Julian Assange And A Broken Condom ‘Rape’ In Sweden: A Timeline
Printer-friendly version
>
from Anorak
A day-by-day account of Mr. Assange’s meetings, travels and sexual hook-ups leading up to his arrest on rape charges in Britain.
Julian Assange And A Broken Condom ‘Rape’ In Sweden: A Timeline
from Anorak
This article, with the accompanying illustration previously appeared on anorak.co.uk/
JULIAN Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is wanted on suspicion of rape. Is it a set up, a smear? The Swedish word for it is sexfalla, which sort of means honeytrap. Assange slept with two women in August 2010. And then they said he raped them because he failed to wear a condom.
The timeline of events:
August 11: Assange is in Sweden. He is to speak at the behest of the Brotherhood Movement. His address will be on “war and the role of the media”.
He is met by a woman. At university she was the “campus sexual equality officer”. She is a feminist. She has a posting on her website called: “7 steps to legal revenge.” It’s a guide to getting back at an ex-lover.
Assange and she agree that he can stay at her Stockholm apartment.
August 12: Assange has drinks at the Beirut cafe in Stokholm.
August 13: The pair have dinner. They go back to her place and have sex. He wears a condom. It breaks.
August 14: The woman throws a party at her home for Assange.
Assange is at the headquarters of the Swedish trade union. In the front row is a woman. She is wearing a pink jumper. She stands out from the crowd. She is from Enkoping. She thinks Assange is “interesting, brave and admirable”. She has contacted the Brotherhood Movement and is keen to be involved. The Movement does not offer a job. But she attends the seminar anyhow.
At the seminar, Woman B bought Assange a computer cable. In computing terms this is, possibly, akin to roses.
At the seminar, it is believed the two women meet each other.
The woman in the pink jumper joins Assange and his associates for lunch. At the eatery, Assange puts his arm around her. She says, “I was flattered. It was obvious he was flirting.”
The lunch ends. The pair got to the cinema to watch Deep Sea. She says they were “intimate”. They go for a walk in a park. Assange calls her “attractive”.
You can read the courtship here. It’s one based on cheese.
They ended up at the city’s Natural History Museum, where Assange headed to a computer console and, to the woman’s clear annoyance, twittered about his day.
You can feel the romance. But he has to go. There is to be a crayfish party he has been invited to.
She heads back to Enkoping. He returns by taxi to the first woman’s flat.
The woman tweets:
“Sitting outside… nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!”
August 16: The woman from Enkoping calls Assange. They arrange to meet in Stockholm. They agree to return to her place in Enkoping. But he has no cash to pay for tickets. He does not want to use a credit card because he says it could be “tracked”. She agrees to pay for both of them. At her place they have sex.
Assange wears a condom.
August 17: They have sex again. He wears no condom. The pair have breakfast together. She buys him a return ticket to Stockholm.
Then the second woman calls the first women. She tells her of the unprotected sex.
August 20: The two women go to a Stockholm police station. The first woman alleges that during sex Assange had “deliberately” broken the condom. The police consider the option that the women are victims. They think there has been possible rape and sexual molestation. Prosecuting attorney Maria Kjellstand agrees that Assange should be questioned on suspicion of rape.
August 21: Police look for Assange. They do not find him.
August 22: The news hits the press.
The chief prosecutor looks at the police papers. She dismisses the rape charge. But now the first woman is talking to the press. She says:
“In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse.”
Adding:
“The accusations were not set up by the Pentagon or anybody else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man with a twisted view of women, who has a problem accepting the word ‘no’.”
Who are the press?
The allegation was first brought to our attention by Swedish tabloid The Expressen. It’s owned by the Bonnier family, who have considerable business interests in Europe and the US. The paper has:
A commitment to protect the editorial voice from commercial and political interests and the courage to publish controversial media content
What of the source? Kristinn Hrafnsson works with Assange. Says he:
“He didn’t know of the charges until he read them in the right wing tabloid Expressen this morning. There are powerful organisations who want to do harm to WikiLeaks.”
August 24: Assange talks to the Swedish press:
Q: But is it not best in this situation to be as transparent as possible?
Yes, but I do not want to drag people’s private lives through the dirt without having the whole situation clear to me.
Why have they turned to the police? What lies behind their actions? What I can say is that I have never, either in Sweden or in any other country, had sex with someone that they haven’t consented to.
August 28: The search phrase “Assange rape” yields about 4,390,000 results on Google. In not one of those results is he guilty.
Sept 1: Julian Assange is judged to be a possible rapist as the case reopens. The Swedish Prosecution Authority says:
“There is reason to believe a crime has been committed. More investigations are necessary.”
Marianne Ny, director of public prosecution, says:
“…considering information available at present, my judgment is that the classification of the crime is rape.”
“Present judgement” is a phrase that suggests that the judgement may change.
Nov 18: A Swedish court issues an international arrest warrant for Assange. Assange issues a statement via this lawyers, who call the charges “bizarre”:
The warrant for his arrest was rightly withdrawn within 24 hours by Chief prosecutor Eva Finne, who found that there was no “reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Yet his name had already been deliberately and unlawfully disclosed to the press by Swedish authorities. The “rape” story was carried around the world and has caused Mr. Assange and his organization irreparable harm.
Eva Finne’s decision to drop the “rape” investigation was reversed after the intervention of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the women. The case was given to a specific prosecutor, Marianne Ny.
Nov 20: InterPol issues a “Red Notice” about Assange. This is “a valid request for provisional arrest.”
Nov 25: Russian state radio smears Asange:
His [Assange] culpability for alleged rapes in Sweden has yet to be proven in Stockholm’s courts, but most psychologists interviewed by Western media say that he could’ve done this, given his troubled childhood.
And so to today, where Assange is hiding out in the UK and his lawyers are fighting his arrest. For what it is worth, Anorak believes Assange should return freely to Sweden and defend himself there. Wikileleaks can continue to publish without him.
UPDATE: He’s been nicked and refused bail.
- 's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Email this page- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Not surprisingly, Swedes big hypocrities like Americans
Sweden's Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange's Arrest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1435_b_797188.html
"Well, I was in Norway in March of this year at a global gathering for women leaders on International Women's Day, and heard extensively from specialists in sex crime and victims' rights in Sweden. So I knew this position taken by the male-dominated US, British and Swedish media was, basically, horsesh-t. But none of the media outlets hyperventilating now about how this global-manhunt/Bourne-identity-chase-scene-level treatment of a sex crime allegation originating in Sweden must be 'normative' has bothered to do any actual reporting of how rape -- let alone the far more ambiguous charges of Assange's accusers, which are not charges of rape but of a category called 'sex by surprise,' which has no analog elsewhere -- is actually prosecuted in Sweden.
Guess what: Sweden has HIGHER rates of rape than other comparable countries -- including higher than the US and Britain, higher than Denmark and Finland -- and the same Swedish authorities going after Assange do a worse job prosecuting reported rapes than do police and the judiciary in any comparable country. And these are flat-out, unambiguous reported rape cases, not the 'sex by surprise' Assange charges involving situations that began consensually.
Indeed, the Swedish authorities -- who are now being depicted as global feminist sex-crime-avenger superheroes in blue capes -- were shamed by a 2008 Amnesty International report, "Case Closed", as being far more dismissive of rape, and far more insulting to rape victims who can be portrayed as 'asking for it' by drinking or any kind of sexual ambiguity -- than any other country in their comparison group. As Amnesty International put it in a blistering attack: "Swedish Rapists Get Impunity."
