Details of rape, sexual assault allegations against Wikileaks' Assange leaked to Guardian

Discuss

108 Responses to “Details of rape, sexual assault allegations against Wikileaks' Assange leaked to Guardian”

  1. hungryjoe says:

    If these accounts are true, then Assange sounds like an egomaniac and a shitbag. I wasn’t too impressed with his interview on NPR the other morning, either.

    I don’t get what Swedish prosecutors have to do with any of this, though. It’s all consensual, albeit regrettable. But regret doesn’t make it criminal, right?

    WikiLeaks needs to distance itself from Assange. There are lots of hard-working people involved who believe they have a chance to make the world a better place. As long as Assange heads the organization, they’re going to have this hanging over their heads.

    • William George says:

      I have no doubt that he’s an ego-maniac and a shitbag. And if he is a dirty rapist, he needs to go to jail.

      But I didn’t see MSNBC releasing information about American companies providing little boys to Afghan pedophiles as a present for cooperating with them.

      Sadly, I still don’t. With or without Asssange, Wikileaks has become vital in the battle for truth.

  2. Anonymous says:

    humanresource: you repeatedly miss the point, in macho style.

    Fact is, judging from the Guardian’s account of the events, the actions of the Swedish legal system so far are perfectly in order and not any different from similar cases here in Sweden. (No, Michael Moore is not right.) Assange’s allged behaviour clearly is ground for a sex crime investigation according to swedish law. That investigation now needs him for questioning. The law allows for moving him from England to Sweden for that. Easy as that. You have given no specific argument, concerning actual details of the case, for why we should think otherwise. I raise all your “falsely accused great, envied men” with a whole bunch of “great men who have abused their position of power and the sharing of a common cause to rape, abuse and manipulate women”.

    Judging from the Guardian account of Mr. Assange I would say that he deserves to be labelled a complete douchebag. Maybe also a rapist – but that for the court to say.

    • humanresource says:

      “I raise all your “falsely accused great, envied men” with a whole bunch of “great men who have abused their position of power and the sharing of a common cause to rape, abuse and manipulate women”.”
      I never said Assange was falsely accused – I was waiting for someone to be silly enough to imagine I had said that, and I didn’t have to wait long. I don’t know what happened, and I have no trouble with Swedish law acting to try and investigate sex abuse allegations. It IS strange that they only do that to Assange, but whatever: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1435_b_797188.html
      I hate it when any lynch mob forms before the case is complete, I really do -no matter what the politics and achievements of the accused.
      And as I said, if its fair to criticise Assange, based on little more than gossip, unproved allegations and assumptions about his character, why isn’t it fair to make assumptions about the character and motivations of his critics?

      • Jesse M. says:

        And as I said, if its fair to criticise Assange, based on little more than gossip, unproved allegations and assumptions about his character, why isn’t it fair to make assumptions about the character and motivations of his critics?

        It’s not a question of “fair”, it’s just a question of not making yourself look silly be revealing you have a 12-year-old boy’s view of “heroes” and of human psychology, where anyone who says anything bad about someone you lionize to must just be a jealous hater. In the adult world, there’s no contradiction between the opinions “I have the utmost respect for what he’s doing and what he’s achieved, if only there were more like him” and “too bad about him being such a scumbag personally”. Someone above mentioned Thomas Jefferson, which is a good example of this (better than Assange since we’re on firmer ground about the accusations against him being true)–would you also say that anyone who discusses Jefferson’s slave ownership must be a small-minded person who’s just jealous of Jefferson’s positive achievements and is criticizing his personal life to feel better about their own shortcomings?

        • humanresource says:

          Mathdemon, go have a lie down, chill, then work out why you need to write essays about why wikileaks isn’t worth paying attention to – you have the makings of a zen master or a lunatic, I think, in your ability to embrace paradoxes so wholeheartedly.

          Jesse, I appreciate that some of the views on Assange are more nuanced than I was willing to acknowledge at first (although about half, from what I see, don’t qualify their views by saying “IF he’s guilty”). I don’t see you appreciating any of the nuances in my views, though – such as the comparison with Dean, Clinton and Jonathan Swift:

          “His critics concentrated on his personality, in order to tear him down, without having the guts to confront his central points – like the rant about why wars begin (in Part IV), which is as relevant now as it was then.”

          That’s my central point, and I think that your willingness to avoid it and label me a starstruck child indicates that some of my earlier points about the jealous geeks who sold out hit home.

          “would you also say that anyone who discusses Jefferson’s slave ownership must be a small-minded person who’s just jealous of Jefferson’s positive achievements and is criticizing his personal life to feel better about their own shortcomings?” Discussion, I respect. But I don’t think that labels like egomaniac don’t do justice to Assange, or the situation he finds himself in, and I believe that many critics are far too eager to buy into the one-sided gossip and allegations in order to reduce him to a caricature. Given that I hold this belief, I try to speculate as to why others would do this to him, but I know I’m just speculating – hence, my first line, “you’re ACTING like citizens of Lilliput”.
          I never said he was perfect, hell, I said its pretty reasonable not to sleep with him if you have the chance. I’ve met plenty of my heroes, and yeah, it can be a real letdown to find out how arrogant they are, so I can easily believe Assange might be like that too. Given he dedicated his life to exposing and outraging people who torture and kill (even though he has never suffered such persecution), instead of getting rich, I can’t help thinking that any simple dismissal of his character, even from his colleagues, is misguided. Coming from the nets, such dismissal is more than misguided – its pathetic.

          • Jesse M. says:

            I don’t see you appreciating any of the nuances in my views, though – such as the comparison with Dean, Clinton and Jonathan Swift

            I addressed the comparison with Clinton in comment #57–you didn’t respond to that comment, perhaps you missed it? As I said there, I have no doubt that plenty of powerful people are trying to use this personal scandal to strike a political blow against Assange just like with Clinton, but that doesn’t mean that by discussing it on the internet we’re somehow enabling them or discrediting Assange’s work with wikileaks, just like I don’t think I harmed Clinton’s political goals or enabled his Republican attackers to talk about the Lewinsky scandal (in fact it seems to have made the Republicans look bad and helped raise Clinton’s approval ratings at the time). It appeals to the human sense of drama to learn about the personal lives of people who do world-changing things, so it’s perfectly natural and basically harmless to talk about it, I really think the majority of people (at least the people who would be inclined to be sympathetic to wikileaks in the first place) can separate their opinions of Assange as a man and their opinions of his work.

  3. mathdemon says:

    Are you the same guy who typed “I think American’s are a bit more callused and anti-authoritarian than you think.”? Or did someone who hates ordinary Americans hack into your account?

    We’re getting off-topic, but one last time… I guess I’ll need to be clearer. A leader can’t rally Americans. Americans rally leaders. I think you’re stuck with the notion that if people call for bloodshed, they do it because their leaders (“or their leaders’ masters in the IJC-NWO Government”) wants it.

    USA is a highly decentralized, but very patriotic and militaristic country. After 9/11, Americans INSISTED on revenge. Watch George W. Bush’s bullhorn speech on September 14 at Ground Zero. People were shouting “Go get ‘em George!” They didn’t call him “President Bush” or “Mr. President”, but simply “George”. Hardly the behavior of slaves in an authoritarian society. Look at how surprised Bush looks. You can find the video online.

    Patriotism for Americans is not the Nationalism of the Europeans. The Black, Hispanic and all the other minority populations were equally offended.

    Today, some politicians from both parties have gone out calling for Assange’s assassination and for criminal charges be brought on Wikileaks. If this had been a country with an authoritarian government, they wouldn’t have to go out calling for anything. They would just do it, and we would all have to accept it, and no one would be held responsible, as leaders can never commit any crimes in an authoritarian society. And what I am saying is that for these politicians’ calls to gain wide public support, is for Afghan or Iraqi insurgents to kill US soldiers, and for these deaths to be pinned on leaks from Wikileaks.

    But until something like that happens, the people won’t support any such action against Assange or Wikileaks. And it won’t happen because most of the Americans are not aware of the Wikileaks ordeal. It will most likely be brought up in the Presidential Elections. That is, unless we have an incident where US soldiers die, allegedly because of these “leaks”. Obama is looking forward to 4 more years in the White House, and it will be political suicide for him to not react.

    Americans refused to enter WWII, and we only entered because of Pearl Harbor. We were dragged in to a war with Vietnam because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. We declared “War on Terrorism” because of 9/11. And war will be declared on Wikileaks if US soldiers die “because of the leaks”.

    So, Americans can be a “tinsy bit” raw in their reactions, and slow to come out of their blood frenzy, but that doesn’t make us authoritarian. Just a very passionate and sensitive bunch. And I’m really sorry, I wish it had been different, but that’s the reality on the ground.

    How about you join an Anonymous Anti-Americans 12-step program, and stop patronizing us Americans? You could start out by reading Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States”. (And if you claim that you already have, then you haven’t understood anything written in that book.)

    Cowicide:

    Are you having a nervous breakdown buddy? :) Don’t worry. You’re just experiencing a bad hangover.

    • iserlohn says:

      Mob justice is usually a result of mass incitement and sensationalism, especially the type that the MSM in the US loves to participate in.

    • Cowicide says:

      Are you having a nervous breakdown buddy?

      Nah, I think you’ve got nervous breakdown hissy fits covered quite well all on your own.

    • querent says:

      “Americans refused to enter WWII, and we only entered because of Pearl Harbor. We were dragged in to a war with Vietnam because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. We declared “War on Terrorism” because of 9/11. And war will be declared on Wikileaks if US soldiers die “because of the leaks”.”

      Pearl Harbor was a “forced flag” via the rarely mentioned US oil embargo against Japan (an act of war). We struck first.

      And maybe look into the godfather of wikileaks Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers with respect to the Gulf of Tonkin. (A false flag, that one.) Again, we acted first.

      And of course, with regards to September 2001, look to the history of the CIA and the US generally in the Mid. East. The first ever CIA coup of a democratically elected leader in Iran in 1953 and our installment of the Shah led directly to the theocratic state that exists there today. Then there’s Israel. (Forced flag? Maybe. Definitely provoked with more justification than we’d need to act.) First!

      You do not speak for Americans. I am an American, and if you really believe “A leader can’t rally Americans. Americans rally leaders,” you’re living in a fucking fantasy. I’d like to live there…that’s a current that runs through American history, I believe, but it’s always outlaw. I consider myself a part of that america, and am proud to be there, but I’m not so delusional to think it is anything other than a strict minority.

      The vast majority of my countrymen and women believe what they’re told to believe and do what they’re told to do. Mostly, they just dine on bread and dig on circuses.

      I gotta say, with all due respect (/smiles), you strike me as the type that might do well as a Fox News commentator. Seemingly rational but quick to resort to personal attacks and vitriol, with a highly mythologized view of the American “character” that draws from the old, individual-strength libertarianism.

      • querent says:

        To clarify, in all the cases you present to prove american’s are slow to anger, the population was deluded by the powers that be (officially and via corporate media). The people were rallied by “their” leaders, not the other way around.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      How about you join an Anonymous Anti-Americans 12-step program, and stop patronizing us Americans?

      Whom, exactly, are you addressing?

      • teapot says:

        Whom, exactly, are you addressing?

        If we’re not with him we’re against him, you see.. Whoever and wherever ‘we’ are.

        I vote for a new addition to BB called the “Trophy Cabinet” where we can upvote the most ludicrous and moronic verbal diarrhea of the week.

      • teapot says:

        I need to employ you as my editor, though I wish you had at least left the line which let mathdemon know that I think he would make excellent roadkill.

        I thought my self-edited swear word was gonna help my comment slip by, but thats what I get for hitting reply. I gotta stop raising the flag like that!

        Peace be with you, machete man.

  4. spincycle says:

    Thanks so much for using a “sad Julian” picture for lulz. Really adds to the story!

  5. Uncle Bell says:

    The truth is, he was a masterful lover. Attentive, gentle yet commanding, intense, but patent. Who would have suspected his brittle public personality would reveal a person so talented in the art of love? That his geeky outer garments would be discarded to reveal a finely tuned sex machine with an amazing body and a pronounced manhood.

    It was not “the worst sex” of their lives that drove these two women to turn on him, but the thought that they could never possess such a man for themselves. He toyed with their affections, and then cast them off without so much as an STD test.

    How could anyone who decided to have sex with someone they barely know not turn on them the minute they realized he wasn’t wonderful in all ways?

