Please. Let's not repeat on DU the lies, smears and slanders directed against Julian Assange

[Better Believe It]

It's obvious that a government/mass media inspired character assasination campaign is being directed against Julian Assange on an international scale.

Let's not give the rumors, hearsay and crude personal attacks credibility by not questioning them or posting them as if they are established facts.

Don't become unwitting tools in that campaign.

We are better than that.

Thank you.

[NoGOPZone]

1. K&R nt

[ProSense]

2. Yes, let's stick to the lies, smears and slanders directed against President Obama. n/t

[villager]

5. Let's just look at each of their track records... yes?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

7. I did. n/t

[Still a Democrat]

6. ProSense FTW!!!

:bounce:

[tavalon]

9. Nope, it's Villager by a nose

Let's be truthful. What an awesome, radical idea!!

[Still a Democrat]

14. Would you agree

folks around here would be a lot quicker to believe something negative about President Obama than Julian Assange? He's the flavor of the month.

[tavalon]

25. We are a demoralized lot, true.

In fact, betrayed probably better describes it. Neither are saints but Obama has really been making it hard on us lately. Assange, not so much. (By us, I mean, bleeding heart liberals).

[Still a Democrat]

42. Assange is a double-edged sword

They are instances of corruption and misconduct he has helped reveal, but there are legitimate reasons for some diplomatic and state documents to be secret, IMO.

[Bluebear]

158. Oh Lord is she still here?

[girl gone mad]

11. Criticizing a Politician's record is not slander.

Calling someone a rapist when there is no evidence in support of that charge, however, is.

[ProSense]

13. I hear ya

calling him a socialist and a Muslim is teh truth!

[Forkboy]

31. DUers are calling Obama a Socialist and a Muslim?

Can you link to some of those?

[bvar22]

83. BANG!

That should kill THAT strawman....at least in this thread

[sabrina 1]

54. First, is there something wrong with being a Socialist

or a Muslim? If Obama was a Socialist that would be awesome.

But who on DU has said that?

[Forkboy]

157. No interest anymore?

[treestar]

20. If a government entity is looking for someone then there is

some evidence that he may be guilty of the charge.

[Forkboy]

32. LOL

[RetroLounge]

36. LOL

:rofl:

RL

[demmiblue]

38. LOL

:rofl:

[ibegurpard]

41. let me just add to the cacophony of LOLs

[Hassin Bin Sober]

76. Me too. LOL

[QC]

45. Comedy gold! n/t

[bvar22]

80. Oh MAN that comment is scary!

"If they weren't GUILTY, they wouldn't be on trial!!!"

Do you really feel that way?
or did you just type something without thinking?
I hope it is the latter.

[suffragette]

84. That's a very Kafkaesque statement

[Catherina]

109. I can't lol at that, just

:puke:

[superduperfarleft]

112. Do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?

[Krakowiak]

120. hahahahahah

hahahahahahahahaha

give me a minute...

hahahahahahah

[Better Believe It]

136. Right. Take the Chinese government for example. Or Iran. How about Afghanistan?

:)

[JackRiddler]

46. So your latest false dichotomy is Obama vs. Assange?

Do you really want to go there?

[jefferson_dem]

66. Self-delete.

Double post. Sorry.

[jefferson_dem]

67. Yes.

Let's not go there. There's really no comparison. Agreed.

Nonetheless, many who are now defending Assange against supposed lies and smears are the greatest offenders of promoting those very same things against our Democratic president. Irony overload...to say the least.

[Mimosa]

47. Why the either or choice?

There is no reason to believe Assange's motives are less than honest. Nor is he acting in bad faith. Assange has explained his purposes. Obama, not so much.

[dionysus]

57. !!

:thumbsup:

[AngryAmish]

61. !!!

[jefferson_dem]

63. Exactly.

I literally laughed out loud after reading this. The OP should really replace "Julian Assange" with "Barack Obama."

