The Julian Assange Investigation -- Let's Clear the Air of Misinformation

[Robb]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-davies/post_1506_b_802680.html">The Julian Assange Investigation -- Let's Clear the Air of Misinformation (via HuffPo)

By Nick Davies, Senior Correspondent,The Guardian

Bianca Jagger last week launched a fierce attack on the Guardian for carrying my story about the evidence collected by Swedish police who have been investigating the claims of sexual assault by the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.

At the heart of her attack is a repeated claim that we failed to publish exculpatory evidence contained in the police file. Those who have read her piece will have noticed that she does not cite one single example of this missing information. There are two reasons for this. First, she does not know what is in that police file, because she has not read it. Second, if she had, she would know that her claim is simply not true.

(snip)

Assange's UK lawyer tried very hard to persuade us to suppress the file. He argued that since Assange had been a source for our stories, we should 'protect' him. I reckon that that is an invitation to journalistic corruption, to hide information in order to curry favor with a source. We were right to publish.

Jagger calls this 'trial by media'. I call it an attempt to inject some evidence into a global debate which has been fueled by speculation and misinformation. On August 21, when this story first broke, Assange used Twitter to spread the idea that the two women who had gone to the police were engaged in 'dirty tricks'. His lawyer subsequently claimed that a 'honeytrap' had been sprung. Assange's celebrity supporters have announced to the mass media that the allegations are 'without foundation', that 'there is no prima facie evidence'. These statements have gone around the world. Millions of well-meaning people have been persuaded to believe them. The two women, who have been identified on the Internet, have had their reputations ruined by the claim that they cruelly colluded to destroy an innocent man. The Swedish police and prosecutors have been held up to ridicule as corrupt and/or incompetent partners in the plot.....

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-davies/post_1506_b_802680.html

[hlthe2b]

1. If only we could...

I am a "Guardian" fan, but that's a tall order, when info is really not forthcoming from those immediately concerned. I don't think the sniping back and forth does very much to change that. Time will tell, I guess.

[Hissyspit]

2. This guy knows that Assange sent that Aug. 21 tweet?

Apprently, best I can tell, multiple people have access to the account. The tweet was in response to Assange's name being released illegally or against policy, if I recall correctly.

Is this really clearing the air?

[SidDithers]

3. Great article. Thanks for posting...

Won't change the opinion of those who genuflect at the foot of St. Julian, but still a really good post.

Best bits, IMO:

And by publishing our story, we achieved something: Julian Assange was forced to admit, in interviews with the London Times and with the BBC, that there is no evidence of a honeytrap. That matters very much. The news media don't want to report that -- there's a much better story in the dirty tricks. Some of the most active tweeters and the bloggers have not picked up on it -- they are much too happy with their conspiracy theories. The celebrity disciples like Bianca Jagger don't mention it. They simply move on to insist that there must be another conspiracy at work in the legal process. But the honeytrap story is dead: our story killed it.

and

In exactly the same way, I think it was right to publish our story about the Swedish police file without being frightened by Julian Assange's lawyer or indeed by the clear prospect of being attacked online by people like Bianca Jagger. There are millions of them out there. They have come to a conclusion about Assange and the sex claims in Sweden and they are not interested in evidence. They tweet and blog in the most eye-wateringly aggressive tone and often, like Bianca Jagger, they do so without even the slightest connection to the truth.

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Hissyspit]

4. How did it kill the possibility of a honeytrap?

I read the article. It may have lowered the possibility, but I don't see how it killed it.

And by the way, I'm not doing any genuflecting. To Julian Assange. Or President Obama. Or anyone.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. If you like anybody I don't like, then you're worshipping them. CULT OF PERSONALITY!!11cos(0)1!!!

[EFerrari]

10. It doesn't. Davies criticizes Assange for making big claims

and then goes on to do exactly the same himself.

[FreakinDJ]

11. There is no way to prove or disprove the "HoneyTrap Theory"

and that is exactly the way the CIA works

[sabrina 1]

8. First, Julian Assange never claimed it was a 'honey trap' to

begin with. The first time he addressed that claim was early on, probably last Aug. airc, when he was asked by a Swedish news reporter if HE THOUGHT it was a honey trap. His response airc was that he 'did not know' and therefore could not comment on it. So, where's the big accomplishment?