    He deserves everything he has coming.

  6. Rob says:

    Assange, hero to millions, but he’s kinda a rapist…
    Perhaps he’s idealistically opposed to Jimmy hats cause they restrict the freedom of genetic information.

    Must be the “worst sex ever” if you can sleep through half of it. How is that possible?

    If they wanted revenge, they could concoct better stories. I can see how they would wish to pursue legal remedies if they compared notes and saw he was habitually having unprotected sex, and forcing it on women. AIDS. Scary. I don’t have time for STD tests, though I just slept with two strangers? Make some fucking time!

    However if that was the case, I’d expect a bunch of other women to come forward with Julian Assange is a rapist stories. Certainly a CIA plot to discredit him could include something like that. Of course if the CIA plots against you, I’m sure the results aren’t weak charges and the threat of cuhy Swedish prisons. I mean, Swedish prisoners protested not being able to wear bikinis in the prison pool. I kinda want to go to swedish prison.

  7. hellishmundane says:

    yup Assange sucks no surprise there. it is a shame he is attached to wikileaks.
    along with,”the worst sex ever.”, “Harold has independently told the Guardian Miss A made a series of calls to him asking him to persuade Assange to take an STD test to reassure Miss W, and that Assange refused”, is also quite notable. he seems to have all the tact of a drunken frat boy. on a purely social level he deserves the public humiliation.

  8. BB says:

    I want to be clear, I neither stated that Assange was definitively guilty of any charges or crimes, or that I concluded anything negative about his character. I simply do not know. I only stated that there is possibility. My position was that, regardless, knowledge benefits the citizens who vote.

  9. Jesse M. says:

    The accusations sound pretty plausible to me, especially since there’s some other evidence (in the form of stalkerish emails and a ridiculous self-promoting okcupid profile) that he’s something of an egomaniac who’s totally oblivious to the possibility a woman might be sending him signals that she’s not that into him. But with the possible exception of sex with a sleeping woman, it doesn’t sound like it qualifies as rape–in the first instance, the woman never actually asked him to stop (‘Miss A 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”, and so she allowed him to undress her’), and he did grab a condom when she explicitly asked him (though he was pinning her arms when she just tried to reach for it, a jerky move if he knew she was going for a condom and was trying to nonverbally discourage her). The thing about her waking up to find him having sex with her could definitely qualify as rape, but the article notes that Assange’s lawyers say they have a text message to a friend where she only said she had been “half asleep”, which would be a lot more ambiguous since a half-asleep person can have their eyes open, be mumbling responses, etc. It’s possible she was just ashamed to admit the full story to her friend though, we’ll have to wait for the trial to find out more details about what she’s claiming actually happened that morning.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jesse, consent isn’t a forceful “NO.” It’s a lack of yes (be it verbal or nonverbal). It’s your job to know whether or not your partner /wants/ to have sex with you. If someone is, say, replacing their clothing and trying to push you off, it’s your RESPONSIBILITY to stop. Otherwise, if you have sex with this person who’s indicating that they don’t want to, that’s rape. That’s not our culturally standardized depiction of rape, but that’s what it is, and that’s how it normally happens. And then it’s usually not reported because women know people well go, “What? You mean you didn’t start screaming and punch him in the gut? Well, it’s not real rape then, is it? What do you mean you were afraid he might hurt you more? What do you mean you just wanted it to be over with? Psshah.”

      • Jesse M. says:

        If someone is, say, replacing their clothing and trying to push you off, it’s your RESPONSIBILITY to stop. Otherwise, if you have sex with this person who’s indicating that they don’t want to, that’s rape. That’s not our culturally standardized depiction of rape, but that’s what it is, and that’s how it normally happens.

        The story doesn’t even say she was trying to push him off, it does say she was replacing some items of clothing but because she though it was “going too quickly”, suggesting she may not have been ruling out the possibility of sex after a little more foreplay. Then she stopped trying to replace items of clothing, and there’s no mention of any other nonverbal signals that she wasn’t consenting, nor is there any mention of her failing to object out of fear of violence. Personally I wouldn’t have sex with a woman who wasn’t giving clear signals of wanting it to happen, but I think it’s stretching the definition of “rape” too far to call Assange a rapist if this account is accurate…if a woman was pulling a man’s clothes off and he was showing no particular enthusiasm but wasn’t trying to stop her either, would anyone call that rape?

  10. engla says:

    See also http://roleplayingissogay.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/what-talkaboutit-is-all-about/ about the relevant twitter discussion #talkaboutit or in Swedish #prataomdet

    In the wake of the doubt and skepticism directed toward the women who filed charges against Julian Assange, journalist Johanna Koljonen recently tweeted openly and intimately about drawing lines, negotiating gray areas and speaking out against violations in sexual situations. Hundreds followed Koljonen’s example on Twitter under the hashtag#prataomdet (”#talkaboutit”). As a result of this debate, several Swedish magazines, newspapers and other media outlets are publishing pieces on the subject.

    Something is going to change. We are going to dare to #talkaboutit.

  11. humanresource says:

    Assange is Gulliver, and most of you are acting like citizens of Lilliput.

    Its not just his (vast number of) political enemies who want to cut him down to size. Its also everyone who is jealous of a man who has done a million times more good for human rights and democracy than they could ever dream of. He’s geek who didn’t take his massive talents and squander them making stupid apps or obscure financial instruments or whatever corporate drudgery somehow seemed inevitable. And what better way to take him down than to ignore the mountain of real news coming out of saga, and define him by his sex life? I’m not a huge fan of Clinton, but I think the successful Republican attempts to reduce his legacy to a blow job demeaned America just as much as they demeaned Clinton.
    Arguing about Assange’s guilt, the value of the laws in question, and what should happen to him – that’s reasonable. So is not sleeping with him if you have the opportunity, I guess. But to use this material to characterise him as an “ego-maniac and a shitbag” or a “a drunken frat boy” exposes your own inadequacies more than it exposes his. If you have sex lives, I’ll bet anyone could make you a laughingstock if all the details were public knowledge.

    How about all you brilliant people think of a way to prevent him getting sent to the American Gulag instead?

    • Anonymous says:

      You haven’t actually read the original Gullivers Travels, have you? As many parts of the novel is quite nauseating (and perhaps still a bit to hot to handle for many societies), it is hard to find unaltered versions. The Lilliputs are not without character faults, but neither is Gulliver. In fact, he is not far from being an “ego-maniac and a shitbag”, even though Jonathan Swift never actually spell that out for you, but use understatements.

      The Disney version of Gullivers Travels and most other “reprints” have very little to do with the original.

      If you want to make a stupid argument about how great Assange is, please choose another analogy.

      My personal opinion is that Wikileaks is a great accomplishment. But most great accomplishment is not made by great humans, quite the opposite, the individuals that make the greatest contributions to mankind (that is: they make the fastest changes to our way of living), is often the most vile and disgusting among people, they are hungry for power, they are conceited psychopathic egomaniacs, they deceit, they murder, they use people, otherwise they wouldn’t have succeeded. They don’t usually do the things they do in the intent to make the world a better place either, it just happens as side effects.

      As most people that make great accomplishment, is not great people, I think that we, with smaller abilities and means to make great changes, should not idolise them, but concentrate on what good they have created, protect it and try to further and perfect it. Even if we lack the single-mindedness and ruthlessness needed to accomplish the great changes they did, we can still do that, at least if we join forces with other people.

      And do forgive my SwEnglish.

      • humanresource says:

        “You haven’t actually read the original Gullivers Travels, have you? As many parts of the novel is quite nauseating (and perhaps still a bit to hot to handle for many societies), it is hard to find unaltered versions”
        I can’t let that slide, my anonymous Swedish friend – you are talking about one of my favourite novels. I’d tell you the publishing details of my (UNabridged) edition, the one with the excellent introduction by Michael Foot, but the cover and first few pages fell off years ago. Barely one in a hundred people who know of Gulliver will have read through to the brilliant, intense and often troubling final rants in the Voyage of the Houyhnhnms, but most people know about the man in the world of little people, so the metaphor works, I think.
        Swift, in fact, was a man who said a lot of troubling things to the world around him, a man who found very innovative ways to communicate and popularise his messages, and guess what? His critics concentrated on his personality, in order to tear him down, without having the guts to confront his central points – like the rant about why wars begin (in Part IV), which is as relevant now as it was then.
        “concentrate on what good they have created, protect it and try to further and perfect it”. Besides stopping a man getting destroyed by America’s leaders, this is what I would like to see as well. And make no mistake, humiliating and belittling Assange, and reducing him to a laughingstock, is going to make it much easier to accomplish this, and will help deter people from standing up to the real bastards. To concentrate on Assange’s undeniable achievements, and to then shift the focus back to the crimes exposed and the cult of secrecy that enables them – this is what I’d like to see people do.
        Like I said earlier, I’d rather focus on the organization, but there is no denying Assange has played a pivotal role in all this (if I’m not mistaken, he FOUNDED wikileaks), and I stand by my point that many jaded corporate drones using whatever they can to tear Assange down will look back on what they’ve achieved for human rights and, if they are honest, admit that it was fuck all. If people feel entitled to belittle Assange by focusing on his character, I feel entitled to criticise the character of critics who focus on Assange’s personality. This isn’t a Randian “Great Man” thing – I honestly feel we could all do just as much, if we were all willing to dedicate ourselves.

        But we don’t, do we?

    • Jesse M. says:

      Assange is Gulliver, and most of you are acting like citizens of Lilliput.

      Is this some kind of Ayn Randian thing where the world is divided into “great men” and tiny jealous “second-handers”?

      And what better way to take him down than to ignore the mountain of real news coming out of saga, and define him by his sex life?

      Who here is “defining him” by his sex life? We’re commenting on it cause it’s in the news, and is, y’know, the subject of this blog post. Most mature adults are capable of nuanced evaluations of people, and realize that just because someone is a hero in one area of their life doesn’t exclude the possibility that they’re a jerk in another area, and vice versa.

      But to use this material to characterise him as an “ego-maniac and a shitbag” or a “a drunken frat boy” exposes your own inadequacies more than it exposes his.

      Er, why? If someone acts like an egomaniacal jerk, it’s wrong to characterize them as such? Of course the perception of egomania isn’t just based on his sex life, have a look at what colleagues have said about him in the “internal turmoil” section of this article, or in this one.

      If you have sex lives, I’ll bet anyone could make you a laughingstock if all the details were public knowledge.

      I’m sure someone could embarrass me with details of my weird fetishes, occasional impotence, etc. But they wouldn’t find episodes where I was pushing someone I’d just met into sex when she was totally uncomfortable with the situation and not having fun at all and doing nothing to encourage me to continue while I rip off her clothes and have my way with her. That’s the “drunken frat boy” aspect of the case, if the accusations are true.

      • humanresource says:

        “Is this some kind of Ayn Randian thing where the world is divided into “great men” and tiny jealous “second-handers”?’

        Well, every time someone stands up and fights on our behalf,and has such success that they attract powerful reprisals, there’s always a chorus of people who seize on whatever personal detail they can to bring them down. The sex assault ALLEGATIONS are a lot more serious than Howard Dean’s scream or Clinton’s blowjobs, but I think a similar dynamic is at work.
        It takes a flair for publicity to be any kind of political leader, and so its inevitable some people who are shamed by their inaction and incapacity will focus on what they see as ego.
        Put it this way: could you do even a fraction of what he has done to get important truths out there and on the front pages? And do if you could, do you honestly think you could avoid showing any trace of pride, self-righteousness or – god forbid – ego?
        When people focus on the sex ALLEGATIONS to start calling him a douche or whatever, then yeah, they’re acting pretty small. In the context, the metaphor is appropriate. And Rand, for what its worth, is just Nietzsche for dummies.

        Oh, and Antinous – before I forget:
        http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Can you name, off the top of your head, the head of Amnesty International or the ACLU or Doctors Without Borders or Iraq Veterans Against The War? Being effective and spotlight-chasing are not inevitably linked characteristics.

          Nobody on earth (except presumably Ms. Streep) knows the name of Meryl Streep’s husband, but everybody knows whether or not Lindsay Lohan has a court date today. Yet, they’re both actresses. One of them does her job and stays out of the media and one of them gets herself so far into the media spotlight that she can’t do her job anymore. I’m afraid that Mr. Assange has moved into the latter camp.

