Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Calls For Assange To Step Down
Stoobalou writes "A member of Iceland's parliament and prominent organizer for whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has turned on the site's spokesman, Julian Assange, urging him to step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden. Birgitta Jonsdottir told news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site laying bare US involvement in the war in Afghanistan and further promised revelations."
For the record, Jonsdottir is not part of WikiLeaks but of IMMI. So the title is wrong.
They've already said they've withdrawn the charge of rape http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821, and are now only pursuing him for the molestation charge -- which in and of itself is a charged statement. The sex was said to be consensual and that the molestation charge hinges on weather or not knew the condom broke during intercourse and if it was intentional or not.
So, why does /. continue to perpetuate the assertion that he's being persued with a 'rape' charge?
So she's saying that Assange should temporarily step aside as spokesman for Wikileaks until the facts of the case have been sorted out. Not quite the earth-shattering denunciation the media has hyped, huh? Of course, I don't see how she couldn't anticipate this kind of reaction from all of Wikileaks detractors in the media. That was just naive.
"...we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law..."
That's a pretty widely misunderstood principle though. It defines an epistemic stance that the judge and jury are supposed to adopt. They are supposed to disregard, or screen off, any beliefs they had regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused prior to the trial and consider only the evidence given in the trial. Obviously this doesn't apply to the prosecution, witnesses, or complainant though because they are all expected to act according to their sincerely held beliefs either way.
As for the media and public at large, the legal principle of presumption of innocence just doesn't apply. You could argue that there should also be a general social norm requiring that people unconnected with the case presume innocence, but it's hard to see why that should be the case.
There is a bit of a problem with not enough information about this case, so I'll try to summary what I know so far.
1: Two women who had sex with Assange went to the police and were adviced to file charges of rape ...
2: A prosecutor releases the accusations publicly to the press (not a common thing here in Sweden afaik)
3: The case is withdrawn because they realize Assange cannot be nailed for rape. The remaining charge is something akin to sexual harassment.
4: The rape charges are revived
5:
6: Profit?
No seriously I'm starting to wonder what the fuck is up with the swedish legal system.
ftfa: "He acknowledges that the allegations might complicate his plans to obtain a residency permit to remain in Sweden, which has broad press freedom laws that could be used to shield WikiLeaks from American prosecutors. "
You want to have legal protection in Sweden? We'll give you legal TROUBLES in Sweden! Your move, skinny boy.
You can't take the sky from me...
It does not seem like the organization is calling for him to step down, rather a supporter of the organization.
Your logical flaw is gaping. Intellectual dishonesty in plausible deniability. I'm going to draw the difference for Your Thickness. Tom said he has a problem with a politician's meddling. Tom did not say he had a problem with the release of Assange's criminal record. Then you unintentionally introduced a red herring laced with sarcasm by confusing `politician's spin` with `released public records`. I pity the world-view your brain has managed to assemble, it must be a confusing place.
I have no idea about Sweden, but in the US they can bring charges and drop them pretty much at whim. It's not gone forever until a judge dismisses them.
She is not commenting on it as an Icelandic politician, which is nothing to do either with WikiLeaks or with the rape case. She is commenting on it as one of the WikiLeaks activists. If she has a reason to think that there is merit to these accusations then it's quite reasonable for her to ask for his resignation.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Anyone else here on /. heard of anyone else she may have raped, especially someone under 18?
It is well-known that Birgitta Jonsdottir has allegedly raped many children under the age of 18.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's quite simple: one of the cases involves the woman accusing him of sabotaging the condom he used, leading to it rupturing and thus exposing her to potential STDs (HIV was mentioned).
The other woman, he fucked without a condom even though she explicitly asked him not to. The woman herself don't even consider it rape, but the police did and ran with it. When her legal counsel was asked about why he was pursuing a case when the woman in question didn't consider it rape, his explanation was that she wasn't a lawyer. Obviously, "rape" is such a complicated legal concept in Sweden that mere humans aren't supposed to even understand it.
I truly wish I was joking....
Cardinal Richelieu wrote 'If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.' Modern legal systems have had a few hundred years more complexity added since then. It's basically impossible to go for more than a few hours without committing some kind of crime. Assange comes across as an egotist on a power trip in interviews - it wouldn't be at all surprising to discover that he has done something stupid with his newfound fame. Even if he hasn't, the idea that he is wikileaks is likely to harm wikileaks in the long term.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Having read the article, I see a significant discrepancy between the headline and the text.
Jonsdottir is doing more than "commenting as an... activist". She presumes to speak in behalf of the WikiLeaks network, although her assertions are not corroborated on wikileaks.org.
Wikileaks.org is the mouthpiece of the organization. In the WikiLeaks spirit of full disclosure of primary documents, see the WikiLeaks blog post dated 21 August, 2010 (which, at this writing, remains the most recent).
Also, Jonsdottir cites no empirical "reason to think" the accusation is plausible. When evaluating statements in the media, we must all think critically rather than prejudicially. Look beyond the claims to the evidence.
I assume that you're talking about interviews you've read, or snippets of talking head interviews on TV.
It's worth noting that the corporate media hates Assange and has reason to fear wikileaks, almost as much as the powerful elite. I'm not sure you can believe anything that you get from the corporate media when it comes to wikileaks. Just put together half a dozen articles about Assange on the desk in front of you and scan them to see what jumps out. I bet you'll be surprised at an eerie similarity that those articles have to one another. You would think that there'd be at least a little bit of variation in the questions asked and the overall structure and tenor of the arguments made in those articles. They really come across as the perfect inverse of a highly synchronized public relations campaign.
I would bet that if Assange disappeared tomorrow and someone else took over Wikileaks, after a very short time we'd see a very similar story-arc with the person who took his place. Not the same charges, of course, but similar focus on the person instead of the institution. On personality instead of substance.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The police report was leaked.