Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I'm finding it interesting in all the paper news how few references there are to Assange having handed himself in. Not mentioning this casts quite a different light on his arrest, and the refusal of bail.
-
Meanwhile (also via the TBD commenters) Naomi Wolf misses the point.
Welcome to The Huffington Post: the home of lazy writing.
-
I was castigating the people tempted to romanticise the abuse of personal privacy and the infrastructure of internet because they like one side or the other. No one who does this is good.
Yeah. Fair dos. I concede it was rather ill conceived and untoward of me to attempt to imply anything there.
1) Wikileaks is important and does good work
2) Julian Assange may be a rapist
and
3) The pursuit by the authorities for the rape charges may be motivated as much by Wikileaks as by a desire to see justice done
are not in any way contradictory positions and could all be simultaneously true.”
Well put Danielle.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I'm finding it interesting in all the paper news how few references there are to Assange having handed himself in. Not mentioning this casts quite a different light on his arrest
Quite. I spotted that on Twitter as the news came through last night.
-
I think it quite likely we'll never have any real certainty about what really happened, that this will be word against word. Exactly what verbal agreements were made about condom usage and middle of the night sexual activity are not likely to be on record.
FWIW, I wonder if Assange fell foul of something some people I know who went to various brothels in Scandinavia mentioned: That they are extremely specific about what it is you are paying for when you purchase sexual services, right down to exact positions, whether you can make eye contact, whether you can say anything to them, etc. This was an unusual experience for the people I'm talking about, who have been to brothels all around the world. Essentially, you're meant to describe, in great detail, exactly what it is you want to do beforehand, and any deviations from the script mean you lose your money and are summarily booted out, and often threatened with the law.
This is, of course, fair enough in any society in which sex is a legal business, although one does have to wonder why it is that deviations from this kind of verbal contract find their way into criminal courts, rather than civil ones. Crimes and police, and particularly Interpol are meant to be about protecting people from major harms, not ensuring they get the sharp end of a financial deal. If the customer became violent, fair enough. We'll see if that's what really happened here. Or, more likely, we will hear two stories and never have any real certainty which one is true.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’m finding it interesting in all the paper news how few references there are to Assange having handed himself in. Not mentioning this casts quite a different light on his arrest, and the refusal of bail.
The Guardian has covered that issue quite well, and some legal experts don’t seem to have been as surprised by it as Assange’s lawyers were. Apart from anything else, there is no record of him having entered the UK. That would get you into trouble in a few countries.
This passage casts some welcome light on the nature of the law in Sweden:
Unlike the UK, Swedish rape law is not based on consent but on the aforementioned concept of sexual integrity. There are a number of possible offences against this integrity. Those that involve both penetration and either physical force or a threat of some illegal act, such as violence, are classified as rape. So are assaults on people who are helpless at the time, either as a result of intoxication or severe mental disturbance. The degree of physical force involved need only be very small. It can be enough merely to move the victim’s legs apart, according to Gunilla Berglund, at the Swedish ministry of justice. Rape carries a sentence of between two and six years; aggravated rape a sentence of four to 10 years.
An issue concerning Assange’s lawyers is the lack of bail in Swedish criminal procedure. Suspects are remanded in custody when legal grounds can be made out for their detention – particularly when they are foreigners who are deemed at risk of absconding.
However, there are strict limits on the timescale for bringing a suspect to trial, with a formal charge required within two weeks of being remanded into custody, and trial one week after that.
A speedy trial would not be a bad thing.
Assange’s greatest risk is clearly extradition to the US on whatever charge the US government trumps up. The actions of the Swedish government will come under very close scrutiny from here on. My instinct would be that he’s in more danger in the custody of the British government.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
We’ll see if that’s what really happened here. Or, more likely, we will hear two stories and never have any real certainty which one is true.
These are the specific charges:
Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish prosecutors, said the first involved complainant A, who said she was the victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on 18 August “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”. The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.
Miss A is Anna Ardin, Assange's erstwhile host and spokesperson. I suspect she could have problems as a witness, for reasons that have been endlessly explored by others.
-
A very forthright post by a Canadian activist on the perpetuation of rape myths.
