This and That
This is one of those things that does, indeed, fall under the category of, "Really? This is news?"
But part of the whole outrage about WikiLeaks isn't just that they're releasing diplomatic documents, and such. After all, many opponents of WikiLeaks have suggested that there isn't anything new in the releases. And while some might point out that the war releases seem to include fifteen thousand civilian deaths not previously acknowledged, it's not like we didn't at least suspect.
The cables represent, in the Karzai issue, confirmation of what we already suspected. (I would say "knew", but, to be fair, that would be a loose and colloquial application of the term.)
There's a difference between people gossiping that your friend is stabbing you in the back—and obviously, at that—and actually having it spelled out in black and white. And I think that's what the governments are playing up now.
Yes, anyone who read the NYT is already aware of these stories, but how does that figure into the suggestions of grave damage done by the publication?
Complete empowerment is the requirement I demand in sexual relations, and therefore complete consent.
I think part of the issue is that this is, indeed, touchy ground insofar as, while on the surface it meets my standard for rape, I wonder whether it will qualify in what court. That is, as an American, I'm aware that juries have ruled in the past that a woman was, indeed, "asking for it" because of her attire. So even though I look at this whole, "after the condom broke" argument and say, "Yeah, I think that qualifies," I have serious doubts about whether (A) an American jury would agree (don't know about the Swedish standards yet), and (B) whether any American prosecutor would go forward on such a claim (although on that aspect, the Swedish standard now seems ... well, sort of clear).
In the long run, yes, I think empowerment, consent, and timing are all important issues, but what is the history of the issue? It's hard, given that the Swedish government already dropped the case once, to counter the suggestion that this is a political prosecution. Is there new evidence? What else rekindles the issue, other than the suggested political motives?
And even presuming the charge legitimate, what is Sweden saying if this is a political rekindling? Are they really saying this wasn't worth pursuing before, and only in the heat of international controversy about something unrelated to the case do they now see the light?
I just think people will always be cynical of Assange's prosecution if the international politics of the WikiLeaks releases are instrumental to Sweden going forward (e.g., changing its mind and taking the complaint seriously).
And, frankly, I think that would be tragic for the alleged rape survivor: Your story wasn't enough to go on, then, but now that the Americans and everyone else want this guy put away, we'll see what we can do.
The Swedes might as well just go around slapping rape survivors for the hell of it, then.
Countezero said:
This is one of those things that does, indeed, fall under the category of, "Really? This is news?"
But part of the whole outrage about WikiLeaks isn't just that they're releasing diplomatic documents, and such. After all, many opponents of WikiLeaks have suggested that there isn't anything new in the releases. And while some might point out that the war releases seem to include fifteen thousand civilian deaths not previously acknowledged, it's not like we didn't at least suspect.
The cables represent, in the Karzai issue, confirmation of what we already suspected. (I would say "knew", but, to be fair, that would be a loose and colloquial application of the term.)
There's a difference between people gossiping that your friend is stabbing you in the back—and obviously, at that—and actually having it spelled out in black and white. And I think that's what the governments are playing up now.
Yes, anyone who read the NYT is already aware of these stories, but how does that figure into the suggestions of grave damage done by the publication?
• • •
S.A.M. said:
Complete empowerment is the requirement I demand in sexual relations, and therefore complete consent.
I think part of the issue is that this is, indeed, touchy ground insofar as, while on the surface it meets my standard for rape, I wonder whether it will qualify in what court. That is, as an American, I'm aware that juries have ruled in the past that a woman was, indeed, "asking for it" because of her attire. So even though I look at this whole, "after the condom broke" argument and say, "Yeah, I think that qualifies," I have serious doubts about whether (A) an American jury would agree (don't know about the Swedish standards yet), and (B) whether any American prosecutor would go forward on such a claim (although on that aspect, the Swedish standard now seems ... well, sort of clear).
In the long run, yes, I think empowerment, consent, and timing are all important issues, but what is the history of the issue? It's hard, given that the Swedish government already dropped the case once, to counter the suggestion that this is a political prosecution. Is there new evidence? What else rekindles the issue, other than the suggested political motives?
And even presuming the charge legitimate, what is Sweden saying if this is a political rekindling? Are they really saying this wasn't worth pursuing before, and only in the heat of international controversy about something unrelated to the case do they now see the light?
I just think people will always be cynical of Assange's prosecution if the international politics of the WikiLeaks releases are instrumental to Sweden going forward (e.g., changing its mind and taking the complaint seriously).
And, frankly, I think that would be tragic for the alleged rape survivor: Your story wasn't enough to go on, then, but now that the Americans and everyone else want this guy put away, we'll see what we can do.
The Swedes might as well just go around slapping rape survivors for the hell of it, then.