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

3. Let's not even repeat the requests to not repeat them. And so on. nt

[egoclothes]

4. K and R

[MilesColtrane]

8. I heard that he was a halfling.

[HipChick]

10. Free speech...as long as we are repeating the lies,smears and slanders against Obama

[ProSense]

16. We are the protectors of freedom, good and all that is true

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

21. You're off topic. However, lies and slanders against President Obama are not posted on DU

They are quickly removed because posting that kind of material clearly violates DU rules.

Now, back on topic if you don't mind.

Do you have an opinion on the suggestion in the opening post?

[HipChick]

39. Opinion? Free speech is just that

not because someone doesn't agree with it

[Better Believe It]

51. Well you are certainly free not to speak or post if that is your desire.

But when you do, please don't go off topic.

Thanks.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

29. Are you admitting that you're willing to use lies, smears and slander just because others do?

[Union Scribe]

34. One of your contemporaries beat you to that weak line.

[JTFrog]

12. Coming from one of the biggest unwitting tools in the campaign against President Obama,

this is rich.

[Hansel]

40. Deserves repeating.

This is rich. And unbelievably hypocritical.

[MineralMan]

15. Hmm...I think people will post what they post, based on

their own assessment, don't you? Some people post incorrect things. Some people post things that are untrue. And that's just about the President of The United States. Perhaps DU can cope with posts about Assange, eh? I'm not sure of what's true and what's not about Assange. I doubt that anyone knows for sure. Do you know him personally? Have you worked directly with him? If not, you don't know either. We're pretty smart here on DU. I think we can sort things out without your assistance. Thanks.

Unrecommended for telling people what they should or should not post on DU.

[TorchTheWitch]

17. what character assassination campaign on DU?

And frankly, DUer's have a right to say whatever they believe about him whether it's fact or not just like DUer's have smeared Sweden, the two women involved in the sex crime charges, the CIA and damn near anyone in the US government. Assange is not a saint, and while I think his release of the documents Manning stole for Wikileaks is admirable for the most part, it's really over the top to request no one say anything they think about what he's doing as far as Wikileaks is concerned or what they think about him as a person particularly considering the sex crime charges against him.

Now, where is your OP requesting the same treatment of the two women involved in the sex crime charges, Sweden, the CIA and damn near everyone in the US government without ONE SINGLE ESTABLISHED FACT???

NO. Sorry, but what you're asking is ridiculous and down right offensive.

[Howler]

18. I wholeheartedly agree! n/t

n/t

[treestar]

19. How do you know?

Maybe he did get himself into some trouble with the law. It is just assuming he must be innocent since he is the latest hero of the left.

[donco6]

22. Well, I guess we could assume guilty until proven innocent.

Which would make sense in your world.

[Forkboy]

28. Are you assuming he's guilty since he is the latest hero of the left?

Numerous posts of yours here on DU indicate a strong dislike, one could almost say kneejerk reaction, to anything to your left. Is it possible you're guilty of that which you accuse others of, only assuming he's guilty instead of innocent due to your own bias?

[Forkboy]

156. Nothing?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

89. sorry to hear you're not with the left

Maybe it's time for you to move along to someplace that suits you better. We are the left. You're not.

[laughingliberal]

23. K & R nt

[jaxx]

24. What is obvious is that the far left has found themselves a hero

who is willing to upend the world to have them pay homage to his powers. Kowtow to him, kiss his feet, swear he's the best thing since fire. Why would Americans want to kowtow to someone who is out to attempt to damage the USA?

Hate the President, hate the government, hate the people. It's all about them and their personal issues. That's the only answer there is.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. "that's the only answer there is"

I'm glad you've settled this once and for all. With that level of finality, there's no need for you to continue your browshirt authoritarian campaign. Have a nice, quiet remainder of the day.

[Hissyspit]

102. What a bunch of technical bullshit.

Seriously, I don't even know where to start.

Here. I'll copy a response I wrote yesterday:

"That's not true and you can find that out by actually reading interviews with the man, but why bother, right? I mean, the guy only received an award from Amnesty International for his WikiLeaks work supporting human rights:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9681036&mesg_id=9681036

Assange may or may not be grandiose, paranoid and delusional - terms that might be fairly applied at one time or another to most prominent investigative reporters of my acquaintance. But the fact that so many prominent old school journalists are attacking him with such unbridled force is a symptom of the failure of traditional reporting methods to penetrate a culture of official secrecy that has grown by leaps and bounds since 9/11, and threatens the functioning of a free press as a cornerstone of democracy.

