This is international security forces (CIA, MI5 etc) taking action where their patheitc Governments have failed.

ARRESTING BANKERS.

The law may not allow for crimes of financial armageddon to be put on trial – so the next best thing is to fit them up.

Let justice be done or the heavens fall.

Nobody would object to the arrest of Darth Sidious even on a fit up. Now all we need to do is find Vader and the rest and the rebel alliance will be free from the Imperial Monetary Fund.

True, but that logic works on the flipside as well.

(Though I must admit to making a few Strauss-Khan jokes. They were asking to be made!)

The extent to which this news story has completely dominated BBC news bulletins is totally ridiculous. It matters far more to me and I suspect most what Cameron intends for the NHS.

The French – bless ‘em – expect their presidents to be fully testosteroned fuelled.

Mitterrand had his mistress on the side:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/widows-in-weeds-mourning-mistresses–plus-ca-change-to-the-french-1323906.html

Try this for the regular news about Chirac: “the procession of women into M. Chirac’s office was so constant that women staffers would joke: ‘Chirac? Three minutes. Shower included.’”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/le-tout-chirac-a-life-at-the-top-449480.html

And Pres Sarkozy has yummy Carla Bruni – or perhaps not so, as the case may be:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/14/sarkozy-bruni-affairs-blog

“No mention is made of the substance of the accusations he faces, and there is a blanket assertion that he should not be sent to Stockholm, presumably in any circumstances. The very possibility that he may have something for which to answer is simply not countenanced” – what utter rubbish.

The particulars of this highly unusual case have been scrutinised at great length including the legal technicalities of using a warrant to force extradition in the absence of actual charges. Don’t forget Assange has already spent time in solitary and has been wandering blighty with an electronic tag on his leg ever since.

If you can’t even get simple stuff like this right then how is anybody supposed to take the rest of what you say seriously?

@4

“Don’t forget Assange has already spent time in solitary ”

Where he asked to be put for his own protection…

OP: good post. Agree entirely.

Problem is, Strauss-Kahn will now face his own “Tiger Woods” effect, ie all the other dirt will start coming out – indeed it already is.

“A French writer who claims Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexually assaulted her nine years ago is to file an official complaint, her lawyer has announced.

Tristane Banon previously described the attack, which happened when she was in her early 20s, in a television programme in 2007, when she called Strauss-Kahn, whose name was bleeped out, a “rutting chimpanzee.” ”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/dominique-strauss-khan-tristane-banon

Perhaps before anyone comments on the Assange case they should read the judgement in relation to Assange’s EAW, if they have not already done so.

Agreed & lets add Huhne to the list. Several Labour sites have been repeating allgations from Tory Papers on the basis, so far of no evidence at all.

[5] “good post. Agree entirely” – what short memories some people have?
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/08/more-light-finally-on-the-allegations-against-julian-assange/

If you “agree entirely” that there is a “blanket assertion” about extradition, or the substance of the accusations are being ignored, or the possibility of a crime is simply not countenanced then you have obviously been following a very different case to the one that has generated hundreds of posts on this site alone dealing with these very accusations.

[7] you may be sanguine with the verdict (which others have argued is not in the spirit of the EAW) but then again others are sanguine with solitary and electronic leg tags – I must admit find that a bit surprising given the absence of any charges only the intention of the Swedish authorities to conduct a bit of Q&A.

Anyway, most of this stuff is out there on the web so perhaps it is not surprising that the likes of DO can bend his dodgy assertions (about JA) into any shape he pleases?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/wikileaks-sweden/

7. Agreed.

Dave Osler: excellent post. The sooner the idea that someone’s noble political opinions make them a saint in all other areas of life is squashed the better. (And indeed the other way round – someone can have obnoxious political opinions but be a very good person in other ways.)

Osler:

It may indeed be tempting to rush to judgement in matters of sexual misconnduct, making whether we rate someone as a good guy or a baddie the key criterion.

…which is why I steered well clear of the Assange case on this and most other sites I read/comment on. The shit-storm’s inevitable and will take place anyway.

See you court (as it were).

@9

Oh yawn. I’ve said from the very beginning that Assange should not be handled with kid’s gloves simply because he is (or was) a poster-boy for the left/anti-establishment. In fact in the comments of those two articles you posted.

[10] “The sooner the idea that someone’s noble political opinions make them a saint in all other areas of life is squashed the better” – who is arguing for sainthood?

Once charged such individuals are subject to the same legal processes (with all of the strengths and weakness inherent in the law) as anybody else.

As you know Tommy Sheridan is in jail.
Julian Assange was in solitary.

What more do you want?

It should be pointed out that Strauss-Kahn (is it just me, or does that sound like a potentially good batting partnership?) case is, if the accusation is true, something even darker than the Assange case. The latter is as reported in the borderlands of consent or not, whilst the former seems to imply no consent and abuse of power.

The example that has been mentioned in here is of course Roman Powlanski, a man actually found guilty of the crime that (the same?) people keep trying to deny he could have committed.

