Slashdot Mirror

He was wanted for questioning, nothing else,

From the actual complaint: the woman who accused him of rape stated that first they both had sex, then later she awoke from him entering her again, she asked him if he was wearing any protection, and he said 'only you', and she stated she was too tired to argue, so they had sex again.

Next morning they joked about him paying her student loans in case she became pregnant, and that they would call the baby Afghanistan. She then gave him a lift on her bike down to the train station since he was running late for an interview, and also gave him money for a ticket since he had no swedish currency. When she came home she discussed what had happened with a friend and then she realized she had been raped.

This case was first dismissed by the district attourney because there was no case, then it was picked up (very unusual) by another attourney Marianne Ny...

This is purely political, like when the UK spent millions having fucking guards outside the embassy for these insanely poor accusations which would never hold up in court.

Here are the actual protocols from the questioning of the accuser (in swedish of course): http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assan...

They want him for questioning, he has yet to be charged with anything.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

He's wanted for questioning, what part of that don't or can't you understand. WikiLeaks' Assange has yet to be charged with anything, he is to be extradited physically to Sweden, because somehow, as the British Justice so acerbically stated, the effing Swedes are to incompetent to fly, or call over to, the UK to question Assange. Now why does he have to be physically extradited just for questioning, dood?

And why are you still so effing ignorant about the entire matter, dood?

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

...because under the rules and regulations of the European Union, that was not a valid warrent for his arrest to begin with.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Well articulated, Good Citizen!

And for any commenters are /. who still are clueless, here is an excellent breakdown by the Nordic News Network:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

The item they didn't mention, since they are not doing any factual supposition as I do, is that every player in Sweden involved with attempting to extradite Assange is financially involved/linked to the Swedish media mogul family (the Rupert Murdochs of Sweden), the Bonnier family.

Again, thanks for stating the facts, something which the enemies of the people can't abide by.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Exactly, and thanks for stating the actual facts!

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

. . .the real facts of the matter:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Exactly!

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

There is nothing more sad, more disheartening, than the death of a decent person.

I didn't know Aaron Swartz, although I had communicated with him online on several occasions; a highly intelligent young man with a prodigious mind and noble spirit.

Aaron evidently reached the decision, to spare his family and friends future pain, he would forfeit his own life; in ancient Rome they referred to it as "Falling on one's sword."

Yet another fatality of Obama's War On Whistleblowers, the dramatic extension and expansion from the Bush administration.

Today, Gov. Don Siegelman sits in a penitentiary, his only "crime" was wishing to increase educational access for the many; an authentic democrat, so very rare today.

Today, an Iraqi immigrant, Shakir Hamoodi, who sent small sums of money to his close relatives back home for medical and food emergencies, also sits in a penitentiary, yet another humanist, or "criminal" in America?

Today, a brave CIA whistleblower of the criminal and barbaric torture taking place, John Kiriakou, faces two years in jail, thanks to Obama and life in the land of the lawless.

Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning, Gov. Don Siegelman, Shakir Hamoodi, John Kiriakou and others, too many others, a roster of the best of America, wasted lives in others pursuit of never-ending corruption.

A bizarre BBC report the other day --- and bizarre is the only accurate description for both BBC and their news report --- ran an attack piece on WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, nonsensically juxtaposed against the newspaper strike in China!


They --- the BBC and Australian news --- once again perpetrated lies of "sexual assault of two women" against Assange?

Having read all the legal documents, in both English and Swedish, I observed NO verification of such lies, only that Sofia Wilen, the younger woman who first approached Julian Assange, wanted nothing to do with such false allegations, and that the government-affiliated Anna Ardin (one of her many aliases), appears to have been the driving force in stirring up such vicious stories! (When the publicity became too much for Anna Ardin, she was spirited off to Israel, where a member of the Bonnier family was ambassador at that time.)

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
The one common factor, known to Americans, which is evident in both the attacks on Wikileaks/Assange and the illegitimate and amoral incarceration of Gov. Siegelman, is Karl Rove.

Rove appears again and again in the background, as the puppet master pulling the strings to take out Gov. Siegelman, and was financed in his multiple trips to Sweden, around the beginning of the WikiLeaks' episode, financed by the Bonnier family, one of the media giant families of Europe and among the top ten media corporations in existence. (Virtually everyone on the Swedish side who has been attacking Julian Assange is financially connected to the Bonnier family: the attorneys, Anna Ardin, the Bonnier-employed reporters, the Justice Minister, etc., the only exception would be Sofia Wilen, the young lady who quickly distanced herself from the horrendously unfolding events.)

