10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

[barracuda]

...I'm obtuse, please be kind enough to explain why...

It's fascinating, but maybe you guys can iron out the details of this somewhat complex concept in a new thread in the "Religion" subforum or via private messaging rather than completely derail the discussion. Thanks.

[Ben D]

.
Karma? Please!

JR, I only said the physical law was an analogy,...the doctrine of karma is an integral part of the doctrine of reincarnation and can't be understood separately, so don't expect instant retribution. When the reality behind the concept of karma is understood properly, it is seen not to be exclusively about punishment or rewards, but about the relationship between the cause and effect of one's actions that need to be learned to evolve to a higher state of existence.

[Ben D]

It's fascinating, but maybe you guys can iron out the details of this somewhat complex concept in a new thread in the "Religion" subforum or via private messaging rather than completely derail the discussion. Thanks.

Sorry Cuda, had already posted the last one when I became aware of your admonition, you now have my complete attention and compliance.

[compared2what?]

Wait.

If young single women who keep condoms around the house for reasons that might plausibly include accommodating the unknown number of men with whom they could, for all anyone knows, routinely be having casual sex after a mere two or three hours of first acquaintanceship can now make rape allegations against charismatic, attractive and world-famous men without everyone (or, for that matter, even anyone) suggesting that they're sexually loose and/or uptight and/or excessively and quite possibly delusionally needy and/or vengeful and/or motivated by their sick (and/or frustrated and/or all-consuming) lifelong obsessions with power and/or wealth and/or fame plus, on top of all that, it's now standard to subject the almost classically conventionally romantic terms in which the man they're accusing defines both himself and the women he finds attractive to the closest possible degree of scrutiny for tell-tale signs of habitual (and/or characterological) improprieties wrt sex- and gender-role-related issues?

Sorry, but in that case, I feel absolutely certain that I'm entitled to a one-time waiver of my non-posting status, on the grounds that all bets are off when you're witnessing a FUCKING MIRACLE. Because not only have I never seen that on RI before, I've never seen it anywhere before ever in my whole entire life.

Okay. That's it, you guys. I, for one, am now ready to call it conclusively:

If Julian Assange has the power to bring about that order of social change, there's literally nothing he can't do. Give the man an orb and scepter and let the one-world era of peace and plenty commence.
______________

(Um, bye again, everybody! I was just here to wrap up some correspondence, really.)

[annie aronburg]

You've been working out, haven't you?

[seemslikeadream]

Sarabina
19 December 2010 12:46AM
I wish you had done some research before writing this. Now I shouldn't have to do your work for you, but I will try to enlighten you:

1) He is not charged with anything in Sweden
2) He stayed in Sweden for more than a month after the original allegations and he was allowed to leave the country (he did not leave illegally)
3) According to him and his lawyers it will be easier to extradite him to the US in Sweden

We do not know if he is innocent or not; however he has the right to a just and fair trial.

just because he has some celebrity supporters, that does not make him the next Roman Polanski!

[JackRiddler]

Wait.

If young single women who keep condoms around the house for reasons that might plausibly include accommodating the unknown number of men with whom they could, for all anyone knows, routinely be having casual sex after a mere two or three hours of first acquaintanceship can now make rape allegations against charismatic, attractive and world-famous men without everyone (or, for that matter, even anyone) suggesting that they're sexually loose and/or uptight and/or excessively and quite possibly delusionally needy and/or vengeful and/or motivated by their sick (and/or frustrated and/or all-consuming) lifelong obsessions with power and/or wealth and/or fame plus, on top of all that, it's now standard to subject the almost classically conventionally romantic terms in which the man they're accusing defines both himself and the women he finds attractive to the closest possible degree of scrutiny for tell-tale signs of habitual (and/or characterological) improprieties wrt sex- and gender-role-related issues?

How do you do that? True, you never got to the "then" part of the sentence (it came in the next paragraph) but up to the question mark (which is marvelous, all I'll say) it parses as grammatical and conveys sense in an orderly fashion.

You're my hero. Let's give you an orb and a scepter and let the party begin!

.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

I think some of it was indirectly directed at what I've put up recently? Not sure though....

Heres' the article SLAd posted a comment from. It's a worthwhile addition here IMO.

So, Mr Assange, why won't you go back to Sweden now?

