If You’ll Pardon the Presumption
by zunguzungu
I’m writing this post because I made the mistake of thinking I could heave some pissed-offedness on twitter yesterday and be understood; the brevity and crudeness of that forum (and its spontaneous channeling of the moment) have their virtues, but I don’t like the way I expressed myself and am writing this post as a kind of “this is what I actually think” way of putting some nuance back into what was pretty blunt and simplistic at the time.
It seems worth pointing out that both Michael Moore and Sadie Doyle are running up against the same kind of problem with respect to the allegations against Julian Assange: deducing facts about a particular case based on what you know — or think you know — from much more general tendencies and patterns. And then using rhetoric to paper over the disconnect between what you can authoritatively confirm and what you can only make an educated guess about.
It is certainly true, after all, that a great many men who are guilty of rape get categorically presumed innocent, and do so as a consequence of the way their accusers get categorically defamed. This is Doyle’s point, and she’s right: we’re seeing people like Naomi Wolf not only casually misrepresent the allegations (this is not about “injured feelings” and the allegations are of coercion) but also categorically dismiss even the idea that there might be something to the accusation at all.
After all, it is certainly and absolutely true that the powerful use dirty tricks and smear tactics to deal with people they view as threats, as Moore is only one person to assert. But look, for example, at John Pilger‘s column, who attacks feminists as a class and then happily quotes and concurs with Naomi Klein’s [mis-attributed that to Wolf; fixed] charge that “Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan.” Maybe. But the unfortunate thing about that analogy is that the Taliban really was guilty of institutional violence and repression of women. That doesn’t make invading Afghanistan the right way to address it, of course, but is their point really that violence against women doesn’t matter when an imperial power tries to use it to further its nefarious ends? Are they really arguing that the question of his guilt is irrelevant? Are they really so quick to make Assange the Taliban in that analogy?
It is, still, relevant to note the fact that Daniel Ellsberg was instantly smeared and defamed — his psychiatrist’s office burgled to find anything that could be used against him, for example — as soon as he leaked the pentagon papers, and Ellsberg has, himself, been one of the loudest to point out the parallel. This is not wild conspiracy stuff, but a completely plausible possibility. And there are real and legitimate questions to be asked about the way the Swedes have handled this case, but as Ed at Gin and Tacos puts it, this is a very different kind of skepticism than attacking the accusers themselves:
This is not a question of people accusing the accuser of fabricating the charges. It is a question of why the Swedish government suddenly decided that the accuser’s charges, which were filed months ago, needed to be upgraded to Most Wanted “Scour the globe for this guy, he is an extraordinarily dangerous criminal” status a few hours [ZZ: actually two days] after the accused squatted over the U.S. State Department and took an enormous Cleveland Steamer on its chest. These accusations are not new and yet the Swedish authorities did not file charges until August of 2010, conveniently on the tail of a summer of information disclosures by Wikileaks. The charges lingered for a few months and yet suddenly in early December Assange becomes the target of an international manhunt.
This case is obviously political, from top to bottom. But that doesn’t mean these particular allegations against Julian Assange are necessarily baseless, however much the US state department might welcome the prosecution and may even have quietly encouraged it. It has nothing to necessarily to do with whether the allegations are true, nothing necessary at all.
So, for example, this, from Doyle:
I really, really, do tend to believe that he raped those girls. When I look at the story these women are telling — a powerful, socially connected man rapes one woman, and she tries to stay friendly and doesn’t push it through the system; that same powerful man rapes another woman, and she tries to stay friendly and doesn’t push it through the system; these two women find out about each other, and realize that he didn’t just accidentally misguidedly rape one woman on accident, but apparently makes a habit out of raping women to the point that he did it twice in the space of a few days, and realize they have to do something about this, because it’s not just them, it’s other women at risk; they try a variety of things outside of the legal system, because God knows pushing this through the legal system will bring no amount of extra trauma and grief upon both their heads; eventually, after repeatedly trying to mediate with him personally and asking the police if there’s nothing else they can do, they try to take him to court, which is their least desirable option and last resort; he runs away — I don’t see a perfectly orchestrated plot. I don’t see a case that was manufactured out of nowhere to bring a guy down. I see something that looks exactly like how rape has played out in my communities.
…is rhetorically persuasive, and worth really hearing. She is absolutely right that what we see in this specific case bears a strong and persuasive resemblance to a broadly observable pattern, and a broadly ignored pattern. Rape is a hard crime to prosecute, because the rape victim is held to an incredibly high standard while the status of the accused is seen to vindicate them, the sort of person who would never do anything like that, etc. Not only does this case quack like exactly that kind of duck, but people like Moore, Wolf, and Pilger (and Keith Olbermann) have been really quick to defame the allegers and dismiss the allegations without every even remotely taking them seriously. That’s exactly like claiming the Taliban to be virtuous as the driven snow, and that we know so, obviously, because the US is out to get them.
But Doyle’s “I really, really, do tend to believe that he raped those girls,” is nothing more than a statement of belief, and it would be irresponsible to make it into more than that. The fact that she “see[s] something that looks exactly like how rape has played out in [her] communities” should make us pause before dismissing the allegations, but what it “looks like” proves, quite literally, absolutely nothing.
