Julian Assange's rape allegations continued

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball

Well there is no defense as yet because as you say, there are no charges (and I completely agree with you about the frustrating nature of that situation).

As I said in the last thread,  beyond the possible plot or manipulation there is a crucial missing piece - why the two women went to the authorities in the first place.

We have already had links posted with the theory that one or both of the women involved lied or had a hidden agenda.

The other possibility is that one or both of them went to the authorities in good faith, for whatever reason.

These are the only two possibilities, and clearly we're not going to know which it is for at least a few days yet, and we may never know.

It would be wrong to assume that Assange is guilty or even under great suspicion until all the evidence is laid out. By the same token, as frustrating as it is, I think we have to acknowledge that the two complainants did play a significant role in this, but that we won't know what that role is until when and if the evidence is presented.

For me, I think it is best to focus  any attempt to remove him from the U.K. without valid grounds, and on the possibility of charges and a call for extradition to the U.S. While these two women going to the police was the act which set that all in motion, it may be a completely separate matter. It is clear we should condemn the states' actions, and the rumour mill; but I think it is important to withhold judgment on their role and what we know of their accusations until it is heard in the British and possibly the Swedish courts.

 

ceti ceti's picture

Ah yes, nothing like rape charges to get the bipartisan lynch mob baying for blood. Has anyone not watched To Kill a Mockingbird or Passage to India? There is no longer any need to kill anyone, since the media and the blogosphere alone will serve as judge, jury, and executioners for someone's character.

This is what I think people are reacting against, the cynical and transparently political deployment (or redeployment) of charges at the very moment when the issue is exploding into the public sphere. It's a visceral reaction to the years of manipulation people have endured at the hands of elites. Moreover, for Assange, the unusual Interpol intervention, detention without bail, and the possibility of extradition to the US via Sweden on top of all the unprecedented attacks on Wikileaks, the stakes cannot be higher for him or for all of us.

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

I never said that I am certain Julian Assange is not guilty. I have maintained that the fact that the prosecutors has as yet failed to make a charge, based on the evidence in their possession, indicates that they themselves believe the charge is weak. I have made the point that prosecutors almost never pursue charges that they do not feel they can win in court.

But in this case, they most certainly are, even applying an interpol warrant that has not been used on a sex related charge in at least 8 years.

I have postulated that the fact that they are using these charges (which they themselves apparently doubt) to extradite Assange to Sweden, using a warrant that does not require them to present any evidence suggests that there are other reasons that they are pursuing this extradition proceeding, and the charges are merely a convenient way of keeping Julian Assange under lock and key.

Red Fox

 While I have no personal knowledge of the accused rapist's sex life, any more than anyone else here does, InterPol's sudden declaration that the allegations are worthy of an InterPol Red Notice - ironic that the European-based internatinal police agency indicates the seriousness of alleged offences the same way referees in football games do, with a yellow or red "card" - can only be viewed with suspicion at this time.

As stated in a prior post, this is the first time in almost a decade that a Red Notice has been issued for such an allegation.  When two young boys were unlawfully abducted by their mother from Canada to the USA then to Germany then to Poland, almost two years ago, InterPol only issued a Yellow Notice.  It is only recently, if my memory serves me correctly, more than 20 months after the abduction, that InterPol finally decided that international child abduction is a serious criminal offence, worthy of a Red Notice. 

Could it be that U. S. "authorities" & governments from other countries gave InterPol some "incentive" to get the world's best known whistleblower (is that another football reference?) into police custody to try & cover up the gaping holes in their credibility now exposed for all to see? 

The U. S. government has been exposed as the violent & bloodthirty hypocrites we all knew they are, willing to kill anyone or destroy any government which doesn't worship the ground Americans walk on.  Mr. Assange has every right to fear for his life & the life of anyone in his family, considering how far the U. S. is willing to go to exert its power over the rest of the world.  Even a Canadian con party member in the federal government publicly indicated that Mr. Assange should be killed for what he has done (but what is Canada now anyway but the 51st U. S. state really, so what credibility does such a sycophantic American mouthpiece have?).

