Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[BenBurch]

So the laws regarding rape should be changed so that if the alleged male perpetrator has a belief, however paranoid, that the women are out to get him (say, a subordinate after his job, or a classmate jealous of his marks etc) then he shouldn't have to stand trial?

That would suit these Truthers just fine. Most of them can't get laid the usual way, and this way they might some day get some.

 

[nathan]

That would suit these Truthers just fine. Most of them can't get laid the usual way, and this way they might some day get some.

Really, I think that's uncalled for.

 

[Wudang]

Quite. Since my Uni days when my partner was a volunteer with a Rape Crisis centre I've taken the issue of rape rather seriously. It's an under-reported crime and I believe it is genuinely so as I watched my partner start turning down party invites because almost every party there would be a woman who had "never told anyone before and want to tell someone". Okay, she was happy to listen but it stopped being a relaxing party for her then.
And I find it very disappointing to see so many on the left trot out the old cliches of "it's not really rape". "She changed her mind" "Who would believe a woman like that?" "Why didn't she put up more of a fight?"

 

[The Big Dog]

Commie pinko, check.

Cool use of Smilies, rather than addressing the fact that Assange sold out to RT

And Russia under Putin is about as Commie as my sock drawer.

Let us know if you want to have a serious discussion, or, you know, smilies.

 

[tyr_13]

Quite. Since my Uni days when my partner was a volunteer with a Rape Crisis centre I've taken the issue of rape rather seriously. It's an under-reported crime and I believe it is genuinely so as I watched my partner start turning down party invites because almost every party there would be a woman who had "never told anyone before and want to tell someone". Okay, she was happy to listen but it stopped being a relaxing party for her then.
And I find it very disappointing to see so many on the left trot out the old cliches of "it's not really rape". "She changed her mind" "Who would believe a woman like that?" "Why didn't she put up more of a fight?"

Indeed.

 

[Sabrina]

So no one's been able to point to any hard evidence that indicates that the US is secretly plotting to capture/torture Assange for the "crime" of posting information that didn't belong to him on the internet? Check.

As far as I am aware, the US DOJ has already examined all the evidence regarding the Wikileaks case; if they felt that there were any criminal charges that they could get to stick on Assange, they would have charged him a LONG time ago, around the time that Manning was initially charged with his UCMJ violations most likely. Given that no one in the DOJ has said anything about Assange being chargeable for any crime here in the US, I think it's pretty damn safe to say that Assange is a paranoid narcissist who needs mental help to get him to understand that no one in the US really cares about him that much beyond a few random politicians who have absolutely no say in how the DOJ charges criminals. Two or three members of Congress or has-been politicians (i.e. Sarah Palin), plus a couple of lunatic right-wing fringe radio show hosts do not perform the duties of enforcing the law; that right belongs solely to the justice system, and they have shown absolutely no indication that they intend to charge Assange with anything.

The facts of the whole Wikileaks case as I understand them are these; then SPC Bradley Manning, while on deployment in Afghanistan, decided all on his own that he was going to violate the oath he took when he enlisted and downloaded a ton of classified material onto rewriteable CDs which he then gave to Wikileaks for them to release. There's no indication or even evidence that I am aware of that Manning ever spoke with Assange at all at any point during this whole period of time in question; to the best of my knowledge he's never said exactly who he gave the documents to in the Wikileaks organization, so the link between Manning and Assange is tenuous at best, nonexistent at worst. Manning then informed a hacker in an online conversation of his actions, and this hacker took it upon himself to inform the authorities of Manning's actions. Manning was subsequently arrested and is currently awaiting the outcome of his Article 32 hearing, which will likely end up with him being busted back to E-1, forfeiture of all his pay and allowances, some jail time at Ft. Leavenworth, and a bad conduct discharge. Assange played little or no part in Manning's decision to violate his oath and provide classified information to persons not authorized to view it; the most he could be charged with is being an accessory to a crime, and even that's a stretch if the DOJ can't find any sort of definite link directly between Assange and Manning.

