Assange Watch

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Aug 2012, 22:30

biffvernon wrote:Have I missed it or has the Labour Party been completely silent on the Assange affair?

Completely and utterly.

They know they may be in power in the not too distant future and don't want to offend their masters.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 25 Aug 2012, 08:55

People on here seem to be purposely confusing sex in a long term relationship where you will have discussed and sorted out contraception and what Assange may have done.

Imagine (Steve, Catweasal, UE etc), that you were gay and insisted on condom use, you have a very short term relationship with a guy and wake in the night to find him easing himself inside you without a condom.

How would you feel?

I'm not saying that Assange did this, what I am objecting to is the number of people on this board who say that is an ok thing for someone you have just met to do.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 25 Aug 2012, 09:07

nexus wrote:People on here seem to be purposely confusing sex in a long term relationship where you will have discussed and sorted out contraception and what Assange may have done.

Imagine (Steve, Catweasal, UE etc), that you were gay and insisted on condom use, you have a very short term relationship with a guy and wake in the night to find him easing himself inside you without a condom.

How would you feel?

I'm not saying that Assange did this, what I am objecting to is the number of people on this board who say that is an ok thing for someone you have just met to do.

I don't think it is OK if there is not a mutual understanding, respect and expectation of such behaviour. As for whether or not such mutual understanding, respect or expectations were in place in the case of the short term sexual relationship between Assange and AA, neither I nor you are in a position to know. In any event, whatever kind of relationship pertains between two adults, be it long or short term, "no" means "no" under any and all circumstances, be they sexual or otherwise. That, at least, can be viewed as an absolute.

However, in the case of Assange and AA, what we do know as facts that are already on the record are:

In all instances, the 3 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. Indeed, AA continued to see Julian Assaange, for four days after the alleged offence, including him continuing to stay at her flat and including engaging in further consensual sex with him.

After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange's company: b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian Assange as well.

A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains absolutely no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.

Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and so cast further doubt on the allegations.

I really am sorry to be tedious about this, but it takes a disingenuity of the most extreme kind to not see this for what it really is, which is most assuredly not the finer points of sexual politics. What this is about and always has been is the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people with brown skin in oil rich parts of the planet by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that information by any means. This includes the collusion of the MSM in this country and abroad in a character assassination of Assange so as to provide the necessary political cover in order to get Assange to the US and so make an example of him such that no citizen will ever dare stand up to that empire again.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Aug 2012, 11:08

If it came to trial and I was on the jury and presented with evidence thus:

However, in the case of Assange and AA, what we do know as facts that are already on the record are:

In all instances, the 3 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. Indeed, AA continued to see Julian Assaange, for four days after the alleged offence, including him continuing to stay at her flat and including engaging in further consensual sex with him.

After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange's company: b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian Assange as well.

A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains absolutely no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.

Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and so cast further doubt on the allegations.

It would be a no-brainer to say "Not guilty m'lud." And I would want to know why the case was ever prosecuted and why police forces, courts and governments around the world had spent millions pursuing the matter. It would be a no-brainer to come to the conclusion that the USA government did not approve of the publication of evidence pointing to war-crimes.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 25 Aug 2012, 22:21

To put it bluntly, what Penny Red has been saying is that, even if this particular case turns out to be completely straightforward a la Biff's post, it is being used as an excuse by a lot of people who frankly should know better, to bash women, and rape victims in particular.

I stand by my comment about consent each time. Of course, if people have known each other for years it doesn't necessarily have to include words. It's the same here at Chateau Renewable, since you ask

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Aug 2012, 22:31

Known each other for years... or just for days. When does the Sorites paradox come into play?

(And no, we didn't ask.)

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 25 Aug 2012, 23:05

I really wish I could put this clearly enough...leaving aside the sophistry, it's quite simple: a rape case that has (in all probability) been brought for political reasons, is being used as an excuse by a lot of commentators to imply that other cases which have only superficial similarities with this one, are not genuine, or not worth pursuing.

