Julian Assange arrested in London

[Xon]

Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative, don't have time to look for a better source, but some quick googling looks like it holds up. How true it is is another matter.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Hey, the CIA did exactly what I received a "warning" for suggesting would probably happened.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Hey, the CIA did exactly what I received a "warning" for suggesting would probably happened.

Oh really?

Here's what you "suggested would probably happen":

I have another way - Have a spy have sex with the threat, then claim rape, possibly even having another agent forcibly rape the first to add wounds.

The target is now discredited and in jail forever.

Please, demonstrate how the CIA did exactly that, based on that article. Because the article doesn't say anything about spies having sex with her, nor does it even casually mention the idea of having another Agent rape her. In fact, the only way this news article is similar at all to your statement is that... she knew some US Agents. All it says was that she has connections to CIA Agents. That hardly supports the disgusting post which you got warned for.

In summary, you're a vile, lying sack of shit.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

The CIA supports anti-Castro organizations, news at 11.

That article's not new, though it might not have been posted here before. I'm not saying the sex crimes charges are above reproach (though I personally tend to give the accuser slightly more benefit of the doubt) or that there aren't all sorts of hilariously sketchy things going on with Swedish prosecutorial procedure, but "was involved in a 'feminist anti-Castro organization' that happens to be operated by a probable CIA asset" is a pretty tenuous connection to make. I'd be moderately surprised if there exists an anti-Castro group that the US *doesn't* support.

...I see Seraph has the moral outrage flank covered anyway.

[wautd]

In America, he would have the right to a phone call.

An american perhaps. I doubt the guys at Guantanamo got the same treatments as well.

[Skgoa]

For what it is worth, German news media, including state news media, are all reporting that the USA is trying to get Assange moved to sweden as they are far more willing to extradite guys to the USA than the Brits are.

That would seem a little odd, IIRC we have a very liberal (and lopsided) extradition treaty with the US.

Erm, NO. Unfortunately I only have a german link, but the gist of it is: two men were arrested on the street (Stockholm and Karlstad respectively) and were given to masked american operatives without even getting to see a judge. They were taken out of the country and (allegedly) tortured. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/17/17963/1.html

[Dartzap]

For what it is worth, German news media, including state news media, are all reporting that the USA is trying to get Assange moved to sweden as they are far more willing to extradite guys to the USA than the Brits are.

That would seem a little odd, IIRC we have a very liberal (and lopsided) extradition treaty with the US.

Erm, NO. Unfortunately I only have a german link, but the gist of it is: two men were arrested on the street (Stockholm and Karlstad respectively) and were given to masked american operatives without even getting to see a judge. They were taken out of the country and (allegedly) tortured. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/17/17963/1.html

He meant the UK!

The treaty deal is currently being looked at, due to the afore mentioned lop-sidedness by the government.

[Skgoa]

Ah ok, then I understood the exact opposite if what he wanted to say.

[Uraniun235]

Assange's attorney not being permitted to visit him until one day before court hearing. Is this normal procedure for the British court system?

John Robles: Is he being treated correctly?

Mark Stevens: Yes, of course, he is. The British authorities are very good and impartial on these issues. The one thing that is slightly frustrating is that we have another court hearing on December 14 and I’ve not been permitted a legal visit until December 13, which, of course, gives me less than 24 hours to prepare his case.

John Robles: Are you kidding? You haven’t been allowed to see him yet?

Mark Stevens: No, I haven’t spoken with him or anything else.

[Koolaidkirby]

Hes also being deemed a flight risk for his bail despite having turned himself in.

[Teebs]

Assange's attorney not being permitted to visit him until one day before court hearing. Is this normal procedure for the British court system?

No it's not at all normal procedure. You need high level authorisation (superintendent or above + one of a limited set of justifications) to delay someone from being allowed to see their lawyer.

[cosmicalstorm]

I actually believe he is "guilty" in the sense that he did sleep with both those women. His mistake was to bed two feminazis, those women have written revenge plans for ex boyfriends and so on. What probably happened was the he came inside one of them without asking, continued fucking with a broken condom.

