So let me see if I understand the 2 biggest hot button topics on DU

[Nuclear Unicorn]

AKIN -- women don't need birth control because in cases of legitmate rape the woman's body magically rejects the sperm.

ASSANGE -- it wasn't legitimate rape, he just didn't properly use a condom (no comment on how the females' bodies react).

I guess the only thing that makes it a sexual revolution is that it has gone full circle.

[2ndAmForComputers]

1. I have to admit this conflation attempt is more creative than most.

Remarkable. But still nonsense.

[pnwmom]

4. The Assange situation has shown that progressives have a rape problem, too,

just not in the same degree as conservatives.

It has been sadly eye-opening to watch here as people try to justify him inserting himself into a sleeping woman on the grounds that she'd let him have sex with him the night before; or not using a condom even though she'd required him to use one, on the grounds that she didn't fight him when she realized he hadn't put one on.

[2ndAmForComputers]

7. So, this is what this thread is about.

"LOOK! PROGRESSIVES DO IT TOO!!!111!!!!"

Thanks for the clarification.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Only if that is what is desired.

[pnwmom]

15. FYI

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13407934-bad-manners-but-not-rape-uk-politicians-defense-of-julian-assange-sparks-storm

LONDON -- As U.S. Congressman Todd Akin fights for his political life over his "legitimate rape" comments, a high-profile British politician has ignited a storm on the other side of the Atlantic over the definition of rape.

George Galloway, a member of the U.K. parliament and former leader of the left-wing Respect Party, waded into the debate around the allegations faced by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

During a 31-minute podcast, Galloway discussed the claims made by two Swedish woman against Assange in graphic detail, claiming that his alleged behavior was at worst "bad manners" but "not rape."

SNIP

"Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them," Galloway said, gesticulating emphatically. "It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

SNIP

[DonRedwood]

54. interesting facet to add to the conversation

[loyalsister]

17. You are correct

It is only false equivalency if the rape of the Swedish woman would not have been defended if the man had been a republican congressman.

[ecstatic]

63. +1. Rape is rape. Even if the accused is a DU hero. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

185. +2. That's the problem, he's a "DU Hero", so now they have to try & defend the indefensible.

[Aerows]

206. Do we get to try him first?

Or do we declare him a rapist?

[sabrina 1]

69. The Assange case has shown that some Progressives have a problem with due

process and are more than willing to convict someone without evidence, without even having charges filed IF they view that person as some kind of threat to their political ideology. Fortunately a majority of DUers appear to still care about the rule of law.

The Assange case has also shown that some progressives are willing to ignore actual, verified cases of brutal rape and 'move on' while the women struggle, those who survived, to get justice. It also shows that there is no interest in the rape and even sodomy of children in US held detention centers when they agree with this administration's decision to simply not pursue those egregious war crimes.

The Assange case has also shown that some Progressives do not support a free press, unless it benefits their own political ideology.

Shamefully, some progressives even support charging a News Organization with espionage.

And even more shamefully, some of them are elected officials.

[ZombieHorde]

71. Between weed and copyright violations, I have a really hard time believing most DUers give

two shits about rule of law.

[2ndAmForComputers]

152. Gasp. The horrors.

[ZombieHorde]

160. I have no problems with people getting high and stealing shit,

but I do have "problems" with people who get high, steal shit, and then say they care about rule of law.

I think we should accept who we are.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. You mean people here are insufficiently enthusiastic about imprisoning pot smokers?

Oh, no.

Yeah, well, some laws are flat out WRONG. The Texas anti-sodomy laws overturned in the Lawrence decision, for one.

It is ludicrous that we pend $60 billion a year to "fight" the smoking of a relatively benign, non toxic, psychoactive plant. Indefensible.

And more than half of that copyrighted music you want to protect- the GOOD half- was Made by people who had been smoking the plant.

[ZombieHorde]

159. I think you are misinterpreting my post.

I do not support rule of law.

I am not advocating for people to stop stealing or to stop taking drugs. I am advocating for people to admit they don't really care about rule of law, just as I freely admit that I do not care about rule of law.

By all means, get high and steal shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

161. I don't do either, but I know a bad law when I see one.

And I'm not talking about intellectual property rights, which I support.

[ZombieHorde]

162. So, are you saying you don't really care about rule of law?

That is what you seem to be saying, but I could be wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. Do you think the State of Texas was right when it was throwing gay ppl. in jail for consensual sex?

if you answer "no", by your black-and-white definition, you "don't care about the rule of law".

I do care about the "rule of law" as a general principle, but some laws are flat-out wrong. The law that says consenting adults can't decide to put THC in their own fucking bodies is WRONG.

[ZombieHorde]

168. I have already plainly stated that I do not care about rule of law.

I don't care about it in practice, and I don't care about it in principle.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. And you make no distinction between various laws?

I think there are several factors at play. With regards to Assange, I think that the international manhunt seems awfully intense given the charges, or lack thereof.

That does not mean I think rape laws should be ignored, nor does it mean I don't think he should face the charges in Sweden. I think if Assange were given assurances he wasn't being extradited to Sweden as part of a plan to have him additionally extradited to the US, the situation would be very different.

[ZombieHorde]

178. I think each of us should determine for ourselves

which laws we want to follow and which laws we want to ignore.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. Okay, well

your complete unwillingness to acknowledge an objective distinction between laws that put gay people or cancer grannies in prison for victimless, consensual behavior-- and laws against assault, rape and violence, is noted.

[Aerows]

197. Kudos for stating this plainly

And calling it like it is. Some people just want to see the world burn. Some of us just want to live fairly in it.

[ZombieHorde]

215. I am amazed by the common lack of understanding between the concepts

of subjectivity and objectivity. It's weird, subjectively speaking.

[ZombieHorde]

214. Of course I am unwilling to acknowledge an objective distinction between laws.

There is no objective distinction. The whole concept is completely absurd. There are only subjective distinctions based on one's personal values.

[Agnosticsherbet]

190. Actually there are charges, in accordance with swedish law.

[link:http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition|Legal myths about the Assange extradition
]
Link to DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/101639367


Otherwise, I agree with you.

One other statement.

Advocating changing an unjust, unethical, immoral, useless, unnecessary, or stupid law is not opposing the rule of law.

Antidrug laws are stupid because they cause far more problems than they solve, and utterly ignore human nature and desire.

Anti gay laws fit all of the above list and also ignore biological reality.

One can still respect the rule of law while practicing non violent non compliance of an unjust, unethical, etc. etc. etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

191. From your article, he has not been charged.

That may be splitting hairs, but it seems to be fatually correct as statements go.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”).  Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

(bold added)

[Agnosticsherbet]

194. Many people here, especially from the U.S. confuse U.S. and Swedish law.

The article points out that accusations have been made that meet the requirement under Swedish law of probable cause for his arrest. The warrant for his arrest and his arrest must come before he can be questioned and charged formally, which would be followed by a trial.

When people say, he has not been charged, they seem to use this as an excuse to say he is being arrested without cause. The exact opposite is true. The Swedish police in their preliminary investigation found probable cause of a sex crime and issued, in accordance with swedish law, an international warrant for his arrest.

Assange made two separate pleas before the British Supreme Court that determined what he did would be a crime in England, that there was probable cause for issuing a warrant for his arrest, and the court approved extradition.

The international manhunt is warranted, in accordance with English law, Swedish law, and international law.

Assange, after exhausting his legal attempts to avoid prosecution, fled to a Ecuadorian embassy so he does not have to face trial in a Swedish Court.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. "When people say, he has not been charged, they seem to use this..."

That's not the same thing. I said he hasn't been charged, that means he hasn't been charged.

You are certainly well within the bounds of proper debate form to explain WHY he has not been charged under Swedish Law, and to extrapolate what that may or may not mean- but it is logically deficient to argue that "he has not been charged" is an incorrect statement on the basis of what people seem to do with that statement.

Dig?

[Agnosticsherbet]

200. Dug.

Now, to extract myself from my hole.

[Warren DeMontague]

202. Nah, Not really. I got your point.

And to call it a complicated situation is an understatement.

[2ndAmForComputers]

165. All-or-nothing thinking sucks.

[ZombieHorde]

169. By definition, rule of law is all-or-nothing thinking.

If you think rule of law sucks, then I agree with you.

[pnwmom]

77. Assange doesn't care about anyone but himself.

He doesn't have any goal in mind when leaking files except to cause as much commotion as possible, and he doesn't care who he hurts.

It fits completely with his anarchist views. Progressives are making a mistake to think he's on their side.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/self-promotion-as-dissident-doesnt-make-assange-one/story-fnb64oi6-1226456042487

First, if there were some sort of global, unified response to oppression, I quibble with Assange's confidence that he deserves a place in it. I've no doubt that he does truly look at the Western world and see an oppressive military-industrial complex, hell-bent on all the usual drivel. But that doesn't make him an enemy of non-Western oppression, too. Often, it makes him the reverse.

US documents on the opposition in Belarus, for example, were given to the Belarussian government by people working for WikiLeaks, thereby giving President Alexander Lukashenko (often dubbed "Europe's last dictator&quot a ready-made hit list.

Assange highlighted the case of Nabeel Rajab, a jailed Bahraini human rights activist. But it is precisely such people who had the most to fear from the leaking of documents that gave an overview of unredacted dissenting activity garnered from people who felt they were speaking in secret.

WikiLeaks documents named witnesses against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Beijing lawyers who briefed on reform and Zimbabwean generals who chatted freely with a US ambassador.

[sabrina 1]

83. Well that's a substantive comment. It assumes first of all that all the

human rights organizations and journalistic organizations which have given awards to Wikileaks over the years, are morons.

But mostly it demonstrates how little you know about Wikileaks. And to assume that anyone here gives a rat's ass whether Assange cares about them personally or not, is simply childish.