This does NOT constitute an argument for sending Assange to Sweden, because other stakes are too high. But imho it would do everybody a favour if the matter were cleared up somehow.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 26 Aug 2012, 06:52

Worry not, you are perfectly clear and all right-minded people are with you.

Oh look, even the Daly Mail is on side: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rlier.html

Though hiding Anna Ardin's face and calling her Woman A is a bit silly since her picture and name are, at her own volition, published all over the rest of the world. See for example http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/ ... blishment/

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 26 Aug 2012, 09:18

I dont suppose they would have had a hope of making the chargess stick if it was the women on the right

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 26 Aug 2012, 09:26

RenewableCandy wrote:I really wish I could put this clearly enough...leaving aside the sophistry, it's quite simple: a rape case that has (in all probability) been brought for political reasons, is being used as an excuse by a lot of commentators to imply that other cases which have only superficial similarities with this one, are not genuine, or not worth pursuing.

This does NOT constitute an argument for sending Assange to Sweden, because other stakes are too high. But imho it would do everybody a favour if the matter were cleared up somehow.

RC. The world has, sadly, it's fair share of woman hating, misogynistic men. It also has its fair share of men hating women masquerading under the guise of reflexive feminism and a high profile case such as this will inevitably bring both of them out of the woodwork

Neither of which have got anything to do with whether Assange is or is not guilty of a sexual offence in Sweden and neither of which have got anything to do with why these allegations have been investigated in the deeply spurious way in which they have.

Assange stayed in Sweden during the first investigation. He continued to stay in Sweden following the reopening of the investigation at the behest of a prosecutor/politician with strong diplomatic ties to the Yanks. For a full five weeks in total. During the second investigation he volunteered to be questioned at a police station by the second prosecutor. This prosecutor then leaked the contents of that interview to the press in contravention of all Swedish protocols on such matters. AA also, during this time, went to the press. This is a woman whose identity we now must, apparently, protect at all cost because she is a rape victim. Assange was then given full permission to leave Sweden. Only after he left was he "arrested in absence" for further questioning. I know the term "arrested in absence" sounds pretty weird, but that is, apparently what the Swedish law allows for. No explanation has been given for why this happened and why they did not simply question him before he left and before they gave him permission to leave. Coincidentally, though, this arrest warrant was issued the day before Cablegate. began to be leaked.

In addition to all of the above, Assange has repeatedly offered on the record that he is more than willing to answer any and all allegations against him on the proviso that either he is questioned in the UK prior to any charges being brought or that if he goes to be questioned in Sweden he will be given a guarantee that he will not indited to the US. To date, the Swedish authorities have refused both offers and have given absolutely no reasons for their refusal.

Yes, it would indeed do everyone a favour if this was cleared up quickly. However, that is quite clearly not what the Swedish authorities want. The pertinent question is why?

I think we both know the answer to that question and it has got bugger all to do with misogyny, though the various authorities' interests are no doubt well served by having the hand-wringing, chattering classes tie themselves up in ideological knots over such things instead of focussing on the substantive issues.

Those substantive issues, lest we forget, are the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people by the millions, whose only crime is to have had the misfortune of being born in oil rich parts of the world, by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that leaked information by any means. This includes the collusion of the MSM in this country and abroad in a character assassination of Assange so as to provide the necessary political cover in order to get Assange to the US and so make an example of him such that no citizen will ever dare stand up to that empire again.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 26 Aug 2012, 10:22

ziggy12345 wrote:I dont suppose they would have had a hope of making the chargess stick if it was the women on the right

Wow, what a hate fueled thing to write.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 26 Aug 2012, 10:53

The sex thing is just soo unimportant compared with the real reasons behind it all, neatly summarised with pictures at http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 26 Aug 2012, 13:32

The Four Corners documentary on the Assange case has been pulled from You Tube

Surprise surprise

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 26 Aug 2012, 13:39

you can still link to it here

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 549280.htm

for the moment

I'm downloading it in case it gets pulled completely

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Aug 2012, 12:44