5 ms·

Matthew Garrett: "Quick Assange frequent misconceptions thread"

31 points by Tomte 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
An interesting read, with lots of comments emoting views on morality which is quite distinct from legality. It's entirely possible the greater good was revealing awful acts by the US military. The offence here was in conspiracy, and inducement/excitement to break the law. Unrelated I wonder if the people who paid bail for Assange in the UK only to have him skip bail got refunded. The OP points out a lot of half truths and hot takes exist especially around the Sweden side of things.
- blitzar 2y ago
  > the people who paid bail for Assange in the UK only to have him skip bail got refunded https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange... They tried to not pay, given that for some it was a substantial portion of their life savings, but obviously they didnt have any real case to avoid it. I would hope wikileaks repayed them but I highly doubt they did. Some ardent supporters from that era have little nice to say about Assange - including those that paid significant bail provided huge amounts of assistance. https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2013/02/jemima-khan-julian-assange-how-wikileaks-founder-alienated-his-allies https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2013/02/jemima-kha...
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Extremely unambiguous scammy behavior, there.
phyalow 2y ago
As a complete rebuttal, https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/assange-smear-2-hes-a-rapist-df9effd8b49d https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/assange-smear-2-hes-a-rapi... Or more broadly any in this great series of posts by Caitlan Johnstone: https://medium.com/search?q=Assange+Smear+caitlan https://medium.com/search?q=Assange+Smear+caitlan
- mjg59 2y ago
  She described being in a situation where she was unable to give consent, and where Assange acted in a way that violated her previous expression of consent (in that she'd expressly only agreed to sex if he wore a condom, and in this case he didn't). Whether she felt this should be described as rape or not, the facts as expressed would qualify as rape not only under Swedish law, but also under English law - see section 116 and onward of https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assange-judgment.pdf https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assan.... The narrative presented in that post also ignores the fact that after the initial investigation, the case was dropped - it was only reinstated because the legal representative of the women involved asked that it be reviewed, meaning that there was an opportunity for everyone involved to avoid being further involved. The cited link rebuts none of this.
  - henryaj 2y ago
    > [SW's] police report states that, after Assange woke her up trying to initiate intercourse, the two had a conversation in which she asked Assange whether he was wearing a condom and he replied he was not. She then said he “would better not have HIV” and he replied that he did not, after which, she “let him continue” (lät honom fortsätta) to have unprotected intercourse. There are no indications of coercive or incapacitating circumstances suggesting lack of consent. Accordingly, Chief Prosecutor for Stockholm Eva Finne stated: “I do not think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape” and closed the case on 25 August 2010 concluding that the “conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all”. From https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-ju...
    - mjg59 2y ago
      After the women's representative petitioned for the case to be reexamined, a prosecutor with more experience of sexual assault concluded that the alleged facts amounted to rape - see https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklag...
henryaj 2y ago
Statement from Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, on Assange and the accusations of rape against him - https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-ju...
- mjg59 2y ago
  Courts concluded that under both Swedish and English law, what was described (if accurately described, which is a separate issue) qualified as rape. Section 116 and onwards of https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assange-judgment.pdf https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assan... describe this in more detail. This isn't an arbitrary conclusion - it's based on an analysis of the described behaviour against national law. Someone unfamiliar with the specific law of the nations involved may reach a different conclusion, which is understandable and also entirely irrelevant.
  - henryaj 2y ago
    I don't know what to believe. That document is pretty damning reading to be honest (thank you for sharing and pointing to the relevant sections), but the original post from Melzer still raises some alarming issues I think
soco 2y ago
I don't really get why most the discussions here about the rape case. While very important to him personally, to us the rest of the world the implications of the WikiLeaks should be way more important, or am I wrong?
- AndrewDucker 2y ago
  The two are entirely separate for me. I'm not sure why I have to weigh them up against each other.
- tivert 2y ago
  > I don't really get why most the discussions here about the rape case. While very important to him personally, to us the rest of the world the implications of the WikiLeaks should be way more important, or am I wrong? Why do we nowadays talk about Harvey Weinstein's rapes and not ignore them because his movies are far more important to the "rest of the world"?
  - soco 2y ago
    My comment was out of disappointment: how much HN traffic generates the condom of Assange in comparison with how the justice handled the leaks case. It's almost like, sex would be more important to chat than freedom? Or are we all already in agreement over WikiLeaks and banter here only about the dropped rape case? If yes, it wasn't obvious to me, sorry. I do trust the justice to be served to proven rapists and if not, by all means let's raise our voices. And by the way, the case of Weinstein is by no means comparable with Assange's, in scope or implications - which cases again were not the topic here but look at me, getting dragged into the very out-of-topic discussions I complained about.
  - SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago
    You're seriously trying to compare what WikiLeaks exposed to a bunch of hollywood movies?
    - tivert 2y ago
      No, I'm pointing that that we don't let other achievements eclipse "being a rapist" anymore.
MrSkelter 2y ago
Assange is both being unfairly targeted for leaking embarrassing information and is a man with a troubling sexual history who likely raped a women in Sweden. Both can be true. Do you know how many children Assange has? Do you know how much time he spent with them before his arrest? He seems to have a Musk like breeding fetish and was known to exploit his fame for sex. He even engaged in multiple relationships while in hiding and incarcerated. Condom removal is rape. Sex with a sleeping person is rape. Sweden takes rape much more seriously than most countries and counts it differently.