Assange's personal views on politics are views I personally do not agree with in many areas. But that has zero to do with providing a News Media that reports on crime and corruption in governments regarless of one's personal views.

Why is this so hard a concept to grasp? It appears to me to be putting forth the idea that we should ignore crimes IF our 'team' is engaged in them. This is what is wrong with the US right now. The willingness of the Right to ignore the crimes of its 'team', and now the willingness of the 'left' to do the same.

Wikileaks only mission, regardless of political views, was to provide Whistle Blowers in countries such as China eg, and many Chinese dissidents were part of the whole idea of Wikileaks for obvious reasons, with a safe place to report on crime and corruption mainly in Governments, and they have done that. But also in the business world, and they have also done that. See Iceland's banking system eg.

Why people think that Wikileaks came into existence only after receiving material on the US is a mystery to me but does show a complete lack of knowledge of this organization.

So to repeat, from THIS progressive, I don't care about Assange personally anymore than he cares about me, which is as I would expect, zero. I care about the huge effort to silence a very successful new media which stepped in to the huge chasm where the Western Media had been taken over by Corporate interests, and of course in third world dictatorships and other oppressive regimes, where there never was a truthful media.

Those who are caught up in the personality of Assange, demonstrate that they have no interest or knowledge of the main purpose of Wikileaks and the huge need for a truly Free Press. No wonder it's shocking to some Americans, we don't know what a real media is anymore.

[Aerows]

205. Amen and +1

"Those who are caught up in the personality of Assange, demonstrate that they have no interest or knowledge of the main purpose of Wikileaks and the huge need for a truly Free Press. No wonder it's shocking to some Americans, we don't know what a real media is anymore. "

[Cleita]

147. +100

[etherealtruth]

137. Sadly, rape is a human problem

It occurs in all socio-economic groups, all ethnic groups, the religious rape/ atheists rape ... conservatives, liberals, libertarians, anarchist, apolitical ...

Sex with an other human being without his or her consent is rape (this applies if the intended is unable to give consent for whatever reason!)

[DirkGently]

144. Well, yes, that would be wrong. But you don't think

there's anything else going on with this "debate?" You have not observed that typically, pro-Obama hardliners, angry at Assange for Wikileaks, angry at criticism of the Bradley Manning case, leap directly to convicting Assange as a vile rapist, with the specific intention of discrediting Wikileaks?

You don't think that, along with these people you say have wrongly muddied the definition of rape, are others who reasonably question whether the timing of the story, which occurred precisely when the U.S. was frantically trying to tie Assange to Manning's leaks, the ambiguous initial handling by the Swedish government, and the rapid disappearance of one of the accusers, suggested the possibility of a frame-up?

OPs like this are nasty from the get-go. It's a call out that relates to other divisions on DU and attempts to characterize a "side" as foolish or hypocritical to get to an entirely different issue. If someone says "that's not why I argue for / against ____" the answer is "Well, then I'm not talking to you -- I'm just talking to all those rape-defending assholes who agree with you." Right? We've seen it a million times, and it's a crappy rhetorical strategy in every case. It's a cheap workaround to avoid confronting the actual arguments in real time.

We all know the truth lies elsewhere. The charges laid against Assange, if true, clearly constitute rape. Rape is rape. Assange should face his accusers and make his case. And to be clear, it IS possible for someone to have done something good for world, and still have committed an evil act for which he should be punished. We won't, any of us, know enough to judge actual guilt or innocence without a trial, which we all might note is supposedly one of our small "d" democratic ideals.

But this is not Akin's comments or the Republican push to return women to chattel status. That conflation is utter bullshit. We all know context matters. We all know that people who fuck powerful governments like ours DO get smeared, and we all know this issue arose at the height of the Bradley Manning situation and government anger at Assange and the charge that Assange not only received the information, but helped Manning to obtain it, so he could be charged with espionage himself. And we all raised an eyebrow or three when suddenly, there was a reason to lock him up. Or not lock him up. The Swedes were a little fuzzy about that to begin with, which was a red flag from the start.

We know it is completely plausible that what Assange is running from, in whole or in part, is fear of either being railroaded in Sweden or carted off to the U.S. to face its wrath for an entirely different act. We know that people who approve of the leaks and disapprove of the treatment of Manning are more likely to be sympathetic to that, and many of those who side with the U.S. on the leaks would like to see Assange stripped naked and chained to Manning by the nostrils for embarrassing the administration.

We all know this, so we really don't need to bullshit each other about it, do we?

[Aerows]

195. You really should be ashamed of yourself

Neither of the women actually accused him of rape, either. But that's okay - he's Julian Assange and deserves to be imprisoned in the deepest of hells because he embarrassed governments.

I realize that archaic ideas like giving him a trial before sentencing him seem strange, but how about we give it a try?

[Poll_Blind]

2. LOL! How desperate do you have to be to try to link Assange to Akin?

PB

[pnwmom]

3. How blind do you have to be not to see the similarity in people's defenses of the two?

There are many people here who have said that even if the facts are as the Swedish women have alleged, that Assange didn't rape them, because they had already had sex with him the night before or because "all" he did was have sex with her without wearing the condom she required or because you don't have to ask a sleeping bed partner before inserting yourself inside her. In other words, it wasn't really rape. It wasn't legitimate rape. It wasn't forcible rape.


If people don't want to be linked to Akin and his supporters, they shouldn't sound like them.

[Zorra]

22. You, and Rush: "Limbaugh: Liberals Would “Help A Thousand Rapists” To Free “One America-Hater”"

I won't alert, but maybe someone else won't be as nice.

What's the game? You, and others on this thread, are spreading the exact same propaganda on the Assange case that Rush Limbaugh has been spreading.

Y'all really should give up on the false equivalency and propaganda games, it's simply not working for y'all. I can't believe that you haven't figured out that Progressive DUers simply are not going to buy this constant barrage of lies and conservative GOP and Third Way extremist talking points, like the one I posted below, being spread about progressives here at Democratic Underground.

Limbaugh: Liberals Would “Help A Thousand Rapists” To Free “One America-Hater"

On the day when Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was granted bail and liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore proudly declared his intention to contribute money to Assange’s release so that Wikileaks can be kept “alive and thriving,” it should come as no surprise Rush Limbaugh would be apopletic. Limbaugh’s headline-seeking shot at liberals was to say “of course they would help a thousand rapists if it would mean that one America-hater might go free.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-liberals-would-help-a-thousand-rapists-to-free-one-america-hater

[KoKo]

26. Thanks for that info about Limbaugh, Zorra..

Agree about the "false equivalency and propaganda games" going on about Assange.

[Zorra]

28. My pleasure, KoKo. I'm so tired of the constant posting of anti-Progressive RW talking points at DU.

[Aerows]

196. Don't expect anything different

From this one. Concern troll of the highest order, kind of like dkf. How the hell they have managed to stay around as long as they have is beyond me.

[pnwmom]

65. What did I say that you are specifically claiming is untrue?

You aren't denying that the claims have been made, are you?

Do you think that because he's a progressive hero he shouldn't be subject to the same rape and assault laws as anyone else?

[Zorra]

95. Um, how about you saying "progressives have a rape problem" for starters?

I do not have a "rape problem" and neither do the rest of the progressives on this board.

That's a nasty little stretch of highly insulting bullshit right there.

[pnwmom]

131. I am saying that there are people who do not understand rape

who are in our midst.

There are people here who have argued that since if a woman and man had consensual sex the night before, the man wouldn't need to get consent the next morning.

There are people here who have argued that if a woman agrees to have sex with a condom, it isn't rape if a man penetrates her without a condom.

The people who made these arguments were progressives; so progressives, like conservatives, have in their midst some people with a problem understanding rape.

[sabrina 1]

149. Who are these people? I too am sick of this attempt, rather than deal with

the known facts of this case, to accuse Progressives of 'not understanding rape'. Who are you to say, or even know what DUers know about rape? Does Naomi Wolf eg, who has worked on behalf of rape victims for 25 years, 'not understand rape'? How about the other Women's groups who have also worked on behalf of rape victims, who do not accept the claims made in this case absent EVIDENCE which has yet to be produced.

Why do you think that people who actually DO KNOW about rape become angry when the crime of rape is diminished as has happened in this case from the beginning, by using it as a political tool.

The world is watching this, and IF it turns out that Assange is innocent, which is very likely considering the actual evidence, how much harm will these political partisans have done to an issue that is still struggling to be taken seriously?

You ascribe nefarious motives to your fellow DUers without a second thought. How about just focusing only on the facts, the evidence or lack of it, and leave the personal attacks to the other side. So sick of this tactic. If you oppose war 'you love Saddam'. If you question the very questionable facts of this case, 'you support rape or 'you are a fan or a groupie, or as was said to me, you have a schoolgirl crush on Assange'.

This should never happen on this board.

[Aerows]

201. PNWMOM

Is telling you and me that we are too stupid to know if we were raped. I really appreciate this factually devoid idea in light of Akin's comments. If you enjoy it, you can't get pregnant, but trauma, fear and terror are great birth control methods. Women don't know when they have been raped.

It's just been a cornucopia of wisdom.

[pnwmom]

207. No, I'm saying that the details of criminal rape law aren't something taught

to everyone in high school. And a number of people here on DU are showing that they don't understand criminal rape law either.

[Aerows]

199. There are a bunch of women

in your midst that have no idea what rape means. They have no idea when their sister, their cousin or their friend was raped. Yep, we are all ignorant. I hope you can shine a light down on all of us womenfolk who are impoverished of facts to tell us if, in fact, we have been violated.

[pnwmom]

209. There are people here who don't understand that it's rape if you penetrate an

unconscious woman you barely know. I don't know if the posters are men or women, but they have made their views known.

[frylock]

128. if you don't want to be linked to limbaugh and his supporters..

then you shouldn't sound like them.

