All day today, people demanded that Rachel Maddow address the sexual assault charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and that her guest Michael Moore explain why he'd helped post bail for Assange.
Maddow opened by saying that by their very nature, leaks tend to make us believe them. We'll believe a leak almost because it was leaked, she said, because someone brought information to light that was supposed to be kept secret. And then she turned to the Assange question:
The timing could not be more suspicious. The man accused says he's being pursued for political reasons. But even if you're suspicious about the timing, there are two women who went to the police with what are essentially date-rape charges against this guy.
This doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
Can your suspicion about the forces arrayed against Julian Assange and Wikileaks -- your suspicion about the timing and pursuit of these charges -- coexist with respect for the women making these accusations against him and with a commitment to take rape allegations seriously, even when the person accused is someone that for other reasons you like?
As you'll see from this rushed clip -- transcript's coming -- Moore said he's concerned that there's a "concerted attempt" to stop Wikileaks and others who are trying to tell the truth about what he calls America's six wars. As for the charges against Assange, Moore noted that he helped start a rape-crisis center in his hometown of Flint, Michigan, and said the charges against Assange should be fully examined.
"Every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted or raped has to be, must be, taken seriously. Those charges have to be investigated to the fullest extent possible," Moore said. "For too long, and too many women have been abused in our society , because they were not listened to, and they just got shoved aside. . . .So I think these two alleged victims have to be taken seriously and Mr. Assange has to answer the questions."
Second half of the interview's after the jump.
Leave a Comment:
There's nothing suspicious about law enforcement actually investigating rape charges. Why now? Because they were able to find him. Had it not been for Wikileaks, he'd just be another anonymous dude that takes advantage of women and then disappears into the ether.
W T F cares about the building? Seriously. I don't care if she does her next show from the Hilldale Elementary School cafeteria. Get over it.
It's nice of you to think people should "get over it" when Rachel mis-identifies the venue for her "special" shows this week. But I gasped when I heard her say "Christian" last night, and I hope she'll find a way to correct the record tonight. The 92nd Street Y has a long and proud Jewish-cultural history, and she--or someone on her staff--should have known it has always been a Jewish institution and not a Christian one. And it's possible that Jewish viewers (and fans) of her show, like me, are not as quick to dismiss her error as you are.
I doubt if you'll find a YMCA anywhere in the country with the rich range of cultural programming that the 92nd Street Y has presented for well over a century. And as a recipient of their hospitality, she should have known better. Michael Moore apparently did, since he made a joke about having been "raised to be a good Christian, if I can say that here." And Rachel responded, "It's the YMCA--you want to know what the 'C' stands for? Don't worry."
Rachel, you repeated the false argument that wikilieaks indiscrimately released hundreds of thousands of leaked documents. It's not true. I believe they released about 1,000 of the 250,000 documents. All documents were reviewed and redacted by their mainstream media parterners before they were released. Please correct that as you play into the propaganda machine that wants to bottle the truth.
Documents will continue to be released. And I'm glad you trust the media. But while Assange has been indisposed, part of Wikileaks has broken away, taking information with them. There is no way to tell whose hands personal information included in these cables will end up, and what abuses might transpire in the interest of self gain or revenge. (And it begins.)
Pandora's Box
Shoot. Pay no attention to that person and post just above. They express an extremely pessimistic viewpoint. No worries, I'm sure. =/
Until this gaff and the subsequent comments I never knew the 92nd Street Y was a Jewish organization. When ever I hear Y I always presumed it was the YMCA/YWCA. Where I live (Chicago) the Jewish community centers are called the J. So in my mind Y is Christian affiliated and J is Jewish affiliated - although I know that anyone can participate regardless of religion (my kids have participated in programs at both and we are an atheist family). I think it was an honest mistake on her part, and really not that big of a deal. Rachel Maddow is excellent in my book. Even smart people make mistakes. No biggie. They are just human after all.
Rachel, I love your show, I am far of left on almost every issue. I watched your interview with Michael Moore and enjoyed your show immensely. BUT, I must disagree with this potrayal of Julian Assange, as a rapist.