If the rape allegations do not stand up to the light of day after complete examination in a court of law, Mr. Assange will either be railroaded into a confession or conviction on these initial charges or these charges will be stayed or dropped when he is extradited to the USA to stand trial on far more serious charges, after languishing for many months or years in a U. S. prison while false evidence & charges are trumped up & the Americans wait for him to be forgotten.

Whichever way this goes, the USA will not allow Mr. Assange to see the light of day for many years, other than through the bars of a prison cell, assuming he doesn't suddenly die from a "tragic accident" or catch a bullet while in American custody before going to trial.

Ironically, if convicted the alleged Jamaican-born international gangster known as Dudus who is now in American custody may get off easy compared to what the Americans will do to Assange in the end.

Maybe the pen really is mightier than the sword.  Unfortunately for Mr. Assange the price of exposing the truth - that the world's American "emporor" has no clothes - may be his life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jas

Cueball wrote:

I am still waiting for you to explain how one is supposed to be able to represent the case for the defense

Why would you try to? What point are you trying to make?

Cueball Cueball's picture

That there is a case for the defense. That this case for the defense largely rests upon impugning the credibility of the witnesses, and therefore their testimony, and that if such is construed as violating board policy, it then becomes impossible to quote the defense without being accused of using anti-feminist framing, and, apparently, "mocking" the Swedish rape law.

We seem to have gotten to the point where I quote the statements of Julian Assange's lawyer, and this make me "allied" with some anti-feminist backlash because the quote comes from the Daily Mail.

Further, and even more absurd, the lawyer himself is basically accused of doing the same because he bothered to defend his client, in the only manner that it seems possible to defend him, and then for defending his client he is accused of attacking the Swedish rape law.

He is doing no such thing. He is trying to prove that his client is not guilty under the law. He has not challenged the validity of law at all.

Freedom 55

ceti wrote:

But I wanted to add that this thread is a putrid example of the same old path of personal destruction that infects "left" discourse. There are some very big stakes here (perhaps the biggest) that shouldn't be sidetracked, but indeed, that is exactly what the powers that be want, so you focus more on Julian Assange's alleged social failings than the future of freedom.

 

We won't have much freedom in our future if we don't have healthy mass movements. And I would suggest that it will be rather difficult to develop these mass movements if the attitude that people need to shut the fuck up about sexual assault is allowed to prevail. Any movement that would downplay the importance of fighting sexism and misogyny in favour of the 'real, big, important issues' is bound to fail.

 

This isn't about being "sidetracked". I can walk and chew gum at the same time. And I'm quite capable of arguing that these two women should not be the subjects of a misogynist smear campaign; while also recognizing that none of the allegations against Assange have been proven; while also arguing that his detention and the efforts to extradite him are a transparent attempt to silence and punish him for threatening the powers that be; while also recognizing, commending, and supporting WikiLeaks for their invaluable work at exposing the lies and crimes of the world's ruling class.

 

And, "social failings" is quite the euphemism.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Yes, Freedom55, thank you.

Freedom55 wrote:
 This isn't about being "sidetracked". I can walk and chew gum at the same time. And I'm quite capable of arguing that these two women should not be the subjects of a misogynist smear campaign; while also recognizing that none of the allegations against Assange have been proven; while also arguing that his detention and the efforts to extradite him are a transparent attempt to silence and punish him for threatening the powers that be; while also recognizing, commending, and supporting WikiLeaks for their invaluable work at exposing the lies and crimes of the world's ruling class.

KenS

Bear in mind how different Swedish law is- law in general, not just the rape laws.

Prosecutors are in a position we would not tolerate- violating our basic concepts of justice.

And one of the things they do is routinely argue their case in public, before charges are laid. Which even in less high profile cases than this means that to defend the future of its case the defense also takes details of its case to the public in a manner that would never happen here.

Extend that walk and chew gum anology and it is unreasonable to expect Assanges lawyers not to do exactly what they are doing.