Aaron Swartz, both believed in, and fought for, free speech and freedom of the press, an incredibly shrinking freedom which has been all but co-opted by the ruling oligarchs through their corporations today --- does anyone really know who owns AT&T, after all?

Recently, some technically astute friends ran a series of tests, and observed that the most heavily censored sites: Huffington Post, boingboing.net, Naked Capitalism, The Guardian, etc., are considered to be some of the more "liberal" sites on the 'net --- nothing could be further from the truth!

The most heavily censored English-speaking countries on the Web? Canada, the UK and the USA.

Most despicably, network neutrality appears as dead as Aaron Swartz

Riiiiight. Because Abu Hamza has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK. He was arrested in 2004, and he's *still* not extradited. And the US has already not only promised no death penalty, no abuse, no guantanamo, they even had to promise not to send him to a Supermax prison. And he's still not sent. And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this?

Anyway, hey, remember way back when Ghandi was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. Well, remember when Mandela was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. But no, Assange walks around like he's a hero, bragging about how much of a hero he is, when the actual felony he's facing is that he waited until a girl (SW) was asleep in order to F' her unprotected because she wouldn't let him do it while awake. And the crazy thing is he hardly even denies the charges. His legal team admits that she had been refusing unprotected sex the night before (it'd be hard not to, they have a condom with DNA matching the DNA sample from inside her, and she talked with friends that night talking about how he kept trying to F' her without protection and how she was getting really frustrated with it). Even the guy's own legal team was not challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" His team claims only that she woke up, was fully conscious, and then consented to sex. Which is just patently absurd, given that she had been just telling people about how upset she was about him trying to have unprotected sex with her, and she has a "paper trail" a mile long of being afraid of pregnancy and STDs, to the point where her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that not only did she not once allow unprotected sex (it was "unthinkable" to her), but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex. So she woke up in the middle of the night, after complaining repeatedly about him trying to violate a lifelong principle, was fully conscious, and decided to change her views on unprotected sex? *Really*?

Assange has appealed the case in five separate courts and lost all of them: three in the UK, including the UK supreme court, and two in Sweden (the Svea court hearings), the latter two specifically focusing on the forensic evidence and interviews. But no, a random assange-fan echo chamber sourcing most of its info from Assange's admitted liar lawyer is justice, while five separate actual courts in first-world nations are railroading, right?

Just pathetic. Assange is dodging some serious F'ing charges here, and it's horrible to see so many people cheering on the majorly

Recommend Andy Greenberg's This Machine Kills Secrets brilliant on cypherpunks, WikiLeaks,and privacy for the Web.
And please don't forget...

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Messed up the link: here. Lower UK court link is here, I don't have time to dig up the rest for you.

Perhaps, mhenriday, you might want to do a smidgeon of research before claiming that someone else is wrong: straight from the Swedish Prosecution Authority website. The Svea court decisions are also cited in the UK trial transcripts, which you've also never read.

Since you've made it so blatantly obvious that you're just listening to an echo chamber and are so grossly ignorant on the case that you don't even know what trials there have been, why should I even bother going into the rest of your post? How about YOU inform yourself and then let me know when you're actually ready to have a serious discussion on the matter. Step 1: read that timeline. Step 2: read the three British court decisions. Step 3: read the police report: .

THEN we can have a serious talk.

Because I've read the actual report. Unlike the author of that article.

Here's the relevant section, translated to English:

Conversation with SKL

Conversed with forensic analysist Anders Nilsson at SKL to get a clarification o
n the DNA samples.

In the previous PM I have written that concerning the condom used by Anna Ardin,
  they had not found DNA. This is not correct according to Anders Nilsson. He sai
d that they see "something" but that it is impossible to figure out. It has been
  chosen to analyze the sample with a more refined method. This method takes abou
t two weeks. In the previous PM it was not Anders Nilsson that I spoke with.

Anders Nilsson explained that it is not the amount of DNA that always determines
  whether they can see DNA. There are many reasons why they can't get a clear pic
ture.

  - Something interfering with the analysis such as dirt, etc.
  - Small amounts of DNA
  - People emit different amounts of DNA
  - The study material has been affected by usage, for example, washed, dried off
,

These were some of the things that can affect the analysis of DNA, but there are
  more factors which can influence it.

The subsequent test referred to came back positive for mtDNA.

And please let us not forget one of the overriding stories against free speech and transparency:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

http://www.whale.to/b/gelbspan_b.html

And blessings on Jacob for everything he's done and is still doing.

