New Wikileaks Dump is Unconscionable

[nirakar]

And this evidence came to you, how?

I have many sources. My reasons for weighting these sources over the majority mainstream media reports are from a life time of experience following foreign policy. I was a weird kid who read the Christian Science Monitor and encyclopedias and history books in the.

I was raised to cherish science and objectivity and logic but I discovered I was living in a world that cherishes loyalty and has a hard time differentiating between style and substance.

Then there were some incidents that further sensitized me to realizing that the front story is often false and the back story may be true and the mainstream media may be inept and occasionally co-opted.

KPFA is a absolutely biased far left radio station but their journalistic standards are on a Par with the better half of the main stream media which means they get a lot wrong but are generally trying to be accurate and usually fact check information before they present it. But their information is very different and they followed Haiti closely.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site...tide+sciforums+nirakar&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2

 

[Bells]

You know not what you talk about.

Ex Post Facto laws are expressly prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of our Constitution.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...es_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress

Ah.. So you know more than your lawmakers who have been parading across our screens saying that if they cannot arrest him under current laws, then the laws need to be changed so that he can be arrested? You are aware that if they change your espionage laws, they can change it to affect something that is ongoing - such as the slow release to the media of the cables themselves. There is nothing in your constitution to prevent them from doing that.

Well that's ~535 people, so you have to expect some far out views from some of them.
Why dwell on what one representative says?
Why not focus on ACTUAL actions by the legislature, since that's all that actually matters?
Talk is cheap.

Depends on who is doing the talking.

Actually neither Assange or the NYTimes have the actual documents, they have copies. The actual documents are sitting where they always were, so even in this area, you have a case where a 100 year old law doesn't quite apply.

Again, something you may want to tell the rest of the US.

FU

I had forgotten how mature you were.

I've not seen you post a link to a politician threatening him with death, do so and I'll evaluate it as to being a legitimate threat.

My guess is no such legitimate threat was made.

You guessed wrong.

At least one congressman, Republican Peter King of New York, has called on the State Department to declare WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, a legal step that would trigger US economic, diplomatic and even military action against any country that “harbored” the Internet-based group.

Under the powers claimed by the Obama administration for the “commander-in-chief,” designation of WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization would provide the legal basis for Obama ordering the kidnapping or even assassination of Assange and others linked to the organization.

Right-wing media spokesmen have already endorsed such measures. The Wall Street Journal, in its editorial Tuesday, declared Assange an “enemy of the United States” and claimed, “If he were exposing Chinese or Russian secrets, he would already have died at the hands of some unknown assailant.”

The US government should be no less ruthless, the editorial argued: “As a foreigner (Australian citizen) engaged in hostile acts against the U.S., Mr. Assange is certainly not protected from U.S. reprisal under the laws of war.”

Given that Assange’s “hostile acts” consist of nothing more than Internet postings, this is a sweeping doctrine indeed. Apparently, the Journal is prepared to sanction the extermination of political opponents of US imperialism throughout the world.

In addition to countenancing the assassination of Assange, the Journal also backs the execution of Private Manning, declaring, “At a minimum, the Administration should throw the book at those who do the leaking, including the option of the death penalty. That would probably give second thoughts to the casual spy or to leakers who fancy themselves as idealists.”

(Source)
​

And then of course you have other individuals on your national TV saying 'dead men can't talk.. illegally shoot the son of a bitch'..

No, freedom of the press and an imformed public are high on my priority list.
I didn't say I agreed with everything in the article, but that it was a more balanced look at the issue, such as pointing out that if you could charge Assange then you should charge the NYTimes as well and I thought that the part about Secrecy violations should allow a range of lesser penalties starting with fines, was somewhat more rational view of the nature of the crime and appropriate punishment.

You mean it's asking the same questions I was asking earlier, which you dismissed? Oh wait, it wasn't asking the question. It was blatantly saying that th Espionage Act should be replaced with something that would result in the Press being fined or possibly charged. The article is blatantly clear, as my previous post with a quote from it indicate. I would say that freedom of the press and an informed public are not high on your priority list if that is what you are offering as a more balanced look at the issue.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Depending on how he accomplished such and what jurisdiction he was in, that is rape. Not something I'd shrug at, if these charges pan out.

