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Update: 08/21 15:58 GMT by S : Multiple sources are now reporting that the warrant for Assange's arrest has been withdrawn.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."

58 of 1,017 comments (clear)

  1. This just in by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US Government plays dirty when you expose their secrets

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:This just in by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OTOH, any charges against Assange are going to look that way, real or fabricated. Remember the old joke about conspiracy theories: if there's evidence to support them, then the truth has been uncovered, and if there's no evidence to support them, that just proves the conspirators are doing a good job of covering up.

      My prediction is that this whole affair will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:This just in by cappp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what if the allegations are real? Does that really change the substance of what's been done or the revelations that have been made? I feel like we veer away from complexity too often - people are heroes or villians, whistleblowers or rapists, good guys or jerks. We try to spin everything into a nicely packaged little modern fairy tale where someone is 100% without question evil and their actions and motivations dismissable. Sometimes people do bad things but that doesn't change what they've done before, or what they'll do after.

      So there's a chance Assage committed a horrible crime. Does that really change anything about his work with WikiLeaks, questionable though it's been at times. HIs actions may contextualize prior or future events, but they cannot solely define them.

    3. Re:This just in by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if it's ever resolved, or how it is. If you want to don your tin foil hat, then you can say that his character assassination has been successfully completed at this point. The fact that there is not one, but two claims both does a better job of character assassination, and makes it stick that much better. From this point forward, even if he's been cleared at a later point, there will forever be that stigma in whispered tones at the edge of conversation, "Julian Assange? I heard two girls accused him of rape".

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:This just in by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right, they wouldn't leave it to chance: If they found him, they'd likely just plant a gun on him (if he isn't carrying one) and claim they had to shoot him because he was resisting arrest for rape.

      Or to put it another way: If they put the same effort into doing something about Osama bin Laden as they're putting into doing something about Julian Assange, I suspect bin Laden would be either in Gitmo or 6 feet under by now. But the again, maybe that's because Assange committed the cardinal sin of questioning the US military, whereas all Osama's done is blow up a few buildings and since then acted as a convenient Emmanuel Goldstein.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:This just in by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.

      So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.

      This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.

      By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:This just in by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless he's a raging alcoholic, I don't think Assange is so stupid to rape twice in a week, while the US government is looking for him and he has the attention of the world. Of course, there is a slight chance the allegations are real, but I find it very peculiar that no such charges has been made earlier. I'm with the conspiracy theorists on this one. I was fairly trusting in the 90's, but after the 00's I don't trust the industrial-military complex nor the US Government to play by the rules.

      I agree about how people are usually more complex than hero/villain, though. Assange may very well have other skeletons in his closet, but - well - I think "they" picked the crime to be rape simply because it's a "he said, she said" kind of crime unless there was a huge scuffle. As such, it's perfect for character assassination - charges of rape sows the seeds of doubt in the heads of those who are not firmly behind Assange (and don't think this through).

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    7. Re:This just in by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? Next you'll be arguing that it's possible that Roman Polanski is both a child-abusing rapist and a great filmmaker, that Bill Clinton is both a skilled chief executive and diplomat and a horn-dog, that Oscar Wilde was both a pederast and a great playwright, that D.W. Griffiths was both an innovative director and a racist. And we all know that's simply not possible!

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    8. Re:This just in by qbast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.

      So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.

      This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.

      This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.

      Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.

      By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.

    9. Re:This just in by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Say the US secret services wanted to get the WikiLeaks founder locked. Why not do something much simpler like planting child pornography on one of his computers?

      I think you may over-estimate the capabilities of the US intelligence agencies here. For one, we can assume that someone like Julian Assange takes precautions when it comes to having their home computers hacked. When I say precautions, I mean they're going to have their computers locked down. Most hacking that happens is either mass scanning to find vulnerable systems or, if specifically targeted as this case would need to be, dependent on a target that doesn't keep a rigorously up to date and secure system. So a remote hack to put child porn (or other incriminating evidence on there) may not be possible. Particularly in a country where the telecomms wont casually hand over information to the US Intelligence Agencies.

