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."
I guess everyone has a price...
When somebody is doing something that is not wrong, but offends, they attack him, till everybody turns against him. Or possibly her. Just ask the lady from Georgia.
Now I can recognize how terrible it is to pretend that the king can do no wrong, or to let the king get away with all sorts of crap, but it is equally wrong from the other way, to take even the slightest, flimsiest excuse and use it to tear down a person in authority.
Tough choice.
Paid off.
then this could work out for the best. If Assange steps down and is found not guilty in the end, WikiLeaks can continue on without this distraction.
Well, Birgitta Jonsdottir hates kittens. It's true because I made the allegation. She should step down.
Something makes me think this was an inside job.
Too bad there's no place for an insider to reveal what they really know about Mr. Assange or this internal conspiracy.
Too bad... ...wait a minute.
For the record, Jonsdottir is not part of WikiLeaks but of IMMI. So the title is wrong.
Does wikileaks need Assange as a public spokesperson? If not, what benefit to the CIA/whoever is there in providing the leak with any more publicity? Or is it more of a revenge thing?
They've already said they've withdrawn the charge of rape http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821, and are now only pursuing him for the molestation charge -- which in and of itself is a charged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?
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.
this has served him wonderfully in his work life: respect the sensitivity of a country's secret info? nah
but it has ruined his personal life: respect a woman's wishes in the bedroom? nah
and for those of you who wish to flame me because i am dissing their personal hero: if you can't separate the sainthood of the man from the sainthood of the work, then you have problems. because it is entirely possible to do good things in this world but be a rotten person, and visa versa
you should respect assange's work. i do. i respect assange for what he has done in terms of exposing nasty secrets in this world. good for him
but that does not mean i automatically give the man a free pass on rape
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is this really true? Most people think the allegations are bunk since they were retracted by the prosecutor. It just seems stupid of Wikileaks to lend them credit like this now.
The Swedish government retracted the charges. Now his own organization isn't backing him up? How much do you want to bet Jonsdottir isn't a CIA plant?
There will be WikiLeaks, and lo, there will be whatever splinter group Saint Assange sets up in order to keep himself relevant. Are you the WikiLeaks People's Front? Fuck off, we're the People's Front of WikiLeaks. Plus ça change.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Whatever the allegations, Assange has managed to get himself into trouble. Like this other guy at HP. And also this guy named Clinton (no need for URL I guess) that did not have sexual relationship with that woman.
Interesting how everybody thinks the wikileaks issue is some kind of CIA attack.
These are males. You know, the male human.
"... 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 ..."
Seems to have been a pretty effective smear campaign, if you ask me. I want evidence, and for someone besides a human rights activist who would have an immediate bias against an accused rapist to be the one asking for him to step down.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
So when does wikileaks leak the police reports that were filed against him?
Other Wikileaks people are urging him to separate this personal situation from Wikileaks. Really? Why? So far, I haven't seen any evidence and so all I know is that I have heard there is a rape and a case of molestation against him. I also know that the charges were initially dropped and I can only assume it was because the evidence is shaky if non-existent.
It seems to me that this has all come about because he is in charge of Wikileaks. If he were to go quiet and let someone else run the show, who knows what they will do? I'm not sure it is in his best interests to disconnect himself from Wikileaks.
Let's see some evidence. Let's get some details. If he was a "nobody" that no one has ever heard of and had nothing to fear from world governments, that would be one thing. But this guy is an enemy to some very powerful individuals and organizations. Remaining in the spotlight is all he has to defend himself at the moment. Asking him to give up his post now would be a problem.
Mission Accomplished.
It could be a good opportunity for wikiLeaks to show they are truly committed to posting all information in the public interest by posting the police reports and other documents relating to the case. Redact the potential victims names, etc, and put up something that may be damaging to yourself would really show commitment to the ideals you've espoused, IMHO.
How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case and furthermore, commenting on it in public? In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police, and the firing of the prosecutor for not running a tight ship with a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive brances.
This doesn't pass the "smell test." Not one bit.
Did Assange do anything wrong? I don't know - but this sort of tampering by politicians makes it sure seem like someone, somewhere, *is* out to get him.