"Lindfield said one woman accused Assange of pinning her down and refusing to use a condom on the night of Aug. 14 in Stockholm. That woman also accused of Assange of molesting her in a way "designed to violate her sexual integrity" several days later. A second woman accused Assange of having sex with her without a condom while he was a guest at her Stockholm home and she was asleep."

Doesn't that sound strange to you? She's pinned down and raped and then goes back so she can have her 'sexual integrity violated'? Then you have a second woman who has Assange spending the night at her house where he has sex with her in her sleep.

If these were serious rape charges then why did the Swedish courts drop them and allow Assange to leave for the UK only to now bring them up again?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You are misrepresenting my position Lucy. Things are not fine. The US now faces signficiant political risk...something I would have thought remote three decades ago. But with the rise of the radical right, Americas future is far from secure....see how well the economy and middle classs do under a Palin adiminstration or a Ron Paul administration.

What you will hear me speak out against is the unwarranted fear mongering on the right that is totally without merit and is only used to distract and manipulate the uninformed...which is most Americans.

I do believe Obama is America's best hope at this moment. He and the Democrats have done much to get this country back on the right track and they are pursuing many of the right policies. But in the end they are Democrats and not as effective at political manipulation as are Republicans. Dems tend to get tied down with moral issues whereas Republicans have no such qualms.

Obama is far from perfect in my view, but he is America's best hope. There is no one on the Repulbican side of the fence that even comes close. And with each passing day Republicans continue to divorce themselves from reality and become increasingly radical and unable to govern.

Well this is off-topic but why do you only speak of the Right? Is the criticism of the left also 'fear-mongering'?

I know, I know you think Obama is the best hope and the Democrats are pursuing the right policies I just don't agree with you. You're characterizations of all Republicans as having no moral base and the Democrats as always having one is unfounded and exactly what keeps people from seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[quadraphonics]

Doesn't that sound strange to you? She's pinned down and raped and then goes back so she can have her 'sexual integrity violated'?

Yeah, that slut obviously wanted it. Just look at the way she was dressed!

Then you have a second woman who has Assange spending the night at her house where he has sex with her in her sleep.

Obviously, it can't be rape if it's somebody you allowed into your house. It's only rape if some stranger beats you over the head with a club and drags you into a dark alley.

If these were serious rape charges then why did the Swedish courts drop them and allow Assange to leave for the UK only to now bring them up again?

Ask a Swedish lawyer if you want a real answer.

In the meantime, let's avoid the temptation to litigate a rape case from thousands of miles away, based on hearsay evidence from the press.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

It was provided as color to illustrate the type of person who thinks this boob is a serious commentator. But we can use Noam Chomsky, if you like. The few who take him seriously probably still listen to Ellsberg, too.



You have no idea what I am or was, nor does it matter.

Ellsberg worked for the relevant agencies more than 30 years ago. His expertise is related to that time period not this one. And since that time period, he has done little but live off his dubious celebrity, thanks to people like you.



You did, when you brought up Ellsberg and his efforts. You linked that context to this one, and my point is that the Vietnam context cannot be related to this one, so throwing Ellsberg up is a smokescreen, and a rather poor one at that.



In gross dollars it has, but in terms of relevant dollars and GDP it has not. Again, you're on a roll here with irrelevant comparisons.



Or you. Or your friends. Or your parents. Or your spouse. You see how this works? EVERYTHING can't be open and available. And you wouldn't want to live in a world where it is.



Because, as I have already suggested, the embarrassment has derailed diplomacy and curtailed the ability of nations to talk to each other and work together toward policy. I think that's a bad thing. You and the other deluded power to the people types don't. You think airing all this will somehow help make better policies. It won't. All it will do is breakup partnerships and make nations go back to their corners and be very quiet and very wary.

So don't mistake what I am saying here. The Wikileaks are important. But it's the leaks themselves, not so much the information that matters. As I've written before, this is like reading someone's diary. It's not going to change how that person behaves, but it will change how that person behaves toward you in the short term.

You keep calling Ellsberg a 'boob'. Its sounds like some kind of personal bias, care to back it up with some kind of evidence? I mean what is it that you know about his character. Please share.

I'm not the only one who refers to the Pentagon papers in comparison to this situation. You keep saying that it is somehow different but haven't explained how it is different. I've asked before, should the New York Times be shut down for printing Wikileaks cables?