The WikiLeaks founder's reluctance to face his accusers sits badly with his avowed role as champion of freedom

Comments (1123)

Catherine Bennett
The Observer, Sunday 19 December 2010

It could be a quality lost on suspicious interviewers, or one he has quite recently acquired, but in all the profiles I have read of the extraordinary Julian Assange, none has begun to convey the man's dazzling effect on his admirers, male as well as female. For the woman who last week flourished the placard: "Julian, I want your babies", his release from Wandsworth must have come as particularly welcome news. But his chief British benefactor, the former army officer Vaughan Smith, has shown that the Assange effect goes way beyond standard manipulation of the groupie-reflex.

Smith's atmospheric account of the night before his hero turned himself in might easily have been set in the Tower of London, on the eve of a royal execution. "I feel that I am intruding," Smith writes, "but Julian smiles at me. He does that: brings you in and makes you feel you are important to him when most of us would feel too preoccupied to do such a thing." All too soon it is morning. "Julian is hungry, as he had no dinner last night."

A similar, doting concern for Assange's physical wellbeing pervaded every pre-release bulletin from his lawyer, Mark Stephens, with his repeated emphasis on the privations of his client in the "Orwellian" and "Victorian" conditions in which, it was discovered, Oscar Wilde had previously been incarcerated, though without the benefit of Victorian TV. Ghastly as Wandsworth jail must be, an earlier Assange myth had depicted someone more along the lines of Jason Bourne than Lady Jane Grey, one perhaps better prepared than most prisoners for discomfort and isolation.

All his life, it is said, Assange rejected domesticity, catnapped on floors and mattresses, if not up trees, shunned routine and regular meals. The New York Times interviewer John F Burns recently found him moving, excitingly, "like a hunted man", using false names and encrypted phones. This hard, lonesome Assange told Burns: "When it comes to the point where you occasionally look forward to being in prison on the basis that you might be able to spend a day reading a book, the realisation dawns that perhaps the situation has become a little more stressful than you would like."

That, however, was written in October, before both the latest tranche of revelations and the Swedish extradition order relating to alleged sexual offences against two women. Conspiracy theorists are not alone in thinking this coincidence reason enough to forget any serious consideration of the sex allegations.

"The honeytrap has been sprung," Stephens said. "Dark forces are at work. After what we've seen so far you can reasonably conclude this is part of a greater plan."

Thus far, if he is right, it is hard to see the plan as an unqualified success for the dark forces. Unless, always a possibility, it was always part of the plan for Assange to mesmerise a host of brilliant, clever new supporters, plus John Pilger, to experience martyrdom in the same cell as Oscar Wilde, and now to move his operation into WikiLeaks's answer to Downton Abbey. Was it the plan, back at dark forces HQ, that Assange's name should now be so potent, among legions of influential, normally judicious supporters, as to place him above the law? To listen to them, the creation of WikiLeaks and an allegation of sexual impropriety are two utterly irreconcilable concepts: there is no way the person who did the former could have to answer for the latter.

Even if the dark forces are not responsible, their hero could never have done the things the women say he did. Negligible though they were. As a captivated Tariq Ali said last week: "The charges are wishy-washy, even in Sweden."

In court, Assange's liberal barrister, Geoffrey Robertson, considered the offences so minor he would probably get off anyway. On Thursday, however, Assange said he did not know what the allegations are. Classic Sweden.

In the most unexpected places, any interest in establishing the truth through the Swedish legal process, as opposed to claim and counter-claim in the media, instantly translates as disloyalty to Assange, the world's greatest champion of the truth. Any sympathy for the women he slept with, as their frailties are indefinitely, globally exposed, will earn you none from, say, John Pilger, slamming the "false tribunes of feminism" he blames for trusting the "chaotic, incompetent and contradictory accusations against Assange".

But some feminist supporters have similar problems with his accusers. Naomi Wolf, the American intellectual, said they are "using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings". Right, stick to your own language, blondie. In Britain, Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, also had her doubts about those false tribune favourites.

"We are seeing increasingly on the internet research into the backgrounds of both women that raises real questions about their credibility and the credibility of their claims," she told one broadcaster. An interesting view, in the week that Keir Starmer declared, of rape investigations, that "myths and stereotypes have no place in the criminal justice system".