But we get it. Anyone and everything that can even any little bit possibly be seen as even remotely somehow or another casting negative aspersion or light on President Obama must be marginalized and/or belittled no matter who it is and whatever the real facts in the case may be and however little may be known about it."

Maybe THAT'S the only answer there is.

[Hissyspit]

119. How dare you?

Demanding accountability? Demanding the truth? It becomes simplistically: "Hate the President, Hate the Government, Hate the People." You sound like the right-wingers when we were demanding the truth from the Bush administration. For your information, WikiLeaks was founded BEFORE the Obama administration. WikiLeaks leaks info from ALL kinds of sources.

I don't hate the government. I don't hate Obama, and I don't hate the People. I have posted post after post about how what WikiLeaks does is GOOD for the government and good for the people. But rile up disdain for those who believe what WikiLeaks does has value as being against "the people." What simplistic propaganda claptrap.

How dare you?

And as for Obama, here's what he said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9682968

[ibegurpard]

26. people can post whatever they like about him

unless the documents he is releasing are frauds it's really pretty irrelevant.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. how about we don't spread lies, smears & slanders against anyone-

If we really are "better than that"?

Why single out one individual to be exempt from the anger, suspicion and outrage?

From what I'm witnessing on DU and everywhere lately, we seem to think tearing each other down is not only acceptable it is awesome-

We're feeding the wrong wolf imo- I'm all for trying to scale that back.

:hi:

[11 Bravo]

53. You've been here as long as I have. By now you should be hip to the fact that we are NOT ...

better than that.

[Bluerthanblue]

62. but we should keep trying to be shouldn't we?

I believe we DO know better, and be the first to admit that control isn't easy or that it feels good in the moment.

We all get pissed- we all get angry,we all have our prejudices and pet issues but if we don't try and change, we're doomed to this downward spiral forever.

Gandhi's "you must be the change you wish to see in the world" is something that continually nudges me to try and be 'betterer' when I stop trying I hope to also stop breathing.

:hi:

[Bobbie Jo]

30. *Irony Alert*

:eyes:

[Recursion]

148. I caught that too

Funny

[Forkboy]

33. I say let them. You learn about people by what they parrot.

Let's you know right off the bat who to take seriously and who not to.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

43. DUzy

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

72. K&R for irony!

[Number23]

131. I know, right? There aren't enough facepalm pics/smileys in the world

[WolverineDG]

44. When folks on DU stop repeating lies, smears, & slanders against those who are not favored

then you can ask that such not be posted here.

In all other cases, when a woman alleges she has been raped, anyone who dares to ask even logical questions is shouted down, on the basis that we are required to believe all victims of rape, as they never, ever lie.

The same charge has been leveled against Mr. Assange, yet we are being told we must *NOT* believe the "victims," because Mr. Assange is somehow doing everyone a favor by revealing confidential cables regarding the US State Department, information he has no right to possess, much less disseminate.

The presumption of innocence cuts both ways--you can't deny it to someone just because you don't like/support them if you are going to insist it be applied to someone you do like/support.

dg

[Mimosa]

49. The women did not charge 'rape'. Look it up.

Look it up. Consensual sex. Some stupid story about a busted condom. At least one woman may be an operative who came up with some reason to give 'authorities' a reason to put their hands on Assange and get him into custody.

Once they do that he may be poisoned or something.

[TorchTheWitch]

60. Sweden did

It doesn't matter if neither of the women believe that it was rape. One of the women claimed that in the last sexualy encounter she had with him he didn't use a condom and when she told him to stop when she noticed he wasn't wearing one he didn't stop. That's rape however she personally feels about it.

As of yesterday, Sweden has charged him with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion having lost his appeal...

http://gizmodo.com/5705457/wikileaks-julian-assange-is-not-a-rapist?utm_medium=twitter
Dec 3, 2010 01:52 PM
Updated: The Swedish prosecution office has now issued a notice saying that they are charging Assange with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He has been "detained in his absence". Here's the notice:

The matter concerning Mr. Assange

The Matter concerning Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.