It worries me that so many apparent left-wingers seem to think approved belief/artistic ability allows you to escape the process of justice. It should worry those left-wingers who actually care about people rather than power as well…

[12] no, you agreed with DO, in fact agreed entirely that;
* No mention is made of the substance of the accusations.
* there is a blanket assertion that he should not be sent to Stockholm
* The very possibility that he may have something for which to answer is simply not countenanced”

Who said anything about kid gloves (apart from you).

Fact is the accusations WERE dealt with (in great detail actually).
The likes of UKL is presumably satisfied with the verdict of the British authorities to uphold the EAW (thus enabling removal to Sweden).
Many have argued that JA does indeed have a case to answer and can’t wait for him to be shipped out.

Next time try and address the points being made.

a&e,

Julian Assange was in solitary.

At his own request apparently (and understandably – if I was falsely (to take your point of view – I’m awaiting the trial (or collapse of the case)) accused of a sex crime, I suspect I would prefer solitary confinement to mixing with the general prison population. Especially if I knew that I’d pissed off some powerful people).

Paul Baker,

Are you deliberatley trying to associate Chris Huhne with accusations of rape or cases of lying to court? Seems to be a bit odd…

..
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/08/more-light-finally-on-the-allegations-against-julian-assange/

Ah, the one entitled Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t is now accused of rape – updated.

Seriously, this seems to be one case we should all keep our traps shut about.

[16] “At his own request apparently” – let’s imagine you had to be executed.

You are given a choice – lethal injection or disembowelment.

Sensibly you opt for lethal injection while bloggers on the net chirrup about how YOU requested lethal injection.

[17] “Seriously, this seems to be one case we should all keep our traps shut about” – do I detect a slight irony bi-pass here?

[17] “Seriously, this seems to be one case we should all keep our traps shut about” – do I detect a slight irony bi-pass here?

I don’t know what you mean by that.

[12] no, you agreed with DO, in fact agreed entirely that;
* No mention is made of the substance of the accusations.
* there is a blanket assertion that he should not be sent to Stockholm
* The very possibility that he may have something for which to answer is simply not countenanced”

Who said anything about kid gloves (apart from you).

Fact is the accusations WERE dealt with (in great detail actually).

Not in the “article from one leftwing publication” those quoted sentences are about…

[17] “Seriously, this seems to be one case we should all keep our traps shut about” – do I detect a slight irony bi-pass here?

I don’t know what you mean by that.

My point was that as the title itself showed (“isn’tis now”), let alone the numerous edits to the article and blind, ignorant and incompetent retweets and comments, there were a lot of people commenting about the case who had no idea what they were talking about (I include myself in this) – and still don’t.

This in itself suggests we shouldn’t “rush to judgement”.

@ 4:

“what utter rubbish.

The particulars of this highly unusual case have been scrutinised at great length “

Not in the article linked to, they weren’t.

‘Not in the article linked to, they weren’t.’

Exactly – the first article was entitled ‘Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape’ and not only argues he is innocent but claimd THAT HE HASN’T EVEN BEEN ACCUSED.

How that whitewash can be cited as evidence the Left took the allegations seriously is beyond me.

[21] How much can anything be read into an article consisting of four sentences, especially one that conflates the role of Wiki with the allegations made against JA?
Here is said item;
“The Stop the War Coalition protested outside Westminster Magistrates Court against attacks on Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, on Tuesday.
The leaks have exposed machinations of the US and British governments that they would prefer to keep secret.
The ruling class response is to hound Assange and attack the Wikileaks website.
Assange should not be extradited—and Wikileaks should not be censored”.

So the article says Assange should not be extradited – read into that what you will but does it tie into a much broader trend of left wing media turning a blind eye to acts of sexual violence?

Well judging by the volume of posts on LC alone I would surprised if any such phenomena actually existed – unless we base our hypothesis on 4 sentences in the Socialist Worker?

a&e,

You are given a choice – lethal injection or disembowelment.

Sensibly you opt for lethal injection while bloggers on the net chirrup about how YOU requested lethal injection.

My point surely – he did request the better option. In this case, bloggers should accurately state I was executed (and even state the method) but not consider my choice of that method as a sign of volunteering, rather than being given in effect no choice. Yet you focus on the solitary confinement over the key fact of detention (normal in the case of a homeless person up for extradition)…

I do not know if Mr Assange is innocent or guilty – perhaps two people (if that many) know for certain – but your objection seems to be towards what seems to me to be the logical reaction in his case to his detention. You may not believe his detention was correct, but then you need to refute Dave’s original post, as arguing about the very incomplete information we have available is hardly constructive.

‘It worries me that so many apparent left-wingers seem to think approved belief/artistic ability allows you to escape the process of justice. It should worry those left-wingers who actually care about people rather than power as well…’

Its amazing how many feminists still cite Louis Althusser as an authority.

[24] watchman – I do have reservations about locking up somebody who has not been charged, especially since there was no substantive change in JA’s cirumstances pre & post Wandsworth.

