http://twitter.com/Anon_Operation
― would like a calmer set (Eazy), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 22:02 (thirteen years ago) link
Well, they posted a link to hundreds and hundreds of credit-card numbers (w/ expiration dates), so that account's gone.
― would like a calmer set (Eazy), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:13 (thirteen years ago) link
The willingness of Assange's supporters to wave away the rape allegations is sickening. Judging from comments on this Laurie Penny piece, the main reason for smearing the accusers as liars or CIA plants seems to be that it feels "a bit fishy". Obviously when it comes to making the US govt look bad, feminism gets thrown under a bus.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/12/julian-assange-rape-women
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 11:55 (thirteen years ago) link
Someone's trying to sell the first 5,000 leaked diplomatic cables for Amazon.com's Kindle. Pay with Visa or PayPal for added irony:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004EEOLIU
― StanM, Thursday, 9 December 2010 11:57 (thirteen years ago) link
xpost: The willingness of that feminist author to accept the rape allegations is just as sickening.
― StanM, Thursday, 9 December 2010 11:58 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/09/deborah-orr-julian-assange-wikileaks
idk, doubting the accusations is p mnstrm, not just something weirdo NS commenters do
so im not sickened, just, well, unsurprised
i see the NS is doing the 'religion is actually left-wing' thing in its cover lol
xpost
stanm she doesn't 'accept' the allegations but, really? is it 'sickening' to believe rape accusations now?
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:01 (thirteen years ago) link
Ridiculous comment, StanM - it's not about accepting them, it's about not dismissing or downplaying them out of hand just because you like the politics of the accused.
HM, I didn't say it was weird - I've seen it in mainstream columnists too - I just don't like it.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:08 (thirteen years ago) link
It's not rape.
― StanM, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:12 (thirteen years ago) link
And you know this how? Because you were there?
― Karen D. Tregaskin, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:19 (thirteen years ago) link
kate, i assume he's referring to the fact that the crime he's wanted in connection with is called something that doesn't translate at "rape" in swedish law, and maybe would not be rape in, e.g. british law.
obviously, like stan says, failing to recognize that a man wanted in connection with sexual assault is probably the victim of a cia plot is sickening though, and what makes it worst is that the author is a feminist.
― caek, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:23 (thirteen years ago) link
i feel like there is probably an israel thread somewhere missing its stanm
― caek, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:24 (thirteen years ago) link
Probably?
Possibly, I'd give you...
― Mark G, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:24 (thirteen years ago) link
it's telling that something similar happened to ralph nader after he published his criticism of general motors:
"In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and the New York Times, reported that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.[14][15] Nader sued the company for invasion of privacy and settled the case for $284,000. Nader's lawsuit against GM was ultimately decided by the New York Court of Appeals, whose opinion in the case expanded tort law to cover "overzealous surveillance."[16]" -- wikipedia
― jeevves, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:24 (thirteen years ago) link
how is that similar?!
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:25 (thirteen years ago) link
If the woman withdraws consent and he ignores that then it's rape. This piece is good on why:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/06/some-thoughts-on-sex-by-surprise/
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:25 (thirteen years ago) link
how the fuck is that "telling"?
― caek, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:26 (thirteen years ago) link
xxp
If nothing else, this case has proved how deeply conspiracy theorist thinking is sunk into the mainstream. I don't know whether or not this will turn out to be a stitch-up but the widespread assumption that it is just because it's "fishy" or "convenient" is not a sign of grown-up political debate.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:30 (thirteen years ago) link
Maybe at the very least the US will get some withdrawal of consent laws out of this, but I doubt it.
― Fetchboy, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:30 (thirteen years ago) link
I mean, if ever Glenn Beck's blind partisanship and sensationalism could actually do some good, now's the time.
― Fetchboy, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:32 (thirteen years ago) link
If nothing else, this case has proved how deeply conspiracy theorist thinking is sunk into the mainstream
haaang on though. wikileaks' defenders see a conspiracy in everything even without the rape thing. that's because of iraq-9/11-'the endless war' etc, but it's not like you didn't have the same thing over jfk/the zinoviev letter/the protocols of the elders of zion/___________
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:32 (thirteen years ago) link
i suppose the internet has changed the number of global-scale, implausibly ambitious conspiracies that are kicking around
― caek, Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:33 (thirteen years ago) link
he's a man of many talents
― Jefferson Mansplain (DG), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:37 (thirteen years ago) link
I mean that because of the hugeness of WikiLeaks and the sense that the government is hiding shit from us, even if that shit is either too banal or too predictable or too clumsy to qualify as an actual conspiracy theory, it breeds a climate of suspicion and credulity so that any conspiracy theory will have (even) more traction, this being only the current example. And I don't meant that WikiLeaks shouldn't have done it - I just think that's the psychopolitical fallout.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:42 (thirteen years ago) link
to qualify as an actual conspiracy theory
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:43 (thirteen years ago) link
yikes guys
rape allegations are not something to be made light of, and these women deserve their day in court obviously. agreed the comments-section smears of these women are pretty gross. he hasn't been convicted of anything at this point, though, so he's presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. i don't think it's telling of some kind of normalization of conspiracy theorizing to note the circumstances of his arrest were a little...weird. it's also not anti-feminist.
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:46 (thirteen years ago) link
the whole "it's not rape rape" thing is
― Jefferson Mansplain (DG), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:55 (thirteen years ago) link
disgusting, absolutely
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:02 (thirteen years ago) link
It depends who you're reading, k3vin k. A lot of them are kooky and/or misogynist, but obviously not all.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:04 (thirteen years ago) link
A lot of them are probably kooky and/or misogynist ....