Add to that the fact the lawyers are being obstructed in attempts to collect evidence. To a degree that could not happen here. And political pressure works both ways. In the same way that a Swedish prosecutor has easy freedom to pursue a politicaly motivated vendetta, they can also be pressured in how they pursue a case. So Assange's lawyers will use what tools they have to get access to evidence that would be achieved here in a straightforward manner in court.

I realize that does not mean there is any reason to talk here about the case against the women. But I still think its relevant.

KenS

Make this explicit.

What I understand of Swedish prosectors powers- it is possible that Assange will never be formally charged, and that the prosecutor intends to do nothing more than for as long as she can make allegations about Assange without having having to back them up in any way. And no fear of malicious prosecution charges.

Its a lawyers job to protect the client. Assange is being seriously attacked even if he never faces formal charges. So they have to protect Assange given the current circumstances: where the prosecutor is free to make allegations that in themselves immobilize Assange, without backing up the allegations.

They have no alternative except to directly counter-attack the truth claims- which by the way are only what is 'suggested' the women have said. Under Sweish law they can be sued for what turns out to be false claims. But the prosecutor protects them with some legal device where she suggests what the women said.

remind remind's picture

Diogenes wrote:
I'm with Cueball on this all the way.  What should be a debate on the credibility of the charges and why these action have escalated to the Interpol  level has been seriously sidetracked by thin skinned feminists more concerned about political correctness and advancing the cause than any due process or administration of justice.The critics of Cueball here are just as phony as the various governments involved in this very obvious railroad job.

Really?

What a wanker you are....

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Diogenes, don't talk about feminists that way.

remind, don't call people names.

Ghislaine

Thank you Freedom55, excellent post. 

remind remind's picture

Maysie wrote:
Diogenes, don't talk about feminists that way.

remind, don't call people names.

You are correct,  I should have just stated he is misogynist at worst, sexist at best.

Unionist

Re Assange:

Character assassination is a typical tool of the MSM and its political and economic masters. Even when it is based on the gospel truth (as it often is, to make it most effective), it remains character assassination.

For example - what was done to Svend Robinson. Or Adam Giambrone.

For example (more extreme) - what was done to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - and indeed all the victims of McCarthyism.

The issue isn't whether we support theft, or philandering, or whether we support the Communist Party, or whether we support some individuals trying to break the nuclear monopoly and blackmail of the U.S. (the only country ever to use nuclear weapons in wartime, and against civilians at that). Those who frame the issue that way get sucked into diversionary debates - which is the point of the character assassination in the first place.

Most effective possible character assassination: when you get progressive people fighting each other about it. Mission accomplished!

 

Slumberjack

I don't really care about Julian Assange or Wikileaks.  There's nothing that he or his organization can offer beyond what the ruling class has voluntarily provided during the past 40 years or more, and continues to provide on a daily basis, in the form of self incriminating evidence of their monstrous crimes.  If he has to answer for crimes committed in Sweden, so be it.

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

Some in the mainstream media are making hay with it, but from what I have seen those who think Wikileaks has been valuable are keeping this in fairly good perspective. Though of course it has caused some strains and divisions.

For me, I just don't want our solidarity around the organization and the evidence that seems to indicate a plot to make us ignore the possibility that there might be something else going on here.

I know a lot of it is splitting hairs, but I have read enough opinions belittling the two women involved that I think we need to remember that they may be two separate issues.

To use the case of the Rosenbergs, their case was completely overshadowed by the murderous bit of cold war theatre that led to their execution. It didn't emerge until sometime later that Julius was in fact likely guilty of passing on secrets, however minor, and that Ethel was likely completely innocent.

A small point in the larger drama, surely. But important enough when you are the person caught up in it.

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

remind wrote:
You are correct,  I should have just stated he is misogynist at worst, sexist at best.

No remind, you should have reported the comment to the moderators and commented on the statement itself. Not calling people names. It's not constructive.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Freedom 55 wrote:

This isn't about being "sidetracked". I can walk and chew gum at the same time. And I'm quite capable of arguing that these two women should not be the subjects of a misogynist smear campaign; while also recognizing that none of the allegations against Assange have been proven; while also arguing that his detention and the efforts to extradite him are a transparent attempt to silence and punish him for threatening the powers that be; while also recognizing, commending, and supporting WikiLeaks for their invaluable work at exposing the lies and crimes of the world's ruling class.