Yeah, because the US government has no history of doing anything to people that try to undermine it or piss off those within it.
Seriously, where have you been these last two years? Obama is running the white house and is commander in chief of the US military. These neo-con conspiracy theories don't work right now.
Wikileaks vs the Pentagon
The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me.
The problem is bigger than Assange.
Accusations of bribery are rampant on Slashdot whenever a public figure, judge or politician makes a
I'm not a conspiracy nut but....
If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, sound like a horse and feels like a horse, it is most likely a horse.
Government officials tell directly to the public that if Assange doesn't hand over the files they will get him by other means and one week later you see rape charges.
How come there are still people thinking that something might be even remotely true concerning these allegations.
Sure, the allegations could be true, but - Birgitta Jonsdottir is a politician, and like everyone else has a price to do or say anything. It is within the realm of probability that she has been paid to take this highly public stance.
The fact is, a smear campaign is not just a simple accusation (in this case two coincidentally made on the same day), but rather a string of questionable accusations presented to people. Sure each one can easily be disproved in most cases, but if you make enough false allegations and pay a few people (especially those who appear to give credibility to an accusation) then these lies appear to be true.
Does ANYONE actually believe the USA can illegally invade another country, kill hundreds of thousands of people and manage to hide it.... yet would just stop at a simple rape allegation?? Uh, no! It has been widely covered that the US government is actively trying to destroy credibility of wikileaks, and sadly that will involve putting US operatives or paid rats inside wikileaks with the ultimate goal of taking this organization down.
The CIA has set up dozens of puppet governments in similar ways, so taking down an enemy website by 'framing' those who run it will happen. Truth be told, that "Collateral Murder" video makes much of what has happened look like a child's birthday party. For example, the blast and shockwave from the MOAB bomb can destroy about 8-10 blocks radius of a city, and we used these in Iraq... how many people who be disgusted if we saw the aftermath of just one?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
It does not seem like the organization is calling for him to step down, rather a supporter of the organization.
Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.
I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Mission Accomplished indeed
"Oh come on! You honestly believe I can deal with REAL WOMEN! And TWO of them at that! Where will I take them, to my Mom's basement?? To show off my command center! Get real! Now I know how Britney feels!"
The last statement was added only for effect
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
He should flat out refuse and flip them the bird for even asking. If one succumbs to this sort of underhanded tactic then NO ONE is safe. Now, if hes proven guilty in court, then yes, he should step down.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The best thing people can do to help wikileaks is by running Tor Relays and Freenet nodes. Just make sure that there is nothing illegal on your computer, because the pigs in ICE have been raiding Tor Relay operators under the guise of fighting kiddy porn.
http://torproject.org/
http://freenetproject.org/
Many organizations outgrow their visionary founders. Perhaps it is time already for wikileaks to do this.
While the timing of the allegation is convenient enough to evoke suspicion, that alone does not mean it is necessarily baseless. And even if baseless, the allegations can still taint the organization. The wikileaks organization and mission are important enough that Assange should seriously consider the possibility that wikileaks might be better served by his standing aside, if only temporarily.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I guess her price is the undisputed leadership of the WikiLeaks organization.
Right now, Assange is just doing too much at wikileaks. If they are to fight a media war against bare-knuckled organizations that don't share their love of sunshine, they have to think more tactically. Assange is a single point of failure. He might be a rapist (I won't judge yet), and in any case, the last few weeks have proven that he is personally take-down-able. This has become far too much about him personally, and far too little about the leaks. That's why Wikileaks needs joint, distributed leadership. Should future leaders happen to "turn out to" be tax evaders, visa violators, horse thieves or child porn addicts, they get out of the way, concentrate on their defense, and leave Wikileaks in the charge of others. This is how rebellions are always organized, and it's with good reason.
I, for one, don't believe for a second that he's even attracted to women, so I think that the attempted rape charges are probably bogus... but that doesn't mean that he should be let off the hook without thoroughly investigating the charges... after all, gay men have been known to have sex with women on occasion.
Don't piss off the US government, you can't win.
It probably works like anyone who has information leading to the arrest and conviction of Julian Assange will receive $100,000.