I'm very interested in seeing where you found your evidence about him bedding 'feminazi's' that have written revenge plans for ex-boyfriends. Firstly, using the term 'feminazi' makes you suspect - it is a term used in order to discredit feminism, often by caricature of their actual position. Secondly, the claim that women lie about being raped is often invoked by rape apologists claiming that 'she wanted it'. It's best to stay clear of such claims unless there is proper evidence that the women are not entirely truthful. I am not going to comment on this situation itself, as I have a sense that the information spread on the internet about it mostly consists of rumors. Thirdly and finally, coming inside a woman without asking and continuing to have sex with a woman upon realizing the condom has broken (without the woman's consent) are problematic and quite likely a criminal offence - as they should be. These offences aren't as significant as violent rape (which is one of the less common forms of rape anyhow), but they are significant.

Using the term feminazi was over the line by me, my apologies. But I will continue to doubt that he raped anyone. There are far too many strange thing about this story. When the trial comes up we'll see what happens, if I'm completely wrong I will apologize.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Assange's attorney not being permitted to visit him until one day before court hearing. Is this normal procedure for the British court system?

John Robles: Is he being treated correctly?

Mark Stevens: Yes, of course, he is. The British authorities are very good and impartial on these issues. The one thing that is slightly frustrating is that we have another court hearing on December 14 and I’ve not been permitted a legal visit until December 13, which, of course, gives me less than 24 hours to prepare his case.

John Robles: Are you kidding? You haven’t been allowed to see him yet?

Mark Stevens: No, I haven’t spoken with him or anything else.

Why in the world would they do that - are they seriously afraid he'll use his lawyer to disseminate the decryption key?

It's not very likely that Assange has perfectly memorized a 256-bit decryption key, let alone that his lawyer will be able to memorize it and/or write it down. It's far more likely that, you know, someone else already has the decryption key and is waiting for Bad Shit to happen to Julian to prime the detonator on the Internet's favorite logic A-bomb.


... Which, if I were that person, I'd seriously start considering doing now, at the news that Assange has been denied the right to meet with his legal counsel. He could be anywhere or dead; without the intervention of his counsel to say that he's fine and doing well, I might be inclined to believe that they'd done him off or had extraordinarily rended him to some shitcanistan for some heartfelt, meaningful jump-leads-to-nipples time with a hood over his head, and were stalling for time in an effort to find me.

Seriously, are they trying to provoke the insurance file into going live? What possible reason could there be for pulling like the fourth shadiest thing they could do in this situation?

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, maybe I'm not cynical enough, but I have a really hard time believing that there is a serious chance he has been/will be secretly killed. As bad as the British and American governments can be, I doubt they've gone so far into fascism that they think they can get away with secretly killing someone this high profile. And even if they were evil enough to do it, it would be fucking stupid. They have him in prison, and I think their will be a lot of questions if someone this high-profile simply disappears.

[ShadowDragon8685]

You know, maybe I'm not cynical enough, but I have a really hard time believing that there is a serious chance he has been/will be secretly killed. As bad as the British and American governments can be, I doubt they've gone so far into fascism that they think they can get away with secretly killing someone this high profile. And even if they were evil enough to do it, it would be fucking stupid. They have him in prison, and I think their will be a lot of questions if someone this high-profile simply disappears.

I know, it seems retardedly unlikely.

But, nine years ago, I would've said that they couldn't be evil and stupid enough to run a torture camp, let alone several, and implement a policy of handing off people they couldn't get info out of with the methods they were willing to employ to people willing to actually get medieval on someone's ass.

At this point, I'll pretty much be willing to believe anything short of hosting boy-rape parties at the pentagon itself unless the U.S. can prove otherwise with third-party verification, and I'm willing to believe until similarly proven otherwise that they have sufficient weight to lean on the UK with if they really wanted it.


Why, I cannot fathom. Perhaps they believe that the chance that they might manage to torture out of Assange the name and location of the people he's entrusted with the key and get to them all in time to stop them from releasing the decryption key is worth the bad publicity; maybe they have an inkling of what's in that file and they believe it's more damaging than actually disappearing the guy would be.

Maybe none of this is the case and I'm willing to say it's probably not the case, but right now what is known is that nobody who's not on the payroll of the Crown can actually vouch for his continued existence, welfare and location. I am cynical enough to believe that they might be acting on the belief that three days is enough time to pull out of him the names and locations of the people with the decryption key and nail them.

Which, frankly, is why if I were one of those people, the very least I'd be doing is disappearing this instant, and I'd be seriously considering dropping the logic bomb. Because I am cynical to take the possibility seriously after the last eight years or so, and it's a good bet that Julian Assange did not choose someone less cynical than me as the safeguard of his insurance policy.