Second, why did this 'journalist' not report that at the beginning of this story the women seemed shocked that they were supposedly claiming 'rape'. They stated that 'there was no rape, no violence and no fear of violence'.

The exculpatory evidence certainly DOES exist, but was NOT included in that piece of trash. There are IMs between the two women seen by witnesses AND verified by the prosecution, also seen by Assanges lawyers planning their strategy of going to the police and maybe 'making some money' from the whole deal. Why have they not been released?

Lastly, when did those allegations published in the Guardian surface? If they had existed and been seen by the lead prosecutor who dismissed the case because it had no merit at all, she would not have withdrawn the case so quickly. The extremist lawyer for the women who jumped into the case after it was dismissed needs to answer that question.

And, since Assange did meet with police in Sweden, did offer to speak with them again and did remain in Sweden but got no response to his offer, why is the lie being told that he 'fled' without talking to the police?

But most important of all, it is now going on four months and there are still NO CHARGES in this case!! Why?

I think there never will be. NOT because Assange refused to talk to the police. He has. But because there is no case as the first prosecutor stated clearly.

This is nothing but an attempt to drag out a smear campaign. If they have a case FILE IT! If not, then don't expect to be taken seriously. THAT is why only a few on the fringes the right actually believe there is a case. There is no case. There are no charges. To have a case it must be filed. It has not been. End of story. Most people have forgotten about it. It failed, they should give it up or risk looking even worse when they finally do drop it.

[Robb]

21. Ah, the Blago defense.

Under the bus w' ye, Guardian. :D

[sabrina 1]

26. What defense is needed? The women themselves say there

'was no rape, no violence and no fear of violence' and the lead prosecutor agreed, tossing the case from the beginning.

Now a lawyer who subscribes to extremist political views and laws, (if you are a man you are collectively guilty of rape and should pay a 'Man Tax') and women don't get to say if they were raped or not, the government does. So, assuming you are a man, you too are guilty of rape, according to this lawyer. All men are and should contribute to paying for that guilt, according to him.

Most importantly, where are the charges? There is no case, so no need to defend against it, is there? Months have gone by and still no charges filed. If they have a case, then they should file it. It seems one of the women may no longer be cooperating. Not to mention all the exculpatory evidence which was seen online from the beginning, some of it later scrubbed, but not all.

In this country we wait for convictions before deciding guilt. Wait, we wait for charges to be filed before we even consider whether or not someone has committed a crime.

Here there simply is no case.

[EFerrari]

28. Davies is not The Guardian. He's just one disgruntled reporter.

lol

[Robb]

38. The entire newspaper has his back.

FWIW. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

41. In what respect, charlie?

To run his article? Sure.

But not to run his head game as he did here. That's his lookout. You don't see his editor humiliating himself the way the Wired editor did, engaging in off topic psycho drama.

ETA: I can't use "in what respect" any more without a Palin earworm. ARgh.

[JackRiddler]

51. Did you do a survey or is your source a secret?

And would their having his back change anything about the faults in his case?

[PaulaFarrell]

65. But the guardian editorial board makes some incredibly bad calls

They supported the war in Iraq. They were sure that the anthrax attack was a terrorist attack (I guess it was not in the way they thoughht - it had all the earmarks of a rightwing loon based solely on the targets). There are many other issues where they just don't really seem to have a lot of perceptiveness. So although i think their reporting is generally good and they have some interestring contributors, I place absolutely no value in their editirail positions on anything.

[bluestate10]

14. Assange can end this by going to Sweden with his lawyers to talk to

Swedish police officials. Conspiracy claimants have lost all credibility. Posting the photos of potential rape victims on the internet is low beyond pale - how can anyone that approves of such a tactic call themselves progressives?

[sabrina 1]

22. What rape victims' photos were posted?

There are no rape victims in this case according TO THE WOMEN THEMSELVES.

Both women, if it means anything to you, stated from the beginning that there 'was no rape, no violence and no fear of violence'.

