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."
The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me. He pissed off the United States, so any and all allegations against him are automatically baseless? By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.
'rape' in sweden is what what most of us would consider rape.
from TFA:
"And he's a classic Aussie in the sense that he's a bit of a male chauvinist."
from my reading of what happened, he pissed off 1 or 2 women by 'not being exclusive' with them.
BIG FUCKING DEAL! so to speak..
this is far from rape!
it seems to be a case of women who thought they had a 'lock' on julian; and they were upset to learn he had no real plans to date either one exclusively.
this is what its about.
to ask the man to step down because of this is actually pretty insulting.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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3: The case is withdrawn because they realize Assange cannot be nailed for rape.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.
The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me. He pissed off the United States, so any and all allegations against him are automatically baseless? By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.
Its not blind faith, it just shows how little we all seem to trust the US when so many of us are quick to assume that a rape allegation against an individual the US would clearly like to silence is an attempt to smear their reputation.
By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.
You mean until proven guilty? Or do you think anyone the US labels as an enemy should be considered automatically guilty and get locked away indefinitely with no habeas corpus rights?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
How about innocent until proven guilty? And yes, that would apply to anti-US terrorists as well (even though they never get a trial). Furthermore, given that Assange has trouble with the US military machine, perhaps a more careful examination process would be in order before shouting denigrations to the media. The whole case has been handled rather poorly by the swedish justice system, when it was clear from the start that a modicum of tact would be required to avoid this media shitstorm.
I know civics education in this country is complete shit, but I do seem to recall something about how we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law. For all we know, this woman is behind manufacturing accusations against Assange so that she can step in.
I'm not accusing her of doing so. I'm simply saying that she could just as well be using it as a tool for manipulation. The guy could be a complete jack-ass for all I know. I also know that it has no impact on the value of the service he started and the information that he has revealed through it.Dismantling him doesn't invalidate that knowledge.
It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.
Considering the stories we hear all the time these days about how such accusations are often entirely fictional -- such as "I ditched a night out with my friends for drinks with this guy I met, so to deal with their scrutiny over me ditching them, I invented a story of rape and got a man jailed for a crime he was innocent of", I am not willing to ever assume guilt whatsoever.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206325/Woman-rape-allegation-faces-jail.html
http://gothamist.com/2010/02/24/woman_who_lied_about_rape_sentenced.php
Just because you may hate anyone who questions the United States of Amuricah, because they're freedom-hating assholes who want our heroic baby-rescuing, never-in-the-wrong troops to die . . . doesn't mean they're also guilty of rape or any crime.
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.
Or how often wacky chicks just accuse famous people for their own narcissistic reasons.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Or how people with an inflated sense of self worth think they can do whatever they please with no consequences.
It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.
It has been mentioned that he has been dragging wikileaks into this personal situation, for example using the wikileaks twitter feed to promote the idea that he is innocent and the US is running a smear campaign. I do not think he would be asked to step down, especially so publicly, if he had kept his personal life and wikileaks separate.
You are right, where the hell is my pitchfork? I mean, this is RAPE we are talking about, you don't need a trial for that!
And the timing of these allegations, no coincidence there, I agree! The CIA would never run a smear campaign!
Considering the fact that "wikileaks founder Assange accused of rape" made headline news across the bloody planet...did he really have a choice?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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.
Someone on the Internet claiming to be only 15 told me a story last night to the effect that Birgitta Jonsdottir raped him. If this is true, it could be said that Birgitta Jonsdottir is a child rapist. I'm not sure that a potential child rapist like Birgitta Jonsdottir has the authority to speak on allegations of molestation. Indeed, Birgitta Jonsdottir may be trying to deflect attention from the child rape she could have engaged in. Child rapists, as Birgitta Jonsdottir may be, should step down from any position of responsibility or trust.
Anyone else here on /. heard of anyone else she may have raped, especially someone under 18? If we have two accusations of child rape, then it seems appropriate to investigate Birgitta Jonsdottir for child rape, and to drown out all relevant news about her or her organisation in the media while the question of whether Birgitta Jonsdottir is a child rapist is carefully considered.
It sounds like you've missed the latest turn in the sequence of the prosecutor flip flopping. Here's a recap:
20. August 2010: Duty prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand decides it looks like rape
21. August 2010: Higher ranking prosecutor Eva Finné decides it doesn't
1. September 2010: Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny decides actually it does look like rape
Source #1: http://www.thelocal.se/28704/20100901/
Source #2: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
Unfortunately this very idea was the core modus operandi of the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both.
It was also supposed to be the differentiating factor between them and the so-called "principled democracies", USA chief amongst them.
So much for all the propaganda and bullshit, eh?
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 is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.
It has been mentioned that he has been dragging wikileaks into this personal situation, for example using the wikileaks twitter feed to promote the idea that he is innocent and the US is running a smear campaign. I do not think he would be asked to step down, especially so publicly, if he had kept his personal life and wikileaks separate.
Yes, HE has mixed wikileaks with this rape charge. Not the newspaper that published the story in the less-than-24h time period during which the charges stood. The guy who hadn't even been told there were charges against him before the article was published. It's all his fault. He was clearly asking for it... the way he dresses...
You can't take the sky from me...
"He's most likely guilty of something."