      So then you have to go for physical access. And whilst it's very hard to prevent people from breaking into your home if they're determined, it's a great deal easier to make it hard to do so undetected. Intelligence agencies will have access to locksmiths who can open up a door without force, and they'll have security people who can disable some burglar alarms using manufacturer codes, etc. But this works against the casual home-owner. If someone wants to take a couple of hours setting up more secure systems, 24/7 camera feeds or spending a bit of money on more serious alarms, locks, etc. then it's going to get really difficult. Particularly in anything other than a secluded countryside home where the owner is away all day. And we haven't even got started on the actual tampering with the computer yet. Stick a sick picture on someone's NTFS partition? Easy. Mount someone's encrypted home partition and add something in, make sure it's also added to their last few weeks backups (because you don't want it to provably have appeared whilst the owner was known to be away for the weekend. Oh, I could go on. Basically, if you know what you're doing and you take the time to prepare, and I assume both for this guy, then you can make things really fucking difficult for the intelligence agencies. Particularly if they're from a foreign country that your government wont fall over for.

      Mud-slinging is actually, imo, the US governments easiest response and to be honest, expected. There are always those who will say "no smoke without fire".

      These rape and harassment charges are trickier to fabricate. Remember, this is not the 19th century, there is plenty of forensic muscle in existence that can prove or disprove rape.

      That I don't believe. Either way, in fact. You can check bruises in likely places that can suggest force, but some people like forceful sex and this can be consensual and bruises can be fabricated if your intent is to frame. As regards disprove rape, that's even worse. Far worse, in fact. If someone submits out of fear, it is still rape even if there are no bruises. And if you're thinking of the state of the vagina afterwards, that you can see evidence that they weren't very wet or relaxed during sex, again, this disproves nothing. It is actually quite possible for the body to be responsive to sexual stimulation during rape, even to the extent that a person reaches climax. Forced orgasm, or simply a lot of wetness, can be very confusing for a victim who questions whether it meant they were willing or not, what it says about them. It can make people feel very ashamed even though it's simply their body doing what seems natural to it. But it's still rape so long as one party was made to have sex through force or the threat of force, and forensic science can't "prove or disprove rape".

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    10. Re:This just in by JohnBailey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't change the past leaks, no. But it does question the leadership of Wikileaks and its future. If he's convicted, there'll be a need for a new figurehead; if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.

      Actually.. If he is acquitted, he is not suspected any more. He is vindicated. Or are you trying to fulfil your own prophesy?

      Rape is a brutal and despicable crime. And is unusual in that the accused is tried and convicted before they set foot in court in some people's minds purely because they have been accused...

      What such people fail to accept though, is that accusations are easy. The accusation can be made long after any hope of any kind of forensic evidence is gone. Think of the last non related woman you had any interaction with.. They are perfectly capable of making an accusation. Does that make you guilty?

      How about the last person who saw you naked. Can they describe a distinctive mark anywhere on your body? Is that proof or a reasonable thing for someone who engaged in consensual sex to be aware of?

      Proving the crime either way is hard.

      But just out of curiosity.
      Suppose the two women in question withdraw the accusation in a few weeks? Will he still be probably guilty?
      Suppose it is found that the two women in question each had a substantial amount of money deposited in their bank accounts the day they filed the charges?
      Suppose someone drops off a document detailing this very strategy as CIA operating procedure?

      Or suppose these two women are just trying to get some hush money from a publicly known figure?

      You must surely admit that the timing of the incident is very convenient. Suspiciously well timed. I acknowledge the possibility. I don't assume it. Not a conspiracy nut. Just someone who is aware of how eager an embarrassed government can be to cover up the facts if they can.

      Not the first time such things have been done by various governments. And I'm sure it would not be the last.

      Or he may be unarguably and completely guilty. We have no idea. You believe what you want. I'll wait for the case to be heard before I make any judgement either way.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    11. Re:This just in by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.