The notice is from Sweden's Prosecution Authority site:
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/


You know, it's pretty damn ridiculous to make some wild claim that at least one of the women may be an "operative" seeing as an "operative" would have been smart enough to just accuse him of rape seeing as only his claim to the contrary would be the defense if all that such a claim is meant to do is for the evil US government to get there hands on him (for some unknown reason not specified seeing as he didn't do ANYTHING differently concerning the release of the documents than any of the media outlets he gave them all to did, and obviously the evil US government isn't out to get their hands on all those people). Is the evil US government that is somehow capable of convincing the country of Sweden to set up Assange in this way yet not be capable enough to find an intelligent "operative" willing to just flat out accuse him of rape without actually having to have sex with him at all? Please.

For all that, if the evil US government is so clever and so powerful as to coerce the country of Sweden to trump up false rape charges against Assange, just what the fuck would they have needed an "operative" FOR much less one that is not only so stupid she not only didn't bother to just flat out accuse him of rape but actually held her nose and had sex with the ugly dude at all? Come on now, if Sweden was somehow willing to trump up false rape charges against him the evil and all powerful US government could have just made a damn phone call and had them start filling out the thrumped up false rape charges paperwork.

You do realize that Assange's own son has freely admitted that there is a possibility that his father may be guilty? Or did you not look that one up either?

[Bluerthanblue]

68. +1000!

thank you for posting this.

[TorchTheWitch]

77. You're welcome

This has got to be the most nuts conspiracy silliness I've ever seen here and it's damn scary how many people are jumping on it like trampoline.

[Mimosa]

95. Assange's son said no such thing.

From an Australian interview:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/17/daniel-assange-i-never-thought-wikileaks-would-succeed/


Since the allegations of 'rape' in Sweden, Daniel has been asked for interviews many times but has not accepted any so far. But, according to this article, he has given the matter a lot of thought and has concluded that they are not true. Asked if he thinks they might be part of a smear campaign against him, he had this to say:


“I wouldn’t say it’s an impossibility, but the general feel of the thing is that, because the women involved actually knew my father directly… that suggests to me that it’s more of a personal matter,” he says.

He is, however, unreserved in his belief that his father will be proven innocent.

“I haven’t seen any evidence that there was any actual non-consensual s-x involved at any point, so it looks to me that it’s just some sort of cultural misunderstanding or general social failure on the part of my father or the women that’s led to the situation,” he says.

[TorchTheWitch]

115. read that more carefully

Considering what he said about his belief that there may have been a cultural or social failure on the part of the women or his father shows that he acknowledges that there is a possibility however slight that his father may be guilty though his belief appears to be that his father may be guilty unknowingly.

Further... considering what he says about the fact that because the women knew his father directly even though they had just met that he believes that rather than a sex crime having occurred it was more likely a "personal matter" is pretty clear that he doesn't understand the concept of date rape even with two people who just met. And if he doesn't understand that concept than it's hardly surprising he wouldn't understand the concept of consent being withdrawn during the sexual encounter and how ignoring that would then make the remainder of the sexual encounter rape. It is this that he apparently considers a cultural misunderstanding or social failure. The failure is this young man that grew up in a society where date rape is understood and withdrawal of consent during a sexual encounter that is ignored is understood to be rape somehow he was given to believe otherwise. It is entirely conceivable that with a father accused of not stopping a sex act when his partner tells him to that this young man got his archaic notions about what is and what is not consensual sex from that same father. To his credit however, he does acknowledge that the "failure" that occurred between his father and one or both of these women may have been on the part of his father even though it seems clear that despite his age and own cultural and social background he doesn't appear to understand the concept of date rape or the withdrawal of consent during a sexual encounter that is ignored being rape.

All this considered, he STILL acknowledges a possible "failure" on the part of his father that by Swedish law (and in actuality any civilized country's law) his father may be guilty of though in his mind unknowingly given his lack of understanding as to what constitutes consensual and non-consensual sex.