However, they have an extremist lawyer who believes that all men are collectively guilty of rape and abuse and should pay a 'man tax' to alleviate their guilt. Iow, if YOU are a man, he subscribes to that extreme political theory promoted in Sweden by a female politician (since in trouble with the law) that men are guilty and women 'do not get to decide whether they were raped or not, the government will decide that'. They tried to get this passed into law. I hope no one ever tries that here. I doubt you would want to be considered guilty simply because you are a man.

You are defending something you clearly have not researched. As a woman I am appalled at the abuse of women's rights by this lawyer and his political hero. They have made a mockery of women.

WHERE ARE THE CHARGES?? You just made a definitive statement that a rape occurred, but there are no charges. Why?

Assange did talk to the police, so that is not the reason. And he and his lawyers have made him available to speak to them again but have been ignored. Please do some research before accepting the rightwing smears claiming someone to be guilty before knowing any of the facts.

[bluestate10]

43. Don't get it.

"WHERE ARE THE CHARGES?? You just made a definitive statement that a rape occurred, but there are no charges. Why?"

Last time I checked my dictionary "potential" meant maybe, or maybe not. Assange can set the record straight by talking to Swedish authorities.

[sabrina 1]

49. Once again. Assange DID talk to the Swedish authorities.

So, where are the charges? What 'case' is everyone talking about?

[EFerrari]

24. Well, no. As Assange has said, he has rights which include

not being at the beck and call of prosecutors who are not moving the case. He already stayed in Sweden for weeks waiting on these people.

And both women were fine with posting to the net themselves bragging about being with Assange. Was that beyond the pale, too?

[sabrina 1]

35. Assange already talked to the police. After which he remained in Sweden

for more than a month AFTER he was supposed to leave, waiting to hear from them. His lawyers publicly and privately over and over again made him available to the police. THEY REFUSED TO TALK TO HIM. Sorry to shout, but I am stunned at the lack of information and the false information that continues to be spread about this non-existent case.

The police can meet him any time, if they have a case, they can go to London and meet him at their embassy, they could have gone to the jail eg, but didn't.

Haven't you realized yet that they have no case which is why they have never filed one?

How would you like to be smeared in the press, lied about, ie 'he won't talk to the police' and yet, have no charges filed but have millions of people believe there have been charges.

I am so disappointed to see even progressives so unaware of the facts. It demonstrates to me how easy it is to destroy someone, to silence them.

Why won't they file a case against him? Instead of asking 'why won't he talk to the police' (since he has) who are people not asking why they will not file a case, but continue to smear him with lies. It is a lie to say he did not go the police, eg.

[msanthrope]

6. The irony, of Assange wanting information suppressed.

There's another story that's been underreported, too....Anna Ardin has been accused of 'CIA ties'. Of course, that claim is sourced from Israel Shamir's piece in September in Counterpunch, and breathlessly repeated here and at FDL...

Israel Shamir also goes by the name Joren Jermas--and he likes playing with Fascists and conspiracy theories..



"Jermas/Shamir himself is no stranger to conspiracy theories. When he visited Norway in 2001, he made the laughable claim in the mainstream newspaper Adresseavisa that many Jews received text messages warning them to get out of the World Trade Centre in New York before the terror attacks of 11 September."

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=templ...


"Shamir also goes by the names Joran Jermas and Adam Ermash, having received the latter title in 2004 when he was baptized into the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. He is a Swedish citizen and spends much of his time in Stockholm.

Other entries on Shamir’s website make his feelings on Israel and Jews and the Holocaust clear. In one titled “Return of the Body Snatchers,” Shamir defends Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet’s 2009 report that IDF soldiers stole organs from dead Palestinians, saying, “It fits into a larger pattern. All over the world, Israel and Israelis are involvecd in trafficking human flesh, this modern form of cannibalism.”

The website includes other defenses of blood libels and one entry that states “Jews asked God to kill, destroy, humiliate, exterminate, defame, starve, impale Christians, to usher in Divine Vengeance and to cover God’s mantle with blood of goyim,” and that “the picture of Jews slaughtering children for cultic reasons exerted huge impact on the Christian peoples of Europe.”