31 points by Tomte 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

An interesting read, with lots of comments emoting views on morality which is quite distinct from legality. It's entirely possible the greater good was revealing awful acts by the US military. The offence here was in conspiracy, and inducement/excitement to break the law. Unrelated I wonder if the people who paid bail for Assange in the UK only to have him skip bail got refunded. The OP points out a lot of half truths and hot takes exist especially around the Sweden side of things.

blitzar 2y ago
> the people who paid bail for Assange in the UK only to have him skip bail got refunded https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange... They tried to not pay, given that for some it was a substantial portion of their life savings, but obviously they didnt have any real case to avoid it. I would hope wikileaks repayed them but I highly doubt they did. Some ardent supporters from that era have little nice to say about Assange - including those that paid significant bail provided huge amounts of assistance. https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2013/02/jemima-khan-julian-assange-how-wikileaks-founder-alienated-his-allies https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2013/02/jemima-kha...
- pjc50 2y ago
  Extremely unambiguous scammy behavior, there.

phyalow 2y ago

As a complete rebuttal, https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/assange-smear-2-hes-a-rapist-df9effd8b49d https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/assange-smear-2-hes-a-rapi... Or more broadly any in this great series of posts by Caitlan Johnstone: https://medium.com/search?q=Assange+Smear+caitlan https://medium.com/search?q=Assange+Smear+caitlan

mjg59 2y ago
She described being in a situation where she was unable to give consent, and where Assange acted in a way that violated her previous expression of consent (in that she'd expressly only agreed to sex if he wore a condom, and in this case he didn't). Whether she felt this should be described as rape or not, the facts as expressed would qualify as rape not only under Swedish law, but also under English law - see section 116 and onward of https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assange-judgment.pdf https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assan.... The narrative presented in that post also ignores the fact that after the initial investigation, the case was dropped - it was only reinstated because the legal representative of the women involved asked that it be reviewed, meaning that there was an opportunity for everyone involved to avoid being further involved. The cited link rebuts none of this.
- henryaj 2y ago
  > [SW's] police report states that, after Assange woke her up trying to initiate intercourse, the two had a conversation in which she asked Assange whether he was wearing a condom and he replied he was not. She then said he “would better not have HIV” and he replied that he did not, after which, she “let him continue” (lät honom fortsätta) to have unprotected intercourse. There are no indications of coercive or incapacitating circumstances suggesting lack of consent. Accordingly, Chief Prosecutor for Stockholm Eva Finne stated: “I do not think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape” and closed the case on 25 August 2010 concluding that the “conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all”. From https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-ju...
  - mjg59 2y ago
    After the women's representative petitioned for the case to be reexamined, a prosecutor with more experience of sexual assault concluded that the alleged facts amounted to rape - see https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklag...

henryaj 2y ago

Statement from Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, on Assange and the accusations of rape against him - https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-ju...

mjg59 2y ago
Courts concluded that under both Swedish and English law, what was described (if accurately described, which is a separate issue) qualified as rape. Section 116 and onwards of https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assange-judgment.pdf https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/11/assan... describe this in more detail. This isn't an arbitrary conclusion - it's based on an analysis of the described behaviour against national law. Someone unfamiliar with the specific law of the nations involved may reach a different conclusion, which is understandable and also entirely irrelevant.
- henryaj 2y ago
  I don't know what to believe. That document is pretty damning reading to be honest (thank you for sharing and pointing to the relevant sections), but the original post from Melzer still raises some alarming issues I think

soco 2y ago

I don't really get why most the discussions here about the rape case. While very important to him personally, to us the rest of the world the implications of the WikiLeaks should be way more important, or am I wrong?

AndrewDucker 2y ago
The two are entirely separate for me. I'm not sure why I have to weigh them up against each other.
tivert 2y ago
> I don't really get why most the discussions here about the rape case. While very important to him personally, to us the rest of the world the implications of the WikiLeaks should be way more important, or am I wrong? Why do we nowadays talk about Harvey Weinstein's rapes and not ignore them because his movies are far more important to the "rest of the world"?
- soco 2y ago
  My comment was out of disappointment: how much HN traffic generates the condom of Assange in comparison with how the justice handled the leaks case. It's almost like, sex would be more important to chat than freedom? Or are we all already in agreement over WikiLeaks and banter here only about the dropped rape case? If yes, it wasn't obvious to me, sorry. I do trust the justice to be served to proven rapists and if not, by all means let's raise our voices. And by the way, the case of Weinstein is by no means comparable with Assange's, in scope or implications - which cases again were not the topic here but look at me, getting dragged into the very out-of-topic discussions I complained about.
- SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago
  You're seriously trying to compare what WikiLeaks exposed to a bunch of hollywood movies?
  - tivert 2y ago
    No, I'm pointing that that we don't let other achievements eclipse "being a rapist" anymore.

MrSkelter 2y ago

Assange is both being unfairly targeted for leaking embarrassing information and is a man with a troubling sexual history who likely raped a women in Sweden. Both can be true. Do you know how many children Assange has? Do you know how much time he spent with them before his arrest? He seems to have a Musk like breeding fetish and was known to exploit his fame for sex. He even engaged in multiple relationships while in hiding and incarcerated. Condom removal is rape. Sex with a sleeping person is rape. Sweden takes rape much more seriously than most countries and counts it differently.