I look forward to your reply on everything else that was brought up in my post other than this one small concern particularly the belief of the unneeded and incredibly stupid mystery "operative".

[Hissyspit]

133. His son has said his statements were distorted.

[Bluerthanblue]

65. indeed please do- "look it up"- the women didn't want it called "rape"

they even corrected the officials. But something went on with Mr.Assange and two women who gave the facts to the Sweedish authorities, and the authorities decided to pursue the matter.

You don't have all the facts, and those that you do come from sources that are not without bias. You assert that one of the women is an "operative" yet you base that on what exactly? If you don't want people to pre-judge Mr. Assange, how can you make these kinds of statements?

I sincerly believe that if the powers that you fear really wanted Mr. Assange dead, he'd already - be - dead.

[WolverineDG]

99. So, should law enforcement listen to Roman Polanski's victim & leave him alone?

Seems to me that consensus on DU was, ahem, "fuck what the victim wants! we demand justice!"

Here we are with a similar set of circumstances & all of a sudden, people are demanding the reverse.

dg

[Better Believe It]

52. Please stop repeating the mainstream rape slander against Assange.

Unless you've "uncovered" some real evidence, just stop it.

Let's show some common decency and fairness on DU.

OK?

[WolverineDG]

98. It's not slander if it is true that authorities are looking for him

because of those allegations. :eyes:

Just the other day, there was a huge thread about some guy who was only alleged to have assaulted a small child. Folks were calling for his immediate execution, yet nothing had been proven & the guy hadn't plead guilty.

However, I get the distinct impression that if Assange had been accused of the very same thing, we'd have to hear from the hand-wringers all about "being fair" & "decent" & "not spreading slander."

dg

[Hissyspit]

121. You need to do research on the case. It stinks to high heaven.

I do not automatically "believe" anything. The facts thus known are highly suspicious concerning the 'sex crime' allegations against Assange. The context should lead anyone who is paying attention to be highly suspicious. He has not been charged. There is no good reason to refer to it as 'rape.' The crime that they want to question Assange about is not anywhere as serious as rape.

It has nothing to do with automatically believing Assange OR the women.

And the thread about the child rapist was stupid and disgusting, but it has nothing to do with you repeating ill-informed and misleading info on the Assange case.

You are repeating the mainstream slander.

[TorchTheWitch]

125. he HAS been charged

Man, I'm getting so tired of this. I'm tired of people that believe he's innocent having nothing but scant detail from the media that interestingly was only FINALLY revealed very recently yet the conspiracy theorists were WAY ahead of without any details at all about the actual details of the sexual encounters themselves, the slandering of these women without cause other than conspiracy nuttery and worse that instant and absolute disbelief that there was even the most remote chance that he could actually be guilty for no other fucking reason than he's the latest DU saintly hero.

Yes, the crime is as serious as rape because the media finally put it out that one of the women accused him of having sex with her without a condom after waking in the morning and when she told him to stop when she realized he wasn't using a condom he didn't. That is rape by any definition, and that would be a perfectly legitimate accusation that would make a charge of rape perfectly legitimate.

Yes, he was charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion that was confirmed yesterday because he lost his appeal...

http://gizmodo.com/5705457/wikileaks-julian-assange-is-not-a-rapist?utm_medium=twitter
Dec 3, 2010 01:52 PM
Updated: The Swedish prosecution office has now issued a notice saying that they are charging Assange with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He has been "detained in his absence". Here's the notice:

The matter concerning Mr. Assange

The Matter concerning Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.


The notice is from Sweden's Prosecution Authority site:
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/


Interesting that there is no "sex by surprise" charge that Assange's attorney has claimed. Funny how in reviewing Sweden's Penal Code there doesn't appear to be any such charge concerning "sex by surprise": http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf


Oh yeah, has there been a TON of ill-informed misleading slanderous and flat out whackadoodle conspiracy nuttery all over this site but it hasn't been against Assange by any stretch of the imagination. Claims of the two women not only lying but one or both of them being a US government "operative", claims that the US coerced Sweden to trump up false rape charges against him and claims that Sweden did trump up false rape charges against him. No, not specualtion - CLAIMS. What I have yet to see is anyone making any claims that Assange is guilty anywhere here. Frankly, I've not seen one single claim that he's guilty ANYWHERE. All this conspiracy nuttery that doesn't even make SENSE yet it's somehow more logical than the POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT be guilty of one or more of the charges. As if it's somehow completely out of the realm of possibility that a guy that admits having sex with both of the women MIGHT actually be guilty despite his being the saintly DU hero of the hour.