[October]

81. You nailed it, Zorra. I saw the name of post and knew before I read it what it would say.

We have to remember to NOT feed the trolls. You can always tell by how many times they post and post and post on threads. Their only purpose seems to be to divide, insult, and incite -- never discuss.

Peace.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. pwnmom has almost 40,000 posts. How is pwnmom a troll?

[mythology]

141. I believe that would be the definition

that anybody who disagrees with the poster must be a troll.

It's a cheap way to avoid actual discussion.

[Aerows]

203. We have a few that do damage control for the Republican party

We know who they are, though, and their post count makes no difference in identifying who they are. Both that I can name have fairly high post counts - higher than mine - but you never see them making a post that doesn't defend, minimize or somehow deflect blame from a right winger.

[October]

80. "There are many people"

And there are also "many people" -- Dems and DU'ers -- who insist rape is rape be the perpetrator Dem or Repub.

It just doesn't make for an interesting, flaming thread, I guess.

[99Forever]

171. Hogwash.

Have you no sense of decency at all?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Which of the 2 positions are misrepresented?

If neither has been misrepresented in my characterization of their respective arguments than any similarity is not my fault but the fault of those making those arguments.

[HappyMe]

5. I am wondering if it

wasn't teh Assange, how many would be calling for his junk on a platter.

[TBF]

6. That's the point - it is Assange

and it quite clearly could be someone setting him up for what he has done. The false equivalence trolls sure are out en masse ...

[HappyMe]

9. Conspiracy trolls as well.

[ronnie624]

20. The U.S. Attorney General's words in 2010:

- "there are ... other tools at our disposal." Holder added that he had given the go-ahead for a number of unspecified actions as part of a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks. "I personally authorised a number of things last week and that's an indication of the seriousness with which we take this matter and the highest level of involvement at the department of justice,"

- "I don't want to get into what our capabilities are. We are looking at all the things we can do to try to stem the flow of this information."

Clearly the U.S. government has mounted an intensive campaign aimed at neutralizing Wikileaks and Assange. High ranking government officials say as much. There can be no doubt that this effort carries over into other agencies like the State Department and the CIA. This renders the 'conspiracy theory' meme nonsensical.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Are you saying established progressive activists in Sweden

became paid whores for the DoJ to frame Assange in a "honeypot" trap?

[ronnie624]

30. I try not to make claims I can't support with evidence.

I'm saying the U.S. government has pulled out all the stops in an effort to neutralize Wikileaks. The words of high ranking government officials prove it beyond doubt. Pointing this out is not a theory, conspiracy or otherwise. It's simply pointing out possibly the most important fact of this issue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Define, "pulled out all the stops"

Are you asserting that the Obama administration is using extra-legal efforts?

In all honesty I would not be surprised if any government tried to keep documents marked --SECRET-- from being published; it's sort of implied, after all. But that's a far cry from employing honeypots, fabricating false rape charges, sending people to Gitmo or any of the other lurid fantasies used to avoid discussing rape as rape.

[ronnie624]

38. As far as I'm concerned,

just about everything the CIA does, and many that the state department does are "extra-legal", thus the need to keep many of the secrets that wikleaks has revealed, but I don't hold President Obama personally responsible. That's just the nature of a corrupted system.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Your quotes were from AG Holder. He's DoJ, not CIA

And what exactly is the CIA supposed to be doing? Either the complaintants are lying or they aren't. If they aren't then no amount of CIA-fearmongering is going to change that fact.

BTW - at the time this charade began Panetta was the head of the CIA. Obama has since promoted him to SecDef. Are you alleging that Obama is promoting people engaged in extra-legal operations that would make Operation: Fast and Furious pale in comparison?

[ronnie624]

55. Holder speaks for the existing power structure, as would the director of the CIA.

My time is too limited right now to attempt to decipher the remainder of your message.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. "existing power structure"

The nameless, faceless -- and ever so convenient -- bogeyman.

[ronnie624]

75. Right,

an organized political system is all just a big "conspiracy theory".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. Only to those who make celebrities out of potential rapists

[GeorgeGist]

151. Potential rapists?

[99Forever]

174. Wrong again.

Those "boogeymen" get named by Wikileaks, smartguy. That's why the scum is trying to frame Assange.

Save your phony propaganda for the dittohead crowd, they are more your speed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

177. That's "smart GIRL" to you.

And spare me the hackneyed "OMG ur totalleez a RW troll!" accusations.

Whoever Assange supposedly name apparently hasn't suffered so much as a disruption of their golf schedule.

If Assange was so scared of Sweden then he was an idiot to go their for cocktail parties and staying around for the non-consenting sex. And then he was a bigger idiot for fleeing to the UK and standing in their courts surrounded by their cops if he is supposed to be sooooo scared of the evil shadow government that apparently keeps Obama as a mere figurehead.

[99Forever]

187. It ain't Sweden that's the problem, lady

It's Sweden's proven quasi "legal" habit of doing dirty deeds for our filthy "intelligence agencies."

But you knew that.

So...

... tell me some more lies.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

208. What lie?

Tell me which part is untrue --

1. Assange has not threatened anyone because no one has suffered because of his disclosures. Not even "Collateral Murder" resulted in anything.

2. Established female progressives do not participate in phony rape conspiracies.

3. If you believe Sweden wants to extradite you to the US via extralegal means then going to Sweden for cocktail parties is a stupid idea

4. If you believe the US would resort to extralegal means to grab Assange than going to the UK is a stupid idea

5. It's insulting to suggest Obama is too impotent or too corrupt to not send Assange to Gitmo


The apologia being fronted by Assange defenders is the dumbest scenario I've ever heard about someone pretending to be an international man of mystery but I'm curious to know which part of that is me misrepresenting what I'm expected to believe. I get the feeling that the only reason some are so upset is because once the story is laid-out from start to finish the absurdity of it all is unmistakeable.

[2ndAmForComputers]

10. When aren't they?

[pnwmom]

16. If someone was setting him up, wouldn't they have given the women much better stories?

Instead of stories that have us debating whether sex-without-a-required-condom is rape? Or whether penetration of a sleeping woman is still rape? Or whether if you give consent one night, then you have a free pass for the next morning?

Why would the CIA give the woman such debatable stories?

Their stories have the ring of truth to me and to many other women.

[ronnie624]

36. You haven't even heard their stories yet,

only a translated description by a third party. In actuality, just about all of the factual details are subtly hidden from view. Analyzing this issue will require plenty of skepticism and patience.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. "Poor translation" comes up a lot in those threads where Hugo Chavez

is acting like a putz again.

[ronnie624]

56. I didn't say it was a poor translation.

You have not heard a public statement or sworn testimony from either woman, therefore you do not yet know their story, only a translated description of it.

[TBF]

60. I think you're hitting all the talking points today ...

nt

[randome]

49. 'could be'. That's the difference there.

People want to believe what they want to believe. Well, some do. Others remain steadfastly objective no matter the celebrity-hood of those involved.

[TBF]

61. lol - yeah I'm seeing "steadfastly objective" here

[treestar]

62. So if he had not done these things and it was just some bloke who'd happened to get to London

And it somehow made the news, then it might be a legitimate Swedish proceeding?

He could still be guilty. He's not immune or suddenly an angel in everything because you like his publishing private documents or classified documents. You can like that and it still might be that he did violate the Swedish law.

I don't see why Sweden has some motive to "persecute" him, but if they did, then he'd have some story regarding them and their legal system, at the very least. And they are a First World Western Nation, not Belarus or the like, with no real complaints at their legal system.

The timing isn't suspicious either. Julian was just living his life and getting more and more egotistical and certain that he can do anything he wants. His whole schtick involves breaking the law - maybe his head was big enough to think no woman would turn him down or report him.

[TBF]

64. If he were "just some bloke" we wouldn't be

having this conversation.

[pnwmom]

67. Right. Because he would have been picked up in Sweden for questioning

a long time ago. Or, if he was some bloke with enough money to travel, he'd have been picked up in England and extradited to Sweden under the European Extradition Agreement.

[TBF]

85. I am not one to feed into conspiracy theories normally -

as capitalism in it's glory is bad enough to deal with. But I'm not convinced that this isn't a set-up ... sorry I know the status-quo types have their story to push but Imperialists have a history of railroading folks (if not outright killing them) when they are in the way. I think that could very well be happening in this case. Frankly I'm surprised Assange has remained alive as long as he has ...

[pnwmom]

89. If this was a set-up why didn't they give the two women better stories?

Why are we mucking around in debates about whether it's rape if the woman had consensual sex the night before, or if the woman is sleeping, or if the man didn't use a condom even though she'd said he had to, or if the woman doesn't fight when she finds out he skipped the condom, or if the woman said he'd broken a condom on purpose?

Don't you think the CIA has enough experience to come up with better stories if this was their plot?

[TBF]

97. lol - it doesn't matter if the story is good

as long as it either (a) works or (b) distracts

Either way they've discredited him and that's enough for most people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. Your're claiming 2 established female progressives are really paid whores for the PTB?

[TBF]

105. lol at your characterization -

you know I said nothing of the sort but way to attack someone personally rather than discuss substance. And I would love to hear your definition of "established" and "progressive" as I've read a good number of your posts on this board.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. You claim they are deliberately telling stories they know to be false to discredit Assange

pnwmom rhetorically acknowledges the premise --

pnwmom (39,761 posts)
89. If this was a set-up why didn't they give the two women better stories?

"They" -- the shadowy PTB -- gave the 2 women "stories" as part of a "set-up."

You agree to the premise --

TBF (17,315 posts)
97. lol - it doesn't matter if the story is good

as long as it either (a) works or (b) distracts

And yet you blanche at the term "whore."

I would be curious to hear under what circumstances you imagine established progressive activist women would be induced into having sex with Assange or anyone else at the behest of the unnamed "They" so as to tell "stories" to "set-up" another progressive activist.