The stuff about the Counterpunch articles is particularly notable.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yes, it all makes sense in context. My point is that foreigners who have any experience with prostitutes anywhere else in the world might be very, very surprised by what they can get busted for in Sweden. The general uncontrolled seediness of the job means that men can have wildly differing expectations. After having shelled out your hundred euros, or whatever he payed, to get done for pushing the prostitutes legs apart without her explicitly saying that's OK, might seem implausible. It probably is actually implausible in most cases too, I'm sure prostitutes aren't considered reliable witnesses and don't bother with more than threats (including their own threats of violence, of course, at the hands of their pimp). That this has landed with Interpol seems very, very strange to me.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I'm sure prostitutes aren't considered reliable witnesses and don't bother with more than threats ... That this has landed with Interpol seems very, very strange to me.
You are aware that neither of these women is a prostitute, yes?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
That this has landed with Interpol seems very, very strange to me.
I've been wondering if it's political, but not quite in the sense that people assume. The women's lawyer, Claes Borgström, is also a Social Democrat MP. That party hasn't been known for hostility towards Wikileaks -- Ardin herself is a member. But Borgström is his party's spokesman on gender equity.
Anyway, he's finally had something to say:
“Assange is lying when he says that my clients are part of a US-led conspiracy against him and Wikileaks. He knows very well that they do not have such connections," said Borgström to the news agency TT.
He believes that the Wikileaks founder with his claims once again violates his clients.
“They are two ordinary Swedish girls, who admired Assange for his work. Now, they are under an incredibly intense pressure with media in their hallways and constant phone calls," Borgström said.
He explains that many people believe that rape is when someone jumps out from behind a bush and attacks an unknown woman with serious violence. But there are other ways of forcing sex with another person against their will, something that thousands of women have been through.
“Now I want him to be prosecuted for what he did and the court may decide which crime is involved.”
-
Idiot/Savant notes the irony of the US announcing that it will host World Press Freedom Day next year
The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.
-
You are aware that neither of these women is a prostitute, yes?
I was not. Now I'm feeling quite foolish. Not even sure where I got that idea.
-
This Reuters story has some more:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) The two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him. They just wanted to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, according to several people in contact with his entourage at the time.
The women went to the police together after they failed to persuade Assange to go to a doctor after separate sexual encounters with him in August, according to these people, who include former close associates of Assange who have since fallen out with him.
The women had trouble finding Assange because he had turned off his cellphone out of concern his enemies might trace him, these sources said …
Assange’s elusiveness may have worked against him in the Swedish investigation, which might well have gone nowhere had he taken the women’s calls and not left Sweden when police started looking into the allegations.
And:
The next morning, however, the file was sent for review to a more senior prosecutor, who concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the rape accusation and canceled the arrest warrant. But the second prosecutor decided that the investigation should continue as a lesser accusation of “molestation” against Assange, Swedish officials said at the time.
Over the following several days, prosecutors spoke about wanting to question Assange, though also dropped heavy hints that they wanted to wrap up their investigation rapidly – with the most likely outcome being a closing of the file.
However, new life was injected into the investigation after Miss A and Miss W hired Claes Borgstrom, a prominent Swedish lawyer. Borgstrom confirmed to reporters at the time that his clients’ allegations against Assange related to efforts he made to have sex with them without wearing condoms, and his subsequent reluctance to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
-
Surely it would make more sense for the women to test themselves for STDs? If that's what they're trying to find out, whether they were infected.
-
Some STDs - notably, AIDS - don't show up right away so testing the partner makes sense, especially if you're not expecting to be in a long-term relationship with them.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
steven, I've not read all the coverage but neither have I read that due process wasn't followed. Dannielle's made the point I was trying to make far more clearly.
-
If you keep trawling through the blogs I'm sure that you will find even bettter examples of someone who wasn't in the room when these acts were alleged to have occurred, saying even more awful things about Mr Assange, which you will copy n paste into here in the interests of you know .... openess.
I can't help but notice that at every juncture the best interpretation possible is put on the doings of anyone who opposes Mr Assange, while the worst possible motives that can be imagined are assigned to Mr Assange.
If Julian Assange doesn't talk about the circumstances of these alleged sexual assaults, we are told it must be because his lawyer advised him not to, never that maybe he doesn't think the gutter press is best placed to aid clearly communicating his point of view, or more likely, that like many of us he isn't in the habit of discussing intimacies with strangers waving microphones and cameras.
Meanwhile we are instructed ad nauseum that there is nothing to support the contention that US operatives may have assisted in charges being laid. How could anyone, including Assange possibly know that neither of these women have any connection with US intelligence? The women's lawyer (surely an objective commentator - insert beer billboard cliche), states that as a fact. The statement is fallacious and completely insupportable. Why bother to copy n paste it?