[Hissyspit]

128. I actually

did not see the Supreme Court result until today, after I made that post, and was double-checking on the rape charge.

I have made no claims to whether Assange is innocent of the acts or whether the women are lying or not. I have simply demanded, same as to, rational and informed skepticism about the case. Of course, the appeal denial does not mean that the appeal request was nor valid or that the case against Asssange is not politically motivated either. It just means the appeal was denied.

I am not sure what "perfectly legitimate accusation" means. And I do not understand why you say the info about woman's accusation has only been about recently. I have known about it for a couple of months. I was not arguing that that particular behavior would not constituency rape, but that it was not part of the official accusation, although it appears I was incorrect on that count, with the results of the SC appeal.

[WolverineDG]

127. So he's not under investigation for sexual assault?

Oh wait, he is. And he's wanted by Interpol. It's not slander if it's true he's wanted for questioning in a sexual assault case.

You can't deny the presumption of innocence to one & then insist, browbeat, harangue others about it when someone you admire is under a criminal investigation.

dg

[Hissyspit]

129. I didn't say he wasn't under investigation.

See Post #128.

And my understanding is not that he is wanted by Interpol, but that he Interpol passed on information about the Swedish warrant as a ease notice.

And I'm not browbeating or haranguing anyone.

[WolverineDG]

132. And I never said he was guilty

why not go back & actually read what I said without derailing it & accusing me of slander.

dg

[Hissyspit]

137. I never said you said he was guilty.

I consider the attempts at call-out of hypocrisy of WikiLeaks and supporters the repetition of mainstream slander. Probably should have been clearer.

[WolverineDG]

143. Sorry if pointing that out makes you uncomfortable

but simply stating the facts is *not* slander.

dg

[HipChick]

104. It's not slander, but up to him to disprove it..

until then he's committed a crime under Swedish law

[Mimosa]

118. Umm, ever hear of presumption of innocence for people accused of crimes?

BTW, how many people having had consensual sex with or without breaking condoms are on Interpol's 'Most Wanted' list?

Can you find a previous instance?

[Hissyspit]

122. Holy Shit. NO IT'S NOT. He hasn't even been charged.

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty"

http://www.newser.com/story/106802/assange-not-actually-wanted-for-rape.html

[Hissyspit]

130. Correction

Apparently he has been charged. Still "innocent until proven guilty."

[cbdo2007]

48. Why not?? 1/3 of us here at DU don't agree with Wikileaks and think they should be stopped.

[xiamiam]

50. no..not one third..a handful..nt

[Union Scribe]

55. Via lies, smears and slander?

That's what the thread is about, right?

[Catherina]

110. A third? Could you link to your proof please. It was more like 12 ppl when I saw the poll n/t

[cbdo2007]

126. It sounds like your problem is not a link to the poll, but rather a course on how to read polls.

It was clearly 1/3 at the end of the polls results, I'm not sure how I can argue with you when the facts are right there.

[Catherina]

140. Since you can't find it, I'll end the conversation with a link to the poll I saw

Poll question: So... Julian Assange... Traitor Or Hero ???

Poll result (250 votes)
Traitor/Enemy Combatant/Big Fat Meanie (28 votes, 11%) Vote
Hero (222 votes, 89%) Vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9684614

A snarky answer is no substitute for proof.

[cbdo2007]

151. Here is the poll I was referring to:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9650315

Do you approve or disapprove of Wikileaks release of the diplomatic cables:

Results: 369 total votes

Approve: 68%

Disapprove: 27%

Not sure: 5%

[NoPasaran]

56. The man is a cyber-terrorist waging war against the United States and Western Civilization

Fuck him, and the same to his deluded, misguided fans who for some reason imagine they are "progressives".

