No, Assange Still Very Much Hoist by the State’s Petard

A few bits on the Assange “smear” leak:

1) Getting into even more (quite boring) alleged details of the incidents does not negate the accepted fact that these women continued to gushingly pal around with Assange quite a bit after the “rapes.” As pointed out by Assange, and as not challenged by “Miss A,” the WikiLeaks founder continued to sleep in her bed for another week. Stockholm syndrome? (lol)

2) It’s clear this was engineered by the United States as no Swede would think such intimate details as scandalous and fatally damaging as dowdy Americans. “We’ll embarrass him good,” some Mormon covert-ops button-up no doubt chuckled as he unleashed this ho-hum operation. “Look, it mentions his penis!”

3) And most importantly to demolish, Assange is not now, in any way, hoist by his own petard, thank you very much apparently-recently-re-resurrected neoconservative New York Sun. WikiLeaks exists to expose the misdeeds of those in power, the nearly invincible elites. Court charges are kept secret so that accused and assumed innocent individuals — almost the embodiment of those with the least power – get a fair hearing in a system run by the very power elites targeted by WikiLeaks. I have a feeling Glenn Greenwald will go into detail on this very subject in the coming week.

29 thoughts on “No, Assange Still Very Much Hoist by the State’s Petard”

  1. "It’s clear this was engineered by the United States as no Swede would think such intimate details as scandalous and fatally damaging as dowdy Americans."

    Hmmm. Bit of an overreach here. Mustering such grossly assumptive generalistions tends to discredit ones arguments.

  2. Assange comes off as kind of a prick in that article — a bit like the smarmily sexist tone in this one, in fact. I respect what WikiLeaks does, but what the Guardian article describes is nothing short of date-rape, and the victim not being self-assertive enough to tell him to get the hell out doesn't change that.

    If it weren't for the rank sexism being deployed in his defense, I would be happy to deplore this as a clear case of governments taking advantage of a *comparatively* mild case of sexual misconduct to persecute the public face of an organization which threatens their power. Unfortunately, I'm forced to ignore that because I have to be constantly saying "stop blaming the f*king victim!"

    1. Can you specify exactly what in this article you find "sexist"? Is all questioning of the behavior or motives of the two women sexist?

      1. Well, I can't really think of a non-sexist objection to the charges themselves. Regardless of the truth or falsehood, having sex with someone who is asleep is not kosher, and trivializing this kind of issue is not cool either. Phrases like "gushingly pal around with" and "Stockholm syndrome? (lol)" give off an unfortunate flavor of "she can't be raped, she's a whore"-type victim-blaming.

        Naomi Wolf's first article in the Huffington Post about the case had an unfortunately similar flavor of victim-blaming, though it was before most of the details came out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol

        Her latest post, on the other hand, highlights a real problem with the issue, which is that Sweden has a bad record for prosecuting even in much worse cases: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_143

        1. "Regardless of the truth or falsehood, having sex with someone who is asleep is not kosher, and trivializing this kind of issue is not cool either."

          Your problem is that you keep assuming that the substance of the charges are true. How do you know that he had "sex with someone who is asleep." That is only a claim. And we don't KNOW that she's a victim. We only know she claims to be a victim. You lack objectivity.

          All we know is that some charges have been made. I think the context suggests that the veracity of those charges are very questionable. "According to a timeline compiled by Australian journalist Guy Rundle in London, the day after Ardin's mid-August assignation with Assange – the assignation she later said involved rape – she tweeted that she wanted to take him to a ''crayfish party'', a popular summer social activity in Sweden.
          Another tweet has her being with ''the world's coolest, smartest people, it's amazing!''"

          So she was raped and then goes busily on about taking Assange to a party?? This whole thing stinks.

          1. Its not uncommon for victims of date rape to continue seeing their rapist. People will sometimes continue in a relationship when other bad things happen, too; outright beatings and whatnot. The notion that he's not a rapist because she wanted to bring him to a crayfish party is an example of the sexism Joseph is talking about.

          2. That may be true, but then the subject shouldn't complain!
            It's obviously asking for more, at least it gives that signal!
            If you donl't like something, you should be straight about it!

