WikiLeaks founder on Interpol's most wanted list... for rape?

BWahahaha!!!

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/12/20/a...

New York, Dec 20: WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange's lawyers and supporters are furious over someone leaking the confidential police report detailing graphic rape allegations against him.

Article continues

I wonder if Assange is actually upset about this. His lawyers, of course, are paid to be upset (lawyers are paid to be upset about things no matter how ironic) -- but that article doesn't have quotes from Assange himself.

I'm sure he understands the hypocrisy of getting upset about this.

Seth wrote:

I wonder if Assange is actually upset about this. His lawyers, of course, are paid to be upset (lawyers are paid to be upset about things no matter how ironic) -- but that article doesn't have quotes from Assange himself.

I'm sure he understands the hypocrisy of getting upset about this.

I'm not sure it would be hypocrisy though. I think there is a definite difference between transparency in government and private affairs of individuals that the individual has a right to remain private. One does not necessarily equate the other.

I am not sure what to think of the whole Wikileaks thing myself and have certainly not gone poking around the archive, but I don't see these two positions as at all irreconcilable.

That's kind of how I feel about it as well, although I would call it irony rather than hypocrisy. Part of me kind of agrees with a commenter on the linked news site-- I don't think Assange is stupid enough to put himself in such a situation (but then, we all make stupid mistakes sometimes). Another part of me wants to see the leaked document itself, rather than an Indian report on an Australian report on a New York (City? It doesn't say, only that the doc came from New York) police report. My skepticism remains.

Paleocon wrote:
Seth wrote:

I wonder if Assange is actually upset about this. His lawyers, of course, are paid to be upset (lawyers are paid to be upset about things no matter how ironic) -- but that article doesn't have quotes from Assange himself.

I'm sure he understands the hypocrisy of getting upset about this.

I'm not sure it would be hypocrisy though. I think there is a definite difference between transparency in government and private affairs of individuals that the individual has a right to remain private. One does not necessarily equate the other.

I am not sure what to think of the whole Wikileaks thing myself and have certainly not gone poking around the archive, but I don't see these two positions as at all irreconcilable.

Even if it's hypocrisy on the highest level, it doesn't have an impact on the veracity of the leak. If anything it only makes it even clearer that we should not be talking about Assange unless we're more interested in being entertained than fixing things.

Paleocon wrote:

I'm not sure it would be hypocrisy though. I think there is a definite difference between transparency in government and private affairs of individuals that the individual has a right to remain private. One does not necessarily equate the other.

I am not sure what to think of the whole Wikileaks thing myself and have certainly not gone poking around the archive, but I don't see these two positions as at all irreconcilable.

I agree in theory, but the Wikileaks' leaks have had a portion of private matter displayed to the public. I realize they tried to protect private citizens as much as possible, but it happened, and I have to assume they considered it collateral damage. I'm also worried about exactly what is in the BofA (or whichever bank it was) leaked document set that may be private financial information.

I think Lobster's point is pretty interesting as well. Several government have clearly begun a full blown ad hominem campaign against Wikileaks using Assange as a figurehead, which only serves to verify the legitimacy of the documents.

Seth wrote:

Several government have clearly begun a full blown ad hominem campaign against Wikileaks using Assange as a figurehead, which only serves to verify the legitimacy of the documents.

Naomi Wolf considers it an insult to rape victims.

But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face.

In other words, of course this isn't about rape. If it's not about rape, then what's it about?

Meh, Assange seems pissed off about something else. And remember, no matter how he dies, it's murder.

Wolf's viewpoint is getting excoriated in feminist circles. Apparently she made the mistake (the same "mistake" I admit I made) of assuming these charges were false just because they were political.

From the line before what I quoted initially:

Of course 'No means No', even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.

Either way, I think Wolf was right no matter what the "feminist circles" believe. She's right that even if the charges against Assange are 100% true, there are cases of rape that are arguably more severe yet have received far less attention. If Assange broke a law then sure, he deserves what he's got coming. I'm not saying he should get in line and get his justice ONLY after all the more important cases have been resolved. I just don't buy that this is really about the rape.

Yeah, my view is in line with Lobster and Wolf here. If these governments pursued all rape cases (especially ones more severe than this) with the same zeal, I'd be quite happy. However, the energy they're putting into this case is not because of the rape itself, but because of who the accused rapist happens to be.

Put me down for agreeing with this. It isn't about whether Assange is guilty or innocent it is about how governments usually prosecute allegations of rape.