      And when someone is forced out by rumour and accusation, why do you think their successor will fare any better? All you've achieved is (a) shown that using such tactics is a great way to get rid of people who cause you problems and (b) fucked up someone's life when they're the person that admitted guilt by leaving their job because of rape accusations.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    12. Re:This just in by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're making the completely incorrect assumption that the US wants him dead. (Well, the US government. As an American, what I want and what the US government wants are two different things.) The US government doesn't. Dead men become martyrs for their cause.

      The US policy has always been to discredit Wikileaks, by discrediting Assange himself, by placing false information on the site, and by generally doing everything they can to smear anything related to it as unreliable.

      A rape charge is perfectly within the realms of what the US's policy on Wikileaks. Remember, their plans were leaked onto Wikileaks, and the plan wasn't to destroy Wikileaks outright, but rather to convince everyone that they're not trustworthy.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    13. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course GP was trolling, but your view is too one-sided too. The goodwill that the US gets for helping out other countries is for a large part negated by them screwing up other countries when that suits their political purposes. But they screw up their own country too, and whatever happens to the US has an impact that's felt all around the world.

    14. Re:This just in by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He just happened to start raping women right after the pentagon papers were released. I bet we find out he started murdering people and robbing banks since the release of those papers too. The pedophilia charges can't be far behind. Didn't this guy ever watch "Enemy of the State?" I wonder if Gene Hackman can help him?

    15. Re:This just in by Shihar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't US government bashing. If he was releasing English documents or French documents at this moment I would swap out US for France or England. He just so happens to be releasing a few thousand US military classified documents making the US kind of high on the suspect list these days. I would expect pretty much any government in the world would be more than happy to do far worse to protect military secrets.

      As for the "but he is still alive!"... seriously, Assange dying wouldn't be a LITTLE suspicious? Assange himself isn't the problem. It isn't like if he dies it all goes away. Turning him into a martyr, which is exactly what will happen if he ends up dead, won't solve anything. If anything, it will make it a thousand times worse. Wikileaks would just release everything, the US (or whatever nation he has pissed off recently) would look like shit, and everyone would agree Wikileaks is justified if governments are resorting to murdering disgruntle open government advocates.

      Pinning him with a couple of rape charges which don't even need to stick to be effective is exactly the most ideal move you could make. You don't turn him into a martyr, but you do damage the public face of Wikileaks. Further, like I said, it is a pretty damn easy charge to hit him with. It is certainly easier than martyring the guy. Just get a woman to make the accusation. Bonus points if she seduces him and then after (or before) the fact goes to town on her va-ja-ja with a dildo to give it some physical evidence of rape. Trivial, nearly impossible to disprove, and well within the capability of pretty much any spy agency.

      I am generally pretty much not into conspiracy theories, but in this case, extreme skepticism is called for. More than one government has the incentive to do it, it is brain dead easy to pull off, and it is the single most damaging thing you could possibly do to wiki leaks. As an added bonus, it doesn't even have to stick to do damage. Sweden could drop the charges tomorrow saying there isn't enough evidence and the damage would already be done.

      I'm not saying he couldn't be a rapist, but some hardcore skepticism is needed when someone who has pissed off every spy agency in the world is suddenly having his reputation trashed.

    16. Re:This just in by tomz16 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyway the strange thing (to me) about these charges isn't that they surfaced, it's that they were issued in Sweden, one of the biggest liberals of the European liberal democracies and perhaps the least likely to gin up bogus charges...

      ... Swedish authorities ginning up charges at the behest of US interests??? ask the pirate bay...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_raid

    17. Re:This just in by metacell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bet you'll shut up the next time something bad happens to your country and the U.S. parks a giant hospital ship off your shores and starts dispensing free medical care.

      While I don't deny that the US sometimes does good, invading a country and then offering hospital services to some of the victims is not a recipe for popularity. The people of Iraq didn't ask USA to dispose their dictator by force.

      I agree that the grandparent was out of line, though. Bashing USA in every conceivable way is not a solution.

      Hopefully that won't happen, but if it does, you probably won't turn to Russia, or China, or North Korea, or any of the countries truly deserving of your ire.

      I'd turn to Germany, England, Norway and Denmark.

      Nope, the world always expects the U.S. to do all the heavy lifting, and when we do, you still complain.