Other writings by Shamir show him to be an avowed Holocaust-denier, including one entry where he says the Teheran Holocaust Conference of 2006 “proved that the Holocaust dogma is a basic tenet in the great world-embracing brainwashing machine of mass media,” and added that the prevalence of Holocaust awareness and education “show that the mass media machine is well integrated and concentrated in philosemitic, mostly Jewish hands. The occupation of Palestine by Jews is painful, but it is not more harmful than this captivity of free discourse.”"

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/wikilea...

[Union Scribe]

13. The article said it was his attorney.

Unless he is representing himself, they aren't the same people.

[bluestate10]

15. Does not matter. Attorneys don't do something if their client opposes it. nt.

[EFerrari]

20. Not true. Your client is in custody and you are representing him

without any ability in real time to screen your comments.

[Richard Steele]

37. Well that's just simply not true.

nm

[bluestate10]

44. People can refuse legal representation, that is one right in democracies.

Because Assange hired a lawyer, he by default approves of every action that lawyer takes. If Assange does not agree, he has the 100% complete authority to fire the lawyer and hire another. Silence from Assange means that he approves of the lawyer's tactics and methods, I don't see how it cuts any other way.

[EFerrari]

55. Wrong. Hiring a lawyer is not a blanket approval of every word he says.

Good grief.

[Richard Steele]

67. The shit you don't see would fill a fucking library.

nm

[abelenkpe]

7. I just don't freaking care

I want to know what wikileaks has on the banks.

[bluestate10]

16. You don't care that potential rape victims have their photos all over the internet? nt.

[EFerrari]

23. They both posted to the net after they slept with him. n/t

[sabrina 1]

52. According to the women they are NOT rape victims. Does

their word count for nothing when someone has stepped on some pretty powerful toes?

Both women stated from the beginning that there was no rape, no violence and no fear of violence.

Assange did speak to the Swedish authorities, he stayed in Sweden waiting to hear from them again for over a month, his lawyers have repeatedly made him available to them, and yet, they will not talk to him, nor will they file charges.

Everyone who has followed this from the beginning understands why they will not file charges. But they should be forced to, putting it bluntly 'shit or get off the pot'. This is an gross injustice, to lead people, like you eg, to think there is a case, to think he has not spoken to the authorities, all while refusing to file charges or to speak to him or his lawyers.

As progressives I think we should be concerned about this kind of behavior.

This whole non-case is nothing but a smear job. At this point, months later with daily smears coming from a few politically questionable individuals, and still no case filed, I think people in general know there is nothing there.

In Sweden, if you file a case based on false charges, YOU can be charged. With all the exculpatory evidence available, they know they will lose any case they file, and will then be in danger of being charged themselves. So, they drag it out, to try to silence and distract from the real crimes being revealed daily as a result of the whistle-blowers' courageous actions against corruption and war crimes.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Happy to unrec the daily barrage against Assange.

[Turborama]

63. ^^^THIS^^^ (Post #52) Should be an OP in its own right. Excellent points very well made!

It must get tiring having to repeat these facts over and over again.



Happy new year, Sabrina!

Best wishes for 2011 to you and yours,

T

[sabrina 1]

64. Hi Turborama!

Wishing you and your family the best for 2011 also.

Lol, it does get tiring to have to constantly correct the distortions being fed to the American people by our complicit media here. But considering what those trying to tell the truth are sacrificing, it's the least we can do!

:-)

[EFerrari]

9. Greg Mitchell linked: Clearing the Air of Nick Davies' Misinformation

Submitted by x7o on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 21:43

Today, Huffington Post published an article by Nick Davies, from the Guardian, in response to Bianca Jagger's Huffpost article. Jagger had been critical of Davies' role in the publication in The Guardian of the details from the police investigation report on the allegations against Julian Assange.

In his article today, Davies states that the publication of the details from the police report served the purpose of balancing out baseless speculation about the Swedish investigation. He claims it was necessary in particular to counterbalance a campaign of misinformation on the part of Wikileaks, and Julian Assange. This is very misleading. The substance of the claim is laid out below.

