Skip to comments.The Left is tearing itself apart over Assange.
Posted on 08/23/2012 11:28:33 AM PDT by managusta
They just cant help themselves. Today its John Pilger in the New Statesman: The pursuit of Julian Assange is an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism. One by one the cream of the intellectual left (and George Galloway) are lining up, in well-disciplined rows, to hurl themselves lemming-like onto the rocks of WikiLeaks. Tony Benn: the charges are that it was a non-consensual relationship. Well that's very different from rape. Galloway: "Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
1. This appears to be a classic “honey trap”; a time-honored way for intelligence agencies to entrap men (especially married men) with a “wandering eye.”
2. Is Assange accused of raping two women **at the same time**? He is quite the sex machine, then.
The anti-semitic/pro-terrorist Socialist pig George Galloway claims that having nonconsensual sex with a sleeping (passed out?) woman is not rape, merely “bad manners”.
NOW is silent as are Facebookers.
Better to tear Assange apart. Dude creeps me out.
If she remained sleeping while he was having sex with her, forget my “sex machine” remark in the earlier post. Dullsville, all the way.
It appears to me to be more like an extreme narcissist doing what an extreme narcissist does and getting in trouble for it. What if you were the father of one of the young ladies?
They seem to be confusing themselves. Their positions seem to be (1) Having sex with a sleeping woman isn’t rape, (2) he’s being railroaded with fake rape charges because of Wikileaks, and (3) Wikileaks was journalism, not espionage, and he should be given a medal. It never seems to dawn on them that they can take just one of those positions without the other two, or two without the third.
I don’t know if Assange is being railroaded with the rape charges. If he did what they say he did ... it sounds like rape. There are specific situations where I believe consent can be presumed unless specifically withdrawn — like in marriage — so that a wake-up call for a sleeping woman wouldn’t be rape. But, this doesn’t sound like one of those situations. She was, essentially, a complete stranger. Consent can’t be assumed with a complete stranger.
I don’t know if he’s being railroaded. Its possible, though not probable. Maybe the chicks were paid off and are lying, or set him up. Maybe he habitually wakes-up his one-night-stands with condomless surprise sex ... which would be assault. Wouldn’t feel all that sorry for him if he were being railroaded — he got a lot of people killed.
Espionage is a crime. It has been for a long time, and these laws weren’t written because of Assange. The pertinent part of the Espionage Act of 1917 is makes criminal the conveyance of classified information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.
I don’t see any reasonable argument that this isn’t exactly what Assange did. Even if he is completely innocent of the rape charges — he should go to prison for the rest of his life.
“The pertinent part of the Espionage Act of 1917 is makes criminal the conveyance of classified information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.”
Assange can argue that he had no intention to either “interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies” and claim that he was merely engaging in journalism with juicy information obtained from an outside source. Now I have no problem with throwing the book at that outside source, namely the vile little degenerate Bradley Manning. Assange (sleazy playboy-wannabe that he is) merely does what the MSM is either too lazy or afraid of stepping on toes to do. As for the rape charges, I still standy by the honey trap theory. Just seems to convenient.
Can Assange really be charged with espionage if he is a non-US citizen and was not operating within US borders? Wouldn’t that technically mean that say, a Serbian engaging in espionage on US forces in 1999 could be extradited from a third country and tried for spying?
He can argue all kinds of things. Doesn’t make it true.
Assange should be charged with espionage, and Manning with treason. Let a jury decide whether they’re as guilty as they appear.
My understanding of the espionage act is that jurisdiction is not dependent on citizenship or where he is, but on the nature of the information and how it was obtained. It isn’t about who or where, it is about what he did and to whom.
Jurisdiction sounds as if it would be similar to jurisdiction over terrorists that kill Americans ... even if the Americans are killed in a foreign country by a non-citizen that never set foot in the U.S (like the Lockerbie bomber and Pablo Escobar, for instance).
I agree with SnakeDoc, treason for Manning, espionage for Julie, and let a trier-of-fact decide.
That’s a good question. But I think if he were engaging in battlefield espionage—especially if the force were on his (the spy’s) own territory—then that would be a legitimate act of war, and the US might be barred by convention (or common sense) from indicting him.
Indeed, and when say, Russia or China or Iran, decides to prosecute an American who has never set foot in their country for acts committed in the U.S. or the U.K., under their espionage laws, you'll see why trying to prosecute Assange is wrong. American law does not apply to the whole globe, just to American citizens and persons on U.S. territory. Throw the book at Manning, throw the book (at least administratively) at whatever moron set up the protocols so an Army specialist had access to classified diplomatic cables just because he had clearance to access classified Army documents, but extraterritorial prosecutions of foreign nationals almost strike me as causus belli, not that Australia will even break diplomatic relations with us over it, but perhaps they should, even as we should break off relations with China, were China to seek extradition of an American (say living in London) for publishing secret Chinese documents passed to him by a Chinese analogue of Manning.