The same Swedish prosecutors who are now claiming custody of Julian Assange are, indeed, so shamefully negligent in prosecuting Swedish rapists who did not happen to embarrass the United States government that a woman who has been raped in Sweden is ten times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than she is of getting any kind of legal proceeding on her behalf undertaken by Swedish prosecutors.
Of all Swedish reported rapes (and remember this is rape, not "molestation"), fewer result in legal proceedings of any kind than do comparable cases in the US, Finland and Norway.
The same prosecutors going after Assange for an ambiguous situation are doing worse in getting convictions today than they were forty-five years ago: "despite the number of rapes reported to the police quadrupling over the past 20 years, the percentage of reported rapes ending in conviction is markedly lower today than it was in 1965."
Sweden's horrific record in prosecuting all the accused rapists and men accused of sex crime in Sweden who are not Julian Assange drew consternation from as high up as the UN. UN rapporteur Yakin Ertürk warned in February 2007, that there is a shocking discrepancy "between the apparent progress in achieving gender equality and the reports of continued violence against women in the country."
The actual number of rapes in Sweden in 2006 was estimated to be close to 30,000, according to Swedish data compilation. This number indicates that Swedish women have so little faith in their own legal system that 85-90 percent do not bother reporting the crime to the same police who are ankle-braceleting Assange, as a 2007 study showed that only '5-10 percent of all rapes are reported to the police' -- a reporting rate lower than the US and the UK, which have reporting rates of about 13-30 percent, a shameful enough set of numbers in itself.
The statistical survey by the Swedish organization BRÅ showed that of that five or ten percent of rapes that resulted in reporting -- fewer than thirteen percent resulted in a police decision to start any legal proceedings at all. "The phenomenon of alleged offenses not formally being reported to the police or dropped before reaching court is termed 'attrition'," the report remarks sadly. "Amnesty slams the Swedish judicial system and the prevalence of attrition within it, concluding that, "in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity," Heape writes. In other words, 1.3 women in a thousand who is raped in Sweden will not receive any legal response whatsoever."
There you have it folks, as I'm fond of saying, "Wonders never cease." LOL In light of the Swedish authorities negligence and callousness in prosecuting rape cases, maybe I can revisit my need for the 10 page consent document.
Where's the "justice" when rape occurs in the US military?
It's interesting how some want to make Assange the "Michael Vick" of date rape, but stick their heads in the sands when the "Stars, and Stripes Forever" experience crisis proportions of the rape of servicewomen. Rather than tryiing the untangle the Assange "date rape" allegations, how about decrying this:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/aclu-military-release-rape-records/
Military won’t release rape records, ACLU says in lawsuit
By The Associated Press
Monday, December 13th, 2010 -- 9:32 pm
Sexual assault pervades the military, but the Pentagon refuses to release records that fully document the problem and how it is handled, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups said in a federal lawsuit that seeks access to the records.
Tens of thousands of service members have reported some form of sexual assault, harassment or trauma in the past decade, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in New Haven against the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The plaintiffs include the Service Women's Action Network, the ACLU of Connecticut and Yale Law School students.
The groups that filed suit want information on the number of acquittals, convictions and sentences, the number of disability claims related to sexual trauma that were accepted and rejected, and the number of sexual harassment complaints. The records are needed to determine the extent of the problem and what has been done to address it, the groups say.
"The government's refusal to even take the first step of providing comprehensive and accurate information about the sexual trauma inflicted upon our women and men in uniform ... is all too telling," said Anuradha Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of SWAN. (You don't say??) "The DOD and VA should put the interests of service members first and expose information on the extent of sexual trauma in the military to the sanitizing light of day."
Goddamn American hypocrisy and bullshit never ceases to amaze. Let's launch a fucking Interpol "Manhunt" for Assange, who stayed in Sweden FORTY DAYS after these women dropped their drawers, to give his side of the story. But let's ignore or pretend that REAL coercive sexual exploitation of women doesn't occur in the vaunted and glorified US Military.
As a matter of fact, where was the so-called Women's Lib Movement when US women went public and filed law suits, with facts 10X more compelling than what these floosies are alleging about Assange, stories about military contractors sanctioning rape and molestation, I didn't hear a goddamn peep from you Libbers when this went down? Probably faded in the fucking wood work like the so-called "antiwar movement."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/americas/13iht-abuse.1.10002059....
Here we are again, more "American Exceptionalism" bullshit in glaring detail, for all the world to see. Are Americans fucking nuts, or do they really think the world buys their amoral bullshit prepetrating as moral indignation??? Here's a "cause" for you Feminazis or are you to beholden to the "Star and Stripes Forever???" (The King can do no wrong. LOL) Clean up shit in your own backyard before you go off half-cocked trying to analyze other countries laws. Some, not all, of yall are fucking hypocrites, who don't give a damn about women's rights or bodies especially if its a blot on the US war machine. If the shoe doesn't fit don't take it personally, if it does.. well.....
Pepe Escobar breaks it down
THE ROVING EYE
Naked emperor hails sex by surprise
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/LL09Aa01.html
"Sex by surprise" is legally considered an offense only in Sweden. Anywhere else - including the US and the United Kingdom - quite a few women are rushing to clarify that if it really means what the definition implies, they more than welcome it.
Four charges are involved in the Assange thriller; one "Miss A", 31, a blonde, feminist, social democrat whom once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men, poses as victim of "unlawful coercion"; then sex with a malfunctioning condom; then "deliberate molestation"; and finally there's "sex by surprise" with one "Miss W", 27, an art photographer and avowed Assange groupie.
"Miss A" must have enjoyed the mess around, because even after the broken condom the first time, they were seen together the day after. And it was "Miss W" herself who invited Assange to her apartment - even paying for his train ticket. During the trip, Assange seems to have preferred his computer to her company - as the dejected groupie told police. Sex ensued, anyway - with no condom.
Supposing this is the real story, Assange too could have grounds for prosecuting; the resourceful groupie should have handed him both the train ticket and the condom. One thing at least is quite clear; gone are the days of free, independent and much-envied Swedish girls, now obviously replaced by guided-missile prudes.
It gets "girlish". The two women eventually get together to gossip - and realize they had something in common; sharing a bed with Assange. That's when "Miss W" suddenly became supremely troubled regarding her "unprotected sex" and decided to go to the police with "Miss A". The first prosecutor - a woman - issued an arrest warrant for "rape and molestation". She was overruled the day after by another female prosecutor. Then the current prosecutor - also a woman - reopened the investigation, claiming she had "new information".
Whether this "senior political figure" has some shady Central Intelligence Agency-style designs is open to speculation. But the most absurd thing is that "Miss A" herself told a Swedish tabloid that she never wanted Assange to be charged with rape. Maybe she should tell that to the new prosecutor. Moreover, Assange's lawyer Stephens has said many times that his client remained in Sweden for 40 days offering to meet the accusing prosecutor to tell his version of the events."
A ha, so now we get a better understanding of the "imminent danger" Assange placed these women in, we understand the "Interpol Manhunt" Mat Lauer got a hard on talking about, we understand better how Assange was in "hiding" and not available to authorities after the Swedish authorities issued their warrant. Was he laying low in Tora Bora or Swaziland??? Or, do we understand that Assange hung around Sweden for FORTY (40) DAYS!! imploring the Swedish authorities to get his side of the story?
It's abundantly clear that the Swedish authorities took the women's allegations seriously, so seriously they initially dismissed them and then ignored Assange's pleas for an interview FORTY DAYS after the sex acts, and all of this happened no less, in a European country harder on alleged rapists than any other on the planet, whose laws are more favorable to women accusers than any on the planet. It's a shame what this case will do for the mythology of Swedish porn, sensuality and licentiousness. Ingrid Bergman must be turning in her grave. Gotta be bad for tourism, no doubt Thailand will see a spike in tourist visas when the facts come out.