Well, according to the Swedish senior prosecutor, it wasn't --- and the same for Swedish legal scholars.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Thanx for pointing out that Army report which came out around 2008 (I think?) planning their destruction.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Recommended reading:
Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy presidency, by Donald Gibson

Thy Will Be Done, by Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot

JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass

A Terrible Mistake, by H.P. Albarelli

The Yankee and Cowboy War, by Carl Oglesby

Echo From Dealey Plaza, by Abraham Bolden

Who Killed Bobby, by Shane O'Sullivan

Family of Secrets, by Russ Baker

The Rich and the Super-Rich, by Ferdinand Lundberg

"But nobody reads. Don't believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the report . . . ." Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission

Great points, Sique, tremendous points.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

And the most relevant news, from Nordic News Network,

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Bullcrap is what you spew, this report is my retort --- read, for a change . . . .

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Oops, forgot this great report for ya,

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

This report covers the facts and only the facts, including why the UK arrest was illegal form those rules and laws governing an European Arrest Warrant (EAW). They didn't cover all the surrounding and important stuff, as I would, namely that all those anti-Assange players in Sweden are connected financially in one way or the other with the rightwing Bonnier family, owner of one of the top 10 global media companies on the planet, Bonnier AB. (Ever heard of Popular Science, Sports Illustrated, Time, etc.?? Their reach is extensive.) Also, I would have mentioned the connections between the Bonnier family and Karl Rove, and pointed out that both Karl Rove and Joe Biden want to put away Gov. Don Siegelman AND Julian Assange --- now isn't that interesting?

Four days after you're suggesting she's refuse to cooperate with the prosecution, she retains a lawyer? How does that work, exactly? And where is Ms. Wilen's statement to that effect?

I'm not sure how you managed to interpret it that way. Wilen didn't retain the lawyer. The politician/lawyer managed to persuade a friend to reopen the case and put him in charge of it. He was *publicly* funded, which means the state pays, and Wilen didn't put down a cent.

nnn.se has complete copies of the original interviews, in translated English as well as the original Swedish. They have over 15MB of PDFs of news clippings. I'm not sure what more you want in terms of references...
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/protocol.htm
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/resources.htm

Sure, nnn.se does seem to be biased and a bit on the consipiracy side, however, it is the only place that I have found which actually documents a detailed timeline of the entire sequence of events which includes the 'rape'. If the BBC or the NY Times wants to do a detailed, researched timeline of similar detail to that provided by nnn.se, let them. I'll read it closely. However, all I can find is convoluted, explosive, READ THIS HEADLINE type of articles, and even the timelines that are on mainstream websites just say "He was charged", nothing about the details of what he was charged with beyond the words catch words "rape" and "sexual molestation".

Four days after you're suggesting she's refuse to cooperate with the prosecution, she retains a lawyer? How does that work, exactly? And where is Ms. Wilen's statement to that effect?

I'm not sure how you managed to interpret it that way. Wilen didn't retain the lawyer. The politician/lawyer managed to persuade a friend to reopen the case and put him in charge of it. He was *publicly* funded, which means the state pays, and Wilen didn't put down a cent.

nnn.se has complete copies of the original interviews, in translated English as well as the original Swedish. They have over 15MB of PDFs of news clippings. I'm not sure what more you want in terms of references...
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/protocol.htm
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/resources.htm

Sure, nnn.se does seem to be biased and a bit on the consipiracy side, however, it is the only place that I have found which actually documents a detailed timeline of the entire sequence of events which includes the 'rape'. If the BBC or the NY Times wants to do a detailed, researched timeline of similar detail to that provided by nnn.se, let them. I'll read it closely. However, all I can find is convoluted, explosive, READ THIS HEADLINE type of articles, and even the timelines that are on mainstream websites just say "He was charged", nothing about the details of what he was charged with beyond the words catch words "rape" and "sexual molestation".

Here's the chronological series of events:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm

Look to 20 August 2010:
"On the basis of very little information, including what appears to be a decisive utterance by Ms. Ardin, prosecutor #1 decides to arrest Assange in absentia on suspicion of rape and other sex crimes. When Ms. Wilén is informed of that decision, she is unable to continue the interview and leaves without approving the written account of it."

Then 21 August 2010:
"Less than one full day after the arrest warrant is issued, it is revoked by prosecutor #2 who finds that there are no grounds for suspicion of rape or any other sex crime. Anna Ardin is interviewed by the police via telephone, and gives an account of her sexual encounter with Assange on 13 August which differs from what she has previously told friends. Now, she says that she was the victim of a sexual assault, during which Assange is said to have destroyed a condom and duped her into having unprotected sex. But the "used" condom she subsequently provides as evidence turns out to be unused, and therefore could not have been destroyed in the manner that she claimed."

In fact, just read the whole thing. You may be enlightened.