"That is the issue here, pure and simple. It is unconscionable to target Assange for publishing documents on the Internet that mainstream media outlets have attested had legitimate news value. As in the historic case in which Daniel Ellsberg gave The New York Times the Pentagon Papers exposé of the official lies justifying the Vietnam War, Assange is acting as the reporter here, and thus his activities must be shielded by the First Amendment’s guarantee of journalistic freedom.

Actually Ellsberg’s position, as morally strong as it was, was weaker than that of Assange, in that the former Marine and top Pentagon adviser was working at the government-funded Rand Corp., where he had agreed to rules about the handling of classified information, including the Pentagon Papers. Assange operates under no such restraints and is an even clearer example of the journalist who ferrets out news and attempts to report it. He had no special clearance that provided him access, and what he did was no different from what the editors of The New York Times did in publishing news that was fit to print."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101207/

From the same article:

"In the 1787 letter in which he wrote those words, Jefferson was reflecting the deep wisdom of a political leader who often had been excoriated by a vicious press that would make the anarchist-inflected comments of an Assange seem mild in comparison. More than 35 years later, after having suffered many more vitriolic press attacks, Jefferson reiterated his belief in a free press, in all its vagaries, as the foundation of a democracy. In an 1823 letter to Lafayette, Jefferson warned: “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted to be freely expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

Counterzero: In gross dollars it has, but in terms of relevant dollars and GDP it has not. Again, you're on a roll here with irrelevant comparisons.

Now that is what I call an irrelevant statement. Is it okay with you that we have spent billions on a useless war just because in terms of 'GDP' its somehow cheaper? :bugeye: At least the Vietnam war wasn't fought on borrowed money.

Everything cannot be open? So what should be kept private in terms of the government and their affairs which are payed for by US citizens? They are accountable to the tax payer. Now I have yet to hear all this brouhaha when the government extended its powers through the patriot act. Watching and exposing the eye that watches us seems fair game to me. Nixon I recall also thought his tapes should be kept 'private' and thought to air them a matter of 'national security'.

Counterzero: Because, as I have already suggested, the embarrassment has derailed diplomacy and curtailed the ability of nations to talk to each other and work together toward policy. I think that's a bad thing. You and the other deluded power to the people types don't. You think airing all this will somehow help make better policies. It won't. All it will do is breakup partnerships and make nations go back to their corners and be very quiet and very wary. So don't mistake what I am saying here. The Wikileaks are important. But it's the leaks themselves, not so much the information that matters. As I've written before, this is like reading someone's diary. It's not going to change how that person behaves, but it will change how that person behaves toward you in the short term.

Well we agree then that Wikileaks is important. We don't know how important the information is so far as the most sensitive information has yet to be leaked.

Derailed diplomacy? No it hasn't it just means that no one will bring a notepad when they enter the room. What is has proven is that the security in the US is lax to say the least and that someone as low ranking as Manning could have access to so called 'secret' information is evidence of how lax it really is. So as far as the reticence of other nations to conduct themselves diplomatically with the US I don't blame them. They shouldn't blame Wiki they should blame themselves.

Its bollocks to believe that there will be any break up partnerships between nations.

'Power to the people' folk like me?

I guess you must be one of those power to the governing elite type of folks

Yeah I'm a real Jeffersonian type of gal. He was also a 'power to the people' kind of guy. So I stand in good company. I don't believe that government should be protected when they have proven themselves corrupt and inept.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yeah, that slut obviously wanted it. Just look at the way she was dressed!



Obviously, it can't be rape if it's somebody you allowed into your house. It's only rape if some stranger beats you over the head with a club and drags you into a dark alley.



Ask a Swedish lawyer if you want a real answer.

In the meantime, let's avoid the temptation to litigate a rape case from thousands of miles away, based on hearsay evidence from the press.

Oh stop it! Please save me the 'all women are victims' the moment the R word drops from their lips. Its a fair question. Why would a woman who has been raped as she has, not only not report it but then go back to the person to have her 'sexual integrity violated' as she says?

I think that he is being set up pure and simple. Women also are capable of 'crying wolf'. I wonder, I mean such a feral rapist as he is running around pinning women down and shagging like mad without a condom while they sleep has only now come to the attention of the public. I mean has his rape instincts only come to the surface in Sweden? Why wasn't he raping women in Australia and other parts of the world? Sly bastard isn't he? To have his rape victims invite him over to spend the night and even visit him after the fact so he can violate them again.

Meanwhile you can't even get Roman Polanski on trial for dillying a minor.