On the matter of solitary JA was presented with Hobson’s choice
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hobsons-choice.html

I have refuted some of DO’s post – obviously others take a different view.

Its amazing how many feminists still cite Louis Althusser as an authority.

To be fair, killing a spouse does not diminish your worth as a source of philosophical thought (unless perhaps it is on the virtue of non-violence). It would be defending his actions by regarding them as not a crime that would be the problem, and I am not aware of any feminists who do that (which is not to say there aren’t some around – it’s a broad church).

a&e,

On the matter of solitary JA was presented with Hobson’s choice
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hobsons-choice.html

Possibly – but that was pretty much a point we agreed on. As to being locked up without charge, a proper extradition request from Sweden had been received. That is the same as a charge in the UK – and Mr Assange’s lawyers, despite their public utterances, failed to prove the extradition request was invalid. Without knowing more of the theory behind Swedish law (which as far as I know is neither common-law based as with England and the US, or Roman law based as with the continent and to an extent Scotland, but based on folk law (no, not folklore, although that would make your case for you…)) I can’t say at what stage a charge is made – it could well be when you come into court for example (a charge would have been made before the thing in medieval Sweden). What I can say is that an equivalence to the point where you are charged under English or Scottish law will have been established when the extradition treaty was drawn up…

[28] well obvious question – what was different the day he left his cell?

Was it the extra bit of dosh on the table?
Was it the fact somebody he hardly knew offered up a nominal address?

Obviously, it was beyond the British legal establishment to settle these matters in a more amicable way while the niceties of the extradition process played out?

the a&e charge nurse, just out of interest, what do you think the UK authorities should do when a foreign person visiting this country is accused of a serious crime by another country?

[30] do you mean the sort of serious crime heard by a prosecutor who decides in the first instance there are no charges to be answered and gives permission for the accused to leave the country?

a&e,

Was it the extra bit of dosh on the table? Yes – because that bit of extra dosh was a substantial sum of bail, which should help to ensure Mr Assange’s host (I’ve forgotten who it was…) had an interest in keeping him in the country.

Was it the fact somebody he hardly knew offered up a nominal address? Yes – since he was no longer of no fixed abode.

It’s hardly coincidence that once those two conditions (bail and fixed abode) were met, Mr Assange was able to leave detention. Since it was the lack of fixed abode (and seemingly also bail) that meant that he was remanded in custody in the first place…

a&e,

do you mean the sort of serious crime heard by a prosecutor who decides in the first instance there are no charges to be answered and gives permission for the accused to leave the country?

If the prosecutors are doing the hearings, then Swedish justice is in trouble…

But unless you having investigating judges (as in Italy for example) a prosecutor’s decision is not final in any legal system I know. In Britain, it is only once you are charged (not investigated) that you cannot be charged again, and as discussed, charges may be later in Swedish justice, so how things work there are uncertain. The British courts, despite Mr Assange having good lawyers to represent him, clearly saw nothing unusual in this, and unlike you and me they would be informed about how the Swedish system worked.

From one of the articles cited as evidence LibCon took the allegations seriously:

‘It’s become a prevalent meme across the western media – who, completely coincidentally, hate Wikileaks – that Julian Assange is currently being sought by the Swedish police on rape charges.

‘He isn’t. He’s sought on made-up-weird-charges that aren’t a crime in the UK, or anywhere else sensible.’

The phrase ‘made-up-weird-charges’ hardly constitute serious consideration of the charges.

A&E,

[30] do you mean the sort of serious crime heard by a prosecutor who decides in the first instance there are no charges to be answered and gives permission for the accused to leave the country?

Did you read
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

[32] “It’s hardly coincidence that once those two conditions (bail and fixed abode) were met, Mr Assange was able to leave detention” – and both conditions (a mates address and celebrity generated bail) could easily have been satisfied a week earlier thus obviating a need for jail time – solitary was a vindictive act in my opinion.

[33] “If the prosecutors are doing the hearings, then Swedish justice is in trouble…” let’s imagine JA allegedly shot two women would the Swedes have assisted him onto an SAS flight with a view to pursing a EAW a few months later?

[35] no, not read all of it – are you suggesting that a new insight will emerge if one does read it.

I assume our authorities are following legal requirements as they understand them?

both conditions (a mates address and celebrity generated bail) could easily have been satisfied a week earlier thus obviating a need for jail time – solitary was a vindictive act in my opinion.

Indeed. But they weren’t. And solitary may have been vindicative, but as you and I both say above, it was the better choice he had in the absence of bail and fixed abode. I am actually inclined to wonder if he did not have these because so many of his supporters believed the idiotic views circulating that this was a clear fix and failed to grasp that this was justice in action, but regardless Mr Assange did not have those things when he went before the magistrate. However easily they could have been satisfied, it is not the role of the criminal justice system (or anyone other than Mr Assange and possibly his solicitors) to arrange these things. If they are not present, then so be it – and once they were, Mr Assange was no longer detained.

let’s imagine JA allegedly shot two women would the Swedes have assisted him onto an SAS flight with a view to pursing a EAW a few months later?