Assange is not the entirety of Wikileaks (in fact, as of late he's had almost no say in the site given his decision to sequester himself in the Ecuadorian embassy); there are a lot of people involved in the daily running of the site. It is entirely possible that Assange didn't know about the classified data until it was provided to him by someone in the hierarchy of the site. Sure, it's also possible that Assange was contacted directly by Manning, or even that Assange somehow coerced Manning to provide him with the classified data, but there's no evidence to support either of those theories at this point in time that I am aware of, so I have to fall back on the only theory that has any indication of being possible right now; that Manning made the decision ON HIS OWN to provide classified information to Wikileaks and Assange had little or no part in the commission of the actual crime. Again to the best of my knowledge, the mere act of posting the classified information on Wikileaks' site is not a crime (IANAL or a member of law enforcement, however), so the DOJ would be forced to examine the possibility that Assange played a part in Manning's decision to steal the classified information and provide it to them, and no evidence has surfaced that indicates that.

The only crime Assange HAS potentially committed is in a country that the US has no judicial influence in; namely Sweden. There he is accused of raping two women, and despite the mismanagement of the case thus far, the evidence does point to his guilt there in my opinion (again, IANAL; this is a layperson's interpretation of the evidence provided). The US has no dog in that fight whatsoever; our interest in Assange lapsed the moment the DOJ decided that there was apparently nothing he could be charged with in the Manning/Wikileaks case. At no point during the entire debacle has the US ever provided any indication that we even want Assange, his paranoid rantings nonwithstanding; we have even stated flat out that the case is being handled by the UK and Sweden and we have no intentions of involving ourselves because it is not our country that he is being charged in, and we recognize the sovereign right of those two countries to handle their own legal issues. Nothing anyone here has provided negates that fact. Is it possible that the US is involved in some elaborate conspiracy to somehow get Assange in our control? Sure, but it's also possible that tomorrow Kim Jong Un will throw open the borders of North Korea and publicly give an apology for the travesty of government perpetuated by his father and grandfather that has resulted in near death-camp like conditions within his own country, followed by a reconciliation with the government of South Korea.

Julian Assange is a scumbag. He's a potential rapist who has publicly stated his intentions to impregnate as many women as he can. He's a paranoid narcissist. But he is NOT currently of interest in the US beyond his delusions of paranoia. It's much more fun for us to sit back and watch him implode without any assistance on our part; much more economical too. Involves less waste of resources on our part.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sabrina, you could address the 'hard' evidence about the secret indictment, or you can falsely post that no evidence has been posted.
You can ignore the evidence of the US government officials naming Assange as a terrorist, their treatment of Manning, or you could address why it isn't significant.

Wudang, that's a seriously dishonest straw man you posted there in 4379.

Ben, dismissing reasonable people as Truthers only serves to stop discussion.

And, 16.5, I don't see that Assange's communications with whoever he may have contacted in Russia have any relevance to this thread. I have already stipulated we all agree he's an unlikeable guy. I've not seen anything that suggests Assange would prefer a communist regime. His issue is government transparency, I've seen nothing anti-capitalist except as it might apply to corruption.

 

[The Big Dog]

And, 16.5, I don't see that Assange's communications with whoever he may have contacted in Russia have any relevance to this thread. I have already stipulated we all agree he's an unlikeable guy. I've not seen anything that suggests Assange would prefer a communist regime. His issue is government transparency, I've seen nothing anti-capitalist except as it might apply to corruption.

Communications with Russia? I believe I said that he is actively employed by the Russian Propaganda Service known as RT. It isn't that he is just a horrible person, he is a huge hypocrite as well as a self absorbed nit wit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re whether Assange can be prosecuted by the US is discussed by 3 legal experts here: U.S. v. WikiLeaks: espionage and the First Amendment

Our msnbc.com legal panel predicts Assange will be indicted, but what are the implications for media on the Internet?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Communications with Russia? I believe I said that he is actively employed by the Russian Propaganda Service known as RT. It isn't that he is just a horrible person, he is a huge hypocrite as well as a self absorbed nit wit.

And this is related to the thread topic, how?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@Sabrina: Remember these links?

Senator Mitch McConnell calls WikiLeaks chief Assange a 'high tech terrorist'


Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

Are these not considered 'hard' evidence?

 

[PhantomWolf]

There he is accused of raping two women

Minor correction, he is accused of raping one woman and molesting the other.

To be more precise:

1) Rape by way of initiating unprotected sexual contact with a sleeping women after being explicitly told she would not have unprotected sexual intercourse with him.

2) Sexual Molestation in the way of holding a woman down and attempting to prevent her from getting a condom while he tried to force her legs apart and enter her.

 

[PhantomWolf]

@Sabrina: Remember these links?

Senator Mitch McConnell calls WikiLeaks chief Assange a 'high tech terrorist'


Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

Are these not considered 'hard' evidence?

Hard evidence of what? If your answer is political grand standing by someone that can't actually influence the DOJ and catagorizing Assange and Wikileaks to make it easier to prosecute other armed forces personnel that leak stuff to them, well then I guess it is hard evidence for that. It's not evidence of anything else though.

 

[Sabrina]

Sabrina, you could address the 'hard' evidence about the secret indictment, or you can falsely post that no evidence has been posted.
You can ignore the evidence of the US government officials naming Assange as a terrorist, their treatment of Manning, or you could address why it isn't significant.

What secret indictment? What did the indictment state Assange was responsible for in terms of violating the law in the US? If you know about it, it clearly isn't all that secret; so either provide a link to where the indictment can be viewed or provide information as to where it can be found offline. I will happily view any actual indictment where Assange is named as a perpetrator and, if such exists, withdraw my assertion that he was not charged with anything in the US.

Assange has been called a "terrorist" by persons within the US government, this is true. However, to the best of my knowledge he has not been officially labeled as such. See, there's a difference between a couple of random senators calling someone a "terrorist" and someone actually being placed in existing databases as a "terrorist". Can you provide proof that Assange has been placed in any of these databases? If not, it's basically grandstanding by politicians, which is par for the course when they want to make themselves heard, and naturally the media will lap it up and proceed to regurgitate it with a misleading headline.

As to the treatment of Manning; it is true that in the beginning stages of his confinement he was placed for far too long on 24 hour suicide watch and was not provided with certain items, but after it was brought to light by certain organizations, to the best of my knowledge his treatment is now no different than that of any other inmate at the prison. Or are you alleging that Manning was tortured? Perhaps that we waterboarded him, or some other dreadful act? If so, please provide evidence of such or clarify your statement to only the actions that can be verified, thank you. And as I stated, there is currently no evidence that Manning and Assange had any interaction whatsoever, unless you know of and can produce some for perusal here.

@Sabrina: Remember these links?

Senator Mitch McConnell calls WikiLeaks chief Assange a 'high tech terrorist'


Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

Are these not considered 'hard' evidence?

No they are not. For your first link, one person within the US Government referring to Assange as a "terrorist" does not actually classify him as a terrorist. I refer you to the definition of terrorism:

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

How does Assange fulfill this definition, pray tell? As far as I can tell, he doesn't. And lest you forget, I am a Military Intelligence Officer in the US Army; I have a great deal of experience with the identification of terrorists in the course of my duties. Assange does not fulfill the official definition by any stretch of the imagination; therefore, he is not OFFICIALLY a terrorist. One member of Congress calling him such does not make it so.

As to your second link, well, "aiding the enemy" in this instance likely doesn't refer to Wikileaks at all; it would actually refer to the defined enemies of the US (insurgents and countries that are known to have interests in harming the US for instance) that would be able to access documentation via the Wikileaks site that could potentially be harmful to the United States. Wikileaks is merely the middle-man, so to speak, not the "enemy". So again, no, I don't consider that hard evidence at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

And this is related to the thread topic, how?

Because the fact that he is single handedly destroying wiki leaks makes it less and less likely that the USA will bother to prosecute him. Why bother destroying him when he is busy destroying himself.

You forgot a smilie, thread cop. Great post otherwise. Rolls eyes.

 

[nathan]

And this is related to the thread topic, how?

Are you forgetting you're one of the people claiming there is no evidence of the charges -- it's a he-said/she-said situation? In such cases, the character of the witness becomes more significant. So by your own argument it's related.

 

[BenBurch]

When I find a reasonable person defending a slimeball rapist, SG, I'll let you know.

 

[tsig]

@Sabrina: Remember these links?

Senator Mitch McConnell calls WikiLeaks chief Assange a 'high tech terrorist'


Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

Are these not considered 'hard' evidence?

So it's the "America is the Great Satan" argument.

 

[zooterkin]

@Sabrina: Remember these links?

Senator Mitch McConnell calls WikiLeaks chief Assange a 'high tech terrorist'


Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

Are these not considered 'hard' evidence?

Which one of them explains why the US would seek to make extradition to the US more difficult by requiring permission from both Sweden and the UK, rather than just the UK?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you forgetting you're one of the people claiming there is no evidence of the charges -- it's a he-said/she-said situation? In such cases, the character of the witness becomes more significant. So by your own argument it's related.

That's a real stretch.