I say lets avoid the temptation to ostracize and label Assange a rapist based on the hearsay of two dumb ass women who are a thousand miles away.

I hate to break this to you but women have and do lie about rape.

1 day ago:

The rape accusations against Julian Assange may be falling apart as one of his accusers leaves Sweden. Anna Ardin, one of two women behind the rape charges against the WIkiLeaks founder, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors, the Australian website Crikey reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html

What? Not cooperating? Don't they want justice for themselves against the night prowling wolf who played sheep who was invited into their homes and fucked them without a condom? Maybe they're frightened that those mean black hats will bombard their computers with unwanted traffic.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Quad

Feminists are really a suspicious lot:

Naomi Klein tweeted that:

“R-pe is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up! #wikilieaks”

"In The Guardian Karin Axelsson of Women Against R-pe questioned why Assange’s case was being pursued more assiduously than cases of r-pe judged more serious (Sweden has three degrees of severity for r-pe charges)."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/09...has-left-sweden-may-have-ceased-co-operating/

 

[quadraphonics]

Its a fair question. Why would a woman who has been raped as she has, not only not report it but then go back to the person to have her 'sexual integrity violated' as she says?

Why would somebody with no direct knowledge of the details of such a case go around publicly asking prejudicial hypotheticals of other people with no direct knowledge of the case? This is emphatically not a "fair question," but an attempt to discredit based on untestable suppositions.

It's for a court of law to decide - and it's crucial to dealing with the larger problem of rape that we be seen to respect that situation. The justified expectation amongst rape victims that interested strangers will publicly shame and discredit them - like you are doing - is a major factor in why such a small percentage of rapes are ever reported to police to begin with.

I think that he is being set up pure and simple. Women also are capable of 'crying wolf'.

Anything's possible. We have no reliable grounds on which to conclude such - and so the insistence on trying this case here, in public, based on hearsay, rankles.

I wonder, I mean such a feral rapist as he is running around pinning women down and shagging like mad without a condom while they sleep has only now come to the attention of the public. I mean has his rape instincts only come to the surface in Sweden? Why wasn't he raping women in Australia and other parts of the world?

Maybe he was. Only a small fraction of rapes are ever reported - if he raped one woman who reported it, statistics would suggest that he'd probably raped 8-9 prior to that without them reporting it.

But, again, why the rush to discredit rape victims based on nothing but naked supposition and obvious political interest?

Meanwhile you can't even get Roman Polanski on trial for dillying a minor.

That would be "drugging and sodomizing a minor," note. But irrelevant either way.

I say lets avoid the temptation to ostracize and label Assange a rapist based on the hearsay of two dumb ass women who are a thousand miles away.

And likewsie resist the temptation to ostracize and label two women as lying political operatives based on stilted expectations of how rape victims ought to behave and political sympathy for the alleged perpatrator who is a thousand miles away.

I hate to break this to you but women have and do lie about rape.

True, but not nearly as many woman as get raped and don't report it out of the fear of being treated in exactly the way that you are treating these women.

What? Not cooperating? Don't they want justice for themselves against the night prowling wolf who played sheep who was invited into their homes and fucked them without a condom? Maybe they're frightened that those mean black hats will bombard their computers with unwanted traffic.

There are many reasons that rape victims do not cooperate with prosecutors, or even report rapes to police in the first place. A major one is not wanting to deal with the sort of abusive slut-shaming and prejudiced judgements that you demonstrate here. Being violated by a rapist is bad enough - being delegitimized by society for seeking justice compounds that violation.

 

[quadraphonics]

Naomi Klein tweeted that:

“R-pe is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up! #wikilieaks”

Which is to say: it's a real, serious problem that deserves justice, but isn't actually the primary concern of those pursuing said justice.

That's a lot different than your conspiracy theory of a political frame-up.

Or are you going to argue that oppression of women under the Taliban wasn't a real problem either? Certainly, that's not what Naomi Klein was suggesting.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

It's for a court of law to decide - and it's crucial to dealing with the larger problem of rape that we be seen to respect that situation. The justified expectation amongst rape victims that interested strangers will publicly shame and discredit them - like you are doing - is a major factor in why such a small percentage of rapes are ever reported to police to begin with.



Anything's possible. We have no reliable grounds on which to conclude such - and so the insistence on trying this case here, in public, based on hearsay, rankles.



Maybe he was. Only a small fraction of rapes are ever reported - if he raped one woman who reported it, statistics would suggest that he'd probably raped 8-9 prior to that without them reporting it.