Yes, you can walk and chew gum at the same time. My point is that while we are walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can also think: impugning the specific motives and suggesting that the alleged victims may be lying, does not in and of itself by extension impugn all rape victims or all women. The fact that these kinds of assertion often appear as part of the body of anti-feminist tropes about rape, or in this case the Swedish rape law, does not mean that these assertions are necessarily part of anti-feminist framing.

In the case under discussion, no where does Hurtig frame any of his assertions in the context of suggesting that Arden is a "ball-busting radical feminist Jihadist", or anything like what some bloggers are suggesting. Nor, in fact does the Daily Mail make any such suggestions, in fact they describe Arden as a "political activist in her 30's". Nor does saying that "the strong sense of women's rights in Sweden means 53 rape allegations are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe," amount to mocking or condemning the Swedish rape law, just because it is in the Daily Mail. It is stating what is the apparent fact.

Is there some harm in pointing out that Sweden has a "strong sense of women's rights"? Likewise, isn't the point of having a broad definition of rape to actually make more convictions on the charge?

More importantly, and what seems to have been missed in all of this is that Hurtig's is not saying "I have seen some blogs on the internet" that suggest there may be reason to doubt the testimony of the two witnesses, he is saying that he has seen parts of the prosecutors evidence that he believes support the case that Arden and co., have ulterior motives. Specifically, stating that he can undermine the testimony of one witness in particular.

These kinds of details are not the kinds of things that comprise internet gossip, but appear to be new and pertinent details relating directly to the evidence of the prosecution that are more than simple internet rumours based on supposition and prejudiced conjecture about Arden the "radical feminist".

remind remind's picture

How constructive, catchfire, is  making sexist claims here, in respect to feminists and basically stating that there are other things more important than women achieving equality rights, as well as indicating the feminist lawyer was just doing this to aggrandize self?

Because as far as I am concerned that is pretty damn much misogynist. And a moderator had  been in this thread, after said comment was written, and did absolutely nothing about the comment.

And what, we are now not allowed to name someone for being the misogynist or sexist person they are being?

Caissa

Let's take the questions in order:

1) Not true.

2) No.

remind remind's picture

shadow moderating again Caissa?

1. absolutely true

2. apparently so, and if so, I guess this thread link should itself go into the attack on women thread.

Caissa

Nope. Answering your questions, remind. You seeme to be the one having difficulty with the moderating today; I am not.

remind remind's picture

Funny, I saw catchfire's name in my words, not caissa....

nor can "caissa" answer the  questions, as they are to a moderator type of questions

as such, it was just a drive by of your usual sort, especially given that you had not participated in this thread and appear to have entered this thread only because of my words to catchfire.

Caissa

Yes, you wrote "catchfiire is", an open statement. A statement directed towards Catchfire might have looked like "catchfire, you are...". At least that is how I understand the written conventions of the English language.

Just trying to be helpful.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

remind, as you know, moderators cannot read everything posted on the site. When the comment was brought to our attention, we acted on it. And, again, pointing out anti-feminist comments is not the same as making broad statements about another babbler's character or intention based on one or two comments.

Caissa, none of your posts from #72 on are constructive, helpful or desirable in any way, and could be construed as baiting. Please leave the moderating to the moderators. Tx.

Caissa

I found them very constructive, helpful and obviously desireable since I wrote them. people shouldn't ask questions if they don't want to hear the answers. Nothing I wrote could in anyway be construed as moderating, imho, I can't say that about the person I was responding to, imho.

pogge

Michael Moore: [url=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/14/928855/-Why-Im-Posting-Bail... I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange[/url]

Quote:
Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

Unionist

Thanks, pogge! More from Michael Moore's piece:

Quote:
For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/wikileaks-assange-defiant... free on bail [... almost ...][/url]

Quote:

Assange, who denies the Swedish allegations, will be electronically tagged, must lodge 200,000 pounds ($317,400 U.S.) with the court, report to police daily and observe a curfew until a further hearing on Jan 11.

