Julian Assange Still an Irrelevant Narcissistic Cult Leader

Disturbed at the lack of international media attention over his supposed plight, Julian Assange took the opportunity of President Obama’s speech in support of free expression at the United Nations to extol the virtues of dodging sex assault prosecution and embracing chaos over the rule of law to his gaggle of neckbearded internet fanboys.

In a video webcast from his foxhole in the Ecuadoran Embassy, Assange once again conflated the Swedish prosecution of allegations of sexual assault and rape against him with a program of persecution against the Wikileaks organization. And, unsurprisingly, his lapdogs in the web-o-sphere, and the Ecuadorean pols for whom Assange has become a superstar useful idiot love him for it. Never mind that it’s all complete nonsense, as The New Statesman’s Legal Correspondent David Allen Green has detailed:

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down…

Among the most popular Zombie Facts Green lists and debunks as flatly untrue are:

1. The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law. Says green:

Flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

2. Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom. The truth? It’s BS:

Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.

. . .

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O’Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.

In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.

This one is important because it gives the lie to the notion that there’s some secret plot to extradite Assange to the US to face as yet unfiled charges in order to silence Wikileaks. If that were the case, there’s simply no reason to extradite Assange to Sweden first, no matter what Assange booster Glenn Greenwald says.

3. Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA. This is the claim that got Glenn Greewald in a tizzy and had him misquoting people left and right in defense of the conspiracy theory. Again, Swedish Lawyer Pal Wrange:

However – and this is a very important caveat – even if the Government has leeway under national law, it is bound by international law. Both the Swedish and the UK Governments have extradition agreements with the US, and these agreements provide that extradition shall take place, if the legal requirements are met. Hence, the Government could not provide a guarantee, without potentially violating an international obligatoin.

4. The Swedes should interview Assange in London. This one is so mindnumbingly easy to refute it’s bizarre that it’s still stumbling around, but here goes one more time, as Green explains it:

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

5. By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press.
This, as I pointed out previously on Disinfo, is nonsense. Ecuador doesn’t care in the slightest about the cause of press freedom and it is this particular fact that makes Assange the useful idiot he has become for the Ecuadoran regime, who whatever else they have done that is laudable, and that is a lot, have an abysmal record of oppressing dissident voices critical of the government. Ironically, in a world that Wikileaks has helped make so suspicious of state secrecy and shown the need for an open and free press, Assange’s lap dogs in defense of their hero have embraced the propaganda of Ecuadors government and in supporting Assange have now become boosters of censorship.

After the sadly predictable furor erupted among Assange’s clique of internet fanboys over this rather innocuous bit of legal analysis (soon to be repeated in the comments below this post) took down their favorite sacred chao, Green, being no slouch, doubled down on his thesis and in the process really put the screws to the lawyers who are piping up in defense of Assange’s paranoid delusions and who really ought to know better and should be ashamed of themselves for getting so publicly hoodwinked by bullshit.

Green also advised readers to c.f. posts by Barrister Anya Palmer, and another post at The Blog That Peter Wrote that takes on additional elements of Assange’s departure from reality in trying to avoid prosecution in Sweden. That last makes a particularly cogent critique that all members of the Cult of Assange, particularly those who are about to bombard this post with angry misinformed screeds accusing me of all manner of crimes against humanity, should (but probably won’t) consider carefully:

It is perfectly possible to support WikiLeaks and the principles it stands for whilst seeing Julian Assange as an individual to be judged on his own merits. Why is that so controversial or difficult to grasp?

Mr Assange is innocent until proven guilty of all the offences which he faces. He has not yet been charged. However, it seems fair to say that he has skipped bail in this country and that he is a fugitive from justice, who is wanted for questioning regarding very serious criminal sexual offences.

This issue is not like choosing sides in a soccer match. You can be pro-Wikileaks and keen to see the rule of law operate. This does not make you anti-Assange, an Assange Hater or anything else. I, like you, have no idea whether he is guilty of the alleged crimes back in August 2010. I do feel that the alleged victims deserve to be taken seriously, having taken the step of reporting the alleged offences to the Police, and that they should have some form of closure.

It is frankly irrelevant who the man is who is wanted for questioning, and what other great things he may (or may not) have done. If you believe in judicial process and the rule of law, it is hard to argue he should not return to Sweden for questioning (after, of course, dealing with the consequences of his behaviour here in jumping bail).

As an Anti-Assange Assange Hater of the first order who wishes that the bottle-blond megalomaniac would get out of the way so that Wikileaks can do more good work without getting bogged down in his incoherent brand of Assange-centered chaos worship, I couldn’t agree more.

