Disturbing "Progressive" Discourse Regarding Assange Rape Charges

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has become a folk hero among progressives. Even though Assange's actions raise important issues about the protection of sensitive governmental information, many progressives praise him as a "whistleblower."

Now that Assange has been arrested for charges of sexual assault, many progressives have lined up to defend him. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of every decent criminal justice system, and Assange is absolutely entitled to defend himself vigorously against the charges.

Nevertheless, some of the progressive commentary that has emerged in the blogosphere and on Twitter expresses very dangerous views on gender and sexual assault. Also, some of the comments rush to credit innuendo and one-sided commentary as fact.

Crying Rape?
Several progressive bloggers imagine a Swedish-US conspiracy against Assange. As evidence of this conspiracy, they argue that Assange is not guilty of rape in the common use of the word. Instead, he is supposedly only "guilty" of a "Victorian" crime -- having sex without a condom. This line of reasoning appears on several liberal blogs (see, e.g., here and here). Who is the source of this popular description of the rape charge? Assange's own defense lawyer.

Not only have some progressives failed to wait for the facts to unfold, but they have rushed to dismiss the alleged sexual assault victims, and have placed complete faith in Assange's lawyer's self-serving description of the charges. Furthermore, the description of the charges sounds specious at best.

Although all of the facts are not fully developed, many accounts indicate that at least one of the alleged incidents involved a broken condom. It is possible that the sexual assault charge might relate to the woman's claim that she decided not to have sex after it broke.

Even assuming that the woman initially consented to sex with Assange, if the condom broke during sex, she has the right to withdraw consent. Generally, people can withdraw consent to sex, and the fact that consent was initially given does not preclude a rape charge. This point, however, is completely absent in some of the progressive analysis I have read on this case. By concealing this potential aspect of the case, Assange's defenders can mock the alleged victims and play up the conspiracy narrative.

FDL
A popular reader diary on the respected progressive blog FDL adds a new dimension to the discourse. According to the diary, Assange's accusers are radical feminists supposedly connected to the CIA, anti-Castro and anti-communist organizations and to US-sponsored organizations that promote acts of terrorism in Cuba. Of course, none of these allegations is substantiated. Nevertheless, the reader's portrayal of the women as radical feminists and anti-Castro seems to have worked. Most of the comments uncritically accept the claims in the diary and view them as proof of an international plot against Assange.

Keith Olbermann
Finally, Keith Olbermann has entered the fray with a post on his Twitter account. Olbermann says that "Reuters now confirms Swedish rape investigation of Julian Assange is about broken condoms & fear of STD's." The Reuters article, however, is based exclusively upon information provided by "several people in contact with [Assange's] entourage at the time [of the alleged assaults]." Information from this anonymous and potentially biased source cannot constitute confirmation of any specific fact.

Final Take
Although this post condemns emerging progressive commentary regarding the Assange sexual assault charges, I do not wish to imply that all or most progressives have acted inappropriately. In addition, I do not mean to suggest that the criminal charges have merit or that they are connected to the ethical issues concerning Assange's release of confidential governmental information.

Instead, the purpose of this post is two-fold. First, progressives, like everyone else, should wait for the facts of this situation to unfold. Assange is entitled to due process and a day in court. Shoddy argumentation and "fact finding" will not help his cause. To the extent that a budding progressive discourse seeks to "create" its own facts, this development is unfortunate.

Second, progressives should not disparage feminism and alleged victims of sexual assault in order to defend Assange. Protecting free speech does not require progressives to abandon central principles like equality and bodily integrity. I encourage other progressives to reject this ridiculously false choice.

Also on Dissenting Justice: What If Julian Assange Were An Arab Muslim . . . .

Jezebel has a great essay on this issue: "Some Thoughts On 'Sex By Surprise.'"

Elizabeth Edwards Has Died at 61

Just one day after media outlets announced that Elizabeth Edwards was foregoing further treatment for cancer, the successful attorney and advocate of healthcare reform has died. The Washington Post has a detailed article on her life and legacy.

What If Julian Assange Were An Arab Muslim . . . .

I have a simple question about Julian Assange, the praised and scorned leader of the WikiLeaks enterprise, which has released scores of confidential governmental materials to media. Today, in a matter unrelated to the release of any documents, Assange was arrested in London for alleged sexual assaults that police contend occurred in Sweden earlier this year.

Dissenting Justice has not analyzed the WikiLeaks situation. Admittedly, WikiLeaks presents important questions regarding the First Amendment and the control of sensitive governmental information. Nonetheless, as the country engages in a debate regarding the appropriateness of Assange's behavior, I wonder whether his defenders' position and the often tentative US government responses would look the same if Assange were an Arab Muslim.

I find it difficult to imagine the public rhetoric surrounding Assange remaining the same under those circumstances. I suspect that many true progressives would defend Assange regardless of his identity. Yet, I am equally certain that many people who are either on the fence or opposed to Assange would demand vigorous governmental action against him if he were an Arab Muslim -- or, possibly, if he simply were not white and male.

This post is not meant to condemn any particular group or person in the United States. Instead, it represents my thinking about the possible operation of gender, race and religion in this situation.

Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy? Obama Strikes Deal With GOP On Taxes

In the early 1980s, a television advertisement for Hefty brand trash bags declared the competition "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy." That commercial came to mind when I read about President Obama's deal with the GOP regarding the extension of Bush's tax cuts.

Think Progress has the details, but here are the major points. Under the plan: 1. Bush's tax cuts will remain in place for over two years; 2. in exchange, expired unemployment benefits will continue for another 13 months; 3. payroll taxes will decline 2 percentage points for a year; 4. various tax credits (e.g., the Earned Income Tax Credit) will remain in place; and 5. the estate tax will return at a rate of 35% with a $5 million exemption.

Undoubtedly, mainstream media will declare the deal a sign of Obama's heralded pragmatism. Nevertheless, the compromise represents a retreat from one of the issues that defined his campaign.

Furthermore, the package of tax cuts will also likely add to the deficit because it was not coupled with any spending cuts. The Bush tax cuts have already increased the size of the national deficit. Extending them will likely lead to the same result. Finally, as Think Progress observes, many of the cuts -- particularly the estate tax provision -- represent a major windfall only for the most wealthy households in the nation.

It is unclear how this deal makes sound economic policy. Instead, it looks more like politics masquerading as policy.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Sarah Palin Is Generally Ignorant and Wrong

It seems as if every week some mainstream media outlet publishes an article with the redundant title "Sarah Palin Is Wrong..." The latest version of this tired story, an op-ed written by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, appears in today's Washington Post: "Sarah Palin Is Wrong About John F. Kennedy, Religion and Politics." Last week, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post stated the obvious in his article: "Attack on Michelle Obama Shows Palin's Ignorance of History."

Earth to Cohen and other commentators who are eerily attracted to the loser VP candidate, half-term Alaska governor, and former mayor of Wasilla: Palin is generally ignorant and wrong. Palin's rookie status partially explains her atrocious performance on the campaign trail in 2008. Nonetheless, it has become abundantly clear that her gross lack of intelligence was the leading cause of her ineptness. Even many Republicans acknowledge this. So, perhaps the media and liberals should discard their bizarre fascination with Palin.

Charles Blow, a columnist for the New York Times, shares my Palin exhaustion. He tells the political left and "liberal" media to "get over" Palin. He also suggests that they probably continue to write about her in part to drive traffic to their websites (today's Washington Post op-ed already has over 1200 reader comments):

Yes, she’s about as sharp as a wet balloon, but we already know that. How much more time and energy must be devoted to dissecting that? How is this constructive, or even instructive at this point? What purpose does it serve other than inflaming passions to drive viewership and Web clicks?

Blow has the right idea. The public already knows that Palin is an idiot. At this point, those who do not know agree will never think otherwise. Let it go.

DADT: Senate Republicans Hold Civil Rights Over A Barrel

Senate Republicans have decided to hold civil rights over a barrel. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that Republicans will not allow a vote on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell until they reach a consensus with Democrats over the Bush tax cuts. Republicans favor extending all of the cuts, which have exacerbated the federal budget deficit. Most Democrats, however, favor allowing the cuts for the highest income owners to expire.

Recently, Senators Scott Brown and Susan Collins, two moderate Republicans, have expressed support for repealing DADT. While Brown's statement does not reference a tax deal, Collins explicitly ties her support for a repeal of DADT to a resolution of the tax issue.

The Republicans are simply engaging in smart political bargaining. Democrats know that the DADT repeal must take place, if at all, before Republicans assume control of the House next year. Republicans are using the DADT issue to gain support for their tax plan.

Good politics, however, also requires parties to frame the terms of the debate. Democrats should continue working on the tax issue, but they should also call out Republicans for threatening civil rights in order to provide handouts to wealthy Americans.

Repealing DADT is a cost-free measure. It is unrelated to tax policy. Repealing DADT will end a policy of irrational and unfair discrimination by the national government. Many Republicans support the ban because they or their constituents oppose equal protection for gays and lesbians. Democrats should not allow their bigotry to go unrecognized in these debates.

Senator Scott Brown Backs DADT Repeal

US Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass), has released an official statement that announces his support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says that Republicans will oppose lifting DADT until the Democrats accept their demands on the Bush tax cuts, Brown's statement suggests that moderate Republicans might vote in favor of repeal despite McConnell's threat.

If repeal does not take place before the Republicans assume control in the House in 2011, then DADT will likely remain law for the indefinite future. Even if repeal soon takes place, the Department of Defense will undoubtedly have the authority to determine the timeline and substance of changes to the formal policy. These details will require immense scrutiny from DADT opponents.

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent initially reported Brown's position on DADT, along with a copy of the his formal statement. New York Magazine, however, wins the prize for the best headline regarding this news item: "Scott Brown Does Not Care If You’re Gay If You’re Willing to Get Blown Up for America."