Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Faces Rape Investigation In Sweden — Updated
mpawlo was one of many readers who have sent news that a warrant has been issued in Stockholm, Sweden for WikiLeaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange. The investigation apparently involves "one report of rape and one report of harassment." The story was broken by Swedish tabloid Expressen (original in Swedish), and later picked up by more reputable sources like CNN and the BBC, who say the warrant has been confirmed by Swedish authorities. The WikiLeaks Twitter feed has commented three times about the charges so far, first saying they were warned of 'dirty tricks,' then that they hadn't been contacted by Swedish police, and then a statement from Assange saying the charges are without basis.
Update: 08/21 15:58 GMT by S : Multiple sources are now reporting that the warrant for Assange's arrest has been withdrawn. Aftonbladet has coverage in Swedish. Chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
Update: 08/21 15:58 GMT by S : Multiple sources are now reporting that the warrant for Assange's arrest has been withdrawn. Aftonbladet has coverage in Swedish. Chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
You know -- we have to get Assange "for the children." That would be the first thought going after a web site, wouldn't it?
Seriously, wouldn't put it past the U.S. government. There is precedent from the sixties with the Marianne Faithful/Mick Jagger "Mr. Jagger was apprehended eating a Snickers bar from Marianne's pussy" incident that Faithful goes into in detail in her first autobiography. Not true and the guy who got them the acid before the raid was an American they didn't know very well. Mick was giving some thought toward politics at the time. And one can Google for Jean Seberg + FBI for that incident around the same time.
So how do you explain the larger number of reported rapes in Sweden then?
http://www.thelocal.se/19102/20090427/
"Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe - twice as many as "runner up" the UK, a new study shows."
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
The proper response to such allegations is not to dismiss them out of hand as a government plot. The proper response is to assume and treat him as completely innocent until such a time that he is found guilty in a court of law - at that point you may want to look into the case to see if the jury was crazy or reasonable. Until then nothing should change to the extent that a "not guilty" verdict should be as if no new information was given. An allegation should be both taken seriously and not believed until it has been verified. That's the proper response. Now of course humans just aren't built to behave like that. If you can't maintain this stance, then you have to choose between being suspicious of him or saying that you are sure the allegations are false. In that choice it's pretty clear that the preponderance of evidence so far is to dismiss the claims. We have no evidence to look at.
They have issued a warrant for his arrest.
We need to invent a pithy expression for this sort of "I like him therefore he is right" reasoning. How about "volo hoc ergo propter hoc"?
It's not just rhetorical, it's a cognitive bias. And there's already a name for it and plenty of research on it: see "Halo Effect".
An excerpt in a quick-and-dirty translation by me:
As I stated, compared to many other countries Swedish rape laws are pretty strict, lots of things that would not be considered rape in other countries are considered to be rape in Sweden (legally at least).
Also, Assange, Wikileaks and the Pirate party hav been in the media a lot in Sweden. And by "in the media" I mean "on the front page". So I'd guess most people here do know about Assange and Wikileaks.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
The other aspect is that he has been arrested for "probable cause." In Sweden, you can be arrested in two ways, either only "arrested" or "arrested for probable cause." In the second case, it means that the prosecutor is fairly certain you will be convicted of the crime in court. So it appears, based on the extremely few details available, that the rape accusations are not entirely baseless.
Football Odds
Men accused of rape should always be presumed innocent anyway (beyond that people are supposed to always be presumed innocent until guilty). The rate of false accusations is absolutely staggering - it has been studied several times and although the figures vary, they tend to be anywhere between 25% and 75%. Compare to that a more typical false reporting rate for other crimes of a few percent at most. Wiki has some info. Probably the best study done was still the Kanin study, in which only the woman admitting the charge was false could result in a verdict of false reporting. That found a rate of 41%. And this is just against random guys, let alone famous people.
Assange is too high profile to kill off. Cue the rape/childporn/furry accusations.
Hardly. Nobody is too high a profile to kill off. That's why people that are really high profile have private security forces, why our President has the Secret Service. If you're too big a problem, you can and will be killed if you piss off the wrong organization. That's pretty much the way it is.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Sweden has troops in Afghanistan idiot.
Secondly, Sweden is not neutral, earlier the idea was that it is free from military alliances so that it can elect to be neutral in the case of war. This, was the case of Swedish defence policy until about two years ago when the Swedish parliament agreed on a new formulation of its policy, and essentially it now says that if any EU member state is attacked, Sweden will come to that states aid with military means if necessary.
Swedish neutrality is dead, both de-facto and de-jure.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
You're assuming the point of rape is to fulfill sexual desire -- it's not, it's about wielding power over someone else..
That's the feminist/social sciences dogma. See Palmer & Thornhill, A Natural History of Rape for a different point of view.