So a lot of people Julian may think or thought were his friends will take the money. His ex gfs, his own family members even. It's never wise to piss off the US gov.
Anyone can be stopped by the US gov.
The idea of a politician who doesn't understand the smear campaigns seems ludicrous. Especially when it revolves around such a high-profile issue as US military secrets. I can only conclude that: a) she's the stupidest politician who ever lived. b) she's very new to politics and being manipulated c) she's one of those who'll gain from this smear campaign
For 1 million dollars would you claim Julian Assange raped you? Would you claim he robbed you? Would you frame up Julian Assange for murder?
For enough money anybody can be framed. It's a business and it involves operatives.
The point is that nobody is immune from government coercion. The government will offer bribes and when bribes don't work then there will be threats. It's very possible that everyone around Julian Assange has skeletons in their closet or has broken some law, or maybe their families are being threatened, or maybe they are being threatened with torture in forms we cannot imagine.
The point is that Julian Assange and everyone around him should have known better. The US government has unlimited resources, secret sources and methods, and will stop at nothing to accomplish its mission.
Sweden, You're Doing It Wrong !
We Are Dealing With Adults Here Aren't We ? Having A One Night Stand With Someone Should Essentially Entail The Entire Gamut Of Sexual Acts From The Standard To The Extreme. It's What You Should Expect.
But I Hear You Protest: "Nobody Should Be Doing Sexual Acts They're Not Comfortable With !! It's A Violation Of....."
To Which I Say: When You Choose To Have Sex With Someone, There Really Shouldn't Be Any Surprises Or Grey Areas Between You Two. When You Sleep With Someone, You Are Trusting This Person With Your Body Saying Basically "Do With Me That Which Brings You Pleasure". And That Means Different Things For Different Folks. Maybe If You Get To Know The Type Of Person You're Dealing With, You Might Be Able To Tell Whether They're Suitable For You Or Not. Legend Call This Responsibility. But No. That's Too Boring Isn't It?
Maybe There Should Be Some Kind Of Contract Included Between Partners Prior To Any Sexual Act, Add To That A Flow-Chart. I Jest. But The Gist Is, Sex Is Very Much A Legal Issue Now, Evidently.
The Default For Any Quick Romp With Someone You Just Met Should Be That They Have An STD, And Will Want To Do Anything Between Mundane And Extreme.
Rape Should Be Defined As Being Forced To Perform Anything Sexual. And Not That He Wouldn't Give You Cab-Fare Home Afterwards.
Then the governments of the world will bribe, torture, threaten, everyone associated with Wikileaks everywhere and it wont just be Julian Assange being charged with rape, it will be everybody associated with Wikileaks being charged with rape, murder, tax evasion, Wikileaks will be treated like a terrorist organization.
How can Wikileaks be saved post Assange? That should be the question. Can Wikileaks as a concept even work? I suspect that against a government as mighty as the US government no matter how advanced Wikileaks ever becomes it will never be able to compare to the 600 billion dollar military budget, trained killers, operatives, satellites, and secret spy weaponry.
Some men ostentatiously put on a condom with an air bubble at the end, and, while entering dog-style out of sight of the their partner, pop the bubble with a pin and peel the condom back to enjoy the feeling of bareback intercourse. I think most of us would agree this, if not exactly rape, is a pretty low practice.
BTW, the traditional instruction to juries that rape is a charge that is easily made by hard to prove has been adjudged unfair to rape victims and is no longer made. The accusers, no less than the accused, deserve a presumption of innocent intention.
And if the U.S. or other powerful interests were out to get this guy, they would likely fake a suicide or just kidnap him and drop him into the sea. Why screw around with a wobbly rape case.
Which is a blatant injustice. Once she has agreed to something, she has agreed to it.
She cannot buy a car and then say "but I didn't know it had fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view mirror". If she does not want a car with fuzzy dice, she should state it clearly beforehand in a written contract.
Rape is a serious crime. No one should be convicted of it without proof. Letting the word of the accuser trump the word of the accused inverts all the accepted legal principles.