      As critical as I am of US foreign policy, this is unfortunately true. If the USA didn't take care of many of the hotbeds and warzones of the world, some other country would have to assume the responsibility. A friend of mine expressed it roughly like this: "Most people don't want to find out what could make them miss George Bush."

    18. Re:This just in by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.

      The threat of punishment does not deter most criminals, who believe they will not be caught, or who are committing a crime of passion.

      The act of punishment, which in the modern world means incarceration in most cases, leads to further crime.

      Perhaps we should be trying to help people instead of locking them in a box, or in countries like the USA, a rape factory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:This just in by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might not even be about character assassination. Apparently in the wake of this news Afton Bladet will not be publishing Assanges first article tomorrow as had been planned. What does this mean for his protection under Swedish journalism laws? It could be far more clever than just about making him look bad.

    20. Re:This just in by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, that was just "truly deserving" ; ).

      Why? Can you dispute the original comment, rather than making another stupid anti-America rant? Haiti certainly benefited from our parking a giant hospital ship off of its shores, and while we were doing all that, other countries were complaining that we had created "too large" a presence there (meanwhile sending no aid of their own) as if thousands of dead or dying people could give a damn about that. In fact, they wanted more of our help.

      I might add that the nations who we buy oil from make a pretty damn good piece of change from it, so your implication that the U.S. just attacks any country with oil reserves and takes it from them is just, well, utterly full of shit. Unbelievably so, in fact. You might ask the good people who were once subjects of the Soviet Union how they would feel about your comment. They know what it's like to have something taken from them at tankpoint.

      Sorry, that was just truly deserving and I don't need to put quotes around it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    21. Re:This just in by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      with a sitting US president who is politically the farthest to the left ever

      You mean the guy whose biggest legislative initiative could have been titled the Insurance Company Revitalization Act is to the left of Jimmy-the-Peacenik Carter? Left of Lyndon "Great Society" Johnson? Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt? Sounds like someone here slept through history class.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    22. Re:This just in by jc42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, so it's the US's fault that the taliban is cutting off woman's noses? OOOOOOOOOOk. Next.

      No, it's not entirely the US government's fault; it's mainly the fault of the people who did it. But if the US government helps put a gang of people in power, and members of that gang commit atrocities, you'd sorta expect that people would pin part of the blame on the US government (and anyone else who has supported the bad guys). Every legal system recognizes concepts such as "accessory" to a crime, and puts part of the blame on people who support and assist the actual criminals.

      BTW do any of you idiots hail from former soviet bloc counties? Thought not.

      The fact that there are other evil people in the world isn't justification for being evil yourself. No legal system anywhere accepts "Other people are committing crimes" as exoneration for a crime that you committed or were an accessory to.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    23. Re:This just in by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no sane person outside US likes US

      Huh?

      and everyone in ex-USSR hates you.

      Funny ... I know a number of Russians and people from other places that were once members of the USSR. They tell me you're full of shit, and if they do "hate" the U.S., they emigrated here because they hate their own governments more. You may consider watching less State-sponsored television, and use your Internet connection to get news from a more unbiased source. Personally, I can recommend the BBC: their journalistic standards are much higher than you'll find in most U.S.-based news organizations, or any totalitarian country for that matter.

      And, after educating yourself, you still see nothing wrong with the original poster's comment, well, it just means you're a willfully-ignorant bigot. I can't help you with that, although ignorance is a curable condition.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    24. Re:This just in by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not proven guilty" is not the same as "proven innocent".

      The statement from the public prosecutor is closer to the second. She did not merely say the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, she said there was no reason to suspect that any crime had happened.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    25. Re:This just in by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, how about this: The girls are members of a political group in Sweden that would like to discredit Assange and hatched the idea of accusing him themselves.

      Your attempt to use Occam's Razor in this case could easily apply to anybody accused of any crime ever. Somehow I don't think this is a reasonable tool to use to discern fact from fiction in this case.