But, again, why the rush to discredit rape victims based on nothing but naked supposition and obvious political interest?



That would be "drugging and sodomizing a minor," note. But irrelevant either way.



And likewsie resist the temptation to ostracize and label two women as lying political operatives based on stilted expectations of how rape victims ought to behave and political sympathy for the alleged perpatrator who is a thousand miles away.



True, but not nearly as many woman as get raped and don't report it out of the fear of being treated in exactly the way that you are treating these women.



There are many reasons that rape victims do not cooperate with prosecutors, or even report rapes to police in the first place. A major one is not wanting to deal with the sort of abusive slut-shaming and prejudiced judgements that you demonstrate here. Being violated by a rapist is bad enough - being delegitimized by society for seeking justice compounds that violation.

Quad: Why would somebody with no direct knowledge of the details of such a case go around publicly asking prejudicial hypotheticals of other people with no direct knowledge of the case? This is emphatically not a "fair question," but an attempt to discredit based on untestable suppositions.

What like this? "Yeah, that slut obviously wanted it. Just look at the way she was dressed!"

"Obviously, it can't be rape if it's somebody you allowed into your house. It's only rape if some stranger beats you over the head with a club and drags you into a dark alley."

Sure its for the court to decide. They first decided to drop the case and then after US pressure the case magically re-surfaced. If its for the courts to decide then why do you seem to take the statements of these women at face value.

Sorry but I have to laugh at the statement that these women somehow fear being publicly shamed. I mean isn't Assange the most hated nuisance the world has ever seen? Isn't he being hounded for espionage and other irresponsible behaviour? So now that the world is against Assange, some even calling for his assassination you would think all of his former rape victims would be coming out of the wood-work relaying how he was invited into their homes only to rape them in their sleep without a condom. Oh yeah and then meet him a few days later to have their sexual integrity violated just one more time.


Look back at my last post (you may have missed it) evidently even Axelsson of Women Against Rape is questioning these charges. I would question why feminists like Naomi Wolf and Axelsson would defend such a woman hating hound like Assange and not immediately take the word of these women as gospel.

No one ever lies about rape:

"A 16-year-old girl has been jailed for falsely making a rape claim so her boyfriend would not discover she had cheated on him.
The girl, who had consensual sex with a 20-year-old man after a night out, told police that she had been abducted and attacked by three men, Merthyr Crown Court heard."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-11941868

Yeah, sure. These woman are afraid of being delegitimized against a man who is being delegitimized by world governments. That makes a lot of sense. Sure.

By the way I like the way you delegitimized Polanski's act of "drugging and sodomizing a minor". Hey it was nothing! I don't think its irrelevant. Why? As stated here:

"Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine. For two years we have been supporting a woman who suffered rape and domestic violence from a man previously convicted after attempting to murder an ex-partner and her children – he was granted bail while police investigated.

There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech

My point was why wasn't the same zealousness used to capture and prosecute Polanski.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Which is to say: it's a real, serious problem that deserves justice, but isn't actually the primary concern of those pursuing said justice.

That's a lot different than your conspiracy theory of a political frame-up.

Or are you going to argue that oppression of women under the Taliban wasn't a real problem either? Certainly, that's not what Naomi Klein was suggesting.

I don't think there is enough evidence already of political coercion so why not a frame-up? Is it that the US government is above framing others they would like to discredit?

I love the language here, how these women whom he shagged were his 'admirers':

Here, in a first-floor flat in a dreary apartment block, the mastermind behind the leak of more than 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables this month slept with a female admirer whom he had just met at a seminar. She subsequently made a complaint to police.

The Stockholm police want to question him regarding the possible rape of a woman and separate allegations from another Swedish admirer, with whom he was having a concurrent fling. But there remains a huge question mark over the evidence. Many people believe that the 39-year-old Australian-born whistleblower is the victim of a U.S. government dirty tricks campaign. They argue that the whole squalid affair is a sexfalla, which translates loosely from the Swedish as a ‘honeytrap’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html

Honeytrap indeed! He raped a woman with whom he was having a 'concurrent fling'. Interesting. Both of them 'admirers'.

 

[quadraphonics]

If its for the courts to decide then why do you seem to take the statements of these women at face value.

Because that's the appropriate value to assign to statements that one doesn't intend to judge further. Not sure where you think the conflict is, there. They say they were raped, he says otherwise, I respect the prerogative of the appropriate court to decide, and in the meantime take the various statements at face value.