          • humanresource says:

            Awesome, I love quizzes. Is it Miss khan still, at Amnesty? I don’t know who took over MSF after Kouchner joined Sarkozy.

            I do think we should point out that wikileak’s work complements theirs, but I take your point. If wikileaks can’t do what it needs to do, because the frontman has too much baggage, then the value of wikileaks work demands a new frontman, irrespective of whatever personal admiration I feel for the man, and irrespective of whether the allegations are groundless or exaggerated. I doubt it has got that way yet – outside America, the man is still extremely popular – but we definitely have to get used to the idea of wikileaks without Assange – if for no other reason then the fact that your government might bury him alive in solitary.

            Structurally, wikileaks may have an extra problem in this sense, because it works best with the rest of the members having as low a profile as possible. But my point about the belittling is sound, I think. If someone wants to criticise Michael Moore, by all means rip into his dishonesty – but many critics lay into him for his obesity, his annoying demeanour and his stunts. The personal is used to discredit people who remind us of what we aren’t achieving.

          • Anonymous says:

            outside America, the man is still extremely popular

            I can’t speak for the world (outside America), but in Sweden, Wikileaks is more popular then ever. Julian Assange still have a few fanatic followers (pretty much the same as before the rape allegations), the same kind of people who would follow for example Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler, if they had been born somewhere else or in another time period. Julian Assange have never been especially popular as a person in Sweden, not even before the rape allegations, he was considered as a great lecturer and strategist, never a great person, we simply didn’t know enough about his personality to make him popular as a person, although many people was interested in getting to know more about his personality.

            Almost everybody in Sweden still display great public support for Wikileaks, including most of our politicians and all(!) journalists (as far as I know). This is not likely to change, at least not among the journalists. Wikileaks is not Julian Assange in the minds of Swedes, the popularity of Wikileaks and Assange depend very little on each other. Swedish people, and I believe most Northern Europeans, is more likely to make a cult out of ideals then out of individuals (as illustrated by that Secular Humanism have a larger and more fanatic cult following then Christianity in Sweden).

          • Anonymous says:

            “And Rand, for what its worth, is just Nietzsche for dummies.”

            Now, now, no need to insult Nietzsche. Philosophically, Rand was a moron, though her novels weren’t half bad, IMHO.

            “…outside America, the man is still extremely popular…”

            Half the comments I’ve read on the internet supporting Assange and/or Wikileaks seem to have been written by self-proclaimed Americans. A person’s sociopoltical outlook is not cookie-cuttered by the country of their birth.

            “If someone wants to criticise Michael Moore, by all means rip into his dishonesty – but many critics lay into him for his obesity, his annoying demeanour and his stunts.”

            Like critics did with his counterpart, Rush Limbaugh before he found a stair-master? Moore is a ideologue who selectively perceives the world the way he wants to perceive it, and fills in the unanswered questions with his own assumptions. Limbaugh, Olbermann and Beck all do the same. They’re only annoying if you let them get to you. Political rhetoric is rife with such drama-queens. That’s what comes from being afraid to question your own beliefs.

            As for those who would demonize the United States or Wikileaks, they’re living in a fantasy world. The fact that power corrupts is not news, but it corrupts everywhere, and not everyone gives into its corrupting influence. The U.S. government does plenty of good and plenty of evil at home and around the world. Wikileaks’ contributors doubtless have a variety of motivations for their participation, but, unlike many countries, America has no official secrets law with which it can legally stop publication of leaked information. The Pentagon Papers tested that decades ago. It is the responsibility of the government to keep its own house in order. If it leaks like a sieve, that’s it’s problem to solve, not anyone else’s burden. The only culpable individual in this little play is the guy that smuggled the cables out of a computer on a disguised CD, thereby betraying his Constitutional oath.

            But I guess most people prefer to hang their existential anger on some simplistic ogre, and a caricature of David and Goliath is a convenient scapegoat for the complexities of the world. If anything can be our specie’s undoing, it will be that vicious cycle of hate otherwise intelligent people stoke like a drug.

        • jere7my says:

          Well, every time someone stands up and fights on our behalf,and has such success that they attract powerful reprisals, there’s always a chorus of people who seize on whatever personal detail they can to bring them down.

          Spoken like a true assangelist.

        • Jesse M. says:

          Well, every time someone stands up and fights on our behalf,and has such success that they attract powerful reprisals, there’s always a chorus of people who seize on whatever personal detail they can to bring them down. The sex assault ALLEGATIONS are a lot more serious than Howard Dean’s scream or Clinton’s blowjobs, but I think a similar dynamic is at work.

          While Ken Starr and Clinton’s Republican persecutors were certainly trying to bring him down for political reasons, lots of people were interested in the Clinton story just because we are all dirty apes who like gossip about the alphas, especially gossip involving sex. I have no doubt that Assange’s case is getting more attention from authorities because of who he is, but it’s not like internet commentators here are somehow making it more likely that Assange will go to jail just by talking about the case, from a utilitarian point of view there’s no harm in it even for those of us with the utmost respect for what Assange has done in creating wikileaks. I guess if you are a non-utilitarian who cares about symbolic bullshit like showing proper “respect” for people you consider to be heroes or Nietzchean ubermensches or whatever, then that might give you reason to complain, but I don’t share this sort of quasi-religious approach to morality. I’m a physics student and Einstein is one of my heroes, but I still enjoy reading accounts of his misadventures in the romantic sphere, and if I were ever to achieve something significant in science or some other area, I wouldn’t be weeping into my cheerios because people were gossiping about my personal life on the internet.

          It takes a flair for publicity to be any kind of political leader, and so its inevitable some people who are shamed by their inaction and incapacity will focus on what they see as ego.

          “Shamed by their inaction and incapacity”, I love it! Anyone who doesn’t fit your narrow model of proper behavior is obviously just a jealous non-achiever…”Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski! Condolences! The bums lost!”

          Put it this way: could you do even a fraction of what he has done to get important truths out there and on the front pages? And do if you could, do you honestly think you could avoid showing any trace of pride, self-righteousness or – god forbid – ego?

          No one is attacking him for merely for showing “pride”, “self-righteousness”, or “ego”. On this thread people are talking about his behavior towards the two women he was involved with, and in a different context people have sometimes criticized him for letting his ego turn him into a bad organizational leader of wikileaks who has no tolerance for others questioning his decisions (and also for making snap decisions without consulting others at wikileaks, like including the names of Afghan informants in the leaked documents). The problem is in specific behaviors that may be influenced by a massive ego, not the ego itself.

  12. technogeek says:

    Querent, the Demon didn’t say clean. The word was “cleaner”. And, frankly, while I still consider Bush Jr.’s attempt to go back and do what his daddy had sense enough not to do one of the most assinine and counterproductive moves our country has ever made, there *has* been an attempt (since some early blatent stupidity) to change the practices. I want us out of Iran a year ago if not sooner. But it could, in fact, be a lot worse, and it has gotten better than it was when the Shrub was pursuing it.

    As I’ve said elsewhere: My problem isn’t with the concept that we should be more aware of what’s being done in our name. My problem is specifically with how Wikileaks is being run. Too much of what it’s so proud of is, frankly, gossip rather than news. And I would hope that most of us grow out of useless gossip not long after high school.

  13. TEKNA2007 says:

    So FTA, it sounds like the two women went to the police because they wanted him to be forced into an STD test, and once the police were aware of what happened they had to pass it to the prosecutor’s office?

    For want of a condom …

    he’s something of an egomaniac who’s totally oblivious to the possibility a woman might be sending him signals that she’s not that into him

    That’s basically accusing him of “being a guy”. :) Although there’s more to it than that here.

  14. Teller says:

    “Breathlessly”?

  15. Anonymous says:

    Strange. I am a rape victim: date rape, violent rape within a relationship, and am a survivor of an attempted violent abduction as a teenager – yet I don’t see a rape case there.

    I would ask those of you who seem to have made up your mind based on hearing only one side of the story to read this timeline of events put together by Guy Rundle http://bit.ly/iik3ZM

    We do have to ask questions like “why was such-and-such scrubbed from the internet”. Some of the scrubbed stuff is definitely relevant to the case.

  16. Anonymous says:

    If not, why not? If information wants to be free, that includes his information…

    Have the charges appeared on Wikileaks?

  17. Bulone says:

    Have I read it somewhere that one of the ladies – can’t remember Miss A or B – tweeted about how great it is to have sex with cool guy, and later she deleted all of those ? or am I just mistaken?

    • Jesse M. says:

      Have I read it somewhere that one of the ladies – can’t remember Miss A or B – tweeted about how great it is to have sex with cool guy, and later she deleted all of those ? or am I just mistaken?

      You’re misremembering. The tweet she posted and later tried to delete was just about a party that included Assange, not about sex or about him specifically…from this article:

      A few hours after that party, Sarah apparently Tweeted: ‘Sitting outside … nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!’ She was later to try to erase this message.

  18. jere7my says:

    Christ, what an asshole.

  19. user23 says:

    the law hinges upon precision & accuracy. the accuracy of testimony, the precision of the recounting of facts, &c, etc.

    in regard to the ‘facts’ of Assange’s purported sexual assault, sex by surprise, surprise by wake up sex, sex without a condom, rape, rape without rape, incest charges…. only the weather (where I live) changes more.

  20. rsk says:

    Perhaps if Assange did not exist, we would have to invent him.

    (Just an idle musing on reading the comments and reflecting a bit.)

    I suppose that the narrative would be much neater if he wasn’t as flawed
    as the rest of us. It would be convenient if the story of Wikileaks
    wasn’t entangled with his persona. But, well, that’s not the reality
    we’ve got. I’m sure that it will provide fertile ground for dissertations
    sometime around 2040. (If you’ve retrieved this comment via a search
    engine while doing your research circa 2040 then I want a footnote, dammit.)

    My armchair psychologist says that only someone equipped with formidable
    intelligence and hubris could pull this off. Other projects will come and they’ll
    be run better and worse, more openly and more secretively. Some of their
    leadership will be eloquent, some will be arrogant, others will be
    inscrutable. But they ARE coming. And governments, corporations,
    religions, sports, all organizations need to adjust their philosophy
    and their methods: the more secrets they have, the less effective
    they’ll be. (Let me pause to predict that almost all of them will
    dig their heels in and fight the inexorable in a way that makes
    what the RIAA/MPAA/etc. are doing look insignificant by comparison.)
    And all of this will happen, in part, because of what Wikileaks
    has done. (Nods to Cryptome and 2600 and others.)

    As to Assange himself — and to his accusers — I hope that something
    resembling “justice” is done, although I can’t for the life of me
    see how that’s possible in such a circus. The Swedes have botched
    this badly, which is tragic for him if innocent and tragic for the
    victims if guilty.

  21. Antinous / Moderator says:

    A detailed description of the sexual encounter should put the Gulliver vs. Lilliputian question to rest, eh?

  22. Anonymous says:

    That article seems to be at odds with one of the first interviews with one of the women in the Swedish paper Aftonbladet. In the Guardian article a friend called ‘Monica’ apparently testifies
    that Ms A wasn’t feeling safe. And another friend testifies that the sex had been bad an violent.
    In the interview in Aftonbladet the woman who almost certainly is Ms A
    emphasizes that she is _not_ feeling threatened (translated, see below for original text)

    — Excerpt from: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
    “I don’t feel threathened”
    - It’s entirely/completely wrong that we would be scared of Assange and refrained to press charges because of that, the woman said. He isn’t violent – and I don’t feel threatened by him.
    In both cases it is about consensual sex from the beginning which later has turned
    into molestation.
    - The other woman wanted to press charges for rape. I gave my story as a witness statement,
    and to support her. We stand by our stories, says the woman to Aftonbladet.

    I don’t know, but the Interview and the papers Guardian has access hardly even seem to be
    about the same incidents. Are the guardian papers authentic ?
    Strangely also it appears that only her friends know the sex has been violent, and
    that Ms A is afraid ?

    On of the reason the woman agreed to the Aftonbladet interview appears to be (according
    to the article) that she wanted to give a correct statement since another newspaper (Expressen) had gotten some facts wrong. And as far as I understand this – one of those issues was clarifying
    that she/they were not afraid, and that Assange was not violent.

    — In Swedish
    ”Känner mig inte hotad”
    – Det är helt fel att vi skulle vara rädda för Assange och därför inte velat anmäla, säger kvinnan, han är inte våldsam och jag känner mig inte hotad av honom.
    I båda fallen har det handlar om frivillig sex till en början som i ett senare skede övergått i övergrepp.
    – Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne. Vi står fullt ut för uppgifterna, säger kvinnan till Aftonbladet.

