Head of International Monetary Fund Arrested for Sex Attack 2

NDPP wrote:

Strauss-Kahn Quits

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388447/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-q...

Meanwhile calls for the 62-year-old to step down as head of the powerful International Monetary Fund, intensified with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner saying Strauss-Kahn 'is obviously not in a position to run' the agency.

And who is Tim Geithner? He's a Wall Street insider with revolving door access to the halls of power in Washington and previously a convenor of the President's Working Group on Financial markets sometimes referred to as The Plunge Protection Team by its critics. They are Democrats, Republicans, Bilderbergers, central planners, "masters of the universe" and Wall Street bankster king pins delivering on socialism for superrich and powerful people. Whatever they say goes when it comes to expanding massive social programs for rich and powerful people. These are some of the people on the right who will ensure that the bad old days of laissez-faire capitalism never return. I supose we can at least be thankful for that. Meanwhile the financial pillaging and looting of Rome continues from within.

Thanks, Ghislaine. This thread and its precursor were badly in need of some feminist analysis. Your post is much welcomed. That disgusting article even quotes Henry Kissinger to buttress its point that DSK is irresistible. What utter crap.

Fidel wrote:

Why can't DSK be both guilty of rape and represent a threat to hundreds of European banksters and financial crooks?  I realize this is no time to mention possible innocence of the accused, but sometimes straightforward logic can be useful before calling in the executioner. 

The problem is not that this very famous man has a life outside of this sexual assault charge. Nor that we shouldn't be concerned about the rest of his life.

Its just that those other things aren't relevant, or certainly shouldn't be the focus of attention. 

The real focus of this thread - the charge, the alleged victim, and the accused - is being all but ignored by political junkies who are far more interested in the effect it will have on his other exploits. Or worse - casting doubt on the validity of the charge and the reputation of the alleged victim,  and questioning how they might fit into conspiracy theories to bring down the accused, who for some reason is being made the centre of attention here.

So Fidel... I know it is tempting, and obviously this has a bearing on DSK's work. But it is important and respectful to keep this in its proper perspective.

Perspective? I guess it all depends on who the jurors are. I think they are chosen by random selection in New York. And you have random babblers posting here in various threads similarly. And I agree in that I believe there really are biased opinions being posted here.

I resent your insinuation that I lack empathy for the alleged victim.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Its just that those other things aren't relevant, or certainly shouldn't be the focus of attention.

And why is that? Do you not believe in the basic human right to a fair trial? I should remind you that this is a left wing forum that is teeming with support for basic human rights in general.

They keep pushing the fact that the alleged victim is from Guinea. So is an Exxon Oil-friendly dictator still there in Guinea, a poverty-stricken hellhole of country in Africa where western corporations are shaking them down for natural resource wealth. Dollars to donuts that never gets a mention.

I agree it's important not to attack the victim's integrity. But what about the people speaking for her who keep reminding everyone of where she comes from and just how poor she would have been had she remained in Guinea? My god what a racist thing to be pointing out - that she is a poor black woman, as if poor black women from Africa are incapable of the same human behaviours white people might also be. I'd fire those guys off the job PDQ.

Or, you know, these powerful, entitled men could actually be guilty of rape. 

Déjà Vu

Quote:

Indeed, like everyone charged with a crime, DSK is innocent until proven guilty, but can’t the French political and journalistic elite focus for two minutes on the crime of which he is accused? Say what you like about handcuffs and perp walks, they really don’t compare with a violent sex attack. It’s a little scandalous that all these so-called socialists not only think this powerful man deserves special treatment before the law but also have not one word to say about the woman, a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant and single mother, except to imply that she’s a lying slut.

And maybe part of a political plot. Frantically spinning for DSK, as he did for his other dear friend Roman Polanski, philosopher turned pundit Bernard-Henri Lévy found it very suspicious that the woman entered his room alone: “I do not know—but, on the other hand, it would be nice to know, and without delay—how a chambermaid could have walked in alone, contrary to the habitual practice of most of New York’s grand hotels of sending a ‘cleaning brigade’ of two people [untrue], into the room of one of the most closely watched figures on the planet.” No presumption of innocence for the “chambermaid,” apparently. When all else fails, there’s the old standby, wheeled out whenever a famous or powerful man is accused of rape: why would he rape when women were lining up to have sex with him? “A seducer yes, a rapist no,” said DSK biographer Michel Taubmann. Like he would know....