― Mark G, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:05 (thirteen years ago) link
@caeki mean that it's telling in the sense that it's a proven strategy of powerful people to accuse whistle-blowers of crimes, e.g. nader. whether assange is guilty or innocent, i don't claim to know.
― jeevves, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:15 (thirteen years ago) link
I've seen some rather more convincing take-downs of the "OMG, the accusers are connected to the CIA!" conspiracy theories if you read towards the end of these blog posts here:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/blog/sandracuffe/5363
A lot of this victim-smearing stuff makes me very, very angry for obvious personal reasons. But it seems to get quite lost that it is possible to simultaneously believe that yes, Wikileaks does fulfill an important purpose and yet also, Assange may be a person who is capable of sexual assault.
I'm trying to find the blog link, but I have forgotten which one it was, so I'm going to paraphrase: Yes, the CIA has a history of taking out people who are perceived as an embarrassment or a threat to the US. But there is also a history of powerful men, some of whom may even be heroes to the Left, who have been capable or even guilty of sexual violence towards women. The former does not automatically preclude the latter.
I find it completely gross, that the automatic response to "wow, most men accused of rape don't get international extradition orders out on them" is "this automatically means he must be the innocent victim of a plot" rather than "why aren't more rape cases treated this seriously and thoroughly?" It's weird to me that people who agree that Wikileaks is a force for good, for righting power imbalances, for breaking the code of secrecy, for turning the internet panopticon back on the government - can turn around and reassert power imbalances and the secrecy and victim blaming that is inherent in arguments like "rape is just not a real or important crime worthy of extradition" or "smear/blame the victims" or "women are liars who press rape charges for fun" (because, trust me, I know, just how *not fun* the process of making rape charges can be) or "I know what rape is/what a rapist looks like, and this can't possibly be it!" and the good old "it's not rape rape!"
Everyone is entitled to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. That includes the women in this case, too.
― Karen D. Tregaskin, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:18 (thirteen years ago) link
Great post. And the Salon piece is the best I've read.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:22 (thirteen years ago) link
There are a whole bunch of people that are unconcerned if he is guilty or not, just as long as he's convicted....
― Mark G, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:26 (thirteen years ago) link
Also, the whole "FIFA is corrupt, sure, but hey the BBC is to blame for broadcasting the documentary before the announcement" is similar (but different)
― Mark G, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:28 (thirteen years ago) link
i mean that it's telling in the sense that it's a proven strategy of powerful people to accuse whistle-blowers of crimes, e.g. nader. whether assange is guilty or innocent, i don't claim to know.― jeevves, Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:15 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark
― jeevves, Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:15 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark
your link says the authorities tried to frame nader. this isn't like that, unless you think JA's accusers are CIA.
i think there is pretty ample evidence that the CIA hasn't had any assets in the broad vicinity of wikileaks or julian, but im no expert on espionage.
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:36 (thirteen years ago) link
There are also a whole bunch of people that are unconcerned if he is guilty or not, just as long as he's not convicted...
― seandalai, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:40 (thirteen years ago) link
i don't understand - if julian assange is being framed, which is a very real possibility, how does this credit or discredit victims of a horrendous crime such as rape? or comment on that crime at all?
― jeevves, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:40 (thirteen years ago) link
"if julian assange is being framed, which is a very real possibility"
you think the CIA had people close to assange who arranged a broken condom incident, and then (somehow) got him to have sex with them while asleep
ingenious
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:44 (thirteen years ago) link
uh, what?
If he's being framed, the crime was not committed.
(unless they've got the wrong man, etc)
― Mark G, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:45 (thirteen years ago) link
rmde
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:48 (thirteen years ago) link
(i think framing someone does mean getting them to commit a crime, but this is retarded and needs to end)
xpost Yeah, if I were trying to frame someone on rape charges I'd make the allegations a lot simpler. People keep talking about how "convenient" the timing is, so why are the allegations so inconveniently complicated?
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:49 (thirteen years ago) link
the frustrating thing abt the rape charge (and precisely what makes it seem like, if not a frame-up, at the very least a conveniently-timed dog-wagging) is that we KEEP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT — it's like throwing chum to a bunch of sharks, and seems to be an all-too-convenient way of fragmenting a loose internet coalition of vaguely-progressive people — sorta wish everybody would just stfu and wait until it goes to trial
(then again, the one good thing that might come out of all this, as someone said (I think) upthread, is an increased awareness abt withdrawal-of-consent issues)
― unemployed aerosmith fans I have shoved (bernard snowy), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:50 (thirteen years ago) link
xp because most rape cases are complicated
― unemployed aerosmith fans I have shoved (bernard snowy), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:51 (thirteen years ago) link
no I dunno
how are they inconveniently complicated or conveniently complicated? i don't understand why these are being treated as two mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. that assange could be framed / and that he could have committed rape). one doesn't prove or disprove the existence of the other.
i mean forgive me if i'm missing something here or am being unclear. if he is guilty (and i believe what he is accused of constitutes rape) certainly he should be punished. it's just that he also exposed both a higher level of corruption than general motors in a more powerful company than general motors (e.g. the shell oil planting operatives in the nigerian government) - my point was, why would they not come after him more strongly than say gm did after nader, unless companies literally stopped doing this decades ago?
― jeevves, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:51 (thirteen years ago) link
if he committed rape, im pretty sure you don't get to say he was framed
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:52 (thirteen years ago) link
#law
― ______ ___ ___________! (history mayne), Thursday, December 9, 2010 5:44 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark
did i suggest this?
― jeevves, Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:53 (thirteen years ago) link