  23. Anonymous says:

    If anyone should be charged with a sex crime, its his parents. Ba da boom.

  24. Jesse M. says:

    I don’t memorize jokes, it’s not really my schtick. But here’s some comics for you to enjoy:

    Archie
    Spiderman
    Garfield

  25. Antinous / Moderator says:

    What’s his real hair color? That looks fake, but it doesn’t really seem like a color that anyone would choose on purpose.

    • TenInchesTaller says:

      I actually do bleach my hair all the way to white rather intentionally. To me this looks more like a bleach job than white-hair roots growing out, actually; hair closer to your scalp fixes to a lighter color because of the heat from your head if you apply all the bleach at once instead of giving your tips more time before you do the roots. I imagine from the time before this media firestorm Julian has just gotten used to changing up his hair to make it harder for various police agencies to circulate recent pictures of him. Kinda doesn’t help now.
      (TIT’s upcoming guide to more effective counterespionage bleaching will soon be at salons near you)

  26. Rob Beschizza says:

    The lack of roots on his way out of prison suggests he did indeed go white young a la Anderson Cooper.

  27. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Maybe Roux will start making an Audacious Assange rinse.

  28. Ned613 says:

    Does anyone know where I can find a Taiwanese Animated News Video of Assange’s alleged rapes?

  29. sdmikev says:

    “CIA woman in a short skirt”
    That would make a great song title.

  30. BB says:

    mathdemon.

    I will admit that I am somewhat confused as to what are your quotes, or others, but I have responded individually:

    “Didn’t 9/11 teach you guys anything?”

    Yes, that fear will be used to promote financial agendas of the insiders, destroy freedom, and also be justification to start an unnecessary war in Iraq, aided by the MS media.

    “We said that we would NOT travel during Thanksgiving, and we said that IF we did, we would ALL refuse the scanners and have the TSA grope us “IF THEY DARED!!1, AND IF THEY DID, WE’D SHOW THEM!!11!”. We saw how that turned out. As you can see, I’m not overly optimistic about the reactions of my people.”

    Actually, the MS media reported ‘no problems‘ or ‘no protests’ at the airports. What VERY FEW reported was that the airports themselves blinked, and over Thanksgiving, TSA shut down many of the strip search scanners and went back to metal detectors; thus no reason for protest. Yes, this was reported by some, but largely, the rest of the media went with ‘no protests’, highlighting compliance and acceptance of the new rules, versus the TSA at airports abandoning them so that no protests would occur.

    “Then WikiLeaks doesn’t need to publish anything at all, because most of the “leaked” cables are old news.”

    You do know that there were little voices arguing against the general consensus, early on, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, right? Unless there is major play in MSM, people do not pay attention. That’s were Wikileaks has helped, getting major coverage of events already reported on. Otherwise, everyone swallowed Judith Miller’s horrible PR pieces, written by the Bush administration, and they will do it again.

    “Most of them are (unnecessarily) classified as “SECRET””

    I couldn’t agree more, so why all the drum-beating about charging or killing Assange now?

    “So the question is not “US govt. lied to us”, but why didn’t Reuters, after having seen the footage, not shout “atrocity” afterwards? Well, they, as every other news organization, know the conditions on the ground in a war zone. That is, you have very little security, and whatever security you had, you lose it when you decide to grab sensational footage by hanging around insurgents.”

    Because if Wikileaks does nothing else, it demonstrates that the media no longer has the balls to carry a negative story and give it legs, if that will upset the oil cart (pun intended). Take that a step further, and you have a literal propaganda machine for the right in Fox News, and for the left, you have MSNBC. In between, you have mediocrity, and toeing the line of the moment, as dictated by the corporations that own them.

  31. Anonymous says:

    His mum Christine says his hair was naturally brown, but went white during the custody battle for his son Daniel. Google the citation for yourselves.

  32. BB says:

    After reading the article, it would appear that the women were not necessarily looking to have Assange charged, but were concerned about their physical health and potential illnesses, (regardless if they were raped, or not). It still isn’t clear if Sweden made the decision to move it all forward with another agenda in mind. And even if Assange himself is an asshole and/or a rapist, it doesn’t diminish the impact of Wikileaks taking everyone out of a general stupor to see what has been going on internationally.

    There have been other assholes in history who may have been of great thought, or principled in many (or some) areas, while in conflict with ethics and their very own ideals. One strong example is Thomas Jefferson, who wrote many of the freedoms into the US constitution, while being an open racist, slave owner, and who, by virtue of his position as such, likely used a slave girl as a sort of concubine or love slave. One could argue her ability to truly consent, since she was already ‘owned’ as property.

    I can appreciate some of the words and thought of Jefferson and yet can still see that he, personally, was an asshole and hypocrite. I am not equating Assange to the level of Jefferson. I simply believe that some of the Wikileaks releases have merit, aside and distinct from Assange’s character.

  33. Jesse M. says:

    page 7 of this New Yorker profile on Assange suggests that his hair turned white after the stress of a long custody battle with his ex-wife:

    In 1999, after nearly three dozen legal hearings and appeals, Assange worked out a custody agreement with his wife. Claire told me, “We had experienced very high levels of adrenaline, and I think that after it all finished I ended up with P.T.S.D. It was like coming back from a war. You just can’t interact with normal people to the same degree, and I am sure that Jules has some P.T.S.D. that is untreated.” Not long after the court cases, she said, Assange’s hair, which had been dark brown, became drained of all color.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Seems like a pretty straight forward issue to me. Assange behaved like an ass, the two women who slept with him wanted him to get an STD test. He refused. They went to see if the Stockholm police could compel him to get tested. The police questioned him about his conduct. He agreed to return for further questioning at on scheduled date. He decided not to show up. They’re trying to extradite him to finish their investigation. Sounds like H. saps getting along about as well as they usually do. What any of this little soap opera has to do with Wikileaks or the U.S. government is beyond me, but it sounds like Assange is trying to play the conspiracy card to avoid answering the Swede’s questions. What I don’t get is why the news and blogosphere think this effects whistle-blowing. Wikileaks and its clones, imitators and antecedents aren’t going anywhere. The genie isn’t going back in the bottle no matter how bad a lover or how big a jerk this guy is. And like the American DefSec Robert Gates said, countries don’t deal with each other because they like each other, they deal with each other because it’s mutually beneficial, or they don’t when it isn’t.

    • Cowicide says:

      Seems like a pretty straight forward issue to me. Assange behaved like an ass, the two women who slept with him wanted him to get an STD test. He refused.

      How is it “straight forward” only take one side on this? Did you only read the beginning and/or what you wanted to hear?

      Did you (and many udders here in this thread) somehow miss these parts?

      via the article:

      The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

      “The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

      “Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge.”

      Interesting how many of you folks in this thread seemed to have “missed” and/or dismissed that part I just quoted above, but cling onto other parts that disparage Assange and take those sections as gospel. (In before some idiot says I take those quotes above as gospel, because I don’t)

      As much as you people in this thread like to call Assange things like “a douchebag, who sucks, deserves public humiliation, an asshole, drunken frat boy, kinda a rapist, egomaniac, dick, etc…..” …

      None of the allegations against Assange have been proven and it’s actually you folks that are most certainty guilty of making unproven charges against a man’s character. While assange may be worthy of some the nasty names you call him in the future… you folks have already proven yourselves to be worthy of many of those same disparaging names right now by assuming this man is guilty until proven innocent.

      Go look in a mirror if you folks want to look at a proven, certifiable asshole at this point.

      • Jesse M. says:

        Interesting how many of you folks in this thread seemed to have “missed” and/or dismissed that part I just quoted above

        And you are likewise leaving out the part which says:

        Assange’s Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W’s text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

        The article also suggests that they didn’t go to the police because they wanted to accuse him of rape, but mainly just because they wanted to force him to take an STD test after he refused the request. The relatively small-bore nature of the accusations lends them some credibility I think–if they wanted to frame him with false accusations, I’d think they’d have made up something a little more scandalous!

        As much as you people in this thread like to call Assange things like “a douchebag, who sucks, deserves public humiliation, an asshole, drunken frat boy, kinda a rapist, egomaniac, dick, etc…..”

        I think most of the people who have said stuff like this have qualified it with statements like “if the story is true…” (I have anyway). But even if the story is false, I’d still consider him a bit of a douchey/egomaniacal individual (though less so than if it’s true) based on stuff like his conduct towards fellow wikileaks employees (see the ‘internal turmoil’ section of this article along with this one) and other evidence of his approach towards women here and here. Of course lots of people who have done amazing things are kind of douchey in their personal life (take Isaac Newton for example), it doesn’t make me respect their achievements any less.

        None of the allegations against Assange have been proven and it’s actually you folks that are most certainty guilty of making unproven charges against a man’s character. While assange may be worthy of some the nasty names you call him in the future… you folks have already proven yourselves to be worthy of many of those same disparaging names right now by assuming this man is guilty until proven innocent.

        This is a rather silly canard that gets trotted out whenever there’s an internet discussion of a public trial. “Innocent until proven guilty” applies to court cases and the judgment of juries, it doesn’t mean that there is some moral stricture against forming your own personal judgments based on the evidence presented. For example, did you withhold all judgement about O.J. Simpson’s guilt or innocence until the jury returned a verdict, and accept the jury’s “not guilty” verdict as truth?

        • Cowicide says:

          And you are likewise leaving out the part which says:

          You missed my point. The point is many people in this thread are focusing on all the unproven negatives and practicing character assassination. I don’t need to defend myself because I have NOT stated that Assange is guilty or non-guilty based on hearsay or otherwise… so accusing me of “leaving out parts” that have already been well worked-over in this thread is a red herring.

          On the other hand, the part I mentioned received no attention at all in this thread. I guess because it simply doesn’t fit some of the predetermined narratives that some of you would prefer.

          I think–if they wanted to frame him with false accusations, I’d think they’d have made up something a little more scandalous!

          Once again, you’re basing yourself upon unproven hearsay and therefore it’s not worthy of debate with me. Also, you may have noted there is a FACT. The charges have been clearly successful in detaining Assange (even after making bail) whether they meet your degree of scandalousness or not.

          Sorry if the facts don’t fit the narrative. You’ll have to take that up with Gawd.

          I think most of the people who have said stuff like this have qualified it with statements like “if the story is true…” (I have anyway).

          You may want to consider less talking and practice more reading. I was careful in not referring to the people who made those qualified statements and if you actually read the thread, you’d see your statement that most people have made those qualifying statements is clearly false.

          This part of the debate is yet another red herring and a waste of time. Read through the thread more throughly as I have if you’d like to venture towards a fact-based opinion here.

          ”Innocent until proven guilty” applies to court cases and the judgment of juries, it doesn’t mean that there is some moral stricture against forming your own personal judgments based on the evidence presented.

          I guess one person’s hearsay is another person’s “evidence”. But, where I come from basing opinions and jumping the gun with name calling off of unclear circumstances makes you quite the dchbg sshl. At least, here in the real world where I live where real people interact with each other and everything.

          • Jesse M. says:

            I wrote:

            I think most of the people who have said stuff like this have qualified it with statements like “if the story is true…” (I have anyway).

            You responded:

            You may want to consider less talking and practice more reading.

            Ouch! But, uh, you might want to consider taking your own advice. Just went back through the thread, looking only for comments that had negative things to say about Assange based on the allegations (as opposed to broader discussions of wikileaks, comments dismissive of the allegations, etc.). Here were the ones that qualified the negative comments with statements along the lines of “if the allegations are true”:

            5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 31, 45, 52, 61, 65, 74, 85, 100

            And here were the ones with negative comments about Assange without such qualification:

            12, 13, 47

            So, like I said, “most of the people who have said stuff like this have qualified it”.

            I guess one person’s hearsay is another person’s “evidence”.

            Again you seem to be making the bizarre assumption that a person’s individual judgments should be guided by exactly the same principles as legal cases (I note that you avoided my question about whether you suspended all judgment about OJ Simpson’s guilt or innocence until the jury’s verdict came in). In court cases it’s true that all testimony about what someone other than the person testifying said is dismissed as “hearsay”, but in this example we’re talking about a Guardian article where the reporter actually got to look at the documents where the women’s allegations were written down, it’s very unlikely that the article is significantly misrepresenting what the women themselves actually told the police. So a person (like me) who is trying to form provisional judgments about the likely truth in this case can reasonably form the same sort of judgments based on the article that they would if we had a direct transcript of what the women actually said (of course even such direct testimony would still be he-said vs. she-said, but as I said the idea is just to form personal judgments about what we think is the likely truth, not to claim certainty that his guilt has been ‘proved’).