But of course DSK’s predatory behavior was always common knowledge, the stuff of jokes, gossip and veiled allusions in the press. It was just called something else: seduction, love of women, even, proof of good health. It took a powerless outsider in a foreign country—the housekeeper had no idea that DSK, as one of the world’s most powerful men, was entitled to make violent use of her body—to take action. Now DSK’s defense attorney is saying the sex, if it took place, was consensual. Because nothing is more likely than that a housekeeper—a Muslim widow in a headscarf, no less—will leap at the chance to fellate a 62-year-old hotel guest who springs naked out of the bathroom.

Fidel, in case you aren't aware it is NOT JUST RIGHT WING MEN WHO RAPE. Leftists (and it is still unclear whether this guy really is a leftist) rape as well. People who take political action we may agree with sexual assault women. It is pervasive. (Many of us have personal experience of this - with men we formerly admired and trusted). To say "oh, well he must have been set up because he was taking action on issues we agree with!" is completely offensive and contrary to everything feminist know about sexual assault.

The victim-blaming going on is atrocious.

with Clinton, only in the case of Kathleen Willey was there any accusation of force; that was in the White House, so no police nearby;

but with Strauss-Kahn, very comparable in many ways, several women are coming forward now who said he twisted their arms, at least figuratively, from a position of superiority in the hierarchy; even the Hungarian economist at IMF whose relationship was deemed "consensual", now says not really ...

DSK clearly abusive over a long period

As a feminist and a socialist I find many of these comments quite offensive.  If the accused had been a right wing capitalist what would Rabblers have said?  DSK is, of course, innocent until proven guilty, so those who say he was set up or a victim of some conspiracy by international bankers are presuming his innocence.  And what does that then say about the working class victim?  Some people wonder why he would do such a thing and place his entire career in jeopardy.  Why?  Because he, like so many men in power (left and right and in between) feel they can get away with it.  Surrounded by fawning fans to whom they can do no wrong they have no moral compass.  I am also disturbed by those who question why he would rape a woman when he could have his pick of so many others, which perpetuates the myth that rape is about sexual desire when it is always about power, control and violence.  Personally, I applaud the woman for coming forward and even the Hotel which took immediate action to protect its employee.

Ghislaine wrote:

Fidel, in case you aren't aware it is NOT JUST RIGHT WING MEN WHO RAPE.

I was entirely unaware of that. Thanks for setting me straight. I'll think twice about saying these things from now on.

Catchfire wrote:

Or, you know, these powerful, entitled men could actually be guilty of rape. 

It's a basic historical fact that rape accusations have been used as a propaganda tactic for thousands of years. To reiterate over some examples, the British did it in the Sepoy mutiny in India, the Americans did it against Natives when they wanted to motivate white men to go commit genocide, the Europeans are currrently doing it against Ghadaffi's forces, et cetera.

Perhaps you don't believe that truth is the first victim of war, or that we live in a world where the imperialist powers will stop at nothing to maintain their vampiric grip on power. Character assassination is part of the toolbox. You've seen made-up character assassinations so many times, so why fall for it?

Your position on this issue is unilateral disarmament against a very powerful CIA/MI6/Interpol tactic. They will keep removing left-wing figures from positions of influence throughout North America and Europe, and if people like you fall for it every time, there will eventually be nothing left (even less than right now), facilitating the ongoing transition to fascism.

******

I also suspect that the more frequent use of rape accusations to engage in character assassination has a dual purpose. Aside from destroying the careers of troublesome-to-imperialism individuals such as DSK and Julian Assange, it comes off as ludicrous in the eyes of the general public and will serve to further reduce the legitimacy of women in the general public who get raped.

500_Apples wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Or, you know, these powerful, entitled men could actually be guilty of rape. 

 

It's a basic historical fact that rape accusations have been used as a propaganda tactic for thousands of years. To reiterate over some examples, the British did it in the Sepoy mutiny in India, the Americans did it against Natives when they wanted to motivate white men to go commit genocide, the Europeans are currrently doing it against Ghadaffi's forces, et cetera.

Perhaps you don't believe that truth is the first victim of war, or that we live in a world where the imperialist powers will stop at nothing to maintain their vampiric grip on power. Character assassination is part of the toolbox. You've seen made-up character assassinations so many times, so why fall for it?

Your position on this issue is unilateral disarmament against a very powerful CIA/MI6/Interpol tactic. They will keep removing left-wing figures from positions of influence throughout North America and Europe, and if people like you fall for it every time, there will eventually be nothing left (even less than right now), facilitating the ongoing transition to fascism.