If the party that is accused of rape is aquitted, then he/she must prove that the accusee did so maliciously.
-- Linux user #369862
Add alcohol/drugs to it and it gets even messier. Lots of people don't remember what they do when they are drunk.
Sure, if the person is unconscious it's rape (unless the "victim" liked it even the next day ;) ), but there's a wide range between unconscious and totally sober.
There was a girl who was drunk when she hugged and kissed me (after I fetched her back to her home). She claimed and claims to have no recollection of it. I guess there's a reason why her mom wanted me to be the one to fetch her home after all the partying. She's a pretty hot girl, I'm sure more than a few guys would have been unable to resist her charms.
If I had succumbed I wouldn't have been able to maintain my status as Slashdot Virgin :).
As for honesty. Lots of people lie about stuff they are willing to do. After all there was that girl who signed up for 56 tattoos and changed her story when her dad found out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8104645.stm
So I'm pretty sure there have been many girls who have consensual sex with guys and change their story later on, whether because boyfriend/dad/husband/peer group/public disapproves, or they "remember it differently" when they are more sober.
Looking at some of those sex survey statistics, either the girls or guys are lying, or the guys have unknowingly been fucking guys :) (which could also be the case if alcohol is involved ;) ).
One suspects bail will be opposed, and a request to prevent the accused using the internet and or computer, or options limited so Julian can only use certain access internet ports that have wall to wall TCP/IP trace on.
The Swedish courts can't do things like that. They can decide on prison sentences, community service, fines, and a few other things, but they can't forbid someone from using Internet, or make up new types of punishment on the fly.
Well, swedish law classifies a lot of things as "rape" that wouldn't be rape in other countries (this can be seen by looking at swedish rape statistics before and after the relevant changes to the law).
Also, from the article you linked: "
The figures can however be somewhat distorted as it is often only assault rapes by strangers and aggravated acquaintance rapes that are reported in many of these countries - as was the case in Sweden 40 years ago.".
According to aftonbladet.se both girls _willingly had sex with him_ but said he had a skewed view on women. They also said they are not afraid of him and he was non-violent.
I wonder what kind of actions he did that constitutes rape then?
Source: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
No you are wrong. RTFA you idiot. Assange is arrested for "på sannolika skäl misstänkt" which is the highest suspicion level and allows the prosecution to keep the suspect incarcerated the longest.
Football Odds
Looks like this is what happend. At least this is what one of the women are saying at least:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
"– Anklagelserna mot Assange är förstås inte iscensatta av varken Pentagon eller någon annan. Ansvaret för det som hänt mig och den andra tjejen ligger hos en man med skev kvinnosyn och problem att ta ett nej."
Which in a rough translation is :
"- The allegations against Assange are not a plot by Pentagon nor anyone else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl rests solely on a man with a distorted view of women and problems accepting that a 'No' is a 'No'"?
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Doesn't have to be, in Sweden, you can be convicted for rape without penetrating anything. Forced petting is enough. You do not even have to use force, only go against the will of the person that is the victim is enough.
The bad thing with this is that it leads to people starting to distrust the law and the authorities.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
The procecutor has withdrawn the warrant for arrest since there is no reason to arrest Assange and the suspicions are not of the kind that warrant an arrest.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/assange-anhallan-havd-1.1157250
In fact he is such an attention whore, that pretty much all the media describe him as secretive and difficult to find not to mention getting interviews with.
He's totally making fools out of these journalists, letting them service his whorish need for attention by hiding.
Hell, there are 2.3 million hits on google, when you search for "Julian Assange". He's completely outclassing Lady Gaga (79.7 million) and Paris Hilton (30.2 million), making himself the true king of attention whoring.
Hell, he's outclassing you, DesScorp, 100 times (22.500 hits). That just PROVES that he's an attention whore. I mean - there's no way in hell that he would get that many more hits than you without being an attention whore. Right?
Breaking news on BBC... the arrest warrant has been canceled... definitely sounds like dirty government tricks now...
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Reality is easier if you can just make shit up I guess.
You forgot the bit about guaranteeing security, for free, for the better part of the last century. That cost a few bucks for sure, but none of that matters. ... Being reminded that the taliban really are the bad guys doesn't fit with the world view these idiots like to project.
Selling weapons to your enemies
Destabilising democracies and supporting fascist dicators
bombing civilians
supporting terrorists including the taliban
supplying weapons to mass murderers
preventing colonies from gaining independence
deploying nuclear weapons against civilian targets
unilaterally invading soveriegn nations
turture, illegal detention
starving children
mind control experiments
obstructing the prevention of terrorism
dropping bombs on everyone you possibly can
Gee thanks guys. We would all just love all that security you have been guaranteeing, when do you suppose it will be delivered? On second thoughts, I think we might just sort out our own security from now on.