On the internet, of course, the women can be joyfully named, pictured and pilloried, assessed and obscenely condemned for everything from their feminism to loose morals, clothing and idle, pre-WikiLeaks blogs. Jemima Khan, an Assangist, has tweeted a personal favourite: one accuser, months before meeting Assange, composed a document called "7 steps to Legal Revenge". The Daily Mail and now the Guardian have had much to add about the women's story, of separate sexual encounters with Assange, followed by accusations of his alleged impropriety, followed by formal charges, followed by a withdrawal of those charges and, in yet another reversal, the restoration of the women's case by the lawyer Claes Borgström.

With the women's statements now out there in full, everyone, including Mr Assange, can check out the way the honeytrap combo has used feminist-inspired rhetoric – you bet without asking – to get round the fact that one of them actually went out in a bright pink cashmere jersey and now expects her moment in court. Only in Sweden.

Of course, if Julian Assange accepts his extradition, travels to this liberal hell-hole and answers the relevant questions, something approaching the facts might be established. Why doesn't he just do it? He could clear his name.

But any outcome would, surely, be better for his reputation than celebrity-funded evasion. To keep delaying the moment of truth, for this champion of fearless disclosure and total openness, could soon begin to look pretty dishonest, as well as inconsistent.

If and when the Americans come after Assange, there should be any number of admirers who want to contribute to his survival, in particular, one hopes, all the media organisations that have gained so much from his years of hardship and skulking. Is it too much, until then, to act like a decent person? Like Tariq says, it's only Sweden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... x-offences

I find it interesting that many supporters rightfully point out that he hasn't been charged yet with crimes in Sweden (yet) and yet use as an excuse (as JA himself does) for his reluctance to return the notion that extradition to the US from Sweden will be easier for crimes he hasn't been charged with in the US (yet).

[Stephen Morgan]

So in Sweden, is it "rape" if the guy doesnt use a condom? thats just bad form, and does a serious disservice to REAL victims of rape.
I feel this way about cases where an 18 or 19 year old boyfriend gets charged for being with his 15/16/17 year old sweetheart.

Or in Israel where an Arab is charged with rape for failing to inform his hookup that he wasnt Jewish.

When is rape not "really rape". Its clear Assange is a player. But were these women simply star fuckers, like groupies who willingly hookup to "be with a star"?

If he forced himself upon them, drugged them, etc...yes, thats rape. But not wearing a condom, is that really assault? We do get into areas where someone is purposefully infecting
others with AIDS, and there has been court cases of that. Or trying to get a girlfriend pregnant to have control over her, another issue Ive heard of.

It's almost as if you haven't read a single word of the OP here. Well done. The complaint is not that he merely didn't use a condom.

No? Remember the original charges were all dropped by the original prosecutor, although some of his actions were allegedly unchivalrous I'm not sure exactly what he's being pursued for. Fucking a sleeping woman isn't the done thing, but as she doesn't seem to have minded when she woke up I'd say that takes it from criminal to impolite. Similarly he was allegedly rather rough, but it isn't claimed he actually used physical force to force himself upon anyone. And the OP does put a lot of weight on the claims about the condom, interviewing the former boyfriend and so forth. So I'll agree with 8bit that this is all basically bad form and that any legal system which regards consensual sex as criminal because the man refuses to wear a condom is highly unjust. And probably does trivialise rape. I'm inclined to believe Craig Murray's judgement of the Swedish legal system, him having first hand knowledge of the workings of sexual character assassination and the covert state, even though he is still a Lib Dem.

from the bbc interview last night (:

JA: “I’m informed that there will be, within the next 24 hours or so, another leak of information, deliberately, from either the Swedish prosecution service or some organizations that have managed to obtain selected material. Nothing that we have.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12015140?u ... um=twitter
*

Hoist by his own petard. He who lives by the leak dies by the leak. And cetera.

Thanks for that astute observation Stephen, though the wheels of karma may turn slowly, they do turn surely,...whatsoever men sow, that they shall reap. Etc.

either that or JA and WL have inside sources in Sweden, giving them notice beforehand.

anyway, if JA and WL is a scam as you seem so certain of then so are the charges, and the karma thing makes no sense, right? or do you mean that fake karma and real karma are identical? what do you mean, really? do your thoughts on this cohere?

whatever.

*

I didn't mean to imply a causal connection, just that it's somewhat ironical that he's the king of leaks and has been damaged by a leak by prosecutors. Karma is irrelevant, whether the western version or the original version in which obedience to foreign dogmas ensures preferable consideration in the ranking of ones next incarnation.

