestically, a number of states in Australia.

Although men and women have been prosecuted for willfully spreading STDs in general and AIDS in particular by not wearing condoms, as far as I can tell Sweden is the only country where not using a condom is an offense in itself. Be it as it may, getting Interpol on the case for this offense, and refusing bail to the accused, stinks to high heaven. As Naomi Wolf remarked in an article published by the Huffington post, it's an insult to the millions of rape victims, and a charade of the first order.

Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.

...

for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth.

...

Anyone who works in supporting women who have been raped knows from this grossly disproportionate response that Britain and Sweden, surely under pressure from the US, are cynically using the serious issue of rape as a fig leaf to cover the shameful issue of mafioso-like global collusion in silencing dissent.

Article in full here.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think Assange's culpability here hinges not on disclosure but on his participation, if any, prior to the downloading of the data. If he was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit espionage...

...or could at least be framed for it, he would have been charged accordingly by now. Being arrested for not wearing a condom instead, and having the bail application refused, makes the whole affair pretty obvious for what it is: a dirty trick by a government that has been embarrassed by the disclosures, and will seemingly stop at nothing to exact revenge.

I'm not sure how the US can force the Swedish police to indict him, though. I can't assume that the US State department just orders other countries' prosecutors to bring indictments. Yes, it's a bullshit charge - but lots of charges are bullshit, especially in the arena of new fangled sex crimes. From what I've read, the fact that Assange could even be said to have committed a crime in Sweden (based on what the women involved said he did) is astonishing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Presumably because he forcibly coerced them.

According to the news reports I have read, quoting the women involved, there is no allegation of force being used.

And, for it to be a crime for a man to agree to have sex only if he doesn't have to wear a condom is ludicrous. I mean, really, how paternalistic a law is this? What if he asked her to wear a female condom? Would she be guilty of a crime? I bet not.

[Hermit]

Presumably because he forcibly coerced them.

According to the accusers he did not. Besides, he was not charged for rape in the first place. He was charged for not wearing a condom.

[Coito ergo sum]

Presumably because he forcibly coerced them.

According to the accusers he did not. Besides, he was not charged for rape in the first place. He was charged for not wearing a condom.

Which is fucking LUDICROUS. Why aren't the women arrested for the same crime? They didn't wear condoms either (female condoms)....

[Hermit]

Which is fucking LUDICROUS.

Please don't shout. If you did that in Sweden, you might be arrested in the UK, and refused bail "for your own protection".

[maiforpeace]

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange

By Michael Moore
Posted: December 14, 2010 06:55 AM

Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

- Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

- The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

- Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

- Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

- Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

- Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah, Michael Moore, ever the tool-bag.....

[maiforpeace]

Ah, Michael Moore, ever the tool-bag.....

[Ian]

Can I ask - what's the point of crying "conspiracy" over Assange's charges?

Let's say the cynics are 100% correct, and that Sweden simply bowed to international pressure and had Assange's name put on Interpol in order to try and extradite him to Sweden to face these charges. If that's the case, then perhaps it's shameful... but what position are his supporters taking? That if he wasn't a famous and controversial figure, then he might've gotten away with fleeing from Sweden after charges were brought against him? What would the two Swedish women have to say about all that?

And what good does this do for Wikileaks' critics, really? The website can carry on just fine without him - and may even do so better than before. Assange at the helm, with his "I have no responsibilities for anything I publish" attitude, he was becoming a lightning rod for widespread criticism. Making the bastard into a martyr doesn't do Wikileaks' critics much good, and ultimately it doesn't do Wikileaks much good to remain associated with him (and his staff seems to know this, hence the creation of Openleaks).

[Coito ergo sum]

Can I ask - what's the point of crying "conspiracy" over Assange's charges?

Let's say the cynics are 100% correct, and that Sweden simply bowed to international pressure and had Assange's name put on Interpol in order to try and extradite him to Sweden to face these charges. If that's the case, then perhaps it's shameful... but what position are his supporters taking? That if he wasn't a famous and controversial figure, then he might've gotten away with fleeing from Sweden after charges were brought against him? What would the two Swedish women have to say about all that?

And what good does this do for Wikileaks' critics, really? The website can carry on just fine without him - and may even do so better than before. Assange at the helm, with his "I have no responsibilities for anything I publish" attitude, he was becoming a lightning rod for widespread criticism. Making the bastard into a martyr doesn't do Wikileaks' critics much good, and ultimately it doesn't do Wikileaks much good to remain associated with him (and his staff seems to know this, hence the creation of Openleaks).

For shame...Surely, the Obama Administration would never participate in such a thing...must be Bush and Cheney...Halliburton, Carlysle Group, and Bears, O' My!

I find myself on Assange's side, though, legally speaking. I think he's a tool, and has behaved irresponsibly and badly, but I have yet to see anything that he's done that is illegal.

Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, said that the US would assert the Espionage Act of 1917. He's right that if there is a crime here, then it's an espionage act crime. However, there is no fucking way that receiving information post-espionage and then publishing it is a crime under the Espionage Act. There has to be some participation of Assange or others at Wikileaks PRIOR TO the data dump. If some douchebag in the military breaks the law and grabs some confidential cables and then gives them to the New York Times, then the New York Times is not committing Espionage by publishing them. Neither would wikileaks in the same situation.

What concerns me is Holder's statement that, "if there are gaps in the law then we will move to close those gaps." I'm surprised that little ditty hasn't gotten more play. We'll close what "gaps," Mr. Holder? Oh - if it's not a crime we'll make it a crime after the fact? If that happens, we have a real constitutional issue, with a little something called an "ex post facto law" or even a "bill of attainder." You're going to plug a gap, just for Assange???? WTF???

Holder is a fuckwit of extraordinary proportions.

Then you have other dickheads calling for wikileaks to be named a "terrorist organization." Really? A media outlet publishes some confidential documents and they are "terrorists?" They haven't committed or even threatened a violent act, and they're "terrorists?" What sort of surreal Bizarro World have we strayed into?

And, then some dickweed Tom Flanagan up in Canada, and I think Sarah Palin, called for his assassination???? Assange to be ASSASSINATED for this? I am just flabbergasted....the guy hasn't even been indicted for a crime concerning the data released by wikileaks and folks are calling for his assassination? Wow....just...wow....

[klr]

I'm not sure if this story has been posted in the thread before now.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/10 ... breakaway/

Wikileaks insiders break away from 'Emperor' Assange

Fed up with what they perceive as autocratic leadership, former members of St Julian d'Assange's core inner circle at WikiLeaks will start a breakaway site on Monday called OpenLeaks. The site will act as an intermediary between whistleblowers and the press, reports Dagens Nyheter.

Defectors include Daniel Domscheit-Berg, otherwise known as Daniel Schmitt, who made a high-profile exit from WikiLeaks in September, and Herbert Snorrason, an Icelandic student. Both resigned in September. Snorrason is quoted as telling Assange, in an online chat log acquired by WiReD:

And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader.

Snorrason's departure was fomented by this declaration from Assange:

I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off.***

And he did.

According to the Swedish newspaper, the former inner circle "were dissatisfied with the operation's association with Assange's personal problems and how he used the organisation in his explanation of the criminal charges."

Assange handed himself in to police earlier this week, and is remanded in London pending an extradition hearing next week following a request from the Swedish authorities which want to speak to him in relation to two alleged sexual offences.

***If he really did say that, then ...