[TBF]

116. I didn't say anything about your use of the word "whore" - but

again you are throwing whatever at the wall that you can to see what sticks. I have no interest in answering your inane scenarios as you didn't respond to my questions at all.

I'll be frank - I don't think you have any interest in the economics of working class folks. As to whether you're paid for your posting ...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. Wait a minute.

You claim "they" "set-up" Assange by getting progressive activists to have sex with him and tell "stories" so as to accuse him of rape to distract from -- something. You then accuse me of having no interest in working class folks -- as if the Assange issue has anything to do with that -- and then you accuse me of being paid to post in favor of equal justice for rape victims.

And yet you decry "inane scenarios."

Your post requires no rebuttal; it disqualifies itself in all its ignominy.

[pnwmom]

66. If they were setting him up, why didn't they give the women better stories?

Why didn't they have them accuse him of clear-cut, garden-variety wide-awake rape? That would have been simple enough.

Instead, we're having debates about whether penetrating a sleeping woman constitutes rape; about whether not using a condom after the woman refused to have sex without one constitutes rape, about whether he deliberately slashed his condom (as one of the woman thought) etc.

If the CIA were involved in concocting these stories, I think they'd have done a much better job. These stories are messy and confusing and have the ring of truth.

[sabrina 1]

78. The stories are very messy, if you take the trouble to actually

learn about the case from the beginning. And that is the reason why so many, many people, including people who are not particularly fond of Wikileaks, have serious doubts about the motives for this 'case'. A case that after two years and repeated refusals by the prosecution to talk to Assange, has yet to be filed in court.

Maybe it is time to start writing OPs laying out the 'messy' details, although a lot of the early evidence has been scrubbed from the web, as some of us following it from the beginning actually witnessed as it was happening.

File the charges, if you have a case, or stop the charade. It's really not that difficult.

[jeff47]

155. So you're suspicious because you are clueless about the Swedish legal system.

A case that after two years and repeated refusals by the prosecution to talk to Assange, has yet to be filed in court

That's Swedish law. You interview the suspect before filing charges, and you have to interview them where you have jurisdiction - also known as "in Sweden".

The courts in the UK ruled that Assange's current situation is similar to someone who has been indicted in the UK/US-style legal systems. Because in our systems, you file charges earlier than in the Swedish system.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

8. It's simpler than that

If you agree with the politics, you make excuses for the person. Same with Manning and the fact he apparently struck a female officer.

[HappyMe]

14. +100

[pnwmom]

18. You got it. n/t

[Robb]

21. Excellent point. DU as ever is a microcosm.

Witness our jury system -- if a jurist agrees with a personal attack, they let it stand. Personal opinions cloud the application of justice.

[X_Digger]

25. Ain't that the truth? n/t

[slackmaster]

39. Wow, that's going to make a lasting impression

The truth can hurt, but it's still the truth.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

43. I don't pull punches

I supported John Edwards in 2004 and 2008. Turns out the guy was a scumbag. Unlike many here, I made no excuses for him, nor thought he should dodge prosecution (where many good DEMOCRATS got screwed out of their money donated in good faith).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. "Wow, that's going to leave a mark"

Perhaps not the most artfully chosen expression WRT domestic violence against women but I understand your overall context and I don't believe you were being snide.

[slackmaster]

52. I haven't had coffee yet. I'll tone it down.

Thanks for pointing out the unintentional whatever.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Friends don't let friend post without coffee

[Bobbie Jo]

57. Bingo

"maybe she deserved it."
(BBI, celebrated troll extraordinaire)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

58. Oh, yes....

....I was trying to recall which asshole said that....how could I forget?

[riderinthestorm]

74. Bullshit. Plenty of people LOUDLY proclaim Obama has assassinated American citizens

without due process (Al Awlaki, OBL, Awlaki's 16 year old son). Plenty of people LOUDLY proclaim the illegality of Gitmo...

Its absolutely not true that DUers "make excuses" for people they agree with in politics if they are committing crimes. We have plenty of evidence right here on DU with the Weiner case (who actually did not commit a crime but suffered the consequences and howls of outrage from our side nonetheless), Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, etc. These boards are filled with people who strongly condemn people on "our side" without making any excuses for them, even as we like their politics.

That said, Assange's case has been badly tainted. Its condescending, simplistic and grossly unfair to paint DUers as dittoheads. Closing your eyes and ears to the evidence of malfeasance perpetrated on Assange and Wikileaks demonstrates an inability to understand the big picture and I'm sorry for all of you. "Simple" doesn't even begin to describe this case and its a shame that's all you can reduce it to.

[Robb]

82. You sort of missed the mark there.

By definition, if you LOUDLY proclaim Obama has assassinated US citizens without due process, you do not agree with him -- at least on that issue.

Similarly, for example, I agree with many of Assange's policies and viewpoints. I fully support Wikileaks, as my posting record here bears out.

I do not however agree with his view that he should be immune from prosecution for all crimes as some kind of payment for services rendered to the notion of transparency. Tell me, do I agree with Assange politically or not?

[riderinthestorm]

87. Someone's missed their mark and its not me....

From post #8 "If you agree with the politics, you make excuses for the person. Same with Manning and the fact he apparently struck a female officer."

People on DU in general agree with Democratic politics but most of us do NOT make excuses for Democratic politicians if they're wrong or committing illegal acts. These boards are filled with examples - I've named a few. Even Manning does not get a pass for his past behavior. Nobody's excusing him for that.

Its simplistic, condescending and nonsense to broadbrush DUers like that.

[Robb]

88. So we're NOT making excuses for Assange?

I suppose it depends upon where one sits.

[riderinthestorm]

99. Tiresome, disingenuous and a repetitive slam to DUers who read the situation differently than you

There's no respect or civil conversation when the ASSumption is made that DUers who support Assange are simply "making excuses" instead of evaluating the information and coming to their own conclusions, different ones than you obviously.

The Assange threads have deteriorated into useless mind numbing exercises in futility imho. Nobody's mind is being changed at this point. Resorting to completely false broadbrush smears on people who've made up their minds differently simply poisons the atmosphere of DU even further. Its depressing seeing the "+1's" that any DUer who supports Assange is an unthinking dittohead in this thread however and lays bare some ugly souls.

[Robb]

100. And those who don't support him now should delight in

Being called trolls? Sauce for the goose. Yours is the most hypocritical post I've read all week.

[riderinthestorm]

107. Using the exact same verbage as RW media shills?

Using the pronoun "we" when referring to themselves?

Posting MIS-information, repeatedly, in the exact same format?

One poster even told me that if even Pussy Riot got justice in the US, so can Assange.

Insisting that the government gets to make the decisions for women on their sex lives.

Sorry but there's some bad smells on DU these days and its not coming from those who believe in Wikileaks and Assange....

Whatever. Its a futile exercise anyway so if a "hypocrisy" label is the worst I'm getting out of this, then so be it. Flame away. It contributes so much to the conversation, just like the anti-Assange poster who told me that Bush never committed rendition, extra judicial actions, or imprisoned people without habeas corpus so if Bush didn't do it, then Obama surely doesn't ever. Like I said, futile.

[riderinthestorm]

115. Uhm, 7 years. I joined in 2005 nt

[Bobbie Jo]

122. My apologies.

[DirkGently]

148. Not any more than "we" are convicting him because "we" hate Wikileaks.

It's a silly proxy battle of which we have far too many. If he's a rapist, he ought to be nailed to wall for that. As a distributor of information governments have no right to keep secret, he did the right thing.

Reality's messy that way, don't you think?

[sabrina 1]

123. That is not his view. Please provide evidence that it is his view

that he should be immune from prosecution for all crimes.

[Son of Gob]

106. Osama bin Laden was an American citizen?

Learn something new everyday.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. To be fair I think he was refering to Awlaki and others; not UBL

riders and I would disagree vehemently on whether Assange should be held to account but it would be unfair to mischaracterize the meaning of his remark.

[Son of Gob]

117. No, he named 3 American citizens Obama assassinated

OBL was one of them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. I think post 118 is a fair and honest clarification

[riderinthestorm]

126. Clarified in 118, I meant to say Americans and non-Americans but if you'd like I'll go make an edit

instead of keeping this sub-thread intact so everyone can see my honest mistake?

Honestly, Obama's droning in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere is a huge problem and your pointing out my error gives me an opportunity to critique Obama again for his criminal actions, even as I support his politics.

Thanks for giving me a chance to prove post #8 wrong, again.

[Son of Gob]

127. Yep, criminal actions of killing Osama bin Laden

[riderinthestorm]

118. "She". And thank you, yes, it was a general reference both to extra judicial assassinations of both

Americans and non-Americans. Meant to say both of them but didn't proof before I posted.

[SidDithers]

124. Nailed it...

Sid

[patrice]

176. No. If you disagree with the reason, it's an "excuse"; if you agree, it's an "explanation", because

3rd way is evil.

[MadrasT]

12. The hypocrisy *is* a little mind boggling. n/t

[redgreenandblue]

19. Except that the two issues have only very superficial similarities and your post is a uber strawman.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. A strawman argument relies on mischaracterizing an opponent's argument

Which of the 2 statements in the OP is a mischaracterization?

[redgreenandblue]

29. Two points:

1. The general argument is that the fervor with which the case against Assange is persued is politically motivated rather than stemming from actual concern for the alleged victims. Further, there is concern about the integrity of the judicial process for that very reason.

2. Taking rape-charges seriously does not mean that each and every charge is automatically truthful.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. But those making excuses for Assange have non interest in discerning if a rape has been committed

He's the wikileaks guy + it was just a condom malfunction = not legitmate rape

Just because some rape allegations are bogus doesn't mean these should be automatically considered as such. What has me torqued isn't that Assange may be innocent. Nothing would be more pleasant to hear than there were 2 less rapes in this already twisted world. What torques me is how fast 2 potential rapes are dismissed over political convenience. It makes the complaints against Akin ring hollow and opportunistic while it conveys the message that women consort with progressive celebrities at their own risk.

