Slashdot Mirror
Assange Rape Case Reopened
eldavojohn writes "Wikileaks' Julian Assange had a warrant issued for his arrest in Sweden on the charges of rape. But it was withdrawn shortly thereafter. Now the case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges.' On top of that, a new site (parody?) called wikileakileaks.org has been launched by the chief editor of Gawker to give Wikileaks a taste of its own medicine. You can find links to details on the molestation charges there."
Gawker is just mad they didn't get the scoop. Maybe next time they should offer Assange cash. Apparently that's how they get their scoops.
Note that "molestation" is a broad category of sexual offenses in Sweden. Two women came forward to the police to report sexual misconduct, but denied that rape had occurred. Thus the dropping of the rape charge. In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course. Apparently, in other cultures, this is a sexual offense.
Governments either are or should be open, something which, unfortunately for any of their citizens, is routinely opposed and undermined by the very same people who swore to represent their fellow citizens, uphold the law and respect democratic values. Sites such as wikileaks are here to enforce the rules of government that those who managed to find themselves in positions of power and influence actively push to quench or undermine.
The main point is that governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour, and their constituents must be informed of their actions and of the consequences that they bring. In short, every government, due to their nature, must be opened and failing to be so constitutes a violation of their own founding principles.
On the other hand, private citizens do not have that responsibility. Private citizens have the right to privacy and do not have absolutely any responsibility or obligation to disclose every single piece of information regarding their lives, their business or even their relations. They are entitled to live free from tyranny and free from any oppressive influence imposed by their government and, even moreso, by fellow citizens.
Therefore, trying to impose to private citizens the very same full disclosure principles that is expected from governments is either a perfect sign of ignorance or a poorly thought out harassment campaign based on an unexplainable demand for revenge. I don't know why that the idiot from Gawker believes the idea to persecute Assange is any reasonable or even if he decided to do that to be able to profit from the controversy. What I know is that this sort of campaign, which is nothing more than persecuting someone for his attempts to defend healthy and lawful government behaviour is not in anyone's best interests.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
In this case, the testimony of someone who wrote "a seven step guide Ardin published in January to 'legal revenge' that involves, in one example, sabotaging a victim's sexual relationships."
not that that makes Assange pure, holy, or free of any wrongdoing, but perhaps it should make one think...
i hear assange also picks up stray puppies and stews them up. into puppy stew. with puppies in it.
The real charge is "Pissing off the CIA."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Unlike mice, building a huge maze doesn't work. Women tend to just glare at you as if you're supposed to bring the cheese to them.
Blank until
according to the daily mail there is some confusion over whether the condom used with woman A broke intentionally or accidentally, but they claim that the police report clearly shows that the condom was worn but it failed. Then the following report about woman B from an anonymous source:
So let's see, at night she said wear a condom, in the morning he boned her without one, but she went out and bought him breakfast and left him in her apartment even though she "didn't know him very well", so obviously she wasn't too concerned.
It seems to me from where I am sitting that one or both of these women were coerced or at least cajoled into testifying against him on the basis of their anger for both being seduced by the same guy who wasn't as into them as they were into him. It's called jealousy, and it's sad, and at least one of these women has already realized that.
Of course, there could be additional facts to which I am not privy...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And if you believe that, you've already bought into the Pentagon propaganda.
I ask you one simple question... If he was such a 'douchebag' all along, why did we not hear ANY of this until he dared to challenge the US military? Why are all these little details suddenly 'leaking' now? The obvious answer is that it's all BS. But no one even questions it. It's scary how blindly people follow media.
For example: Assange claimed for years, Wikileaks contributors are protected by the Swedish law, he even threatened to sue anyone who tried to expose a Wikileaks source.
But if you read the Twitter-stream of Wikileaks carefully, you will see this: this:
When you follow the link, you will read nothing about "prior-restraint" protections - in fact Wikileaks has until now no protection at all under the Swedish press laws. And they will not get it soon, because Wikileaks did not fill out the application correctly.
This is only one of the countless contradictions Assange was caught on. For example Assange claimed in 2009 a 17 year old Wikileaks contributor by the police in Iceland to press him for information about Wikileaks. In fact the juvenile was caught breaking into a business premises and was subsequently interrogated in the presence of his parents, police did not even know about any Wikileaks connections. Even when he had to wait for less than 30 minutes at an airport in Australia Assange did spread conspiracy theories about foul play and intelligence agency involvement.
I'm sorry, but fuck that. There's a huge difference between Al Qaeda and Wikileaks -- one is blowing people up, while the other is making sure the government is transparent.
And yes, the more people know what their governments are doing, the more likely it is they'll step up and say "stop it" when the government starts bombing hospitals. Shutting people up by keeping them ignorant is evil no matter what spin you put on it. It's plain stupid when you shrug and say "it's inevitable" -- like you did.
I hope you can see the difference, and I hope you'll understand why I don't think it's very funny.
Yes, Assange-Wikileaks releases confidential information getting good people killed in the process.
CITATION NEEDED
The murderers responsible for thousands of dead bodies are claiming that by exposing their acts he's the one getting people killed, and imbeciles are believing them. The pentagon said that it *could* lead to people getting killed (because they're careful word weasels) and you gladly swallowed that load, took it to the conclusion they were leading you to, and now you're making baseless claims that are getting modded up.
You can't take the sky from me...
And if you believe that, you've already bought into the Pentagon propaganda.