I am mystified as to what you are saying here? If Mr Assange was interviewed about the shooting, and the prosecutor felt there was not enough evidence to suggest he did it, then I presume he would have been allowed to leave – he would not be accused of anything by the Swedish justice system. As to assisting him on to a flight – I presume by this you mean not stopping him, since he is a Swedish citizen and therefore could not be thrown out of the country.

Bluntly I tire of all this – if there were irregularities Mr Assange’s lawyers would have exploited them in Sweden or in the UK. It just goes to prove Dave’s original (and now hijacked) point – that some people will believe what they want to believe about men (and they always seem to be men…) they agree with and perhaps respect. Would you have reacted the same if the Swede is question had been a banker and public advocate of say corporal punishment for children (probably unlikely in a Swede, but you never know)? I doubt it myself…

Very good article.

This is what I thought when I heard this mews in the morning. By the way, where is the hotel chambermaid who was attacked?

Also is it Strauss-Kahn or Strauss-Khan ?

@ 36

[32] “It’s hardly coincidence that once those two conditions (bail and fixed abode) were met, Mr Assange was able to leave detention” – and both conditions (a mates address and celebrity generated bail) could easily have been satisfied a week earlier thus obviating a need for jail time – solitary was a vindictive act in my opinion.

If it was you or me that was in this situation, then we would be locked up until the initial hearing took place. That’s how it works. Can you imagine the outcry if this were not the case – not least from womens rights campaigners, feminists and others on the left? But then maybe St Assange should be treated differently to the rest of us. He has important friends. He is important. Yeah right, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Oh yeah, good article btw. Must say though that Tommy Sheridan’s case was a bit different. He should have fessed up straight away and made light of the whole thing. After all there were no allegations of non-consensual activity in his case. Trying the libel game was his downfall – what a waste.

Also, why is he ( Strauss-Kahn ) not speaking a single word and stands as if he is guilty of doing something. This is very mysterious case. We can’t judge anything now!!!!

Also, why is he ( Strauss-Kahn ) not speaking a single word and stands as if he is guilty of doing something. This is very mysterious case. We can’t judge anything now!!!!

We can assume he is innocent (he has not yet been found guilty), but we cannot dismiss the charge as yet (it still stands).

Other than that, why would we want to judge anything? Not our job surely…

[38] “some people will believe what they want to believe about men (and they always seem to be men…) they agree with and perhaps respect” – is that Dave’s fundamental point, some people lose their critical facilities because of a need to maintain a myth about the daring-do of certain individuals, even when they are serial rapists?

I mentioned shooting since it is a crime almost comparable to double rape, a crime that one would assume the Swedish authorities would have to be fairly certain did not occur before letting the alleged perp slip out of the country?

My guess, and it is only guess that concerns about JA’s treatment have little to do with his celebrity but more the heavy handed treatment by the legal system (solitary, leg tag, etc) not to mention the highly unusual way in which the allegations against him have been contrived?

a&e,

Not knowing the Swedish legal system beyond Wallender (where the prosecutor is part of the police team…) I cannot say whether Mr Assange’s treatment has been highly odd in Swedish terms.

In the UK it looks perfectly normal to me – the tag is because he is considered an escape risk, considering he would presumably have willing bolt holes in many countries.

I may be wrong, and this could all be some dastardly plot. But ultimately, I cannot see how solitary confinement but free access to legal representation and a leg tag are particularly sinister, unless you are looking for things to be.

[44] “I cannot say whether Mr Assange’s treatment has been highly odd in Swedish terms” – well let’s just say letting a double rapist out of the country is hardly likely to enhance the CV of any Swedish cop or prosecutor looking to advance his or her career?

“the tag is because he is considered an escape risk” – I have always considered you to be an erudite and measured commentator watchman but I genuinely fail to understand this claim.

JA is wanted by the half the worlds secret service, hell even his own country is gunning for him – where on earth could he run to without increasing the risk of the Yanks nabbing him before dishing up a bit of Guantanamo style justice?

[35] no, not read all of it – are you suggesting that a new insight will emerge if one does read it.

new facts tend to do that, yes.

Perhaps at minimum read the 15 points in the section beginning “Summary of facts found”.

[46] The judgement says “However, having looked at the extrinsic evidence (perhaps wrongly) the fact that some further pre-trial evidential investigation could result in no trial taking place does not mean this defendant is suspected as opposed to accused”.
And,
“The information provided by Ms Ny proves strong, if not irrebuttable, evidence that the purpose of the warrant is for prosecution”.

So there is still a possibility of no trial, or even certainty that the EAW is for prosecution – do these facts reflect the uncertain state of evidence against JA, or am I simply starstruck as DO would have some believe?

A couple of corrections re Assange.