See my post #16. No Assange should not be charged with espionage. He’s not a U.S. citizen, he wasn’t in the U.S. If the U.S. claims extraterritorial application of its laws to the whole of humanity, other countries unfriendly to the U.S. will do the same, and Americans will be hounded for publishing things in violation of the espionage laws of Afghanistan, . . ., China, . . ., Iran, . . . Russia, . . . Sudan, . . ., and Zimbabwe, even if they never set foot in those countries.
As for the analogy, well, it's pretty much a given that jumping out of a plane without a parachute will inevitably have negative consequences. That's not really true of sex without a condom... But yes, if true, this would be a criminal case even if -- as teflon9 maintains -- that this was a "honey trap." He could be found not guilty of a rape because of entrapment, but still guilty of assault because of the terms of the sexual act.
Are you familiar with the case of Lord Haw-Haw?
We already claim extraterritorial application of our laws to the whole of humanity.
If, for instance, a Columbian drug lord blows up an airplane in an attempt to assassinate the Columbian VP, and happens to kill an American or two in the process ... we can extradite him, try him, and execute him. This exact scenario occurred with Pablo Escobar — who spent the last couple of years of his life doing everything he could to prevent Columbia from legalizing extradition to the US.
There is no jurisdicitonal difference between a foriegn actor killing an American in a foreign country ... and a foreign actor soliciting an American soldier to steal American secrets from a foreign country.
Jurisdiction depends on what he did, and to whom ... not who he is or where he did it. My understanding of the espionage act is that we already have jurisdiction.
There is absolutely no evidence that a honey trap was involved. If you read up on the details of the case, and the women involved, you'd see that the notion of a honey trap is far-fetched at best.
While *all* analogies are wrong in some way; the analogy between parachutes and condoms illustrates the essential point. Parachutes are safety equipment — like seat belts, helmets, hard hats, steel toed boots, and condoms. The woman consented to “safe” sex — she did *not* consent to sex without a condom. (The relative efficacy of condoms is completely beside the point.)
Already claim and ought to claim are two different things. Other, unfriendly, powers will return the disfavor.
Yes, and my understanding of it is that he was convicted of treason because he had an unexpired British passport at the time he began his broadcasts.
Condoms aren't safety devices. Condoms are contraceptive devices. There are obvious cases where they prevent something desirable from happening. The analogy is inapt all your spinning to the contrary.
I know the details of the accusations in this case; which are not proof of anything at this point. Reread my post: I stipulated to a hypothetical advanced by teflon9 which I did not -- and do not -- advance myself, which, per impossible still makes Assange guilty of a crime.
Unfriendly powers already do. Iran held three hikers for over a year for espionage. They did nothing but wander across an unmarked border. Any actual American agents that are caught will certainly be killed absent aggressive intervention.
Our enemies should not dictate American policy. It is bad precedent for us to allow a foreign national to intentionally leak classified material with the intent of aiding our enemies, and to simply ignore his crimes for fear of reprisal. Reprisal is inevitable, no matter what we do to Assange.
He is accused of having sex with a woman who was drunk and unconcious a SECOND time after she had passed out. He had sex with another woman the day before.
Condoms are indeed safety devices — imperfect safety devices, but safety devices nonetheless. My analogy is apt & I'm not the one spinning anything here. (Reminder — *all* analogies are wrong, in some way. Some are useful. I contend that my analogy (however flawed) was useful, and apt.)
The salient fact remains: the woman agreed to sex *with* a condom. She contends that Assange forced her to have sex *without* a condom. Based on her perception of the relative risks, that was her choice to make. If these facts hold, Assange is a rapist.
“with the intent of aiding our enemies”
Really, or just with the intent of informing the American people, who’ve been kept in the dark about so much for so long?
“with the intent of aiding our enemies”
Really, or just with the intent of informing the American people, who’ve been kept in the dark about so much for so long?
“But the US hasn’t been in a declared state of war since 1945”
Yes, and the constitutionality of US military actions since then is a whole nother issue I’m going to leave alone for the time being!
Why would you think Julian Assange gives a damn about the American people?
>> But the US hasnt been in a declared state of war since 1945
You’re wrong. Nowhere does the Constitution require the magic words “declaration of war”. All that is required is Congressional authorization. An “Authorization for Military Action” or “Authorization for the use of force” will suffice as a declaration of war for Constitutional purposes.