Perhaps the truth as to what Mr. Assange did or did not do will come out, perhaps not. However to call what he did or did not do, rape, is ludicrous. Having consensual sex with someone and arguing over when a condom will be used is not rape. After the consensual sex comes the fear that perhaps you may have contracted a disease.
However to compare this fear with the terror of having a stranger break into your home, rape you at knife point, tell you if you make a sound your children, asleep in the next room, will be next, now that is fear and that is RAPE. That is fear that can become immobilizing, stripping away all pride, all strength, all dignity.
I think most adults have indulged in what is perhaps incorrectly called "sexual play" submission and dominance. Hopefully we will continue to become more sensitive as we evolve and realize that this sexual outlook will always put one person at risk.
At this point the truth remains unknown to us. But to define what went on as rape, whether it be Swedish law or moral law, is insulting to those women and men who really have been raped.
Read the actual charges - they are linked earlier in this thread. This isn't about "buyer's remorse". This is about telling someone to stop after a condom has broken and having them keep going. This is about someone initiating unprotected sex while their partner was ASLEEP after their partner had explicitly said no sex w/o a condom.
Your equating of "real" rape only being that involving a stranger and excessive force is insulting to people who have been raped by acquantainces, by friends, by partners and spouses, by family members. The betrayal of having your "no" ignored by someone you trusted can become immobilizing, stripping away all pride, all strength, all dignity.
submission and dominance play is not the same as ignoring a no - it usually involves lengthy discussion, negotiation, and agreement that either party can end the interaction if it begins to feel unsafe - and that the other party involved will respect that immediately.
Rachel was spot on in referring to the incidents in question as date rape. she clearly gets the difference between consent and non-consent, and that a yes at one point doesn't mean a no later doesn't count.
Has the man been charged? Has he been convicted? Isn't that why we have courts?
This whole "rape" allegation is just misdirection from the lies we are being told from our government and the corporate run message machine.
I have watched/listen to RM daily and sad she seems to be more of a cheerleader for the Obama administration and anything that doesn't get in the way of GE. Profits. War, Nuclear, Financial.... You are not going to hear any discussion on those topics.
Glad she had Michael Moore on. He does speak truth to power, and you get very little of that on corporate run TV.
You would think there would be more discussion regarding all the wars. Guess were more worried about "rape allegations" rather than the millions of people that are being killed in our name and the theft of resources around the globe, or the destruction we are doing to ourselves and the planet. All to support the Greed at the Top.
You know, women don't just tell men to use a condom to inconvenience them. They're trying to protect themselves from STDs and unwanted pregnancy. If someone hasn't consented to sex without a condom, they haven't consented to sex without a condom. If someone consents to one sex act, it doesn't mean they've consented to "all of the above" nor future sex acts.
Assange is wanted for questioning. He is avoiding even that. He is the one trying to skirt the justice system. He is not asking for a trial, he's trying to stop one from even happening.
To Jender 13, Read the post again, I never said that being raped could only be defined as a stranger breaking into your house, holding a knife to your throat and brutalizing you for 6.5 hours. You have asked me to read the charges, I have, I work with men and women who have been raped.
I am going to say this again, having read the charges as stated, it is grossly unfair to compare this with men and women who have been "raped". Having experienced both situations, the two are not synonymous.
I recommend this blog post:
http://mymilkspilt.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/who-hears-you-when-you-speak-about-rape/
I think it's great that you work with rape survivors. That's really important work and it cam make a huge difference in people's lives.
I hope that no one you work with has ever gone home with someone, consented to sex under certain arrangements - like only with a condom, and then had their partner try to have sex without a condom, or woken up to have someone initiating sex without a condom. I hope that they've never been badgered to the point of acquiescence just to get it over with. I hope they've never been too afraid or too shocked to say no.
There are so many reasons that someone might not fight back, might let the person who raped them stay at their home, might even throw them a party and say nice things about them to friends or co-workers or acquaintances.
Ignoring a no is ignoring a no.
There are different degrees of rape. It's really unfortunate that there are people who define rape based on a victim profile rather than consent.