Sorry but I have to laugh at the statement that these women somehow fear being publicly shamed.

It would be a lot funnier if there weren't so many people working relentlessly to publicly shame these women - including yourself, right here.

I mean isn't Assange the most hated nuisance the world has ever seen? Isn't he being hounded for espionage and other irresponsible behaviour?

What would that matter? There's plenty of people on his side, who are more than willing to publicly slander and shame these women. You're doing it yourself, right now. The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.

So now that the world is against Assange, some even calling for his assassination you would think all of his former rape victims would be coming out of the wood-work

No, I wouldn't. You might, since imagining such would presumably back whatever point you're going for here, but I tend to bear in mind that 90% of rape victims never come forward at all. It's not the kind of thing that people like having publicized about themselves, even if the perpetrator is widely reviled.

Look back at my last post (you may have missed it) evidently even Axelsson of Women Against Rape is questioning these charges.

Good for them.

I would question why feminists like Naomi Wolf and Axelsson would defend such a woman hating hound like Assange and not immediately take the word of these women as gospel.

False dichotomy - there's nobody taking these women's words as gospel, and you have no knowledge of the motives or thoughts of the women you cite.

No one ever lies about rape:

You just tried that strawman in your last post. You suck at arguing.

Yeah, sure. These woman are afraid of being delegitimized against a man who is being delegitimized by world governments.

Another false dichotomy - this isn't a zero-sum game. It's very much possible that Assange gets burned, and the rape accusers also get burned. Even in clear-cut cases of brutal rape that result in easy conviction, accusers are put in a vulnerable position of exposing their victimization to the public and being judged by insensitive, agenda'd pricks like yourself. That's why so few come forward at all, even in very clear-cut cases.

By the way I like the way you delegitimized Polanski's act of "drugging and sodomizing a minor". Hey it was nothing! I don't think its irrelevant.

Noting that something isn't relevant to the present topic isn't the same thing as "delegitimizing" it. You're really treading water here - if I were you, I'd just give up now before you embarass yourself any further.

My point was why wasn't the same zealousness used to capture and prosecute Polanski.

Last I checked, the USA is still serious about capturing and prosecuting Polanski, and in fact that very (over-) zealousness is what created the technical pretexts that have allowed him to escape extradition all these years. Meanwhile, your precedents of rape prosecution are from the UK, which has nothing to do with Polanski. He committed his crimes in the US, and then fled to France and eventually Switzerland. He hasn't set foot in the UK since then, as he would immediately be arrested and extradited.

Moreover, it is difficult to credibly argue that Assange is not a flight risk.

 

[quadraphonics]

I don't think there is enough evidence already of political coercion so why not a frame-up?

Lack of evidence, along with Occam's Razor.

Is it that the US government is above framing others they would like to discredit?

Not above it, no, but I see no reason to think they'd need to go to the trouble. And I expect the US would take greater pains to hide its hand, if it were up to some sort of international black ops here. One generally wants to accomplish that sort of thing with a lot more subtlety and deniability - if it's obvious to every crank on the internet that something is a CIA scheme, then it's almost certainly not a CIA scheme.

I love the language here, how these women whom he shagged were his 'admirers':

He wouldn't be the first celebrity to exploit his fame to sexually abuse. You did just bring up the example of Polanski, recall.

 

[adoucette]

Ah.. So you know more than your lawmakers who have been parading across our screens saying that if they cannot arrest him under current laws, then the laws need to be changed so that he can be arrested? You are aware that if they change your espionage laws, they can change it to affect something that is ongoing - such as the slow release to the media of the cables themselves. There is nothing in your constitution to prevent them from doing that.

Yes, but he could only be charged with acts he does AFTER the law is changed, and he would have plenty of notice in the sense that laws go from the House to the Senate to the President for signing, SO until the law IS changed, this is a non issue and it is NEVER retroactive.

Depends on who is doing the talkingAgain, something you may want to tell the rest of the US.

And I have NO PROBLEM with the proposed legislation:

making it illegal to publish the names of human intelligence informants (HUMINT) to the United States military and intelligence community.

The fact is that Assange could publish the cables and simply redact the NAMES of the people and avoid this issue. There is no good reason that the people involved should be put in danger by having their identities exposed.

You guessed wrong.