          3. "The notion that he's not a rapist because she wanted to bring him to a crayfish party is an example of the sexism Joseph is talking about."

            No, it's an example of something that's just very hard to believe. She didn't meekly continue to accept his demands that she see him. She excitedly tweeted about being with him and taking him places. It's not sexism, it's common sense — even if our suspicions end up wrong. In an attempt to avoid sexism, you automatically take the female's side. Seems sexist.

          4. "Its not uncommon for victims of date rape to continue seeing their rapist. People will sometimes continue in a relationship when other bad things happen, too; outright beatings and whatnot."

            Yes, but it's NOT common for a victim to:

            A. Initiate the relationship by coming back early from a trip she was supposedly taking–remember, Assange was borrowing her apartment and, under the original plan, she was to be absent during his stay (13 Aug).
            B. Have sex with the man in question–Assange.
            C. The next day (14 Aug), throw a party for the alleged attacker and tweet that she wanted to take him to a party and that she was hanging out with ''the world's coolest, smartest people" meaning Assange and other activists in attendance.
            D. The following day (15 Aug) tell a friend, referred to as "Monica" that she thought that Assange had deliberately torn the condom during sex on 13 Aug and that Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe. [How convenient to establish Monica as a "witness" who could then, when Ardin lodged her complaint with the police, seem to "confirm" the allegation.]
            E. Respond favorably to a second woman who contacts her, wanting to attend the talk Assange had come to give and who then, herself, contacted Assange and initiated a second relationship with him on 16 Aug. Let's underline this: Had the original plan for Assange's visit and talk in Sweden been maintained, Assange would NEVER have encountered either woman except to get and return the keys to the apartment he was borrowing from Ardin. Both women INITIATED relationships with Assange and then both went to the police. Sorry, Joe112, that's just too much of a coincidence for me.

            Events then became more surreal:

            F. The second woman had sex with Assange, later claiming that Assange didn't want to wear a condom and semi-imposed himself on her.
            G. Ardin then on 18 Aug complained to a male acquaintance, "Harold" that Assange refused to leave her apartment. When Harold asked Assange, Assange said he was "very surprised because she had not asked him to leave".
            H. Ardin, allegedly on behalf of the second woman, then pressed him to take an STD test which he refused, but when they threatened to go to the police, he agreed. They then went to the police anyway on 20 Aug and by the next day 21 Aug, the Swedish media were asking Assange to comment on the charges made by the women.

            Now, Joe112, I am going to try hard to stay civil in discussing this with you, but I strongly suggest you abandon your nonsensical preconceptions and actually look at what took place. As I said in my first post, this whole thing stinks. Your views on relations between the sexes may earn you big cool points in whatever circles you mix, but this is a developing miscarriage of justice, not a cocktail party. Try to take it as seriously as it deserves.

    2. Please note that these are still just accusations, and these charges contain not Assange's words and deeds, but his words and deeds as according to an obviously jealous woman. A woman who wrote a BOOK on legal ways to get revenge on a lover. It's of course possible that it went exactly as she says, uh, despite having slept with him for another week, but it's very unlikely.

      1. According to the article, she failed to tell him to get out of her bed when he was oblivious to her intended (admittedly overly passive-aggressive) cold-shoulder. That's a far cry from "[sleeping] with him another week". Whether she (Miss A. or Miss W.?) is obviously jealous, I can't say.

        Of course the charges have yet to be proven. That doesn't make them inconsequential; date rape is serious. The real farce in the case is that rape is overwhelmingly under-prosecuted, and Britain's prosecution of Assange is, like Naomi Wolf points out, a slap in the face to every woman who never got their hearing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-

        1. "admittedly overly passive-aggressive) cold-shoulder"

          As opposed to appropriately passive-aggrressive?

          "Of course the charges have yet to be proven. That doesn't make them inconsequential; date rape is serious."

          This is a straw-man argument. No one is contending the charges aren't serious. The issue is their veracity!

          "The real farce in the case is that rape is overwhelmingly under-prosecuted, and Britain's prosecution of Assange is, like Naomi Wolf points out, a slap in the face to every woman who never got their hearing…"

          No, under-prosecution of rape is an issue in general. The "farce" in THIS specific case will be if Assange is railroaded to Sweden on very dubious charges and then handed over to the US to be prosecuted for "conspiracy". Except, of course, it won't be a farce, it'll be a tragedy.