Despite the fact that what we know about the charges has now canged with what is revealedw in this thread, I did just want to say that I think that Swedish rape laws are much better than in most other countries. The law certainly encourages young Swedish men to be much more attentive and open to their partners' wants/desires/wishes etc. I think that the various punishments fit the various crimes, etc. Certainly it can be established that there is some semblance of civility associated with these laws.

Civility and attentiveness and so forth might be virtuous characteristics, but their absence isn't and shouldn't be a criminal matter. I suppose I don't agree that certain groups ought to be forced into social conformity by state terrorisation.

But like I said, it sounds like Assange didn't just fail to wear a condom anymore.

Allegedly. Also, presumably he hasn't returned to Sweden because he's on bail and isn't allowed to, combined with a reasonable expectation that a country currently in the process of stitching him up might not be a good place to submit oneself to the justice of the state.

[nathan28]

Having read some of this, especially the character-based speculations, I am now going to reject** what is an emotional blackmail in the neoliberal style hiding as it always does behind women's rights, minorities, civil liberties, etc., etc. I had originally written a long response to this. It does not warrant it because I have no desire to swallow any misogynistic poison pill coated in poptard celeb-gossip anti-intellectual character narratives about an "arrogant" "intellectual" revenge-crazed nerd turned rich-and-powerful serial rapist based on what at present amounts to five separate pieces of evidence (emails from one woman, a possibly phony internet dating profile, another woman's account about intellectual arrogance, a possibly valid rape/not rape/rape story where the only item that doesn't require inference is a failed condom and lastly a story where a woman who would "never" have sex without a condom has a lapse of judgment while half-asleep and consents to unprotected sex) that save for the last two bear scant relation to each other but in the minds of some fully evidence and justify the creation of a complete criminal profile.

I am going to note that the story that Gawker & Friends are pushing is the same variety of bullshit as the post by "A." at Cryptome just without the $15 doctoral thesis vocabulary that didn't warrant anywhere near the same level of murmuring. So, go head, let your "picture" emerge, I'm sure it's just as valid as any other character impressions you might have about someone else you've never met. Yeah, I just called you stupid.***


Worst of all, no one here, as supposed "Deep State" central, seems to have paid much heed to the fact that by the Guardian's account, UK officials, not Swedish ones, pushed to have Assange locked up. That indicates that the speculation and the narratives that have emerged focusing on Swedish lawyers and politicians are at best very incomplete, and that there is a power play being made that we don't know about. IOW, a "Known Unknown," but I guess we were too busy engaging in textbook psychological projections to notice.

**+*** on edit: Check out my intellectual arrogance, I must obviously be a date rapist. I'll add that to my list of other RI-earned monikers, including retardoskeptic, communist, chemtrails-denier, AGW believer, troll, emotional vampire, DHS dupe and Mossad stooge. OMG, the Jewz are coming for our white women to have unprotected sex with them.

[seemslikeadream]

Naomi Wolf and Jaclyn Friedman Debate Julian Assange's Rape Charges
Noted feminists go head to head about how we should think about the allegations against the Wikileaks founder.
December 20, 2010 |


Last week, Naomi Wolf wrote a snarky open letter to Interpol that raised the ire of feminists. Entitled 'Julian Assange Captured By World's Dating Police,' she seemed to dismiss Assange's rape accusations -- and, by proxy, his accusers -- as banal and trifling. Jaclyn Friedman, Executive Director of Women, Action and the Media, was one of Wolf's most vocal critics. This morning, they debated the issue on Democracy Now!. Watch:

[jlaw172364]

@Cosmic Cowbell

With regard to his dating profile page, it struck me as something a geek would write to make himself seem more masculine and James Bond like, because that's what he's been brainwashed to believe women want, and because many women have been brainwashed to want that, as many a geek has observed, i.e. the neanderthal jerks who have to beat women away with a stick. He was writing the page to make himself seem like a devil-may-care lady's man, in the hopes of attracting women.

People generally try to make themselves seem more interesting, or at least what they think is interesting, on their dating profiles. It often blows up in their faces.

I always notice that men run the risk of being labeled as creeps. Never women. I never read about women getting called creeps. For example, that Samantha Spiegel girl, who was once engaged to John Mark Karr; there was a whole profile on her, but it did not paint her as a creep per se; more like a victim. If it had been a teenaged boy, he would have been branded a sociopath. Never mind that this girl actually considered recruiting tots for Karr's molestation cult. That thought-crime alone should warrant a shunning in a non-hypocritical society. Her excuse: "But he brainwashed me!" wouldn't cut it if she were male. That's a pretty far deviation from conventional morality. If she wasn't attractive, female, and upper-middle class, I doubt she would receive much sympathy. If she were male, she would be Anonymous / 4-chan troll-bait.

I can think of many more examples. Off the top of my head: a website where people vote on how creepy someone in a photo is. If a guy is not handsome, in a photo in the vicinity of some girls, he's automatically a creep, according to the people who vote. It doesn't matter whether he's even looking at the camera. Automatic creep.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

I appreciate the feedback...

Ultimately it -is- a case of he said, she said. I'm simply leaning towards she said. And I'm totally willing to admit that he can be both a far left political hero and a sexual douchebag simultaneously. I doubt he can be both forever. Unfortunately, one is an aspiration, the other most likely a compulsion. We'll see.

Hugs to Nathan. As a Jeerleader, you are simply the best.

Love,

Stupid

[nathan28]

I always notice that men run the risk of being labeled as creeps. Never women. I never read about women getting called creeps. For example, that Samantha Spiegel girl, who was once engaged to John Mark Karr; there was a whole profile on her, but it did not paint her as a creep per se; more like a victim. If it had been a teenaged boy, he would have been branded a sociopath. Never mind that this girl actually considered recruiting tots for Karr's molestation cult. That thought-crime alone should warrant a shunning in a non-hypocritical society. Her excuse: "But he brainwashed me!" wouldn't cut it if she were male. That's a pretty far deviation from conventional morality. If she wasn't attractive, female, and upper-middle class, I doubt she would receive much sympathy. If she were male, she would be Anonymous / 4-chan troll-bait.

This is an anecdote not born out by much beyond its own featherweight.

Presumably you are a straight man. Have you ever had a woman call you 30 times in an hour b/c you were late getting home? How many major motion pictures in the US have portrayed women the the lead antagonist role as obsessive, homicidal stalkers? Likewise women just kill less people and start less fights and abuse their spouses less (though the last one is probably under-reported).

To try and meet you half-way, I cannot imagine that were Assange a woman that Gawker & Co. would be enunciating narratives like this even if most circumstances were similar (minus the rapes), but I also can't imagine a woman assuming Assange's role in the limelight. I.e., the cameras simply would not turn on her the way they have towards Assange, and there would just be less "stuff" about this hypothetical. I am, of course, speculating. But my point is that a woman would not be 'allowed' this role. Even assuming a crime similar in scope and scale to the rapes was accused against hypothetical female Assange, I don't know that it would play the same way. IMO the closet thing I can imagine, women who kill their children, tend to get treated as "sad" stories that always resolve with the same "need for justice" prescription at the end, not "what a creep". Although Amanda Knox--who was involved in a rape (as an accessory and accomplice, i.e., a conspirator, which makes her just as guilty) and murder if the court was right--may have broken into "creep" territory, though her portrayal as unstable and duplicitous, not as a James Bond style date rapist, contributes to that IMO.

I'm having trouble remember the treatment that Hilary Clinton got during the Arkansas Project years ATM (Memory lane has seen a lot of chemical warfare).

[nathan28]

I appreciate the feedback...

Ultimately it -is- a case of he said, she said. I'm simply leaning towards she said. And I'm totally willing to admit that he can be both a far left political hero and a sexual douchebag simultaneously. I doubt he can be both forever. Unfortunately, one is an aspiration, the other most likely a compulsion. We'll see.

Hugs to Nathan. As a Jeerleader, you are simply the best.

Love,

Stupid

Damn, Cowbell, that was the impersonal second-person "you", not intended for you personally, just any Gawktards out there. I read Gawker too, sometimes, I just have a limited capacity for anything that isn't a Lindsay Lohan drug test report (out of solidarity).

I promise that if I ever reach the international villain status where, like famed cinematographic date rapist James Bond, I'd have access to the CIA's stash of hallucinogenic mind-destroying date rape drugs, well, I don't think it's possible to date rape yourself.