I was deeply impressed by the interview and by Rachel's and Michael Moore's speaking respectfully and seriously about the rape charges. There has been far too little of that.
I'd have been more impressed if Michael Moore had simply said, "I previously stated these accusations were not serious and I apologize for that."
Am I the only non-conspiracy theorist that sees the possibility of any one of a number of organizations ranging from the CIA to whatever the Russians are currently calling the KGB/NKVD/whatever, to MI5, etc, etc, etc (name any NATO ally's secret service) ran an operation known as a HONEY TRAP on Mr. Assange? News organizations must take a VERY careful look at the two ladies involved, just to see if there is a possible case to be made in that direction. Any number of governments might want him silenced, and so any one or even combination of them could have decided that this was the way to do it.
Of course, he could be guilty, but isn't this a real enough possibility that it should be seriously investigated?
I totally agreed with the "sounds like a honey trap" meme the first time the story broke. But Assange's behavior since then has made me realize he's the one who said it was a honey trap at first, and that he keeps bringing it up every time more information from the source against him comes out. Could still be he's legally clear on it, but his own statements sound like defensiveness, not a defense, and the leaking evidence sounds credible despite his evasions and diversrions. I also don't see what value such a honey trap would have. His behavior in leaking the names of informants to terrorists is execrable on its own. There's nothing more you have to do to "discredit" him. And his organization operates in parallel; getting him put away doesn't stop them at all. Let the process run its course. His refusal to cooperate with it is the most telling feature of it.
I'd bet that if you polled Americans who don't live in the neighborhood, you'd find very small percentage brand recognition for "92nd Street Y", and a significant fraction of those would proudly tell you it's a YMCA, and the bulk of those wouldn't even know that YMHAs exist. And some of our best friends are Jews, as the saying goes.
Unfortunately, there is a little meanness to be had here. The founders of the YMHA were looking for easy brand legitimacy when they cribbed the trope from YMCA, but they get brand confusion when they shorten it to just "Y". Latent fail in the marketing department.
Not Maddow's fault. And seriously, aren't there better issues to get upset over, even on the Internet, especially under an article combining rape and giving secrets away to terrorists? Distracting us from Assange's real crimes is exactly the tack he and his lawyers are taking, and it's working.
Not upset over it, but I would have expected Rachel and/or her staff to know better...the show is over 2 yrs old and many of the staffers have been in NYC longer than that
The 92nd St Y is very well known in New York City, not necessarily in the "neighborhood". In New York City, the 92nd St Y is a well established Jewish Center that has been open to all faiths. The Jewish communities across the US know of this cultural center as well.
As for the marketing of the 92nd St Y and that they somehow cribbed from the YMCA, if you took it from a historic background, this is very doubtful. The first YMCA opened in Boston in 1851. The first YMHA opened in Baltimore in 1854. The New York York YMHA opened in 1874. Over the years some of the YMHAs in the US became Jewish Community Centers and some retained being a YMHA or just Y, like in New York City.
The mission statement for the 92nd St Y is:
Founded more than a century ago to serve the Jewish people, 92nd Street Y promotes individual and family development and participation in civic life within the context of Jewish values and American pluralism.
As a non-profit community and cultural center, the YM-YWHA seeks to create, provide and disseminate programs of distinction that foster the physical and mental health of human beings throughout their lives, their educational and spiritual growth, and their enjoyment.
92nd Street Y reaches out beyond its core constituency of American Jews to serve people of diverse, racial, religious, ethnic and economic backgrounds, seeking partnerships that leaven our programs and broaden our influence.
When I heard that Rachel Maddow would be doing her show from the 92nd Street Y, I thought ist it was picked especially because what the mission statement of the 92nd Street Y is. She could have had it in Radio City Music Hall, Lincoln Center or at Carnegie Hall - all very well known locations.
So it was surprising when she apparently didn't realize what was significant about the 92nd Street Y, it's history and its stature in New York City. It's not just your neighborhood Y...