If Assange is not guilty -- awesome. Let thim get back to work. But women should not be told to lay back and relax because progressive men are at work and they have needs. Let the facts come out in a public court under the rule of law or quit pretending transparency and law are what Assange supposedly champions.

[pnwmom]

68. I'd say that most of the fervor surrounding these claims

is caused by hero worship of Assange.

[frylock]

129. because supporting transparency in govt equals hero worship..

perhaps to a simpleton.

[pnwmom]

130. No, ignoring sexual assaults

because one approves of other actions of a powerful man is hero worship.

[frylock]

133. and as soon as those women state that they were sexually asaulted..

then i will too acknowledge that they were sexually assaulted and castigate assange accordingly. until that time, your argument and accusations are bullshit.

[pnwmom]

134. Their lawyer said in June that they want the criminal investigation

of rape and molestation and assault charges to proceed, and they're disappointed that Assange is hiding in the Embassy.

Why would they want the criminal investigation to proceed if they didn't believe they had been assaulted?

[frylock]

136. i'm afraid that you're going to have to present evidence of that..

from EVERYTHING i've read, the women want assange to take an STD test, full stop. so again, if you can provide a link from a legitimate source showing UNEQUIVOCALLY that the women (not the state, nor the prosecuter) indeed stated themselves that they want to press charges, then i will express my most sincere apologies.

[pnwmom]

138. No problem.

Unless you say the women's own lawyer does not speak for them, or that The Guardian is not a legitimate source.

This is about what the attorney said in June, 2012.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-tragedy-lawyer


Julian Assange's decision to seek asylum in Ecuador is "a tragedy" for the two women who have accused him of sexual assault in Sweden, their lawyer has said.

Claes Borgström, who represents the two unnamed women with whom the WikiLeaks founder had sexual relations in Stockholm in August 2010, told the Guardian the women were frustrated and disappointed by Assange's decision to seek asylum rather than face investigation in Sweden over claims of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

"They are disappointed, but they are getting used to this by now," said Borgström, who has represented the women throughout Assange's sequence of appeals against extradition in the British courts.

"They know that all they can do is wait. I have told them I am not sure, but I think he will still be extradited … it is a tragedy for the women. I don't know how long it will take for him to be extradited now. Victims want to put these things behind them in order to be able to get on with their lives. The tragedy is that he doesn't take his responsibility. He should have come to Sweden."

[Spider Jerusalem]

140. ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19295726

[snooper2]

32. you posting that it is a strawman is a strawman

[Harmony Blue]

59. +1 Common sense

Thank you.

[redqueen]

27. Please don't conflate all support for Assange

With thinking he's innocent of any wrongdoing with respect to the rape accusations.

He may be innocent or he may be guilty.

I support him because he is being singled out for unfair treatment.

If the Swedish govt won't guarantee he won't be sent to this sad country, I support the Ecuadorean govt in protecting him from that possible fate.

[redgreenandblue]

33. +1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. I decline to see Obama in such nefarious terms.

Maybe I'm too naive. Maybe I shouldn't vote for the guy but the only reason Assange is being chased by the UK and Sweden is because he has ran from both of them. Rape allegations, bail jumping, extradition -- these things tend to get the cops' attention. Obama isn't going to stuff Assange into Gitmo. Near as I can tell the US doesn't even have a bill of indictment.

The whole extradition excuse is just that -- an excuse. Assange spent 2 years in the UK, the supposed lapdog of US foreign policy, playing the "Woe is me!" game. The only poorer choice for fighting extradition to the US would have been going to Texas.

[redqueen]

41. I also don't conflate Obama with America. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. He's the president, the Chief Executive.

Law enforcement, foreign affairs, the military, intelligence etc. Those are all the exclusive purview of the Executive. Nobody works in that branch of government without his permission. He can fire CIA directors and generals with a stroke of his pen. There can be no extradition without his permission.

Either Obama is part of the nefarious plot or his is a passive, impotent observer but either way to claim such things undercuts all reasons to support Obama. Why bother is he's part of the Grand Conspiracy or is too much of a simpleton to do anything to stop it?

Of course, another option is --

[GliderGuider]

92. In many ways Obama is an impotent passive observer.

At the very least he's not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent...

I think people drastically overestimate the real power that a modern (post-Kennedy) president has.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. Then tell me who can start or stop an extradition request.

I'll vote for that guy instead.

[JackRiddler]

166. Talk about strawman!

The empire is reacting in an entirely predictable fashion to the perceived threat or nuisance of Assange. It would be no different no matter who was currently playing "commander in chief." What does this have to do with whoever is currently occupying that office?

Extradition from Britain (as opposed to illegal "rendition&quot is much harder than from Sweden, as we have seen. The Swedes could legally (under their system) hand him over to the US without a long process.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

173. Yes. The Empire.

Well, I guess I won't bother voting for Obama. I mean, what would be the point as long as The Empire can do whatever it wants with impunity and the general public isn't even aware of them.

Do you know if The Empire has an address I could submit a resume to? As long as they're not going anywhere I could use the job security and it sounds like they've really got their act together. An operation that size surely could use an assistant project manager. And don't tell me they don't have projects! AmIRight?!?!

Do you think they'll let me transfer my 401k?

[JackRiddler]

204. When are you going to figure out the world doesn't revolve

around any given politician? In a way, a rational, institutional view even lets him off the hook. Do you prefer to see him as solely responsible for the atrocities this country commits all around the world every day? All those wars started before him, no?

This country is run by a small, identifiable ruling elite, from which acceptable and highly conformist candidates for the civilian government emerge. Not that their parties don't differ in some important ways, but neither challenge Wall Street, and they don't challenge the primacy within the government of the military-industrial complex and the national security state. I'm sorry if you are so blinded by ideology to this nation's ruling institutions, to the point where you want to deny their enormous industries even exist.

Where are you working today? If it's anything to do with the Pentagon or the deep state or its thousands of contractors or the 800+ foreign military bases or the several perpetual wars on which our income taxes are wasted, then you are already working for the empire.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

210. What utter tripe

Baseless, lurid fantasies.

Everybody runs around high-fiving when Obama kills Bin Laden but then they pretend some shadow government ordered the drone strikes. Poor little president; he's only the Commander-in-Chief. It's not like he can go on TV and say, "I never ordered those strikes! And I can't stop them!" Without digressing into a morality debate on that, not once does anybody have the sand to say, "Maybe he's doing his best. Maybe that was the next Bin Laden."

Anything that has the moral convenience of a lightswitch is a farce from front to rear; and that exactly what this "Empire" nonsense is peddling.

And if the government is so damned corrupt go join the Tea party. Or maybe I will. Anything as big and scary and murderous as you describe should be stripped, gutted, starved and locked away never to be allowed to see the light of day. We certainly should never give it our schools, our healthcare and our livelihoods.

[JackRiddler]

212. Your point upthread really impresses me...

for the combination of authoritarianism and naivete it shows. You don't think the US government would do what's it always done - find ways to neutralize its designated enemies abroad, if possible - because a) you think this would be entirely up to Obama and b) you can't bear the thought that he'd be responsible. This isn't systemic thinking, this is hero worship and soap opera.

Otherwise, I don't know who you think you're talking to. I wasn't among those high-fiving when "Obama kills Bin Laden," the former junior partner in the CIA operations in Afghanistan and presumably elsewhere. After all the talk about the mastermind of terror, I find it interesting their incursion didn't take him in for the precious information he could provide, but shot him and "buried him at sea."

I think based on your talk you might, as you suggest yourself, feel at home in the Tea Party. That's not really for me to judge. They are certainly not the only group who have noticed that the US government is corrupt and run on behalf of a small ruling class - as it has been throughout the country's history with a few notable exceptions such as the New Deal. Of course, they think some new historical epoch began with Obama, just like you do; only they think all the bad things started then. They are also notable for simultaneously being the strongest supporter of the government they believe to be corrupt when it undertakes domestic repression against certain groups (like African Americans) and goes on international kill-sprees. That's the kind of contradictory thinking your posts suggest you might feel at home with.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

217. You are really confused.

I think based on your talk you might, as you suggest yourself, feel at home in the Tea Party. ... They are certainly not the only group who have noticed that the US government is corrupt and run on behalf of a small ruling class - as it has been throughout the country's history with a few notable exceptions such as the New Deal. Of course, they think some new historical epoch began with Obama, just like you do.

The entire point I'm arguing is that I reject the notion of wild-eyed conspiracy theories. I assert Obama is president and is a good and decent person who sometimes makes unpopular choices but he makes the best choices he can. I do not subscribe that the government is run amok and believe it has much good to offer. There is no shadowy cabal.

What I'm saying is people who do peddle that tripe have common cause with the Tea party. It is absurd to claim the government is corrupt beyond redemption and then in the next breath be in favor of public healthcare and education.

WRT the actual topic at hand -- if the absence of the nefarious dark powers of the global conspiracy do not exist then maybe Assange needs to answer for what may well be serious crimes. So be it. Obama is not out to persecute poor little Julian. Obama is certainly president enough to end an unjust extradition -- not that an extradition is imminent. It's just a lurid, baseless, hypocritical dodge offered up by people protecting a celebrity who hasn't even done anything really all that significant. He's just playing the mob for patsies and the patsies enjoy being played.

[JackRiddler]

224. Who said anything about a shadowy cabal?

That's your confused conception of things. You're the one mystifying it with talk of "dark powers" and "global conspiracies," which I have not mentioned. Pure projection on your part.

