passing thoughts about a world in transience

Julian Assange story on Slashdot

Paint him as a child molester because nobody feels bad for one of those

The woman making the allegation (and I stress woman because she is not under age), should be taken seriously until the investigation has been completed. Your assumption that he must be innocent because he is engaged in what you clearly consider a righteous PR war with the United States is sexist and shameful. Why would this woman willingly put herself at the center of an international maelstrom, knowing that every bit of her personal life would be put under the microscope if nothing happened? The Swedish government has found no evidence of tampering by the US. He admits being with the woman. The woman in question has no record of being involved in anything even remotely like this before. The irony is that you don’t even mention her in your conspiracy theory. She warrants no attention because you don’t really care whether she is telling the truth or not.

You just care about “gotchas”.

—————-

Your assumption that he must be innocent because he is engaged in what you clearly consider a righteous PR war with the United States is sexist and shameful.

And your grasp of what people in power are willing to do to keep their position is astonishingly naive. It is impossible they could have offered this girl a million bucks simply because she is a woman? Or threatened her family? You don’t think stuff like that happens?

Here, read this. [wikipedia.org]

These are the kinds of people this guy is up against. You think tracking down some girl he spent time with and leaning on her is an impossibility? Really??

The woman making the allegation (and I stress woman because she is not under age), should be taken seriously until the investigation has been completed.

Then why did the prosecution decline the offer of cooperation while he was in country, and suddenly pursue it through interpol after he had left? I invite you to explain that.

Why would this woman willingly put herself at the center of an international maelstrom, knowing that every bit of her personal life would be put under the microscope if nothing happened?

Some people like attention, even bad attention. Again, you naivete is showing. Some people have motives you cannot understand. Because they are nuts. For example, why do some women marry inmates? [ehow.com] Explain that one to me.

The only thing sexist and shameful is everyone leaping to the conclusion that this guy clearly must be up to something because some woman hinted that he might be. Especially when there are plenty of oddball circumstances that clearly indicate an effort to marginalize the guy.

————————————————

I am well aware of the treachery some people are capable of. For example: calling me naive is an ad hominum attack designed to undermine my credibility based only on personal opinion.

Of course not. But you’re starting assumption is that she is a plant, while I’m starting with the assumption that she is not. I’m not sure where you live, but in the U.S. people are innocent until proven guilty (which would go for Assange as well). I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially since there is no actual evidence that there was any tampering at all. Circumstantial evidence regarding the sequence of events during the early period of the Swedish investigation does not prove anything.

Furthermore, you’re assertion that she must be a plant because governments play dirty is exactly the same kind of insinuation and slander that people say is being used against Assange.

Perhaps you should ask the prosecutor. Again, you are relying on the speculation of bloggers and forum posts to come to a conclusion. I realize that you’re probably the type that doesn’t believe anything you’re told by “the man”, but maybe you should wait to hear what they actually have to say before you make your final conclusions. And since you asked what I think, I have a feeling that the basic charge of sexual misconduct is legit (of course don’t know for sure yet), and once the initial charges were filed (incorrectly) as rape, it was seen by some as an opportunity to undermine his credibility. Even so, if the woman in question has a legitimate complaint, and you are doing all you can to undermine her case because you are rooting for Assange in the larger battle over Wikileaks, than you’re no better than the shady govt types you hate. Aren’t her rights just as important as his? Should her claims of injustice be ignored because of the “greater good”?

So I guess you’re the defense attorney that tries to undermine a rape victim’s credibility by accusing her of being a slut on the stand? Or maybe you’re the type that would use Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatric history to undermine his credibility? Or perhaps you are the type that uses Assange’s personal indiscretions to undermine his credibility. Oh wait…

No it is not sexist to vigorously investigate the possibility that a man mistreated a woman when she claims that he did. It is simply how criminal investigations are run. You are applying a double standard. When a hero of yours is accused of doing something wrong, you blame the alleged victim because if you take the allegation seriously, it would require an admission that he could actually be an asshole. It appears as though that’s too much for some fanboi types to handle.

You must recognize that the battle between Wikileaks and the US is a PR battle. If Assange couldn’t keep his fly closed and pulled a Bill Clinton (i.e., letting his dick ruin his image), wouldn’t it be a mistake for supporters of Wikileaks to defend him at all costs? Does his “deep deep desire” to be some kind of righteous vigilante mean he can do whatever he wants in other spheres of life? Or would it be wiser to maintain some kind of neutrality and let the investigation take its course?

Isn’t it possible that he is both a hero and a creep?

—————————————————————————————————————-

the suggestion of you being naive stems from the fact that you are only approaching one part of this large picture.

take the flipside of the quoted text above:

if a man is a righteous vigilante fighter-for-truth etc etc, and very much in the public sphere, should he therefore abstain from sex outright for fear of accusations?

the problem with so many of these cases is that it’s he-said she-said, and there can be no absolute way to determine if the allegations are true or not.

this has been an issue in Australia for a while - footballers being accused of rape left right and centre. sometimes they probably did it, sometimes they probably didn’t, sometimes it was probably a case of everyone involved was too drunk and shit got complicated.

now, does this mean that no public figure should go out and take randoms home like normal people do?

i stand by the right of a public figure to go get filthy like the rest of us love to do. of course i don’t stand by sexual assault. but it seems these allegations only ever come during a large wikileak. though nothing can be proved at this point, it would be foolish to think that these events are not somehow connected.

—————————————————-

 am well aware of the treachery some people are capable of. For example: calling me naive is an ad hominum attack designed to undermine my credibility based only on personal opinion.

Oh good grief. I don’t care about your credibility. Your position seemed naive, so I said so. I’m not entitled to an opinion?

Should her claims of injustice be ignored because of the “greater good”?

Of course not. But consider this. He was available, he made himself available to the prosecution, they said “no thanks”. He left. Then *suddenly* they issue an international watch for him. After he leaves. Does this not seem like dirty pool to you? Nothing suspicious there?

Maybe this girl has a valid complaint. I have no idea. What I do know is the proceedings are most decidedly not kosher. That implies the whole ball of wax might be bogus. Is it? Again, no idea. But I think that the investigation should go both ways. Sure, take the girl’s complaint. But also let’s get into the reasons why this went from a local matter to an international circus.

So I guess you’re the defense attorney that tries to undermine a rape victim’s credibility by accusing her of being a slut on the stand?

Now wait a second - who is it again that is trying to undermine someone’s credibility?

—
Weaselmancerhttp://slashdot.org/story/10/12/01/0052227/Interpol-Issues-Wanted-Notice-For-Julian-Assange