[EFerrari]

58. "War is peace, truth is terrorism"

[Better Believe It]

59. You're joking. Right? Just being a little sarcastic .... I hope.

[Mimosa]

64. "Let justice be done though the heavens fall".

A civilisation built on lies, corruption, exploitation is bound to slowly rot while the poor and disadvantaged die in wars of Empire. The Romans knew about it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

93. nominated for Good German of the Day Award n/t

.

[superduperfarleft]

114. WARBLEGARBLEGARBLE!

:rofl:

[Hissyspit]

123. "Fans"

Yeah, that's it, I'm a teenybopper with no ability to recognize the complexities of what's going on. . :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

69. Please. Let's not repeat on DU the lies, smears and slanders directed against Barack Obama

Let's not give the rumors, hearsay and crude personal attacks credibility by not questioning them or posting them as if they are established facts.

Don't become unwitting tools in that campaign.

Deal?

[Bluerthanblue]

71. dupe n/t

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

96. Welcome to DU.

[Bluerthanblue]

73. sounds pretty good to me-

I think that's a great suggestion.

:hi:

[Kablooie]

74. But repeat all the slanders directed against Bush and Cheney all you want.

[Radical Activist]

78. I don't have to speculate or exaggerate to make Bush and Cheney sound evil.

[Hissyspit]

105. Which ones would those be?

Examples?

[Mimosa]

79. What does that have to do with Assange?

Why are you doing a quid pro quo concerning two people/subjects which aren't on the surface related?

[Radical Activist]

81. Do you support the principle of the post? What's good for the goose...

It has to do with irony and hypocrisy.

[Mimosa]

87. No geese or ganders here.

Assange is a private citizen who offended the powerful by publishing truths about an illegitimate war of aggression (Iraq). Assange is being persecuted by the powerful and is on the run.

The President of the United States IS the powerful.

[Radical Activist]

90. So lies, smears and slander are OK with you

as long as its directed against an authority figure. I have to disagree. Especially when we have an ally in the White House who could accomplish much more with the strategic cooperation of the left.

[bvar22]

88. Good...Then start your own thread with your topic.

...but it is good manners to stick to the topic selected by the OP.


K&R


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Radical Activist]

92. As if threads EVER stay on topic at DU. lol

No, I'm not going to shut up just because you don't like a valid point several posters are making.

[bvar22]

94. There IS a name for waht you are doing.

It is called "hijacking".

[Radical Activist]

97. It's called getting butthurt

when someone holds up a mirror and forces people to confront their own behavior.

[bvar22]

100. My butt is fine.

Those whining about the OP seem to be suffering some discomfort,
otherwise there would be no reason to hijack.

BTW: Are you able to comprehend the paradox of someone whining about the OP,
and then claiming that they are "holding up a mirror"?
If not, then Google "beam in your own eye" for a possible epiphany.

[Radical Activist]

101. Well, I've got a fine ass too but you don't see me bragging on DU about it.

[bvar22]

103. No?...you show it all the time on DU.

Back to the topic posted by Better Believe It:

" Please. Let's not repeat on DU the lies, smears and slanders directed against Julian Assange

It's obvious that a government/mass media inspired character assasination campaign is being directed against Julian Assange on an international scale.

Let's not give the rumors, hearsay and crude personal attacks credibility by not questioning them or posting them as if they are established facts.

Don't become unwitting tools in that campaign.

We are better than that.

Thank you."

K&R
:patriot:


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[JTFrog]

154. Bullshit. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the OP is not "hijacking".

Starting another thread to point out the hypocrisy would be a "call out".

So this is the perfect place to confront the OP on the hypocrisy of the OP.

I'd say nice try, but you didn't even put any effort in. :eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

75. Why would I feel compelled to protect or defend this man? He doesn't need me at all.

And edit to add: he's not my friend.

[Hissyspit]

106. Why should you feel compelled to protect or defend anyone?

[TwilightGardener]

107. I often do, if they're getting a bum rap--and especially if they are well-intentioned.

[Hissyspit]

116. Julian Assange has apparently been getting a bum rap.

And is well-intentioned, as anyone who has actually researched what he and WikiLeaks are up to, would know.

