Slashdot Mirror
Sweden Defends Wiki Sex Case About-Face
crimeandpunishment writes "Mistake? We didn't make a mistake. That's what Swedish prosecutors said Sunday as they defended their handling of a rape allegation against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The Swedish Prosecution Authority said the prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant Friday did not make a mistake, even though a higher-ranked prosecutor withdrew the warrant the next day. A spokesperson for the Authority said: 'The prosecutor who took over the case yesterday had more information, and that is why she made a different assessment than the on-call prosecutor.' Assange, who was in Sweden seeking legal protection for the site as it prepares to leak more Afghan war documents, told a Swedish tabloid newspaper, 'I don't know who's behind this but we have been warned that for example the Pentagon plans to use dirty tricks to spoil things for us.'" We covered the warrant being issued and withdrawn yesterday.
Sexual abuse isn't the only kind of crime that receives unusually harsh punishment. Ethanol consumption is treated much worse, and it isn't even a crime.
If rape were treated like drunk driving you would not be allowed to have a penis if you had a perceptible blood testosterone level.
Expect Julian Assange to be arrested on DUI/DWI charges soon.
The people you know in Afghanistan ... you mean the marines that are blatantly murdering kids over there?
I hope they all get tortured to death with a giant steel dildo.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I can only guess you haven't been following the whole story very well, as there's a few good reasons your point doesn't make sense amongst other things.
"A terrible rape allegation that doesn't even stick for a day? Please. With billions of dollars of resources they could manufacture a significantly better, more serious charge with evidence that was hard to refute."
At short notice? Without the cooperation of Swedish intelligence and counter-intelligence if they weren't willing to help the US? Despite all the possible variables, such top prosecutor understanding the situation? You have far too much confidence in the ability of US intelligence. Russia still has one of the best and most capable spy networks in the world, and yet look at the amateur mistakes their spies who were caught recently made. That's assuming the US would even want such charges to stick, association is damaging enough nowadays.
"Personally, if I were in the government and wanted to put a stop to Wikileaks I wouldn't bother with that though. You'd simply find Assange in an ally with a bullet in the back of his head."
You see, this is just it. People like you do work in intelligence, and yet, if you did that then Wikileaks would release the key to the insurance file on the Wikileaks websites which, depending on what's in it, could be more damaging to the US government than anything that's been leaked before. No, killing Assange is a sure fire way to make things worse- not only would there be the issues of people blaming the US government for murder of a civilian, but there'd be the remaining leaked documents as well, including release of the insurance file.
"The "problem" with Wikileaks is that it doesn't need credibility, making some attempt to character-assassinate Assange on the worthless side."
No, it's not. Whilst many people might see through such a character assassination, it's winning the hearts and minds of the voters- the middle American mums, the same ones who fall hook line and sinker for Sarah Palin's "Hockey mom" charade. If they can convince a sizeable portion of the public to say "Oh, Wikileaks? that's the site run by a rapist, why should I believe that". What if they do it again in 6 months? how many people will then think "Hmm, that's a bit suspicious, he's been accused before..."?
The fact is, if they can defame Assange, and if they can continue to tie Wikileaks to a rapist, then they've severely dented it's credibility, such that the US government can actually start calling content their fake, and having such middle American moms and so forth believe it, and believe that their government is doing fine and doesn't need to make any amendments or increase competence to avoid future mistakes.
But what about the insurance file? Well, it's too big a thing for them to release over mere rape charges against one person, they'll hold that until lives are at risk, but as I say what if they keep chipping away with these attempts at character assassination? Do they release the insurance file and risk having no cards to play should they attempt to murder or attack Assange and friends? What happens when things get bad enough to release the file, do they still even have the credibility for people to believe the contents of it aren't faked?
So you see, the issue is that the US can't do anything drastic like you're suggesting such as extraordinary rendition, incarceration, murder, because it risks the leak of the insurance file. All they can do are smaller things, but things which chip away at the credibility of the site amongst a large portion of the voting population. It's not like we don't have countless examples of this type of opinion being formed of people based on lack of case and mere accusation. For example, to his death many people saw Michael Jackson as a paedophile, yet he was never convicted of any such thing, and this is precisely what is likely happening to Assange.
This is precisely the sort of thing the US government can do and get away with without fear of any meaningful reprisal from Wikileaks.