, , , , ,

  • Auto5734955

    Quack…en….bush,   I think the name says it all.( I am sure he is in no way prejudiced, I can tell by the obvious neutrality in most all of his article)  Personally I could give a $hit less what happens in this case, but …….   First Sweden has not charged him with rape, they only want to question him (supposedly) but for some real strange reason it seems the questions will not produce the desired effect if they were to be asked in England rather than Sweden.  On the other hand if he’s wanted for questioning, and has not been charged with a crime how is England in anyway involved?  Even in the police state of the USA, a person is not required to travel to another state to answer questions concerning a crime or suspected crime.  They can only be extradited after being charged and even then they have a extradition hearing in the state being requested to extradite, to determine if there is evidence sufficient to warrant an extradition.  Just sayin’.

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      If you read the article you would have the answers to these ‘questions.’

  • Auto5734955

    A person does not have to be arrested before being charged, there are even trials in absentee.  To be arrested or extradited, there must be a warrant, on the warrant must be a charge.  Assange is NOT charged at this time.

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      yes that would be true if Sweden were a common law country with the same trial procedures as the United States. It isn’t, which is the whole point of much of what you have apparently chosen not to read.

  • Ambugation

    You, sir, are the useful idiot.

  • Sprechensie

    Assange can be arrested without him being anywhere near Sweden, just as he was when he was first charged in absentia. DAG is makebelieve as a writer/ lawyer, and frankly not a good instrument on matters legal except where bias is a necessary intervention.

  • Sprechensie

    if Assange is ‘Irrelevant’, how come half the planet is trying to work out some way to actually arrest him

  • Sonnenritter

    The ad hominems and condescension about ‘assange fanboys’ are adolescent and obnoxious. IF you were right about this issue, you might as well have the dignity and maturity not to wave your cock at everyone you disagree with. This bullshit does nothing but alienate any reader who doesn’t already hate Julian Assange, and it suggests that you don’t care about convincing anybody with your rhetoric, you just derive trollish pleasure from provoking people with abusive rants. You think that people who respond negatively to your writing are just feeling threatened by the strength of your opinions and arguments, but the reality is that its your abusive tone and repulsive literary persona. Nobody wants to agree with you because they don’t want to think like you.

    That aside, if you read the details about the Anna Ardin/Sofia Wilen case its clear that they had consensual sex with him and got butthurt when they realized he was 2 timing them. They considered him a sexual CONQUEST until that point, at least one of them bragged about it in text messages. When they turned on him they conspired to throw bogus charges to get back at him for making them feel like sluts. I am of the mind that he SHOULD go to Sweden answer the charges, because they will be revealed as spurious if the case makes it to court.

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      ” it suggests that you don’t care about convincing anybody with your rhetoric,” bingo, give the man a CEEGAR!

       Trying to dissuade cult members from their cultish beliefs is a waste of time. Better to mock them in the hope that widespread disdain for such stupidity will prove a cultural prophylactic against this nonsense gaining any more traction than it already has. As for your second point, thanks for demonstrating the truth of my only point by yet again raising up the slut shaming zombie facts in support of your cult leader. brilliant work.

      • Sonnenritter

        ok, so I’m an assange cult zombie brainwashee who’s been swindled into thinking Assange should go to Sweden to answer the molestation charges. It doesn’t quite make sense to me yet, but maybe if I meditate on the image of your tiny shriveled troll penis swirling in a mesmerizing spiral I’ll be able to perform the necessary mental gymnastics.

        • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

          that the allegations aren’t “spurious” is addressed directly in the multiple posts linked and the various opinions of the various UK courts. that you would reiterate that particular zombie fact in an attempt to refute a critique of yr dear leader is proof that you’re not capable of any kind of mental gymnastics at all.

        • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

          that the allegations aren’t “spurious” is addressed directly in the multiple posts linked and the various opinions of the various UK courts. that you would reiterate that particular zombie fact in an attempt to refute a critique of yr dear leader is proof that you’re not capable of any kind of mental gymnastics at all.

        • Calypso_1

          Reaching once for Mr. Q’s penis could perhaps be forgiven in the heat of the moment.  But this mesmerization is beginning to involute the nature of your concerns regarding butthurt and sexual conquest.

        • Calypso_1

          Reaching once for Mr. Q’s penis could perhaps be forgiven in the heat of the moment.  But this mesmerization is beginning to involute the nature of your concerns regarding butthurt and sexual conquest.

      • Cha

         Maybe if enough ppl mock you here, you will stop writing. I hope your theory works!

        • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

          If it wasn’t already obvious, I’m not all that heavily invested in winning the approval of Assange cultists.

        • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

          If it wasn’t already obvious, I’m not all that heavily invested in winning the approval of Assange cultists.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        I myself no longer find self-righteous venting all that satisfying anymore.