(Source)

No I didn't guess wrong.
Nothing in that article has a US Congressman calling for Assange's assassination.
The COLUMNIST for the WSJ only suggested that if he were Russian or Chinese that they would do this to him, but did NOT suggest we do so.

Here's the actual WSJ article and there is no mention of assassinating Assange.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644490285411052.html

And then of course you have other individuals on your national TV saying 'dead men can't talk.. illegally shoot the son of a bitch'..

So?
That's NOT our congressman, which was your claim.
Who cares what this moron says on a friggin entertainment program?

Again, every claim you have made has been shown to be FALSE.

Arthur

 

[Tiassa]

Crossroads

But, again, why the rush to discredit rape victims based on nothing but naked supposition and obvious political interest?

The Assange case is one that makes pretty much every rape fighter on the planet cringe in horror and disgust.

The "rush" to discredit the alleged victims is a touchy issue, to say the least, but everything points back to a question: Why did these allegations have no merit before?

That is, why did the Swedish government drop the case the first time, only to rekindle it in the wake of international controversy surrounding the accused?

Speaking as an American, living in a country where a jury will acquit an accused rapist because the alleged victim's attire was "asking for it", or where a prosecutor with a rape confession from the alleged rapist won't bring charges because he thinks it sounds like "buyer's remorse", I find myself wondering at the logic behind the Swedish government's actions.

And as Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, one might turn immediately to recently-released American diplomatic cables documenting the efforts of two administrations to undermine kidnapping and torture prosecutions in Germany and Spain. The question arises whether this prosecution is politically motivated. After all, no international WikiLeaks controversy, no charges against Assange.

The problem for the rape fighters is that the conduct described does, in fact, qualify as some manner of sexual misconduct—the word "rape" remains, for this segment of society, on the table.

But there is also a certain amount of disgust at the charges: This issue is only important enough to pursue for other reasons. It does not, in and of itself—according to the Swedish government—merit pursuit.

So for the rape fighters, it's something of a grand guignol spectacle in which society will only invoke this standard in order to get something else it wants. Rape survivors themselves do not warrant this kind of consideration, as the Swedish dropping of the case in September shows. But now that international governments want a piece of Assange? Now it's rape.

This is disgusting. It's a slap in the face to rape survivors and their advocates. So they're quite ambivalent, as one might expect, about finally getting this bone thrown to them. Any other day, they're expected to starve on this count.

Now we hear that one of his accusers has left Sweden, holed up in the West Bank with a Christian missionary group, and seems unwilling to pursue the issue any further. And the issue, according to some reports, is a peculiar aspect of Swedish law:

Assange's London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.

Assange is the subject of an international manhunt, as a result of Interpol issuing a "red notice," a warrant indicating the person should be arrested with a view to extradition.

"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.

"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."

(Kennedy)​

Swedish standards are, it seems, somewhat unusual. Not that this is inherently a good or bad thing, but Marianne Ny, the prosecutor who reopened the case, has advocated rape laws that would override the fact of consent if authorities can construe an imbalance in power between the parties.

And while some might cheer these policies and developments, it is still discouraging to see that other nations are willing to hop on the trolley simply because they have a bone to pick with Assange. If "sex by surprise", or changing one's mind mid-coitus based on changing conditions, leads to a rape charge, then it should always lead to a rape charge; not just because other governments are looking for any way they can manage to get at Assange.

And that's the real insult: Assange is a rapist, and we're going to get him, but not because he is a rapist; rather, it's because he's infamous.

In other words, we're going to charge him with rape not for our allegiance to the law, but because it is politically convenient to do so.

That's the conflict facing rape fighters around the world when viewing the Assange charges. Rape victims are still second-class, and this is just rubbing their noses in it.

Should we be happy that the standard is being pursued? Or should we be cynical that it has every appearance fo being a matter of political convenience?

Six months after the Assange question is settled, who else will be on Interpol's red notice list for "sex by surprise", or fucking after a condom breaks?

Few expect there will be a mass harvest of these alleged rapists. And, if by some strange quirk of circumstance, it actually happens that the world begins pursuing vigorously this allegation of rape, will it work both ways? A former girlfriend once "tricked" me into sex by saying she wanted some light bondage. In truth, she was on her period, and didn't want me to know, since she expected me to decline sex. I don't feel raped. It was fun. She did the cleanup. Life goes on.

But in terms of complete empowerment and consent, yes, it qualifies.