            But, where I come from basing opinions and jumping the gun with name calling off of unclear circumstances makes you quite the dchbg sshl. At least, here in the real world where I live where real people interact with each other and everything.

            In your world, do most people give exactly the same degree of benefit of the doubt and suspending judgment to a friend (or someone else you ‘interact with’ personally) as you do to a public figure you have no personal connection to? If a friend was busted for having some cocaine on them and protested that someone else had left it in her purse, it would be kind of douchey of me to say “well, I think you’re probably lying”, especially since that might be seen as a betrayal by the friend, or would at least hurt her feelings. On the other hand, if the same thing happens to Lindsay Lohan, she has no reason to care what I think of her and will never find out anyway, so I’m harming no one by forming a provisional judgment about the likelihood she’s lying based on common sense and what evidence is available to me from the media. If your social circle is one where it would be considered horribly douchey to form such provisional judgments about celebrities like Lindsay Lohan, well, you must live with a bunch of monks or something, because such judgments about celebrities and figures in the news are common in the “real world” that I live in.

          • Cowicide says:

            Ouch! But, uh, you might want to consider taking your own advice. Just went back through the thread, looking only for comments that had negative things to say about Assange based on the allegations (as opposed to broader discussions of wikileaks, comments dismissive of the allegations, etc.). Here were the ones that qualified the negative comments with statements along the lines of “if the allegations are true”: 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 31, 45, 52, 61, 65, 74, 85, 100 – And here were the ones with negative comments about Assange without such qualification: 12, 13, 47

            Unfortunately, you’re up against a speed-reader and first of all my post in question was at number 83, so your hasty 85 and 100 don’t count. So what does qualify in your list?
            5, ok. 6 absolutely does not. 8, ok. 11 (barely) ok, but still manages to call him a shitbag. 14 absolutely does not. 31, he doesn’t insult Assange so why are you including it (padding your numbers)? 45, the first part does not, but I’ll give it to you. 52, ok. 61, doesn’t insult Assange (more padding from you). 65 judged him a douchebag, sorry. 74, barely, heavily leans on Assange’s guilt, but I’ll give it to you.
            So what we have left with in your list is 5,8,11,45,74 — Not quite the huge list you had there. Meanwhile I’ve found at least 8 clear occurrences throughout posts where I’ve been correct if not even more now that I’ve looked at your nefarious list. Stretch the truth all you want, but it probably won’t work on me.

            Again you seem to be making the bizarre assumption that a person’s individual judgments should be guided by exactly the same principles as legal cases (I note that you avoided my question about whether you suspended all judgment about OJ Simpson’s guilt or innocence until the jury’s verdict came in).

            Comparing the OJ Simpson case to these circumstances is ludicrous and clearly a red herring. Seriously? You want to devolve this into a runaround with the OJ Simpson case? I typically avoid red herrings, they bore me to death and are pointless… that’s why I ignored you there. And, again, you seem to live in a bizarre world where basing opinions and jumping the gun with name calling off of unclear circumstances doesn’t make one an asshole. That’s not the reality for most everyone else, sorry. You can further digress into trite semantics and red herrings, but I’ll stick with reality and ignore it.

          • Jesse M. says:

            Unfortunately, you’re up against a speed-reader and first of all my post in question was at number 83, so your hasty 85 and 100 don’t count.

            My post saying “I think most of the people who have said stuff like this have qualified it with statements like “if the story is true…” (I have anyway)” was post #89, and your snide reply “You may want to consider less talking and practice more reading” was #99. It was that reply that led me to try to back up my claim (and show you should ‘practice more reading’ yourself) by going through past comments, so #85 was fine to include as a rebuttal…I’ll grant you that I shouldn’t have included #100 though!

            5, ok. 6 absolutely does not.

            From 6: “It actually seems to be incredibly clear (if this article is accurate).” So, this is certainly a qualification along the same lines as “if the allegations are true”.

            8, ok. 11 (barely) ok, but still manages to call him a shitbag.

            But the “shitbag” presumably wasn’t based on the assumption that the sexual assault charges were true, since after calling him an ego-maniac and shitbag, the comment adds “And if he is a dirty rapist, he needs to go to jail.” The commenter doesn’t specify what other actions have led to the egomaniac/shitbag judgments, but they may be actions of Assange’s that there is no doubt about (like published statements of his in the media), and in any case we were only discussing whether people are unfairly jumping to conclusions about Assange based on the sexual assault charges specifically.

            14 absolutely does not.

            14 (my post) just said the accusations sounded “pretty plausible” to me, which is obviously a qualified statement that anyone with basic reading comprehension will understand to mean something different from “definitely true”. I also said that most of the charges didn’t qualify as rape in my view, and of the one that might, there was some conflicting information about what the woman had actually reported and that “we’ll have to wait for the trial to find out more details about what she’s claiming actually happened that morning”. Finally, aside from the issue of whether he’s a rapist, the only negative comments about Assange himself were either based on his own published statements in situations unrelated to the current charges (the stalkerish emails, the okcupid profile), or were qualified (‘a jerky move if he knew she was going for a condom’).

            31, he doesn’t insult Assange so why are you including it (padding your numbers)?

            rsk says “I suppose that the narrative would be much neater if he wasn’t as flawed
            as the rest of us”, indicating some belief that there is evidence Assange is “flawed”. Later rsk suggests that Assange probably has formidable “hubris” (along with formidable intelligence). Of course these perceptions might be based on things other than the assault charges so perhaps you’re right I shouldn’t have included this.

            45, the first part does not, but I’ll give it to you. 52, ok. 61, doesn’t insult Assange (more padding from you).

            61 suggests there is something suspicious about Assange’s reported actions: “From his side, it seems really weird that he wouldn’t have noticed it being torn if he was using it at all properly. Is he claiming he just left it in her or something?” So I’d say it does include some qualified negative comments about Assange, although it isn’t a broad comment about his character so perhaps we can leave it out.

            65 judged him a douchebag, sorry.

            But this comment repeatedly qualifies its statements with comments along the lines of “if the report is accurate”: “judging from the Guardian’s account of the events”, “Assange’s allged behaviour”, and finally “Judging from the Guardian account of Mr. Assange I would say that he deserves to be labelled a complete douchebag”. That last bit is qualified and indicates the author is leaving open the possibility that “the Guardian account” might be flawed, it’s not the same as just saying “He deserves to be labelled a complete douchebag” outright. As with my comment 14, you seem to want to ignore the qualifications so you can fit everything into your little narrative of people taking the accusations at face value and assuming Assange is definitely guilty, when the text is saying something different.

            So what we have left with in your list is 5,8,11,45,74

            Even with this unreasonably restricted list, it’s still more than the number of comments that seemed to just say he was guilty with no qualifications or reservations. So, again, “most of the people who have said stuff like this have qualified it”.

            Meanwhile I’ve found at least 8 clear occurrences throughout posts where I’ve been correct

            Really, you have? Maybe you could, like, mention where those 8 occurrences actually happened, because like I said I only found 3. I suspect that these 8 are just based on your own poor reading comprehension, as with 14 and 65 where you missed the obvious qualifications.

            Comparing the OJ Simpson case to these circumstances is ludicrous and clearly a red herring. Seriously? You want to devolve this into a runaround with the OJ Simpson case?

            No, I was just using the Simpson case (in comment #89) as an example to get at the question of whether you really believe it’s generally wrong to make personal judgments about someone’s likely guilt or innocence before a court case is finished, as suggested by your comment #83 “you folks have already proven yourselves to be worthy of many of those same disparaging names right now by assuming this man is guilty until proven innocent.” Likewise, in comment #102 I used the example of Lindsay Lohan’s cocaine charges to ask whether you really have a general belief that we should give exactly the same benefit of the doubt to strangers in the news that we would to personal friends, and whether it is equally “douchey” to make tentative judgments of guilt in either case. If you don’t want to address these specific examples it’s OK, but it seems to me you are being a bit evasive about answering the more general questions about your attitude towards judging people in the news, questions that the examples are meant to illuminate (or perhaps you just didn’t understand the fact that each specific example was supposed to get at a more general question, though I think I made the connection fairly clear in my original posts about OJ and Lindsay).

            And, again, you seem to live in a bizarre world where basing opinions and jumping the gun with name calling off of unclear circumstances doesn’t make one an asshole.

            It doesn’t, again not if you are talking about people who aren’t part of your social circle who won’t be affected or hurt by your judgments, and in the “real world” most people are in fact a lot quicker to make judgments about celebrities, politicians, etc. than they would about people they know–do you deny that this is a “real” fact about human behavior? Personally I see this as perfectly reasonable and not evidence that people are quick to be “douchey” towards anyone they don’t know personally, it makes sense from a utilitarian perspective which sees the wrongness of hasty judgments as lying in the fact that such judgments can be hurtful to the person being judged. Assange won’t be hurt by my judgments, so my making judgments about what I think of his likely guilt or innocence is no more harmful than making judgments about the psychology of some long-dead historical figure (Henry VIII or Marie Antoinette, say) based on what evidence is around today. But I don’t really expect you’ll be willing to engage in thoughtful discussion about this, I predict you will just continue to just ignore the whole issue of the difference between judgments about friends and judgments about well-known strangers, and just continue to carelessly equate the two as equivalent evidence of “douchiness”, since it’s simple and allows you to feel self-righteous and superior.

          • Cowicide says:

            You obviously have way too much time on your hands and are more desperate to “win” than actually have a sane conversation. I don’t operate in this manner, so I’ll just concede that you’re right about 6 and let you know that I still think you’re tilting the lilly on the others. We’ll just have to agree to disagree unless you’d like even more inane (or is it insane?) nit-picking?

            The end? Unless you really want to prove this.

            Please, now go put the lotion on its skin and drop it.

            No, I was just using the Simpson case (in comment #89) as an example to get at the question of whether you really believe it’s generally wrong to make personal judgments about someone’s likely guilt [you then go on and on and on]

            And, once again. You are avoiding the elephant in the room. Which is, once again, that jumping the gun with name calling off of unclear circumstances makes one an asshole. Don’t take it up with me anymore, take it up with most of humanity that lives by this wisdom.

            It doesn’t, again not if you are talking about people who aren’t part of your social circle [you then go on and on and on]

            You really like hearing yourself talk, don’t you? Sorry, none of your trite semantic red herring squawking will ever interest me… As I’ve already told you, it bores me to death.

            Here, you like hearing yourself talk and love to fart trite semantics over and over again… so read this to yourself alone in the bathroom over and over again until you climax:

            What about OJ Simpson? What about Henry VIII or Marie Antoinette? What about the difference between judgments about friends and judgments about well-known strangers? What about Poland?

            ^^^^ Repeat ^^^^

          • Jesse M. says:

            You obviously have way too much time on your hands and are more desperate to “win” than actually have a sane conversation.

            No, I just favor precision and nuance over broad baseless claims and knee-jerk dismissive remarks. Obviously I wouldn’t have gone into detail about what was said in those past comments if you hadn’t made a big show of disputing my simple statement that most people on this thread qualified their negative comments about Assange.

            And, once again. You are avoiding the elephant in the room. Which is, once again, that jumping the gun with name calling off of unclear circumstances makes one an asshole.

            You are ignoring the fact that I was addressing precisely this claim by pointing out that no, most normal people don’t consider it asshole-ish to make judgments about the likely character of celebrities and other well-known people based on limited evidence. People find it perfectly acceptable to have a different standard for judging friends vs. total strangers in the “real world”, however much you want to deny it (or just ignore the argument altogether).

            Complain all you want about the various examples I gave (Lindsay Lohan, Henry VIII etc.) but they were all just meant as illustrations of the general point above, I never asked you to address all these illustrations individually, I just wanted to highlight the basic principle in hopes that you would actually think about it and give a substantive response.

            You really like hearing yourself talk, don’t you?

            No, like I said I just prefer detailed analysis of the issues being disputed to George W. Bush style oversimplifications and sneering belittling remarks towards anyone who tries to bring a little nuance into the discussion. I would like to hear your own in-depth analysis/rebuttal of my points if you felt like giving one, but you obviously prefer to just toss off cheap insults and masturbation jokes, so I’ll leave you to it.