        It’s a stage everyone goes through.  Most people return to it now and again as the occassion seems to demand.  But few make it their aim to dwell there permanently.  Too corrrosive on the nerves and the intellecutal integrity.

        At some point everyone with two brain cells to rub together says to themselves, “Say, that was a little overwrought, wasn’t it?  And not terribly original either.  If I keep on this way, people might get the idea I have this jealous fixation against people who are much more famous than I’ll ever be.”

        And then inevitably it will occurr to them that if they really felt as contemptuous of their subjects as they let on, it’d be reflected more in measured silences than raging tirades.  They’ll start to get embarrassed.

        • Andrew

          They may even realize they’re not as innocent of their hated subject’s sins as they want to believe.

        • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

          Self-righteous venting? This is not what self-righteous venting looks like. This is a straightforward takedown piece well within the normal outlines of the genre. And at least I think it’s kind of funny how well it worked.

        • Calypso_1

          Oh yes, the measured silences might lead to things like measuring custom grain counts, wind drift and AOI.

        • Calypso_1

          Oh yes, the measured silences might lead to things like measuring custom grain counts, wind drift and AOI.

    • Thom Vane

      One of the best reprimands I’ve read delivered on the net all year.

  • Sonnenritter

    The ad hominems and condescension about ‘assange fanboys’ are adolescent and obnoxious. IF you were right about this issue, you might as well have the dignity and maturity not to wave your cock at everyone you disagree with. This bullshit does nothing but alienate any reader who doesn’t already hate Julian Assange, and it suggests that you don’t care about convincing anybody with your rhetoric, you just derive trollish pleasure from provoking people with abusive rants. You think that people who respond negatively to your writing are just feeling threatened by the strength of your opinions and arguments, but the reality is that its your abusive tone and repulsive literary persona. Nobody wants to agree with you because they don’t want to think like you.

    That aside, if you read the details about the Anna Ardin/Sofia Wilen case its clear that they had consensual sex with him and got butthurt when they realized he was 2 timing them. They considered him a sexual CONQUEST until that point, at least one of them bragged about it in text messages. When they turned on him they conspired to throw bogus charges to get back at him for making them feel like sluts. I am of the mind that he SHOULD go to Sweden answer the charges, because they will be revealed as spurious if the case makes it to court.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    Sorry Quackenbush, following the success of the Nader story, you tried too hard and let the effort show. Your Troll-fu was weak this time.

    In my opinion your personal feelings came through too strongly.

    You should have tried to appear more disinterested/neutral and feigned puzzlement over a series of apparent Assange hypocrisies which you then proceeded to painfully detail, while pretending to look for (and obviously failing to find) a legitimate justification.

    All the venom you’re dripping up front is merely going to cause immediate rejection by the readers.

    Also, while I’m not a big Assange fan,  I do think my neckbeard looks pretty cool. 

    • Calypso_1

      Is it long enough to show from under the mask?

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        No, because I shaved it off when I realized that not even extreme laziness is an excuse for looking that damn goofy.

        There’s something about a neckbeard that automatically makes someone look like an unkempt weasel.

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        No, because I shaved it off when I realized that not even extreme laziness is an excuse for looking that damn goofy.

        There’s something about a neckbeard that automatically makes someone look like an unkempt weasel.

        • Calypso_1

          Damn.  Hoary neck beard gnarling its way from beneath a hockey mask….Bonus shock value.

          • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

            There’s a fine line between instilling a horrified fascination that transfixes or a grotesque disgust that triggers mindless panicked flight.

            I’m afraid that on me, the neck beard crosses that line.

          • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

            There’s a fine line between instilling a horrified fascination that transfixes or a grotesque disgust that triggers mindless panicked flight.

            I’m afraid that on me, the neck beard crosses that line.

          • Calypso_1

            Nature has provided both as suitable predatory strategies given the organism’s predisposition for lure or chase.

          • Calypso_1

            Nature has provided both as suitable predatory strategies given the organism’s predisposition for lure or chase.

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      Maybe you’re right, but at the same time look at how many ridiculous comments I got that all fail to raise any legitimate objection to the points made and instead rely on insulting me and reiterating Green’s “zombie facts” that the post itself debunks because these muppets don’t know how to think for themselves. I think that’s pretty effective.

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        Please don’t think that I’m being a condescending asshole toward you, for what I’m about to say. I fully admit that I can be that way, but that’s not my intention.

        There’s a book I recommend called _Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion_ by Robert Cialdini.  It is immensely useful in understanding what kinds of things are likely to change people’s minds and what is likely to reinforce their preconceptions.