Rachel, you messed up. AGAIN. Julian Assange's accusers did not come forward with date rape charges; they went to the police to see if they could get Assange to undergo STD testing. It was the police who picked up the rape case against Assange - because a broken condom is considered rape in Sweden. Soon as that case was about to get thrown out, the two women upped the charges. Now, since you claim that WikiLeaks' cables should be taken with a grain of salt because they made a few mistakes like any other news organization then what should we say about YOU, Rachel? What should we say about NBC News/MSNBC? Just think about that one.
I think Michael Moore wimped out. The facts were on his side yet he didn't speak up. Rachel was a jerk to Moore but I expect her to be that way already. Moore should've stuck by his words. Assange was FRAMED (by two women with changing stories) and should be acquitted accordingly.
Separate and secular representation under law by gender, race or religion is against The Constitution of The United States and our human rights. But people seem to conveniently FORGET the Constitution and human rights when it comes to sexist Rape Shield Laws which are completely one-sided and allow women to get away with false rape allegations. Don't get me wrong; I do agree that every rape allegation MUST be taken seriously. That also means jail time and/or a heavy fine for those who levy a fraudulent rape accusation.
So okay, let's protect the identities of those who claim rape. (After all, God forbid any female member of my own family ever has to go through any of that.) But as soon as it's a confirmed fact that she's a liar, TELL EVERYONE WHO SHE IS. I think any responsible man would want to know if the woman he's dating is a potential false rape accuser. So if you're gonna blast a rapist's name and face all through the media, do the same with false rape accusers. And put a real lasting social pariah stigma behind it too. Equality. {{-_-}}
Johnny, did you even bother to look at the charges? This issue has been discussed to the point that your post is beating a dead horse. Go back and read through- someone has already posted the link so you can read over exactly what he has been charged with. Your strawman about the Wikileaks issue shows that A. you didn't pay attention or analyze Rachel's argument and B. shows a lack of understanding about the laws/accusations being presented.
How was Rachel a jerk to Moore?
This crime didn't take place in the US so it doesn't matter what US law said. Your third paragraph is irrelevant.
Yes because then how else will a rapist know who to rape and who to leave alone?
First of all, Wikileaks is not a news organization. It does nothing but pass on information that they are given.
Two: Where in the world did you get the impression Rachel was rude to Mr. Moore?
Three: Who made you judge(?), based on your clairvoyance? Let the Assange accusations be investigated, and whoever/whatever crime if any be prosecuted.
Alleged victim names are generally protected. But never fear, intimidators against pressing charges are on the job; Wikileaks supporters were reported to have promised they would investigate and publicize personal information about the women and their families themselves.
Thanks for jumping in there, Mickey...after being on the #mooreandme twitter protest the last few days I'm getting weary of having to use the broken record technique!
@Mickey: Did YOU bother to look @ the charges?
Let me help you out a bit:
http://www.infowars.com/cia-honeytrap-ardin-deleted-twitter-posts-praising-assange/
http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml (this one's a bit more reliable than the first)
Nothing wrong with Rachel being a jerk to Moore. That's her job as a journalist so I'm not knocking her there. But she could at least not be totally completely WRONG (or lying) like she is.
I KNOW it didn't happen in the US. That's why I wrote HUMAN RIGHTS (for those with selective listening). I cited the US to show that this is a problem here too.
So do you advocate putting a man in danger of a false rape accusation (in corrupt law systems that will lock him up and stigmatize him undeservedly)? Sorry, I can't go for that. Besides, if you make a false rape allegation against a man then you deserve whatever comes to you for crying wolf. (I know that's gonna be taken the wrong way but why should I care about a woman who would want an innocent man prosecuted out of vengeance?)
@locknpost: ALL news organizations pass on information they are given, including MSNBC. That's what the news DOES. Wikileaks is no better or worse than MSNBC. Julian Assange is no better or worse than Rachel Maddow (especially since he's INNOCENT and the evidence I provided in that link proves it). The rest of your claims have already been debunked.
{{-_-}}
Leave it up to JA to ignore any other evidence aside from his own ears. I love your own fantasy world. Perhaps you should just stay there.
I don't think he gives researchers, reporters, writers, or editors enough credit.
Unable to locate RSS node? errrr Fine...