Not to mention, of course, the fact that denying someone his lawyer is a really disgusting way to sabotage his legal proceedings; even if Mr. Assange is sitting in a luxury suite in the Tower of London getting the full nobleman-prisoner treatment straight out of ages gone by, with three lavish meals a day served by a butler named Jeeves, a full library from which to entertain himself by day and his choice of women of negotiable virtue to entertain himself at bedtime, the fact is that they're denying the man access to his lawyer and his lawyer access to his client. That's shady no matter how you slice it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, agreed that denying someone access to their lawyer is reprehensible. I just don't think we should leap to assuming worst case scenarios.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Oh, agreed that denying someone access to their lawyer is reprehensible. I just don't think we should leap to assuming worst case scenarios.

I'm not sure we shouldn't. Given the political climate at the moment, it seems firmly within the realm of what those in power are capable of and willing to do.

More importantly than the actual disposition of Julian Assange, of course, is what case scenario the person or persons he has entrusted the doomsday crypto-key (because that sounds cool,) with will assume.

Like I said, if I were them, I'd be assuming the worst case because not assuming the worst case, should the worst actually be the case, leads to me having a hood shoved over my head while I'm on the toilet and packed into a van to be sent somewhere dark and tortured for information.

Which is why I'd be legging it, and probably thinking long and hard about whether I should drop the bomb now or wait until the 13th to see if the lawyer says Assange is all right and has not been interrogated for my name and location.

[Eleas]

This post is in part an apology to SancheztheWhaler.

*I'm still a bit confused about the precise nature of the crime he's been accused of, and whether it should translate as "rape" in English...

As I understand it, he pinned the first woman down and had sex with her without a condom. He had sex with a second women while she was sleeping, also without a condom. I'm not sure why the condom matters, but I would classify both of those acts (non-consensual sex) as rape. I'm not sure why they were described like that in the article I read... maybe it's just a translation issue.

Not knowing which article you read, I can only speculate. But if it's a Swedish article, then (much like many countries draw lines between manslaughter and murder) the exact legal term can be one of many. Naturally, that does not mean the perpetrator must be exonerated. It does mean, in the case of Assange, that there would be several charges. According to this article (in Swedish, but for anyone who wants to make sure I don't doubt Babelfish will suffice), Assange was also charged with three counts of sexual harassment and at least one count of duress.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I can only offer a layman's impression.

Agreed, and I'm not talking about folks here in this thread. It's general disgust with people who are defending Assange by accusing the women of lying about the rape.

This is the reason I haven't responded until now to your post, really. Because I think this is a very good point, and it said something very different from what I up until now had inferred as being your argument. I, too, think Wikileaks and the rape charge should be kept separate, and felt (perhaps unfairly) that you were doing what I feel is also a disquieting tendency - that is, to attack Wikileaks and the veracity of their findings by proxy.

In short, I feel the US media are more or less unified in the attempt to paint Assange as a villain not worth listening to. It's not a wonder that even otherwise intelligent people would be swayed into following this line of thought, because from all I've seen the US population live within a media environment and a discourse that is shaped to encourage it. Attacking Wikileaks at this point is possible, but a far easier and more effective target is to make it a matter of personality - whose team do you trust? Assange, the rapist? Not likely.

This is why I felt your point about why Assange should have held back the information in order to prevent the deaths of US spies (i.e. illegal agents on foreign soil that have in the past served to make these crimes possible, and which logically could be expected to continue in the same vein) to be disingenuous. He is not an American, and these are criminals and terrorists themselves. Why, on reading the evidence, would it be moral to not expose them and the system?

So I conflated that with the rest, and inferred your arguments to be far worse than they actually were. So you're right, I should simmer the fuck down, and I definitely should - am - apologizing for reading into your words things you didn't state and do not support. What you say here:

As far as I'm concerned they are two separate issues. I very much dislike the melding of two very separate issues.

is pretty much my opinion on it as well.

I'm not convinced that Wikileaks is such a bad thing. I'm all for exposing hypocrisy, lying, and other shitty behavior by governments, whether it's the US or someone else. Assange being (potentially) a rapist doesn't mean that the information he released is somehow tainted.

That being said, the behavior that he is exposing is hardly something in which only the US engages. Every government behaves this way to one degree or another, and what annoys me is that Assange isn't attempting to open people's eyes to the way governments around the world are misbehaving, but rather he's trying to specifically target the US and derail its intelligence and diplomatic activities.