Sounds like you haven't ever visited a Swedish "häkte" (arrest).
First of all, there is no "bail" in Sweden. Either you are arrested, or you are free awaiting sentencing.
In the Swedish legal system the prosecutor can decide that you need to be arrested if any of the following is fulfilled:
1. There is a risk of additional criminality
2. There is a risk that the person hampers the criminal investigation
3. There is a risk that the person flees
4. There is a minimum sentence of 1 year and no reason not to arrest the person
5. The person does not have a residence in Sweden.
Additionally, the prosecutor can decide to add "restrictions". These can include no communication with the rest of the world. This is done if communication can be expected to hamper the criminal investigation. The prosecutor has to defend the decision to keep a person arrested every 14 days, but the court can decide to keep the person arrested, with restrictions, for a very long time (years), if the investigation goes slowly.
If you are sentenced to prison in Sweden you can end up in an "open" prison (typically for lesser, non-violent, crimes). There there are few restrictions. Or you can end up in a "closed" prison (violent crimes, longer time). In a closed prison the amount of communication with the rest of the world is very limited, and communication with the rest of the world is typically monitored. Don't expect to use an Internet connection (or even a computer!) there.
http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821/
It was leaked in Mar 2010: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008
No, not this one. This only counts as a rape in Norway.
I agree. The US helped destroy the USSR as well as Hitler's Germany (and now keeps both Germany and the USSR in check). As someone who grew up in Eastern Europe and who saw Communist regime abuses first hand, I thank the US for that. To add, if it wasn't for America standing up to the USSR then the whole of Europe would be worshiping Marx, Engels and Lenin, not to mention Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
Occam's Razor, anyone?
Simple, yes. Honey traps are one of the oldest, simplest, most reliable tools in the spy business. There are plenty of good examples. Looks like this particular attempt backfired however. It looks very bad for the powerful lobbyists in Sweden looking to undermine the Pirate Parties new found support from their union with wikileaks.
the law should allow for the guy to be a little slow on the uptake in certain situations.
Don't worry, it does. Probably to point of favoring the guy.
Bullshit. A 15 year old boy was tried as an adult in Maryland and convicted of rape for taking five whole seconds to stop having sex with an 18 year old woman after she told him to stop.
Actually it's a little of both. From what I saw on ship in the Navy both rape and made up accusations of rape happen more often then anyone wants to admit. The problem is that true rape is emotionally traumatizing where made up accusations are not for the accuser. When the victim is questioned it can be heavy handed, but the intent is to prevent innocent people from being convicted of a crime; however, the result is that the real rape gets swept under the rug and the fake accusation on the other hand stays strong. What's the solution? I have no idea. What I do know is that there were a lot of male sailors I worked with who would never in any circumstance be in the same room with a woman with the door shut. Could be the divisional office and if there were three of us and I walked out the other male sailor walked out too. It just wasn't worth the possibility of a false accusation.
It's reported all right by pathologists and other medical practitioners - those large number of rapes I'm talking about are most definitely happening. The only thing that isn't proven in those cases is exactly who the perpetrators are. A depressingly small number of reported cases with medical evidence make it to court
If you had actually bothered to read more than a few words of the post above instead of some deranged attack on who you think I may be you would have noticed I was talking about REPORTED EVIDENCE.
I can only suggest improving your reading skills and stop pulling crap like the "And so in effect you insist" bullshit that bears no relation whatsoever with what I wrote. You should have grown out of that sort of kindergarden sandpit style of argument by now.
As someone who is a fan of the Enthusiastic Consent model, I think you're misrepresenting its goals. Specifically...
The idea of Enthusiastic Consent is not to rewrite rape legislation out of whole cloth. Rather, it's to create a social movement where the healthy expectation is that sex should only occur between two people who enthusiastically consent to the activity. To use your example, saying "It's OK, everybody does it" isn't and shouldn't be rape. But I'd sure say it's an ethically questionable way to get someone in bed with you. Likewise for exploiting a relationship status, likewise for using somebodies social expectations of casual sexual encounters to pressure them into sex. Again, none of those situations are rape but they're all situations in which the consent of one party was not given enthusiastically.
And as a woman who really enjoys having sex, surrounded by friends - male and female - who also enjoy having sex, why would I want any of us to be having sex that wasn't consented to with enthusiasm!? Why would you ever want that for yourself, or your friends, or your children? There are enough things in my life that I'm only blase about, sex shouldn't be one of them. And so no, Enthusiastic Consent does not mean that the situations you list somehow are transformed into rape. It does mean that they're indicative of a society which sees little wrong with unenthusiastic sexual encounters, and argues that that's a problem.
As a final note, you scoff at the idea of asking "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You don't get to decide what level of consent your partner has offered. And if you don't ask, you can't know for sure.