Can't wait to hear the real evidence
"WikiLeaks 'rape' victims had hidden agendas ... and I've seen the proof says Julian Assange's lawyer
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html#ixzz180SRfB9q
Mr Hurtig said in an exclusive interview from his Stockholm office: ‘From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place.
‘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.’
He has asked for Swedish prosecutors’ permission to disclose more ‘sensational’ information.
‘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.’
Mr Hurtig, a top sex-crime defence lawyer, is ready to fly to London and present the evidence when Mr Assange appears in court this week – if he is given the all-clear."
Mr Hurtig said that before leaving Sweden to lecture in Britain at the end of September, Mr Assange tried in vain several times to arrange an interview with Stockholm police.
The strong sense of women’s rights in Sweden means 53 rape allegations are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe.
Also, under Swedish law there are gradations of rape. There is the most serious kind, involving major violence, ‘regular rape’, which could include a degree of violence, and ‘unlawful coercion’, which might involve putting emotional pressure on someone.
The case may turn on whether consensual sex turned into non-consensual sex – and whether a man’s decision not to use a condom can amount to a crime.
But Mr Hurtig remains confident that Mr Assange will get a fair hearing in Sweden.
‘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.’
Looks like the Swedes ain't the only ones struggling with the ability to think logically when it comes to sex.
He asked the Swedish courts for permission to disclose "more senational" information." Well that confirms what I wrote previously about Rape Shield Laws, in fact it appears the Swedes have a more restrictive version than the United States. In fact it's clear their laws are even more favorable to "victims" than the accused. Let's hear the "evidence" in a court of law, in an official forum, I'm tired of "allegations" too. But is it not clear that there's a reason we can't hear the "evidence" under scutiny of cross-examination, and that's because the "evidence" is non-existant? Assange tried to make arrangements to talk to the Swedish police, but they refused, yet turn around and issue an warrant in concert with Interpol? Puhleez.
By the way, I can't wait to hear the facts about the "victim" who caught Assange having sex with her while she was asleep. When's the last time any of yall had sex while sleeping? If the sex is so bad that you can sleep through it, then what the hell were you doing sharing the same bed with the lame lover, the next morning? That explanation ought to be priceless.
That's what I thought, the real world always has a way of fucking up "theories." I wonder if the "sleep victim" jumped up and called 911? Or immediately went to the hospital for a rape kit, or did she bust a nut and go back to sleep???
Angelina, when a lawyer worth half his salt gets to cross examine these "alleged victims," it's going to create fodder for SNL and Conan O'Brien like you'd never believe.
Tough going, but it appears we all made it
It looks like everybody survived the weekend without any "Sex by Surprise." That's encouraging. Or maybe you did get a little "Sex by Surprise," but bore no condom malfunctions? I see that Trojan has a new "flava," "Fire and Ice." .
I trust we won't see any product liability suits, class actions anyway, if the "Fire" ain't sufficiently "hot" or the "Ice" not sufficiently "cool," or the Strawberry version tasted more like Passion Fruit?
Have you guys been actually reading some these leaks?
US embassy cables: US monitors China and its expanding role in Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/250144?INTCM...
WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed
US embassy cables reveal top executive's claims that company 'knows everything' about key decisions in government ministries
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-ni...
WikiLeaks documents show Shell Oil domination of Nigeria
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/nige-d10.shtml
POISONING BLACK BABIES!!!!!
WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout'
Cables say drug giant hired investigators to find evidence of corruption on Nigerian attorney general to persuade him to drop legal action
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-n...
WikiLeaks cables: Rampant corruption 'could push Kenya back into violence'
• Country's ruling elite part of a 'culture of impunity'
• American diplomats keep watch on rise of China in Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-kenya-viole...
WikiLeaks cables: Consult us before using intelligence to commit war crimes, US tells Uganda
US sought assurances that intelligence was being used 'in compliance with the law of armed conflict' during long-running Ugandan battle against Joseph Kony's rebel movement
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-uganda-war-...
Hijacked Weapons
A Discreet Deal for the War in Sudan
US dispatches have cleared up one of the most baffling weapons affairs of the recent past. In 2008, pirates hijacked a ship full of tanks and other military hardware. Kenya apparently intended to send the materiel on to Southern Sudan. But they were unprepared for the US reaction.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733775,00.html
Haiti Wikileaks Cables:
http://haitiinformationproject.blogspot.com/2010/12/haiti-wikileaks-cabl...
WikiLeaks cables: Eritrean poverty and patriotism under 'unhinged dictator'
US ambassador portrays Isaias Afwerki as part menace, part weirdo – and tastes 'aptly named' sewa at lunch with minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-eritrea-president-...
WikiLeaks cables reveal differing views of 'crazy', 'charming' Robert Mugabe
Robert Mugabe variously described as frail, fit, a superb debater and having 'lost the plot of normal human interaction'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-robert-mugabe-zimb...
WikiLeaks cables reveal secret plan to push Mugabe out in Zimbabwe
Bloodless coup plotted by exiles involved president sharing power with a prime minister – as eventually happened
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-mugabe-coup...
WikiLeaks cables: Oil giants squeeze Chávez as Venezuela struggles
American diplomats say president is now desperate to attract foreign partners after nationalisation frightened many away
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-oil-giants-squeeze...
WikiLeaks cables paint ANC youth leader as potential kingmaker
Julius Malema boasts league helped Jacob Zuma oust Thabo Mbeki – and dismisses idea of female South African president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-julius-male...
WikiLeaks cables dismiss Hugo Chávez's nuclear ambitions
Leaked dispatches describe Venezuelan government as too shambolic and broke to exploit uranium or build reactors
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-venezuela-c...
Hillary Clinton questions Cristina Kirchner's mental health
Secret cable sent to US embassy in Argentina asks diplomats to find out how president handles stress
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/hillary-clinton-cristina-kir...
CRAZY!
Foreign contractors hired Afghan 'dancing boys', WikiLeaks cable reveals
Episode fuelled Afghan demands that private security firms be brought much more under government control
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-da...
Chávez and Uribe 'almost came to blows' at summit, says WikiLeaks
Latin American unity summit in Mexico dissolved into 'banana republic' shoving match with Raúl Castro as the referee
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/chavez-uribe-summit-wikileaks
Diplomatic cables: Gaddafi risked nuclear disaster after UN slight
Highly enriched and unstable uranium left on Libyan runway because leader was banned from pitching tent in New York
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-libya-enric...
The Gadhafi Cables
US Diplomats Struggle with an Eccentric Despot
For American diplomats, Libya is a notorious hardship post. With his quirky habits, hard bargaining, whiny sons and Ukrainian nurses, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is far from easy to deal with -- and a master of political extortion.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,732901,00.html
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord
- WikiLeaks cables: Cancún climate talks doomed to fail, says EU president
- Cancún climate change summit: Week one in pictures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulat...
WikiLeaks cables: Lockerbie bomber freed after Gaddafi's 'thuggish' threats
Megrahi case led to threats against UK's Libyan interests, while Scots who released him had turned down 'a parade of treats'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-gaddafi-britain-lo...
WikiLeaks cables: Muammar Gaddafi – mercurial, phobic 'King of Culture'
Embassy cables report 'childlike' attitude towards US, 'obsessive dependence' on trusted staff and apparent lack of bank account
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-muammar-gaddafi-li...
WikiLeaks cables: Tunisia blocks site reporting 'hatred' of first lady
US embassy warns Tunisian anger over corruption and unemployment, as well as 'intense dislike' for president's wife, threaten country's stability
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-tunisia-first-lady...
