Julian Assange - shift in opinion?

dashboard_hula

I've been following the Julian Assange/Wikileaks goings on with some interest over the past few days, after a remark passed by a someone last week (before the arrest kicked off) that this whole thing was like a scene out of All the Presidents Men.

While it is far too coincidental to believe that the recent charges levelled at Mr. Assange do not have anything to do with Wikileaks recent growth and release of the diplomatic cables, it is the type of charge which seems to really indicate that various parties are doing their level best to prevent the man from going about his business, and discredit his organisation.

Rape and sexual misconduct are perhaps the most venal and shameful acts that any person can be accused of, and it's strange that this is precisely the type of crime that he's wanted in connection with. Any other type of crime - fraud lets say, or document theft, or commercial espionage (for instance), would be white collar enough that it could be spun, fought and otherwise played out in public. But rape? Once the details were released (such as they are), you could nearly see some news organisations and politically liberal/feminist websites etc (looking at you, Jezebel) turn from wholehearted support and cheering on of Mr. Assanges agenda and crusade, to a definite cooling of attitude toward him.

A strand that I found running through many articles/discussions/opinion pieces was a closer examination of Assanges "odd" personality and behaviours, with some going as far as to call him a sociopath. There also seemed to be an immediate backlash against any person who questioned the motives and honesty of the women involved - an accusation of victim blaming in some cases.
However, I'm a woman, and a feminist, and I question these allegations. Does that make me some kind of male-hating sheep? I think that there's quite possibly a thorough investigation going in in both Sweden and Australia for any hint of anything dodgy that can be thrown at the man. Does that make me some kind of paranoid conspiracy theorist?

Wikileaks and Julian Assange are two separate identities which are intricately connected, yet are not one dimensional. There are facets to the Wikileaks organisation which I support, and those which I criticise. There are aspects to Assange which I admire and agree with, and aspects which I dislike or can't stand about the man. But the polarising effect on the world that both him and his organisation have is more interesting in what it says about other people than what it says about the man himself.

Setun

Interesting post.

I similarly felt suspicious about the rape/molestation charges - automatically it could be seen as a suspicious accusation considering how convenient it would be for many governments all over the world that he be convicted for such a horrific crime. On the other hand, a close friend of Assange's was reported in the Guardian to have actively warned him about his excessive "womanising" and that it would lead to trouble - this in itself proves nothing but the potential that Assange rendered himself vulnerable to such accusations. It's very difficult to get unbiased personal accounts of Assange though, as you pointed out he has really polarised opinion of the media, so any reporting on his private life needs to be read with that in mind. I think it is safe to say that he must be somewhat sociopathic if half the reports are to be believed, and I find it strange that he is so open about his highly influential editorial involvement with wikileaks, to the point of his face appearing on the site's home page looking like a bond villain.

From the point of view of the public, it is certainly an impossible task to prove or convincingly argue either way, though I was surprised in some respects to see quotes such as the folowing:

The Guardian wrote:

The author and activist Naomi Wolf condemned the women for "using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appear to be personal injured feelings".
source

Is this an example of a literary giant becoming overly passionate about the right to freedom of the press, or has she got any particular evidence that the rape accusations are merely "injured feelings"? Same goes for John Pilger and Jemima Khan, and any other high-profile defenders of Assange - are there some important shreds of evidence that I am missing or is it simply a presumption that the sexual offences are levelled at Assange as a lateral crusade against press freedom? Despite my misgivings about the case, I'm with Pilger and Wolf et al, although I'll admit it's a desire to believe that Assange is a "good guy" and not another high-profile male rapist.