Regarding the treatment of the women making the accusations. Personal information and character attacks on web. I don't like the idea of them or Assange attacked in this case. Let the officials do their job, and leave their web sites alone. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations?intcmp=239
Thank you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPeJ4wqE7g
{{-_-}}
@Johnny: What does this have to do with the Julian Assange case?
No one here has disagreed that idiots like this Heidi Jones should face court for her false accusations (undisputed because she confessed), even if no particular individual was targeted. It is also no surprise she accused a minority as the perpetrator.
More frequent and troubling, is these few incidents are used as an excuse to contribute to the legacy of character assassinations, harassment, isolation, threats, and label flinging of alleged victims before and during investigations and court procedings. It is no wonder many sexual assaults are never reported or dropped because of threats, intimidation, and/or pressure.
Again, I say allow the Assange case to move forward or not on the merits of the investigation. It is not our job to make assumptions, judge, or influence the case.
JA is committing a fallacy a lot of people have been committing which is rather than ALLOW JUSTICE to take place, allow all the evidence to be examined, and allow a trial to go through- JA believes that he is GOD and that he knows what happened.
Sorry meant this to be a reply- comp not working with me today.
I'm really disappointed in Rachel's point of view here, which I think is surprisingly narrow and kind of suck-up govt. On the matter of the leaked cables, the discussion is larger than the actual contents of this one or that one. The discussion should center on how much should the govt keep secret from citizens and should govts be allowed to lie to its citizens. Why is it important to keep Ghadaffi's nurse a state secret? Why did it deserve a cable in the first place?
If Maddow has read the official statement of these two women and followed the details of these charges, doesn't she think it somewhat suspicious that Interpol would be used to arrest Assange for questioning, isolate him in solitary, and only release him on extraordinary restrictions and absurdly high bail that someone merely wanted for questioning hardly warrants? Have other women now come forward to claim that Assange also raped them to prove that he is a serial date raper?
To support Assange in this case does not degrade the seriousness of rape allegations. He'll only be charged if the U.S. cannot find a suitable charge for extraditing him anyway.
I think Maddow sounds a lot like a "company man" in this interview. Sounds like corporate powers nudged her.
Or like you weren't listening. You might want to go back and re-watch the interview. Rachel brought up the suspicion of Assange's arrest and raised last night the issue of security clearance (she has also, FTR, brought this issue up multiple times).
@BlueBurner: Don't mind Mickey. Apparently, anyone who (rightfully) says that Maddow is doing the bidding of the powers-that-be in her reporting "wasn't listening" or "didn't hear the full interview".
The people who run things and put false propaganda into the media LOVE people like Mickey Mouser who believe EVERYTHING they're told.
{{-_-}}
I believe everything I"m told? Then why don't I believe you JA? O wait that would contradict your own point! Which is made even more funny by the fact that you're trying to convince someone else that they should listen to you. ALSO LOVE THE FACT that you didn't pay attention to the argument. I guess you love ad hominems instead of real argument? That's okay- I treated you back to your own medicine in my response to the above post. Put the shoe on the other foot.
I have sat here and read just about all the comments. What I find interesting is that the only real fact that we know is that Julian Assange is WANTED for questioning concerning allegations of sexual misconduct. Everything that is stated in the comments is heresay as none of us were witness to the alleged crimes. As of today he has not been CHARGED with rape or any sexual misconduct. And that NONE of you (including myself) know Swedish Law well enough and ALL the FACTS to carry on an intelligent conversation around the merits of the allegations.
This is really about misdirection. Mr Assange has upset many governments around the world. So to take the focus off of the material being leaked they create a firestorm around the individual responsible. As a society we focus on that instead of the misdeeds that our government has been up to and complicit in.
As a people, as a society how can we sit back and condone the treatment of Mr Manning to date. He has not been charged, he has not had a trial which all Americans regardless of their crime are entitled to. He has spent 7 months in solitary confinement, under our laws we are innocent until proven guilty by our peers. We are on a slippery slope to becoming a totalitarian society because of the relentless fear mongering that we all live under. We are all starting to live in fear of questioning the actions of our government. Or worse yet living with the mentality "if it doesn't effect me directly I won't concern myself".