          • Cowicide says:

            I’ll make a deal with you. You tell me a good masturbation joke and I’ll give you an in-depth analysis.

      • Anonymous says:

        @Cowicide

        “How is it “straight forward” only take one side on this? Did you only read the beginning and/or what you wanted to hear?”

        You’re kind of a jerk, aren’t you?

        “Did you (and many udders here in this thread) somehow miss these parts?”

        I read the Guardian article beginning to end. Then I debated whether I wanted to wade into a lengthy and heated discussion. But I figured, this being BoingBoing, it wouldn’t just be the usual flame-wars that seem to populate the comments of most politically charged articles on the internet. Evidently, I was overly optimistic.

        “Interesting how many of you folks in this thread seemed to have “missed” and/or dismissed that part I just quoted above, but cling onto other parts that disparage Assange and take those sections as gospel. (In before some idiot says I take those quotes above as gospel, because I don’t)”

        Lawyers, for either side, are not objective sources of information. When there is some verification of those text messages, then that will be interesting. For now, it is merely a possibility. Like I said, they wanted him to get tested. Maybe they wanted it when they first started sleeping with him, or maybe it was after they discovered he was sleeping around.

        “As much as you people in this thread like to call Assange things like “a douchebag, who sucks, deserves public humiliation, an asshole, drunken frat boy, kinda a rapist, egomaniac, dick, etc…..” …”

        I never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth. It’s rude. I said that however much of a jerk he is was not relevant to the operation of Wikileaks and the larger phenomena of the dissemination of confidential information via the internet, whether or not you support that dissemination. Assange could be a swell guy for all I know. I’ve never met him. Have you?

        “None of the allegations against Assange have been proven and it’s actually you folks that are most certainty guilty of making unproven charges against a man’s character. While assange may be worthy of some the nasty names you call him in the future… you folks have already proven yourselves to be worthy of many of those same disparaging names right now by assuming this man is guilty until proven innocent.”

        I don’t know how you contrived that interpretation from what I wrote, but it is 180 degrees from what I said. For a bit of perspective, here is what I wrote in a comment on this topic in another blog:

        Excellent article. It’s good to see someone standing up for what they believe in a world dominated by the cacophony of the holier-than-thou Bob Ewell’s of society. I would like to add something. People who cry wolf when there is no wolf do much more than merely insult actual victims of this crime; they throw up chaff that makes it all the more difficult to find the real predators and punish or remove them from society, and in so doing they are aiding wolf attacks. Not that anyone sociopathic enough that they would unflinchingly exploit the horrendous crime of rape – how many transgressions can sicken good-hearted folks across all spectrums more than murder itself? – would bat an eye at abetting the actions they claim to despise. But we should remember that the consequences go beyond the public perception of the crime.

        All that said, the only rational and decent thing to do in this case is to let the facts come out as events proceed. There are exactly three people who know what actually happened, and rushing to judgment either way only reflects on those that pre-judge. I’d like to say that until the facts do emerge, most interested parties will relegate their adoration or loathing of Assange to his work and their opinion of his efforts, for better worse, to spill the beans on international diplomacy. The bell curve, however, has taught me otherwise :-/

        “Go look in a mirror if you folks want to look at a proven, certifiable asshole at this point.”

        Dude, lighten up.

        • Cowicide says:

          You’re kind of a jerk, aren’t you?

          Ah, yes… insults coming from a person who lacks character and therefore feels justified in disparaging people based upon nothing more than hearsay Insults from people like you feel like compliments! Thanks!

          I read the Guardian article beginning to end. Then I debated whether I wanted to wade into a lengthy and heated discussion. But I figured, this being BoingBoing, it wouldn’t just be the usual flame-wars that seem to populate the comments of most politically charged articles on the internet. Evidently, I was overly optimistic.

          Yes, you so innocently wafted into here, launched insults against Assange based upon on hearsay and then proceeded to take a one-sided approach. What could possibly go wrong?

          Lawyers, for either side, are not objective sources of information.

          Captain Obvious to the rescue.
          “As much as you people in this thread like to call Assange things like “a douchebag, who sucks, deserves public humiliation, an asshole, drunken frat boy, kinda a rapist, egomaniac, dick, etc…..” …”

          Assange could be a swell guy for all I know. I’ve never met him. Have you?

          Nope. But I haven’t called him an “ass” or otherwise like you did.
          Project much?

          All that said, the only rational and decent thing to do in this case is to let the facts come out as events proceed.

          Right… exactly what I’ve been saying, dude. Your very round about and unintentional apology accepted. Hahaha….

  35. BB says:

    As an aside, and hopefully not taken as a moral judgment (but rather a rational assessment instead), I believe that there is a cautionary tale in here for both men and women alike. It can be a precarious endeavor to invite a veritable stranger to stay in your home, alone with you, and engage in sexual relations, based on what you think you know, or like about them, from a public persona, professional ideals or just plain chemistry. The same could be said for anyone accepting such an offer from a stranger, based on an appreciation of like-minded ideas or mere attraction, (same as above), etc. The point is that you do not know the person, nor the potential for violence, diseases, craziness, vengefulness or any number of dangerous or negative consequences. This is not to say that you deserve the fall-out or repercussions of the decision, but common sense should, at the least, dictate that you are cognizant of the increased jeopardy of unknown perils that you may be placing yourself in, beforehand. The better you are acquainted with someone, the more knowledge you will have of them, then, perhaps, you can make an educated decision about entering into a situation or relationship with them (and yes, I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule, but I think the risk/reward ratio should be considered upfront).

  36. Anonymous says:

    Anon: “The police questioned him about his conduct. He agreed to return for further questioning at on scheduled date. He decided not to show up.”

    by all accounts he stayed in Sweden for a month, then ask swedish authorities if he could leave the country, and was advised he could. Then there were contacts between his team and swedish legal system. So Sweden playing the interpol card is just more than dubious.

  37. Anonymous says:

    wikileaks’ leaker’s leaks leaked to guardian**

    title improvement

  38. Anonymous says:

    Lets let all the parties involved have their day in court before start judging them, OK? That goes for Assange and the women involved.

    Assange has been somewhat self-aggrandising lately, but while this is not admirable, I do understand why; he’s gotten the rough end of the stick here. In his situation I would be very angry about how the whole thing had been handled by both the Swedish prosecution and the CPS.

    Yes, he may have — allegedly — been a jerk, but if there is no crime, I don’t care. My interest in him is not personal, I don’t consider him infallible and admirable without question; he’s a man with the same foibles we all have.

    Rather than running at the mouth, I would counsel people to just shut up and wait. If you jump to conclusions based on limited information you’re going to get it wrong — remember, none of what you have read courtesy of the Swedish prosecution has been stated and argued in court.

  39. gipszjakab says:

    How this can be settled in court? I mean how can allegations of rape similar to this, where there is no material evidence, nor direct witnesses can be verified? How can you prove rape beyond reasonable doubt (which probably applies in Sweden too) when it is just he-said she-said? How this might be affected by the high-profile of Assange?

    I am not trying to troll, I am genuinely curious.

  40. Birdseed says:

    Whatever you think of the allegations, I think we can all agree that the Lawyers’ responses are some of the most vile things ever uttered by that horrendous profession.

  41. Kieran O'Neill says:

    Neither story fully adds up – from “Miss A”‘s side, it seems unlikely that he would have deliberately torn the condom. From his side, it seems really weird that he wouldn’t have noticed it being torn if he was using it at all properly. Is he claiming he just left it in her or something?

    But all this really says is that it needs to be settled through a legal process, which it is.

  42. humanresource says:

    “Assangelist” is cute, thank you, I might use it. I prefer to focus on wikileaks, because Assange might go down soon one way or another, and because left-wing persnality cults are as ugly as those of the right, but he deserves to be known for more than hacking and sexual bastardry.
    Mathdemon, I said “Its your own goddamned government that invades your personal life” – I never got stuck into ordinary Americans, and I never will. Their generally far too nice, from my experience, although Canadians are nicer :D
    Voting for Obama suggests that a lot of people had their hearts in the right place, as far as I’m concerned, although now that he’s prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other US presidents put together, it clearly takes more than voting for the sunshine and puppies candidate to stop the rapid slide towards full-blown authoritarianism. And given that we’ve fucked up your media with one Aussie expat, it only seems right to try and unfuck it with another. Hence, even the outlets that openly despise Assange can’t help running stories based on the cables.
    And yes, I’d miss all sorts of cool stuff that America does, if America went into a sulk after this and became a shut-in. But it won’t happen. America needs the world too, and has stuff it wants to sell, and must sell, so the interaction will go on. Diplomacy won’t end, as a result, but America and the world will have better informed publics, which to me is a great payoff for the embarassment and awkwardness the State department is experiencing right now.

    As long as the national interest can be advanced by interactions with other countries, diplomacy will continue. Diplomats are flexible people – possibly the most flexible.

    “I also think that media has done a good job on at least reporting most of the important events in the world.” Sheesh, I just can’t agree with that. Not when so many Americans bought the idea that Saddam and Osama were BFFs.

    “I bet YOU GUYS (now that we’re pointing fingers) didn’t know about East Timor until they got their independence, although your government was in constant diplomatic traffic with Indonesia on that matter. But I also bet that it was mentioned in the news, but you didn’t give a damn.”
    I followed it fairly closely, despite being a teenager – after the filmed massacre at the cemetery in the early 90′s it was very widely known. It cost our centre-left PM enormous support from the left, forcing him to angrily fire back “we’re not going to hock the whole Indonesia relationship on East Timor”. Wasn’t sure what I could do, but for what its worth, I did give a damn. I agree our government’s record there has long been shitty. Partly, of course, it stayed this way for so long because it was able to control the flow of information and frame the stories.

    “In the current batch of the released cables any suspicion of criminal activities can’t be pinned on the government, but on contractors or foreign governments.” The US State Department has oversight of contractors. Including the child-enslaving contractors. Criminal enough for ya? Worth leaking, perhaps?

  43. technogeek says:

    Have the charges appeared on Wikileaks?

    If not, why not? If information wants to be free, that includes his information…

    • Anonymous says:

      I think this is because the police document released today had not been already leaked to wikilinks. And as the information (in full) shows, not even the uk police are 100% sure of what the exact charge/reason for legitimately holding him is or even whether it was them or the Swedish prosecutors who appealed against Assanges bail. It should be remembered that wikileaks only know what they themselves are told.

    • bersl2 says:

      Because nobody submitted it to Wikileaks? That’s the whole point they’re trying to make: they don’t get info unless someone submits it to them.

    • humanresource says:

      There is a gulf of difference between the private life other people and the behaviour of public officials. For starters, the latter are your employees – you pay them, and wikileaks helps you keep tabs on them. Secondly, their performance of their duties affects you and millions of others. What Assange does in bed does not affect you at all. Seriously, how can you be an adult and also be someone who needs this explained to you?

      Its your own goddamned government that invades your personal life and checks out your junk at the airport and listens to your calls whenever it wants to, all the while telling you you have nothing to hide if you have nothing to fear. Wikileaks is trying to make the government transparent, to even the score here. “Keeping governments open” is their motto, not “a camera in every bedroom”.

    • smaier69 says:

      Unless I am way off base in my understanding of Wikileaks, the allegations/charges are not information that would otherwise be hidden from the public. Wouldn’t really be a “leak” if we already knew.

  44. Antinous / Moderator says:

    How is it possible that we don’t have a naked backscatter photo of Mr. Assange yet?

  45. futuredirected says:

    Wikileaks doesn’t need to publish anything widely published by other entities. WL uncovers the secret wars and atrocities (as well as some unadulterated stupidity) unknowingly funded by Americans like me. I support their efforts, although their motives remain unclear. Even if Assange is guilty of a crime or crimes, he deserves a fair trial, not a public lynching. If he is innocent of these charges, I hope he continues to serve the interests of Humanity, by revealing the dark side of power, governments and American hegemony.