Julian Assange, from what I've heard, is on these charges after a short period of time in Sweden in which 2 random women in a random bar who don't know each other, talk to each other and discover they've slept with the same man. How many women would you need to sleep with in a 1-2 week period in a foreign country for the odds to even start to come close to being significant of this happenning? Julian is my new hero.
I've noticed a difference between some political systems I know best - British, Canadian, American. British and Canadian Members of Parliament, cabinet Ministers, and so on, generally will resign at the drop of an accusation that stands a chance of lasting more than a few news cycles - anything even debatable. If they don't, the PM tends to ask for a resignation. It's nothing to do with guilt; it's about Party Vs. Member.
The political agenda is in the hands of the Party, and even the PM is expected to put it ahead of his own career. You resign, not because you're guilty, but because it's bad for the Party (capital P!) to have the news be about the accusation story. It should be about whatever bill or program they're flogging this week. So the guy resigns, the accusers do a dance of victory - and are staring at another person in the position the next morning, one with the same agenda and probably the same qualifications. It makes it a very minor victory.
(The resigner, by the way, is generally rewarded with the best jobs the party can hand out...and if the problem does turn out to be minor, they show right back up in public office soon after, trumpeting their heroic sacrifice for the team at rallies. Long-run, being a smear victim is probably a career plus...)
American politicians, on the other hand, seem to regard resignation as confession, and fight to the bitter end, past where EVERYBODY knows they're guilty. (OK, Nixon resigned...after his friend Barry Goldwater told him that impeachment was certain and that he had maybe SIX votes in the Senate.)
So she may be just saying "The material's good enough to keep the news filled with police and court statements for weeks or months, so Do The Right Thing." ... and there'll just be another Wikileaks rep on the job in the morning.
What ... not enough money!
Her taste for cocaine is unbounded.
What a waste of a human life .. hers!
Wow, who modded up the grandparent.. are you a fucking idiot or what?
When people become heroes, those that see them as heroes don't want to believe they can do any wrong. When something bad comes out they'll find a way to deny it, or explain it away.
That's what is going on here. The Slashdotters in question hate the US for various reasons (though most live in it). Assange made the US look bad so he is a hero. That means he can't do any wrong in their mind. They can't accept that a person can both do somethign they like and something they don't. Thus they have to invent an elaborate conspiracy as to why it couldn't possibly be true. Rather than say "Let's wait and see," or accepting that it might be possible for him to do something they respect and something they don't, they have to find ways to spin it.
Just human nature.
Do not overcomplicate the situation. If you mess with the Pentagon, you will become a rapist. Simple as that. Maybe we should open up all the Blackwater rape cases, and the hundreds of murder cases. Or, we could just pick on Julian. Humans are like stupid vicious dogs, and will tear apart anything thrown at them by their masters. This is a pathetic smear campaign. Wikileakileaks.org? Come on people. Wake up. How many of you twits are celibate? Maybe the Pentagon should be charged with lewd behavior for erecting the cod of Osiris behind its filthy castle of lies. I refer to the obelisk.
That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.
There are times when it can be proven a woman has made up a rape allegation. It does not always involve the woman confessing. Those women should be prosecuted harshly as they are attempting to do serious harm to the man they accuse.
As for women being less willing to retract the claim, that may be true in some circumstances. Perhaps that's why until guilt is proven we shouldn't be making the name of the accused public. If there really is sufficient evidence, he should be named and go to jail. If there isn't his life should not be ruined as a result of an unproven accusation.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Will be interesting to know how much she is being paid for this.
I don't particularly care about WikiLeak's spokesman, or about the conspiracy theories involving these allegations. What I DO care about, strongly, is rape allegations being used as the reason for stepping down from a prominent position. All it takes is some woman (or man!) to cry RAPE against someone with a plausible story, and before the burden of proof has been presented in a court of law--heck, in many cases, often before police even make an arrest--people demand that the alleged criminal step down. Now, in situations where there may be some potential contact with the alleged victim, perhaps a mandatory leave of absence during the investigation and trial, but to completely step down from your position? It's bad enough that false rape charges can ruin a reputation for a lifetime. And yes, I've seen perfectly good people (teachers) who's lives and careers are ruined, even though they were found innocent. When a conviction comes, sure, throw the guy to the wolves, but in sexual cases such as rape, far too often the public automatically assumes guilty--even after being proved innocent. I, of course, in no way wish to disrespect actual victims of rape (and the majority of rape accusations are real as far as I know), but those not directly involved should mind their own business more and stop with the prejudice. Pet peeve. Ending rant.