Which is why, by the way, profiling is a bad way to do criminal justice. After all, suppose we grant the (untrue, but intuitive) proposition that all terrorists are Muslims. Now, this is really not even close to true; we tend only to use the word “terrorist” when talking about political violence by Muslims, while a great deal of what should be called “terrorism,” by any reasonable use of the term, is done by non-Muslims. The Oklahoma city bombing, or the IRA, or other examples don’t spring to mind, but they’re there. But grant it anyway: all terrorists are Muslims. If you then move from this general pattern to identify an individual Muslim as being more likely to be a terrorist than a non-Muslim, you’ve just forgotten that while the incredibly microscopic fraction of people who are “terrorists” might be more likely to be Muslim than not, the overwhelmingly vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and treating them as if they were is counterproductive at best.
That analogy is inexact, but it serves to demonstrate a general principle: turning valid statistics into logical policy choices can easily produce bad effects in practice. You use generalizations to talk about society level issues; for specific cases, you need specific evidence or it’s simply a version of guilt by association, guilt by correlation. Ah ha! Black people commit most x type crimes, therefore Y black person is guilty, etc.
Back to the actual case at hand, as Matt Cornell argued with Doyle on twitter, assertions like this:
are a real problem; you cannot use broad societal statistics to speak with authority about a specific case. You can use it to make an educated guess, and depending on how good your statistics are, you will be statistically more likely to be right, but that‘s all. If it is true that only 8% of rape allegations are unfounded — and I only use the conditional because all statistics are less authoritative than they seem — then it is certainly true that, all other things being equal, it seems pretty likely that Julian Assange probably assaulted those women. Sady Doyle’s reasoning remains strong, in that respect. But she’s not a judge, nor should such reasoning be admissible to a court in that form; when “educated guess” becomes a reliable standard for criminal justice, we have bigger problems. We can all privately come to our own conclusions, and we can even post them on the internet. But our opinions cannot be meaningful in discussing what a court of law should or should not do, unless we’re really happy with asserting guilt by correlation. I’m not.
That said, I participated in Doyle’s twitter campaign yesterday not because I think Doyle is right that Assange is probably a rapist (and my opinion would be as irrelevant as hers), but because I think she’s right that Moore was flagrantly wrong (as John Pilger was wrong, and as Naomi Wolf was wrong) to dismiss both the possibility out of hand and ignoring what is known about the allegations. The relevance of Doyle’s profile of a rapist is a way of demonstrating that there is nothing crazy and outlandish and ridiculous about these allegations, not that they’re true, but that they’re plausible enough to take seriously. Only if we categorically decide that anyone the US state deems to be an enemy is our friend — e.g., Michael Moore’s attitude towards Latin America — does it become “obvious” that there is nothing to this case.
So, note for example, the credulity with which Moore and Pilger and Wolfe have taken the things Julian Assange’s lawyer says about the charges (and especially about the accusers and their evidence) as reliable fact. But when charges haven’t yet been filed, no one outside the lawyer bringing suit and his clients can really say what the charges are going to be, and yet people who are suspicious of the Swedish/British/American axis of evil have been very quick to make authoritative assertions about what is and isn’t alleged, at a point in the proceedings when there is very little concrete to go on (and often directly contradicting what is actually reported). This is irresponsible at best. Julian Assange’s lawyer is not a trusted source of information on Assange’s accusers, especially since he’s the guy that made up the whole non-existent “Sex by Surprise” charge, which was so credulously repeated by an irresponsible media. But he’s a lawyer; his job is to be an amoral advocate for his client, and by all accounts, he is doing his job well. Our job is different. And the way people like Pilger have been talking about how “this isn’t even a crime in Britain,” as if that’s anything but a mark of shame if it’s true, is pretty piss poor. The fact that British (or our) criminal justice system doesn’t allow a woman to remove her consent once she’s given it, that’s our problem, not theirs. When, as is alleged, a woman who consents to have sex with a condom demands that the sex stop when it is clear the condom has broken or has not been used, well, refusal to heed her wishes is rape, no matter what a government says. Good for the Swedes for calling it what it is.
Whether or not this is what happened, of course, is a different proposition. But none of these people are addressing that question in a way that‘s relevant to legal procedure. Contra Doyle’s certainty, the thing about specific cases is that all other things are not always equal, and in this case, they are particularly not so. After all, while Julian Assange might have been “a powerful, socially connected man” at the time the alleged assaults were to have taken place, to call him that now would be fairly naïve. However paranoid he may be, they all really are out to get him. And so Michael Moore is not wrong to small a rat here:
Moore: …This whole thing stinks to the high heavens. I mean, I wasn’t born yesterday, but I’ve seen this enough times where governments and corporations go after individuals. I think I was just on your show a couple of weeks ago talking about this with my film and the health care industry. They go after people with this kind of lie and smear. Daniel Ellsberg told you about it last week on how they went after him. We’ve seen this before. Now, his guilt or innocence of this— I mean, what he said they did— [grinning] and the lawyer said this today in court in London—that what they say he did and the charge is his [rolls eyes] condom broke during consensual sex.
Olbermann: Mm-hmm.