    26. Re:This just in by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know if anyone noticed what type of photographs of Assange the different media organizations chose to accompany this story. I am a photographer and it was the first thing I noticed. In a majority of cases they are ones in which he is not looking into the camera (that is, not looking at the reader) which makes him look shifty, ones in which he is shot from strange angles (above or below, signifying either looming over the reader in a threatening fashion or being on a lower level than the reader) and photos in which he has non symmetrical (long associated with unattractiveness in psychological research) or negative expressions on his face. That's media spin for you. Most people don't realize how they are influenced by such visual clues and don't even register them consciously.

      On a side note much of the reporting on wikileaks contains similar subtle cues. You will read: Controversial whisleblower website wikileaks releases Afghan war documents.... but not Whisleblower website wikileaks releases documents about controversial war in Afghanistan.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    27. Re:This just in by CrazyDuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with Occam's Razor in the way it is typically brought up, is that the reader can be lead to a predetermined conclusion by simply oversimplifying the "righteous" answer and rendering other possibilities in a needlessly complex format. People that are unable or unwilling to see through the words to the point will not be able to render a sound judgment based on the razor. The razor also just highlights a tendency, not an absolute, rendering much of it's popular usage an appeal to probability fallacy (it's possible, so it must be true) reinforced with an appeal to authority (Occam, the scientific community, other social/political groups via association, etc...)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    28. Re:This just in by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      #3 doesn't make any sense if you live in the real world. Assange is a human being just like you or me. No one likes to be accused of rape. It is one of those guilty until proven innocent things like molesting children. No sane person would intentionally scheme to have themselves falsely accused of it. It is exactly what you would use to frame someone though. Only the timing is suspicious to people. Very suspicious. Coincidences like this simply don't happen in the real world. The CIA are obviously counting on the general public being stupid and gullible. I wonder if the Swedish attorney general is as well. I suspect what really happened is when these women were cross examined their stories were just not convincing. And when the women realized that they weren't being believed they withdrew, secure in the knowledge that they would still get some amount of CIA funds just for the accusations. It is funny that the US Government agency considered it necessary to recruit 2 accusers. I guess they thought that would be more convincing. They neglected to consider that it makes the whole thing even more unlikely. Assange may be somewhat suicidal with how he has crossed the US Military (they will get their revenge), but he would not be so stupid as to rape, not just one, but two women while being actively hunted by the CIA etc. I have little doubt that very soon Assange is going to be in an unfortunate accident. His plane will crash or he will be in a fatal car accident with a blood alcohol level off the charts and lots of illicit drugs in his system. Maybe there will also be a kilo of heroin in his glove compartment and a stack of kiddie porn and bomb making equipment in his trunk.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  2. If you play with matches... by M4n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something like this was to be expected. I have read as much as there is but I cant see any details of victim(s) or of the crime itself. But surely surely surely he would have to be as stark staring mad as a bottle of chips to commit a crime like while running the worlds biggest whistle blowing web site. It stinks to high heaven.

    --
    In space no-one can hear your vuvuzela.
  3. Hmph by chazzf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the BBC story says "Swedish police have been trying to contact Mr Assange, but have not yet been able to" while Wikileaks says "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police". Pity you can't serve someone over Twitter. I agree that the timing is suspicious as hell, but after the Reiser fiasco I'm going to wait and see.

    --
    No statement is true, not even this one.
    1. Re:Hmph by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't think Reiser had any enemies with a motive for framing him, though?

  4. Makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you are hiding from FBI in another country you don't go raping and harassing people.
    Maybe Julian is crazy, but he is not stupid.

  5. Re:Timing,,, by Oidhche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Furthermore, one has to remember that even if the accusations are true, it does not in any way invalidate Assange's work or "pro-leak" arguments. Doing so would be a simple, straight ad hominem.

  6. In some ways the damage is done by johnhp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In some ways it doesn't matter if he's never convicted of these charges. Mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh will be able to call him a "rapist and molester" and convince many that any information from Wikileaks is a lie.

  7. Re:Character assasination in progress by Jerry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this is a false accusation, and I believe it is, I would also suspect that agents would be assigned to astroturf media sites with posts supporting the accusations and charges.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  8. Every newscast from now on: by Animal+Farm+Pig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other news, accused rapist, Julian Assange, has released new documents on his WikiLeaks website...