Carl Gardner at http://www.headoflegal.com/ questioned whether Assange had entered protective custody of his own free will. At the time of custody, free will was reported in several newspaper stories. Ten days later or so Assange’s barrister, Mark Stephens denied that this was the case. Given the absence of evidence to contradict Mark Stephens, we have to accept his word.

Before Assange left Sweden, he gave his word to the investigating officers that he would return to answer their questions on an agreed date. A few days before he was due to return, Assange changed his mind. It is thus unsurprising that he would have been regarded as a flight risk and that a UK court would need a bit of convincing that he deserved bail.

@45. the a&e charge nurse: “JA is wanted by the half the worlds secret service, hell even his own country is gunning for him – where on earth could he run to without increasing the risk of the Yanks nabbing him before dishing up a bit of Guantanamo style justice?”

The US authorities currently hold a vulnerable young man, Bradley Manning, who is accused of passing “secret” documents to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks acted as the recipient of those documents and as publisher. The documents were then analysed by serious mainstream newspapers who published them in every western liberal nation, including the USA. WikiLeaks also passed the documents on to some distinctly dodgy newspapers, of course.

If Assange is “wanted by half the worlds secret service”, then so too are the editors of the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, New York Times, Le Monde etc as publishers complicit with the leaks.

Our sympathy should be with Bradley Manning.

The law applies to the poor, not to the rich and powerful, unless the other rich and powerful withdraw their support and protection.

the a&e charge nurse,

So there is still a possibility of no trial, or even certainty that the EAW is for prosecution – do these facts reflect the uncertain state of evidence against JA, or am I simply starstruck as DO would have some believe?

I don’t know what DO would have some believe about you. Can we address the points you’ve already made before churning out new ones?

Earlier you wrote,

[30] do you mean the sort of serious crime heard by a prosecutor who decides in the first instance there are no charges to be answered and gives permission for the accused to leave the country?

Are you now satisfied that this didn’t happen in Assange’s case?

[51] “Are you now satisfied that this didn’t happen in Assange’s case” – yes, a perfectly understandable question, but one that I, nor anybody else here for that matter is in a position to answer.

The story surrounding the allegations have emerged from a number of sources, including police files that have been leaked – the sum total of this material (to which none of us have full access) is that allegations against JA cannot properly be dismissed.

On this basis, rather than a compelling likelihood (in my opinion) that JA is serial rapist the legal case and media sideshow will continue to rumble on – and given the weight of coverage I suppose the only way the matter can ever be settled is for it to play out in court.

[49] “Our sympathy should be with Bradley Manning” – agreed, but to the exclusion of sympathy for anybody else?

@OP, Dave O: “It may indeed be tempting to rush to judgement in matters of sexual misconnduct, making whether we rate someone as a good guy or a baddie the key criterion. As the Sheridan debacle should underline for socialists, the real world doesn’t work like that.”

I reckon that Dave will get some ear bashing when he gets home. Strauss-Kahn is not accused of “sexual misconduct”, but of attempted rape, a crime of violence. He remains accused, of course, and deserves an unprejudiced hearing.

Tommy Sheridan was guilty of a sexual misdemeanour — nothing illegal, but conduct that is outside the social norm. He got banged up for bare faced perjury, however, not attending sex clubs. It didn’t need to work out that way; his mates could have demanded the truth, however awkward it may have been.

Assange got banged up temporarily, now that I recall it, for being a smart arse when requesting bail. Upon being asked his address, Assange started to deliver a post office box address in Australia. Once he had done that, the court had little choice but to place him in custody.

You know, they do say that if you live long enough, you’ll see everything.

And I’m old enough to remember when the IMF, and the heartless neo-lib bureaucrats who run it, were hate figures for the Left. Now it seems they can be accused of raping someone yet merit sympathy from those who used to despise them. The only question is whether the sympathetic treatment in evidence here is more due to the accused being a Socialist, or because he was arrested by Americans. Probably a mix of both, n’est pas?

@53. the a&e charge nurse: “[49] “Our sympathy should be with Bradley Manning” – agreed, but to the exclusion of sympathy for anybody else?”

Of course not. I sympathise with journalists, translators and Afghan civilians who were named in previously leaked documents and who may feel threatened as a consequence. I sympathise with Assange who deserves a fair trial like any individual.

@55. Scooby: “And I’m old enough to remember when the IMF, and the heartless neo-lib bureaucrats who run it, were hate figures for the Left. Now it seems they can be accused of raping someone…”

That argument doesn’t really work, Scooby. “They”, the IMF are not accused of rape; the IMF boss is accused of attempted rape.

If you read the original post closely, however, you’ll get the message that it is unwise for anyone to elevate a politician to the status of idol. It’s not just a lefty liberal thing. US evangelical churches have endured similar foul ups.

@Scooby,

There is actually very little evidence that DSK is getting much sympathy. Certainly among commenters here, few have chosen any interest, preferring to rake over the JA case again instead.

Obviously in France some people are suggesting it was a setup, and I’ve no doubt that, as Dave Osler said, there are conspiracy theorists worldwide saying the same thing. But there is no reason, so far, to think that even in France this is a majority view.