Moore: That is not a crime in Britain, and so they’re making the point how can we—how can we extradite him over this? This is all a bunch of hooey as far as I’m concerned! And, and the man at least has a right to be out of prison while awaiting the hearing, and this is why I participate in it; this is why I put up a chunk of the bail money, and, I’m proud to do it because I think this man and what he’s doing, and what his group is doing, is going to save lives.
This case stinks in lots of ways, and while the claim that Wikileaks will “save lives” is hard to substantiate, I certainly do share Michael Moore’s admiration for what Wikileaks has done. And the moment a credible extradition to the US gets under way is the moment we can authoritatively say that things are fucked up, a game changer which should have us all screaming bloody murder.[1]
But Michael Moore has exactly as much evidence that Julian Assange, himself, is innocent of rape as Sadie Doyle has that he’s guilty. That it looks one way or another doesn’t make it so, nor authorize us to act as if it were so. But at least Doyle was basically upfront about what she thinks to be the case; the language of “well, obviously” used by the people for whom this is obviously a honey-pot is of a different order of problematic altogether. Moore should be ashamed of the way he sneers at the question of Assange‘s “his guilt or innocence of this— I mean, what he said they did,” and then faithfully quotes how Assange’s lawyer said it isn’t true, so there, and repeats the lawyer’s misrepresentation of the charges. The allegations are serious, and he loses any authority to argue against unserious charges and legal shenanigans when he can’t distinguish between the allegations of two women — who have a right to bring charges even against people we might personally like and admire — and the activities of Sweden, Britain, and the US, whose activities actually do deserve to be scrutinized pretty damn closely. It’s a real problem when leftists choose not to do that. Instead of focusing their attention on what these states have actually done, they have chosen to defame and dismiss two human being; instead of actually learning what the allegations are (and getting educated on extradition law), they have preferred to live in a fantasy land and take warmth and comfort in faithful sexist social bias against rape victims. Versions of their fantasy might be true. But it’s still a fantasy when you haven’t bothered to find out any of the relevant statutes or address the aspects of the case that actually are legitimate. Sady Doyle has not convinced me that Assange is actually a rapist, but she is absolutely right that Moore, Pilger, and Wolf are acting irresponsibly at best. We need better leftists than that.
One thing the case has clarified, then, is the extent to which a different worldview shapes the “progressivism” that Sadie Doyle and Michael Moore might ostensibly seem to share. L’Affaire Wikileaks has revealed so very much more than what was in those cables, and — as Millicent put it on twitter — here “it’s exposed the tacit faultlines we knew existed between many male progressives & feminists.” Those who attack the corporate state and those who attack our rape culture are not necessarily doing the same thing, from the same place, or sharing the same presumptions. The fact that George W. Bush was everybody’s enemy has left us ill suited, again, for thinking about politics in an era of the neo-liberal security state Democratic president. And being both a feminist and a leftist, for those of us who want to be both, requires us to merge both these worldviews, a task which many of us are not doing very successfully (to the extent we’re trying, since, as usual, the fairly empty category of “progressive” does a great deal to obscure real political fault lines). So let’s try harder.
[1] I’m sort of skeptical it will happen, by the way, since it’s such a bad test case for this kind of executive branch expansion of powers; Assange is a celebrity, and they like to indefinitely detain people whose human rights are invisible by virtue of being brown and unknown. But an awful lot of journalists actually will go ape-shit over te extradition if it happens; even the NY Times has got to understand that getting in bed with Julian Assange is something they can’t take back, and the Columbia school of Journalism has already come out in support of Assange‘s journalistic credentials. If they extradite him, also, they make the rape charges — so useful in smearing his name — disappear behind a new aura of martyrdom. Not to mention the Swedish politicians who would have to face Swedish voters and the new headache for Obama with progressives. I just don’t see the angle (but I’m no expert and I guess we’ll see).
The most essential point about how the US will handle Assange is in your footnote. What’s the movie line? “Only the stupid think the law is stupid” or somesuch?
Why test case Assange when they have Manning – against whom an ironclad case can be made? He’s no journalist. He broke clear laws. A lot of people already think he gets what he deserves. Chattering class liberals – like Matt Yglesias – are falling over themselves to condemn him out of hand.
Why give Assange the cover of additional celebrity when two or more years in a Swedish prison will turn him into a “footnote”?
Does anyone talk about Ted Kaczynski or Ramzi Yousef anymore?
If the law really wants to put a chill in the heart of would be leakers – it’ll find Manning guilty of whatever lets them kill him or lock him up for life, after all that “due process” formality is dispensed with.
I’m not even sure that much attention would be paid to Assange were he extradited to the US. Compare the coverage the Assange bail hearings – and the ongoing Wikileaks disclosures – have gotten in the Guardian versus the New York Times. The main obsession of the American media for the past week and a half has been Obama’s tax cut package and the wheelings and dealings between the White House and Congress; your bog-standard American liberal probably paid attention to Wikileaks for a couple days at most, erroneously believes all 250,000 cables have been released already and isn’t following the updates, and hasn’t been interested in the related subject matter for two years anyway. Bring up American foreign policy, civil liberties, transparency or anything tangentially related, and liberals will sigh “Oh, don’t talk to me about politics, it’s too depressing!” before earnestly saying something about filibuster reform. At this point I think the Pentagon could strap Assange into a Predator drone and fire him into a Yemeni village live on a special episode of The Daily Show and you’d mostly get a few grousing diaries on Daily Kos about how disappointing this has all been.
