So let me see if I understand the 2 biggest hot button topics on DU

[DirkGently]

144. Well, yes, that would be wrong. But you don't think

there's anything else going on with this "debate?" You have not observed that typically, pro-Obama hardliners, angry at Assange for Wikileaks, angry at criticism of the Bradley Manning case, leap directly to convicting Assange as a vile rapist, with the specific intention of discrediting Wikileaks?

You don't think that, along with these people you say have wrongly muddied the definition of rape, are others who reasonably question whether the timing of the story, which occurred precisely when the U.S. was frantically trying to tie Assange to Manning's leaks, the ambiguous initial handling by the Swedish government, and the rapid disappearance of one of the accusers, suggested the possibility of a frame-up?

OPs like this are nasty from the get-go. It's a call out that relates to other divisions on DU and attempts to characterize a "side" as foolish or hypocritical to get to an entirely different issue. If someone says "that's not why I argue for / against ____" the answer is "Well, then I'm not talking to you -- I'm just talking to all those rape-defending assholes who agree with you." Right? We've seen it a million times, and it's a crappy rhetorical strategy in every case. It's a cheap workaround to avoid confronting the actual arguments in real time.

We all know the truth lies elsewhere. The charges laid against Assange, if true, clearly constitute rape. Rape is rape. Assange should face his accusers and make his case. And to be clear, it IS possible for someone to have done something good for world, and still have committed an evil act for which he should be punished. We won't, any of us, know enough to judge actual guilt or innocence without a trial, which we all might note is supposedly one of our small "d" democratic ideals.

But this is not Akin's comments or the Republican push to return women to chattel status. That conflation is utter bullshit. We all know context matters. We all know that people who fuck powerful governments like ours DO get smeared, and we all know this issue arose at the height of the Bradley Manning situation and government anger at Assange and the charge that Assange not only received the information, but helped Manning to obtain it, so he could be charged with espionage himself. And we all raised an eyebrow or three when suddenly, there was a reason to lock him up. Or not lock him up. The Swedes were a little fuzzy about that to begin with, which was a red flag from the start.

We know it is completely plausible that what Assange is running from, in whole or in part, is fear of either being railroaded in Sweden or carted off to the U.S. to face its wrath for an entirely different act. We know that people who approve of the leaks and disapprove of the treatment of Manning are more likely to be sympathetic to that, and many of those who side with the U.S. on the leaks would like to see Assange stripped naked and chained to Manning by the nostrils for embarrassing the administration.

We all know this, so we really don't need to bullshit each other about it, do we?