From Nick Davies: The Julian Assange Investigation -- Let's Clear the Air of Misinformation:

Jagger calls this 'trial by media'. I call it an attempt to inject some evidence into a global debate which has been fueled by speculation and misinformation. On August 21, when this story first broke, Assange used Twitter to spread the idea that the two women who had gone to the police were engaged in 'dirty tricks'. His lawyer subsequently claimed that a 'honeytrap' had been sprung. Assange's celebrity supporters have announced to the mass media that the allegations are 'without foundation', that 'there is no prima facie evidence'. These statements have gone around the world. Millions of well-meaning people have been persuaded to believe them. The two women, who have been identified on the Internet, have had their reputations ruined by the claim that they cruelly colluded to destroy an innocent man. The Swedish police and prosecutors have been held up to ridicule as corrupt and/or incompetent partners in the plot.

Our story showed: first, that the Swedish police have found no evidence of any such dirty tricks (which would not surprise the conspiracy theorists); secondly, that in his interview with Swedish police on August 30, Assange himself never began to suggest that the allegations were any kind of dirty trick; thirdly, that Assange's supporters in Stockholm had tried to find evidence and come up empty, concluding, as the Swedish WikiLeaks coordinator put it to us: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."

And by publishing our story, we achieved something: Julian Assange was forced to admit, in interviews with the London Times and with the BBC, that there is no evidence of a honeytrap. That matters very much.

Davies here manages to leave the impression that Assange was engaged in a campaign of misinformation against the integrity of the alleged victims since the allegations began, and was only forced to concede that this was not the case after Davies published the details from the investigation.

more:

http://wlcentral.org/node/761

I think Davies made a mistake in showing his obvious contempt for both his sources and for his readers but, it's his adventure.

[tekisui]

18. Haha. More tools exposed.

They want so bad to make this go away. :rofl: :yourock:

[xchrom]

12. Unrec

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. clear the air of misinformation - by spouting Misinformation

Sometimes Huffpo prints the worst crap.

[Luminous Animal]

31. I really do not understand why Nick Davies digging himself this hole.

http://wlcentral.org/node/761

Davies implies in his criticism of Assange's supporters that we must not be "content to recycle falsehood and distortion no matter what damage they may do." I commend Nick Davies' sentiments in this direction, and also commend his injection of scant factual material into an environment of media misinformation.

I cannot, however, commend the partial and inflammatory manner in which he defends his actions, nor the misleading vividness with which he portrays the words and actions of Julian Assange. It is not for me to speculate on why he might have abandoned the emotional distance from his work that one would expect from so apparently conscientious a journalist. It will suffice merely to point out the extent to which he errs, or has misled,

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

25. Yet by releasing classified information, Julian would subject

our diplomats to "trial by media." Add hypocrisy to his flaws!

[EFerrari]

27. There is no comparison between someone's privacy

and government transparency.

digby puts it a better way:

Friday, December 31, 2010


Wikilist

by digby


CBS News did something really, really unusual for a major news organization. It published an article about what Wikileaks has revealed. Evidently, CBS is not of the opinion that their job is to conceal these things from the public, which is fairly unique.

Ask yourself why it is that our governing institutions and major corporations believe they have a right to keep all this from you.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikilist.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[treestar]

29. Classified information is not supposed to be transparent by definition

It's our country's information vs. another country getting it. It is not the point that it is kept from the people, we the people allow that so our diplomats can function. Pretending it has to do with the First Amendment or with transparency of government causes a person to lose all credibility for being taken seriously.

[EFerrari]

30. That's a circular argument. n/t

[bluestate10]

46. No it is not.

Certain information must be kept secret. Lives can be lost if it is made public.

[JackRiddler]

50. Lives are lost because of the authority of the national security state to keep secrets.

Like it or not, this is what you are supporting:



Secrecy justified by "national security" was the basis for their authority to lie and launch a war of aggression with hundreds of thousands murdered and millions displaced.

[EFerrari]

54. The way treestar made it, it certainly was.

And you are now arguing a straw man because no one is arguing for no discretion or even, no secrets at all. Not to mention, as Moore said, the secrets have costs lives, not the revelations.