    • mathdemon says:

      Then WikiLeaks doesn’t need to publish anything at all, because most of the “leaked” cables are old news. Nordkorea supplying Iran with weapon technology? Geez, when the Bush-administration came out and said it, people called it a “typical Bush-lie” to “get us into a new war,” but today it is the “truth” because it was “leaked” by WikiLeaks. The cables say that the Arab countries hate Iran. That’s news?… BP had a gas leak on an oil rig in Azerbaijan in September 2008? I posted links to news articles from September 2008 (including Reuters) about that. (It was “news” to us because we now suddenly care after the disaster in Louisiana.) We’re going to lose in Afghanistan unless Pakistan doesn’t help us? Hmm.. Wasn’t this a recurring theme during the Presidential Elections in 2008?

      And honestly, I’m still randomly checking stuff from the Iraq War Logs, and I see less “atrocities” committed by US troops than in any other war. What I actually see is a much more savvy US army quickly understanding that a teenager from rural Kentucky won’t last for very long if he doesn’t learn some cultural sensitivity (thus setting up all those cultural “boot camps”, recruiting translators, etc).

      I think George Friedman at Stratfor explains it better:

      http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks

      Another thing Friedman points at is the classification of the leaks. Most of them are (unnecessarily) classified as “SECRET”. I guess that would mean that their (the cables) confidentiality lasts longer (when it shouldn’t, as it is obvious from the “leaks”). But I haven’t seen any “TOP SECRET” cables, which clearly indicates that Bradley Manning only had “SECRET” clearance. The juicy stuff is in the “TOP SECRET” cables.

      The only thing WikiLeaks has helped to do is to show how professional US diplomats are (ignoring the occasional rant), how much cleaner the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted (compared to previous wars), and that the Bush administration was more often correct than not in many of their assessments/warnings. The sucky part is that I’m forced to admit this, although I voted for Obama.

      Remember this?

      http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/#ixzz13IdYaG44

      • querent says:

        How bout the fact that the DoD lied for years about those Reuters journalists and unarmed civilians?

        Or the recent news of contractors using US tax-payers dollars to fund the sexual abuse of children?

        Or the torture we overlooked, nay _oversaw_, on the part of our Iraqi stooges?

        “The only thing WikiLeaks has helped to do is to show…how much cleaner the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted (compared to previous wars)…”

        Iraq is a war of aggression. The first war crime.

        I try to stay civil here, but you, friend, can go lick a boot. There is no “clean” war of aggression.

        What the leaks (not just the cables, which you seem to restrict your attention to in places) showed is that a supposedly civilian controlled military was bold-faced lying to the civilian population. (I refuse to take such things as a given.) If their orders aren’t coming from us (I’m American), from where are they coming?

        • querent says:

          I know I’m kinda off-topic. I’m not trying to trivialize sexual assault, but this, to me, is like arguing about whether or not Ward Churchill was REALLY an “Indian” or not, or whether or not he was a plagiarist.

          Not the point.

        • mathdemon says:

          How bout the fact that the DoD lied for years about those Reuters journalists and unarmed civilians?

          For years? Bold claim. And how can they “lie” to you when you probably didn’t even care until Assange had to “leak” it to you?

          How about you read about the incident from Reuters:

          http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6344FW20100405

          Reuters has pressed the U.S. military to conduct a full and objective investigation into the killing of the two staff.

          Video of the incident from two U.S. Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in Baghdad on July 25, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing.

          U.S. military officers who presented the materials said Reuters had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get copies. This request was made the same day.

          As far as I know, Reuters is not a US news service (Canadian-owned, UK-based), but they were obviously able to GET the information through FOIA. You know what FOIA is, right? That’s the civilian’s opportunity to have things “leaked” from government archives. Ever tried it?

          So the question is not “US govt. lied to us”, but why didn’t Reuters, after having seen the footage, not shout “atrocity” afterwards? Well, they, as every other news organization, know the conditions on the ground in a war zone. That is, you have very little security, and whatever security you had, you lose it when you decide to grab sensational footage by hanging around insurgents.

          What the “Collateral Damage” shows me is not that Reuters journalists were killed (other journalists have been killed in Iraq), but that war is raw and ruthless. But that’s not news. If you don’t want wars, do something about it. Don’t pull any fake sanctimonious arguments, pretending that you care more than me. You, and many other like you, didn’t give a shit then, and don’t give a shit now. You pretend to give a shit now because it’s trendy. You’ll care less when Assange is no longer news.

          As for the torture we overlooked… Obviously we didn’t, or they wouldn’t have been mentioned in the cables/logs. If this tells us anything, it tells us that Iraq is a fucked-up country where it doesn’t matter who comes to power, you’ll always have torture. If the “good guys” take over, the “bad guys” will be tortured. If you actually read the cables/logs, you’ll figure that out.

          On contractors and the sex slave business:

          Lisa Tang of the Associated Press, in a June 15, 2008, story carried by USA Today entitled: Sex Trade Thrives in Afghanistan interviewed a 13 year old Afghan girl who had been a prostitute for the past two years. Her story, sadly, is not unique. Ann Jones, in her excellent book “Kabul in Winter,” recounts the misery of the Kabul prostitutes who cater to foreign officials and contractors.

          http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article4262

          Wow, somebody has even written a book on that matter. Did you read it?

          And it continues:

          The brothels in Kabul are euphemistically referred to as “Chinese restaurants.”

          They acquired this name because Chinese government operatives helped to create some of them, in the shadow of legitimate Chinese restaurants, as part of their intelligence-gathering network. Many of these non-Afghan prostitutes have been trafficked into the country. A June 23, 2008, report from a prominent UK feminist web site (theFword.org) entitled: Women trafficked to Afghanistan to meet demand from Westerners by Jess McCabe, details how Chinese women are tricked into moving to Afghanistan under the belief that they will be working in a legitimate restaurant.

          So it turns out that the Chinese govt. is setting up these “restaurants”. Where is your outrage against the Chinese govt?

          You think brothels in war zones is even news? They have plenty of them in ALL war zones. If you’re outraged, send your Congressman or Senator mails (I do). But don’t pretend that it is news, or that everything in the cables are “new phenomenons” brought to us by the Evil US Government, whom you are paying taxes to. No, it’s the evil of war, and we have war every single day. I bet you care about Tibetans because they’re in the news, but you don’t know a jack shit about, for example, the Kurds. The Kurds are in a worse condition than the Tibetans, but they’re not in the news, so you remain ignorant. Don’t worry though, about 8000/9000+ of those cables are from US diplomatic outposts in Turkey, and if those “leaks” are worth anything, they should have plenty on the Kurdish misery, and you’ll be given the chance to wonder and be amazed on why we still are allies with a country that has oppressed a minority for 90 years, forbidden their language, and crushed 20+ rebellions ruthlessly, with deportation, gendercide/genocide, and systematic sterilization of the Kurdish population following.

          It seems like there is an argument against all your arguments. Maybe because you really didn’t give a shit about anything until this wannabe white-haired teenager icon (and his hair has grown out, so it obviously wasn’t white) floored you with his charming Australian accent. You say “they lie”. Who doesn’t lie to you? You’re being lied to every election, and now you care? Wake the fuck up. Nothing is news. Well, not until we see the “TOP SECRET” shit.

          I don’t have to feign shock about “being lied to”. Keeping secrets is not lying. It’s lying if you’re given the wrong information. Obviously, this stuff can be grabbed with the help of the FOIA (like Reuters did). If they still lie to you in the information you obtain through FOIA, then be angry. We (in the US) at least still have a system that allows us to gain information. Do they have that in China? How many European countries have FOI-laws? Cuba? Other Central- and South American countries?

          What shocks me is that the diplomats are so fucking awesome, and that they don’t ignore what we generally don’t give a shit about. If I have gained trust for anybody, it’s been for the US diplomats.

          • humanresource says:

            One of the great paradoxes of our time: a vast Meh Brigade that insists on following the wikileaks saga closely and commenting wherever possible, in order to make it clear that there is nothing significant about the story at all. Care to explain why your leaders are calling for the head of my countryman? And why every interesting story for the last two weeks contains the words “wikileaks cables reveal”? And why there is such a massive concerted effort to close down wikleaks? Why is he treated like a serious criminal, even though Sweden has an utterly woeful lack of interest in prosecuting serious sexual crimes?
            At the very least, wikleaks is getting stories into the public arena that ought to be there. So what if some are old news to those paying close attention? Whatever reduces the information imbalance between the public and its servants aids liberty and democracy, and is likely to help act as a deterrant to future abuses. If you have achieved more than Assange, please tell us how you did it – I’ll even come and help you.
            And if the State Department is “so fucking awesome”, why does it allow the contractors to sell sex slaves? You can’t keep pointing to China to excuse the actions of your government – you’re smart enough to know what the phrase “race to the bottom” means. And you can’t assume that wikleaks would fail to publicise material from other vicious regimes (US carelessness with its info plays a huge role here). Don’t fall into the trap of thinking its just an anti-US thing. Or did you only just start paying attention to wikleaks?

          • mathdemon says:

            Its your own goddamned government that invades your personal life and checks out your junk at the airport and listens to your calls whenever it wants to, all the while telling you you have nothing to hide if you have nothing to fear. Wikileaks is trying to make the government transparent, to even the score here. “Keeping governments open” is their motto, not “a camera in every bedroom”.

            A bit patronizing, don’t you think? You know what is best for us Americans? Oh buddy, you are forcing me to take sides.

            Well that’s why I donate money to, for example, the EFF, and sign their petitions, and help spread their press releases, send mail to my Congressmen and Senators on their behalf, like every other EFF-member. I think American’s are a bit more callused and anti-authoritarian than you think.

            But what does the diplomatic traffic of the State Department have to do with my privacy? Will I be safer if I take away the State Department’s ability to conduct diplomacy abroad? Not really.

            The “Meh Brigade” you say? That these diplomats are my public officials and therefore I have a NEED to know their diplomatic traffic because I pay them? I pay them to KEEP diplomatic secrets. Otherwise we’d force our diplomatic missions to shut down, bring back all our ambassadors, pull out all our troops (I’d support this though) and completely isolate us (I’d support this to some degree). But then we’d have to become a shut society, close down all our borders, stop accepting immigrants, send all other countries’ ambassadors home, shut down their missions, tear down the UN-HQ, dissolve NATO, keep all our technology secret, stop sending our culture abroad… Man, you’d miss our Hollywood movies, our music, our pioneer spirit, our technology. That’s what would happen if we couldn’t conduct diplomacy abroad. And without diplomacy, you’ll have war. Maybe without US out there, you’ll have some other crazy moron trying expand for “lebensraum”. It’s a slippery slope.

            I support transparency, but that means that I’ll support whistle-blowers leaking information about criminal activities. I want bids for government contracts to be open (because we pay for them with tax money). I want donations to political causes to be transparent. I want business to be audited to make sure our economy remains healthy. (I know I want more, but I can’t think about it right now.) But just because I want court documents to be open to the public doesn’t mean that I want to blow a witness’ cover, or get rid of witness protection.

            Society won’t be “free” just because you “leak” diplomatic traffic about matters that we later read about through our media. Yes, I’m of the “Meh Brigade”. I also think that media has done a good job on at least reporting most of the important events in the world. Is it enough? No. But logic tells me that I should actually be criticizing media for their lack of coverage. They knew this stuff, and they decided to go for the ratings. But that also tells me that I should be self-critical, and blame myself for my lack of interest in international matters. We’d rather watch reality shows than read news… And so would you in Australia. I bet YOU GUYS (now that we’re pointing fingers) didn’t know about East Timor until they got their independence, although your government was in constant diplomatic traffic with Indonesia on that matter. But I also bet that it was mentioned in the news, but you didn’t give a damn.

            We need whistle-blowers, and I think IF WikiLeaks had to go through those cables, they should have been looking for criminal activities. In the current batch of the released cables any suspicion of criminal activities can’t be pinned on the government, but on contractors or foreign governments. I will stand corrected if the juicy “TOP SECRET” (I’d even go for “SECRET” if it’s juicy) stuff comes out. The proof is even vague, and my government is at least trying to issue policy that will make these contractors responsible for crimes committed outside US soil. You want a rundown on why they can’t do much faster? Well, they can. They can assassinate them and then classify it “TOP SECRET”, or they can try to charge them in the US (or if it’s a country, they can bomb them to oblivion). But if it is this hard to charge Assange on an obvious case of espionage (again, he’s not a whistle-blower, as he doesn’t work for the US government, and most of the stuff his organization has published are trivial, non-criminal matters), it is harder to charge a contractor with whom you have signed a contract with. The road to justice is longer, and within the quagmire that is our bureaucratic system, it’s longer:

            http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512270176dec27,0,1632557.story?page=1

            It’s from 2005 by the way, so they’re aware. If you read closely, you’ll see what kind of matters they’re bogged down in. And a lot of it is matters of semantics.