I love Rachel, 99% of the time she conducts herself like a REAL journalist. That is what we are missing in our society. . . real journalist. All we have are people that repeat what ever information is given to them without verifying its validity.
We have bigger issues to concern ourselves with. . . Roman is burning! Go watch the documentary "Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon. We have less then a decade to sort ourselves out. We don't have a spending problem we have an income problem. We can not survive as a nation when corporations and wealthy individuals DO NOT pay their fair share of taxes. We can not survive as a nation when 90% of our manufacturing jobs are outsourced to other countries. We can not survive as a nation when the top 1% own more then the bottom 50%! We can not survive as a nation when our military spending in any given year is GREATER then the REST of the world combined. Wake up folks. . . time is running out.
Could it be that the women actually DID send mixed messages? A woman invites a man to sleep with her and has very physical sex and then claims rape?
Isn't something wrong with that? Isn't the woman sending very very very very very mixed messages and setting the grounds for legitimate confusion especially in area as confusing as sex?
Don't we, as thinking people have to accept that there is some gray area, and that "rape" is not black and white. That one of the parties cannot fairly claim "rape" seconds before orgasm and then claim "No means No"?
That there is in fact some element of timing and communication and that there can legitimate confusion. Especially when the alleged "forcing" is not that severe and the alleged "refusal" is not that strong? Don't sometimes we do things we really don't want to do and then feel bad about it later?
Shouldn't we as a society be willing to have an honest discussion about it?
I'm pretty sure I could claim my ex girlfriend "raped" me several times in the past.
when I was too tired to really want it but acceed to her wishes.
Sorry if this offends some peoples sensibilities, but I think it needs to be tal
ked about honestly, and not with some knee jerk reaction.
I completely understand what you are saying bbieker. That's why I think a meticulous investigation is important, for either/or conclusion from facts, (though a "he said, she said" makes it tough). Because it has such public exposure, I don't feel it is beneficial to leave that "gray" area hanging out there, for anyone.
And also: Is it really believable that the 2nd woman would wake up in the middle of the sex act? I suppose it is possible that she is a really really really strong sleeper, but it just seems a little bit hard to accept at face value, and seems a little bit contrived to cast the man as completely and utterly responsible, and the woman as a completely innocent victim.
(as she slept nude with a virtual stranger)
Seems more likely that the woman may have actually ...admittedly sleepily, cooperated to some extent....
Is it just me, or does Rachel in front of a live audience beat out her studio show? She simply sparkled the last two nights.
Maddow is pretty much incoherent on her thesis that "We believe stuff that is leaked to us..." She tells a complete falsehood when she says that a mere press release is disregarded and yet a leak is, by virtue of its nature, more compelling.
Where was she on the lead up to the Iraq War? Didn't she see Judith Miller's reporting on the press releases about WMDs?
Earth to Rachel: people believe @!$%# cuz its on TV.
I believe Rachel's point was that when information is presented to news outlets as being declassified, most news outlets will respond by publishing that information without a second thought (which is true). The media responds to anything it believes to be scandalous or outrageous very eagerly- this is a sad truth about our news. The news would rather report scandal than boring statistics. She wasn't talking about the American public writ large- she was talking about the, if you will, "news makers." They (those within news media) then go on to present that information as if it is fact when it is not. Rachel has spoken out several times on her broadcasts about how people need to be careful when they hear information or see information from the news media, because the news media doesn't always fact check itself. She's made fun of The Guardian, the New York Times, Politico, The WallStreet Journal, etc. for printing up stories that are false. And she has done so precisely because of the misinformation factor that you are talking about.
Your second comment about where Rachel was before the Iraq War-....I don't even know where to begin with that. So you're saying Rachel's point about the media messing up information is false based on the fact that Rachel wasn't on television when another event in history occurred? Why not attack her for Vietnam or Nixon? It makes as much sense. Or why didn't she report on the Trojans? Geeze.
I disagree that she meant They = Media. It seemed to me that she meant They = Us. She was speaking of the effect that WikiLeaks releases have on the public at large. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.