nyarlothothep

I think suggestions that Assange is sociopathic are as convincing as claims that anyone who displays introversion and a talent for something must be autistic. The application of psychological conditions to people in order to put them in a box so to speak in order to understand them, given there exotic actions, isn't really whats the issue. You could say most people in government and business are sociopaths, actually given what they do that statement might be more accurate, all wikileaks has done is to expose the workings of human heirarchical systems and how its upsetting for some humans to have authority so richly undermined. In fact I would say people are conditioned from birth to seek authority, parents exercise it, it becomes extrapolated into the very workings society although not for any justified reason, some realized that they could lay claim to more resources for themselves and convinced others of the need for a heirarchical system through fear and coercion, in effect I'd posit its a left over from our prehistoric past and further all the way back to mammals and insects, its a messy evolution complicated by the recent ability of humans to reflect internally on their world, and you'll have people like Assange contesting the future of the species as to which way it will go. This is why Assange might appear like a bogeyman, because his actions are alien to natural human inclinations, but I don't see how they're on a level as negative as the actions committed by sociopaths or criminals. In fact his intentions are quite positive and humanistic. And he has a big, a very big ego.

I don't know if hes guilty or not. Most of the facts indicate that hes guilty of womanizing and no more. Both women apparently wanted a HIV test when they discovered he'd slept with both of them. The police immediately cried rape. The chief prosecutor dismissed the charges as bogus and then a politician (surprise surprise)/lawyer brought the case again to another prosecutor in Gothenburg. It seems to be a smear campaign, highly effective in fact given that such crimes tend to whip up emotions and hysteria. The CIA apparently were investigating drumming up such allegations against Saddam Hussein in an effort to instigated a domestic rebellion in Iraq before they sent in the army. That said he could be guilty, but he's innocent until proven so. That is fundamental aspect of Western law which can often be overlooked in cases like this.

prinz

He should be returned to Sweden and deal with the accusations. It's far too easy for a man in his position to claim 'harrassment/trumped up charges' based upon the actions of wikileaks, which would lead to an amount of immunity basically from anything... which would feed his ego no end.


Either way the Swedish authorities have a right to proceed with the case under Swedish law and nothing untoward has occured yet. Just a note on the post above, the junior prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case...... the women's lawyers appealed this decision, more evidence emerged and a higher prosecutor, Marianne Ny IIRC, decided to pursue the case.

The very same system applies in Ireland, if the office of the DPP decides not to prosecute you can appeal that decision and have another prosecutor from the DPP's office review your case and give a second opinion. The second opinion could agree with the first and decide not to prosecute, or the second opinion could go the other way and over-rule the first and the prosecution proceeds. There is no conspiracy. The fact that the second prosecutor was in another city is irrelevant, the first was a local prosecutor, the second has national jurisdiction in Sweden.

liah

Personally I think the "surprise sex" (it's not technically rape, apparently!) charge is complete bull, given some evidence upturned recently, including:

-the girl accusing him has connections to the CIA
-shortly after the alleged "surprise sex," she was twittering/texting all her friends about the "cool party" she was at with really "intelligent" people, and gloating about his presence there.
-this same girl has a guide on the internet as to how to get revenge.

I'm leaving point one at the door, I'll see what happens with the CIA connection but I'm not much one for conspiracy. It's still very interesting though.

Point two on the other hand, paints a completely different picture of the whole thing. If at any point their sexual encounter had become non-consensual, why on earth would she be gloating about it and texting all her friends? If that had happened to me (and it has), I would've been way too freaked out to continue pretending that everything was perfectly fine and I was totally happy. Why did she not text her friends that something had happened then? Why wait?

Point three doesn't have too much relevance, to be totally honest, just thought it was amusing.

The US are going to try to charge him with espionage.

All charges against him currently are/will be total bs. The girl's lying, it's obvious to anyone who looks, and the US can't do anything, he's not a citizen of theirs and he was not the one who got the information, he only distributed it. It's certainly not espionage, anyway.

prinz

Two women have made accusations against Assange.... do they both have "CIA connections"? By the way the "evidence upturned recently" is coming from Assange's lawyer based out of the UK.

liah wrote: »

If that had happened to me (and it has), I would've been way too freaked out to continue pretending that everything was perfectly fine and I was totally happy. Why did she not text her friends that something had happened then? Why wait?....