However, Assange’s lawyer Geoffrey Robertson told reporters after the hearing that it would take time to gather the security and it was likely Assange would remain in prison on Tuesday evening. The prosecution was given until 5.30 P.M. on Tuesday to return to the court with their decision on whether or not they would appeal.

contrarianna

more details

Quote:
WikiLeaks Founder Released as Supporters Put Up 200,000 Pounds
by Jason Ditz, December 14, 2010
...
The Swedish government intends to appeal against the decision to grant Assange bail, and such a move could come within the next couple of hours, but their reluctance to provide even a semblance of evidence against him is clearly grating on[British judge Howard] Riddle, and he is unlikely to seriously consider such a move without a major change in the attitude of the Swedish lawyers, who mocked his notion that they provide evidence as “irrelevant.”
..

Perhaps the oddest impact of Assange’s release, however, is that Bank of America’s common stock (NYSE: BAC), which was up strongly in the morning, took a small but noticable dip immediately after the news broke. WikiLeaks is said to be in possession of information that could “take down a bank or two” within the US, but it is unclear if it actually is Bank of America.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/14/uk-court-reverses-assange-freed-on-bail/

-=+=-

Bianca Jagger [url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/14/wikileaks-assange-bail.html]pre... at Assange's bail hearing.

Perhaps she will be supplying groupies/volunteers to be shagged in a non-consensual manner  while Assange takes his vacation in a posh [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/photos-heres-the-m... house[/url]?

Meanwhile, Bradley Manning [url=http://www.techeye.net/internet/is-bradley-manning-being-tortured]rots[/... in a military prison, and still hasn't received his defense money.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Do you think jokes about rape are funny, -=+=-? The next comment like that from you will earn you a suspension.

Where do you think Assange should stay while he awaits cynical prosecution from allies of US foreign policy? Would a windowless hovel be sufficiently austere for your tastes? Perhaps a lean-to under London bridge?

And who, again, is responsible for Manning's imprisonment? Hint: not Wikileaks.

contrarianna

-=+=- wrote:

Bianca Jagger [url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/14/wikileaks-assange-bail.html]pre... at Assange's bail hearing.

Perhaps she will be supplying groupies/volunteers to be shagged in a non-consensual manner  while Assange takes his vacation in a posh [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/photos-heres-the-m... house[/url]?

Your pathetic and malevolent painting of Biannca Jagger, whose internationally recognized tireless work for womens' rights and other internationally recognized issues, as a sexual procurer--disgusting.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Whatever might be said of high flying phlinathropists like Bianca Jagger, and her privilege, she is not a bad person. Now if only I had confidence that all these people who are showing up for Assange would show up at Alex Hundert's bail hearing.

Roscoe

Unionist wrote:

However, Assange’s lawyer Geoffrey Robertson told reporters after the hearing that it would take time to gather the security and it was likely Assange would remain in prison on Tuesday evening. The prosecution was given until 5.30 P.M. on Tuesday to return to the court with their decision on whether or not they would appeal.

Mr. Assange may be safer in prison. Free on bail he may 'accidentally' find himself in Syria.

pogge

Comment withdrawn. Rather than give in to the temptation to shadow moderate, I'm just going back on hiatus.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I don't think they will move against Assange in the immediate frame.

Caissa

Gives whole new meaning to rendering justice.

Xlo

Regardless of whether the rape charges are real, the reports by several medias that it would be difficult for the U.S.A. to extradite Assange from Sweden don't seem to be founded on anything more than the history of Sweden to have a tendency of protecting asylum-seekers.

In effect according to a lawyer from a firm who focus on U.S. international extraditions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htL1iis8blw) he could be "temporarily surrendered" to a US Marshal and transfered in the United State without any kind of legal appeal. While it would not exactly look good for Sweden in the eyes of many, it would sure please the U.S. if they can find anything to charge him with. What's more, it's all perfectly legal. It also seem the lack of charges from Sweden would make the rendition of Assange to the United State much easier.