I don’t judge by the unread and unreadable NYT, personally. I judge by MSNBC, CNN, ABC and FOX:
http://www.google.com/search?q=assange+FOX+news&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I’m really, really creeped out by the notion of taking one specific type of crime and saying “for people accused of this, I’m going to presume they’re guilty until proven innocent.” I’m not sure what the difference is between Doyle’s approach to rape and Michelle Malkin’s approach to terrorism.
…because coming clean about rape is really, really damned hard, Stras. It is qualitatively different from pontificating about a political word with has no fixed meaning, and which is bandied about casually to describe so broad a category of conduct as to approach incomprehensibility.
Rape is a singular act. Terrorism, as a word, describes whatever the hell the defining person wants it to be.
Rape, as a word, describes the sexual penetration and/or assault of another person. Whether or not you sign off on lawn order (I don’t), it’s still far easier to fashion a manageable understanding of what has happened between two or more parties when one of them describes being forcibly coerced into sexual congress than it is to define what the hell “terrorism” means all on its own.
And on an emotional note only – who wants to live anywhere where we assume women, or men, are lying about being raped? It hurts to be raped. It’s hard as hell to talk about it. Why make it harder?
I don’t want to make it harder for women to talk about being raped. What I also don’t want to do is create an assumption that Person X is guilty of Crime Y because they’ve been accused of Crime Y. To do so in the name of rape survivors – making it easier to funnel people into a criminal justice system which itself has become one of the greatest engines of rape in this country – would be perverse.
“It hurts to be raped. It’s hard as hell to talk about it. Why make it harder?”
One viable reason could be 15 sec. of fame syndrome .There are many examples where women and man have resorted to sinister acusations in order to satisfy their ego. In Assange’s case, there is also a possibility, that interested parties have encouraged these women with a financial( most likely) or political “carrot”
Also to ponder is the fact that statistics are used and manipulated to suit “statistic giver” the credence. In particular I refer to ” @ mattcornell that his opinion is :” since 8% of rape alegations are unfounded, than there must be 92% chance ( that the rape realy occured)”
I wonder what kind of statistics we would come up, when the allegations of rape are brought forward when ” the establishment” is conjoling to, at the extreme , even execute the “rapist” due to the “crimes” commited that had nothing to do with the rape ie. leaked cables. ???
My feeling is that statistics would be reversed if the pre-conditions , outlined above, are met. At the same time, for what is worth, I am not saying that the rape did not occur BUT that the statistics used are irrelavant in determening ones guilt, but as “our” writer stated it can form ones basis for the opinion, which in this case can be totaly misleading.
Oh, oh , sorry one more “ponder”
Isn’t it a crime to buy or receive stolen goods ?
ie. say one very capable burgler steals Mona Lisa from le luvre and presents it to me as a gift. Me being such a “show off” I immediately call on all my frends and throw this lavish party attended by “anyone that is someone” and proudly exibit the Mona Lisa…all my friends know that it has been stolen recently, so some “goody too shoes” calls the police and they arrest me because these two women at the party said to the police that I raped them. But what about Mona Lisa? Ah , urgh, maybe its fake but just in case, we’ll investigate and perhaps drum about it all over the place until we get some evidence that it is the original…. In the meantime how about attacking Iran, while the people are preocupied with all this business abt Mona Lisa, Hey they even forgot that they are without a job, or that their “American dream” THE HOUSE is worth half to what they owe it to us……
Sounds like rambeling of a lunatic ? maybe….
Great post, Aaron. This has long been a problem with left, overlooking women and feminist concerns. My position is, feminism should be central, and all else should flow out from that.
Sorry folks, but I’m having difficulty with the progression of these events:
http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml
First, Aaron, thanks for another good post. At the moment I’m not feeling smart or energetic enough to say more than that.
But, Coldtype: I’ve seen people link to that page before. And I’m sorry, but a] the fact that she deleted some tweets means absolutely nothing to me. Dudes can insinuate all they want about how it’s “not common for victims of crime” to do it, and that doesn’t mean anything to me either. And b] That post repeatedly identifies her as a feminist, the clear implication being that this means she’d be likely to fabricate rape charges. It’s bullshit.
Coldtype: What JR said.
Once again, thank you. I keep trying to articulate what you just said so well.
If you are unaware of the existence of Jack of Kent, you might find him a much welcome voice of reason in all the militant buzz. And he’s a lawyer!
Isn’t Assange wanted in Sweden because of ONE rape charge, not two, as Doyle thinks? I’m not saying one rape is less serious than two, but as far as I know, the other woman didn’t make charges of rape but harassment.
Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning in relation to a police investigation. He hasn’t been charged with rape, as I understand (based on reports regarding the actual “red notice” issued by Interpol). Rather the police are investigating that charge among others. (Why they can’t interview him in London is beyond me, especially since they had already given him permission to leave Sweden.) And it’s simply not clear whether the rape and molestation charges reflect the original allegations of the women concerned or whether they are what the prosecution wants investigated on the basis of their interpretation of events. For Doyle to claim that she knows anything about what happened, given that we don’t even know the alleged victims’ version of events, is as patently absurd as anything the “left” (which apparently consists entirely of Pilger, Moore and Wolf) has said.
I feel that you’re intermittently representing Doyle unfairly, Aaron. You write, “Sady Doyle has not convinced me that Assange is actually a rapist,” but that’s actually not what she’s trying to convince you of, and to suggest that it is is to make a straw-feminist of her, in a way that’s been all too common on the Twitters in the last day or so. This:
is a much more accurate summary of her argument. Wish you’d stuck to that.
Well, I wish *she’d* stuck to that argument, is how I would respond. She also says things like “I really, really, do tend to believe that he raped those girls” which is just her opinion, just like Michael Moore has his opinion. It’s unfortunate that she gives the impression that she’s trying to convince us he really is a rapist — as in the tweet I clipped above — since the much smarter way of approaching the problem is the important one (and the one, to her credit, she gives the much greater emphasis to, as opposed to the Moores, Olbermann’s, etc, who really are trying to convince us that they know the Truth About What Happened).
I disagree, Natalia. Sady has mocked the idea that there is any possibility that these charges aren’t true, including in this paragraph: “You guys, why are these women engaging in the (risky, socially consequential, unlikely-to-succeed) act of charging a socially prominent man with lots of supporters of sexual assault? They’re spies, right? Or they’re feminists who go around tricking men into having sex with them so they can make rape accusations? Whatever the case may be, it sounds like this is totally just about broken condoms, of all things! HOW BIZARRE!”
She combines some excellent points with an assumption that anyone who believes there is even a chance that this is a set-up is a rape apologist.
I recommend: “Timeline of Assange’s visit to Sweden and events that followed” for those who are interested in the known facts of the accusations against Assange: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/rundle-timeline-of-assanges-visit-to-sweden-and-events-that-followed/
Thank you for this Andreas. Surely I’m not the only one impressed by the impeccable timing of these “charges”. Are child-molestation charges soon to follow—and be swallowed whole-hog as are these by many?
Apart from finding it repulsive that crickey.com names the two women, I really wouldn’t call their timeline “known facts”:
“… possibly … By Assange’s account … Unconfirmed: … reported … which may … if true … this cannot be fully verified. … reportedly … Unconfirmed: … it appears … Unconfirmed: … either or … is later quoted … appear to be … It is unclear …”
And I’m not even halfway through! On and on and on it goes with assumptions.
“… and ignoring what is known about the allegations.”
What is known about the allegations? I mean, the original reports were that the women didn’t even accuse Assange of rape, but “having an attitude problem with women”. Are the charges which were read out in court on the day Assange was detained the original allegations? Or are they the charges the prosecutors think they need to have Assange extradited? (Note that he hasn’t actually been charged with any of these crimes, as far as I understand.)
People are clearly responding to different versions of the story. But I don’t think anyone can claim to know what the real story is yet.
This is really good.
Thank you for making this post. I was reading your twitter yesterday and could have taken your position as some sort of zealotry. Twitter is a horrible platform for discussing social/political issues. I can’t disagree with anything you said in this post however.
This case rubs me the wrong way not because of the allegations but because of the way it’s being handled. The women who brought up the issue are not being represented right, Assange is not being treated right by the ‘justice’ system either. It’s a disgrace for both the British and the Swedish justice system. Personally, I can’t make presumptions about the merits of the allegations because I have seen no evidence presented by the prosecution. I will however consider Assange innocent until there is a reason to doubt that.
/sigh
meanwhile the systemkiller hums quietly along in the background while the cudlips are busy crotchsniffing Assange, and the powerless hyperpower works hardhard to flip Manning with drugs and solitary…..or else suborn the judiciary to redefine “conspiracy” like they were suborned to redefine “torture” under Bush.
the systemkiller is WAI.
Have you considered, Aaron, that Assange is doing in cyberspace exactly what OBL did to America in meatspace?
It is not the systems paranoia that is is our doom, but our overreaction to it.
I couldn’t agree more with this and I remain stunned at how credulous many left voices that I respect seem to be regarding this paint-by-numbers smear job. Anyway, what she said: http://www.feminisnt.com/2010/the-feminist-left-versus-julian-assange-how-a-fanatical-belief-in-every-sex-crime-allegation-hurts-everyone/
What I object to is the assumption that we have two choices: regard it as a smear job or regard it as real. I’m one hundred percent positive that the US state department sees the case as a windfall, at least, and that they’re doing what they can to make the most of it. That’s a given. They may be doing more than that. But that has nothing to do with the allegations themselves, and no one has shown that it does. Suspicion is not proof. That applies to Julian Assange *and* his accusers, and yet people seem only willing to apply it to the person they’ve decided to believe. Sure there are suspicious aspects to the timing of the charges. But *every* time a rape victim dares to charge rape, everyone else goes through her background and comes up with all sorts of reasons why the charges aren’t credible. Smearing the accusers while you complain about a smear job on Assange is a ridiculous and self-serving hypocrisy. I said I don’t know whether Julian Assange committed rape, but what you seem to be hearing is that I believe he committed rape. That’s your problem.
what i object to paying attention to some stupid prurient sex-distraction fake lawsuit while America approaches policestatehood on its way its way to non-linear system collapse.