        While you certainly have got the peasants out with the pitchforks and torches, I fear that they will wake up in the morning thinking they’ve righteously defended their village and grown even more hostile to “threats” in the future. That makes it hard for any other messages to get through to that village in the future, especially if they carry the Quackenbush imprimatur.

        There’s also a book called _The Ego and Its Defenses_ that I’m working through at a rather glacial pace. Once I finish it in a couple of decades I’ll let you know whether or not it’s better than the Cialdini book.

        • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

          Thanks for the rec, I don’t take it as condescending at all. You’re right that there’s a danger to disturbing the village into not ever taking me seriously, but the pitchforks and torches folks who comment here are not the audience I’m trying to reach because I don’t believe they actually have any real value as a public constituency. They’ve more or less rendered themselves innefective and unimportant by virtue of their over investment in paranoid thinking.

          The tactic I’m interested in, and maybe I’m doing it well maybe I’m not, is the collective bandwagon effect on discourse at large whereby a plurality of voices rejecting a certain notion or idea more or less innoculates discourse against it. From where I sit, there seem to be far too many credulous people like Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Wolf, Michael Moore, etc using too much of their own cultural capital to support Assange’s ego and that, to my way of thinking, needs a counterweight or it risks becoming one of those cultural memes that people believe in whether there’s evidence for it or not just because they hear it repeated by supposedly credible sources all the time.

          In any case, I’m very interested to hear what you think of the other book and thanks again for the feedback, it is very much appreciated.

          • Calypso_1

            Whatever you are trying to do, your addition as a regular poster has been a plus in my opinion.  You struck a nerve with this one. Good for you. 

            EDIT PS:

            Let me ask you this. Was there at all, even the slightest element of satire in your approach as you intended it?

          • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

            In everthing I do I try to ask myself: would Jonathan Swift Approve? and if the answer to that is yes, I try to kick him in the nuts a little.

          • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

            In everthing I do I try to ask myself: would Jonathan Swift Approve? and if the answer to that is yes, I try to kick him in the nuts a little.

        • Matt Staggs

          I loved Cialdini’s book. Gave it to a friend and never saw it again.

          • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

            I have given a few as gifts, Intentionally …and inadvertently.

            I’ve certainly bought 4 or 5 in the past few years, At least I have remaining in my library, one copy each of the textbook version and the general reader version.

            About the only book I’ve given away more copies of recently  is Dr.Gordon Livingston’s _Too Soon Old, Too Late Smart_.

  • DetainMeYouFascists

    I read many words in your posting, Mr. Quakenbush. The more I read the dirtier I felt. I was thinking much of the time, “what purpose did he have in writing this?” Did you wish to inform, persuade? I think Sonnenritter has you pegged. You want to provoke. Well you probably will get a rise out of people. Congratulations. I hope you feel better about yourself.

    As for Julian Assange NOT being in mortal danger from the evil empire he pissed off:

    A) Get current

    and B A) We are talking about a regime which assassinates its own citizens.

    As a general policy, I always believe women who claim they were sexually assaulted. So I don’t care for the man. I really wish rape was a crime which nation states prosecuted with the enthusiasm they pursue whistle-blowers.

  • DetainMeYouFascists

    I read many words in your posting, Mr. Quakenbush. The more I read the dirtier I felt. I was thinking much of the time, “what purpose did he have in writing this?” Did you wish to inform, persuade? I think Sonnenritter has you pegged. You want to provoke. Well you probably will get a rise out of people. Congratulations. I hope you feel better about yourself.

    As for Julian Assange NOT being in mortal danger from the evil empire he pissed off:

    A) Get current

    and B A) We are talking about a regime which assassinates its own citizens.

    As a general policy, I always believe women who claim they were sexually assaulted. So I don’t care for the man. I really wish rape was a crime which nation states prosecuted with the enthusiasm they pursue whistle-blowers.

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      As for getting current, please see my previous article debunking that particular bit of Assange’s Narcissism, published yesterday.
      As for the rest, the US Gov’t makes no bones over thinking its drone program is legal. Which means that if Assange really were IDd as an enemy of the state then Ecuador would have just signed on as a state sponsor of terror and Obama & Co. would now think that they were entitled to use targetted killings with drones in Ecuador against Assange. Which raises the question of why they would want to clandestinely have him extradited from Sweden (or even England) when they could hapilly just have him killed once he lands in Quito. My point, as always, is that this is absurd nonsense.As for my purpose in writing it, its because I find the cult of assange annoying and I wanted to force them to confront their own cultish idiocy. That’s not because I suspect any of them will alter their opinions, but rather because the more unreasonable and cultlike they act in the fact of opposition, the less serious they appear and the sooner, hopefully, they get regularly dismissed at large as irrelevant cranks they are.

  • Delilah

    A creepy, overweight neckbeard like Quackenbush really has no right deriding Assange’s supporters as ‘internet fanboys’ when he himself seems to exemplify all
    of
    the characteristics of that personality type.

  • Delilah

    A creepy, overweight neckbeard like Quackenbush really has no right deriding Assange’s supporters as ‘internet fanboys’ when he himself seems to exemplify all
    of
    the characteristics of that personality type.

  • twotonetwo

    The can’t try him in absantia because he hasn’t been charged and they haven’t charged him because, in Sweden, you can’t charge someone until right after you question them, basically. So no he hasn’t been formally charged but the fact that he isn’t is a HUGE technicality. He also has basically been “charged” with rape. This is in the article and even though the information was presented a pretty douchey way, it’s accurate.

    Sweden already violated the global torture ban for the US and has been actively been trying to enforce American copyright laws, among other things, which shows you how far Sweden is willing to bend over backward for the US. England has not extradited people FAR worse than what Assange is wanted for. The US recently declared him an Enemy of the State and his own country, according to their own internal memos, thinks the US wants to get their hands on him. Obama had a US citizen murdered without trial on foreign soil, and he’s been actively out to crush whistleblowers in general. Presented with all this, I would be scared too.

    Also, the police charged Assange and it was initially dropped, even the women involved didn’t want to press charges. It was a DA that decided to re-open the case, as is their right, but after reading about the circus surrounding what happened, it still strikes me as someone with an agenda (even if it’s something as simple as gloryhounding) trying to drag him in. 

    Maybe Assange is a rapist asshole, I’m not saying he isn’t, he needs to face the charges levied against him but, given the circumstances, I don’t blame him for being paranoid. Anyone that says it’s all bullshit and Assange is just hiding behind smoke and mirrors to avoid rape charges (which with what he’s been charged with and what Swedish prisons are like he’d end up in basically minimum security repainting playgrounds, no joke) isn’t being honest that there is a serious doubt that there’s a chance it isn’t as simple as “he’s just a rapist”.

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      The US didn’t declare him an enemy of the State, that’s more of Assange’s gloryhounding. A detailed explanation of why that interpretation of the Documents wikileaks posted is incorrect is in my post from a day ago on that subject.

      As for the rest of your claims, its important to note that much of what you’ve said isn’t true, they are falsehoods put forth by Assanges partisans that have been demonstrated false, as the various linked sources in the post above will demonstrate. that’s why I linked them, because these are precisely the Zombie Facts that assange supporters keep raising and it has gotten so bad that otherwise reasonable people have started to believe they are true.

      As for why it’s all smoke and mirrors, it is obviously all smoke and mirrors because there is no reason why any “plot against assange” would require that he face rape charges in Sweden before being extradited to the US on whatever mythical sealed indictment against him supposedly exists (which doesn’t because if it did they US would just have him extradited from the UK).

  • DisInfoLame

    JF. Quackenbush … worst submitter ever.  Fucking lame, DisInfo.  I try repeatedly to sign up for an account and instead you give one out to this brainwashed douche.

  • DisInfoLame

    JF. Quackenbush … worst submitter ever.  Fucking lame, DisInfo.  I try repeatedly to sign up for an account and instead you give one out to this brainwashed douche.

    • Matt Staggs

       There’s a problem with the submission form. I’d love to give you an account. Email me at matt@disinfo.com.

  • http://twitter.com/JudasvanderBerg Judas van der Berg

    Excellent piece. I don’t agree with it though, but it made me look at the entire thing from a slightly different perspective, and I am now questioning my thesis about the whole matter a bit more. The vitriol is a bit much though, not a good way to persuade people in the trenches. 

  • Chelsea

    Why is this retard allowed to submit anything to Disinfo? This drivel should be in the comments section of an Assange article.

  • Aoi Warai

    “Twitter + deleted tweets + google cache + Assange accuser” = sorry, we
    know how to Google and we weren’t born yesterday. Try a different angle
    to libel Assange, that one failed already.

    90% of this is peevish name calling and regurgitated anti-Assange boilerplate. There are number of issues conflated here, not the least of which are the utterly bogus claims made of “rape” which you’re trying to mix up with Assange being an asshat (which he is). Support for Assange doesn’t stem from Assange being an ideal human being, or even the “best” leader of Wikileaks; it has everything to do with who his enemies are, and the particular cause he fights for. All that comes first, the fact that the charges against him were the original “zombie claims” as you put it, ruins the critique being made here.