Maybe we can make this thread in to catalog of fallacies.

[JackRiddler]

39. Who gets to decide what's classified, and why? It's not your country, that's for sure.

Start by figuring out the pronouns.

Unless you're one of the privileged members of the permanent, unelected secret/top secret caste, "we" don't get to classify millions of documents every year. That's not "our" country. It's the country of the priestly caste, and "we" are the serfs who have no say in it. "We" only get to pay taxes for it, and for the unforgivable abuses that rule by secrecy enables.

People who can't tell the difference between individual privacy and institutional secrecy really do deserve to live in a dictatorship of the secret-keepers, and to be kept in the dark. But those of us with enough self-respect to really want a democracy do not deserve that.

[bluestate10]

47. Somehow.

Spewing a lot of proletariat buzzwords makes a swisscheese like argument sound? Not! The argument that was presented as to why all governmental actions are evil is in line with the typical fallback on DU, "THEY are too big, evil and entrenched and we are too small to change anything, so don't believe anything". People that actually work to bring about change get what they want, others that complain and point at the system get what is handed to them.

[JackRiddler]

48. Sorry, your incoherent strawman wash does not merit response.

Spewing
proletariat
buzzwords
swisscheese
all governmental actions
evil
typical fallback
blah blah blah

[walldude]

40. So you believe that secrecy is the best way to run

foreign policy? How can you as a citizen make a sound decision on what is right and what is wrong if you don't have all the information? You can't. You seem to think that secrecy is needed, so what you are saying is, trust the government to do the right thing, to do what is in the best interest of the American people...


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


P.T. Barnum was right.

[sabrina 1]

53. Then why don't we just shut down all of our press and just show

Americans Palin stories, and let them listen to Limbaugh et al, for entertainment.

Joe Lieberman would like that. He already thinks we should be investigating the NYT also for publishing leaked material.

Because you cannot criticize or prosecute Wikileaks, as the Judiciary Panel set up by Conyers in a bi-partisan hearing, concluded, without going after all of the media.

They also concluded that there is way too much secrecy in this country and most of the material leaked to Wikileaks should not have been classified in the first place.

The real problem is that this government has already silence our own media but they can't silence everyone, and that is why they are reacting, as many have commented, in such a deranged manner.

As so many respected people have said, 'a country suffers far more from secrecy than from transparency'. And if they have nothing to hide, which we have discovered they certainly do, then they have nothing to worry about.

A true free and open press would have stopped the corruption, the war crimes, the torture, the breaking and ongoing breaking of all of our laws on human rights. But we do not have a free press so when we see one we do not know how to react to it other than throw a temper tantrum. We look silly to the rest of the world, trying to prosecute journalism. Even Russia which is not looking great as a result of those leaks, has acted better, brushing them aside and even stating that Assange should get a Pulitzer Prize. At least they are up front about their corruption.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Individuals have the right to privacy. Our govt. is not granted the right of secrecy.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[KossackRealityCheck]

36. The real problem we don't talk about: different views of sex assault

As I follow the story, to me, this is where the confusion comes in. Different countries and different cultures have different views of what constitutes rape and sexual assault.

Sweden is a very advanced social democracy, in which these crimes are defined with a very high degree of subjectivity (even though Sweden may not do a good job of enforcing its own definitions of rape and sexual assault).

Naomi Wolf as been something of a defender of Assange, even though as a feminist she would be expected to take a harder line. That's because Wolf came of age when American feminists were drawing new lines, further toward the Swedish line, but not quite there. Wolf came of age when women were defining the idea of "date rape" and "no means no". The problem with the Assange case for American women like Wolf is that if the woman doesn't say "no" then, the case is not on the assault side of the line. But for Wolf's generation, it was a big deal to draw the line at "no means no," it it's hard for people like her to comprehend how "yes" can still mean assault.

In places like China or India, even being alone in bed with a man would constitute "yes" regardless of what the woman was saying, including "no".

Assange is being accused of being persistent about having sex, and doing so carelessly without a condom, and bedding multiple women. In the US that's called being a jerk, but it's not called being a rapist. In Sweden it is an assault. In the US, incidentally, if Assange had been HIV+ and done what he did, it could have been an assault.