Regarding the Iraq War issue - Maddow's point was that press releases were received with skepticism and leaks were received as truth indiscriminately. My counter-factual to that statement was the public's complete acceptance of the White House's press releases regarding WMDs, Nigerian uranium and Hussien-Al Qaeda connections. The fact that Maddow wasn't a talking head back then has nothing to do with the fact that her statement rings false. Another counter factual to her claim is the fact that the government's claims that WikiLeaks endangers troops or diplomacy or whatever are swallowed whole by the public at large whereas the leaks themselves are not even being read (much less considered as true by virtue of them being leaks...)
It was very disturbing to hear Rachel disagree with Michael's point that the more information that can be exposed, the more the media can then use it to actually do what it is supposed to do: check the facts behind that information. She did make the point before he came out and during the interview that leaks are given more credibility just because they are leaks. Given the shameless cooperation of the mainstream media in the selling of the Iraq war as just one example, I can't understand why Rachel is taking this line. Had Wikileaks existed at that time, perhaps more of the lies that lead us into war could have been exposed before the fact--not long after the countless damage of war was done. I'm reminded of Rachel and others on MSNBC cheering that "combat operations" in Iraq had ended--when there are still 50,000 troops there. And her endless support for so-called health reform, so-called financial reform, and the Obama administration as a whole. Maybe she feels Wikileaks is a threat to the current administration, maybe she really believes the president and the Democrats are true alternatives to the Republicans instead of partners in corporate-paid-for corruption, but I'm glad that we are getting more information not less and I don't believe everything I read right away--and journalists including her should not be turning down new information; they should be checking it out and then reporting what is accurate. As for the rape allegations (there have been no charges filed--he is only wanted for questioning regarding the allegations) it's not only men who are questioning whether these are politically motivated--Naomi Wolf and other feminists have also raised doubts. Daniel Elsberg was smeared in a similar way. If charges are filed, Assange should face them, absolutely. But there are separate issues here: first, is Wikileaks a positive thing? Perhaps Rachel disagrees, but I think it is. Should Assange face charges if they are filed? Yes--and Michael said this plainly in the interview. Are these charges legitimate or politically motivated? Should the women and the authorities file charges, they should be fully pursued in court.
You and Micahel both stated the common misconception that Wikileaks dumped all the 250,000 into the media.
In fact they'v only released abuot 1,500 or so of them.
See - Glenn Greenwald - http://tinyurl.com/2dwyj53
And nearly all 1300 were vetted and published by the 5 cooperating newspapers.
That's in the article you linked.
1,269 were posted directly to the Internet, unvetted through the media. All 251,000 were given to the media at once which has been vetting what they recieved.
Thank you Rachel! Thank you for addressing the main concerns of #Mooreandme.
For an excellent recap of many, if not all, procedural and political problems with this case, there’s a new article:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-truth-lies-trapped-in-a-web-of-intrigue-20101223-196mv.html?from=smh_sb
This is why false rape victims must be PROSECUTED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPeJ4wqE7g
Rape Shield Laws are SEXIST.
{{-_-}}
You repeat yourself.
And, for some weird unknown reason, I'm now hoping you don't live anywhere near any vulnerable women I know.
It's interesting that the people insisting Assange is innocent are also insisting that the alleged victims are guilty. Assange doesn't even think that. He thinks the women were 'bamboozled' by the police.
Any physical attack on/of women is reprehensible. However Moore is very confused, confounding and therefore difficult for me to take him seriously. On his website he says 'bring troops home now' and then 'get off obama's back' ... obama IS commander of the troops and brings them home whenever HE decides!! Moore's well deserved attack on banks is simple solution for simple minded. Read "All the Devils are Here" by McLean. As one who is struggling with my weight I can say moore's size indicates serious emotional issues. He should stick to entertaining, not mis-guided lecturing us.
uhm...do you know what kind of movies Michael Moore makes? Just had to ask, because that last sentence made no sense. He makes movies of the lecturing variety...guided or mis-guided depending on your point of view. It's not like he makes romantic comedies or something.
Besides, being an entertainer or fat doesn't mean you don't get to have an opinion. I don't always agree with Moore, but that has nothing to do with his size or emotional state.