******

I also suspect that the more frequent use of rape accusations to engage in character assassination has a dual purpose. Aside from destroying the careers of troublesome-to-imperialism individuals such as DSK and Julian Assange, it comes off as ludicrous in the eyes of the general public and will serve to further reduce the legitimacy of women in the general public who get raped.

Oh bullshit, I'd believe the maid before I'd believe any of your conspiracy BS. Sorry.

You know, this conspiracy theory stuff about Struass Kahn offers up no evidence, just questions.   And, believe it or don't, unanswered questions are not evidence. 

A chain of unanswered questions and suppositions.  Even if they all hung together, one link after another, it's still not evidence.  But even as that, there is no chain.

The idea that Strauss Kahn is some kind of socialist, that he was changing the IMF from within, or from the top, or challenging the banking system cannot be evidentially supported.  In fact, as the statement from DSK himself on the Irish bailout package indicates, he is a full blown capitalist, making sure those in the banks and those bondholders are sure to face no consequence for their crapulance, and to face absolutely no reduction of income or status.  

Meanwhile the workers and poor of the Republic of Ireland are paying and paying, taking wage cuts, cuts to social programs and cuts to basic services.

 This canard about DSK being a socialist or being someone the bankers or those in power wanted rid of is nonesense on stilts.  As Pauli would say, it's not even wrong.

As I have stated before, like anyone else Dominique Strauss Kahn is innocent until proven guilty.  But if we are to entertain the question on what we think is the likelyhood of him being a rapist, or being the victim of a conspiracy, it is far removed from reason to put any wieght on the victim explanation.

500_Apples wrote:

It's a basic historical fact that rape accusations have been used as a propaganda tactic for thousands of years.

But is this "historical fact" a literal truth?  The sexual assault of women has been systemically under-recognized or not even acknowledged as rape for millennia.  These "false accusations" may in fact have been allegations of real behaviour that were swept under the rug or attributed to political enemies.

And yeah; the head of the IMF is vetted by the world's top money-based sociopaths.  The notion that DSK, the man of $6000 suits and $3000/night hotel rooms, was somehow speaking truth to power is beyond laughable.

I know it often seems like ducking the issue when politicians or other figures say they can't comment on something because it is before the courts (and indeed sometimes they are ducking). 

But there is also some wisdom to it. A case like this is (and likewise, the investigation against Julian Assange) are two examples where it is probably a good idea to just resist the urge, and stay completely away from the case itself until we know what the facts are.

I don't know if it is that people are so used to TV and fiction that they just assume that everything has to fit together even though it might be completely unrelated. And the problem with any case involving a public figure is that the temptation is always to fit it together around HIS life, and the alleged victim is either ignored, treated as some pawn, or accused of being an attacker. 

Likewise the sentiment that the legalities of this case aren't so important, and the assumption that the main thing is that he wind up behind bars because his political crimes are what he should really be punished for. As I said before, if it is okay to bend the law to get your enemy, it can eventually come back to bite you too.

I don't mean to say that we shouldn't talk at all about cases, or that sometimes (as with the Assange case) there may not be those who seek to manipulate the legal process.

But when that discussion extends to bending the law, or treating the alleged victim as either a minor player in someone else's game, or with outright suspicion when there is absolutely no evidence to that effect (as Tommy_Paine rightly pointed out) it becomes a real problem - and very disrespectful.

And that disrespect, and the tendency to resort to it,  is far greater in matters of sexual assault and violence against women.

Because I am certain this case - not the IMF or French  politics -  is the most central and very painful thing for the alleged victim, and in all likelhood this has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the perpetrator's professional life, There is certainly no evidence of it.

If we can't discuss Mr, Strauss-Kahn's fortunes without keeping that in its proper perspective we should probably not be talking about this at all. And we should probably change the title of the thread to reflect what it is really about. 

Besides, the real world isn't always as neat and tidy as TV. Julius Rosemberg may have been the victim of a show trial, but as was revealed a few years ago, he was also almost certainly guilty as charged (and Ethel was probably innocent).

As I said.... 

He was the victim of a show trial. And I agree with your assessment of it.

But those who assumed he was innocent, and that he was framed, are probably mistaken. It may have seemed the likeliest conclusion because the whole process was railroaded by the U.S. government. But the truth is not always so cut and dried.

