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.
Well, Birgitta Jonsdottir hates kittens. It's true because I made the allegation. She should step down.
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They've already said they've withdrawn the charge of rape http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821, and are now only pursuing him for the molestation charge -- which in and of itself is a charged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?
Or is it more of a revenge thing?
There are many who think it's an "in Assange's head" thing.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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3: The case is withdrawn because they realize Assange cannot be nailed for rape.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.
If Assange steps down and is found not guilty in the end,
He's already "not guilty". It's not like he's even had a trial or anything is it?
Agreed.
Whether he is guilty or innocent, Wikileaks should not be about him.
If it is ever about individuals, it is about the whistle-blowers. The wikileaks website is just a tool that helps them blow the whistle anonymously.
He should turn it over to a foundation where he can be one of the board members.
5 more words: 2 more words: scared off
"... 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"
"respect a woman's wishes in the bedroom? nah"
She may well have disrespected his wish precisely as much as he disrespected hers.
If she says 'I want you to use a condom', and he says 'No, I refuse to use a condom, what I want is to have sex without a condom', and she says 'OK then', then A) neither party is showing the other either any more or any less respect, B) it is not and can never in any way, shape or form be 'rape'.
In fact, how is disrespecting a woman's wishes something by default negative? Can I require of women that they respect my wishes?
No, wishes are subject to negotiation at all times, for both men and women. Any other attitude is sexist. You smell disgustingly misandrist.
Now, if he said "No, I don't want to use a condom, and moreover, I will now have sex with you whether you wish or not, here I come!", then he would have raped her. Fortunately no evidence of that has been presented and found valid in court, hence he is not guilty of this act. He is as respectable as he ever was and those who treat him badly are committing the morally objectionable act of treating an innocent man badly.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
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.
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.
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?
The Swedish government then brought new charges. Now a prominent member of his organization, who is also a member of Parliament in Iceland, is calling for him to step down so that the charges against him stop reflecting poorly on Wikileaks.
In all seriousness, if you're going to attempt to argue that the charges against him are unsupported by facts, wouldn't it be good to provide a few facts for your unsupported assertions?
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.
Everything Ive read said the charge is because the woman claimed he broke the condom on purpose.
That is not rape.. that is her being too dry, an expired condom, or a non latex condom.
Ive used many condoms in my day, I'm not even sure how one would "break" the condom on purpose while its in use. I suppose its possible that the condom was tampered with prior to being used but that kinda implies that he intended to break before hand.
I think the women found out about each other.. found they wern't exclusive, and decided to muck things up as best as possible.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
It's not that 'everybody' thinks the wikileaks case *IS* some kind of CIA attack, just that the CIA has done a LOT, LOT worse to people who the government have decided are enemies of the US state and its interests. Such acts by the CIA are credible. The idea that the US state is above smearing its enemies is ludicrous. That means it is *POSSIBLE* that this is a case of character assasination and black propaganda - not that it's PROBABLE - just POSSIBLE.
It's also *possible* that the women are behaving for any number of ignorant, deluded, malicious or screwed up reasons, as it is that Mr. Assange did the things he's said to have done. But then, if this were a smear, that's exactly what they'd like you to think! ;)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
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
It is not uncommon for people in a leadership role to take a "leave of absence" or "administrative leave" when there is an allegation of some sort of impropriety like this. It is usually publicized as "taking time to review the situation with lawyers & mount a defense," by the person taking the leave, and it also sends a clear signal that the "organization" is not embroiled in some sort of tawdry legal battle.
When the case finishes up, if the defendant is declared not guilty, they can step back into their previous role; if they're declared guilty, the organization is not tarred with the "we support and employ rapists/molesters/etc" brush.
If Wikileaks is about more than Mr. Assange's fragile ego, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that he should take an administrative leave from his duties to mount a defense. If this were just an "intelligence operation" to smear Mr. Assange, I think it would be a lot more convincing than the keystone kops operation we've seen so far with charges being levelled and then withdrawn.
I guess her price is the undisputed leadership of the WikiLeaks organization.
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.
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.
No, if he steps down, even temporarily, he would be sending a clear signal that he believes the mission & purpose of Wikileaks is much more important than his own reputation and ego.
And he would give himself time and energy to devote to defending himself against the allegations, wouldn't it be great if he exposed the US government in COURT with evidence they're behind this "character assassination"?
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.
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
Be honest - no matter what happens, you're going to ascribe it to a conspiracy. Even if he's eventually found guilty and there's solid evidence to support the conviction, you'll simply change your tune to "Yeah, well, the US obviously fabricated that evidence and made the Swedish government dance to its tune."
... the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure
It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
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.
There have been more than a few cases in the UK recently (and Greece I see) where women have been found to be crying wolf. Just have a look at this list:
http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/search/label/lying%20about%20rape