Here's something else C.N.
another example of the hypocrisy, rank stupidity, and scared-as shit lies. On every MSM broadcast, the CFR cast of characters, diplomats, academia and think tank pricks, stuck to the lie, adopted whole heartedly by the MSM and US apologists for secrecy, that "There was nothing unusual about the content of the cables, it was all stuff we already knew." I even hear some hard core Libs say that on several blogs, although I assume what they mean is: "The criminality of the US is not surprising." Because the DETAILS of the criminality ARE, the world may have suspected the double-cross but the details are more startling. They are earth-shattering or shall I say American Exceptionalism Myth Shattering revelations.
Yet, while they try to pooh, pooh the content of the leaked cables as "same ol bullshit," they are shitting in their pants and losing their cookies trying to come up with ways to prosecute a Media Outlet owned by non-US citizens... and they have the fucking nerve to applaud the Nobel Phoney Prize given to the Chinese dissident, as if there are no political prisoners in the US, as if their intent is not to make Assange the most famous political prisoner in the US??
Here's Raimondo's take:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/12/13/wikileaks-conjures-litvine...
"We keep hearing there’s nothing in the WikiLeaks cables we didn’t already know – this from people who, more often than not, are frothing at the mouth about Julian Assange’s alleged “treason” and “anti-American” villainy. Of course, if these cables are no big deal, then the charge of having done great harm to the American empire rings hollow.
For a (Con)stitutional Law Scholar, Obama is a fucking nit wit along with being a facist. Prudence would dictate he leave Assange along and stick to the lie, that has taken root, that "there is nothing new or revealing in the leaks, it's just hardworking US ambassadors at work." But being scared pussies, they panic, to their detriment. Harvard brillance my ass. LOL
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/13-5
The US Government's Pursuit of WikiLeaks Could Be Its Undoing
by Peter Kirwan
Some excerpts:
"Those engaged in this effort should enjoy the thrill of the chase. If Assange is successfully extradited to the US, a sobering experience will follow. Prosecuting the founder of WikiLeaks could very easily turn into a nightmare. In formal terms, Julian Assange will be the man standing trial. But the participant with the most to lose will be the US government. Victory, if it arrives in any formal sense, will feel pyrrhic.
The US government's position is weak because it possesses relatively few reliable legal tools. Prosecuting Assange under The Espionage Act of 1917, America's version of Britain's Official Secrets Act, still looks like the best option."
When the White House went after Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971, it used The Espionage Act. But Assange's position isn't analogous to that of Ellsberg. Instead, it's closer to that of The New York Times, which published Ellsberg's documents. Even the Nixon administration held back from prosecuting The Times, preferring instead to injunct the newspaper while it pursued Ellsberg through the criminal courts.
The Nixon administration was trying to circumvent the First Amendment. Yet in order to prosecute Assange, the Obama administration may have to confront the First Amendment head on. It may be forced to argue that WikiLeaks isn't a media organization, but merely a web site, devoid of editorial functions, that publishes raw data.
The argument that only "established" media outlets can count on First Amendment protection is profoundly at odds with the reality of media production and consumption in the 21st century. Any prosecution on these grounds will provoke storms of criticism and ridicule.
Neither has Assange made this argument easy for prosecutors. WikiLeaks asked Washington for assistance with redacting the cables and met with a refusal. Yet when The New York Times asked the US government for advice on what to censor, it received suggestions. "The other news organizations supported these redactions," New York Times editor Bill Keller recently wrote in an online discussion. "WikiLeaks has indicated that it intends to do likewise. And as a matter of news interest, we will watch their website to see what they do."
If Assange has been sensible, WikiLeaks is exercising the same editorial judgments as the world's leading newspapers. It's instructive to listen to what Sylvie Kauffmann, executive editor of Le Monde (which also collaborated with WikiLeaks) has to say about this:..."
"...Sit back and add it all up: if the founder of WikiLeaks enters a US courtroom, his options will multiply. The government's will diminish. This looks like a classic ju-jitsu moment in which an underpowered defendant can turn the sheer body weight of a prosecutor to his advantage."
So there you have it folks, the brilliant WH legal team, led by Chiquita Banana Bandit Eric Holder, are about to make goddamn fools out of themselves. They couldn't even prosecute AIPAC and Weissman for straight up espionage, providing government secrets to a foreign country and yet they hope to prosecute Assange?. Check out the US's logic:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/julian-assange-journalist-terrorist-c...
The US State Department has said they do not consider Assange to be a journalist, claiming that having a "political objective" disqualifies one from the title. The Obama administration ordered a Department of Justice investigation into Assange, to determine whether the US can prosecute him for espionage. If he's charged and convicted, Assange would be the first foreign national outside of government to be charged of the crime."
Get that folks, "having a poltical objective disqualifies one from being a journalist." Unfuckingbelievable, huh? Does that make Faux News a terrorist organization or, perhaps closer to home, BAR? And yall thought it was my typical bullshit hyperbole when I said time and again, don't be surprised if Ford, Dixon and Kimberly are designated "enemy combatants." Who knows? In the next 6 months or so, when they write an article detailing how Hizbollah has been a responsible player in Lebanese politics, fucking Joe Liberman might call up the Chaquita Banana Legal Wiz, Eric Holder? Or perhaps Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com is in their sights for criticizing Obama morphing into Geo. Bush 2 at the speed of light? If he explains why a President should not be able to assassinate a US citizen, in secrecy, w/o probable cause, or an adjudication, or the ability to seek judicial relief to challenge the secret order (which they won't admit or deny too) is Greenwald now aiding and abetting the enemy? Is he a journalist, media critic, or does he have a "political objective."
I want get into as many hypotheticals as I did regarding date rape, scenarios, perhaps yall can use your own creativity by now?? Plus the date rape hypotheticals were just bloody fun, and I promise I'm done with them.
I don't know who's going to be the world's biggest laughing stock, the United States and it's hollow claim of being a nation of laws or Sweden and it's hollow claims of being a sexual libertine, paradise. LOL Don't you just love seeing "Smart Power" in action, real time?? And as for Sweden, I guess I won't be videtaping any sex acts there, not for fun anyway, that and a notary public in the bedroom to notarize my 10 page consent document.
Oh, btw, on the subject of just "routine" shit in the leaked cables; of course yall knew this already, right?:
http://original.antiwar.com/prince/2010/12/13/wikileaks-reveals-us-twist...
WikiLeaks Reveals US Twisted Ethiopia’s Arm to Invade Somalia
In answer to your question: "Yes"
Raw Story has a pretty good daily summary of the leaks. Two things I pondered this weekend. All governments are criminal enterprises, unfortunately not subject to RICO, and second, know I understand why Americans, including myself, love mafia/mobster movies. We are a gansta nation through and through. Even the Vatican is a criminal enterprise, but of course we learned that in our first year of college in Western Civ I and II.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/money-laundering-scandal-rocks-vatica...
Picture of one of Assange's accusers at the links provided below
Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative
By David Edwards
"Catlin observed that both Ardin and Sofia Wilén, the second accuser, sent SMS messages and tweets boasting of their conquests following the alleged "rapes."
"In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the 'crime' and tweeted to her followers that she is with the 'the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!'" he wrote.
"The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape," Catlin said.
"Ardin has also published a seven step guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/
Report: Assange accuser flees to Middle East, may not be cooperating with police
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-accuser-stops-cooperating-pol...
Confused About The Sex Charges Against Julian Assange? Let Beck And His Blackboard Explain
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/confused-about-the-sex-charges-against-julian...
WikiLeaks 'rape' victims had hidden agendas ... and I've seen the proof says Julian Assange's lawyer
By Angella Johnson
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-h...