O.k. Remind me to not rely on your support should I be well-intentioned but get attacked with a bum rap. Is this one of those 'it's all about Obama' responses?

[TwilightGardener]

134. Um, no, didn't mention Obama. I don't know that this guy is getting

a bum rap, yet. I'm not sure of his intentions, either, beyond embarrassing the US. So I have zero impulse to stick up for him.

[EFerrari]

139. He exposed the banks that were responsible for the meltdown in Iceland.

He exposed government corruption in Peru that was using porn laws to suppress dissent.

He exposed the Obama administration's protection of war criminals.

He's been an equal opportunity outlet for whistle blowers. It's only when he exposes the tip of the American iceberg that people suddenly get scruples. That's fine.

[Hissyspit]

147. He's been writing about and talking about his intentions for years.

So you don't want to stand up for him because you are woefully ill-informed?

"Assange was the winner of the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award (New Media),<127> awarded for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya with the investigation The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances.

Assange was awarded the 2010 Sam Adams Award by the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence."

So it's not about Obama... well, good, but apparently it's about the U.S., even though WikiLeaks has revealed information about almost every country on the globe, and there is no reason to believe he has it out for the U.S. in particular, especially if one researches what he has written about and talked about for several years.

[HipChick]

108. Looks like he either needs to wrap it

wear a condom and/or keep his fly closed

[Hissyspit]

117. Disgusting response.

Really. If you can't win the argument on factual or moral or logical grounds, don't bother trying.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

144. What isn't factual about that? n/t

[Hissyspit]

146. Poster doesn't know what he did.

[Catherina]

111. Rec'd. n/t

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

135. I read elsewhere that it is possible that Assange is part of the CIA or working for Israel.

I am suspicious because of how the powers that be and the media have reacted to the "leaks".

Anything that makes the powers that be look bad is usually swept under the carpet and clear out of sight.

Instead, they all seem to be fanning the flames.

:tinfoilhat:

[Catherina]

141. I think you can put your suspicions to bed. If Assange were working for Israel

he would have made the corrupt Palestinian Authority (Fatah) smell like a rose.

Instead the cables painted the Palestinian Authority as corrupt, immoral and complicit with Israel. Wikileaks destroyed any credibility the PA has in Ramallah. No Palestinian is going to take kindly to Abbas' government knowing about the Gaza slaughter in advance and not doing anything to protect innocent people.

In the report, US officials quoted Barak as saying the “GOI had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas.

“Not surprisingly, Barak said, the GOI received negative answers from both,” the document states.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/hamas-reaction-to-the-wikileaks-dumps/

It's an ugly truth that most Arab governments pretend to support the Palestinians the same way our politicians pretend to support peace.

[earth mom]

160. Thanks for the heads up. I have become very cynical and suspicious these days! nt

[SidDithers]

138. LMFAO...

Oh, that's rich. :rofl: :rofl:

Sid

[Honeycombe8]

142. You mean about him being investigated for sexual assault? Those aren't rumors. Those are facts.

They date back for months.

He is innocent until proven guilty. But under American law, running is considered indicative of guilt.

A person has made rape allegations against him. Just like if someone you knew had robbed you, the first thing you'd do is go to the police and "make allegations." Next is the officers would investigate. But instead of being able to ask the accused questions, they find he has gone on the lam....running and hiding.

Those are the facts.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uponit7771]

149. The person did NOT make rape aligations agaist him and didn't want it called rape!!!

[mudplanet]

150. Assange's character is so completely irrelevant to the issue that

it "boggles the mind."

[Better Believe It]

152. So the lies, slanders and character assassination campaign continues ....

One could call it the "swift boating" of Assange.

And what's amazing is that some well intentioned people buy into it!

[JTFrog]

155. Well, you would be one to know all about that kind of campaign.

What's truly amazing is the cognitive dissonance it must take to continue to feign ignorance to such massive hypocrisy.

[Quantess]

153. Funny thread.

[Scurrilous]

159. Kick

For the hilarity.

:kick: