Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't consider unambiguous presumption of guilt based on tabloid tittle-tattle, innuendo, run-arounds, gratuitous repetition, misdirection, and deliberate attempts to play down and ignore real evidence to be good faith. Not when the charge is this serious.

Good faith would be 'Well - this is dramatic, but let's wait and see how it plays out.'

And now it's clear that there is no rape case, there was no rape case, and that any case that remains is so ambiguous and poorly defined that not even the prosecutor is sure what exactly Assange is supposed to have done.

Admittedly, this may change. But with what's known today, it's a fair guess that it's not looking likely.

But still - I'm curious why Fairleft followed through this diary through with such persistence.

What was the point? Why keep repeating 'They say there's no smoke without fire...' over and over?

I don't think it persuaded anyone that Assange is a rapist or pervert, or that Wikileaks is a bad thing, or that the war in Afghanistan is a good thing.

I don't even think it convinced anyone that Assange might be a rapist, given the chance.

I'm more perplexed by the energy expended on a diary with no clear point to it - beyond a nonsensical one - than about the details.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 09:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure where you get this presumption of guilt in fairleft's writings here. I don't get that vibe at all - I get a vibe of presumption of good faith on part of the witnesses. Which, perhaps due to an excess of zeal, occasionally seems to slide over into a presumption of good faith on part of the people who report what the witnesses say.

There's a fine line in dealing with this sort of cases: On the one hand, the accused and the witnesses enjoy the presumption of innocence and good faith (resp.). On the other hand, the police and the press do not. How far one should go in digging into witnesses' background in pursuit of deconstructing the official police and press line is at least partly a matter of personal taste.

Now, in my personal opinion, the fact that one of the witnesses went to the press herself (and to Expressen of all places) makes her a perfectly valid target for enquiry. But reasonable people can disagree on that point, particularly given the hearsay/fact ratio of the information we have on everyone involved at this point.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 26th, 2010 at 07:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My evil side is hugely enjoying the whole spectacle: it seems contrived expressly to drive the anarchistic left insane. On one hand, accusation of sexual impropriety, which have to be taken very seriously, of course, on the other it's all awfully convenient for a lot of very powerful people. <heads explode>
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 26th, 2010 at 07:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, this fairleft, highly suspicious writing a diary that says we should withhold judgment on all involved in this mess, and shy away from conspiracy generation unless there's real evidence for that.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Thu Aug 26th, 2010 at 03:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series