  9. No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing some by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Notice that then, as now, a large number of posters have decided that there is just no way he could have done it. With Reiser when the guilty verdict was handed down there were still plenty of people who decried how stupid the jury was, how there clearly wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty and so on... Until he confessed and gave the location of the body.

    Same deal here, people have presupposed Assange's innocence because they like him. I don't mean given him the benefit of the doubt and said "Well let's see what evidence comes up," I mean saying that this is clearly an evil government plot, even though there is, of course, no evidence of that at this point.

    It is just how it goes here. Geek heroes can do no wrong in the eyes of some and they'll come up with any number of reasons as to why something they did clearly must be a frame job by someone else.

    As for this particular case, I'll have to see what, if anything, comes out. It could be a deliberate smear campaign against him, though I'm a bit doubtful of that as the risk of backfire would be pretty large. Could just be someone making shit up, this happens even to people who aren't well known never mind people who are. Could be he actually did it, the guy has a massive ego and questionable morals and may not have even thought he did anything wrong. We'll just have to see if anything comes of this.

    Of course, the utter lack of information at this point won't stop a massive number of conspiracy theories from being posted here about how this is clearly a government frame job.

  10. I thought Child Porn by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I assumed they were going to nail him with child porn. But I guess when they went to put it on his computer they discovered that his computer security was off the scale.

    If I were the judge on this one I would accept no evidence short of a witness such as Nelson Mandela. I hope they solidly investigate his accusers to check what they have been up to for the last while and see if they have any relations to US interests or large payoffs.

  11. Re:Character assasination in progress by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That could be. It could also be that paranoia cascades out of control.

  12. Re:Timing,,, by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well what it could do, at least for some people, is call motives in to question. Right now you see two major theories at to why he does what he does and in particular why he chose to leak a bunch of classified data which appears to have little to no public value:

    1) He really believes in this "freedom and openness at all costs," thing. He is a zealot perhaps, but an idealistic one. He really thinks that the best thing for the world is to have no secrets that all information from any source should be public for all to see. What he does is not at all about him, it is about the greater good, about making the world a better place. He believes that what he does is necessary.

    2) He's an egomaniac with questionable morals who likes puff himself up be getting the better of people and exposing them. He leaks indiscriminately, including documents of no real value (like sorority secrets) because it gets him attention, power, and gives him a thrill. All the "public good" stuff is just bullshit, he doesn't really care, it is all about him and his ego.

    Well, if he actually committed a rape, it would indicate that #2 is more likely. You obviously have to have some twisted morals to want to rape someone and ego and power are a big part of it. It is as much about exerting your will on another as the sexual gratification. So it would be an indicator that indeed his work on Wikileaks was for self centered reasons.

    Now even if he did it all for selfish reasons that doesn't mean that you are required to find it worthless. You could certainly say "I don't care why he did it *I* believe it is valuable and necessary, and a good thing for society." The value needs to be evaluated independent of anything he says or does and nay reasons he has.

  13. Tell That To His Dick by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm just sayin'

    Folks here seem to believe that rape is some item on a to-do list, waiting to be ticked off.

    Not saying that whole thing is not part of a Dirty Trick, just that if there IS some truth to it, rational thought has nothing to do with it.

  14. truth speaks for itself by pikine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The leaks were found to be true not because of the credibility of its founder. In fact, the organization itself has had no credibility at all, only the material being leaked speaks for itself. I really don't care if Julian rapes women as a hobby. If he gets arrested, what is important is that someone must continue his work.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  15. Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    people have presupposed Assange's innocence because they like him

    Or maybe because it's what civilised societies do - innocent until proven otherwise.

  16. Re:Rape? In Sweden? by Heed00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're assuming the point of rape is to fulfill sexual desire -- it's not, it's about wielding power over someone else. Given this, motive then isn't "heterosexual male" (i.e. horny), but rather "need to assert power over another" which then means opportunity isn't fulfilled by finding a willing participant.