Here's article 6 of the supplement

Quote:

Article VI

  • If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
  • (a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or
  • (b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States. 

And both the 1963 treaty and its 1984 supplement

http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-swede...

http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-swede...

 


 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Assange back in UK jail as Sweden appeals bail

Quote:
British judge Howard Riddle had initially granted Assange bail but prosecutors, representing Swedish authorities, challenged the decision before the 39-year-old Australian had left the court in central London.

"An appeal will be held within the next 48 hours and you will remain in custody," the judge told Assange, who nodded and said, "I understand," before being led from the dock by security guards.

Obviously ridiculous, since Assange was supposed to be "electronically tagged". The Swedish Prosecutor is obviously more concerned with keeping Assange away from the media than it is with making sure that he will appear to face charges, whatever those might be whenever the Swedish prosecutors decide they want to make them and then expose their evidence to scrutiny.

With each move of the Swedish side of this case it looks more and more like they are trying to avoid disclosure, and harrass Assange as opposed to seeking justice for the alleged victims.

-=+=-

It [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/14/julian-assange-bail-vaughan-... like[/url] Mr. Assange will be able to quaff $25.00 bottles of [url=http://www.winealign.com/wines/10121-Quinta-Do-Infantado-Red-2007]port[/..., while perhaps being driven to the local constabulary for his daily chin-wag in a Bentley (or will it be a Rolls-Royce?).  Will Mr. Assange also be provided with Grey Poupon?  These are important questions:

Quote:

Its owner today is Vaughan Smith, a friend of Assange, and a strong supporter. Smith has previously given the WikiLeaks founder a home at his Frontline club in Paddington, west London, which includes several flats.

Surrounded by 600 acres of woods and fields, the estate is the perfect retreat. It has 10 bedrooms, a large dining room with a convivial circular table, and portraits of Smith's ancestors hanging on the walls. There is a housekeeper who cooks meals. There is also a well-stocked cellar with wine and port – the decent Quinta Do Infantado.

Meanwhile, I wonder what Bradley Manning gets to drink in prison?  Water? Tang? Insta-Coffee?  There will certainly be no Grey Poupon for him.

It seems, however, that this is no mere charity for the WikiLeaks supremo.  Mr. Assange's team is actually expected to pay for these aristocratic lodgings:

Quote:

Speaking to the Guardian before today's bail hearing, Smith made clear that Assange and his team will be expected to pay for food and accommodation. Other paying guests have included games sports enthusiasts – the hall boasts a pheasant shoot, with pheasants wandering freely over the grounds. The local Norfolk hunt sometimes clatters through the gardens.

"It's a Georgian house from the 18th century. It's been in my family as Smith for the past 225 years, but before that it belonged to the Johnsons, whom the Smiths married into.

"Some of the buildings are even older. On the walls are paintings of the people who bred me," Smith said. "My grandfather liked shooting and I'm partial to it myself."

Bad, bad optics for the WikiLeaks side.

Congenitally unable to cough up the money raised six months ago for the defense of the original leaker (currently rotting in a dank military prison), or for that matter even publishing financial statements for the last four years.

Yet, somehow their pockets are magically deep enough to pay for five-star, county house, shooting country accommodation with a well-stocked wine cellar.

I think it's time to take Assange out of the Deep Throat category, and put him where he belongs, alongside Austin Powers.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Oh so you are saying that the $10,000 dollars that Courage to Resist estimates that Wikileaks has collected on Bradley Manning's behalf all arrived on Wikileaks doorstep in a single lump sum, and they have been sitting on it ever since? That is interesting, because as someone who has been part of various fundarising campaigns, I have always found that money comes in small amounts, then you collect it until you have a large lump sum, and then you release it in a lump sum.

What was wikileaks to do? Send eash donation of $20 along to the Bradley Manning defence fund, as they collected it?

Indeed you continue to falsify the facts. Apparently deliberately as part of your slander campaign. Wikileaks is only 2 months late in sending the money. Everyone agrees to this fact, even the people you allege have been defrauded.