- The Vietnam War was declared by “The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution”. Passed both Houses, near unanimous. Was eventually repealed, though.
- The Gulf War was declared by “The Authorization for Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991”. Passed both houses.
- The War on Terrorism and Afghan War was declared in the “Authorization for use of Military Force Against Terrorists”. Passed both houses, near unanimous.
- The Iraq War was declared by the “Authorization for the use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”. Passed both houses.
There have been several Congressionally declared wars since 1945.
They were on Iranian territory. The analogy would be if Iran started issuing warrants for Americans who, say “broke” Iranian blasphemy laws, when writing on an American website, then got the author arrested on an extradition warrant when he vacationed in Indonesia.
No, you did not use the correct term. The "legitimacy" Akin referred to was the legitimacy of the exemption, not the "legitimacy" of the crime.
I contend that my analogy (however flawed) was useful, and apt.
You're right: having sex without a condom -- like jumping without a parachute -- means immediate, certain, and violent death. I should have realized this after I buried my 1,000th wife or so...
Nonsense. Iranian “blasphemy law” isn’t analogous to espionage law. Iranian espionage law might be analogous ... but they already extend that to anybody they can get their hands on.
I’m not prepared to let fear of the Iranians dictate how we respond to Assange’s crimes. It is bad precedent to let him walk. You ought to fear what not punishing him might invite from enemy regimes.
When did I ever claim that one always dies after having sex without a condom. Were you dozing off in English class, when the concepts of “analogy”, “metaphor”, and “simile” were taught?
If nothing but the literal will do; let me try this: There is a certain level of risk associated with casual sex. In an attempt to mitigate this risk to a mutually acceptable level; some couples chose to use condoms. In the Assange case, the woman alleges that she insisted on using a condom. The woman further alleges that Assange forced her to have sex without a condom. If those allegations are true; Assange committed rape.
The Korean War was authorized by a UN resolution—so much for Congress. As for a formal declaration of war being required, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. IMO, Congress is happy not to use its power (preogative, actually) to declare war; this way, if things go south, the POTUS gets most of the blame. Just another example of how cowardly and degenerate Congress as an institution has become post-1945.
Sheesh is right. By your own admission, you brought Akin's usage into the picture, which is THE OPPOSITE of yours. Get it?
As for your silly attempt to spin out of simply being wrong by claiming that you intended the opposite usage, nice try, but you'll need to sell it to somebody who just fell off the turnip truck. Using illegitimate as a synonym for illegal in the context you've given makes no sense, since there is no such thing as a "legal" rape. It made sense in Akin's context because he wasn't talking about rape per se, but rather, whether a particular claim of rape would be a legitimate exclusion to an abortion restriction.
When did I ever claim that one always dies after having sex without a condom.
You claimed this when you claimed that having sex without a condom is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Or is survival of this kind of event common in your experience?
Were you dozing off in English class, when the concepts of analogy, metaphor, and simile were taught?
No, but apparently you were. Here is an apt simile: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like lighting a match near a bucket of unknown liquid in the dark. Here is another: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like working with an electric circuit that might be live without insulated tools.
Here is an inapt simile: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like walking into a lethal radiation zone without a lead lined suit. Or, stupider yet: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. No, it isn't like that at all. One involves risk, the other certainty.
Failing to accept a false analogy is not a question of literalism.
Finally, I don't know that (an American) jury would find Assange guilty of rape when his partner consented to a specific sexual act which was performed but not precisely on her terms. I suspect (an American) prosecutor at least would bring an assault or reckless endangerment charge as well, under the assumption that when there's consent, rape becomes rather a murkier question, and reasonable doubt loves the dark.
I don’t fear punishing Assange. I object on principle to any country purporting or attempting to extend its sovereignty to non-citizens outside its borders, and have pointed out the down-side of allowing such attempts.
Your “downsides” seem to be that enemy regimes will unjustly prosecute our people if we justly pursue prosecution of Assange. That is a fear-driven response, rather than a justice-driven response. It is bad precedent, and would encourage further such acts of espionage. We must be driven by justice, not by fear of retribution or the whims of international opinion.
You need not fear whether our enemies will unjustly act against Americans. They will. They are enemies for a reason. Assange is irrelevant to this fact.
Crimes against this country should be prosecuted by this country. He solicited the theft of classified American cables, with the intent of disseminating them to every enemy of this Republic. He did so ... and people died. If justice is to prevail, he must be prosecuted.