        2. Interesting feminist cat fight about this on today's Democracy Now. The antiAssanger's position seemd to be that while, yes, this case is obviously politcially motivated it is still a good thing becuase it will make people take "bed rape" charges more seriously.

        3. She said, he said. The fact is she waited quite a while to press charges, and meanwhile publicly gushed about him.

          Obviously I agree with Naomi Wolf (on many other things as well, I should add — she's one of my favorite living feminists).

  3. Joseph's problem and everyone else's stems from the abundance of crappy information swirling from every corner. Let's do some filtering, people!

    The women said no rape happened. The first investigator filed charges, the second more senior prosecutor threw them out. Then a third prosecutor in another district and with some kind of strong political connections reopened the investigation but without any charges filed. This reopening looks all kinds of fishy, and while I don't think the CIA instigated the entire episode, I strongly suspect that once it got started the US jumped on it and signaled the Swedes to press the issue to the max.

    As to the "sex while sleeping" business, I mean people get a clue! If a man and women have sex, and then go to sleep, and the guy wakes up in the morning with his exciting new sex partner still naked in the bed next to him, and he snuggles up next to her, and demonstrates renewed interest after a restful sleep, you have to be completely nuts to suggest that this is some sort of sexual misconduct. Puleeeese! Even the phrase "sex while sleeping" is ridiculous, it can't be done. Sex while passed out drunk, maybe? Sex while totally anesthetized or comatose, maybe? But asleep? C'mon. If the woman starts out asleep, she's gonna wake before things get very far along, at which point, if she objects, she can apprise her consensual sex partner from the previous evening of her lack of interest.

    All of which is so incredibly obvious as to provoke embarrassment at even having to point it out.

    No, what we have here is almost certainly unhappy women who've fared badly in the game of love, and government elites seizing an opportunity.

    1. Thank God, some common sense at least.

      The initial story didn't hold water. Fixing it didn't improve its credibility. So it all looks like they're fixing it again and again.

      And you know, about Joseph, I think he suffers of an acute form of a disease called "political correctness". There are people who really need some mind opening therapy.

      Btw, accuse me of sexism all you want, but the "Stockholm syndrome" pun made me rotfl.

  4. Where the hell did the anti-mormon comment come from? Now there's some relevance.

    I thinks Jeff and Vojkan summed it all up pretty well. Joseph, I know where you can get some testosterone.

  5. What's amazing to me is the willingness of so many feminists–Naomi Wolf aside–to put themselves at the ideological disposal of the neocons. Whether it's half-baked nonsense about saving the women of Afghanistan or standing by while Helen Thomas is savaged with cropped, unflattering photos of her being spread around the media with impunity or this absurd business of going after Assange, mainstream feminism often seems to await orders from the war mongers who embody what it professes to despise. Even on its own terms, feminism seems to have become a joke in which its adherents willingly submit to the whims of the neocon alpha-ideologues. Plus ca change…

    1. And in the process, condemn millions of powerless women in the neocons' victim countries to death, disfigurement, widowhood, sickness, and poverty. But to certain "progressives," it's all about the sound of their words, not the effect of their preferred policies in the real world.

      1. So your perception is that feminists are not currently on board with anti-imperialism? That's an interesting observation.

  6. Good God..unless and until the 4000 Tel Aviv Embassy cables are released by Wiki I'm not buying..It would be easier to buy Assange as a truth teller if he exposed the truth about all govts-not just the ones that he doesn't like…this was a controlled counter-intell Mossad/CIA operation..He's concerned about oppressive govts but doesn't expose any details of the worst one-Israel..go to http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk to read the truth about Wiki.

    1. OK, conspiracy kooks. What don't you understand? US diplomatic cables not Israeli diplomatic cables? Why don't you worry about what your government does instead of what the Israeli government does? Do Israeli misdeeds absolve your government? I'll reformulate, is your government immune from accountability because the Israeli are bad? With loons like you, peace is indeed an impossible task.

    2. Have you actually gone to Wikileaks and read the cables that HAVE been released from US Embassy Tel Aviv?

Comments are closed.