I ask you one simple question... If he was such a 'douchebag' all along, why did we not hear ANY of this until he dared to challenge the US military? Why are all these little details suddenly 'leaking' now? The obvious answer is that it's all BS. But no one even questions it. It's scary how blindly people follow media.
Perhaps because before that point no one knew or cared who he was?
Fact of the matter is, you and the GP post know the exact same thing about the reality of the situation -- absolutely nothing. Pretending otherwise amounts to ego masturbation. You assume he's bought into the propoganda, and he assumes you're wearing a tinfoil hat.
And you want to know the real truth? Neither of you will ever have a provable position. That's the reality of the world you're on.
I love how she's the press officer for a group that invited Assange to speak at one of their events and then she hooked up with him and now crying rape/molestation.
Isn't that like going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?
In other news, she's not too bad looking, not the most attractive woman but after a few drinks I could see something happening.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Heh, I RTFA (how apt an acronym) and:
1) I had a really hard time believing the whole thing wasn't a joke...
2) But if those really are the turn of events, they only seem to support Assange's "dirty tricks" assertion. But as a slashdot reader, I'm not particularly familiar with the whole one-night-stand culture and social conventions. And apparently Assange isn't either?
3) But above all else -- if all I have to do is embarass the US military in order to get women like Anna Ardin (job title: "Forskningsassistent" ) to come play "dirty tricks" on me, WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!
--
I support public education: I married a teacher.
1) Molestation ("ofredande") is NOT a sexual offense, but "sexual molestation" ("sexuell ofredande") is. These are two separate things and there is a big difference in punishment: sexual molestation often puts you in jail, molestation will usually only result in a small fine (but theoretically up to a year in prison, but that never happens). The legal distinction between the two is that in sexual molestation, the person committing the crime has to be sexually motivated, which is of course often very difficult to judge. Also note that in Sweden, neither sexual molestation or molestation has anything to do with the age of the victim.
2) The charges on molestation was never completely dropped. The attorney was still arguing for the charge to be rape of two persons, while the case was still classified as "molestation" (note: not sexual molestation). The judge was to decide whether to re-open the rape charges, as requested by the attorney. This was to be decided yesterday, but since new information came up, it was delayed until today. And obviously it was decided that the rape charges should be reopened. The submitter claims that "case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges'", this is therefore only partially true, since the charge now is:
rape ("våldtäkt"), sexual forcing ("sexuellt tvång") and sexual molestation ("sexuellt ofredande"). This is A LOT worse for mr Assange than only "molestation".
It is probable that Assange will be taken into custody (to prevent him from attacking more swedes)... (Google translate with more on this.)
3) Yes, Sweden has less macho culture than most other countries. Yes, women in Sweden more often dare to report rapes/sexual offences to the police. Yes, the police usually actually listens to them. And no, this is not a bad thing.
Yeah, that seems kind of odd to me. Failing to use a condom for the second time isn't rape unless she withheld consent from that time. By that logic, if a woman insist on using a condom each time then after several months of a committed relationship and several STI tests they have sex without he could be brought up on rape charges. I'm sorry, but there's something very wrong here. Given the claim she's making that he broke the condom on purpose, I have to assume that there's something going on here because that's a very strange assertion to make. And probably grounds for a slander suit as well.
Strikes me that the rape charge could be motivated by the CIA or another intelligence organization, or more likely she's using the claim as a way of protecting herself should she wind up pregnant as a result. I'm not sure about her religious beliefs, but there's a lot of Christians that believe that abortion is only OK in the case of rape or incest.
So women are like cats then?
Assange drummed up excitement, played the media really well, and then released these so-called Afghan War Diaries, to much fanfare...and it's turned out to be a fat lot of nothing.
The of course, we have the civilian casualties, currently standing at a few hundred.
The very Wikipedia article you link to, and your second statement above, contradict your first claim that the leak was "a fat load of nothing". Wikipedia says "revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents," and "Hundreds of civilians have been killed by coalition forces in several instances that were not previously revealed."
The fact that hundreds of civilians have been killed by NATO troops and that this has been hidden from the public is significant.
She was probably angry after breakfast when he went out in the sunlight and didn't sparkle, dispelling her idea that he was a vampire.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I keep hearing that Remy Stern raped and murdered a girl in 2001. Why isn't he commenting on this? Does his silence mean confirmation?
Blar.
The Daily Mail is perfectly trustworthy. You're just upset because they're telling the truth about the black gay Muslims who are ruining good, honest, hard-working, British society with their evil immigrant ways that killed Princess Diana (peace be upon her).
Amusingly, you will see their figure for the number of street cameras in Britain, which was created by counting the number of, mainly private, CCTV cameras in a mile busy shopping street in London and multiplying it by the number of miles of roadway in Britain, quoted here quite often. In spite of having been debunked, this is still used by a lot of Slashdot posters as evidence that Britain is an Orwellian surveillance state.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Orwellian, no. Endemic surveillance society, as a recent human rights report called it, no doubt. Alas we seem to be all headed in the same direction in Europe as well as the US.
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
Your assumptions abound. Yes, it could be like "...going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?"
It could also be like going to a concert to listen to music, getting invited back stage because you're hot, and having a lecherous musician paw and grope you when you just accepted the invite because you were excited to meet someone you previously held in high regard. You have no idea.
You are identifying with Assange and imagining all of the things that evil people might try to do to him, then treating those imaginings as fact. I think what Assange has done is important, and that he is making enemies. I don't think that he is infallible, and I don't think it wise to presume his guilt or innocence until you know both sides of the story and try awfully hard to recognize and mitigate your own biases.