The Telegraph article that the OP links to lumps together some people who are conspiracy theorists with others who are merely expressing their surprise at the news or who are taken aback and who, as party colleagues or friends, are withholding condemnation until conviction. Some of the translations in the Telegraph article are crap – for instance, “it is totally hallucinatory” involves a mistranslation of the well known French term “hallucinant” meaning “astonishing”. This colloquialism does not imply that the speaker thinks everyone is making it up, only that it is highly unexpected news.

Can the the NYPD be free to operate in such a political vacumn of US strategic interests that it could be allowed to arrest, publicly humilate, and detain in custody, the likely next President of France- a close US ally, and with Germany, one of the two most senior EU states- with the same alacrity that any private individual, it would seem, would receive in the same circumstances? Is there not provision for the State department to be contacted in exceptional circumstances. A few more minutes could have allowed the matter to be investigated in his absence.
Perhaps the answer lies in: ‘Who does the the US administration- and close others, want to be the next President of France, Sarkosy or Strauss Khann?

Phil, I am not sure that Obama would have any strong preference between Sarko and DSK – bear in mind that DSK is the closest thing France has to a Blairite. You cannot tell me the global elites were seriously upset to have Blair in power. I doubt that the arresting officers had ever heard of DSK. Many Americans would not have. Even if they did make the phone call that you suggest, which I doubt, Obama’s willingness for the case to go ahead would hardly show that he had anything to do with the alleged crime taking place in the first place.

[57] “If you read the original post closely, however, you’ll get the message that it is unwise for anyone to elevate a politician to the status of idol. It’s not just a lefty liberal thing” – indeed, although I cannot discern any such pattern of left leaning commentators exonerating left wing political figures who commit sexual offenses.
The only evidence given so far is ONE SENTENCE in the socialist worker – the three other lines offer no direct view about what took place in Sweden, or what should be done about it.

The allegations concerning Strauss-Kahn seem straightforward – he either did or did not sexually molest/rape a maid who went into his hotel room – he is now in Rikers Island prison awaiting further proceedings.

The situation regarding JA is much more opaque and the sympathies of various commentators seem to depend on their reading of a complex case rather than any intrinsic need to excuse Assange because of his role at wiki – although there IS the background issue of American authorities trying to extradite him to the US (and hence scope for, aherm, liberal conspiracy theories).

I am still not clear why Tommy Sheridan has been lumped in with alleged sex offenders – that’s the sort of thing one normally associates with the Mail.

I am still not clear why Tommy Sheridan has been lumped in with alleged sex offenders – that’s the sort of thing one normally associates with the Mail.

Because the OP is not about sex offenders per se but the strident, knee-jerk defence of alleged sex offenders or people alleged to have improperly conducted themselves.

[62] “the strident, knee-jerk defence of alleged sex offenders or people alleged to have improperly conducted themselves” – are you referring to the one line in the socialist worker – I mean were is the evidence for uncritical defence of lefties who have, err, ‘improperly conducted themselves’?

I can accept that there may be admiration for the contribution made by lefties (despite being in the wrong over something) but I do not think this is the same thing as saying, oh he’s a lefty, he couldn’t possibly be guilty of any sort of crime?

I mean were is the evidence for uncritical defence of lefties who have, err, ‘improperly conducted themselves’?

Some 600 tweets of this article, for example:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

[64] “Some 600 tweets of this article, for example” – 600 tweets claiming Assange is a lefty and therefore incapable of committing acts of sexual violence – are you sure?

[64] “Some 600 tweets of this article, for example” – 600 tweets claiming Assange is a lefty and therefore incapable of committing acts of sexual violence – are you sure?

This is hard work…

No, evidence of “uncritical defence of lefties who have, err, ‘improperly conducted themselves’”, as I wrote… …jesus, have you even looked?

@ 59

Can the the NYPD be free to operate in such a political vacumn of US strategic interests that it could be allowed to arrest, publicly humilate, and detain in custody, the likely next President of France- a close US ally, and with Germany, one of the two most senior EU states- with the same alacrity that any private individual, it would seem, would receive in the same circumstances?

Local law enforcement departments in the US are not only free to operate in such a way, but many positively relish doing so. In a country where those in charge of local policing are directly accountable to the electorate, it can make good political sense to show that you’re prepared to flip the bird at the big boys in national or international government.

The interesting thing about all this though is, that I would have thought that DSK was using a CD passport – granting him diplomatic immunity regardless of whatever crime he’d commited. Even the NYPD would back off when confronted by one of these along with the phrase “diplomatic immunity”. For US law enforcement to arrest him, there must have been some contact with the issuing authority – the French Government – who would have had to agree to waiving his immunity from prosecution. No one seems to have mentioned this yet.

[66] 600 tweets – no,life is to short.

It is you that raised them as ‘evidence’ of lefties being blinded by Assange’s aura rather than the highly unusual circumstances surrounding these allegations.