Corporate rule, especially by the two centers in Wall Street and the military-industrial-intelligence complex, is out in the open. You can't see their books, of course, and they have the right now to pay off politicians' campaigns in secret for services rendered (as if they were not already doing so prior to Citizens United). But the fact that they hold sway is hardly a secret, as the revolving door doesn't even exist any more - it's one big hangar where the top personnel move freely between private contractor and ostensible government job. Goldman and Co. provide the Treasury appointments, Lockheed and Co. live at the Pentagon. The thing has built an enormous shield of secrecy and lack of unaccountability around itself, with more than 2.5 million document classifications a year plus 27 million derivative classifications, but even though you're not supposed to look inside, you'd still have to close your eyes not to notice. To see it, you only need to be able to remove the blinders of the press-release version of America.

Since the Tea Party is actually bulwark of this status quo - they would like to see further deregulation and sanction hidden government by corporations spending money in secret, with no disclosure obligations - it seems to me it's a much better fit for you than for me. Since it's such a wonderful government and all, and they like you are among its supporters (albeit highly confused about terminology, so that they think their rabid support of the real Big Corporate Government is somehow a rebellion against their imaginary conception of the evil, socialist "Big Government.&quot

I also see no contradiction in saying the government was long ago captured by corporations and a corrupt ruling class, and demanding that it be otherwise, that it stop serving a useless and destructive global military empire and start serving the people with adequate funding for health care and education.

That's once again you trying to set up false dichotomies in which the only choices apparently consist in wide-eyed authoritarian endorsements of either, your limited conception of the government (which you call "Obama" but isn't just a presidency, as it has permanent drives and elements) or else the "Tea Party" (a Republican electoral campaign that already went defunct after accomplishing its mission in 2010). Perhaps you have a simplistic, black and white world view in which anyone disagreeing with you must be them, so you're trying to categorize me as them, but I certainly think you share more of their fundamental understanding of the world than I do. They certainly share a dichotomous view of the world.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

225. Everytime you complain about my characterizing your argument as an appeal to shadow governments

You turn right around and appeal to shadow governments.

The rape apologists keep telling us the US will demand Sweden extradite Assange (though, apparently they neglected to ask Bush's lapdog). Seeing as Obama is the boss of the DoD, CIA, Dept of State (is Hillary in on it too?) and the DoJ just who exactly will be making the extradition request?

[JackRiddler]

227. The difference is I don't mystify "shadow government."

It's the visible and extra-constitutional multi-part state of the banks, the biggest corporations and the national security complex. Its precise workings of course are opaque to us, but it's not like its existence can be hidden by any power other than ideologically induced blindness and wishful thinking. So you can call it a shadow government, if you like. It's better than any of the more obviously mystical attack phrases you've deployed ("global conspiracy," "shadowy cabal," demonic etc. etc.). I know, it's easier if you think that obvious observations about the nature of power in a capitalist and imperialist state are something crazy and right wing.

Of course extradition orders are going to come through the constitutional authorities. The useful exercise is in asking where the pressures come from that guarantee the US will make an enemy of the state out of Assange -- a journalist who exposed US war criminality and in a moral universe should therefore be invited to testify in war crimes trials against the perpetrators. The reaction to Assange would happen in any administration, because the fetish for secrecy, even when used to cover up crime by any code of law, is paramount. More often than not, it's not a secret controller but a herd mentality at work. The ruling herd follows the structural imperatives of empire -- that's right, the thing that everyone in the world sees as an empire, including the neocons, and which is invisible only to an idealistic segment of the US establishment center-left. I'd love to see Obama stand up to it. He's about 1.3% more likely to do so than Bush, so I voted for him.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

229. So Obama is sitting in the Oval Office one day

when he hears on the TV that the US is seeking Assange's extradition and his head snaps up from his reading and he says, "Wait! What?"

Panetta looks at him and says, "Just let it go, boss. Just let it go."

woooo!

[JackRiddler]

235. Your fantasy versions are of little concern...

However, it is interesting you think a busy man like Obama necessarily is knowledgeable on every grand jury proceeding or potential extradition action. Maybe, maybe not, even in a case as prominent as this. After all, he may be too busy refining the drone-kill list. There are only so many things a president can micromanage.

Though in his actions as head of Wikileaks, Assange embodies ideals of transparency, press freedom and insistence on disclosure and justice that are supposed to be American, the US state would have designated him an enemy no matter what, even after the Bush administration that was responsible for the bulk of the war crimes went its way. Why is that? Why do you seem to approve of this conceptual dead end for our nation, this state of permanent war and permanent empire? Why aren't you appalled by all the politicians who have called for his death?

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. How is he being singled out for unfair treatment, exactly?

Any other person who stood accused of a serious crime for which extradition was sought would be extradited with much less fuss and attention. He has had the benefit of a full appeals process, while represented by some of the UK's most able human rights lawyers, that went all the way to the UK's highest court; his appeals against extradition were dismissed.

The Swedish government cannot guarantee that they won't extradite him to the US; no such request has been made, and any government guarantee would be meaningless because extradition, if appealed, is decided on the merits of the individual case in the courts (the judiciary being independent of the government and not bound by its guarantees not to extradite). Asking for a guarantee that there will be no extradition to the US is asking for an impossibility.

See the following:

Assange has indicated that he may go to Sweden if he receives an undertaking that he won't thereafter be extradited. The difficulty is that Sweden has not received an extradition request and nor could it have since Assange is in Ecuador's Embassy in the UK. On a practical level Sweden could not give an undertaking on a request not yet received. Legally there are problems too. In Sweden section 15 of their Extradition For Criminal Offences Act states that “ Before the government makes a decision , the Prosecutor General shall deliver a statement of opinion on the matter. In addition , if the person referred to in the request has not consented to being extradited, the case shall be tried by the Supreme Court. The request shall , however, be rejected immediately if there is a manifest reason why it should not be granted. “ Therefore it appears that if the extradition is contested as it would be in Assange's case then it is a matter for the court not the government to decide if he is extradited.

In these circumstances it would appear to be legally impossible for Sweden to give the undertaking sought by Assange. In any event in Sweden Assange could argue before the court that there is a manifest reason why the Extradition request should not be granted.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what%27s_going_on%3F.html

[Zorra]

98. The whole case is a total legal disaster that cannot be justifiably prosecuted.

http://justice4assange.com/The-European-Arrest-Warrant.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

101. No, it isn't.

The validity of the European Arrest Warrant, and the question of whether the Swedish Prosecution Authority constituted a "judicial authority" for purposes of the agreed framework, and the question of whether the alleged offences constituted crimes under British law, were examined in detail in Assange's appeals of extradition. The appeals were dismissed. The warrant was found to be valid, and issued pursuant to a prosecution. The Swedish Prosecuting Authority was found to be a "judicial authority" as defined in the framework agreement. The extradition was upheld and further appeal denied as without merit.

[Zorra]

170. Could you post a source, or did you just make up the "pursuant to prosecution" part

of that paragraph?

Do prosecutors prosecute people before they are charged with a crime in Sweden?

[Spider Jerusalem]

172. ...

Ground of appeal 3 - Was Mr Assange accused of an offence in Sweden? (paras 128 - 154)

It was common ground that extradition is not permitted for investigation or gathering evidence or questioning to see if the requested person should be prosecuted. Mr Assange's contention was that, although he was required for the purposes of being prosecuted, he had not been accused of an offence in Sweden as he had not been charged. The Court therefore had to consider whether Mr Assange was 'accused' for the purposes of the 2003 Act and Framework Decision.

The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:

"In the present case, as is accepted there is nothing on the face of the EAW which states in terms that Mr Assange is accused of the offences. ... The fact that the term “accused of the offence” is not used does not matter if it is clear from the EAW that he was wanted for prosecution and not merely for questioning." (para 148)

He went on to say:

"In our judgment Mr Assange is on the facts before this court “accused” of the four offences. There is a precise description in the EAW of what he is said to have done. The extraneous evidence shows that there has been a detailed investigation. The evidence of the complainants AA and SW is clear as to what he is said to have done as we have set out. On the basis of an intense focus on the facts he is plainly accused. That is ... decisive." (para 151)


He added:

"... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange." (para 153)

The Court dismissed this ground of appeal.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

[Zorra]

181. OMG! It's like a Monte Python skit. He's not charged, and Sweden is not really prosecuting him,

but the British have determined that Sweden is prosecuting him, because if the allegations had been brought forth in England, he would already have been charged in England, and therefore, Sweden is already prosecuting him.

Wow.

Did I miss anything?

An attorney once told me this: "It does not really matter if you did not commit a crime for which you have been accused, and it does not matter if there is no evidence that any crime has been committed. If the law finds you guilty of a crime, you are guilty of a crime".

Thanks for this. You have removed the last vestiges of doubt from my mind.

I am now completely convinced that Julian Assange is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt, and I believe that he is being falsely accused, smeared, and framed.

But are you sure that this is not satire? You didn't get this from some Monte Python skit, did you?

"even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange."

And so, have the British already found him guilty?

there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales,

so he done it? not allegedly done it?


What a bizarre witch hunt this is. A parody that must be making Monte Python totally green with envy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

184. The court can only judge whether the warrant is valid...

for purposes of extradition. A judgement on the guilt or innocence in the charges is for Swedish and not British courts to decide.

[Zorra]

186. I know, but they said he did it. Slip of the tongue, or is someone presumed guilty before being

proven innocent in England?

[Spider Jerusalem]

188. It's not just that they said he did it, he said he did it.

His grounds of appeal:

Grounds of Appeal (para 6)
Mr Assange appealed against his extradition on four grounds:

1. The EAW had not been issued by a “judicial authority”.
2. Offences 1-3 described in the EAW (set out at paragraph four offences: above) did not meet the dual criminality test (a principle of extradition that a person should only be extradited where the conduct is not only an offence under the law of the State requesting extradition, but also under the law of the State from which the person’s extradition is sought). None of the descriptions of the offences was a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged. As regards offence 4, the conduct, if fairly and accurately described, would not have amounted to the offence of rape.