From what I understand, the feminist outrage at Wolf is mostly for this earlier open letter, where she totally belittles the alleged rape victims. A taste:

I also have firsthand information that John Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, went to a stag party -- with strippers! -- that his girlfriend wanted him to skip, and that Mark Levinson in Corvallis, Oregon, did not notice that his girlfriend got a really cute new haircut -- even though it was THREE INCHES SHORTER.

So she's equating rape with failing to notice a new haircut. Pretty nasty stuff. I don't think it should be that hard to: A) be pretty damn certain that the vigor with which these charges are being pursued against Assange is politically motivated, and B) at least consider the possibility that he really did rape a woman or two, and not make fun of alleged rape victims.

jonstock wrote:

B) at least consider the possibility that he really did rape a woman or two, and not make fun of alleged rape victims.

Yup, I'm making no comment on Assange's guilt or absence thereof, because there's no proof either way right now. I'm only commenting on the very obvious truth that the rape charges are only getting the air-time they are because it's politically motivated.

And it's sure as heck really poor form to mock rape victims for choosing to pursue justice. And until we determine the truth here, we can't make any assumptions. As was stated before, "no" means "no", even if they want you to stop once you're already getting it on.

jonstock wrote:

...B) at least consider the possibility that he really did rape a woman or two, and not make fun of alleged rape victims.

Or consider his innocence before assuming his guilt.

When one of the accusers jokes with her friends the night after (during a party she hosted in Assange's honor) saying that she had had the "worst sex ever" with him and that he had been "the world's worst screw" I'm going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't rape. sh*tty sex with an ego maniac, yes. Law & Order SUV-type rape, no.

OG_slinger wrote:
jonstock wrote:

...B) at least consider the possibility that he really did rape a woman or two, and not make fun of alleged rape victims.

Or consider his innocence before assuming his guilt.

That's not really how it should work; you run the risk of trivializing and silencing the accuser. Yes, sometimes you'll get a bad apple, but until "accusation of rape" becomes a systemic and universal tool to subjugate, oppress, dominate, and humiliate an entire gender the likes of which could never be referenced with a single link like I did above, assumption of guilt really should be the way to approach these cases.

I know that goes against our entire criminal system and will probably inflame the sensitivities of our good, moral, non rapists, and I'm okay with that.

OG_slinger wrote:

Or consider his innocence before assuming his guilt.

When one of the accusers jokes with her friends the night after (during a party she hosted in Assange's honor) saying that she had had the "worst sex ever" with him and that he had been "the world's worst screw" I'm going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't rape. sh*tty sex with an ego maniac, yes. Law & Order SUV-type rape, no.

I haven't seen *anyone* assume Assange's guilt. I'm just pointing out that, in my opinion, feminists were right to criticize Wolf's open letter, because it really was a nasty piece of work.

And you're right, the woman said it was the 'world's worst screw'. Here's a little more context:

She said he began pulling off her clothes roughly and snapped her necklace. She said she tried to get dressed because "it was going too quickly and uncomfortably" but Assange ripped her clothes off again.

She told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange, as she had gone along with it so far."

She said she let him undress her but when he began having unprotected sex with her, she tried several times to get a condom. She says, "stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs."

Eventually, she said he agreed to put on a condom but she suspected he had done something to it because it ripped.

"Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent," Miss A told a friend the next day.

Can we agree as a community that rape is very bad and move on? All that matters is that there are more severe charges that have been pursued far less enthusiastically, which suggests an ulterior motive.

I don't really care if Assange is bad in the sack or not. I don't care at all if Naomi Wolf is sexist. I only brought her up because she articulated the nature of what is clearly an ad hom attack, be it true or not.

The only story that matters here is how our governments are reacting to what's happened. Assange is not the heart of the leak, nor is he a victim. He's a symptom. A symptom worth note but absolutely not the real story here. What he did was significant. Not because he did it but because of what it is. Assange can rot in hell for all I care because at this point he's nothing but an easy out and a distraction.

When we make this about Assange rather than the leaks, we are failing at our civic duty. It is our job to keep our government honest and if it's not, it is our job to kick out the corruption. If that's impossible, let's show that it's impossible. If it's not, let's make some changes. We've had a look inside and we have enough information to suggest there are questions that must be answered.

If we aren't asking those questions because we're too busy arguing over whether or not Assange is a nice man, then what's the point of a leak? We got a taste of the transparency we've wanted for so long and we're throwing it away for a goddamn soap opera!

Independent confirmation that Assange is the world's worst house guest.

Moshe Katzav , former Israeli president ( generally a symbolic office ) , got 7 years in prison today for rape .He did try to intimidate his victims and retreated from a plea bargain which made his trial run for a long time. He was charge for 1 of the 3 rapes because it was easier to prove. One of the rape case wasn't prosecutable because of Statute of limitations the other was removed from the list of charges against because the prosecution claimed it was harder to prove.