If Assange has committed rape, he has committed rape. But if this is a political setup, then this prosecution could set back campaigns against sexual violence by decades. And for the feminists, that is the nasty hornet's nest this case rattles.

What price, justice? Do we trade for one guy being prosecuted at the very periphery of what some call rape—and others simply call sexual intercourse—if the cost is another ten years worth of survivors enduring public cynicism and scorn?

If you perceive a "rush" to discredit the alleged victims in this, it might just be that some folks are checking in on that outcome.

And we should also remember:

On Nov. 18, Swedish judicial officials approved a prosecutorial request that Assange be detained for questioning for alleged sex crimes, and on Nov. 30 Interpol issued a "red notice" against Assange for alleged sex crimes in Sweden. Despite what has happened, the woman who organized the event and had Assange stay at her apartment told Aftonbladet that she never intended that Assange be charged with rape.

(Kennedy; boldface accent added)​

Just to be clear, that's one of his accusers.
____________________

Notes:

Worthington, Andy. "WikiLeaks Cables Reveals Bush, Obama Pressured Germany, Spain Not To Probe Torture". The Public Record. December 8, 2010. PubRecord.org. December 10, 2010. http://pubrecord.org/torture/8609/wikileaks-cables-reveals-bush-obama/

The Huffington Post. "Anna Ardin, Julian Assange Rape Accuser, May Have Ceased Pursuing Claims". December 9, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. December 10, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html

Kennedy, Diana. "'Sex by Surprise' at Heart of Assange Criminal Probe". AOL News. December 3, 2010. AOLnews.com December 10, 2010. http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...art-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

 

[Asguard]

To me this sex by surprise is a joke. In Australia if the person is asleep that's rape pure and simple. Technically even if your regular sexual partner and you agree in advance if someone else sees you then charges can be brought because its rape. If you refuse to stop even if previously it was consentual its rape no matter why they changed there mind. There is no ambiguity in the laws

 

[adoucette]

I have many sources. My reasons for weighting these sources over the majority mainstream media reports are from a life time of experience following foreign policy. http://www.google.com/search?q=site...tide+sciforums+nirakar&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2

Meaning you actually have nothing but a feeling that you are right and the mainstream media is wrong.

But then having read a lot of your posts I find you very biased.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is the source the source. They claim to be non-partisan and unbiased and even had Michael Obama associated with them once. I don't doubt that they are non-partisan as in Democrat vs Republican or as in neocon very light vs full fledged neocon but this organization has a clear US interventionist bias that has persisted since their founding when they were created to oppose the Isolationists who wanted to keep the USA out of WW1.

This organization has ties to defense contractors.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chicago_Council_on_Global_Affairs

Do you just make this stuff up?

They were founded in 1922, how could that be to keep us out of WW1?
The President, CofB and Directors don't appear to have any significant ties to defense contractors.

The questions are contained in the Figures.

The point is, unless you can show otherwise, is they appear to do reputable polls on American attitudes concerning foreign policy.

Arthur

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Lack of evidence, along with Occam's Razor.



Not above it, no, but I see no reason to think they'd need to go to the trouble. And I expect the US would take greater pains to hide its hand, if it were up to some sort of international black ops here. One generally wants to accomplish that sort of thing with a lot more subtlety and deniability - if it's obvious to every crank on the internet that something is a CIA scheme, then it's almost certainly not a CIA scheme.



He wouldn't be the first celebrity to exploit his fame to sexually abuse. You did just bring up the example of Polanski, recall.

There is also a lack of evidence that these rapes actually occurred.

They've gone to a lot of trouble to coerce paypal, visa and mastercard into dropping wikileaks through Senator Lieberman. You are on the one hand stating that Wikileaks has created a situation where its difficult for governments to work together diplomatically, that its somehow a breach in national security and the ability for governments to work together, an act that has lead some to call for his assassination and then on the other hand you are claiming that its really no big deal, not to the extent that the government would have a hand in framing the man. Well you're claim that there is no frame-up isn't proof that there isn't but simply an opinion, the same as mine. I have no actual proof that the US government has had a hand in framing Assange but I wouldn't put it pass them. In short there are ample reasons to doubt the intentions of the powers that be. I mean this is the same government that have accused many of terrorist crimes and incarcerated them without trial and without evidence based on dubious allegations and hear say.


Yeah right. Assange is such a 'celebrity' that the majority of people in the world hadn't even heard of him til now.