Naked perversion of "justice" by US and its toadies
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/wiki-d10.shtml
Assange confronts the very real danger of being assassinated or “disappeared” if he were handed over to the American authorities. Senior political figures, Democrats and Republicans, have identified the WikiLeaks’ editor as an “enemy combatant” and terrorist and demanded his assassination. The Obama administration has said and done nothing to distance itself from such outrageous provocations.
The immediate aim of Washington and its allies appears to be to use the trumped up Swedish allegations to mire Assange in legal proceedings for as long as possible, diverting him from overseeing the cable release and the defence of WikiLeaks against on-line attacks that are reportedly being coordinated from within the White House
Numerous experts in international law have condemned the legal proceedings against Assange. While the journalist has not even been charged with any offence in Sweden, he has been denied bail and locked up in a segregated unit of London’s Wandsworth prison, with only one hour of exercise permitted each day and “limited access” to the internet. Moreover, he has been detained before Swedish prosecutors have had to present any prima facie evidence that there is a case to answer. His legal team is reportedly already preparing to challenge the attempted extradition in the London High Court. The Independent has reported: “If they lose the case there, they can take it all the way to the Supreme Court, a process which could last many months.”
In a letter to the British Guardian published Wednesday, Katrin Axelsson from Women Against Rape—an organisation that campaigns for more sex offenders to be punished—questioned the “unusual zeal” with which the WikiLeaks’ founder was being pursued. “Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000,” she wrote. “Yet bail following rape allegations is routine... There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women’s safety.”
"Just the facts, please." "Bail following rape allegations is ROUTINE..." And Assange hasn't even been CHARGED WITH A CRIME? Any one hear ever hear of a "Probable Cause" hearing? Uh huh, hope so.
By the Way....
Let's not forget that most Western nations, presumably Sweden included-- I stress presumably because I can't say for certain-- have what are universally known as "Rape Shield Laws," which provide strict evidentiary requirements on allowing a woman's sexual history into issue in a criminal prosecution for rape. In adition to the standard rule that evidence be "relevant," the Shield Laws arguably go one step further to not allow gratitious information concerning a women's sex habits to come into evidence at a criminal trial. Who a women slept with in college is irrelevant, but whether or not she likes to be handcuffed or tied up isn't. Most judges are conservative on allowing exceptions to the Rape Shield Laws.
But certainly one would agree that the IMMEDIATE circumstances and context of the sex act(s) are completely relevant to both criminal intent and w/n a "crime was committed." There are no bright lines, each case will turn on it's own facts. Jury's don't typically find an accused innocent because the woman "dressed revealingly" or "flirted," or words to that effect, they are smarter than that. But what is a jury to think when you give your "rapist" money and host a party for him? And arrange another tryst? And you're not some "confused" twenty-something who's discovering her sexuality? No, indeed your the Head of Diversity and Women's Studies at State U. Nah, say what you will, but juries do, occassionally, exercise common sense. After all, that's why we use them. Talk to me after you define: "Sex by Surprise," let's see if that term escapes "dissassembling?"
A woman is not going to give "sloppy seconds and thirds" to a sex partner and then cry rape and a conviction is obtained without substantial evidence showing force or coercion on the "4th" go round. Maybe the 4th act he wanted to "get rough," or was even requested to do so??? Maybe she wanted him to bring out the handcuffs and blindfolds? Or experiment with a little S &M. Is one guilty of "Sex by Surprise" if the paddle leaves an unintended bruise, if the cuffs are too tight??
You can dismiss my comments as childish and shrill all you want, but I'm dealing with the REAL WORLD, not the theoretical one where I "rape" you because you had a headache and didn't really, really feel like it, though you climaxed. Don't take my word for it, put those facts in front of a jury and lets' see their line-drawing.
Which brings me to the last word on "coercion," let's wait and see what facts are brought to bear, but let's also wait and see if Assange gets a fair trial. The Jury Instruction on "Sex by Surprise," has to be one for the ages. Perhaps they'll resurrect King Solomon from the dead to draft it?
For the record, so my comments are not misinterpreted, and as I believe I made clear previously, I abhor rape or sex offenses of any kind, any coercive action, including government coercion to "shut the fuck up," I would also add that with all the sex available on the web, all the hookup websites with millions of members on the web, strong arming some pussy is the last thing any man needs to do. A man ought to get a life sentence for incompetence and ineptitude if he has to coerce sex given the licentious nature of Americans or most people on this planet. Whether we like it or not, the "Free Love" generation is alive and well. Ask the lady at Duke who scored the sexual skills and proclivities of the Lacross team, if you don't believe me. I wonder if we should prosecute her for "Sex by Surprise???"
It's the friggen Gomer Pyle prosecution: "Surprise, Surprise"
Wonder what everyone will think if (a big if) Assange is extradited to Sweden (perhaps shuttled there on one of those "CIA" planes... ooohhh!!!) and he ends up, worse-case scenario, being convicted of the "Gomer Pyle Rape," "Sex by Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."
Hot damn, who'd a believed it. Of course I heard this long ago, so I'm not personally "surprised, surprised." Wonder how all will feel when Assange ends up with a $715 dollar fine and "time-served" after the big, scary, secret "international manhunt." The sexually liberated Swedes will make the Saudi perverts/hypocrites the envy of the world. "Do as I say, not as I do." Shit could only be happening in "Bizarro World, " of which the US of A is the Capital. LOL
Here's the latest and greatest, you won't hear it from Dan Abrams on MSNBC anytime soon.
'Sex by Surprise' at Heart of Assange Criminal Probe
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-...
The international manhunt for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a sex-crime investigation in Sweden apparently stems from a condom malfunction.
Assange's London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.
"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.
"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."
Quote: "We don't know what "Sex by Surpirse" is, they haven't told us." NO SHIT!!!! I am dying to hear what "Sex by Surprise" is myself. Is the offense committed when your lover surprises you with rose petals and a negligee? Or is it an offense when you walk in on your lover and her new lover? Is it an offense when you hook up with the hot babe in the foodcourt you thought wouldn't give you the time of day?" That would be "Sex by Surprise" in my book? Or is it an offense, when your present lover, out of the blue, puts the flannel p.j.s aways and pulls some Frederick's of Hollywood shit out of the drawer? Hard to convince me "thats" not "Sex by Surprise." The scenarios are obviously endless, limited only by the creativity of the actors and circumstances. Sex by Surprise!!!
What a fucking crock. Doesn't Trojan issue a disclaimer as does the health industry that condoms occassionally fail? LOL This shit is a slap in the face to the thousands and millions of women brutally raped across this world, particulary in war zones. Any Interpol warrants for these bastards? A fucking Interpol "red alert" for "Sex by Surprise," but nothing, not one goddamn thing for War Criminals here, in the U.K., African, and Asia roaming the goddamn planet with impunity. No Interpol warrants either for the bastards who caved the world economy selling derivatives and engaging in ponzi schems.
Remind me to never visit Sweden, I'd hate to misinterpret their "sexually liberal culture" and be accused of "Sex by Surprise." In fact, to get arrested after CONSENSUAL sex would surprise the hell out of me.
p.s. The American MSM is a fucking joke, that much should be clear by now. Can't wait to hear the Today Show break down "Sex by Surprise." Reminds me so vividly what Mr. Ford and Dixon said about "immigration laws," and the so-called Constitution of the United States. I paraphrase and put in my own words: "The law is whatever the Elites and Plutocrats pull out of their asses." "The Rule of Law," my ass.
p.s.s. The friggen Swedes will look like Gomer Pyle or perhaps more appropriately Barney Fife when all is said and done.