    It’s not even worth it to try to seriously counter-debunk this kind of nonsense so late in the story, when even Women Against Rape UK, and several prominent feminists in Sweden and internationally have come out in support of Assange, including Naomi Wolf, Helene Bergman, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, the list goes on. All have written at-length about the details, errors, inconsistencies and outright lies in the case. This article adds nothing.

    Still, it’s kind of novel to see this attempt to “debunk zombie claims”, especially one without addressing how rape isn’t charged. Ironic that the claims made against Assange from day one make up the majority of “zombie claims”. It would sound great, if this was written over a year ago and if so many facts weren’t already known, like the way his accusers found out about his “infidelity”, got in contact with each other before the police, then conspired to make allegations about “refusing to use a condom” to embarrass him in retaliation. This gets called rape when rape was never alleged.
    We are supposed to believe it was such a problem that he didn’t use a
    condom that they both kept f**king him anyway for weeks on end? Please. This
    is the danger of broadcasting your private life online like these women
    did; you can’t un-Tweet in the age of the Google Cache.

    After a year of this discussion the anti-Assange camp is down to hedging about the definition of rape while ignoring the majority of evidence in Assange’s favor. It’s more and more obviously a losing battle. If you want to hate Assange, pick a different reason, one that’s not as well-worn as the rape charge. Julian Assange is an egomaniac douschebag, but you know what, he’s one of the only people willing to try to fight a world of genocidal maniacs, neo-fascist corporate sociopaths and warmongers. I’ll take an egomaniac douschebag willing to seriously risk himself and fight that fight over the alternatives any day of the week.

  • Aoi Warai

    “Twitter + deleted tweets + google cache + Assange accuser” = sorry, we
    know how to Google and we weren’t born yesterday. Try a different angle
    to libel Assange, that one failed already.

    90% of this is peevish name calling and regurgitated anti-Assange boilerplate. There are number of issues conflated here, not the least of which are the utterly bogus claims made of “rape” which you’re trying to mix up with Assange being an asshat (which he is). Support for Assange doesn’t stem from Assange being an ideal human being, or even the “best” leader of Wikileaks; it has everything to do with who his enemies are, and the particular cause he fights for. All that comes first, the fact that the charges against him were the original “zombie claims” as you put it, ruins the critique being made here.

    It’s not even worth it to try to seriously counter-debunk this kind of nonsense so late in the story, when even Women Against Rape UK, and several prominent feminists in Sweden and internationally have come out in support of Assange, including Naomi Wolf, Helene Bergman, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, the list goes on. All have written at-length about the details, errors, inconsistencies and outright lies in the case. This article adds nothing.

    Still, it’s kind of novel to see this attempt to “debunk zombie claims”, especially one without addressing how rape isn’t charged. Ironic that the claims made against Assange from day one make up the majority of “zombie claims”. It would sound great, if this was written over a year ago and if so many facts weren’t already known, like the way his accusers found out about his “infidelity”, got in contact with each other before the police, then conspired to make allegations about “refusing to use a condom” to embarrass him in retaliation. This gets called rape when rape was never alleged.
    We are supposed to believe it was such a problem that he didn’t use a
    condom that they both kept f**king him anyway for weeks on end? Please. This
    is the danger of broadcasting your private life online like these women
    did; you can’t un-Tweet in the age of the Google Cache.

    After a year of this discussion the anti-Assange camp is down to hedging about the definition of rape while ignoring the majority of evidence in Assange’s favor. It’s more and more obviously a losing battle. If you want to hate Assange, pick a different reason, one that’s not as well-worn as the rape charge. Julian Assange is an egomaniac douschebag, but you know what, he’s one of the only people willing to try to fight a world of genocidal maniacs, neo-fascist corporate sociopaths and warmongers. I’ll take an egomaniac douschebag willing to seriously risk himself and fight that fight over the alternatives any day of the week.

  • Kurt the Turk

    This article clarifies nothing, why would there need to be consent from England to extradite Assange from Sweden and you didn’t exactly go to the source of the reason you are trying to disprove about why it is said that it would be easier to extradite someone from Sweden.  

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      THere would need to be consent from the UK because that’s how extradition works. Basically, when a nation extradites someone within its borders to another country for criminal process they are giving a tacit consent based on a treaty that means that person will be treated in a certain way. One of the basic agreements is that the person will be returned if the charges are dropped or otherwise pursued and that the government requesting extradition is not going to pass the person on to someone the extraditing state would not also have extradited them to. This is all explained in more detail in the links given.

  • Brian McKeever

    That’s it, this site has officially gone to hell.  If I want to read articles by asskissers of the empire I’ll go to FOX, CNN or MSNBC.  I’m out of here for good.

