Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

And you know this how? Because you were there?

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.

i feel like there is probably an israel thread somewhere missing its stanm

Probably?

Possibly, I'd give you...

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

how is that similar?!

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/

how the fuck is that "telling"?

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.

Maybe at the very least the US will get some withdrawal of consent laws out of this, but I doubt it.

I mean, if ever Glenn Beck's blind partisanship and sensationalism could actually do some good, now's the time.

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/___________

i suppose the internet has changed the number of global-scale, implausibly ambitious conspiracies that are kicking around

i feel like there is probably an israel thread somewhere missing its stanm

he's a man of many talents

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.

to qualify as an actual conspiracy theory

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.

the whole "it's not rape rape" thing is

disgusting, absolutely

It depends who you're reading, k3vin k. A lot of them are kooky and/or misogynist, but obviously not all.

A lot of them are probably kooky and/or misogynist ....

@caek
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.

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.

Great post. And the Salon piece is the best I've read.

There are a whole bunch of people that are unconcerned if he is guilty or not, just as long as he's convicted....

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)

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

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.

There are a whole bunch of people that are unconcerned if he is guilty or not, just as long as he's convicted....

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...

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?

"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

uh, what?

If he's being framed, the crime was not committed.

(unless they've got the wrong man, etc)

rmde

(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 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)

xp because most rape cases are complicated

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?

if he committed rape, im pretty sure you don't get to say he was framed

#law

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, December 9, 2010 5:44 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

did i suggest this?

so you're not saying he was framed, just that the timing is AWFULLY CONVENIENT?

that's uncontroversial, and sure most rapists get away with it:: BUT THAT IS A TERRIBLE NON-ARGUMENT

uhhh it's actually a meta-argument

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, December 9, 2010 1:51 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

nader, if i read your wiki posting correctly, did nothing; GM tried to catch him in a honey trap

that's different from assange, who is accused of committing sexual assault, and whose notoriety and wanted status mean that the police will bother to pursue him

can you not see that these are different?

Most/all people will agree that the rape charges are of benefit to the anti-Wikileaks crew, but various actors being happy that he is accused of rape != various actors accusing him of rape.

My working assumption is that the Swedish judicial system is robust enough to give a fair trial and we'll find out more in due time, at the moment there's little we can say for sure. The other idea that seems implicit in some reports is that the US might find it easier to extradict him once he's in Swedish custody, but I have no idea why that would be the case.

People want the rape charges to be a frame-up because that would be more fun. It would allow Assange to remain cool, and it suggests a world where attractive young women in pink sweaters are employed by the CIA to have deceptive sex with left-wingers. And of course it would mean these women didn't actually get raped, which would be nice!

The idea that this is a conspiracy theory doesn't hold water with me for all the reasons Karen and Dorian have pointed out but also because it doesn't make the blindest bit of sense for anything other than character assasination. I'd be amazed if Wikileaks hadn't made contingency plans for Assange being imprisoned/assassinated/randomly hit by a bus. Not sure killing Wikileaks will stop others springing up in its place either. Wikileaks 2010 = Napster 2000 obv.

It's more likely that the allegations existed in the first place rightly or wrongly but that the Swedish authorities have pursued Assange, or been encouraged to pursue him, more strongly because of who he is. But that makes no difference to whether or not he's a rapist. The rush to denounce the accuser here is pretty disgusting.

oh ffs

(There were many xposts between me starting that post and finishing it, including your "we keep talking about it" one)