Do you realise how many cases of rape and sexual abuse are said to go unreported every year? Does the fact that some women don't ever come forward alter the circumstances of the original offence? Are some of these women putting on a brave face and pretending like nothing is wrong? Do some victims decide to come forward when they realise they are not alone and that the same person who did something to them also did the same to others? Strength in numbers etc?

liah wrote: »

All charges against him currently are/will be total bs. The girl's lying, it's obvious to anyone who looks....

Excellent, no harm in facing them then. Should be a doddle for Assange to clear his name. By the by, it's not at all that obvious. You may also want to have a look at the charges facing Assange. The woman involved in one may not have known about the alleged offence until days later.

mikhail

The charge is not rape. From this,

...accusations of non-use of condom during sex made against him by two Swedish women.

Yes, that's illegal in Sweden.

I'm not convinced this is some CIA plot (though I'd not be surprised if they encouraged the women involved), but the use of the word "rape" in the media in the past few weeks is utterly wrong, and the moralistic crap people have come out with on the back of one word in a news report is hilariously ignorant.

prinz

mikhail wrote: »

The charge is not rape. From this,
Yes, that's illegal in Sweden. I'm not convinced this is some CIA plot (though I'd not be surprised if they encouraged the women involved), but the use of the word "rape" in the media in the past few weeks is utterly wrong, and the moralistic crap people have come out with on the back of one word in a news report is hilariously ignorant.

It comes under rape legislation in Sweden, so yes it is a form of rape charge. Although I agree there does seem to be a lot of people misinformed about the actual nature of the allegations.

seithon

prinz wrote: »

He should be returned to Sweden and deal with the accusations. It's far too easy for a man in his position to claim 'harrassment/trumped up charges' based upon the actions of wikileaks, which would lead to an amount of immunity basically from anything... which would feed his ego no end.

It should however be noted that after he was accused he spent time in Sweden actively seeking to be interviewed in relation to the charges and only left after they dropped the case the first time.

I do myself wonder what the extradition treaties between the US and Sweden are like, if they are favorable to the US it might explain why their is the sudden push to get him back there.

Crucifix

mikhail wrote: »

The charge is not rape. From this,

Yes, that's illegal in Sweden.

I'm not convinced this is some CIA plot (though I'd not be surprised if they encouraged the women involved), but the use of the word "rape" in the media in the past few weeks is utterly wrong, and the moralistic crap people have come out with on the back of one word in a news report is hilariously ignorant.

The list of allegations from the bbc's coverage are:

* 'Unlawful coercion' against Miss A - pinning her down
* 'Sexual molestation' by refusing to wear a condom with Miss A
* 'Deliberate molestation' of Miss A
* 'Rape' of Miss W: had sex with her while she was sleeping and without a condom

Source: Gemma Lindfield, lawyer acting for the Swedish authorities

Bottle_of_Smoke

Could be wrong but I think girls who were known to have had sexual relations with him were talked into making false allegations.

The condom charge is a very odd one. It is good it is a crime but at the same time how can it be proven in a court of law?

Mervyn Crawford

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d21.shtml

The relentless attacks against Julian Assange are for one reason only. To attempt to crush anyone who exposes the crimes of the capitalist ruling class around the world.

The hypocrisy of Obama and the Democrats, of the British Guardian newspaper and multifarious layers of liberals point up the absolute nescessity to consistently defend Assange and Wikileaks on the principle of democratic rights.

There can be no reliance on the various wings of liberalism or it's 'left' apologists.

Einhard

nyarlothothep wrote: »

That said he could be guilty, but he's innocent until proven so. That is fundamental aspect of Western law which can often be overlooked in cases like this.

