Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to Greg Dawson,
Silly fellow. A jetpack is a better future ;-)
-
I'm so pleased there are people who read this crap so I don't have to sully myself. Perhaps, though, we need a health label on such links: "WARNING! Contains Twatcockery!"
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to Russell Brown,
Oh, okay. Nothing to be done about it, clearly. All in motion. I’ll be in the pub nursing some mixed feelings if you need me ;-)
It's usually the best plan
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Why, do you think you have a vote in how power operates in your state? You really, really don’t.
+ very, very many
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to HORansome,
Also, can we try to avoid claiming the sexual assault allegations are part of a smear campaign? Not only is that a conspiracy theory, but it’s also pretty close to rape denial and all that that entails.
Say what? The “rape” word was used so all standards of proof, common law and whathaveyou must go out the window? Never mind that Assange hasn’t even been charged, let alone convicted. “Innocent until proven guilty” obviously cannot stand against a cry of “rape”. </rant>
For the record, it is not “rape denial” to query why one prosecutor saw fit to re-open an investigation that another senior prosecutor determined there was no evidence on which to lay charges. I haven’t noticed anyone here saying “the women are lying! He obviously didn’t do it!”.
What I have seen are people saying that
a) Assange visits Sweden as he has before to run a seminar
b) while there, he has separate sexual contact with two women
c) one of the women made a complaint of rape, the other of sexual harassment
d) the complaint was not acted on by the Chief Prosecutor due to lack of evidence,
e) the women appealed,
f) their appeal was not upheld,
g) 10 days later, a different, more senior prosecutor (Marianne Ny) reopens the investigation citing, but not elucidating even to Assange’s lawyer, that there is new evidence, after being importuned by the lawyer acting for both women,
h) Ny repeatedly refuses (according to Assange’s lawyer) to charge or meet with Assange but
i) Ny does explicitly allow him to leave the country to conduct his business and then
j) she asks the court to order his detainment so that she can interrogate him and
k) asks Interpol to issue an alert (not an arrest warrant, as some have said and I initially thought as well).As far as I can tell, those are the facts of the matter so far, as taken mainly from the Swedish media but also from Swedish government releases, many of which are in English but sadly, not all. It’s not “rape denial” to question these facts, to ask how and why this is happening and to wonder at the reasons. See the freshhorse post I linked to earlier to look at some very interesting timings.
It is also not “rape denial” to wonder what any of this has to do with the release of un-denied US cables which, while banal in the main so far, the Defence Department, the State Department and the White House have all condemned. These are not “reactions by individuals within governments” – these are organs of the state and their pronouncements are part of the official policy of the USA. The US hierarchy has been publicly inveighing against Wikileaks and Assange personally since the Afghan War Diary leaks, and before. Given what is publicly known about the way the USG reacts to leaks, from the days of Ellsberg onward, it is not paranoid to suspect a conspiracy or campaign; it is frankly naive to not suspect one.
Nice shibboleth, you raise there, HORansome – I use that word specifically, as “strawman” is not strong enough – but you’re arguing against things that other people haven’t said and from a false moral high ground.
You’re also missing the point that Assange is making no statement that you can question – he is merely making available material that the US government has stated they don’t want anyone to see and that they are considering investigating as espionage. That’s “government”, not individuals within the structure – the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense do not make private statements; every published word is carefully weighed.
If you can’t see a campaign there, however badly organised, that’s your issue.
PS And this just in from freshhorse
-
Hard News: Do you like what we've done…, in reply to tarlen,
Take it where you can get it, Tarlen :-D
+100 for you too. -
And again. Wow, Matthew. Now *that's* responsiveness! +100
Yep quoting all would be a pain because people just don't trim. But quoting selected seems to be great. Thanks
-
Hard News: Do you like what we've done…, in reply to matthewbuchanan,
I think it just did it for me. O.o I don't recall pressing ctrl-v or typing in the tags, but there they are...
#nervousnow -
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to HORansome,
Is he actually asserting anything, though? He’s not offering commentary on the cables, though it can be argued that the release schedule is a form of meta-commentary. He’s not saying "America is so bad! They did this!” – he’s letting America’s words speak for themselves.
Whether or not he is guilty of any crime has not been proven, only alleged. If HORansome is alleged to be a forger or wifebeater, does that invalidate all you’ve said and/or done?
As for the Swedish allegations, initially they were dropped within hours in August:
The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.
In a brief statement Eva Finne said: “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
10 days later, a different prosecutor reopened the case:
In an interview with AFP, [Marrianne] Ny, the head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes, explained that “I requested his arrest so we could carry out an interrogation with Assange. That is the reason."
So, his arrest is not sought to stand trial, but only to be interrogated. His lawyer has said he has made himself available, but not in Sweden. Ny denies any knowledge of such offers – back to “he said, she said”.
I can fully understand his reluctance to return to Sweden, especially if he’ll be in custody. Voluntarily disappearing is one thing; being “disappeared” from jail by rendition to -let’s just say “another place”, is something no-one would take on if they had a brain. And no-one doubts he has a brain, I think.
With my own tinfoil hat on, it seems to me that there might have been some “prosecutor shopping” going on, which brings us back to a possible campaign against Assange. Oh, did I say possible? Some American lawmakers want him branded a terrorist, the Australian Government is going over him with a fine tooth comb, etc. I think we can all see there is definitely a campaign going on.
BTW Assange has appealed the detention order to the Supreme Court in Sweden
Some links:
Wikipedia
Washington Times
Freshhorse – interesting analysis and timeline
Skandinavians in Florida – interesting questions and comments -
Yet it’s not unreasonable to scrutinise him personally, especially given the way he has been criticised by people who’ve actually worked with and supported him.
Okay, so we should judge all of PublicAddress – writers, Cactus guys, commenters, etcetera, – on the basis or your personal history? Or should we judge it on the basis of what is said or communicated?