  • Brian McKeever

    That’s it, this site has officially gone to hell.  If I want to read articles by asskissers of the empire I’ll go to FOX, CNN or MSNBC.  I’m out of here for good.

    • Calypso_1

      Such bold analysis for a four time commenter.    

    • Matt Staggs

      Perhaps you didn’t see the post above this one directing readers to an essay celebrating Assange
      as a hero. Mr. Quackenbush is a contributor to this site, a position
      that you or anyone else interested in pursuing are encouraged to do so.
      Kindly contact me at matt@disinfo.com. In the meantime, remember that
      “received wisdom” is a matter of perspective. Quackenbush’s opinion may
      be so offensive because he isn’t an asskisser of the alt.media, either.
      His presentation is inflammatory, but rage-quitting because one article
      on this site – or even several – challenges your beliefs is hardly an
      indictment of Disinfo’s credibility – more a ringing endorsement of it.

      • Delilah

        DisInfo and credibility in the same sentence? Is that a joke? The site is completely laughable and has been that way for years.

      • Delilah

        DisInfo and credibility in the same sentence? Is that a joke? The site is completely laughable and has been that way for years.

        • Matt Staggs

           Yet here you are!

        • Matt Staggs

           Yet here you are!

          • bobbiethejean

            Battered woman syndrome. We still love you even though you haul off and punch us in the face from time to time with horribly written, improperly sourced, ad hominem attack articles.

          • Matt Staggs

            YOU FELL DOWN THE STAIRS!!!!

          • bobbiethejean

            *Should not laugh….. must…. not…. laugh* BUAHAHAHAHA. Oh my non-existent gods, I am a terrible person. I am going to atheist-hell. Pardon me while I go pick out a proper handbasket. 

          • bobbiethejean

            *Should not laugh….. must…. not…. laugh* BUAHAHAHAHA. Oh my non-existent gods, I am a terrible person. I am going to atheist-hell. Pardon me while I go pick out a proper handbasket. 

          • Calypso_1

            Are ye the Bobbie formally known as Pentecost?

          • Calypso_1

            Are ye the Bobbie formally known as Pentecost?

          • bobbiethejean

            Why yes, as a matter of fact I am. Fortunately for me my parents decided not to name me Christian and went with Bobbie instead. My name was almost Christian Pentecost. How horribly ironic- an atheist named Christian Pentecost.

          • Matt Staggs

            Yeah, I felt kind of bad for making that joke, but it was…right….there.

  • griezzel

    Quackenbush: aptly named

  • griezzel

    Quackenbush: aptly named

  • Simiantongue

    I’d like to extend my thanks to Disinformation for opening up the site for articles of all kinds. It’s a credit to you that you’ll even post articles by those who are less erudite like this.

    Makes the little guys like us feel like we have a place that we can have a say. Not that I’m aligning myself with the views in this post. but I can associate with the intellectual level it’s working at.

    • Matt Staggs

       Join the party! I’d be happy to set you up with a contributor account.

    • Matt Staggs

       Join the party! I’d be happy to set you up with a contributor account.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    The interwebz have spoken: one poorly written hatchetjob…suitably flamed for failbaggery.

    For those upset that Disinfo would let someone contribute something so pathetic, falsehood-riddled, and ultimately disgust-worthy…

    …remember that thats what freedom looks like. Even the schizophrenic d-bags, the hopeless apologists, the deluded whack jobs and partisan operatives get allowed a voice. Then we get to pummel them. I know it would seem nicer if we didn’t turn to disinfo and find absolute drek on the main page from time to time, but the fact that its possible ALSO means that we can always be sure of a place for our voices as well. 

    I’ve seen Chinese disinfo agents, Neo-Nazis, self indulgent pseudo-satanists and what have you come and go as they please here…and generally get panned so resoundingly that they learn to stop trying. Maybe they think its that ‘no one gets my genius’…or maybe they realize they’re addressing the wrong audience to expect applause for frothing, fact-less hate-spewings…but they drift off on their own. Putting up with that process is a small price to pay for a place that goes out of its way to invite diversity of opinion…at least in my book.

    • http://twitter.com/jfqbsh Jason F Quackenbush

      please indicate where anything written above is false. I’ll happily retract it and write a correction post.

    • WalkWithTrust

      That’s all fine and dandy, but the line must be drawn somewhere. What will my snooping housemates think when they see this shit on my screen or in my history?

  • DrDavidKelly

    I just got back from Sweden – pretty progressive place so I’m wondering why we cant do this trial by video conference via the web? I guess the problem comes when/if they find him guilty but at least it gets the procedural guff outta the way?

  • DrDavidKelly

     Wouldn’t have it any other way. David Bowie is so yeaterday and other such throw away comments …

  • DrDavidKelly

     *yesterday

  • Nunya

    This constant crapping on Assange has become tiresome.  