    By your argument Mike Tyson would have been innocent of rape purely on his celebrity status granting him a plethora of women willing to sleep with him.

    --
    Thought thinks itself.
  17. Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    people have presupposed Assange's innocence because they like him. I don't mean given him the benefit of the doubt and said "Well let's see what evidence comes up," I mean saying that this is clearly an evil government plot, even though there is, of course, no evidence of that at this point.

    Yeah, well, quite possibly that is because the majority of /. readers are from the USA. You know, where you are PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.

    So until there is sufficient proof offered, Julian, in the eyes of most Americans, is completely innocent and the charges are completely bogus.

    Likewise, until sufficient proof is offered, the US government is not performing a conspiracy. But /. does tend to draw out the conspiracy theories ;)

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  18. Re:Rape? In Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rape is felt by the victim as an act of dominance and control. We have no reason to believe the motivation of the perpetrator and the feeling of the victim are correlated.

  19. Re:Character assasination in progress by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's too high-profile to be killed off without it being obvious. Terrorists don't tend to care about PR all that much, or would even be glad to take credit for an attack. The US government, on the other hand, has an image and moral high ground to protect. Particularly in this case, where the leak greatly damages their credibility, killing the leaker would make it much worse. Hence the character assassination.

    (However, Assange should worry about pissing off Mossad. From what they pulled off in Dubai, they don't seem to care about image issues or international opinion much either.)

  20. Re:Rape? In Sweden? by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's about wielding power over someone else

    Perhaps, but in Assange's case, he wields power by publishing secret documents. Not quite the profile of a rapist.

  21. Re:Rape? In Sweden? by proton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe"

    Highlighted the reason why. Let me make up som example numbers;

    Sweden - actual rapes 1,000 - reported 50% = 500 rapes.
    Exampleistan - actual rapes 20,000 - reported 1% = 200 rapes.

    Which country has the most rapes?
    See the problem?

  22. Re:Rape? In Sweden? by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Crime needs three things: motive, means, opportunity.

    Motive, no big deal, being a heterosexual male is enough.

    Errr...no, no it isn't. Being in possession of a penis and attracted to women does not make anyone a potential rapist or provide motivation for being one. I simply don't understand this strange correlation you seem to be making here.

    --bornagainpenguin

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
  23. Re:Rape? In Sweden? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is in NO way "against" the idea that rape is performed to wield power over someone else.

    Err, activity performed for the purpose of reproduction and "power" have no mutual causation links whatsoever.

    This isn't a "feminist/social sciences dogma", this is a widely accepted fact supported by most everyone in the field.

    In a "field" that is nearly entirely composed of "feminists" and "social studies" types...

    The result of which is constant goal-post shifting of definitions such as "rape" which 100 years ago meant a forceful, violent sexual assault and these days "I, kinda, felt like yes, but in the back of my mind I was like no, but it was like I let him, but then, like, I changed my mind, I am a victim, you see, I always am!" followed by the "social worker" going "You pooooor thing! You deserve millions from that asshole rapist!!!" ... which is what the litmus test is now in Sweden (and getting weaker every day with the predictable result of Swedish "rape" statistics skyrocketing - surpassing most of Africa now, which prompts the screeching "feminists" do demand more broad definitions - lather, rinse, repeat).

    Because its "rape", you know... all about power!

    Come to think about it, it does seem that it is all about "power" but of the "feminist" kind...

    In short there is no coincidence that "rape" is the weapon of choice here. Smart tactics calls for using the most appropriate tool for the job and in modern day Sweden "rape" is most definitely the most likely to succeed.

  24. Re:Warrant CANCELED by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was expecting something like this might happen. If this was targeted character assassination that's mission accomplished. Assange's name dragged through the dirt and his as well as Wikileaks' name associated successfully with rape. Now everyone can start using the following in any new press releases on a next wikileaks release: "Julian Assange, who was recently accused of rape in Sweden, has released...."