Now we're getting somewhere
Looks like the British court system won't be a patsy for the US.
UK Judge to Seek Actual Evidence in Assange Bail Test
Other Judges Irked by Previous Ruling Denying Whistleblower Bail
by Jason Ditz, December 08, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/08/uk-judge-to-seek-actual-evidence-in-assange-bail-test/
"...Now Riddle is said to be planning to give Assange a second chance at bail next week, and gave the lawyer representing the Swedish government something of a shock when he insisted that they actually have to produce some sort of evidence against Assange.
The lawyer, Gemma Lindfield, had insisted that evidence was “not relevant” to the effort to send Assange to Sweden to face charges. A number of British officials are said to be concerned that when Assange is sent to Sweden he will end up in US government possession and simply “disappear.”
Perhaps the Brits are more than a little concerned that Assange end up in one of America's Gulags, that wouldn't bode well would it, since our vaunted US legal system has it's roots in England.
"The evidence was not relevant" in the effort to send Assange to Sweden. What a crock of shit.
Urgh.
Jesus, BAR, you're better than this. This is not the line of a radical organisation: when rape charges come out, it is just as reactionary and misogynist to automatically jump to the defence of someone whose work has radical value as it would be to jump to the defence of Rush Limbaugh for the same. Who do you think gets hurt when the default response to every rape or sexual assault charge reported in the media is a widespread assumption of deceit -- when we know that such false claims are extremely rare, and yet a tiny percentage of arrests lead to conviction?
And here we have massive misrepresentation in the reportage to boot. Assange is not being charged with having sex without a condom. He's being charged with doing so *where consent was explicitly predicated on condom usage*, and again *where he was explicitly asked to stop after condom breakage but did not*. If these charges are true, they unambiguously constitute rape: do not try to muddy the waters.
Wikileaks' operation, and its value, does not depend on Assange's innocence or guilt.
Should we treat the accusations as if WikiLeaks did not exist?
That would be utterly irresponsible. The fact is that WikiLeaks does exist, and has caused considerable embarrassment to the powers that be. You've got politicians in this country publicly calling for the man's murder. The powers that be have done far worse than set up phony rape charges on targets of particular interest. So this is not a garden variety rape accusation and cannot be treated as one.
It's an incontrovertible fact that the governments of multiple countries and any number of powerful corporations possess ample motives and means to want to set Assange up, to discredit and shut down Wikleaks, and some of these forces have done worse before.
The police official who examined the facts of the case, as the story above indicates, dismissed it. The case was reinstated at the instigation of a Swedish politician with a history of ties to the CIA, it has been revealed, including something to do with the notorious US sponsored terrorist Luis Posado, who planted a bomb aboard a Cuban airliner in the 70s that killed 57 people.
Concerned
Bruce:
I am concerned that these are the charges/accussations being used against Assange. I would have thought they would have been a little more sophisticated than this maybe like a tax evasion charge or something or embezzling but stating it was consensual sex and then accussing rape in the same sentence is amazing to me. I would have expected a little bit more thought on this. Either the powers that be are stupid or they believe the world population is stupid.
Good reason to be concerned about political persecution
Have you noticed how no one wants to talk about the fact that, despite the "incidents" occuring this past Summer, Sweden HAS NOT EVEN CHARGED ASSANGE WITH A CRIME!!! Let alone refusing to talk to him 40 days after the sex acts.
The Obama and Swedish governments are going to tie themselves into a gordian knot trying to prosecute Assange due in part to making this an international case. Assange's lawyers are arguing that international law applies here especially given that Assange has been charged no crime in Sweden, and on that basis, they argue (as I've more or less suggested over the past week by using hypotheticals that were dismissed as "disassembling"), that what Assange has been accused of DOESN'T EVEN CONSTITUTE A CRIME IN ENGLAND!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/14/julian-assange-wikileaks
Arguing that Assange should be granted bail, Robertson challenged the legal basis on which the WikiLeaks founder had been arrested. He said: "We doubt whether this actual category of rape would be rape under English law," he told the court. (That has been my implication all along).
"I'm very pleased that he is out," said the writer and political activist Tariq Ali. "I think the extradition charges should now be dealt with in the same way. His barrister made the same point, that this is not rape under English law and there is absolutely no reason for extradition. We are delighted he is out and he should never have been locked up in the first place."
Now assuming Assange IS eventually charged in Sweden (something the authorities would have done in any other "lawful" jurisdiction where "serious rape" charges were alleged), it remains doubtful that Assange will be found guility, because of the shady, skimpy facts and circumstances of this case. Here's the World Socialist Website's take on the "evidence.":
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/wiki-d14.shtml
"In the al-Jazeera interview, Stephens said, “[T]he Swedes, we understand, have said that if he comes to Sweden, they will defer their interest in him to the Americans. Now that shows some level of collusion and embarrassment, so it does seem to me what we have here is nothing more than holding charges…so ultimately they can get their mitts on him.”
These remarks are the most direct allegation from Assange’s defense team that the Swedish charges are simply a device to seize the WikiLeaks leader and then turn him over for prosecution by the US government, or perhaps to be detained in a military or CIA prison."
In his comments to al-Jazeera, Stephens also previewed some of the arguments that Assange’s defense team will make at Tuesday’s court hearing in London. “He is entitled under international law, under Swedish law, to know the charges or the investigation that’s going on, the allegations made against him and the nature of the evidence which is said to support it,” Stephens said. “As I sit here talking to you now, he hasn’t that information, so he’s not been able to comprehensively rebut” the charges against him." (That would be a probable cause hearing for you non-Law & Order fans).
“Julian remains prepared to meet consensually with the Swedish prosecutor should she care to come to London,” he continued. “There is not a necessity for a show trial if she doesn’t want it.”
In a lengthy analysis of the purported assaults, the Independent found that even if the two women are deemed credible witnesses—despite evidence that a right-wing politician prompted them to file charges—there is still no case to be made to sustain a conviction.
The article explained: “But with no forensic evidence taken or available, all of these alleged offences seem to be a matter of one adult’s word against that of another. Unless recording devices were in use in the two bedrooms concerned, or there are details…yet to be made public, it is very hard to see how the offences could be conclusively proved.”
That's exactly what I've been screaming here all along, even if you assume the witnesses are credible, it's some "he said, she said," bullshit. "He inserted his penis while I slept," yeah right, until you rolled over and busted a nut. "He used his skinny ass body to weigh me down," yeah, until you flipped him over and rode him on top. Not very elegant or classy language I know, just real shit in a real world.
"It's hard to see how the offences could be conclusively proved."
This shit wouldn't last a probable cause hearing in any other jurisidction. Or, is it, as the facts abundantly show, the Swedes don't give a damn about "rape charges" anyway? What's stopping them from filing them? Is it because there is no physical evidence, no forensic evidence? Or because the charges don't mean shit in the first place and are a ruse to hold Assange for the Americans? What stopped them from refusing Assange's request to speak with them CONSENUALLY the 40 days he was in Sweden after boning the tricks? Yall know damn well what the answers are.
I won't reply to Enlightened
I won't reply to Enlightened Cynic's comment in any detail, because it contains all the standard dissembling about what constitutes rape and dissection of women's actions that are all over every single public rape trial ever, and genuinely makes me feel pretty ill.
But to you, then, Bruce: sure, of course the "powers that be" are more than capable of all sorts of vicious and sickening stuff, including fabricating rape charges, and it's not perfectly feasible that that has happened here. But this article goes way beyond that.