That being said, he's not above the law, as some of his supporters would seem to think. There's been an appalling attack on the two women who brought these charges against him, perpetrated not by the usual anonymous keyboard reactionaries, but by well known and respected commentators and activists who really should know better. And indeed, by Assange's lawyer. The idea that anyone woman who brings a rape charge should be told that her accusation will not be fully investigated because of the identity of the accused is shocking, and I think after all this fades into memory, and regardless of the verdict, some people will have cause to look back on their roles with a sense of shame.

Einhard

liah wrote: »

All charges against him currently are/will be total bs. The girl's lying, it's obvious to anyone who looks, and the US can't do anything, he's not a citizen of theirs and he was not the one who got the information, he only distributed it. It's certainly not espionage, anyway.

I'm sorry, but this is really shocking. How on earth can you sit here, with evidence that you've gleaned only from the internet and articles, without talking with the women involved, without any form of proper investigation, and claim that the accusations are bull****?! You presume that they're BS, not because there's overwhelming evidence to indiocate so, but because you don't want to believe that Assange might have done it. I'm not making any such presumptions. I think we all need to take a deep breath, and realise both that Sweden isn't some lawless, tinpot dictatorship as some of the commentary would have one believe, and that, while Assange is innocent until proven otherwise, there is a chance that the women are telling the truth. I really, truly shudder to think what they must be going through if the latter is the case, and people all over the world are dismissing their potential trauma as the actions of some jilted Jezabels. It really angers me to be honest.

Einhard

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d21.shtml

The relentless attacks against Julian Assange are for one reason only. To attempt to crush anyone who exposes the crimes of the capitalist ruling class around the world.

The hypocrisy of Obama and the Democrats, of the British Guardian newspaper and multifarious layers of liberals point up the absolute nescessity to consistently defend Assange and Wikileaks on the principle of democratic rights.

There can be no reliance on the various wings of liberalism or it's 'left' apologists.

I think most reasonable people can seperate Mr Assange from Wikileaks, and see that defending the latter's right to publish what it does not necessiate slavish obsequity to the former. What you are effectively advocating is that Assange be placed above the law. That, paradoxically, is perhaps the most illiberal position that one could take. You talk about defending democratic rights, and yet charge the Guardian merely for publishing a range of views on the charges facing Assange. For a supporter of Wikileaks, you seem mightly exercised when people exercise their right to free speech in a manner that displeases you.

pickarooney

I don't understand the no-condom law. If the woman refuses to have sex with him unless he wears a condom and he ploughs ahead then surely it's rape full stop?

Mervyn Crawford

Einhard

The 'case' against Assange has all the hallmarks of a put-up job by state security services.

Trying to separate Assange from Wikileaks is a trick of the same ilk.

Throwing Assange to the wolves is a 'compromise' cooked up in the depths of Langley or some such murder hole.

The slaughters that the imperialists in Washington, London, Berlin.....have unleashed in Afghanistan and Iraq have been exposed by Assange and Wikileaks.

You seem unexercised by this.

Rather you present us with an empty husk concerning 'free speech' with no context at all. Set within the boundaries given by the Guardian and other 'liberals'.

The Guardian and Washington Post accepted publication of Wikileaks information (which expose some of the truth behind the facade of 'democracy' and 'free speech') because the bourgeois media must report limited information to retain any credibility and attempt to rein in the free speech that is taking place outside their control!

And so they could then 'spin' something from their vaulted position.
This they are now doing.

The bourgeois press is just that - bourgeois. It is what it says on the tin.

Hands Off Julian Assange!
Defend Wikileaks!
For the Truth behind the Lies of Imperialism!

prinz

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand the no-condom law. If the woman refuses to have sex with him unless he wears a condom and he ploughs ahead then surely it's rape full stop?

It's more a case of (a) telling the woman you are wearing a condom to get her consent and then not putting it on/taking it off mid-act or (b) realising your condom has burst accidentally/deliberately and you don't inform the other party so they are unaware of the potential danger.

prinz

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

The 'case' against Assange has all the hallmarks of a put-up job by state security services.

Any idea of what state?

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Trying to separate Assange from Wikileaks is a trick of the same ilk.