Oh, really? Time for a well-written, spicy letter to The New York Times, calling out NOW and accusing them of hypocrisy (they've got to be sensitive to that, seeing that Libruls love to accuse conservatives of it), and summoning them to the robust and voluble defense of the poor Swedish women.
Where can a poor working girl find a dykey championette, when she is oppressed by the privileged of Maledom? O hard-pressed soldierettes, bear up! The Valkyries are coming! ... aren't they? lol
Akin DID NOT use the term incorrectly, YOU DID. This is what you are still completely incapable of grasping. He was talking about a legitimate exemption not a legitimate rape.
Does the word DUH mean anything to you?
Again, apparently, you missed the class you're accusing me of missing: you cannot be using the term "ironically" in this context if your usage is "correct" (by your argument) and his is not. That is not irony; it is not even close to being an example of irony. It is merely a snarky "correction." But there was nothing to correct. You were mistaken, and he was not. You are simply wrong. Man up and accept it.
Too clever by half? No, too stupid by whole. Please just suck it up and accept that you didn't understand what he was trying to say and botched your "clever" allusion.
Since you insist on being completely literal -- a "certainty" doesn't allow for any exceptions.
No, you insist that I'm being literal; I'm not. Seriously? You're digging up one case in the entire history of the planet where a person fell out of an airplane and didn't die as an excuse to justify a false analogy on your part? Really? Wow. You are really determined to be a moron.
Your analogy sucks. Accept it. Embrace it. Your subsequent posts are just demonstrating that you're a person with a huge ego who can't accept being wrong even when you've been hit upside the head with it.
Did you sleep through the class on the literary use of "hyperbole" too?
Right there, by the way, is an example of thoroughly gormless irony! Study it, so you can learn exactly what hyperbole is and what irony is. Because claiming that falling out of an airplane sans parachute once in the entire history of aviation without dying doesn't make it a certainty is actually a GREAT example of hyperbole. And your failing to grasp that, is, in one word ironic.
Re: Rape, and and the distance between what constitutes the definition of the act and the circumstances on which a jury decides: Your ignorance of the American legal system, and why prosecutors seek to indict on multiple counts for the same crime is astounding.
As for keeping my zipper up, since I've been married to the same woman for 30 years -- and she has never died during unprotected sex, which you have announced is only a matter of degree less risky than jumping out of an airplane in an inane attempt to justify what is probably the lamest excuse for an analogy that I've ever heard -- I think I'll keep my own counsel about what to do and when.
In fact, let's make a bet: I'll lay billion-to-1 odds in your favor. I'll have unprotected intercourse with my wife this evening, and you go book an airplane, and jump out of it from, say 8,000 feet. If you survive and my wife dies, I'll pay you $1 billion.
Turnip truck? Do they even have trucks where you live?
PS. Your increasingly feeble attempts to justify a post that was silly enough in the first place are hilarious. PLEASE don't stop!
He said it was the wrong word -- as in a poor choice of words -- not that he should have said "illegitimate" instead. And indeed he was talking about exemptions. Please go to youtube or some other place where people with your attention span and lack of reading comprehension can go and listen to the interview. He was asked about exemptions to a blanket prohibition against abortion, specifically, "what about an exception for rape?"
You see, for those of us who actually understand subtlety -- to say nothing of plain English -- the subtext in his statement (and what he clearly is insinuating) is that if you allow an exception for rape, there will be attempts to claim an exemption based on sexual intercourse that was not, in fact, rape at all. But for a rape which is a "legitimate rape" -- that is, what the FBI calls forcible rape -- the cases where that legitimate exception would be permitted are rare (in his opinion) because of (what he believes is) a lowered conception rate resulting from trauma.
Pro tip on the English language to USAFRIENDINVICTORIA: using a politically incorrect word and regretting it is not the same thing as using a word with a diametrically opposite meaning. This is what you did. It is not what Akin did. You may both regret your choice of words, but his was merely impolitic. Yours was erroneous. Case closed.
Are you capable of understanding the risk difference between (presumably) monogamous married sex, and casual sex with multiple partners?
"(Presumably, [snark snark]) monogamous." Sorry, you must be thinking of your own wife.
But the real question is, are you actually capable?
"According to a report by researchers Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million."
Whereas, the odds of jumping out of a plane without a parachute and dying are about 5 million to one (or more.) That's a minimum of twelve orders of magnitude difference in the risk factor for two supposedly "analogous" behaviors, which are only differentially riskier "as a matter of degree." So much for your "apt" simile.
I suppose then, that you have no interest in this bet. Pity. I would love to take $1 from your heirs and assigns.
Please keep posting. By the way, do you speak Chinese? You'll be there soon.