In a context where rape is shockingly common; where every rape case in the public eye is treated with the default assumption of "crying rape" (well, except perhaps when talking about Black men with white women, or where there's a class discrepancy) and where most people think this is a common occurrence; where women's actions and sexual histories are routinely scrutinised for ways in which they aren't rapeable (i.e. ways in which they do not fit the model of good middle class, straight, white girl who's never had sex or touched alcohol and dresses in 19th century clothing); and where what constitutes rape is consistently blurred, any article which does all of these things perpetuates the deep misogyny that continues to run through our societies.
And if that isn't bad enough, this article goes for gross and blatant misrepresentation of the claims - to say that this is simply about not wearing a condom is a characterisation that both minimises rape and the seriousness of rape claims and utterly discredits any article's reliability. Moreover, beyond the fact that this smears the women involved generally, it questions the reliability of one on the basis that she was the campus sexual equality officer (with scare quotes, too) and a feminist - may I say, what the fucking fuck?
If a friend of mine - particularly a male one - came out with stuff like this, I would distance myself like a shot because I would know at best they could not be trusted (as in -- well, this: http://flipfloppingjoy.com/2009/09/15/1915/) and at worst, walking round with the kind of attitudes underlying this, were potential rapists. And if you think that's an overreaction, consider what experiences might lead someone to have to adopt such a stance.
Thanks Angelica
Thanks Angelica for voicing a different perspective. I had a hard time with this "article" also. It seems to be more stream of consciousness writing than coherent and fact based reporting.
No Wonder!
Anorak is a British gossip site, which explains why the "article" makes questionable allegations and the writing seems so disjointed.
The Brits may seem reserved to most Yanks, but they are actually quite wild. Nowhere are they wilder than in the realm of tabloid gossip rags and sites. This site seems to be targeted to the 18 to 24 crowd who will swallow anything as long as it makes their sex hormones swirl.
For the record, I believe these charges are part of a smear campaign by the usual suspects. Rape allegations have a way of distracting people from facts and leading them into unproductive tangents. Especially since rape is a crime where everyone involved has muck thrown at them.
I would much prefer a thoughtful analysis by one of BAR's group of writers than Anorak's slivers of meat swaddled in meaningless fat.
The "article" is a timeline with some fact insertion
Cohernt writing? Obviously not coherent in that its a timeline. "Fact based reporting?" Yes indeed, there are some FACTS here that are obviously gleaned from police reports or official accounts, or eyewitness accounts in some degree.
However, given that the mighty and wondrous vanguards and legal organs of Western Civilization appear in no hurry to get Assange's side of the story, or are taking their time (if indeed allowing it at all) providing Assange a PROBALE CAUSE HEARING, I guess we all have to speculate, huh? And every day I see another story trying to "psychoanalyze" Julian Assange, not very much FACT-BASED reporting there, but no one seems to complain. Everybody's comfortable with character assassination of Asssange because, in no small part, he's an "accused rapist." That and being obedient sheep. The "rape accusations" is the propaganda line propped up in breathless stories with no end by the MSM, that, and the notion that Assange is a "little weird and eccentric and perhaps freaky." Accusing him of forgery and shoplifting or misusing donations would not have quite the same effect.
I guess the notion of a fair trial doesn't bother some, if not most. Where the fuck do you escape "this" type of pre-trial publicity?
The question, on the coercion issue, or "morality" issue(s) isn't whether or not women ARE behaving like men, the answer to that is a resounding "yes," the question, perhaps, is should they? Looks like the Assange "victims" are suffering from "post-orgasm regret" per the article below.
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/09/sex-should-women-be-more-l...
http://news.google.com/nwshp?q&ar=1292338231
If we'd written the piece ourselves it might be more nuanced...
...but we're a very small shop, functioning at the limits of our capacity as it is. We have to take three or four articles from outside in each week, and we thought it essential to address the WikiLeaks matter from a number of perspectives.
We appreciate that the sensibilities of many tend to lead them to grant nearly automatic credence to any allegation of rape, in deference to the millions of very real victims of very real sexual assault. On the other hand, this particular case looks more than a little like a setup. There wasn't time to write our own piece on it, so we felt like we had to reprint one from somewhere else, and this was it.
If you'd written a piece instead with a similar contention, we might gladly have published that instead. But you didn't. So we didn't.
Just the Facts Ma'am
Quote:
I won't reply to Enlightened Cynic's comment in any detail, because it contains all the standard dissembling about what constitutes rape and dissection of women's actions that are all over every single public rape trial ever."
"Every single public trial, EVER???" Nah, don't think so. That's a remarkable stretch by any standard. Read carefully, I am not "dissembling," I've simply recited what the Swedish prosecutors said, is it not clear that CONSENT is not an issue for THEM?? That the question is one of condom malfunction? Why don't you define what "Sex by Surprise," means? Is it not clear, that at least at THIS point, the Swedish authorities are focusing on condom usage?
You can make valid points about "date rape" without cosigning something that appears patently trumped up. Accuse me of "dissasembling," No. You should be accusing the Swedish prosecutors of "dissembling. Swedish Authorities: "We can't tell you what "Sex by Surprise is," we only "know it" when we "see it." In case you are unawares, the Constitutions (at least in the US of A) abhors unfettered discretion where officicals can make up shit as they go.
The Supreme Court enunciated the "void for vagueness" doctrine decades ago. In the Civil Rights Era those nebulous, discretion-fettered statues were commonly used to attack free speech exercise: the right to petition, to march or other wise exercise civil disobedience. The NAACP legal defense teams routinely attacked statues making "vagrancy" or "loud and opprobrius conduct," illegal, statues used repeatedly to deny African Americans First Amendment rights. "Sex by Surprise" has not been defined by Swedish law, or so it appears, and neither you nor I can define it. That ought to tell you something about the point I'm making about unfettered discretion and how that infringes on personal freedoms.
Last but not least, lest we forget, Martin Luther King, Jr. was also a likely victim of the "honeypot" scheme. King's extramarital affairs were well documented by the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover mulled over countless times using King's indiscretions to destroy King and collaterally the Civil Rights Movement. So don't get it twisted yourself. Don't act like sex isn't a political weapon/tool.
What ought to bother you is the extent to which sex is ubiquitous in our culture, the extent to which women literally sell their bodies on t.v. and in movies and commercials. I can't watch a Big Mac or Hardees commercial during half time of a game without a crotch or ass shot. One can't even buy a goddamn pair of sneakers without a crotch or ass shot. Ain't nothing but hot, lusty, "horny" women on Reality T.V. (Don't blame me for reciting the facts, I get sick of watching the shit) If I were a woman I'd be more concerned about the signals that your "sisters" are sending, I'd be concerned that these images will only make it harder to prosecute rape cases.
What I say or think hardly matters when titties, ass and pussy is flaunted every 30 seconds on the boob tube (pardon the pun). Btw, given my string of luck or lack thereof, if I get laid this weekend, that might be "Sex by Surprise."
Don't make Julian Assange the goddamn "Michael Vick" of rape cases, it won't pass muster. These women jumped on his dick, sorry, but it is what it is, even the Swedish Prosecutors recognize this cold, hard fact. And surely, you are intellectually honest enough to recognize this is a POLITICAL PROSECUTION not one predicted on some heinous crime, if a crime were committed at all?
http://law.jrank.org/pages/11152/Void-Vagueness-Doctrine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-jeh.html
Oh, god - again, I'm not
Oh, god - again, I'm not inclined to reply to the bulk of this. But because you keep bringing it up, here - http://www.tressugar.com/Sex-Surprise-Swedish-Law-12475176 - is some clarification on "sex by surprise":
It turns out "sex by surprise" is nowhere to be found in Swedish law. It's really a bad translation of överraskningssex, Swedish slang for rape, which has positive connotations and is used to discuss the form of assault jokingly.