            Dude, if it’s something you would want to avoid is to patronize us (Americans) and on top of it have this whole matter look anti-American. Never underestimate the ability of the American people to self-organize or be organized, for good or for bad. Didn’t 9/11 teach you guys anything? Attacking America is a sure way of uniting Americans. I mean, come on, didn’t you see our reactions after the disallowed goal against Slovenia? :) Yes, a sure way of having gun-tooting conservatives and Prius-driving liberals hugging each other going “USA! USA! USA! We’re #1!” Although we didn’t win the world cup.. But we will, and you all know it. And after that, you’ll all hate S-O-C-C-E-R, because it’ll be a SPORT dominated by the US of fucking A. YEEEEAAAH!

            But honestly, I’d really like this whole operation done “John Young-style” rather than “Assange-style”.

            With love,
            American Meh Brigade

            By the way:

            To BoingBoing: My Firefox “NoScript”-extension has been complaining about XSS attempts, and it stops me from posting stuff. I can’t post unless I do an “unsafe reload” (I know jack shit about CSS/CGI-programming/etc, so I’m trusting you guys). The console says: “The ‘charCode’ property of a keydown event should not be used. The value is meaningless.” The error comes up on the mt-comments.cgi page. I know others have been complaining about not being able to comment, so maybe this is related. Hope this info helps…

          • Rob Beschizza says:

            Movable Type has a weird janky javascript-heavy system for comments and some plugins freak out at it. We’ll be fixing that with a move to better comments ASAP, but in the meantime whitelisting scripts hosted by bb should do the trick.

          • querent says:

            “And how can they “lie” to you when you probably didn’t even care until Assange had to “leak” it to you?”

            Ad hominem.

            “You know what FOIA is, right? That’s the civilian’s opportunity to have things “leaked” from government archives. Ever tried it?”

            Ad hominem.

            “So the question is not “US govt. lied to us”, but why didn’t Reuters, after having seen the footage, not shout “atrocity” afterwards? Well, they, as every other news organization, know the conditions on the ground in a war zone.”

            Right. No news agency has ever been known to bow to US pressure.

            “That is, you have very little security, and whatever security you had, you lose it when you decide to grab sensational footage by hanging around insurgents.”

            Blame the victims. Classy. Oh, and “insurgenst?” Not how I heard it…

            http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/7/headlines#1

            “Don’t pull any fake sanctimonious arguments, pretending that you care more than me. You, and many other like you, didn’t give a shit then, and don’t give a shit now. You pretend to give a shit now because it’s trendy. You’ll care less when Assange is no longer news.”

            Ad hominem, cheap, and way off the mark. Check your vitriol. You sound like a troll in trade chat on wow. I’m a long time activists and writer. I’m prouder of my FBI file than I am of my math degrees. :)

            “As for the torture we overlooked… Obviously we didn’t, or they wouldn’t have been mentioned in the cables/logs.”

            What I meant: we’re bound by international treaty to act on cases of torture. We did nothing. In many cases, it seems we handed people over to be tortured. So as not to get blood on American hands (as Obama promised). Hope that clarifies (though…yeah…it was clear).

            “If this tells us anything, it tells us that Iraq is a fucked-up country where it doesn’t matter who comes to power, you’ll always have torture.”

            Blame the victims. The US is responsible. That was my point.

            “Where is your outrage against the Chinese govt?”

            I’m sorry, did I not detail every thing in this world that also outrages me? Does that have any bearing at all? As an American, I choose first to remove the plank from my own eye, rather than passing the buck. “Well they did it too!” So the fuck what?

            “I bet you care about Tibetans because they’re in the news, but you don’t know a jack shit about, for example, the Kurds.”

            Ad hominem.

            “It seems like there is an argument against all your arguments. Maybe because you really didn’t give a shit about anything until this wannabe white-haired teenager icon (and his hair has grown out, so it obviously wasn’t white) floored you with his charming Australian accent.”

            Ad hominem. What you describe may or may not happen. I don’t fucking care.

            “We (in the US) at least still have a system that allows us to gain information. Do they have that in China? How many European countries have FOI-laws? Cuba? Other Central- and South American countries?”

            I’m sorry, what? In a comment on a post about a whistleblowing site the US is doing all it can to shut down, as the EFF says, for sharing _true_ information, you go into a patriotic bit on how free and open the US gov. is? This quote + “Keeping secrets is not lying” = redactions and FOIA requests denied or delayed ala

            https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/10/dhs-singles-out-eff-s-foia-requests-unprecedented

            Anywho. I tried not to answer much (don’t feed the trolls), especially the personal attacks, but rather decided to point out the fallacies. The strict ones (really, just ad hominem), not the places where I disagree.

            There’s a lot of ad hominem in there. Not usually a good sign when an American gets loud about politics.

            ———————

            Clearly there is news in the wikileaks releases: in the cables, in the earlier releases, and likely in those yet to come. As has been said, the US executive branch clearly disagrees with you on whether or not there is anything noteworthy there.

            I understand that much of this is not remarkable in war. The fact that it is remarkable to us in the US, but not in war, is News with a capital N. Most civilians don’t understand the horror, and that is by design. This is the whole “embedded journalist” concept developed (I believe) after raw footage from Vietnam had such an impact at home.

            That’s why this IS news. Because it gives us another (another) window into SOP, and how gruesome it is.

            ————————-

            “Don’t pull any fake sanctimonious arguments, pretending that you care more than me. You, and many other like you, didn’t give a shit then, and don’t give a shit now. You pretend to give a shit now because it’s trendy. You’ll care less when Assange is no longer news.”

            These are fighting words to me, but this is not about me. I’ll not get into personal grappling.

            It sounds a lot to me like the typical american rhetorical strategy. Get belligerent and attack your opponent personally. I say this only because it needs to be recognized and called out.

          • freddy nono says:

            well stated mathdermon.

            Saying those Reuters reporters were “murdered” would be like saying Ernie Pyle was “murdered” by the Japanese. He was killed in a combat zone doing his job.

        • querent says:

          “How bout the fact that the DoD lied for years about those Reuters journalists and unarmed civilians?”

          I’m having trouble citing here, now that I’m going back and looking. The best I can do now is from Assange on Democracy Now:

          “JULIAN ASSANGE: We don’t have the names of the teams. However, we have details about the unit, and there was a chapter, or half-chapter, in a book called The Good Soldiers by a Washington Post reporter released late last year that does cover the ground unit that moved in to collect the bodies and was the unit who also called in the Apaches to that area.

          Important thing that we know from classified documentation is that there were reports of small arms fire in the general vicinity. This was not an ongoing battle. The Pentagon released statements implying that this was a firefight and the Apaches were called in, into the middle of a firefight, and the journalists walked into this firefight. That is simply a lie. At 9:50 a.m. Baghdad time, Pentagon—sorry, US military documentation states that there was small arms fire in the general vicinity, in the suburb somewhere of New Baghdad, and that there was no PID, there was no positive identification of who the shooter was. So, in other words, some bullets were received in a general area, no US troops were killed, or they were heard, could have even been cars backfiring. There was no positive identification of where those shots were coming from. And the Apaches were sent up to scout out the general region, and they saw this group of men milling around in a square, showing the Reuters photographer something interesting to photograph. So the claim that this was a battle and the Reuters guys were sort of caught in the crossfire, or it was some kind of active attack that it needed an immediate response by the Apaches, is simply a lie.”

          http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military/

  46. vancouvergrrl says:

    Oh, so is that why the Guardian has now gone back to featuring cricket on its website and relegating the cables to a sidebar?

    If any of this is true (and I don’t at all discount that it might be, in which case I’d like to put on my Doc Martens and boot his arse all the way to Australia: from England, not here, here’s too close), man, this guy needs to learn some technique. Some people do like the rough stuff, but not all, and it’s best to suss out whether your partners like the same thing you do.

    Antinous: I’m sure someone is photoshopping one even as I type.

    • Anonymous says:

      This isn’t simply failing to find out if “someone likes the rough stuff.” He didn’t care about the wishes of his partners, not even to the point of whether they wanted to have sex with him or not. He had sex with people without their consent. That’s rape. (And consent can be conditional, such as on the use of a condom.) If this stuff is true, Assange is a rapist, and I hope someone else takes over and continues to operate WikiLeaks while he serves time in jail.

  47. theawesomerobot says:

    It sounds like the girls were annoyed that he was sleeping around and decided to collaborate against him once they found out. It actually seems to be incredibly clear (if this article is accurate).

    So, he’s just guilty of being a dick – which is perfectly legal in most countries.

  48. johnnyaction says:

    Happy belated birthday Bradley Manning.

    Dear US Gov,
    Please clamp down on leakers and leaks in a more heavy-handed manner. The more you over-react to leaks, the more resentment you create and the more leaks that will happen.

  49. mathdemon says:

    Not when so many Americans bought the idea that Saddam and Osama were BFFs.

    And you think American’s would have been rational enough to believe otherwise after 9/11? No leaked cables in the world would have changed the matter. People were standing in line to “leak” out information about Saddam and Osama having no relation to each other. How many people cared? Today, we know EVERYTHING, and we’re still in Iraq. That if ANYTHING should tell you SOMETHING. We went from “Saddam luves Osama” to “We hate Saddam because he’s a fucking dictator” in no time. And every single suicide bomb in Iraq just intensified this feeling, even long after we hanged Saddam. Saddam is dead, and we still hate Saddam. I don’t know what it is with Americans, but we just hate dictators and authoritarian figures, and I think you just tasted some of that in an earlier comment.

    No, transparency would never have helped. I already explained to you how easy it is to rally American’s to a cause. Perhaps easier than in any other country, and that’s why I believe Wikileaks has not benefited, but rather failed Americans. You quoted Wikileaks: “Keeping governments open.” Governments in plural. I’ve seen no “governments” in plural. I’ve seen A (one) government being targeted systematically. To the everyday American, this is the tell-tale sign of an AGENDA. Do you know how Americans perk up when they hear that word? The media starts shouting “AGENDA!” and you’re fucked. And we will if we’re told that a US base in Afghanistan/Iraq was attacked as a result of these leaks and 10+ US soldiers were killed. Or that insurgents in Afghanistan/Iraq used information from Wikileak to circumvent jammers on our military convoys, and they were able to kill 10+ soldiers with an IED. The pictures of these soldiers will be shown on TV everyday, and their funeral will be aired live, and we’ll all hold a silent minute for the fallen in our schools. And then Wikileaks and more of our freedoms are fucked.

    So how would this benefit me? You’re so concerned about us Americans, you tell me. You don’t think they’ll use this as yet another reason to clamp down on my freedoms? You say that my government checks out my junk at the airport, but you neglect to mention that it was due to the public’s reaction against attempts by terrorists to blow up airplanes. Oh, then we did react to the groping of course. Little too harsh, wasn’t it? We said that we would NOT travel during Thanksgiving, and we said that IF we did, we would ALL refuse the scanners and have the TSA grope us “IF THEY DARED!!1, AND IF THEY DID, WE’D SHOW THEM!!11!”. We saw how that turned out. As you can see, I’m not overly optimistic about the reactions of my people. If the government decides to move with all force against Wikileaks, they will do so, and we’ll all go along because “they have an agenda”. And I really hope this won’t happen during the Presidential campaign 2011. I don’t want to see Sarah Palin in the White House. If she becomes President because of Assange, then I really hope somebody rips his dick off next time he pulls a “torn condom” stunt and chokes him with it.

    You don’t think the US government is capable of this? Of course you do. But it won’t affect you. Well, not unless we elect Palin.

    And you didn’t read my response on the sex trafficking issue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Involvement_in_child_sex_slave_traffic

    I told you that the government reacted, and why policy on the matter was stalling (read the link I posted in my previous comment). I definitely think that all US contractors should face questioning and possible charges in any sex abuse case. I also extend that to include private people and celebrities, like Assange.

    • humanresource says:

      “transparency would never have helped. I already explained to you how easy it is to rally American’s to a cause. Perhaps easier than in any other country”
      Are you the same guy who typed “I think American’s are a bit more callused and anti-authoritarian than you think.”? Or did someone who hates ordinary Americans hack into your account?

    • mathdemon says:

      Humbug. I closed off my blockquote as quoteblock.. :)

Leave a Reply