Zunguzungu I find your thinking and your reasoning both refreshing and intriguing – in the most positive of senses! Glad I found you.
About the “windfall”, Birgitta Jónsdóttir (member of the Icelandic Parliament and WikiLeaks organizer) seems to agrees with you. In a recent Swedish documentary “Wikileaks med läckan som vapen” (with the leak as weapon) she says:
“… there must have been a party at the American Embassy in Sweden, when they read these news [about the rape charges]: “Yes, we don’t have to do anything except just pass this on.””
(At the time the Embassy was under scrutiny for illegal spying on Swedish citizens.)
[…] For Aaron Bady’s well-reasoned argument for withholding judgment on guilt or innocence, click on If You’ll Pardon the Presumption. […]
I just thought of this: why does Sady Doyle say “they try to take him to court, which is their least desirable option and last resort; he runs away” (That “he runs away” in bold)?
It doesn’t really matter, but I’m curious since she seemed to think it was important, is there evidence that he left the country before the charges had already been dropped?
Hi Rosmar! Here’s a link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
to a timeline of events in August … a warrant was issued on 20 August then withdrawn the next day, for vague reasons; one of the complainant’s lawyers filed an appeal (on 21 August) w/the special prosecutor.
Assange was questioned by Stockholm cops for an hour on 31 August, and formally informed of the allegations against him.
On 1 September, the Director of Prosecutions (and one of the lead prosecutors in the sex crimes section announced her intention to re-open the investigation.
On 18 October, Sweden denied Assange’s application for residency.
On 18 November, Stockholm district court approves a request to detain Assange for questioning “on suspicion of rape” … I don’t know when it happened, but sometime between 1 September and 18 November, he went to London. (I’m sure that’s easy enough to find out.)
So, while the charges/warrant were dropped once, they are apparently still part of an ongoing investigation, and he well knew it when he left the country after being questioned by the police. Why did he leave when he did? I don’t know.
This case is truly messed up; on the one hand, would the women’s complaint get so much attention in the absence of Assange’s pissing off the ‘world leaders’? I doubt it …. certainly the prosecution wouldn’t be getting this kind of international attention/cooperation if he weren’t who he is.
OTOH, he wouldn’t have the international network of support if he weren’t who he is.
Bottom line: Sady’s exercised over this, and borders on obnoxious, but I understand her ire. Having read the British and even NYTimes coverage, I’m shocked that the “these are silly charges from Feminazi Sweden” storyline has been getting as much play as it has. The story of the assault is plausible (doesn’t make it true); the fact that Western governments have ulterior motives to get behind the sex charges is true (doesn’t make the charges false).
There’s every reason to suspect that the *prosecution* is politically motivated; there’s *no* reason to attack the *accusers* on account of it, or to trivialize the allegations … IMHO.
Hi Allthinky!
Thanks for that. That’s exactly the kind of timeline I’d been trying and failing to find. I think I need to brush up on my Google skills.
It seems he left sometime after October 18th, since that was the date at which he was denied Swedish residency. So it still seems a stretch (barring further evidence) to say (and emphasize) that he “ran away.”
Anyway, I agree with you, and I agree with Sady when she’s being careful, but I disagree with her when she suggests that anyone who thinks there is a chance Assange is innocent is a rape apologist. Even if they specify that what the women allege is clearly rape.
[…] more from the original source: If You’ll Pardon the Presumption Tags: psychiatrist Posted in: […]
The grand irony of this grim question is that half of everyone is spuriously predetermining the outcome of the rape trial in order to assert that Assange’s political position should not be allowed to spuriously predetermine the outcome of the rape trial. In order to ensure that the question of wikileaks will not determine the question of rape (or vice versa) we’re leaping to entangle the outcomes.
Meanwhile, as ZZ has suggested, we don’t need to believe that Assange is innocent in order to suspect a smear campaign against him, nor do we need to believe him guilty to suspect that his hacktivist celebrity will overshadow the seriousness of the charges he faces. Positing fixed truths makes the presence of a political bias more sharply legible, but this intellectual shorthand should never become an article of belief.
From the standpoint of political rhetoric, the real danger here is that the narrative of rape will become metaphorically conflated with the narrative of wikileaks. The assholes in our mediasphere seem all too eager to imply that the violation of state secrecy is something like the sexual violation of real human beings, a premise that I think we can all agree to find repellent for any number of reasons. Declaring a preemptive verdict ultimately supports the conflation of these narratives despite the motive of keeping them separate. Let’s not cross the streams.
Thank you for this thoughtful and careful analysis, Aaron. Unfortunately, I think the temperature has gotten too high on the Doyle/Moore/Olbermann story. Doyle herself used this blog post to conflate me with misogynist trolls:
http://sadydoyle.tumblr.com/post/2348492813/heres-the-thing-mooreandme-has-been-active-for
She also refuses to answer my questions, instead accusing me of “rape apologism.” This is demonstrably false, and makes me kind of sad.