I think in light of the other thread it's even worse than that, really. If the idea of "narrative" as a way of even reaching people is correct - and I'm increasingly getting the feeling it is - then Wikileaks aren't necessarily doing what they do to target the US and derail its activities. That's going to be a side effect, yes. But what they are doing is (by this model) shaping it into a story able to compete with the rest of the media. It's a show. Doing this - or at least, that's how I interpret the argument - is the only way to make this vast and already frightened public audience sit up and take notice.

That notion scares the shit out of me.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure what the legal terms are. I'm fairly certain, however, that it is illegal to posses and/or release secret and confidential government documents. That's irrelevant to the point, however, which is that if the US really wants to get Assange, they could conceivably concoct a charge that fits the crime.

I think they do want to get him. But my point is that I don't think this was a Diabolical and Nefarious plot by the Evil Empire - if I came across that way, I'm sorry. My theory is that this is revealed, people start to scramble, and the US interests at hand start looking at ways to mitigate the situation. Capitalizing on Assange as being someone you can demonize then has its uses. If he's guilty, that's even better, but in terms of politics, I'm saying it made for very cheap and useful noise.

Also, arresting a man shows that you're taking him seriously. Painting him as a monster, however, lets you exploit the narrative that monsters are unfathomable. For instance, I could cite that Hermann Göring line about how you steer a nation into compliance by fabricating an outside threat and denouncing the protesters as traitors. If I were to mention his name, however? People would say "come on, he was a Nazi." The fact that his words were completely apt and are equally pertinent today has little value to Joe Average, because he was on Team Evil.

For instance, the reason the US/UK now in one respect has an easier time handling Assange is IMHO in part due to this "poison pill" notion. Because it's all about perception and how it shapes public will. Before, playing the "enemy of the US" angle was a bit more difficult. Now, however, they can sell the idea of Assange being a terrorist with a bomb.

[Resinence]

I'm very interested in seeing where you found your evidence about him bedding 'feminazi's' that have written revenge plans for ex-boyfriends. Firstly, using the term 'feminazi' makes you suspect - it is a term used in order to discredit feminism, often by caricature of their actual position. Secondly, the claim that women lie about being raped is often invoked by rape apologists claiming that 'she wanted it'. It's best to stay clear of such claims unless there is proper evidence that the women are not entirely truthful. I am not going to comment on this situation itself, as I have a sense that the information spread on the internet about it mostly consists of rumors. Thirdly and finally, coming inside a woman without asking and continuing to have sex with a woman upon realizing the condom has broken (without the woman's consent) are problematic and quite likely a criminal offence - as they should be. These offences aren't as significant as violent rape (which is one of the less common forms of rape anyhow), but they are significant.

Well, there is circulating story's of her reporting students for sexual harrassment because they stopped paying attention to her during a lecture. Then responding to an apology by... reporting him for sexual harassment again.

Or Google Cache

She wiped this off her blog, it's not a 'rumor'. Google cache is not your friend.

Or how about the fact that she cleaned up her twitter messages beforehand also:

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’

The tweets are harmless, why delete them?
Why remove such an old post on your blog now?

If this living stereotype is not a "feminazi", what is?

[Eleas]

If this living stereotype is not a "feminazi", what is?

Presumably, someone who would do this while being even vaguely connected to the tenets of feminism. What you're decrying is a person (two, actually) falsely accusing another person of assault. This would be slander, possibly perjury if it came to a courtroom debacle. It would be toxic to the feminist movement and intensely oppositional to the ideology as a whole.

...but since these two are women, their possible misuse of Swedish laws (ones put in place to give women a basic claim to their own bodies) is sinister and obviously indicates they're the vanguard of a resurgent national socialist movement.

[Skgoa]

Then lets call her a feminista and be done with it. She IS connected to swedish feminists, as SHE IS ONE OF THEM. She is also a ruthless bitch who had at an earlier date outlined on her blog a revenge plan that includes going to the police with made up charges. (And this is why I wouldn't put to much blame on the photographer. Especially since she seems to still be in Sweden while Arin is not talking to the prosecutors and has gone underground somewhere in the Middle East.)
Yes, ubiquous warrantless usage of the "-nazi" suffix annoys me, too. But considering how much damage she is causing to swedish feminists right now and how many rapes might go unpunished in the future due to her crying wolf, I think we can all agree that people can be excused for not choosing their words more carefully.