  • Delilah

    A Google search reveals that Mr. Quackenbush has quite the online presence! The self-christened “pop cult icon” and novelist (published, I wonder?) even has some of his original poetry posted up for our pleasure.

    Get a load of this, two original poems by the man himself: http://poetsgulfcoast.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/two-poems-by-jason-quackenbush/

    “There are places like radon you can get stuff
    gets in your eyes and the fumes sure.”

    Brilliant passage! I mean, you don’t get to be a “pop cult icon” for nothing. 

  • Albanov

     With regards to ‘Zombie facts,’ I think you should be aware that the two women did not report the alleged offences to police – as you say in your piece.
    The two women went to the police to see if Assange could be made to take an STD test – not to report any sexual malfeasance.
    But Miss A (the one who’d previously written a blog called Seven steps for revenge against an unfaithful lover,’), must have known from her time as a sex counsellor at a university, that the police cannot force anyone to take an STD test.
    Friends of the younger, naive Miss B said she told them she felt pressured into the subsequent situation and was most distraught when an arrest warrant was issued for Assange (this arrest warrant subsequently cancelled by a chief prosecutor who dismissed all the arrestable charges – only for them to be resurrected by a different prosecutor).
    Miss A thought she was going to be Wikileaks press spokesman when the organisation moved to Sweden – to say nothing of her hopes for a relationship with ‘one of the world’s smartest and coolest people’ (as she tweeted at a party she held for Assange days after her so-called sexual assault).
    There’s loads more, of course.  

  • Albanov

     With regards to ‘Zombie facts,’ I think you should be aware that the two women did not report the alleged offences to police – as you say in your piece.
    The two women went to the police to see if Assange could be made to take an STD test – not to report any sexual malfeasance.
    But Miss A (the one who’d previously written a blog called Seven steps for revenge against an unfaithful lover,’), must have known from her time as a sex counsellor at a university, that the police cannot force anyone to take an STD test.
    Friends of the younger, naive Miss B said she told them she felt pressured into the subsequent situation and was most distraught when an arrest warrant was issued for Assange (this arrest warrant subsequently cancelled by a chief prosecutor who dismissed all the arrestable charges – only for them to be resurrected by a different prosecutor).
    Miss A thought she was going to be Wikileaks press spokesman when the organisation moved to Sweden – to say nothing of her hopes for a relationship with ‘one of the world’s smartest and coolest people’ (as she tweeted at a party she held for Assange days after her so-called sexual assault).
    There’s loads more, of course.  

  • bobbiethejean

    Those “sex assault charges” are extremely spurious if you ask me. One woman (who is quite unhinged, it seems) bowed out of the charges and the other is claiming that he didn’t use a condom when he said he did. THE HORROR! Ok, well, yeah, that is shitty, IF TRUE, and I’d be mad too. But that’s a far cry from rape or molestation which seems to be almost the entire basis of this article.

  • Thom Vane

    The fight against narcissistic assholes begins at home, Quakenbush. 

  • Cha

    Mock? That’s what you do?  You insult and destroy and slander. Your poor future kids, they don’t have a chance. Such vile bile I just read. You  actually believe that is what will make people listen, make people see your way? Stop writing this way, it’s juvenile. Your better than this. You have to be.

  • Cha

    Mock? That’s what you do?  You insult and destroy and slander. Your poor future kids, they don’t have a chance. Such vile bile I just read. You  actually believe that is what will make people listen, make people see your way? Stop writing this way, it’s juvenile. Your better than this. You have to be.

  • http://twitter.com/OccupyWear1 Occupy Wear

    The “bullshit” is all coming from you, imbecile.  

    Why was this posted here?

  • http://twitter.com/OccupyWear1 Occupy Wear

    The “bullshit” is all coming from you, imbecile.  

    Why was this posted here?

    • Calypso_1

      Perhaps it is just an example of disinformation…that you have the opportunity to refute point by point. 

      Or perhaps it is to demonstrate that the large scale collective support of an individual is often based on an attentional bias towards the dominant emotional stimuli within one’s peer group.

      Or that the perpetuation of systemic justification of a group of believers outways their means or abilities to actually further the aims to advance the causes for which the system was created.

    • Calypso_1

      Perhaps it is just an example of disinformation…that you have the opportunity to refute point by point. 

      Or perhaps it is to demonstrate that the large scale collective support of an individual is often based on an attentional bias towards the dominant emotional stimuli within one’s peer group.

      Or that the perpetuation of systemic justification of a group of believers outways their means or abilities to actually further the aims to advance the causes for which the system was created.

21