Based on what, the fact that the media said he MIGHT be? Why are you so quick to deny this guy a trial? Do you have evidence that we don't?
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
When it comes to national security, nothing is sacred, unfortunately.
Seriously, you just came out and said it out loud? You don't even bother to hedge or attribute the statement to "in times of war" or something. Well, I will admit your bluntness is refreshing, and in turn I will be just as blunt. I disagree with you 100%. National security is not our one and only core value. Many, many other values must come first. This is especially true when you are only talking about a _potential_ threat to national security not even a fully realized one. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't deserve the freedom and benifits of a modern society because they have a barbaric mindset.
This is an amazing statement. It sounds a lot like something you'd hear some crooked cop say when stopping a black driver in a nice car.
"He's most likely guilty of something".
Considering the enormous motivation of people in power to make sure Assange is put out of business, I'm surprised that this clown show with the rape charges today, no raped charges tomorrow, new rape charges the day after that is being done in such an amateurish manner.
Whatever happens to Assange, I'm sure that the people who will take over operations of wikileaks soon are getting the message loud and clear: Do not mess with those of us in power, or there will be a committed campaign coming at you from all sides, from the police, to press releases, to your personal life.
Yes, the message of how fragile a person's life is comes through loud and clear when you make life uncomfortable for the powerful.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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 know civics education in this country is complete shit, but I do seem to recall something about how we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law.
You are right in that your civics education is complete shit. We don't presume innocence. If we did, then bail would not be necessary. After all, why would you hold someone in jail when you presume them to be innocent? You'd not arrest them, as you wouldn't arrest someone who is innocent. But, as you said, your civics is shit.
The presumption of innocence is a guideline for how to treat the accused while in the presence of the jury so as not to bias the findings. No more. There is no "civic duty" to presume someone innocent. OJ is a murderer. I can believe that before he's arrested. I can believe that during the trial. I can believe that after he's found not guilty. I have no duty to presume him innocent. The court is supposed to do so during the trial, but has no duty to do so before or after the trial.
Add that to the fact that "innocent" has no legal meaning. You don't find someone innocent, and the courts never make any ruling whatsoever on the "innocence" of anyone. But if your civics education wasn't shit, you might know this. If you'd like, I'd be glad to give you a civics education so you can learn the difference between being innocent, being presumed innocent, being guilty and being found guilty.
Learn to love Alaska
Too true.
IIRC, it was Rumsfeld that initially bluntly put the phrase "paradigm of prevention" out there into the open- of course, this deceptive model of targeting whoever they wanted was nothing new- but it was time to introduce a new platitude into public that few people would notice, and even fewer would care.
The 'shift' that the paradigm of prevention brings to our countries practices in dealing with such potential risks is this philosophy-
'Not having proof that we are going to be attacked is not sufficient reason for not taking action against the potential assailants.'
It is, in a very real way, guilty before proven innocent.
In the past year or two I have felt a glimmer of hope, though... 7-10 years ago when I talked about this sort of stuff in public, people freaked out and thought I was either insane, mentally handicapped, emotionally distraught, or trolling irl... but in the last 2 years I have seen somewhat of an awakening amongst all classes of people- from teachers to law enforcement to businessmen to blue collar workers to local government, people are starting to wake up and realize that this problem will not be solved by appealing to the political self proclaimed clerisy. The question is, will it turn into a full fledged witch (terrorist) hunt between citizens or will the citizens realize their enemy is more than a person, or a group of people, or a country, or even a political/religious ideology.
When it comes to national security, nothing is sacred, unfortunately.
If that is your take on it, the 'terrorists' have already beat you. If nothing is sacred, then, not only has national security has failed, but so has the dream that filled our founding fathers with such zeal. Death is nothing new. People have been dying for a long time now. What is important is that people die for something that they believe in, something that betters mankind, something that leaves a legacy to be commended and honored by posterity. If our "national security" is just making sure that we put bullets in people trying to get across our land without protecting us from the dangers already in our government then our problem is far greater than can be solved, which is what I am suggesting.
Don't be so quick to resort to action. Never write anyone, or any party, a blank check of support for spouting off a few obvious statements that anyone can agree on without digging deep into the details of the "solution". Case in point:
From what's leaked it sounds like it's basically a case of someone sleeping with more than one woman, being sloppy with protection, women getting pissed off and anxious about STD's and involving the Swedish judiciary which gets the brilliant (and internally divisive) idea to use it as a pilot case on whether consent can be considered having not been given, if it was predicated upon the use of effective protection. Which is why you get one attorney saying 'rape!', the next one saying 'idiot, it's barely even minor assault in the worst case, if even intentional', and the third going 'hmmm... interesting theory, lets victimize someone (and maybe save the first attorney) to test it'.
Ah, well, if consent can be predicated upon such issues I suspect we'll get a whole load of 'rape' charges against women who said they were on the pill...
Everyone is guilty of something.
That Hitler quote is interesting, and it makes me wonder why general education does not generally involve reading the speeches of evil people who were never the less skilled at persuasion. I would want such a thing as a way to immunize the citizens against demagogues, but then I realized that another outcome could be that we'd have a lot more nazi's in the world today. Though perhaps even that price would be worth it as long as the average citizen got a bit wiser to political manipulation.