And the judgement on that:

The Court considered the issue of Offence 4 and ruled that the conduct described in the EAW was fairly and accurately reported. The President of the Queen's Bench Division concluded:

"It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. ...... it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom." (para 124)

The court went on to say:

"It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did." (para 126)
The Court ruled that Mr Assange's objections raised in relation to Offence 4 fail. (paras 104 - 127)

[reorg]

192. "if fairly and accurately described"

is obviously not written in a language you understand.

[Spider Jerusalem]

211. Apparently you have comprehension problems

the accuracy and fairness of description of the events relating to the alleged offences numbered 1-3 in the EAW is challenged; they are "not fairly or accurately described", per the appeal. Offence 4 is not challenged thusly by Assange himself.

[reorg]

213. LOL, right back atcha

seriously, that is what you think? I thought your only problem was to grasp the proper meaning of "fair" and "accurately", but apparently I was wrong.

Didn't you just quote and HIGHLIGHT the following statement by Assange's defence:

"As regards offence 4, the conduct, if fairly and accurately described, would not have amounted to the offence of rape."

So, just like the other alleged offences, alleged offence #4 is challenged as not fairly and not accurately described.

Whereas the alleged offences 1-3 would not meet the dual criminality test, if fairly and accurately described, #4 would not amount to the offence of rape, if fairly and accurately described.

Why the difference? Because under the EAW framework, there is no dual criminality test for an allegation of rape, IOW, extradition cannot be refused due to a failure of the dual criminality test:

2. The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:

...
-rape,
...

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002F0584:EN:NOT

So, there goes your silly assumption that the rape charge and "that he did it" is not challenged by the defence.

[Spider Jerusalem]

219. Go here:

Page 31, para 123.

123. The essential complaint made about the fairness and accuracy of the description of the offence is that it did not set out the context to which we have referred from which it was contended that the offence of rape could not be inferred. The context would have made clear that she either consented or he had reasonable belief in her consent.

124. We do not consider that the offence was not fairly and accurately described. It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. "Consummated" refers to having intercourse, not to ejaculation. In our judgement it was not necessary to go further than was set out in the description of the conduct as it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.

125. Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as "half asleep" and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to assess whether the allegations may fail. It was not therefore necessary to set the details of these out. There is, therefore, nothing in the particulars which is neither fair nor accurate.

126. The gravamen of Mr Assange's argument is that the description of the offence by the Prosecutor does not set out the continuum of events and the context, but seeks to isolate one aspect. That continuum and context showed that she agreed to sexual intercourse when she realised what was happening; it cannot therefore be alleged that he did not have a reasonable belief in consent. We accept Ms Montgomery's observations about how far it would be right to see what happened afterwards as consensual rather than reluctant submission. But the fact of protected sexual intercourse on other occasions cannot show that she was, or that Mr Assange could reasonably have believed that she was, in her sleep consenting to unprotected intercourse. The fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her. Once awake she was deciding whether to let him go on doing what he had started. However it is clear that she is saying that she would rather he had not started at all and had not consented. The prosecution case on rape is or includes the start of sexual intercourse: its references to "consummation" cannot in context be confined to its conclusion or to ejaculation. It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

[reorg]

220. So?

Your post in no way responds to my previous reply to you.


I am aware that this court did not accept the challenge, we know Assange lost the appeal. It's still not a fair and accurate description, even if this court pretends otherwise.

If it is not "reasonable" to expect that a partner would consent, after she had consented several times over until she "dozed off" and never declined, WHAT IS?

"...it is clear that she is saying that she would rather he had not started at all and had not consented"

No, from what is this supposed to be clear? Readers would like to know.

"... the fact of protected sexual intercourse on other occasions" (like throughout the previous night and directly before the activity in question) "cannot show that she was, or that Mr Assange could reasonably have believed that she was, in her sleep consenting ..."

Well, nice try, not IN her sleep, certainly not. But that's inconsequential, because, as soon as she awoke, she continued and thusly consented, whether it is perceived as "reluctant submission" or not.

"the prosecution case on rape is ... the start of sexual intercourse" - so, how many seconds did that "rape" supposedly last? Here, the court makes clear that they don't intend to interpret and describe the situation fairly and in an appropriate manner. They point out that the Swedish prosecutor's allegation refers to mere moments, and don't object. Which means they accept the unfair and unaccurate description in the warrant as it is.


If all that is needed for a rape prosecution to stand that during a few moments, one participant was unaware of what is happening, although what is happening had been going on in a consensual manner for hours on end, and continued thereafter, then I'm sure there are a lot of rapists out there.

I find it very odd indeed that nobody has ever been able to cite such a case here. Nor a case where the "rapist" took off surreptitiously, without the consent of his partner, the condom and initiated sex while she may not have been fully aware of that.

Show me and I shut up. I don't believe such cases exist.

[Spider Jerusalem]

221. Whether such a case exists or whether a trial will result in conviction is not at issue.

At issue is that Assange accepted the description of events set forth in the police interview. The finding of the appeals court on the question of dual criminality was that the offence alleged would constitute rape under English law.

[reorg]

228. at issue is your blatantly false claim that Assange "accepted the description

of events set forth in the police interview".

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I pointed out where you may have misunderstood some details regarding the European Arrest Warrant procedure. That was apparently a mistake, since you first ignored what I said and now you just repeat your nonsense without even attempting to support it.

The appeals court stated that the rape offence alleged in the warrant would also be labelled rape under English law. That's where the question comes in whether such cases actually exist.

Nobody could point me to one such case as of yet, and I'm quite confident you won't be able, too.

Just like all the other experts who just love to quote from the court's "findings".

As to the challenge by Assange's lawyers, of course would a fair and accurate description of the events set forth in the police interview not constitute rape, not in Sweden or anywhere else, that's why the court pretty much ignored it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

230. I linked you to the appeal judgement

he accepts that the conduct described in offence 4 occurred and relies on "extraneous material" - that is, on the police interviews with the accuser - to provide a context in which he claims that what happened is not rape. This ground of appeal was rejected and the offence was found to be fairly and accurately described even considering said extraneous material.

[reorg]

231. your false claim is not supported anywhere in the linked appeal judgement

In what is discussed under offence 4, in paragraph 104-126 including the paragraph you quoted verbatim "he" (I suppose you mean Assange or his lawyer) nowhere "accepts that the conduct described in offence 4 occurred".

You are simply making it up, for the third time in a row, a blatant lie.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

[Spider Jerusalem]

232. Except he does.

Offences 1-3 are claimed to be "not fairly or accurately described". No such claim is made for offence 4; the ground of appeal relies on consideration of extraneous material in the form of police interviews.

[reorg]

233. This is getting boring, you make false claims, cannot support them

they're shown to be in error, you repeat them.

Yawn.

123. The essential complaint made about the fairness and accuracy of the description of the offence is that it did not set out the context to which we have referred from which it was contended that the offence of rape could not be inferred. The context would have made clear that she either consented or he had reasonable belief in her consent.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/71282275?access_key=key-3kjm4nnobxiqui81yzw

As shown and explained in various threads here dozens of times. But you knew this, right?

[Spider Jerusalem]

234. That context was examined and found to still constitute grounds for a charge of rape...

under English law. "The context would have made clear etc"; the context was examined, and the ground of appeal was dismissed as without merit.

[Zorra]

189. Oh, yeah. BTW, that does not prove that the case will/can be prosecuted.

It only proves that the British court assumes that it can be prosecuted.

[deaniac21]

31. All depends on who's ox is getting gored.

[randome]

51. Interesting choice of words!

[Enrique]

34. pubic hair and circumcision n/t

[LanternWaste]

48. I imagine there are many people who believe

I imagine there are many people who believe that the allegations of rape are a wholly separate issue than that of WikiLeaks itself; that in fact, one may validly discuss one without any part or parcel of that discussion being predicated on the other.

I also imagine that there are many people who either cannot do that, or, for the sake of a 'legitimate' convenience, will not do that.

So yes, someone may easily perceive two parallel lines joining together in that full and glorious circle that only imagination can bring to us.

[sabrina 1]

73. Rape is a rape and it is a violent crime against women. Yet, some of those

who believe allegations against one individual who has created embarrassment for this government and many others, while they also support 'moving on' from Bush's war crimes, some of the worst of which were the brutal rapes and torture of Iraqi and Afghan women and the sodomy and torture of children.

In the latter case these are not simply allegations, there is video tape, still not made available to the public after years of court battles, but viewed by many of our elected officials who expressed horror at what they saw, yet have chosen to 'move on' denying those victims any justice at all.

You cannot support moving on from such crimes, for political political purposes, then claim to be outraged over a case where there have been no charges, no evidence and in fact three different stories from one of the accusers and a refusal by the prosecutors to interview the accused.

Why these allegations are far more important than the war crimes, using rape as a violent tool of war, to some progressives, is simply not comprehendible. I see no advocates, no outrage since Bush left office, no attempt to influence this administration to provide some justice to those victims by the same people claiming that rape is the issue here. It is not until they exert the same amount of energy to demand justice for those brutalized victims of rape and torture. No credibility whatsoever.

[KoKo]

143. WHY? Indeed! n/t

[jeff47]

156. Quick! Look over there!!!

You know, I heard that some people I disagree with said this other, unrelated thing.

[AngryAmish]

50. Since we have closed Gitmo and left Afghanistan, what else can we argue about?

jeez

[DonRedwood]

53. no no no...have you ever done a post about nuclear power?

It is like rubbing a steak all over yourself and walking into a lion's cage.