I really appreciate this observation from Dan C:
“From the standpoint of political rhetoric, the real danger here is that the narrative of rape will become metaphorically conflated with the narrative of wikileaks. The assholes in our mediasphere seem all too eager to imply that the violation of state secrecy is something like the sexual violation of real human beings.”
That’s exactly what Amanda Marcotte did in her original post on Assange, equating the work of Wikileaks with the violation of rape. I note that while her penchant for criticizing Assange has not waned, she has also recently written her first post substantive post *defending* Wikileaks.
I think that’s a sign of progress for the discourse, and though I won’t claim credit for it, this development shows that it’s important for us to keep pushing the discussion forward, despite the minefield that we find before us.
Finally. Finally a reasonable examination of the debate between Doyle and Moore/Olbermann. I’ve tried addressing this on Doyle’s own blog but it’s become obvious she has no interest in dialogue on the issue (despite her calls for it).
I think it’s clear Doyle has a serious problem with statistics. Several times in this discussion, she has seriously misconstrued what certain statistics mean and/or failed to understand the implications behind them. For example:
The problems there should be obvious, but my favorite: is there really no such thing as a reported rape that is, in fact, false? Has she never heard of Duke lacrosse? Or if you’d like that in a different flavor, Darryl Hunt? Or the Scottsboro Boys? Not every report or allegation or conviction for rape is actually true. I mean, she literally demands that Assange “conclusive [prove himself] innocent” in court. Not that the accusers get a day in court, not that they have a public forum and a fair trial. She castigates Moore in the tweet for believing Assange’s innocence before a trial… apparently completely failing to understand that she’s doing the exact same thing. The tweet in question:
So convictions can take place in Doyle’s head, but acquittals cannot take place in Moore’s. GOT IT.
Honestly, I don’t think she even cares if the accusations are true or not. She sees this as an important opportunity to convict an important white man of rape. And certainly everything she says about rape not being taken seriously enough is true! Everything about the belittlement and disregard of rape victims is true! So she thinks that this cause is important enough to sacrifice truth and freedom for. In her mind, whether or not Julian Assange is actually innocent is totally irrelevant – she says as much on her blog “No matter what the actual truth of the Assange case may be, the effect this has on women who are raped is profound, and profoundly terrible”. This is a chance to convict a famous white man of rape to further the cause of rape awareness and activism. Not to actually, you know, determine the truth and then punish a rapist if necessary.
That is my real beef with Sady. To her, this is entirely political. It is not about the truth, it is not about justice. It is about politics.
Whoops… left out of a closing blockquote tag somewhere in there. There should be one after the word “EVER”.
What she is protesting is the fact that Moore is 1) belittling the accusations and downplaying their seriousness 2) treating the accusations and the accusers as tools of the enemy, as if there is NO possibility that Assange is guilty.
As for Sady’s “Trouble with statistics”- those instances are rare, and when errors are pointed out, she fixes them. Immediately.
First, there is nothing wrong with belittling and downplaying accusations that you believe to be false. If you think someone is part of a political smear campaign against an “enemy of the state”, then it is absolutely the right response. The real proble, as Aaron Brody points out so well, however, none of us really know the truth of what happened. Suppose the women’s stories were a complete fabrication. Would Moore be doing anything wrong? I don’t think so. The problem, of course, is that he might be wrong. But he’s probably at least 92% sure that he’s right, too. (And shouldn’t Doyle be less than 92% sure since we’re talking about two independent events here?)
Second, I wrote a very polite comment explaining the problem with the statistics Doyle was using, and her interpretation of them. She deleted it with no comment. She simply has no interest in actually discussing the issue at all. She is scoring political points and, to her, both the truth and good statistics are expendable in the effort.
[…] the publication of his breakthrough piece, Brady has followed up with tenacious balance and muck-raking in equal measure. As an example, did you know US companies in Afghanistan are pimps […]
This is most comprehensive account of the allegations thus far:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
People are going to have to make a choice. Do you support Assange, who could very well be a complete jerk to women, with an unhealthy obsession about unprotected sex, and who may have overstepped the mark in his sexual behavior? If you say no, send him to Sweden, then when he is sent there and locked up incommunicado and then extradited to the U.S. to spend 50 years in solitary confinement for something you may not even think is a crime, you can’t then pretend that you didn’t know what the consequences of sending him to Sweden would be. If you say I do support him, stop the extradition to Sweden, you also can’t pretend that you’re giving preference to what Assange is doing politically over the legal complaints of these women. That’s life – full of hard, unpalatable choices like this one. But I don’t see *this* choice being discussed. I only see people talking about a man who has been “set up” on one side and a rapist on the other, because in the end neither side wants to deal with the consequences of this choice.
We have the third option of taking the charges of sexual violence seriously and then protesting any future charges of espionage from the US. Responding to the expedient morality of governments with expedient morality ultimately concedes the custodianship of the historical narrative we occupy to them. It’s worth asking who sets the terms of the political world in which your two choices are the only real ones. If I may have a vaguely Kantian moment, the limited effect of acts does not foreclose the more fundamental freedom of forming a disposition toward the world as it is. The crypto-protestant inertia of such an idea is problematic, obviously, but so is a process of decision making that discounts the possibility that things could be or should be other than as they are.