Nonsense. He must be separated from wikileaks. Like any other investigation your employ or hobbies when not relevant to the case should be disregarded.

Dave!

Saw an article in the Daily Fail yesterday, and it's safe to say that they are no longer supporting Mr Assange (if they were before -- dunno)...

Mervyn Crawford

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/nbre-d23.shtml

Piste

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Einhard

The 'case' against Assange has all the hallmarks of a put-up job by state security services.

Trying to separate Assange from Wikileaks is a trick of the same ilk.

Throwing Assange to the wolves is a 'compromise' cooked up in the depths of Langley or some such murder hole.

The slaughters that the imperialists in Washington, London, Berlin.....have unleashed in Afghanistan and Iraq have been exposed by Assange and Wikileaks.

You seem unexercised by this.

Rather you present us with an empty husk concerning 'free speech' with no context at all. Set within the boundaries given by the Guardian and other 'liberals'.

The Guardian and Washington Post accepted publication of Wikileaks information (which expose some of the truth behind the facade of 'democracy' and 'free speech') because the bourgeois media must report limited information to retain any credibility and attempt to rein in the free speech that is taking place outside their control!

And so they could then 'spin' something from their vaulted position.
This they are now doing.

The bourgeois press is just that - bourgeois. It is what it says on the tin.

Hands Off Julian Assange!
Defend Wikileaks!
For the Truth behind the Lies of Imperialism!

Do you have any evidence for what I have highlighted in bold there?


In this case it is neccesary to separate Assange the accused rapist from Assange the man behind Wikileaks. To think that either aspect has a bearing on the other is utterly false. None of us know for sure whether he is guilty or not. The only thing that will determine that is a fair trial, which he may or may not be subjected to. To condemn Assange as a rapist is wrong, as he has only been accused- nothing has been proven. However to decry the mere fact that he has been accused as an attack on Wikileaks is likewise wrong, and highlights the needs for a mental distinction between Assange as the man behind Wikileaks, and Assange as the accused rapist, as I said above.

If Assange is tried and found guilty of rape, to condemn him for that would not be an attack on Wikileaks. Likewise to praise his work in Wikileaks does not equate to defending rape.

Jesus Wept

prinz wrote: »

It comes under rape legislation in Sweden, so yes it is a form of rape charge. Although I agree there does seem to be a lot of people misinformed about the actual nature of the allegations.

What is the charge relating to condoms?

Still don't fully understand what is illegal?

prinz

The-Rigger wrote: »

What is the charge relating to condoms?
Still don't fully understand what is illegal?

Not 100% sure tbh details naturally have been a bit sketchy on what exactly happened with Assange.

Either way, under Swedish law not informing a sexual partner that your condom broke/you took it off after informing partner that you were wearing one basically negates his/her consent.. as they originally consented on the basis that a functioning condom would be worn. It comes under rape legislation but is a minor enough charge, the clause is there so the partner would be aware of the situation so as to seek the MAP or possibly other health checks. By not informing them you could be putting them in 'danger' of pregnancy/health issues.

Mervyn Crawford

Sexual crime and abuse is a facet of a class based society which by its nature uses oppression day in, day out.

A future society where classes no longer exist; and where human beings live lfree and to their as yet untapped potenetial will not have sexual crime, abuse or any other form of violence.

The great crime of world dominance by the ruling class is the root of all anti-human activity.

The Imperialist spin doctors are only too happy to play the shocked 'neutrals'. Whereas in relaity the state is their state. laws are applied selectively.

Accepting paramaters set by the Swedish, British and US law officers is to accept the agenda of Imperialism.

Assange is under attack by Imperialism because he ia a leading player in the exposition of its crimes. If you do not think this you are naive in the extreme.

If you are not naive then you are making clear that you accept the oppressor and not the oppressed. Regardless of your supposed defence of 'democracy', 'free speeech' etc.

There is very little free speech, or information, in this system.