The prosecutors never used the term. Assange's lawyer used it as a way of minimising the charges. Which regardless of what Assange may be accused of or whether he's guilty is pretty fucking disgusting.
The charges themselves are entirely about consent - including, incidentally, sexual assault initiated while sleeping. No-one on the left was stupid enough to hold back from calling that rape when John Hagee did similar.
I don't expect you to respond to real world scenarios
because that would require you to recognize the limits of your pet "theory." This notion that all women who claim rape are telling the truth. You've yet to ackowledge this is a political prosecution, that the US could give a shit about the "date rape" allegations, and are simply coercing the Swedes into "detaining or holding" Assange until a secret Grand Jury can trump up some shit on him.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/13/wikileaks.investigation/?hpt=T2
"I think that the Americans are much more interested in terms of the WikiLeaks aspect of this," Stephens told Al-Jazeera. He said it was his understanding that Swedish authorities have said that if Assange is extradited there, "they will defer their interest in him to the Americans. ... It does seem to me that what we have here is nothing more than a holding charge."
The United States just wants Assange detained, he said, so "ultimately they can get their mitts on him."
"He is entitled under international law, under Swedish law, to know the charges or the investigation that's going on, the allegations made against him and the nature of the evidence which is said to support it," Stephens said. "As I sit here talking to you now, he hasn't (had) that information, so he's not been able to comprehensively rebut (the allegations)."
For the record, I don't give a damn what Assange is charged with, whether it's date rape or mass murder, he's entitled to Due Process under the law, and he's been deprived of it thus far. You seem to have no problem with authorities simply alleging something without a probable cause hearing or denying him bail on something where bail is routinely granted, you ignore that we are witnessing--real time-- one of the most venal political prosecutions in history, as long as it suits your problematic theory that all women who allege they've been raped are believable. If these charges were so meritorious, why was Assange allowed to leave Sweden? It's not as if he left under cloak of darkness... oh, he actually left with transportation money provided by one of his rape "victims."
Pretty fucking disgusting what the Duke coed did to the men's LaCrosse team, but I don't hear anyone clamoring for her prosecution. Speaking of coeds, they are more sexually liberated than ever, feel more sexually empowered than ever, so don't go looking for your theory to take root. I didn't talk to one female (young, White coeds) who believed the Kobe Bryant rape charges. This "powerlessness" that you want to impute to all women, in all maner of sexual encounter, they ain't buying. And in a age of "sextexting" and "hooking up," and where fellatio is not considered "sex," what do you expect? Don't kill the messenger because you don't like the message. I guarantee you that if you gave 100 of them the choice between being a rich porn star or a middle income astro physicist, 60% would chose porn star.
Talk to your "sisters" because they are not feeling you. They too busy trying to "pop that pussy," and "shake that thing," to get paid, they understand the commercial (and Social) power of sex, how can they not when we are saturated with it? Better get on board to the train before you get ran over. And "No," this ain't my world-view, this is the world women are defining for themselves. I'd be willing to bet that the growth rate of the California porn industry exceeds that of Silicon Valley. In case you haven't noticed, the Women's Liberation Movement is a dead letter, again, I'm conveying reality, what I see and discern, not what I "think." I mean, "For the Love of Ray J," don't you get it???
Hope the next rape victim doesn't throw a party for her rapist
No sane or moral person would coutenance rape, but just because a woman cries foul doesn't mean it's rape, especially where the circumstances during and after the sex act creates substantial doubt about the veracity of the purported "victims."
For more details on the rape allegations read Justin Raimonda at antiwar.com. An objective reading shows these allegations are questionable or "murky" to use Raimondo's term.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/12/07/julian-assange-in-the-hone...
"... Ardin avers that she had agreed to (or perhaps – who knows? – even initiated) consensual sex with Assange, and so, as the Daily Mail reported, “they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom – it had split. She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.” Ardin also claims Assange used the weight of his body to keep her immobilized – being a feminist, she likes to be on top. However, she gave no indication of distress, either that day or the next: instead, she threw a party for Assange at her home."
Interesting. I wonder what kind of "party favors" are provided for a feast featuring one's "rapist?"
Here's the other "victim" in action:
"Loitering outside the venue in her shocking pink jumper, she approached Assange and two others who were going to a local café, and managed to get herself invited to join. One of the participants in the ensuing conversation describes her as “certainly an odd character,” who seemed out of place. Aggressively pursuing Assange, she sat there looking at him adoringly, and there was – say witnesses – what seemed to be a mutual attraction. After lunch, the two went out to a movie, and later on, when Assange said he had to go – Ardin was planning a crayfish party for him, a traditional Swedish-style event – she asked if she could see him again. He readily agreed. Later, at the party, Ardin would Tweet to her friends that she was “’Sitting outside … nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!” She later tried to erase this record of her short-lived joy, but the internet knows all, sees all, now doesn’t it?
"Sophia generously offered to buy him a ticket. When they got to her Enkoping digs, they had sex: he used a condom. The next morning, they again had sex, this time without a condom. They went out for breakfast, with no sign of displeasure or even the barest hint of “rape” coming from her side of the fence: she told him to stay in touch, and he said he would. She then bought him a return ticket to Stockholm, and he was gone – but hardly forgotten."
Look! Bullshit is bullshit and "game" recognize "game." Come one now, the facts of these "alleged rapes," or "Sex by Surprise," (some Orwellian shit if there ever was...) create serious doubt about the truthfulness of the women's claims. It's clear to me that Assange is the target of a "honey-pot" character assassination plot. The legal duplicity and manueverings of the Swedish prosecutor's office also cast doubt on these cases.
Jesus, so now we are going to put people in jail because the condom breaks? Does that mean the "accused" rapists can sue Trojan or some other brand for product liability defect? Is this a civil or criminal case? Isn't the absurdity of this obvious?
These women fucked Assange because they wanted too, I frankly could care less if the "condom broke" intentionally or otherwise, I believe in the civil arena of law it's what we call "assumption of risk." You go to a bar, pick up someone, have sex and contract AIDS, now you want the public to imprison this person for your fuckup??? Sending tweets of "pretty amazing," or hosting a crayfish party for your "rapist" is straight bullshit. Calling these women victims does a disservice to women who are truly raped against their will. Most likely, they were paid or otherwise motivated to set him up. Just as it is your right or duty to publicize rape as a heinous crime, you have an equal responsibility to call out women who manipulate the justice system on some bullshit tip. It's like overusage of the term racist: some people are prejudiced, bigots, not racists. Some consensual sex acts end with people not getting quite what they bargained for: a condom bursting or spilling or an IUD not working, or the spermicide was "defective" or not applied per instructions. All of which sound like personal problems to me.
I can't wait until Assange has his day in Swedish court, I'm pretty confident that Sweden will become a laughingstock of the world when all is said and done. This is likely to turn out to be some Tawana Brawley shit. What's next? Will we start prosecuting men because they "thought" about getting some pussy on the side? What is that? Intentional infliction of emotional distress?
These charges are probably, (we don't have all the facts, so no one can speak with absolute certainty) a ruse to hold Assange until the US can trump up some crap to have him extradited, as if that will shut down Wikileaks.
Sweden won't be the only
Sweden won't be the only laughingstock.
The US thinks it will put the kabosh on Wikileaks if "gets rid of" Assange. Not. Others will step in and continue the work of Wikileaks - perhaps uncovering even more dirt and mayhem. Wiki supporters are already striking back; hackers are disrupting PayPal, Amazon, and other free press haters.
Two thumbs up to Brazil's president Da Silva and Russia's prime minister Putin for their recent condemnations of the US witchhunt of Assange.