Extradicting people across national boundaries for alleged sexual assaults that tred the very thin line between being a jerk and being a criminal raise these difficult issues.

[TorchTheWitch]

56. "no means no" has never meant "you have to say no"

And not even Wolf believes that. "No means no" has always meant that IF you indicate in whatever way that you don't want to have sex then you aren't "just playing hard to get". That was the excuse men used to use in defending themselves against accusations of rape and it WORKED because unless you were raped by some stranger jumping out of the bushes and you had obvious physical injuries to show that you tried to fight back society's perception was that it was YOUR fault you got raped because of where you were, how you dressed, how you acted, if you drank alcohol, if you went on a date with the guy, if you didn't scream, if you didn't try to fight him off, etc., etc., etc., and all of that pointed to your having led him on. THAT's what the "no means no" campaign was all about, and it NEVER meant "you have to say no" because there is no logic in that, and it defeats the whole reason for the "no means no" campaign.

If now suddenly after decades of society finally getting it the "no means no" campaign suddenly is percieved as being "you have to say no" then it either was a miserable failure or there's nothing that men won't stoop to excuse themselves of sexual assault including twisting the meaning of the "no means no" campaign in a way that favors THEM.

[KossackRealityCheck]

57. You don't have to say 'no', but saying yes over and over

is not no. These women had consensual sex over and over with Assange and only decided that it was assault much later, and not because they didn't want to have sex, but because he didn't use a condom and because they discovered he had bedded multiple women.

You don't have to say "no" but if you explicitly say yes multiple times, that's problematic, and I think that's what troubles Wolf. You can't say no retroactively.

[TorchTheWitch]

58. I'm not talking about those women

Why did you even bring that up? and even saying yes over and over doesn't mean you can't say no later or that no should be ignored.

Apparently, "no means no" is still completely lost on you. Yes, you CAN repeatedly say yes and if/when you do say no it STILL fucking means NO.

I don't give a shit what Wolf might find problematic. She did exactly what she's claimed to fight against because the bottom line is that she doesn't know what happened between Assange and those women and is therefore not in any position to decide whether or not they're lying any more than anyone else is. And for that - FUCK her. It's only Wolf's ignorant opinion that the only no was retroactive, and nobody is arguing about saying no retroactively. The allegations have nothing whatsoever to do with saying no only after the fact, so what's your point?

[KossackRealityCheck]

59. "I'm not talking about those women"

"Why did you even bring that up?"

Uuhhh, because the OP is about Assange's sex assault allegations???

You may not be talking about this particular case but everyone else in this thread is, and so was Naomi Wolf.

And of course you can so 'yes' multiple times and then say 'no' at which point no means no. But in this country you can't say yes multiple times, never say no, never mean no, and then AFTER THE FACT decide you wish you had said no because you learned your partner was sleeping around and then claim sexual assault. If that were the rule then pretty much every woman in a sexual relationship could have her partner thrown in jail if she gets pissed off later about anything.

rofl!!!

I don't give a shit what Wolf might find problematic. She did exactly what she's claimed to fight against because the bottom line is that she doesn't know what happened between Assange and those women

To quote you:


"I'm not talking about those women ... I'm not talking about those women"

:crazy:

This is the kind of shit that makes DU so entertaining if not necessarily enlightening compared to other liberal discussion boards!

:rofl:

[walldude]

42. This is clearing the air of misinformation?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




Some would say that this is a smear job and Wikileaks is the one clearing the air of misinformation. In spite of Assange's personal problem. Actually it's not "some would say" it's "I would say"

[wildbilln864]

45. unrec 'd this fail! nt

[Turborama]

60. The man hasn't actually been charged with ANYTHING after 5 months! He's innocent until proven guilty

Fuck all this trial by media bullshit. As his lawyer has also said, this looks more like a persecution not a prosecution.

If he's got a case to answer to, why the hell haven't they charged him yet?

[sabrina 1]

66. Exactly! Where is the case? n/t

[KG]

61. heehee

nice try. :P