If there is anything of collective substance, then perhaps you would kind enough to summarise? – or perhaps highlight even ONE tweet claiming (in unambiguous terms) that lefties can do whatever the hell they like and left leaning commentators will still assume automatic innocent because of political bias.

a&e,

[66] 600 tweets – no,life is to short.

It is you that raised them as ‘evidence’ of lefties being blinded by Assange’s aura rather than the highly unusual circumstances surrounding these allegations.

If there is anything of collective substance, then perhaps you would kind enough to summarise? – or perhaps highlight even ONE tweet claiming (in unambiguous terms) that lefties can do whatever the hell they like and left leaning commentators will still assume automatic innocent because of political bias.

There are 138 tweets of “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape”.

There are 144 tweets of “Wikileaks’s Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have” and 73 of the German equivalent, “Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges”.

There are 8 tweets of “Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They’re of not using a condom. No, really.”

There are 3 tweets of “Why do the non-Swedish press keep lying that Julian Assange is accused of rape? He isn’t”

The first time there is any criticism is at tweet no.40, where Soho Politico asks, “This piece, on @libcon, strikes me as utterly bizarre and irresponsible. How did it get past @sunny_hundal?”

Even a cursory scan, just quickly scrolling down the page – I spent only a couple of minutes compiling the list above – suggests the vast bulk of tweets of that one article can be described as “uncritical defence”.

(bear in mind this is an article whose author said, “I unequivocally retract everything I’ve said in the last ten hours about the Assange case – the English court had no choice but to uphold the charges, because what he is accused of *does* correspond to what is described as rape under English law.”)

[66] 600 tweets – no,life is to short.

Actually, you know what? You’re right. You don’t appear to be interested in evidence supplied by others in the discussion, so I’ll leave this here.

[70] “You don’t appear to be interested in evidence supplied by others in the discussion” – OK, apologies – I just baulked at the thought of so many tweets.

Give me some time to look at them.

I am sure many of them ARE pro-Assange – the problem we have is discerning wether support, or at least sympathy is uncritical (because of the wiki connection) or driven by reports of what the 3 protagonists were alleged to have done – not to mention the kind of charges that exist in Sweden but not in the UK.

From recollection these factors were discussed in far greater detail than JA’s political outlook?

I must pick you up on one further point although I am not familiar with the tweet medium it hardly seems to lend itself to anything other than a few comments so that any attributes can be made about a tweet simply because there is no scope or intention to elaborate on underlying motives/beliefs.

It is true that if you live long enough you see everything. I am old enough to remember when the Theo-Cons and other assorted Social-Cons agreed with the Hard Core feminists that women never lied about these sort of things. If a woman, being a naive, pure and innocent being (no matter which side of the fence you stood) made an allegation, it must be true. Hardly worth a trial.

The lasting impact of both Assange and DSK, I expect, will be that the Left will be forced to abandon that argument and agree that some women can and do lie about rape. Or at least mix ups happen due to alcohol/poor communication etc etc

I am not sure I won’t miss the good old days.

@ 72 SFMS

“The lasting impact of both Assange and DSK, I expect, will be that the Left will be forced to abandon that argument ”

Can you point to an example of someone representing “the left” genuinely suggesting that an allegation is the same thing as proof in rape cases? Preferably someone who has a chance of being taken seriously, not some random crazy person on the internet.

A&E,

I must pick you up on one further point although I am not familiar with the tweet medium it hardly seems to lend itself to anything other than a few comments so that any attributes can be made about a tweet simply because there is no scope or intention to elaborate on underlying motives/beliefs.

Sure – it’s difficult to write a detailed, nuanced comment in the 140 character limit (you can of course use more tweets at the cost of readability). But ISTM that is precisely why one ought to be careful about what one tweets or retweets.

Suppose John Smith for example retweets the claim, “Wikileaks’s Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have”. It seems to me reasonable to infer that John Smith doesn’t disagree with that claim.

I’m quite sure that such people spend next to no time at all in thinking about it – they just retweet. But that speaks to the point about rushing to judgement and uncritical defence.

My first thought was, “This guy’s been Assanged”. I haven’t changed my mind.

If he were fleeing, would he be as simpleminded as he appears in calling the hotel about his cell phone? It’s preposterous.

Was the woman so feeble she couldn’t fight off a 65 year old “assailant”? No mention of him being armed.

Another “victim” appears out of the blue with a belated complaint. This is what she needed to get to a point where she would go public?

Just in case you imagine me to be unsympathetic regarding a sexual attack, I’ll mention here, I’m a woman. I was raped at age 15.. As an adult, if I were forced to perform oral sex by an old unarmed man, I’d give him a shot in the testes he would remember forever. Very disabling.

No knife was being held at her throat, no gun pressed against her ear…hmmm.

This man has too much to lose to do something so off the wall, and there are plenty of parties who would like to see him disappear. He’s a political threat, and his beliefs regarding money simply don’t fit with the times.

This whole affair stinks to high Hell.