Today they gave us a lecture about the laws where you have to get "clear consent" and while in past trials some cases were dismissed because "the victim didn't show enough resistances" the Supreme court reversed them and sent people to prison and after that the law changed to "clear consent".

This is generally his victim's word against his. If Assange broke any laws he'll probably pay for it or sign a plea bargain . I triedto find the consequence of false accusations but didn't find anything criminal. The victims of sexual crimes are generally not punished even if they made it up. It's still possible to get compensated for false accusations in a civil court. I seriously doubt the prosecutors would spend so many resources over "nothing" they did spend a ton of their tax payer's money to get him extradited .

Assange hasn't even actually been charged with anything yet, and the prosecutor is apparently personal friends with one of the women involved in the case.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Extraditing someone for questioning about a case is absolutely unheard of.

OG_slinger wrote:

Independent confirmation that Assange is the world's worst house guest.

Yeaaah. I'd have no problem telling him or just about anyone equally inconsiderate that they needed to get the hell out of my house. I honestly don't understand how they would have let it get that far.

Paleocon wrote:

Yeaaah. I'd have no problem telling him or just about anyone equally inconsiderate that they needed to get the hell out of my house. I honestly don't understand how they would have let it get that far.

Palecon wrote:

Hey, Jullian! Want to check out the silenced guns I use in the shooting range I dug out in my basement? What's that in the corner? Oh, Home Depot was just having a sale on pickaxes, lye, machetes, and cement. Gotta stock up for the winter when those bastards take my parking spot.

You guys do know that video was made by Alison Silverman, right? The comedy writer, works for Conan O'Brien and others? I'm sure it's absolutely true, and she released it as a public service...

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeaaah. I'd have no problem telling him or just about anyone equally inconsiderate that they needed to get the hell out of my house. I honestly don't understand how they would have let it get that far.

Palecon wrote:

Hey, Jullian! Want to check out the silenced guns I use in the shooting range I dug out in my basement? What's that in the corner? Oh, Home Depot was just having a sale on pickaxes, lye, machetes, and cement. Gotta stock up for the winter when those bastards take my parking spot.

I wouldn't be nearly that subtle. It would probably look a little more like this:

Paleo: I would like to say it was fun having you, but I'd be lying. Frankly, you creep us out and the sooner you leave the better. On that note, it looks like time for you to leave.

Unwanted guest: I'm working on it.

P: The time for "working on it" has passed. You need to leave now.

UG: But I don't have a place to go yet.

P: Not my problem. Get the hell out or there will be problems.

Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeaaah. I'd have no problem telling him or just about anyone equally inconsiderate that they needed to get the hell out of my house. I honestly don't understand how they would have let it get that far.

Palecon wrote:

Hey, Jullian! Want to check out the silenced guns I use in the shooting range I dug out in my basement? What's that in the corner? Oh, Home Depot was just having a sale on pickaxes, lye, machetes, and cement. Gotta stock up for the winter when those bastards take my parking spot.

I wouldn't be nearly that subtle. It would probably look a little more like this:

Paleo: I would like to say it was fun having you, but I'd be lying. Frankly, you creep us out and the sooner you leave the better. On that note, it looks like time for you to leave.

Unwanted guest: I'm working on it.

P: The time for "working on it" has passed. You need to leave now.

UG: But I don't have a place to go yet.

P: Not my problem. Get the hell out or there will be problems.

P: **slowly takes off pants and puts on a wizard's hat**

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

P: **slowly takes off pants and puts on a wizard's hat**

:shock:

/netfive

OG_slinger wrote:
Palecon wrote:

Hey, Jullian! Want to check out the silenced guns I use in the shooting range I dug out in my basement? What's that in the corner? Oh, Home Depot was just having a sale on pickaxes, lye, machetes, and cement. Gotta stock up for the winter when those bastards take my parking spot.

Awesome.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

P: **slowly takes off pants and puts on a wizard's hat**

:shock:

/netfive

Hilarious!!!

Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Palecon wrote:

Hey, Jullian! Want to check out the silenced guns I use in the shooting range I dug out in my basement? What's that in the corner? Oh, Home Depot was just having a sale on pickaxes, lye, machetes, and cement. Gotta stock up for the winter when those bastards take my parking spot.

Awesome.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

P: **slowly takes off pants and puts on a wizard's hat**

:shock:

/netfive

Hilarious!!!

Who the hell am I? Omar?

IMAGE(http://blog.mktg.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Omar-Little1.jpg)

"Come at the king, you best not miss."