Funnily it is you, not Courage to Resist who is alleging fraud. They have other explanations for the delay.

I can only come to one of two conclusions as to why you are falifying the facts. One you are a moron, which is highly plausible, and two you are deliberately using this site to spread malicious gossip. Possibly a bit of both. Aside from trolling, all you have accomplished here is that you have demonstrated that you don't know anything about what you are talking about.

Xlo

-=+=- wrote:

It seems, however, that this is no mere charity for the WikiLeaks supremo.  Mr. Assange's team is actually expected to pay for these aristocratic lodgings

  1. The article does not state whether it's referring to Wikileak team, his "celebrities fund" team or his legal team, which are three separate entity.
  2. The article does not mention any specific amount. You have no idea how much the "team" is expected to pay. Meaning that in all probability it could be question of a mere symbolic pound as much as an outrageous amount.

If you don't provide evidence of your claims you're just another case of "Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know."

By the way, anyone has any idea who's paying for Assange lawyers? If they're getting paids at all that is, I could see how this case is worth millions in publicity and fame for a lawyer.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I see that you are once again ignoring the facts as I presented them and are continuing to troll. I am sure you will later make the same smears again, having ignored the actual comments of "Courage to Resist" and others on this topic, and the moderators will continue not to boot your ass for promoting obvious slander on this web site, willfully, and without reference to the facts in any way shape or form.

-=+=-

Xlo wrote:

If you don't provide evidence of your claims you're just another case of "Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know."

By the way, anyone has any idea who's paying for Assange lawyers? If they're getting paids at all that is, I could see how this case is worth millions in publicity and fame for a lawyer.

According to [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-money/sto... News[/url], WikiLeaks is paying for a significant portion of Assange's defense, though the exact amount isn't clear:

Quote:

Said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland's parliament who introduced legislation that would make Iceland a safe haven for whistleblowers, "It was irresponsible in a sense for WikiLeaks to call the people to donate money for the Bradley defense. And not deliver."

At the same time, WikiLeaks is providing the money for Assange's defense against the charges of rape brought in Sweden, saying the case is connected to the work of the web site.

"And I don't think that is, is justifiable," said Jonsdottir. "And this is why I did suggest that he must step down."

Whatever the amount is, it's still greater than the $0.00 to date they paid out to help Manning.  (Can't see them holding out for much longer though, what with the bad PR they're starting to get on US TV:  CBS News, ABC etc. on this issue).

EDIT:  And the "celebrities' fund" that is mentioned.  Are you sure that covers lawyers' fees?  Initially at least, the funds pledged for Assange were to guarantee his bail.  In that case, I assume the money wouldn't have even passed through his hands.  Aren't 3rd party bail guarantees a transaction between the court and that 3rd party?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Actually Paterson was much more explicit than that when talking about the late payment of Wikileaks promised donation;

Quote:
Mr. Patterson said Wikileaks' failure to pay was "unfortunate", but added: "I attribute it to their fiscal disarray as the world closed in on them. I have spent many years defending military personnel. My concern was that an Icelandic-Australian-Swedish website was never going to be able to provide the defence that was needed for Bradley."

Unlike the slander being bandied about by our favourite troll. Courage to Resist, and Paterson make absolutely no charge against Wikileaks or Assange suggesting that they are in anyway acting in bad faith.

Perhaps that is because they are wise to the ways of the world. as opposed to completely lost idealists who assert that others, as opposed to themselves, should live in monklike abstinence until Manning is freed. One wonders why it is that some people who seem so concerned for Manning's welfare are so busy on the internet, and not doing a 24 hour hunger fast outside Fort Bragg to protest Manning's incarceration?

Often those most concerned with the real or imagined hypocrisy of others, are so concerned because their own hypocrisy weighs so heavily on their self-esteem.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Dunno if this is the place for this, but Michael Moore (the film maker) was on CNN tonight in a clip saying he has offered to pay $20,000.00 towards JA's legal fees. And Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) said if WL had existed during the Bush regime, we might never have had the war in Iraq.