Piste

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Sexual crime and abuse is a facet of a class based society which by its nature uses oppression day in, day out.

A future society where classes no longer exist; and where human beings live lfree and to their as yet untapped potenetial will not have sexual crime, abuse or any other form of violence.

Do you have anything to base this speculation upon?

Mervyn Crawford

John Pilger on the lies of the Imperialists:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/pilg-j04.shtml


Falsifying history and repudiating democratic rights: Floyd Abrams’ attack on WikiLeaks:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/fabr-d31.shtml

The opening comments in this thread were serious and considered. Since then 'freedom of speech' has been set apart from Julian Assange's act of striking a blow for freedom of information. The dirty tricks of the state agencies have been wheeled out to yet again attempt to crush those who expose the filth of what really goes on in our 'democracy'.

I applaud those contributors who opened this thread and brought out some of this truth.

Mervyn Crawford

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/assa-j12.shtml

murphy93

There does seem to be the usual interference of the yanks in trying to trap him.
Sweden is a very dark place used to work there and it is morally corupt and girls can be bought to say anything very easily. Desire Power, attention and money yet on the surface clean and wholesome.
Porn in most home and American obessed from old cars to diners to low moral satadards and weird underground practices.

Mervyn Crawford

Julian Assange reflects a turn that is taking place around the world.

Decadence had the upper hand under the 'progress' of the Free Market forced through since the latter part of the 70s. Licence to kill along with licence to thrill.

But empty vesels make most noise. The tawdry goings on of those who hitched to the wagon of the runaway money-makers dominated public life for the last 30 years or more.

Bringing us to the cultural triumphs of the X Factor and Fox News.

Assange's simple and principled stand has stripped the cover from the rotten official world.

The sudden mass intevention by the Tunisian people is a sign of things to come.

Sweden is no more apart from the world economy and society than anywhere else. The base outlook encouraged by official society; but also the mass of citizens struggling to survive and craving for a full life expressing all that is creative in human society.

Mervyn Crawford

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/mann-j28.shtml

tawnyowl

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Sexual crime and abuse is a facet of a class based society which by its nature uses oppression day in, day out.

A future society where classes no longer exist; and where human beings live lfree and to their as yet untapped potenetial will not have sexual crime, abuse or any other form of violence.

What do you base these claims on?

Mervyn Crawford

tawnyowl

The level of basic historical knowledge is today very low.

(The basis of your question? I note you posted questions across the board in rapid succession.Do you have a serious interest in this issue )

Are your own views concerning oppression of women historically based?

Would you see misogyny as a thing in itself (people evil) or a facet of class opression (scarce resources)?

Is capitalism, 'our' class system, the root of all other oppressions?

enfant terrible

This is like the conspiracy theory forum.

Mervyn Crawford

Private Bardley Manning held naked at military brig
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/mann-m05.shtml

Defend Julian Assange
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/pers-f26.shtml

Fine Gael and Labour have negotiated between them the ouline of the coming attacks on the the welfare regime of the state; the driving down of the incomes of the mass of population - while driving up the income of the super-rich; and the preparations and implementation of state oppression. Kenny, Gilmore and co have been instructed ('briefed') by the state bureaucrats.

The Wikileaks phenomenon expresses several issues:

!. The prostration of the bourgeois press before the demands of the rulers.

2. The ability of the new electronic forums to provide a platform for dissemination and discussion.

3. The ruthlessness of the ruling class in attacking democratic rights
.
Assange and Manning wish for the activities of the capitalist state to be laid bare.

The avid interest throughout the world in the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East is borne of the sense of common cause, common conditions. Working people throughout the world, including Ireland, are watching HOW the masses are struggling; and they are also watching the response of the ruling class.

The moving of aircraft carriers and the secret machinations of British, Swedish and American lawyers/police agencies/political parties are all of a one.

Mervyn Crawford

Concerning tawnyowl's post, above:

Frederich Engels: "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"

Editions of this work are freely available across the internet.