[Eleas]

Then lets call her a feminista and be done with it. She IS connected to swedish feminists, as SHE IS ONE OF THEM. She is also a ruthless bitch who had at an earlier date outlined on her blog a revenge plan that includes going to the police with made up charges. (And this is why I wouldn't put to much blame on the photographer. Especially since she seems to still be in Sweden while Arin is not talking to the prosecutors and has gone underground somewhere in the Middle East.)
Yes, ubiquous warrantless usage of the "-nazi" suffix annoys me, too. But considering how much damage she is causing to swedish feminists right now and how many rapes might go unpunished in the future due to her crying wolf, I think we can all agree that people can be excused for not choosing their words more carefully.

I, too, am connected to Swedish feminists. Does that mean that if I'm beating up my girlfriend, feminism is to blame? That is my point - you can't use connection as evidence of causation. To do something like this for revenge or personal gain would, I agree, make someone a bitch, and it would and does cause horrendous damage. We both agree with all of these things. I just don't agree with attributing it to feminism itself. There are baser motives that are much closer at hand than gender equality, to put it mildly.

[Ryushikaze]

Eleas, I don't think Skgoa is blaming feminism for her actions, but noting the serious backlash her actions may cause the movement. Feminista and Feminazi are being used to distance her, I think- and you may correct me if I am mistaken- to distance her from non asshats associated with Swedish feminists.

[Lusankya]

I just want to make a few comments.

First, regarding the twitter posts: in the case of a coercive, rather than a violent rape, it's quite possible that the victim will need to spend some time coming to terms with what happened. Assange is obviously quite a charismatic man, and it's probably quite difficult to think clearly when he's around. There is a possibility that she needed to be away from him and possibly even talk to someone else who had a similar experience before she came to grips with what happened. That would explain the existence of the twitter posts in the first place, and deleting them, while stupid, may have been an act to cleanse him from her memory. If we're going to come to the conclusion that "Assange can't have raped the woman, because she tweeted that he was awesome after the incident", then we're also going to have to come to the conclusion that almost all abusers are innocent, because their victims will often spend the larger part of the abusive relationship defending their abuser.

Secondly, regarding the "revenge" blog post. Nothing precludes the author of such a blog post from actually being a victim of rape. Now, I'll grant you that removing the posts after all this came to light was not a bright move, but there's no evidence either way to prove that she removed them because she was lying. It might imply that she wanted to remove things that might cast doubt on her reliability as a witness, but that is a motive that's compatible with both guilt and innocence.

Thirdly, it's quite possible for the Swedish ladies to have felt violated in some way and for Assange to be innocent. If the women did not communicate their intentions (either by not actually saying "no", or through language difficulties - remember, English is not the ladies' native language, and Swedish is not Assange's) then it is quite possible that Assange thought he had consent, when he did not. If that's the case, then it's unfortunate for all sides, really.

Anyway, I'm not making any judgements either way here in regards to the case, but it is wrong for people to be going around judging the honesty of these two Swedish women, based merely on the twitter and blog posts of one of them.

Quite frankly, if these allegations do have some credibility to them, then I commend these women heartily for coming out with these allegations. Reporting a rape is difficult enough in the best of times, and with the amount of scrutiny these women are going through both by the media and random people all over the world, this must be a very trying time for them.

EDIT: For the record, I find the way the various governments in the world are handling the issue to be quite distasteful, to say the least, but the way the government is handling the case is an issue that should be completely divorced from whether or not people should go around playing "blame the victim", as everyone seems to be doing. It's not the Swedish ladies' fault that all the politicians turned this into a circus.

[Eleas]

Eleas, I don't think Skgoa is blaming feminism for her actions, but noting the serious backlash her actions may cause the movement. Feminista and Feminazi are being used to distance her, I think- and you may correct me if I am mistaken- to distance her from non asshats associated with Swedish feminists.

I don't want to correct you, but I can't agree. Feminista and Feminazi is commonly used as a denouncement of feminism as a whole - they're a caricature, not a distinction as such. Even if Skgoa didn't mean that (actually, I doubt he did), it certainly mirrors what I'd call the majority view of feminism.

Other than that, I don't have much to add. Lusankya expressed my position and did it in better words, so nothing more needs to be said.