Seems to me if WikiLeaks can't handle these matters in a more professional and low-key manner, they are self-destructing.
Shame, because a reputable clearing house for leaked information would be useful; the newspapers certainly aren't up to the task.
I look forward to reading the police reports, as viewed by Birgitta Jonsdottir, on WikiLeaks in due course. Of course, that's assuming WikiLeaks is interested in "full disclosure" a la John Young.
Yup, didn't think so.
I understand that the allegation is rape, but my big complaint is that it came up quite quick after the WikiLeaks leaked information the US did not want on the net. It sure looks (a lot) like they are trying to shoot the messenger. OK. So let him be tried and let the evidence tell the truth. Meanwhile, Wikileaks should find another spokesperson (perhaps Ms Jonsdottir) to act as spokesperson for Wikileaks. If she is suddenly found to have terrorist connections to Pakistan and Osama Bin Laden, then (once again) we can let evidence try her and let the truth be heard. Allegations are just that. In the 1950's, the American Government blacklisted many people in Hollywood (eg: Charles Chaplin) and made their lives extremely difficult. In the case of Chaplin, the refused him entry into the United States for more than 30 years. Was he a communist spy? No. Did they do it anyway? Yes. I understand that rape is not to be treated lightly. My complaint is that its very convenient for a country to trot this out, immediately after the Wikileaks disclosure, by a country known to have done dirty tricks like this in the past.
My entire server farm is running on AssangeFS.
Any suggestions?
... the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure
It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
.. the ego has crash-landed.
If Wikileaks is to fulfill any "role" whatsoever it should not let itself be used as an ego vehicle for socially challenged, no, deficient people. Assange became the news instead of Wikileaks.
As with Google, it's no use stating who is "behind" something. Your options are simply disproving the allegations or facing up to the facts - only after that can you play "whodunnit" and nail them. In addition, if you want to be believed it generally helps not to be a complete d*ck when you speak to the press - as any con man will tell you, people are more ready to believe someone they like. So being bright also seems to fail on Assange's list of assets..
Insert
An authoritative law review article debunked the canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false -- the author traced this number to its baseless source. See http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf.
As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs.
In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
Sweden one of the least corrupt countries? Ha! They are getting outside observers for their coming elections because they can't be trusted:
Election Observers for Sweden.
(auto-translated by Google, bear with it...)
That the allegations of rape and molestation come out following the most recent leaking and the plot by US intelligence services to discredit Wikileaks .. :)
Good job, Langley kids.
I tend to agree. If the correct answer is not B, she's damn good at disguising herself: http://this.is/birgitta/me/I.html
Case in point:
Why don't you cite your source, and its source for the alleged quote? Hitler never warned that "the Republic is in danger". He wanted away with the Republic and never minced words about that. And the entire quote has long been debunked. (Scroll down to 4. Hitler and "Law and Order". When will web authors learn to give their sections some ids? And when will we have a universal fragment identifier syntax for links?)
Oh, if he says it...
Imagine. The other leaders of an organization devoted to openness and truth don't like it when one of them turns out to be a sneaky liar.
Why are we still discussing the "rape" when both the girls denied that he raped them. They may proceed with charges of harassment/molestation which are a different thing altogether. Those charges mean very different things than they do in the US. If I remember correctly what they are currently alleging (or last I read) was that he didn't use a condom when they asked him to, or he took it off after he put it on without telling them or something to that effect. http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7651572.ab
letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
FYI, there is a big thread on the Swedish free speech forum "flashback" on the Assange case, for lazy people we have a summary here;
https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p982
Se post by user "DeLorean". The information posted here should be considered as quite accurate, the forum is home to some pretty decent detective work...
You can probably read the thread in english using Google translate or similar.