    I am really curious if anyone is going to try to get to the bottom of this and find out what the hell just happened. Where did the accusations come from, why was it decided an arrest warrant should be issued and why has that same arrest warrant been withdrawn not even 24 hours later. This just stinks to high heaven. My guess? Some vague statements will be issued by the Swedish prosecutors office and that's all we'll ever find out.

    --
    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
  25. Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As for this particular case, I'll have to see what, if anything, comes out. It could be a deliberate smear campaign against him, though I'm a bit doubtful of that as the risk of backfire would be pretty large.

    It is a classic "character assassination" campaign. After the charges have been trumpeted all over the world, the widely-publicized arrest warrant has been withdrawn and a few hours later the Swedish Public Prosecutor announced that "he is no longer even under suspicion"... and yet from now on every time his name is mentioned, the easily impressed by the authority types with limited attention span will go "isn't that the rapist/traitor/terrorist/child-molester guy?"

    It also served its job as a final "warning" from the power elite to this guy: "See what we can do? We can destroy you and make you a villain and no one will help you! You are defenseless against our power!"

    So congratulations are in order. Now you can proudly consider yourself a honorary member of the dirty-tricks arm of the Pax Americana, unlike the rest of us, "tin foil hat" "conspiracy nuts" who smelled a rat from the get-go ...

  26. Re:Rape? In Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here in the US they've coined a term for the PC way of going about sex: Enthusiastic Consent. It is an outgrowth of the PC version of "No means No!" from the 1980's. In the 80's in the US they counseled college kids that they had get permission at each step of the way. They actually had role-playing seminars where you'd ask "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You really got the feeling that these people had never had a real sexual encounter in their lives, and wanted to make sure that nobody else did either.

    From the women's rights site on Enthusiastic Consent:

    Under this model, the person initiating contact is required to take account of and not exploit a relationship, the other person's intoxicated state, or the power of peer pressure or social conditioning.

    So this has morphed into an "anything can be considered rape" model, where even getting an affirmative "yes" to each of these questions is not enough. The "yes" has to be truly enthusiastic to count. So telling a girl that you love her and want to have sex with her is rape - because you are exploiting your relationship. Have a couple of drinks together? Rape. Tell her "it's Ok, everybody does it?" Rape. Know somebody who lives in a society that is OK with casual sexual encounters? Ooops, that might be social conditioning - better not try to hook up. 'Cause that's rape.

    As anyone who frequents /. knows, the power of PC thinking is pervasive. It is like fight club - you cannot discuss PC, because discussing PC means that you are not PC - and therefore are evil. So even linking to source material that written by PC people and espouses their PC beliefs requires an AC posting - lest ye be branded un-PC and evil! So yeah, I agree with you: rape does seem to be all about power - of the feminist kind.

  27. Meanwhile, out in dozens war-zones... by h00manist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... soldiers never rape, kill, or pillage anyone. Perfect model citizens, even the thousands of ex convicts and self-described mercenaries are fully law-abiding, high-morals examples. The printed truth is wonderful. Are we in Disney yet?

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  28. No End to Deceit by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apologies to all of you who already dismissed this as way too obvious -- the head of Military Intelligence might want to plant a lot of false information about suspected friends of enemies. A really good place to plant it would be amidst incriminating and embarrassing facts and have it leak out to some unsuspecting third party organization like, uh, WikiLeaks! Yeah. Of course a great way to build credibility is to have the FBI and CIA go after WikiLeaks in earnest, even try some stupid dirty tricks like unsubstantiated sexual harassment. As a result, the Taliban or Al-Qaida suspect their friends to be moles and either kill them or torture them or whatever. That is the problem with deceit, you never know where it ends or where it began. In fact, I could be deceiving everyone now. I could be Mr. Gates, either Robert or Bill, planting this suspicion to either further enhance the deception or undermine the evidence or both or neither. Who really knows? BTW, I am neither Gates. However, I can’t be sure that I was not tricked into writing this by some clever inception (yes, I saw the movie).

  29. Re:Not Rape? by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fortunately, even the feminists agreed that this was demeaning to women (not being deemed capable of saying yes and no is pretty demeaning).

    So innocent men were being sent to jail, yet the law was changed because it was "demeaning" to women?