The Canadian activist somehow manages to leave a vital incident out of her timeline. That is the the Chief Prosecutor, withdrew the charges because she believed there wasn't enough evidence to support a prosecution. The charges were then re-laid after the intervention of an elected official. So I wouldn't say that her post is worthy of anyone's attention since she so obviously has her own ax to grind.
The other thing we see in the canadian post and many others like it, is the attempt by those who appear to desperate to see that Mr Assange goes down like the proverbial lead balloon, to grab any statement, article or post which seeems to defend Assange, hang a few labels on the person who said/wrote it (leftie is typical even though some of the most vociferous support for Mr Assange has come from 'the right'. Raimondo and Co over at the libertarian antiwar.com for example). Another time place it should be thoroughly considered exactly why is that some reduce everything someone believes down to a simple metaphor about which side of the pre-revolutionary French National Assembly we think they may have sat.
Any defence of Assange by anyone, is ripped apart to find anything that could be considered 'anti-feminist'( eg my point that none of us were around when the condom broke in Sweden elicited a comment that I was trying to make light of rape, when the opposite was my intention)
The allegations of reactionary 'anti-feminism' once slapped on the defender are then hung around Assange's neck in a sort of guilt by association thing.
Assange is found to be deficient, not because of anything he may have said or done, but because of what some people who had the gall to defend him are alleged to have said or done.All classic lynch mob mentality stuff. The tricks that have enabled crooks & liars ever since peeps first fell for the old "I am your leader" scam.
THe the
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
My point is that foreigners who have any experience with prostitutes anywhere else in the world might be very, very surprised by what they can get busted for in Sweden
I know we're past this point, but for reference, they would get busted for simply paying a prostitute for sex. It's not illegal to sell sex, but it is illegal to buy sex in Sweden.
-
Thank you, James George, for making any attempt to talk reasonably about the matter instantly part of a grand conspiracy narrative. Your contribution to the "You can't falsify this" rhetoric has been noted.
-
Another sensational post by Aaron Bady on the cable leaks, this time making an argument that addresses Russell's reservations about doing away with diplomatic secrecy via the history of the US state department dealings in East Timor. Couple of quotes:
...we have to look at what our military does and what our diplomats do in the same context. They are only two different faces of the same state, two different functions and ways of doing things, but ultimately in service of the same goals. We have to scrutinize our diplomats with precisely the same rigor with which we need to oversee our military.
...
I’m not sure whether Wikileaks just adds to a store of knowledge that we already have or if it represents something new. But the idea that it’s a bad thing to know more about the how the governments that act in our names actually behave is laughable, and the idea that impeding their ability to act secretly prevents them from advancing the cause of justice and human rights, it seems to me, is utterly without merit.
However you need to read the whole essay. It's 6000 words, but that's what lunch breaks are for.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
However you need to read the whole essay. It’s 6000 words, but that’s what lunch breaks are for.
Damn you for making me read long and thoughtful documents. Don't you know I'm busy?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I know we're past this point, but for reference, they would get busted for simply paying a prostitute for sex. It's not illegal to sell sex, but it is illegal to buy sex in Sweden.
That's almost as stupid as it was here before legalization. Hard to imagine a law more conducive to blackmail.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The stuff about the Counterpunch articles is particularly notable.
Slut-shaming with a side of Teabag-iban character assassination. Nom noms - can I have some more Mr. Cockburn… There’s an interesting thesis to be written on American “progressive” males for whom feminism just didn’t happen. Perhaps I'm just a hopeless reactionary, but I don't find it at all implausible that you can be a golden left-wing poster boy whose treatment of women sucks 'roids.
-
James, I’m sorry if I misunderstood your:
point that that none of us were around when the condom broke in Sweden elicited a comment that I was trying to make light of rape, when the opposite was my intention
But I was reading it in a thread in which you had already referred to Assange being:
pulled up on BS sex charges
so I wasn’t entirely primed for the sudden and unannounced reversal. Which I still don’t quite understand – are you saying that rape is such a heavy issue that these women who can’t prove they’re not linked to the CIA shouldn’t be making use of it in their BS politically motivated attack on Assange?
You’ve linked to Greenwald at least once in here, and I think he’s been a pretty staunch defender of Wikileaks who hasn’t felt the need to say the charges are BS, or just mention in passing how the women can’t prove they don’t work for the CIA. Ka pai Glenn.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.