[Renew Deal]

76. Interesting point

[undeterred]

79. You forgot pubic shaving.

[AtomicKitten]

86. I am appalled when ANYBODY parses the definition of rape.

[sabrina 1]

94. Yes, we are all appalled when charges of misdemeanors are turned into charges

of rape for political purposes. Nothing weakens the rights of rape victims than to use it as a political football and anyone who does this or supports it for their own political purposes, should themselves be prosecuted for abuse imo. I am hoping that eventually in this case, considering all the evidence that this is indeed what happened in this case, there will be charges of prosecutorial misconduct, something that has already been considered.

I am also appalled and will continue to say so, although so far from those who claim to be so appalled, there has been no response, when rape is used as a weapon of war, when a Government has appalling evidence, viewed by our Elected officials, of these crimes, when children are sodomized and the crimes are video-taped for further humiliation of the victims, and when that Government chooses to 'move on' from those crimes.

When those who are appalled by a case where no charges have been filed, where there has been more exculpatory evidence than evidence of a crime, are willing to support ignoring those egregious crimes against women and children, when they refuse to pressure their Government on behalf of those victims, they have zero credibility claiming their outrage in this case.

The Obama administration needs to move from its amnesty of those war criminals, stop protecting them, as revealed in the Wikileaks documents, and start bringing the perpetrators to justice. Otherwise every word that is said by the US Government regarding this case is pure hypocrisy.

I will always remember the woman named Noor, who could not be found after the reports of her vicious abuse in Abu Ghraib turned out to be true. Where are her advocates among the outraged?

[AtomicKitten]

96. Parse away. Ugh.

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 05:34 PM - Edit history (1)

My first comment ----> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1180690

... and my last ----> It is appalling that even the in-your-face juxtaposition of Assange/Akin on the subject of parsing the definition of rape is met with a complete and utter lack of insight, particularly by some so-called "progressive" women here. And with that (and a shudder of disgust- ugh), I have nothing further to say to you or anybody else on this subject.

[sabrina 1]

108. What does have to do with my comment?

Where is the outrage from the same 'appalled' people at the years long abuses by the US of the women of Iraq and Afghanistan, progressives now either silent after years of claiming they wanted just for Bush's victims of torture and rape and murder, or outright agreeing that it is 'best to not try to prosecute war criminals because it would make Democrats look like they are on a witchhunt'?

There are hundreds of women who have been raped in US detention centers, a small few of them have come forward which considering the consequences to them, is extremely courageous, but they have received a slap in the face and a refusal to even hear any claims for even monetary compensation repeatedly in US courts, claiming 'national security'.

Either rape is a serious crime or it isn't. Those horrendous crimes were documented and the evidence viewed by our elected officials. We waited eight years from the first report of women being raped in Abu Ghraib, the woman whose name I already mentioned being the first airc, to get justice for those women.

Clearly the US does NOT view rape as a serious crime unless and until they reverse their current policy of 'moving on' from these crimes. Any comment on the Assange case by the US government will be and is met by a reminder of the dismissal of that same government of the crimes committed against those women and children.

I want this administration to provide justice for those women, those who survived the nightmare that is. That was a driving force in the work we did to remove Republicans from power in 2008 only to be told to forget about it. I have viewed the painful interviews with a few of those brave women, none of whom have even received an apology for this country now so obsessed with a case where there are still no charges, only allegations and little evidence provided so far to back them up. Is it because the women of Iraq are not white? Is for political reasons they are being denied justice?

[AtomicKitten]

110. Better question: What does your comment have to do with the OP?

You produce copious volume but rarely stay on point.

Bye now.

[Bobbie Jo]

112. +1000

[sabrina 1]

114. Rape is not the subject of this discussion?

Your copious content is missing your opinion on rape except in this one case which has yet to be filed, let alone produced anything other than allegations.

[jeff47]

158. Staying on point would require defending the point

And when that's not working, it's time to change subjects.

The fun part is to keep going. Come back in a week, make a few more responses. It becomes an interesting experiment to see just how far off-topic it goes.

[dionysus]

154. +1000

[HiPointDem]

104. +1.

[Zorra]

119. Thread win, hands down.

I am not worthy.

[Bobbie Jo]

150. Sure

If strawman arguments are your thing, because that is all this post was from start to (thank God) finish.

I could swear I heard the Battle Hymn of the Republic in the background.

Pat yourselves on the back there, liberal sainthood is within reach!

[WilliamPitt]

90. Ouch. That'll leave a mark.

[LaydeeBug]

102. I appreciate your attempt to marginalize complex scenarios by oversimplifying them

My vagina is 8 miles wide. Absolutely everyone can come inside...

[AntiFascist]

125. The hot button topic regarding Assange...

is whether he is being setup to be extradited to the US.

It's too bad CIA operatives still behave like they are in a James Bond movie from the 60s.

[KoKo]

132. We don't have any evidence of CIA Ops....but,

as we have seen....new information often comes to light...awhile later. In Assange's case...there have been some things that raised "Flags."

Some of us older DU'ers have seen things work out that what you think you are seeing at the beginning isn't how it all comes out in the end. So, some of us are very cautious about the constant focusing on "RAPE" with Assange when it's much more nuanced about whether that ever occured and if it is "rape" in the way it's intended to protect true victims of heinous crimes.

Since Assange's case is now reaching international ramifications....the possibility of there being something else going on with the two women who were friends of Assange possibly one or both being compromised in some way....and NOT by Assange.

It's good to keep up with all the information going on. We "Cold War" survivors have learned that the "Truth" is a thing that often takes years or decades to find...and even then we still argue over JFK and other high profile's deaths.

[AntiFascist]

135. Speaking of the JFK assassination, there's this from RawStory...

One accuser, A*** A****, may have “ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups,” according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d7Gw)

[KoKo]

139. Trying to read everything coming out...and parsing betwen the two or three sides..

Interesting read...thanks.

[jeff47]

157. If they were behaving like in a bond movie

They'd have a much better story to set Assange up with.

[AntiFascist]

167. At least it would make for a good mini-series or cable production....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html

How must Sarah have felt to ­discover that the man she’d taken to her bed three days before had already taken up with another woman? ­Furious? Jealous? Out for revenge? Perhaps she merely felt aggrieved for a fellow woman in distress.

[cr8tvlde]

142. My enlisted 19 year old niece was raped by a US soldier while stationed in Germany.

Since she is gay, it's kind of a "double" rape. Who believes her is irrelevant. Yet, nothing was done. She "asked for it" couldn't be denied because she would have had to own up to being gay and that was before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

And to all to apologists on this board, and especially the women and if that makes me sexist sobeit, solve the Franklin Scandal...google it...there was all kinds of real live evidence and it got completely covered up...forever. There were massive evidence trails at the time...it was 1988...not that long ago for some of us. This is child's play, in comparison.

I don't know about Assange, and neither does anyone else on here. Two women who did not press charges and are long gone. We're discussing something that NO ONE here or likely there knows anything about.

And as to Akin, well it's pretty clear that at the very least he's a soon-to-be unemployed idiot. And for whatever it's worth, Assange is holed up and will not likely be free for most of his life.

[Karmasue]

164. My humblest sympathy

to your niece for having suffered that violation. I am truly sorry that, even now, there remains a culture in our military that allows, and even condones that atrocious behavior.

[patrice]

180. !!! :-((( for your niece & +++ for this post. You are right, we don't KNOW.

[Fire Walk With Me]

145. Liberate us sexually so they won't have it available to divide and distract us.

[Cleita]

146. Best comment of the day today.

Thom Hartmann is back and he had a moron caller say liberals think women should have a right to kill babies (abortion) or something like that (I'm paraphrasing.) Thom cooly just said that two guys shouldn't be sitting around discussing issues that involve women, especially complicated issues like abortion.

WELCOME BACK, THOM!

[eilen]

182. My first impulse is to always distrust what a government (or cop, or other power holder) has to say

particularly when related to whistleblowers, dissenters, social outcasts, rebels and those that otherwise rock the boat and peel back the pretty lies of propaganda. That's just how I roll.

[seabeyond]

183. i took note of that myself. nt

[Aerows]

193. Sexual Violation isn't a game

it isn't a joke, and it isn't a light hearted matter.

I'm a woman, and let me be the first to inform you of that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

218. No, it isn't a game which is why

letting Assange escape on the excuse for which Akin is deservedly being taken to task over is so deplorable.

[cemaphonic]

216. The last few days around here have certainly been surreal.

It's one thing to argue about whether the evidence is solid or challenge the credibility of each side in a contentious trial. But it's been really distressing to see progressives all over the media and internet line up to explain away the alleged offenses themselves as merely poor sexual etiquette. Since many still seem unclear as to what he is being accused of, here are the allegations laid out in the EAW (the extradition request from Sweden to the UK):

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

“1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2.Sexual molestation -On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The
sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”

It is very disappointing to me that so many on the left can look at that list (especially 1 and 4) and conclude "not rape." To be very clear, I am *not* making any claims (or interested in discussing) as to the truth of these allegations - the proper venue for that discussion is the eventual trial. But they are serious charges, and should be treated with respect instead of sarcastic comments about broken condoms. And to have days of that crap followed by a giant pile-on over Akin's stupid and offensive statement was just too damn weird.

[Robb]

222. This would make an excellent OP.

As someone wiser (and more succinct) than me put it upthread, "If he's a rapist, he ought to be nailed to wall for that. As a distributor of information governments have no right to keep secret, he did the right thing. Reality's messy that way, don't you think?"

[AntiFascist]

223. Excellent point...

but black & white thinking dictates that all DUers must be divided on one side of fence or the other. This seems more like a case of "shades of grey".

[HockeyMom]

226. Republicans can create MIILLIONS of jobs

but if women cannot control their own fertility, they won't GET these jobs. Younger women MUST understand this.

I saw and heard this firsthand when I was young. Women of childbearing age will be passed over for men siimply because men cannot become pregnant.

Don't believe an old woman? Do you want to CHANCE this?

[Honeycombe8]

236. That's about it. "Women lie about rape" pretty much sums it up. nt