Apropos of very little, are there confidential document t-shirts yet? I’m not eager to wear one, but that would be neat.
Your third option is effectively the choice to do nothing. It’s the abnegation of responsibility. What does it even mean to “take the charges of sexual violence seriously” in this context? Is it compatible with contributing to Assange’s defense fund? Does it entail a commitment to the idea that Assange should face trial in Sweden even if this makes his extradition to the U.S. more likely? And what does protesting any future charges from the U.S. involve? Joining a Facebook page? Wearing a t-shirt?
Do you see how your recommendation amounts to precisely nothing?
I completely reject the idea that I am advocating an expedient morality. I’m arguing that people should take a stand on the basis of their principles. But to do that in a serious way (and not just as a “beautiful soul,” one who is always on the right side of everything) means recognizing that taking a stand has consequences which have to be acknowledged. This is the opposite not of principle, but of the self-deception involved in thinking that Assange is nothing but a rapist, or that by avoiding a trial in Sweden the rights of some individuals haven’t thereby been trampled.
You write: “It’s worth asking who sets the terms of the political world in which your two choices are the only real ones.” I think the answer is just those people who prefer to maintain a good conscience no matter what, because such people are not capable of acting and making a difference in the world. They are the ones who tacitly support the current political system, even if they happen to be the most vocal in denouncing it.
[…] I also want to recommend two other articles. Aaron Bady is a much more thoughtful, careful and less combative writer than myself, and he has a very civil discussion on #mooreandme happening here. […]
You all may have already seen this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia
Israel Shamir, a representative for Wikileaks is a Holocaust denier. He also authored the Counterpunch hit piece on one of the accusers, connecting her to the CIA and scarily intoning against feminists.
I have a feeling the Guardian is souring on its relationship to Assange, first by publishing the full account of the rape allegations, and now by focusing on Shamir and his connection to the group, and also to the smears. It’s hard not to see Assange signing off on the Counterpunch piece. Also, it’s hard to believe he didn’t know about Shamir’s beliefs.
This could turn the tide against liberal public support for Assange, if not Wikileaks itself. Very disturbing.
I liked the way you’ve made this all about Assange. Is Assange an editor at Counterpunch now, that he “signs off” on the articles published there? And why is it hard to believe that he didn’t know about Shamir’s beliefs? According to the article, Shamir goes by at least six different names. Do you think the photo of them together gives it way? Perhaps if they were actually speaking to each other in that photo, you would be able to deduce that Assange is also an anti-semite?
Personally, I’ll wait to hear what Wikileaks or Assange have to say before jumping to conclusions. I’d be surprised if they came out and admitted that they were a neo-Nazi organisation releasing diplomatic cables in an effort to disprove the Holocaust. But then again, according to news reports Assange is a rapist, a terrorist, and a very weird dude. So I guess anything is possible.
“I liked the way you’ve made this all about Assange. Is Assange an editor at Counterpunch now, that he “signs off” on the articles published there?”
Of course not. But it does suggest that Shamir wrote the piece with the tacit or explicit approval of Assange. If Assange didn’t want to be associated with the smear on “Miss A,” he should have ended his murky relationship with Shamir immediately, knowing the potential damage it might cause down the road.
“And why is it hard to believe that he didn’t know about Shamir’s beliefs?”
Because if you Google “Israel Shamir” the name he has been going under recently (including the period in which the Counterpunch article appeared), you will find plenty of evidence of Shamir’s shameful history of antisemitism, holocaust denial and general kookiness. Do you believe that a guy like Assange doesn’t Google the people who he entrusts sensitive diplomatic cables to? Do you believe that when someone writes a smear piece on his accuser, a guy like Assange doesn’t research the name of the author who has been throwing bombs on his behalf?
I too support Wikileaks, and I very seriously doubt that the organization or Julian Assange personally are antisemites or neo-nazis. I am not implying these things– though I have no doubt that the media will use this to further discredit Assange.
My concern is that the Shamir affair reveals serious organizational problems, and suggests evidence that Assange has had a hand in the smears on his accusers. We have already seen the way Assange’s legal team, and some of his partisans have angered many potential feminist allies. Now, they seem poised to lose many more, among liberal Jews, and anyone who is creeped out by Shamir. Assange cannot blame the Shamir affair on the CIA or the Pentagon or anyone else. It appears to be a self-inflicted wound.
The reason I raise this is that those of us who care about Wikileaks and what they’re fighting for ought to be pushing Assange for some explanation, If we really want the discussion to remain on course, we’ve gotta be out in the lead on the discourse. Have we learned nothing from the feminist response to the rape case?
[…] strongly suggest you read Aaron Bady’s post If You’ll Pardon the Presumption for a clear statement about why such a method of assessment is just… […]
[…] things. (For the record, Aaron Bady, who has been on a roll with his Wikileaks posts, has the most nuanced position on the whole thing I’ve read.) However, I recently watched Three Days of the Condor on […]
[…] Zunguzungu: If you’ll pardon the presumption… […]
[…] If You’ll Pardon the Presumption […]