In 2008, Morton Sobell, who was convicted with the Rosenbergs, admitted that he and Julius were spies, and that Ethel probably knew about it but was not involved. 

Might he be lying? perhaps. But given his age (91) and the time that had passed there is a fair chance he was telling the truth. After all, I would think there is more reason for him to clear the air than smear a couple of dead people and perpetuate the lies of the cold war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/nyregion/12spy.html

I think conspiracy thinking has become part of the zietgiest lately, and it takes a conscious effort to not engage in it.  It's easy to resist when the facts as we know them support something we want to believe.  And a tempting debating tactic to resort to in support of something we want to believe when we find ourselves at odds with the facts.  And, more of us are probably guilty of giving into that temptation than we care to admit.

So I don't think those who support a conspiracy or who are entertaining it to an unfathomable degree are seeking to blame the victim or discredit her with that as a prime motive.  But it is an inexcapable element that has to be included in any conspiracy scenario.

For all we know it is indeed possible she is Bigfoot.  Prove me wrong.

No, I was trying to colourfully draw attention to the idea that you can't prove a negative, which is what all these conspiracy ideas are asking us to do.

What, you've never ever read any post here by me showing were governments lie?  Of course they do, and of course we know that from evidence.

To entertain all these conspiracies without a shred of evidence is a clear violation of reason.

@ 500 Apples

Evidence?

You are just making up stories about someone who has likely been sexually assaulted, and is now overshadowed by her much more important and famous alleged attacker.

And the worst part of it is that she is not even being thought of as a person, but as a piece in a puzzle. If you're wrong about her being an agent or someone paid to entrap him? Well too bad... no harm done. She can deal with it.

I don't know how you would feel if you were attacked in the street and someone started a rumour that you had somehow deserved it, or were the instigator because of the reputation of the attacker hwo is far more important than you.... or if your house burned down and someone accused you of doing it yourself... or indeed if you had come under suspicion in a family member's death because "well these things don't just happen by themselves".

I'm sure the victims of former pathologist Charles Smith understand what it is like to be falsely accused by someone who feels the need to make random incidents fit patterns that aren't really there and play games with other peoples' lives.

While it is true that false accusations of rape can be used as a tool to smear and discredit a powerful person, my point is that actual rape is a weapon against women.  Rape has sometimes been used as a weapon of war, but in the main it transcends politics, perpetrated by men of ALL political afflilations/ideologies to degrade and humiliate women.

Look at the recent Arnold Schwartznegger scandal.  Arnold has a long history of groping and molesting women, but some of the women who came forward in the past were pilloried in the media, accused of being agents for the Democrats.

There's an interesting article in yesterday's Globe about why men in positions of power risk everything for transient encounters.

Quote:

Those who seek prominence for selfish reasons tend to become reckless, they say. Paradoxically, the very characteristics that propel them to power melt away once they attain it, sometimes triggering a dramatic demise.

The same qualities that thrust the likes of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Eliot Spitzer to greatness actually held the seeds of their ultimate undoing, or so the argument goes.

<snip>

In Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s case, experts surmise he was driven by an overwhelming need for personal power celebrated by status symbols: First-class plane tickets, a fancy job title and $3,000-a-night Sofitel suites....The red flags for Mr. Strauss-Kahn stretched back years, in the form of anecdotes of his inappropriate sexual behaviour from women with whom he’d crossed paths. In Mr. Schwarzenegger’s case, allegations of “groping” flew around long before his love child was born.

Since rape is about power, makes sense that a man who has or wants power would use rape as a kind of affirmation.  Politics has nothing to do with it.

I wonder how many "false" accusations of rape were based on real events, the victims unfortunate enough to accuse a man for whom such allegations were considered to be too conveniently timely for his detractors.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

To entertain all these conspiracies without a shred of evidence is a clear violation of reason. 

Once again, no one here is saying DSK did not rape. That's a very real possibility. 

What some of us have a hard time with is those saying DSK is not also loathed by some superrich and powerful people from this side of the ocean to the other.

There is a war going on for control of the monetary system. There are no socialists involved in this war. 

Money is how countries have been waging the larger wars since decades ago. There have been bombings and fascist armies marching into sovereign countries and false flag terror before and since the end of cold war for sure. But most of the pillaging and sacking of countries has been done by marauding international capital. Whether DSK is guilty of rape or not, he's definitely done. This is the end of DSK political aspirations for sure. Am I happy or sad? It makes no real difference to us on the left. They are all corrupt and dirty.