Both Ellsberg and Moore hail JA as a hero - and Bradley Manning has the University of California in Berkely (sp?) passing a motion proclaiming Manning to be an American hero - and are asking cities and towns throughout the USA to pass similar motions.

-=+=-

Boom Boom wrote:

Dunno if this is the place for this, but Michael Moore (the film maker) was on CNN tonight in a clip saying he has offered to pay $20,000.00 towards JA's legal fees. And Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) said if WL had existed during the Bush regime, we might never have had the war in Iraq.

Both Ellsberg and Moore hail JA as a hero - and Bradley Manning has the University of California in Berkely (sp?) passing a motion proclaiming Manning to be an American hero - and are asking cities and towns throughout the USA to pass similar motions.

Actually, it wasn't towards his legal fees, but towards his bail, at least as explained [url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jROaoD_lQI-3YZN2uZFgj....

Important distinction.  Bail you get back (unless the person guaranteed absconds).

Xlo

-=+=- wrote:

According to [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-money/sto... News[/url], WikiLeaks is paying for a significant portion of Assange's defense, though the exact amount isn't clear:

Very interesting, although it's a little surprising from the woman who said to the new york time http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1


"Even among those challenging Mr. Assange’s leadership style, there is recognition that the intricate computer and financial architecture WikiLeaks uses to shield it against its enemies has depended on its founder. “


Also this a clear contradiction of

Quote:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,734318,00.html

SPIEGEL: Are Assange's defence costs against the rape allegations financed with money which you administer?

Fulda: No, that would not be in keeping with the foundation's aim. We pay out money for WikiLeaks' work but not for private matters relating to any of its employees.


-=+=- wrote:
Whatever the amount is, it's still greater than the $0.00 to date they paid out to help Manning.  (Can't see them holding out for much longer though, what with the bad PR they're starting to get on US TV:  CBS News, ABC etc. on this issue).

This statement was released,


“In July 2010, Wikileaks pledged to contribute a “substantial amount” towards Bradley’s legal defense costs. Since Bradley’s selection of David Coombs as his civilian defense attorney in August 2010, the Bradley Manning Support Network has unsuccessfully attempted to facilitate the pledged Wikileaks contribution.
We understand the difficult situation Wikileaks currently faces as the world’s governments conspire to extinguish the whistle-blower website,” explains Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist (couragetoresist.org). “However, in order to meet Bradley Manning’s legal defense needs, we’re forced to clarify that Wikileaks has not yet made a contribution towards this effort. We certainly welcome any contribution from Wikileaks, but we need to inform our supporters that it may not be forthcoming, and that their continued contributions and support are crucial.”


I'm sure there will be more info about this in the comming day, very curious to see wikileaks answer. Nevermind... Update:

Wired wrote:
Assange has recently declined to publicly comment on any payment by WikiLeaks for Manning’s defense, despite soliciting donations for the cause. Assange said at a press conference in Geneva in November that his group had been advised not to talk about it anymore. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/manning-defens/?intcid=postnav

According to a September e-mail to Threat Level from the Wau Holland Foundation, WikiLeaks authorized the foundation to release an unspecified amount of money for Manning’s defense sometime that month. But Wau Holland vice president Hendrik Fulda told the Post on Tuesday that although it was his understanding that the amount to be released was $20,000, he never received final confirmation to distribute the funds.

Due to the legal gray zone wikileaks has been exploiting it makes sense that their lawyers would ask them to keep quiet to avoid making themselve more vulnerable. Yet its normal to expect him to deliver.

-=+=- wrote:

EDIT:  And the "celebrities' fund" that is mentioned.  Are you sure that covers lawyers' fees?  Initially at least, the funds pledged for Assange were to guarantee his bail.  In that case, I assume the money wouldn't have even passed through his hands.  Aren't 3rd party bail guarantees a transaction between the court and that 3rd party?

Apologies, I did not mean it would cover lawyers fees, I was simply mentioning the possibility that they might be helping him on top of the fund pledged to bail him out. You are right indeed its a deal between, the court, a 3rd party and the lawyer of defender.

Pages

Topic locked