75/Red Wolf: If he were fleeing, would he be as simpleminded as he appears in calling the hotel about his cell phone? It’s preposterous.

If, on the other hand, he was fairly calmly leaving, in the belief that he hadn’t done anything wrong, and certainly nothing illegal, why would he not call the hotel? Most rapists don’t define what they do as rape, after all.

“As an adult, if I were forced to perform oral sex by an old unarmed man, I’d give him a shot in the testes he would remember forever.”

You might do that; that doesn’t mean everyone else has to, is capable of doing so, etc.

Leaving aside all the other many good reasons why the first thought of someone being attacked might be “flight” or “freeze” rather than “fight”, if she had, the headlines in the papers the following day would be “Head of IMF assaulted by immigrant” and it would all have gone downhill from there.

Another “victim” appears out of the blue with a belated complaint.

Where “out of the blue” is “repeating a complaint made in public, though not to the judiciary, in 2007″, assuming we’re talking about the same complaint. That’s a long set up time on this conspiracy, here.

This man has too much to lose to do something so off the wall,

Well, if he is guilty, that will have to be filed under “things we all wish he’d thought of earlier”. Guilty or not, however, nothing about this suggests a conspiracy to me.

. cim,
There was no weapon involved, and the woman did break away. The lack of a weapon is key in a case like this.

At the very least, I can’t imagine he sustained no blemish whatsoever. I can’t imagine her not striking him. It’s a reflex.

As to him being so cool and calm, this is a stretch:

“If, on the other hand, he was fairly calmly leaving, in the belief that he hadn’t done anything wrong, and certainly nothing illegal, why would he not call the hotel? Most rapists don’t define what they do as rape, after all.”

This is a highly educated individual living in a civilized country with laws against forced sexual behavior. Of course he would know it was illegal. He occupies a very important position. If he were naive enough to think he’d done nothing wrong, he certainly could never have held such a position. He would have raised red flags, and would have been gotten rid of.

He’s have to be a total wack job. I doubt he is.

Here’s a quote from the article above. “Nor is he the only conspiracy theorist on the case. Even one of Sarkozy’s ministers has publicly hinted that this could all be a trap.”

I am currently reading “Damming the Flood”, a book that delves deeply into the incredible smear job done on Jean-Bertrand Aristide, former president of Haiti.

His reputation was totally destroyed. Why? Just happened to be inclined toward the Left, and wanting fair wages for the poor of his country, and NO privatization.

The people who make the money wheels turn didn’t like that. The same people would certainly look askance at a prospective Leftist French president when the lapdog in power now is so compliant.

It’s all about politics. It’s all about money.

Assange’s sin was in telling too much truth about politics, smear campaigns, cover-ups, and the big money boys. If it was possible to kill him, he’d be dead. If he dies in the future in a suspicious way, suicide for one, you can rest assured he was done in. The people who play these games are very dangerous.

I’ve been on this planet for 71 years, and have learned that few things are as simple as they seem, and murder is commonplace in certain circles, no mater how respectable one may appear to be. Smoke and Mirrors are the norm. not the exception. I believe this man was railroaded.

There was no weapon involved, and the woman did break away. The lack of a weapon is key in a case like this.

Since most rapes take place without weapons, I don’t see why that’s key at all. Maybe he’s stronger than he looks? Maybe he’s taken a self-defence or martial arts class and knows how to fight without a weapon? Maybe finding out just how much more force someone is willing and able to use isn’t a good idea?

I can’t imagine he sustained no blemish whatsoever.

I didn’t realise you’d performed a medical exam on DSK recently, but shouldn’t you keep quiet about the results due to doctor-patient confidentiality?

He may or may not have minor injuries, I don’t know, and I’m not sure what evidence you have for it. It doesn’t really make much difference, because not all rapists end up injured.

I can’t imagine her not striking him. It’s a reflex.

It’s not a reflex for everyone. If attacking when attacked was really a reflex, our military wouldn’t spend months training soldiers to reliably do just that instead of hiding, freezing, or fleeing.

If he were naive enough to think he’d done nothing wrong, he certainly could never have held such a position.

The news that some politician is caught abusing their power in a multitude of different illegal ways – in a “civilised” country – never comes as a surprise. Left or right, politicians have turned out not to be honest, to have broken laws. What’s so special about rape that prominent politicians wouldn’t break that law too?

Interesting fact about rapists: they’ll admit to what they do (at least before their lawyer advises them to shut up) – but they won’t call it rape. Studies have found that between 5% and 15% of men will admit to behaviours that legally constitute rape, attempted rape and/or sexual assault – no correlation with education levels, age, or anything else – provided the r-word isn’t in the question.

If DSK is guilty (I don’t have the information to determine that, not being a New York criminal court), it’s quite possible that the first hint he had that he’d done something illegal – as opposed to some self-justifying euphemism about how he’d “had some rough fun” with a maid who was “playing hard to get”.

(If anything, the sense of entitlement and lack of concern for others that implies might make it easier to become a prominent politician, and would certainly be reinforced once one was)