Amanda Marcotte: Assange defenders attack rape accusers for no good reason

[Robb]

http://scribe.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/assange-defenders-attack-rape-accusers-no-good-reason">Assange Defenders Attack Rape Accusers for No Good Reason

Rachael, I have to agree with you that the circumstances of Julian Assange's arrest are suspicious as hell and that the charges against Assange seem credible enough. I'm surprised at how many people find it impossible to hold both thoughts in their heads at once and believe that because Interpol is exploiting the sexual assault charges to get Assange, it must mean the charges themselves are lies. I often caution people not to assume conspiracy when opportunism is what's likely in play. Even before all this came out, I really disliked the hero worship of Assange, who has always put me off my lunch. It's possible both that Wikileaks is a necessary curative for government overreach and that its leader is out to serve his own ego needs above all. Anyone who thinks that's impossible needs to think harder about what's going on when politicians get sentimental on the campaign trail.

What is disgusting to me is how much of the left has conveniently forgotten that women who file rape charges can pretty much always expect to have their names dragged through the mud, unless they were "lucky" enough to be raped by someone of much lower social status who also jumped out of the bushes to rape them. And even then, it's iffy if a woman gets a sympathetic audience. Instead, you're seeing a bunch of WikiLeaks defenders start acting like they sprung from anti-feminist message boards, dragging out every hoary slam against the accusers possible. My favorite has to be that one of the accusers is a "radical feminist." Well, then! I guess we can all just go home now, since everyone knows that term means "man hater," right?

Except it doesn't. "Radical feminist," when a woman applies it to herself, usually just means that she thinks it will take more than a few policy reforms to bring an end to sexism. It's a broad term that encompasses everyone from Andrea Dworkin to Susie Bright. It's not even particularly controversial--most feminists I know are "radical" in this sense, and most of us love men (and would point out that patriarchy hurts men, too). More importantly for this case, that a woman who describes herself as a "radical feminist" is the accuser just lends credence to the story that's being told. It makes sense that a leftist activist like Assange would socialize with other leftists. And most men who rape choose women in their own social circles. So, if Assange did the crime, then it makes sense that his victim would be someone who is a political radical like he is.

Other accusations to discredit the alleged victims also fall apart on even cursory examination. The accusation that one of the women had CIA ties is a yoga-master-level stretch. The fact that the alleged victims were reluctant to turn Assange in and asked the police if there was a way to get justice without going through the criminal justice system just lends credibility to the story. In my long experience of blogging about rape and hearing survivor stories, I can assure you that many to most victims see the legal system as a last resort, only to be used if there seems to be no other means of getting the rapist to stop abusing women in his community.....

Read More: http://scribe.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/assange-defenders-attack-rape-accusers-no-good-reason

[DevonRex]

1. Thank you. nt

[Sapphireprick]

2. The fact that she blogged about ways to jail a guy if he cheats on you is no "good reason"?

I and many others beg to differ.

[mainer]

3. or the fact she threw a party for him the day after he "raped"her?

I'd say that's a good reason to doubt her.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Proving the OP's point

Sexual assault victims who don't behave "properly" afterwards are not to be believed. This is a typical tactic of defense lawyers to discredit victims.

[blondeatlast]

18. I wonder if we'll ever come to grips with this truth.

I don't presume to judge anyone in a traumatic situation. I also don't know how I feel about Assange--he seems like someone who wants attention and doesn't understand the consequences of having it. On that point alone, he's not "innocent."

[mainer]

58. And THEN tweeted what a cool evening she was having

a few hours after the party she threw for him.

This isn't behaving "improperly." This is behaving in a way that's incomprehensible to most people.

It seems that she didn't consider it rape until she found out he'd slept with another woman that same week. Only then did she get pissed off and decide to file charges.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. IOW, she didn't behave like a proper victim. eom

[xor]

78. Hey, Hello_Kitty, I have question for you...

You seem to take issue with people attempting to defend this guy, or at least their methods. The problem I see is that it seems as if any attempt for him (or others to defend him) will be shot down as being anti-woman. Perhaps I'm wrong here? My question is if he is innocent of the charges, what would be the correct course of action for him to defend himself?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TorchTheWitch]

145. you can defend him without attacking the women very easily

Here's one way: I don't believe he's guilty because he doesn't seem like the sort of person to do something like that.

There. That defends him.

If you want to get more in-depth, here's another way to defend him without trashing the women or delving into conspiracy theory land:

I don't believe he's guilty because during consensual sex with the stipulation that a condom is used the woman can change her mind about the use of a condom during the act and decide she'd still like to continue the sex without one.

Or this...

I don't believe he's guilty because we don't know what happened and it's entirely possible that he didn't know the condom broke or fell off and only continued the sex with the honest belief that he was adhering to the condom stipulation.

Or this...

I don't believe he's guilty because we don't know what happened and if the condom was removed or came off with no protest from either of the women and they were demonstrative in their willingness to continue the sex without it then he honestly would have believed that even though originally the women stipulated condom use he was given the green-light to continue the sex without one.

See how easy that was? See how much more BELIEVABLE your position would be to defend him logically then by trashing the women and coming up with all manner of loony conspiracy theories?

[bluestate10]

148. Hire lawyers, stand trial if charged.

Defend himself vigorously at trial. That is what any innocent person accused of rape should do. If Assange is innocent, his avoiding a day of reckoning will only increase suspicion of him.

[mainer]

79. She didn't behave like a victim. Period.

She behaved like a woman who had a one-night stand, threw him a nice party the next day, followed by a tweet that she was having a great time with cool people.

Then a few days later, she finds out he slept with another woman.

ONLY THEN does she decide it's rape. Before that, it was just sex.

So now a woman can RETROACTIVELY withdraw consent for a sex act?

(And this is a woman who once blogged about all the ways you can use the law to take revenge on a man who's jilted you.)

[Swede]

82. I wonder why women stay with men that beat them?

They sure don't act like victims.

[mainer]

83. Downtrodden, with no options, afraid to leave behind children

is different from a radical feminist who makes a BIG POINT of never being a victim of anything.

Yet waits days to decide she's a victim, and only after finding out he slept with another woman.

[Hello_Kitty]

86. IOW, proper victims. Not "radical feminists". Oh the horror! eom

[MadamAB]

154. DeNile is not just a river in Egypt.

She could have been blocking what he did.

I was sexually assaulted and it took me weeks to acknowledge what happened because I was not ready to face what he had done was actually an assault.

[Raksha]

88. And some alleged sexual assault victims aren't actually victims.

Some of them are victimizers. That seems more likely than not in this case. This article feels very much like an attempt to manipulate radical feminists, and as a radical feminist myself I deeply resent it.

[Hello_Kitty]

91. That's your prerogative.

I happen to think jumping to conclusions about these women based on smears and innuendo from the press and blogs is wrong.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. That one of them bragged online about her conquest, oops, 'rape' isn't innuendo..

It happened. Sorry, but there's nothing more revolting and damaging to those of us who have experienced sexual assault than women who use false accusations of rape as a tool of revenge...

[Hello_Kitty]

108. But you don't know it's a false accusation. You are speculating based on that one thing.

None of us has all the facts so any sense of certainty about guilt or innocence is misguided.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. I do know that real rape victims don't brag about their conquest...

And it is a fact that one of them bragged online about having sex with him.

[Hello_Kitty]

118. Is there a handbook for rape victims so we'll know the proper protocol?

I've been raped too and I just want to make sure my post-rape behavior was/is appropriate.

[Violet_Crumble]

125. If you were to write one, a strong suggestion not to brag of it as a conquest should be #1

No-one's talking about having to behave a certain way, but publicly bragging about having sex with a guy you later accuse of rape reeks of fabricating a rape accusation. See, I'm someone who does tend to believe women who say they've been raped, because for someone to make that accusation when they haven't been raped at all and are using it as a tool of revenge on some guy is just sickening and shows a complete self-centred lack of concern for women who have actually been raped and who may not report the rape...

[TorchTheWitch]

147. So have I

And you can't know how seemingly irrationally you'll behave until such a thing happens to you. I actually was the strongest defender of one of the guys that did this to me when I found out he'd done the same thing to others. I didn't WANT to feel that I'd been raped even though logically and technically I was and I was angery and hurt and confused and repulsed but I still felt a need to defend him so I could continuing denying to my own self what really happened. Took me months to figure that out.

What is it that people are still not getting that it is COMMON for women who have been raped to feel shame and a sense that she herself is somehow at fault? Irrational behavior IS normal and should be considered normal.

God, when I think back to that time with that first guy I still don't know what the fuck I was thinking. I actually went out of my way to remain on friendly terms with him even though he made my skin crawl and I hated being in the same room with him. That's how desperate I was to convince myself all was normal and nothing bad had happened to me.

[Hello_Kitty]

160. For reals.

I went out of my way to insist that the rape I endured was my fault. I just wanted to get back to NORMAL. My assailant was never prosecuted, in part due to my efforts to protect myself from being raked over the coals. I was 19 years old. I'm ashamed that I didn't press it further but I just wanted to go on with my life.

[TorchTheWitch]

161. to this day I wouldn't go to the police if it happened again

Nothing would have happened to any of them and I'd be laughed out of the police station. So, what's the point? It really has ever so much to do with just wanting to get past it emotionally, and how do you do that by continually having to deal with it? Going through the legal process is like be forced to deal with something that you just can't deal with almost like being raped all over again. Hell, even telling anyone about it can do that. You just want to forget and pretend it never happened.

Last time it happened to me was three years ago and that one was the worst in a lot of ways even though I slept through 99% of it because it made me feel even more of a piece of meat and no consent was given at any time. The very worst part was him laughing about it afterward as if jumping me while I was asleep was just ever so hilarious. I actually would have felt better about it personally if he did it to be a malicious evil scum but he didn't. He honest to God didn't see a thing wrong with it and he never will.

And here we are having to defend our thoughts and actions or lack thereof from people who have never suffered such a thing and somehow think they know better. I could fucking puke.

[Hello_Kitty]

162. I've got a guy here on this thread turning it into semantics games.

Fun!

Must be so nice for him that he has no fear of going through what we endured (unless he goes to jail). He wants to turn it into a debate over porn. I'm not taking his bait.

He has no idea.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Matariki]

89. Neither woman accused him of rape.

I'm usually with you on feminist issues Hello Kitty - but you should try to unbiased read up on the facts of this. It seems like a knee jerk reaction to the media's accusations of rape. Again, neither woman accused him of rape and you at least have to admit that the circumstances & timing around this are suspicious as hell.

[Lord Magus]

150. So what you're saying is that anybody who makes rape accusations must always be beleived?

Regardless of whether they're any credible evidence to back their claims? Seriously? When it comes to rape, presumption of innocence has to be discarded in favor of presumption of guilt?

[sabrina 1]

175. The blogger in the OP is a nasty, man hater, with a reputation

for irrationality on the topic of male/female relations. She is not the kind of person anyone would want to take advice from on that topic. She is filled with the old, rabid, extremist views of her version of feminism. She is the epitome of what has turned so many young women away from the women's movement. Women can do no wrong. Such delicate creatures are they that no one could imagine them lying about sex eg. Shrinking violets, victims and in need of protection from evil men. This is her mantra, insulting to women, portraying them as weak and in no way equal to men, at least in the villain dept. I, on the other hand, know full well that women and men are equally capable of being vicious and liars.

The ignorance displayed in this OP of the facts of the case itself is beyond belief, not to mention the history and work of Wikileaks, a prize-winning International News Organization, which has received awards from human rights org Amnesty International and others. She assumes, with no knowledge clearly of what she is talking about, that Assange is in this for 'his own ego'. The woman is a tool and always was, and not a very good one either, but definitely transparent. Assange even his enemies would say, is fiercely passionate about human rights and about freedom of the press and always was. Her repeating that false talking point would give her away, if I was not already familiar with her garbage.

This case IF it ever gets to court, will be dismissed on its merits IF there is a fair trial. But I doubt it will ever get to trial, it looks like the woman, who always said there was no rape, no violence and no fear of violence, is no longer cooperating with the prosecutor, which would be a wise decision considering he is widely thought to be working with the U.S. Government. All it ever was was a ploy to get Assange to Sweden and from there to the U.S. If they achieve the extradition everyone will forget about the 'case'.

Marcotte is an lazy, ignorant blogger and always was. She is the Nancy Grace of the blog world when it comes to men. If they are accused, who needs a trial? Guilty as charged after all everyone knows that all men are evil rapists and no woman would ever lie about that.

[krabigirl]

134. Exactly, sorry.

Those women knew exactly what they were doing..they chased him down...

[tammywammy]

4. k&r

Great article, the willingness to slam these women so quickly for being "liars" or the "honey pots" (as seen on DU) has disgusted me.

[WolverineDG]

9. especially when we're expected to believe every other victim of sexual assault

no matter how bizarre their story is.



dg

[tammywammy]

11. I'm staying neutral

We don't know enough of the facts. But this attempt to paint one lady (an acquantience of a dude, who worked somewhere, that some guy he didn't know was CIA) as CIA and calling them "honey traps" is disgusting. If they lied, if it's completely not true, then yeah that's pretty horrible of those women to do that. If as reported one women told him to stop and he didn't...that's rape.

[blondeatlast]

16. Well said. It's time that we firmly grasped your last point--

if the act continues past "no" someone has been victimized--even if we want to love the victimizer.

[avaistheone1]

132. The women said it was consensual sex.

That is not rape.

[WolverineDG]

137. I have no idea what actually happened myself

so I'm also playing a wait & see game, while noting that Assange has a pattern of making outrageous claims/threats/statements whenever his name starts to drop off the front page, & that some of his supporters are bordering on rabid idol worshippers.

dg

[librechik]

5. It's simple. They can't arrest him for espionage, so they found something else.

There has been no trial, so nobody knows the truth of the accusations, so nobody can claim to be writing with authority on the subject. Amada is just gossiping on pure speculation.

Everyone does agree, however, that the charges look motivated and suspect on their face.

Besides, if the issue is Wikileaks, why is everyone so invested in getting Assange on some other charge? Are they afraid to attack Wikileaks itself because they really have every right to do what they do as an investigative news organization with first amendment protyection? Better to use the echochamber to smear and discredit the one face attached to the organization. No need to prove anything that way.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. The point of the article is how readily people smear women who claim sexual assault

Even on the left.

[Lord Magus]

151. It's not a smear to say that non-credible accusations are non-credible.

The fact is, neither of them seemed to consider it rape until they realized they weren't the only one he was having sex with. Then they coordinated their stories before going to the police.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I think you have part of this exactly backwards.

>There has been no trial, so nobody knows the truth of the accusations, so nobody can claim to be writing with authority on >the subject. Amada is just gossiping on pure speculation.

A great many people have been claiming that they know with authority that Assange is innocent.

The author quoting in the OP is not "gossipping on pure speculation", she's taking people doing precisely what you say they shouldn't be doing to task.

I have yet to see a single commentator claim that they are certain Assange is guilty. The fault in this one is entirely on one side, and it's the one the OP is criticising.

[librechik]

32. thanks, I will consider your critique--however I have yet to see

evidence of the leftists who are attacking the women who are accusing Assange.Or examples of those who claim Assange is innocent (of rape) The except here is vague about that, perhaps she refers to blog posts. But this doesn't make sense. Even if I felt they were being deliverately used by others to attack Assange, I would never attack them for their feelings of being raped. What liberal would?

More importantly, what does this have to do with the issue of Wikileaks? Isn't it essentially unfair to try to take down Wikileaks by taking down Assange in some ancillary matter? Whether the women are telling the truth or not speaks to taht, not to the right of Wikileaks to perform extreme investigative journalism, as it were.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. I had to alert on a post here today that insulted the women in a very misogynistic manner

Not just calling them liars, but insults about their sexual morals. The mods deleted it. It was from a long-term DUer.

[Blue_Tires]

65. exactly...the "world's most wanted criminal" global manhunt proves that

especially when interpol got involved...

Think of all the big-time fugitives, serial killers and war criminals out there who haven't gotten one tenth of one percent of the police attention Assange got...

And as I've said in other threads, the MORE the media get to focus on this kangaroo court sideshow, the LESS questions get asked about Hillary Clinton spying on the U.N., or the White House smothering Iraq war inquiries in England and Spain, etc.

[cali]

8. no, sorry. rape? I don't think so.

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

[tammywammy]

12. And according to this report, if true it's rape

"saying Assange 'did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use.'"

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

But all the articles are basically speculation and none of us know either. :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Slut-shaming tripe

Basically it's "well we don't know if he's guilty or not but get a load of what crazy sluts those women are!" The writes acts as though being a "feminist" is enough to discredit you.

[AndrewP]

13. That's why I'm not in a rush to condone or condemn him

It's the old NFL thing where if a player does something to a woman, it must be her fault that rubs me the wrong way and makes me hesitate to outright defend anyone.

[Bluerthanblue]

thank you for posting this.

I'm not hopeful that people will read it and think about the truth it speaks, but perhaps a few will.

:grouphug:

[Bluerthanblue]

14. thank you for posting this.

I'm not hopeful that people will read it and think about the truth it speaks, but perhaps a few will.

:grouphug:

[blondeatlast]

15. For now, this is on the Greatest (I was rec 5). I doubt there will be a thoughtful

discussion here, but I applaud the attempt--and an article that the Left should seriously consider.

[Taverner]

19. No - those of us who read the rape charges know how spurious they are

Where does consensual sex without a condom, yet saying you did wear one fall into rape?

Sure, its a dickish move, but yes means yes.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Continuing after a woman has told you to stop is rape.

That's what one of the women alleges he did.

[Taverner]

24. That was not in the initial report

And I feel it was added post hoc

The accuser is on the payroll of the CIA

Could it be any clearer?

[Robb]

26. We have not seen that report.

We have a story from a reporting team who have admitted seeing only parts of it, heavily redacted.

[DevonRex]

21. It becomes rape as soon as the woman says STOP and he doesn't stop.

That was clearly in the charges.

[Taverner]

22. You mean, two days later?

wow.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DFab420]

44. Whhhhat?

If you are having sex with a woman, and she says stop, and you refuse. You think that is only assault?

Sorry but I'm pretty sure you would get convicted of rape if that was the case...

[Hello_Kitty]

50. The belief that once a woman consents to sex she cannot withdraw it is pervasive, sadly. eom

[blondeatlast]

47. Good luck with that--and I hope you have a top-notch attorney. nt

[Taverner]

51. No it would be rape, although the term "sexual assault" is analogous to rape

[DevonRex]

60. WTF? No, that IS rape. Textbook definition. nt

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lord Magus]

153. Except that consent seems to have been withdrawn retroactively.

I don't think there's any nation on Earth that actually allows that under the law.

[tammywammy]

23. And no means no

"saying Assange 'did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use.'"

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

[Taverner]

25. Again this was added post hoc

After the event.

Being that the accuser is on the CIA payroll, her words are dubious

[tammywammy]

28. Sigh, any leap to smear a woman charging a "hero" with rape

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html

OK, so maybe the charges really are for rape-rape, but still -- the woman has CIA ties! I've read that on at least a dozen blogs! Keith Olbermann tweeted it and everything! That's got to be coming from a highly credible source, right?

Actually, as far as I can tell, the only source for that claim is an August Counterpunch article by Assange fanboys (seriously, they recast him as Neo of "The Matrix") Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Here's the most damning evidence Shamir and Bennett have compiled against Assange's accuser:

1) She's published "anti-Castro diatribes" in a Swedish-language publication that, according to an Oslo professor, Michael Seltzer (who?), is "connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner," who reportedly has CIA ties. Let me repeat that: She has been published in a journal that is connected with a group that is led by a guy with CIA ties. Says this one guy.

2) "In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter." That link goes to an English translation of a Spanish article noting that at a march last spring, Posada "wander unleashed and un-vaccinated along Calle Ocho in Miami, marching alongside" -- wait for it -- "Gloria Estefan in support of the so-called Ladies in White." Apparently, it's "an established fact" that Posada and the Ladies also share a shady benefactor, which means he should clearly be called a "friend" of the organization, and this is totally relevant to the rape charges against Julian Assange, because the accuser once interacted with them in some manner.

3) The accuser is a known feminist who once wrote a blog post about getting revenge on men, and "was involved in Gender Studies in Uppsala University, in charge of gender equality in the Students' Union, a junior inquisitor of sorts."

[Taverner]

29. No - I am not anti-woman, I am anti-lie

Are you going to say no one has ever falsely accused someone of rape?

[DevonRex]

30. Yet without all the facts you have deemed the women to be liars. How very pro-woman of you. nt

[Taverner]

36. No - I don't trust CIA agents, male or female

Sorry. I don't trust Used Car dealers, NEW car dealers, CIA agents, the police, Right wingers, republicans, Fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist anythings.

Its a track record thing

[tammywammy]

40. Except she wasn't a CIA agent.

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

Here I'll link to this handy article again for your convenience.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html

[Taverner]

46. Hmmm, on the payroll of the CIA, doesn't have any other jobs...

Hmmmmm no she's not an agent. Couldn't be.

I think what really bothers you are the leaks. You think the government has a right to keep things, important things, secret, because after all, they're better than us.

A functioning Democracy needs transparency.

We need Wikileaks. We don't need secrets.

[AngryAmish]

48. Evidence, stat.

[tammywammy]

52. Oh damn you have access to the CIA payroll?????

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html

"1) She's published "anti-Castro diatribes" in a Swedish-language publication that, according to an Oslo professor, Michael Seltzer (who?), is "connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner," who reportedly has CIA ties. Let me repeat that: She has been published in a journal that is connected with a group that is led by a guy with CIA ties. Says this one guy."


Or was it more like what this article lays out....

[tammywammy]

31. Sure there are women that fasely accuse others of rape

But YOU said she was a CIA agent. She was not. That's a smear.

IF she told him to stop and he did not, then it's rape. Period.

[Taverner]

34. I am putting the pieces together

You know the old adage: walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it is not an elephant. It, sir or madam, is a duck.

[tammywammy]

39. We don't even HAVE all the pieces

And you don't especially, since you're quick to call one woman a CIA agent when she wasn't one.

Maybe you just need to reevaluate the so-called pieces you've collected and realized we have no clue what happened, and instead of smearing these women it's best just to remain silent and wait for the facts to actually come out.

[Taverner]

41. Then why are you SO SURE he's a rapist?

I mean, innocent until proven guilty, right?

Or is that only for other cases?

[DevonRex]

43. She never said that. She said that if he was told to stop and he didn't then it was rape.

At this point we don't know the whole story. But automatically demonizing the women is not the way to go.

[tammywammy]

45. I'm not sure

I've never once posted that he's a rapist. But for your "yes, means yes" there's the case that if she said no, like what was reported, then that's rape.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. No one that I'm aware of has expressed certainty of Assange's guilt.

But there are plenty who are positive of his innocence based on judgments about the accusers.

[TorchTheWitch]

163. that is NOT what tammy is saying!

What I and soooo many others here are desperately trying to get it through to you folks gleefully smearing these women is that WE DON'T KNOW. NO ONE here has made any claims that he's guilty. NO ONE. It is actually possible to not form ANY opinion as to guilt or innocense and is absolutely the prudent and FAIR thing to all concerned without all the facts.

And I've got news for you, no one but the three people involved in the situation are EVER going to really know what happened because this is a classic he said/she said case. If you were present and witnessing what happened between Assange and these women you will NEVER really know what happened regardless of how the case turns out. Welcome to the very nature of most rape cases.

[JonLP24]

27. I wonder how you prosecute or defend a case like this

From what I understand it was OK initially, but during the act she said no. That is what she alleges. How do you prove or disprove that? The DNA is there. I guess in order to prosecute you have to get a jury to believe what the victim says.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Unless they have a recording, you can't, one thing is for sure though, if Assange is innocent

"his name has been dragged through the mud."

[AngryAmish]

84. You put the accuser on the stand

She tells the jury (or court, depending on the system) what happened. Then she is cross-examined. Then the Defendant gets to tell his side of the story if he so chooses. Then the jury or court decides.

Swedish rape law is different than the US' law.

[JonLP24]

152. Not what I meant

I meant how would you "win" a case from either perspective. We got the woman's side and Assange side already. I got that. They both say different things. What I was asking how do you determine which one is telling the truth? There is going to be DNA no matter what because it was consensual initially. I guess which ever one falls apart during cross-examination.

[AngryAmish]

173. This is done everyday in courthouses across this country

(What I don't know about Swedish law could fill libraries, but...)

This is always the case in many cases. Guy X says Guy Y robbed him in the alley of a gold chain with a gun. No other witness. Swears out report. Warrant issued for Guy Y. Police find him two weeks later, no gun, no chain. Do you abandon prosecuting Guy Y? You go to trial. Guy X is put on the stand. Prosecute says tell your story. Guy X does. He is cross examined by Guy Y's lawyer. Turns out Guy X is a former felon (can impeach his credibility). Turns out Guy Y slept with Guy X's cousin - again credibility - motive for revenge. Emphasize that he did not call police for five minutes after robbery. Redirect by prosecution: You are a felon. You don't really want much to do with police, no? You really care about your cousin? No.

Anyway, close cases like this are decided all the time. In the US the jury (or judge) decides. In Sweden the panel of judges decide. If every victim had to be pure as the driven snow no one would be convicted. My experience it is mostly turd on turd crime in this country. Your victim is mostly a turd. Defendant is almost always a turd.

Life ain't CSI.

[JonLP24]

178. Still not what I meant

You just repeated what you said in the other post. I know all of this stuff about going to trial and cross-examination. I'm not an idiot.

[TorchTheWitch]

164. welcome to the very nature of most rape cases

And why so many of them here in the US would never even get that far.

[mike_c]

33. there are no rape accusers-- this is just more dishonest meme construction....

Both women admit to having consensual sex with Assange, and to continuing their relationships with him afterward. The original allegations were made under an obscure Swedish "sex crime" law that criminalizes sex without a condom. Both women made their allegations in anger, essentially for having been jilted-- that is, for their post-sex expectations not having been met. The Swedish chief prosecutor has dismissed the charges as baseless, and it was the prosecutor who gave Assange permission to leave Sweden in the first place. At present, although Assange is being held without bail, there are no actual charges pending against him. None.

By constantly repeating terms like "rape" and "sexual assault," the U.S. media is complicit in attempts to smear Julian Assange. There are no such charges. There never have been. Yet they are discussed constantly throughout the media as though they exist. They don't.

[tammywammy]

37. He's being charged with "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one

count of rape."

Not sex by surprise. Not sex without a condom.

"One wonders if today's statement from Swedish authorities, which elaborates that Assange is accused of "using his body weight to hold down in a sexual manner" and having intercourse with a sleeping woman, among other things, will even slow them down."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html

[mike_c]

54. this is incorrect....

You're quoting from a blog that is simply repeating the dishonest meme, not from a primary source with information about the case.

This from Democracy Now! reporting this morning, including a telephone conversation with a representative from Assange's legal team in London:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/8/attorney_for_wikileaks_founder_julian_assange

Attorney: WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Endangered by Bail Denial in London; Still No Charges Filed in Sweden

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been denied bail following his arrest in London on an international warrant to face sexual crime allegations in Sweden. Assange will remain in custody until at least December 14, when a British court will take up a Swedish request for extradition. Assange has not been charged with a crime but is wanted for questioning on allegations of unlawful sexual contact with two women.

[Robb]

55. Sweden cannot charge him unless he is on their soil.

To say "the charges have not been filed" is accurate, but meaningless. He faces four charges should he find himself within Sweden's jurisdiction. This was outlined in a UK court yesterday.

[mike_c]

59. it means that all the blather about rape charges against him are lies and inuendo....

Such charges simply do not exist. The chief prosecutor has already dismissed them as baseless and gave Assange permission to leave Sweden, where he prolonged his stay an additional month to answer any charges-- which were never brought WHILE HE WAS ON SWEDISH SOIL. This is all part of the government effort to smear Assange before the fact. All this discussion of rape and sexual assault is bogus. No such charges have ever been filed, including when Assange was in Sweden.

[Robb]

61. You've said the same thing twice. So I'll repeat myself, too.

That they have not been "filed" is immaterial. I haven't filed a tax return yet, either, but rest assured I intend to pay taxes if they are owed.

Edited to add: all of which is rather beside the point of the OP.

[mike_c]

63. so we should consider the opinion of an admitted tax evader...?

You see what I mean?

[Robb]

64. So we should consider the opinion of an admitted radical feminist?

...You see what I mean?

[smiley]

42. exactly

nothing but a smear campaign and international witch hunt against Assange IMO.

[whatchamacallit]

49. For those who are incapable of understanding that this is politically motivated

Ask yourselves how many "rape" suspects get this kind of manhunt. Pretty much all the law enforcement and intelligence resources of the US and allies were at play. Must have been a hell of a rape.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Sigh. Did you even read the OP?

Marcotte addresses that very issue.

[blondeatlast]

57. That you enclose the word rape in quotes speaks volumes--and also tells me you didn't read

the article.

[DevonRex]

70. Listen, buster. ALL rape is a "hell of a rape." HELL. And you're talking

to people right here who have experienced it. Don't condescend to us and say we're "incapable of understanding" any godamned thing.

[MadHound]

62. The fact that so many people are piling on about these "rape" charges

Without the benefit of a trial, going on the shaky and ever changing word of two women who are marginally believable at best just goes to show how far justice has disappeared in this country, and how quickly "innocent until proven guilty" is a fading shadow.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. What? What you wrote has no relevance to the OP.

And it has nothing to do with "justice in this country" since the charges have been made in Sweden. Your comment about the women being "marginally believable" is based on smears and innuendo spread by the press and blogs.

[MadHound]

69. No, you just think, or don't want to believe it has relavence to the OP

And it has everything to do with justice in this country, because where do you think Assange is going right after his trip to Sweden? Oh, yeah, the US.

You are so willing to believe these "victims", why? The fact that their stories keep changing, and the charges keep shifting, none of this raises a red flag for you?

While the vast majority of women who accuse a man of rape are indeed victims, there is a significant number who lie about what has happened. Why do you find it so hard to believe that that was the case when it comes to Assange?

[Hello_Kitty]

74. I don't know the whole story and neither do you.

Like I said upthread, no one is expressing certainty that Assange is guilty of any crime. But lots of people are insisting he's innocent because "look what crazy sluts those women are!" One of them is a known radical feminist! This is a textbook example of why women are hesitant to press charges for sexual assault. They know they will be dragged through the mud.

[MadHound]

80. And a lot of people are willing to damn Assange for no good reason, other than his personality

Or for reasons of their own. No, we don't know what truly happened, that is for the courts to find out. But I do know that both the charges against Assange have changed, and that the women's stories continue to change. This, in and of itself, should raise a lot of red flags. Combine this with Assange's actions and the fact that he has mightily tweaked the noses of TPTB around the world, well, what does that say to you?

[Hello_Kitty]

100. See, I don't think insufficient skepticism of the accusers is a problem.

There's plenty of mud being flung about them and "red flags" and what have you. Assange, OTOH, seems to be getting a lot of sympathy and benefit of the doubt on these charges.

[MadHound]

107. Well, frankly, given the nature of the case, the timing, the shifting stories of the women

And the fact that, at this point, we don't what the Swedish charges are, or even if there are any, yeah, I can see why people are upset with these women. This whole thing stinks of a railroad job.

[Hello_Kitty]

121. Whose timing?

It appears authorities showed their characteristic lack of urgency in prosecuting a possible sex crime until (oh shit!) they realized they had a "valuable" target.

As for your insinuations about the women being involved in some fiendish plot to bring Assange down, this is just the kind of conspiracy hyperbole Marcotte was criticizing in her article. The main "evidence" is that the women are attractive.

[TorchTheWitch]

165. did you know Sweden can't send him to the US?

The only way that can happen is if Britain agrees since they'd be ones to have agreed to send him to Sweden.

Why is it so hard to believe the women AREN'T lying? No one here has ever said they disbelieve Assange - NO ONE. ALL we have been trying to do is drum it into yours and so many other peoples' heads here is that there is no reason at this point to believe or disbelieve ANY of the three people involved. There should be no more belief in his innocence than belief in his guilt. ALL we have been saying till we're blue in the fucking face is that there is not enough factual information to either believe or disbelieve in his innocence or guilt. NO ONE here has ever said they believe he's guilty. Contrast that with how very many people are not only soooooooooooo certain that he's innocent they're running hog wild coming up with all manner of illogical and wacko conspiracy theories and smearing both of these women eight ways to Sunday.

[DevonRex]

71. "Rape" charges? Really? So you're calling the women liars. They're guilty acc to you.

What bullshit.

[readmoreoften]

72. I'm not calling them liars. I'm calling them CIA agents.

[DevonRex]

77. *snort*

[MadHound]

76. And you are calling Assange a rapist based on what?

The ever shifting stories of two women, along with the ever shifting charges.

Stay classy.

Yes, these are rape charges, accusations of rape. Nothing has been proven in court, but apparently you're willing to be judge, jury and executioner before there has even been a trial.

[DevonRex]

81. Good lord. Nobody in this thread has called him a rapist.

:eyes:

[MadHound]

Umm, have you read this thread? I suggest you start with the OP and work your way through it

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

92. Where on this thread did someone call Assange a rapist?

Just because you disagree with some of the opinions expressed doesn't mean there's something there that isn't.

[MadHound]

94. Have you read this thread? Please do so.

Has somebody used that very word rapist, no, but even you have stated that these two women are "victims", which certainly and overtly implies that Assange was a rapist. What, you're not even reading and remembering your own material anymore?

[DevonRex]

First you said I called him that, which I did NOT do. Now you're saying other people

called him a rapist, which they have not done.

What we're discussing here is that the things that are being printed about the WOMEN are exactly what women have had to deal with since time began when they reported a rape.

We know some of what has been alleged. We know he has denied those allegations. We do NOT know that the women are liars OR that he is a rapist.

[MadHound]

97. DevonRex: "WTF? No, that IS rape. Textbook definition."

What you and others in this thread are trying to do is damn and distort the fact that these women have continuously shifted their stories, not to mention that the charges as well have morphed. You are trying to say that anybody who attacks these womens' very shaky charges is defending a rapist. Yes, that is what you and others are doing, what you and others are implying.

[DevonRex]

102. When any woman says no and the man doesn't stop that is rape. Textbook.

That is a general statement on what rape is.

[MadHound]

104. And you applied that statement to the Assange case,

Give it up, we all know where you're coming from, how you feel about this. It is obvious as the your posts on this thread.

[DevonRex]

106. How the hell did I apply that to the Assange case? I answered a poster. Period.

YOU give it up.

[MadHound]

113. DevonRex:

"It becomes rape as soon as the woman says STOP and he doesn't stop.
That was clearly in the charges."

Hugo_from_tn: "That would be assault, not rape."

It is obvious that you are referring to Assange in that exchange. Are you truly going to claim otherwise when the hold world can read the truth?

[tammywammy]

103. You're being disingenuous.

DevonRex said it's rape if a woman says no and the partner doesn't. Another poster said that's just assault, and no that's IS the definition of rape. Once a woman says stop and he doesn't it's rape.

IF that's what happened, then yes Assange is guilty of rape. Notice I said "if" as everything is speculation anyway.

[DevonRex]

105. Exactly. I responded to teh poster who said it's only assault if the man doesn't stop

when the woman says stop.

[MadHound]

109. Yet he is applying that "general statement" specifically to Assange

Not disingenuous at all.

Everything is speculation at this point, which is what makes this thread so very wrong.

[tammywammy]

114. No he wasn't.

I suggest you re-read that subthread. He was clearly replying to a poster that said it was only "assault" and not rape. In fact if someone does not stop once a partner says no or stop, then they've committed rape - a textbook definition of rape.

The assault and "WTF" posts have nothing to do with Assange and are strictly about the definition of rape.

[MadHound]

116. Read post 113 above, I'm not going to do the cut and paste twice. n/t

[DevonRex]

120. Thank you Tammy. You have it exactly right.

:hug:

Oh, and I'm a woman.

[DevonRex]

119. I'm not a he. The first post was about spurious charges. Charges are NOT

spurious if they include the charge that the woman said NO and he didn't stop. The second post was in reply to one that said it was sexual assault and not rape. To which I said that when a man doesn't stop after the woman says no, then it is textbook rape.

I never said Assange was guilty of any charge, including the one that said he didn't stop when teh woman said no. Not sure why you're not getting this at all. But I'm beginning to wonder about your intent.

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. "Rape" is in quotes, because neither of the women have accused him of that.

The only place the word can be found is in hyperbolic article titles.

[DevonRex]

141. According to post #37 by tammywammy:

He's being charged with "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one
count of rape."

Not sex by surprise. Not sex without a condom.

"One wonders if today's statement from Swedish authorities, which elaborates that Assange is accused of "using his body weight to hold down in a sexual manner" and having intercourse with a sleeping woman, among other things, will even slow them down."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/...

[AngryAmish]

87. The fact that so many people are piling on about these "war crime" charges

Without the benefit of a trial for Bush, going on the shaky and ever changing word of a few Arabs who are marginally believable at best just goes to show how far justice has disappeared in this country, and how quickly "innocent until proven guilty" is a fading shadow.

[MadHound]

93. Ah, the false equivalency argument, congratulations and thanks for playing

What evidence do we have that Assange raped these women? A series of ever shifting stories and ever shifting charges. Ooo, solid evidence that, NOT.

What evidence do we have of Bush War Crimes, mountains of documents, tapes, emails, and let's not forget, dead bodies.

[AngryAmish]

95. The point is we don't have evidence

That is why they are going to try him. To get evidence. As a non-expert in Swedish criminal law, I do not know if they have grand juries and all that whatnot. Heck, I don't even know if they have petit juries. (I'm pretty sure they do). They probably have to Roman system but I don't know. There could be preliminary hearings. His lawyers could make a motion to dismiss. But the process does not start until he goes back to Sweden.

[MadHound]

96. Exactly, that was the point of my OP,

Far too many people are willing to jump all over Assange and damn him as a rapist before any shred of proof is given in a court of law.

[TorchTheWitch]

166. NO ONE has damned Assange as a rapist here!

Yet you and so many others here have absolutely damned those two women as liars WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF IN A COURT OF LAW.

This works BOTH ways.

[xor]

73. How is it proven either way? Seems like a he said/she said sort of thing

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Certainly, for the followers of Andrea Dworkin, any hetero sex act is tantamount to rape.

Nevertheless, the charges seem questionable and I think there is serious doubt as to whether an international interpol manhunt of the scale we have witnessed would be mounted (excuse the pun) if Mr. Assange wasn't who he is.

But, let's see how this plays out. If he really goes back to Sweden to face charges of fucking without a condom, or whatever, then certainly the hyperbole that is isn't really about what it's supposed to be will turn out to be just that.

But if this is an excuse to get him into custody by any means necessary, then don't be ridiculous- of course people are going to question the motivations of the persons involved.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. I'm not "slut shaming" anyone. But I ask you, which of these axioms is inviolable?

1) Women never, ever, ever lie about rape

or

2) The CIA, NSA, or other intelligence agencies would never, ever, ever, employ a woman, and a rape accusation, to achieve any desired end

or both?


Because unless I'm reading you wrong, you seem to be saying that it's entirely appropriate to question the motivations of everyone except those directly accusing Assange. And the unfortunate facts are that some women have, from time to time, lied about rape for a variety of reasons, and the world's intelligence agencies have employed all manner of underhanded shit to achieve a variety of ends.

[whatchamacallit]

110. Werd. (nt)

[Violet_Crumble]

115. I'd like to see an answer to yr question as well...

btw, I find the term 'slut shaming' to be revolting and wish people wouldn't use it. It really is offensive to me as a woman and a feminist, as is any term aimed at women using the word 'slut'

[Hello_Kitty]

124. Well I think the act of slut shaming is disgusting.

Do you have a daintier alternative?

[Violet_Crumble]

126. Will you please stop referring to women as sluts?

It really is an offensive and disgusting term...

[Hello_Kitty]

128. So what phrase do you propose as an alternative to convey the same meaning?

There is a reason for the phrase you find so offensive. It is shorthand for something that is powerfully understood by girls and women.

[Violet_Crumble]

129. I don't care what you use as long as it's not demeaning women the way that one is...

Of course there's a reason I find the use of the word 'slut' aimed at women offensive. It's been aimed at me during one of the worst things that ever happened to me in my life. So I'm asking you not to refer to women as 'sluts'. I hope I've been clear enough for you...

[Hello_Kitty]

136. You have. And I asked YOU for an alternative.

Because the phrase I've been using is the one I consider most effective. There's reason it's become common in the feminist blogosphere. It resonates with a lot of women and opens up productive discussion about challenging a culture that shames women for their sexuality.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. I'm glad I've been clear and you won't be using it again...

I'm not sure why you need anyone to dictate to you what words to say. I'd suggest using common-sense, a respect for women, and a desire not to offend other DUers. Try it and see how it goes...

[Warren DeMontague]

143. The people who have a problem with sexuality are the ones who came up with the term

"slut shaming".

They're the same people who think it should be illegal to film two consenting adults fucking, or to watch said film.

People who aren't upset by sexuality in the first place don't see this alleged "slut shaming" everywhere.

[Hello_Kitty]

149. And people who don't have a toxic hatred of women

Don't think every accusation of sexual assault should be treated as if it's coming from some lying treacherous bitch.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. I agree,

Like I said, the default position should be to believe the accuser. But something here -in this, specific story- stinks, and it's not "The Patriarchy".

[Hello_Kitty]

123. I think it's an overheated conspiracy theory. I agree with the writer of the OP.

Who said that government agents acting opportunistic is not necessarily indicative of a vast shadowy plot.

As to your axiom about women and lying about rape, no one is denying that sometimes happens. What I'm tired of is people becoming deeply invested in the idea that an occasional false rape report means all or most accusations of sexual assault by women are automatically suspect and that it's okay to drag the accuser through the mud to discredit her.

[Violet_Crumble]

127. I've yet to see any DUer do what you accuse them of doing...

What I'm tired of is people becoming deeply invested in the idea that an occasional false rape report means all or most accusations of sexual assault by women are automatically suspect and that it's okay to drag the accuser through the mud to discredit her.

What I'm seeing is people saying they don't believe there was any rape in this case and explaining why they think so. Doing that doesn't mean that they dismiss all or most accusations of sexual assault at all...

[Hello_Kitty]

130. I was responding to Warren's post. He brought up women lying about rape.

[Violet_Crumble]

131. I know what you were responding to, which is why I said what I said...

Seriously, I haven't seen anyone do what yr saying they do. Not here at DU...

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Next time I see someone "deeply invested in the idea that... all or most accusations

of sexual assault by women are automatically suspect..."(etc) I will be sure to pass that on.

Personally, my default position is to believe them. But aside from the fact that there is no cogent linearity to the narrative of "assault" here, the timing is, as pretty much everyone acknowledges, suspect as hell given the unique circumstances of the situation.

And certainly we should take sexual assault and rape VERY seriously, and (like I said) the default position should be belief of the accuser. But when we start going into broken condom = rape territory, we cheapen the definition of "rape", same as when we call consensual sex between the 18 yr old HS Senior and his 17 yr old girlfriend "rape", or when disciples of Andrea Dworkin say Sex itself = Rape (right, I know, she qualified it- Sex "under the patriarchy", which to her was the same as saying "On planet Earth")

[Chorophyll]

112. Thanks for this.

I don't claim to know whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual assault, but in simply watching people discuss the case, on this board and elsewhere, I've been reminded over and over again of what someone called "the unexamined misogyny of the left."

FWIW, I think Wikileaks is probably a good thing. I do not think, however, that Julian Assange is worthy of breathless worship. It's entirely possible to do good -- even heroic -- things in this world, and still be a shit in your personal life.

[blondeatlast]

144. Well said. I don't know about assange's motivations, good or bad, but hero worship scares me.

And the fact tthat so many DUers think he can't possibly have done anything wrong and that the women have been "proven" already is a shining indication of just why it bothers me.

[Chorophyll]

171. Thanks. Yeah, I always worry when people on the left are so quick to

grab on to an opinion in a case like this. This isn't a western -- you can't tell who's "good" by the color of their hats. I've no doubt that the government(s) are trying to make a special example out of Assange simply because he's the Wikileaks guy -- they definitely wouldn't try so hard to arrest a garden-variety date-rapist. But that doesn't automatically make Assange a saint. And the systematic take-down of the women involved by people on the left (including Naomi Wolf, for chrissakes!) is so effing discouraging to me as a woman.

Not to mention that, even after all these years, most people believe that there's only one kind of rape (big guy, weapon, alley) and one proper way for a victim to behave (instantly traumatized, sobbing, beatup, not wearing anything sexy, etc.) Yeah, if only life were that simple.

[Jankyn]

117. I think it's an important point...

...that it's not necessary to disregard the possibility of sexual assault in order to believe that he's being railroaded. Most valuable point? When was the last time you saw Interpol issuing extradition warrants for sex crimes that didn't involve murder?

And isn't it also possible that a man capable of doing very important work is also capable of mistreating women? C'mon. It happens all the time.

What's relevant to me is that the U.S. and their corporate masters are using this as a means to try and silence him and stop the flow of information he publishes. Let a court decide at some later time if he's guilty of what he's been charged with or not---and meanwhile, don't use a different standard of pursuit and extradition for his ALLEGED crimes than is used for others accused of similar crimes.

[Coventina]

122. This radical feminist says THANK YOU for this post!!!! K&R n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. "Rape accusers"? With the exception of headline writers, they're nonexistent. n/t

[bluestate10]

146. Bring the guy to trial. Have him face rape accusations.

It is amazing that Kobe Bryant would be found guilty before trail, yet Assange is a perfect angel that evil power holders are out to destroy. Is balance and perspective too much to ask for? Where is the cardinal rule that rape cases must be investigated and that the identities of rape victims protected as much as possible until they are FOUND by a court to have lied? Yet, I see pictures of one of the accusers posted on the web. How is that? Why is that? Does she not have the right to the presumption that she may be telling the truth?

[Warren Stupidity]

155. I guess we can just recognize bullshit when we see it.

[sabrina 1]

156. Does anyone read that irrelevant blog anymore? She is doing the work

of the Empire. Never could stand that blog and never understood why anyone ever went there. But I thought it had died a natural death long ago.

Yawn! The same old 'pure little virginal, helpless women are not capable of lying about a man, men are evil and wicked and most of them ARE rapists'.

This is what has turned many mature, thinking women against the 'women's movement'. She clearly has no knowledge of this case, nor any interest in it. She just knows an accusation has been made and the woman must be right.

Marcotte is the Nancy Grace of Feminism. If someone is accused, they are GUILTY, no need for any silly evidence, especially if it is a man.

[Major Hogwash]

157. I thought it was over STDs, not rape.

Maybe that's what the problem is, it wasn't rape at all.

[DirkGently]

158. There is no accusation of "rape" as that term is commonly understood. Can't just breeze past that.

[Robb]

170. Sorry, I can't leave this. How would you characterize having sex with a sleeping person?

[DirkGently]

174. Oh, is that the new description we've been given? We started with "the condom broke."

By all means, please provide the source for this newest clarification or re-clarification, or re-formulation, that the charge is now "sex with a sleeping person." That would be much different than "the condom broke and I want to legally force my partner to submit to a test for STDs," which has been the story heretofore.

I'm sorry too, but the shifting, blurring set ambiguous facts that have been presented publicly do not lend themselves to glibly calling these "charges" or "investigations" (whichever it is today) rape. That is a serious term for a horrendous crime, and it cannot be squeezed and stretched and watered down in order to bludgeon someone under circumstances which do not resemble the extremely serious matter of violent sexual assault.

We were, at least at first, told that ALL the sex was consensual, which removes it from any common notion of rape. There was, I believe, an early mention that Assange "touched" one of the women in the morning without her consent. Certainly that could fit into the definition of sexual assault. It could also, given the rest of the circumstances here, be an attempt strain to allege a crime in a hopelessly ambigous way.

We've been told the sex was consensual. We were told women involved only wanted to force Assange to submit to a test for STDs. We've been told they each publicly discussed their encounters with Assange with a sense of satisfaction, not outrage or fear. We've been told the entire issue was that a condom broke, which any adult understands is outside of the control of either party. We also know that the original prosector, since replaced examined the facts and declined to lay charges of any kind, but that a new prosecutor's first act was to reverse that decision.

If the facts have indeed been suddenly reformulated in this way, the previous bizarre history and ambiguous descriptions we've been provide are enough to seriously undercut the ordinally valid principle that someone laying sexual assault charges be scrupulously taken at their word and not subject to public scrutiny or criticism. Why is this the first mention that this was the nature of the allegations? Why all the discussion of broken condoms and demands for STD tests?

The seriousness of a rape charge cuts both ways. One cannot begin with facts which clearly do not equate to rape, and then publicly equivocate and shift and blur and reformulate facts repeatedly, inching closer to a charge of sexual attack each time, and still insist that the charges be viewed uncritically. This may be the fault of Swedish authorities rather than the women making the charges, but questioning the entire issue is clearly not unethical in this case.

Given the bizarre, ambiguous history of these mysteriously "leaked," then laid-then-dismissed-then-re-alleged and redefined charges, and the rather extreme motivations of outside parties to smear and punish Assange, the facts here deserve just the opposite or the ordinary ethics of treating rape charges with a powerful benefit of the doubt for the protection of the alleged victim. THESE allegations have established themselves as requiring they be taken with Gibralter-esque grain of salt, and it would likewise be reasonable to question whatever new version of the facts has been presented.

[Robb]

176. I would suggest you read the four charges outlined by prosecutors Tuesday.

[DirkGently]

177. I would suggest the history of this case suggests nothing resembling "rape" occurred here.

That doesn't excuse demonizing the women involved, to the extent anyone is doing that. But breezing past the labyrinthine history of the alleged facts, combined with this brand-new, inescapabably unconventional "sex with a sleeping person" charge, to characterize this matter as a rape case, or to suggest that those critical of the charges are simply engaging in classic misogyny and victim-blaming, is likewise inexcusable.

[nemo137]

159. Tolerance of Ambiguity.

It is entirely possible, like Marcotte says, that Julian Assange is both an asshole and a rapist, and that he's also the public face of an organization that tweaked most of the important governments and is being targeted for it. I do agree that it's absolutely disgusting the way that internet leftists have adopted, wholesale, classic rape apologist arguments in order to defend Assange. I'm amazed at all the ones in this thread that clearly didn't read the link in the OP.

[Robb]

169. Precisely.

Cornerstone of liberalism, IMO. :hi:

[Chorophyll]

172. Yep. Thanks for saying this so much more succinctly

than I managed to upthread. :hi:

[goforit]

179. The same thing happened to Al Gore. Whata coincidence!

And bang ...there went global warming.