Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Court Orders Detention of Wikileaks Founder Assange
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is likely to be detained for questioning over his alleged connection to a rape case. The Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, has requested the District Court of Stockholm to detain Assange, claiming that they have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogations. 'I request the district court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion,' Ny said in a statement."
"I request the district court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion," Ny said in a statement."
Assange allegedly replied, "[citation needed]"
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
[...] (as opposed to lawful coercion?)
I think that's usually referred to as "dating".
[sarcasm]Nobody in the spotlight/limelight/under a microscope has ever committed a serious crime such as this, before![/sarcasm]
The powers that be want Assange captured and made an example of. So if he's not done in by these charges, they'll find something else to go after him with, and keep trying until he's in prison, killed, or the world hates him. And that's not to say these charges aren't legit. It's just awfully suspicious, especially since the first time they went after him for this another prosecutor stepped in and had the matter dropped.
I think we can also safely give Assange the title of International Man of Mystery.
I am officially gone from
"Lawful coercion" does exist: it's called "arrest" or "detainment".
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape.
Yeah, public figures who do bad thing, that could never happen...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
He'll get a conviction too.
I said it from the very beginning; courts here are _extremely_ political - when just plain old prestige isn't the deciding factor - and with the current right leaning crypto-facist government headed by one of the more glaring psychopaths leaders in a "democratic" state, it was a big mistake to come here. Something like this was bound to happen.
I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape.
So you get a free pass with the law because you're a celebrity?
Justice is blind. Try not to forget that.
Hell, I would argue that people in power are often egomaniacs who think they can get away with murder, rape, fraud, cheating, mistresses, etc. If you are a popular football player or billionaire or web sensation, you're probably doing whatever you want. I think the opposite logic is more applicable than yours. But, again, justice is blind so I don't think that should even be taken into account. If the accuser is a shill, the court and lawyers should be able to figure that out. If the accuser is not a shill, however, you would basically be protecting a rapist because he runs a site you like. Let justice run its course and just try to have faith in the Swedish Justice system.
As someone who is not popular, I'm not too keen on your line of reasoning regardless of how much I like or dislike Julian Assange.
My work here is dung.
Given Assange's choice of professions, I find it highly likely that government would start making up crap about him just to detain him. I don't like crying conspiracy, but given how much he's ticked officials off in the past...
Clearly Julian Assange has committed a crime of raping the US intelligence and military, which is punishable by every means possible. He needs to be taken care of, he is clearly a sexual deviant, coercing the innocent intelligence and military structures into an uncomfortable position with him in a room in Stockholm.
You can't handle the truth.
Personally I don't believe he did it, and this is just an elaborate set up by some twisted organisation to silence him.
If only there was a website that could out the truth on this whole matter.
Summation 2
> (as opposed to lawful coercion?)
Ah, come on, baby, please, I need it. You know it won't take long...
What a depressingly stupid machine.
For fucks sake, they say they want to charge him, and then they let him go. Then they say they want to charge him, and yet again they say he can go. Now this. I mean come on, either you want him or not. Either you stand in the face of the bullies who are asking you to do this, or you bend all the way, there is no I am half-way bent.
Was this modded down just because of his name?
After all, this poster is quite correct.
Sexual crimes seems to be a big thing in Sweden recently, since they're at the core of some popular Stieg Larsson books / movies that have grown in the public eye there and internationally over the past few years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Trilogy
We saw the first two movies at indy theaters / Netflix lately. Whee vengeance!
This is an attempt to discredit the Wikileaks website in the minds of the EU and US public, by smearing the owner as a "rapist"
.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I mean, what else are they there for?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
10:00 - Arrest Assange for sexual assault
10:05 - Release Assange
11:15 - Arrest Assange for racketeering
11:17 - Release Assange
13:07- Arrest Assange for littering, release him then book him right back for excessive use of cusswords
13:19 - Release Assange, change mind, grab him by the collar as he leaves the precinct
14:03 - Have Kevin Spacey explain to me how Assange is really Keyzer Soze, let him go, then run after him after finding his whole story on Wikileaks is fabricated from fragments of my post-it board
From what I hear, "rape" in Sweden isn't necessarily what we'd think of as rape. Even in the US, rape isn't always "rape rape". Get a guy and a girl drunk, let them have sex, and if the girl regrets it in the morning it's "rape". I would assume it's some such bullshit until proven otherwise.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"Lawful coercion" does exist: it's called "arrest" or "detainment".
Yes, also taxes, jury duty, mandatory school attendance, eminent domain...
Set your phasers on "funky"!
When I saw this article I thought "Oh look, I must have gotten the main page cached or something"
Seriously, why hasn't this whole fiasco/media circus died already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case
Dilbert RSS feed
I smell a setup to send him in the US when he'll be in custody...
(If you're not from Sweden this might be hard to understand, but yes, it's seen as culturally ok to claim rape several days after the fact - even if it was consentual at the time)
Press release by counsel for Julian Assange
LONDON, 2pm Thursday November 18, 2010
Mark Stephens of law firm Finers Stephens Innocent said today, “On the morning of 21 August 2010, my client, Julian Assange, read in the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen that there was a warrant out for his arrest relating to allegations of “rape” involving two Swedish women.
However, even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape; as various media outlets have reported “the basis for the rape charge” purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other’s relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.
The warrant for his arrest was rightly withdrawn within 24 hours by Chief prosecutor Eva Finne, who found that there was no “reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Yet his name had already been deliberately and unlawfully disclosed to the press by Swedish authorities. The so called “rape” story was carried around the world and has caused Mr. Assange and his organization irreparable harm.
Eva Finne’s decision to drop the “rape" investigation was reversed after the intervention of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the women. The case was given to a specific prosecutor, Marianne Ny.
The only way the accused and his lawyers have been able to discover any substantive information regarding the investigation against him has been through the media. Over the last three months, despite numerous demands, neither Mr. Assange, nor his legal counsel has received a single word in writing from the Swedish authorities relating to the allegations; a clear contravention to Article 6 of the European Convention, which states that every accused must e informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him”. The actions by the Swedish authorities constitute a blatant and deliberate disregard for his rights under the Convention.
We are now concerned that prosecutor Marianne Ny intends to apply for an arrest warrant in an effort to have Mr. Assange forcibly taken to Sweden for preliminary questioning. Despite his right to silence, my client has repeatedly offered to be interviewed, first in Sweden before he left, and then subsequently in the UK (including at the Swedish Embassy), either in person or by telephone, videoconferencing or email and he has also offered to make a sworn statement on affidavit. All of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate. Pursuing a warrant in this circumstance is entirely unnecessary and disproportionate. This action is in contravention both of European Conventions and makes a mockery of arrangements between Sweden and the United Kingdom designed to deal with just such situations. This behavior is not a prosecution, but a persecution. Before leaving Sweden Mr. Assange asked to be interviewed by the prosecution on several occasions in relation to the allegations, staying over a month in Stockholm, at considerable expense and despite many engagements elsewhere, in order to clear his name. Eventually the prosecution told his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig that he was free to leave the country, without interview, which he
The problem with Wikileaks is that only half of the participants are anonymous. For it to work over a long period of time the people helping to disseminate the information need to be anonymous, too. I'm not sure if that's technically possible, though.
check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
You mean like Phil Spector?
On the other hand this case has been considered of such low importance that they are still trying to decide whether it is worth questioning the suspect for the first time. That should put this case nicely in perspective because rape is normally taken very seriously.
I think the key question in the short term is going to be "what are court reporting restrictions like in Sweden". I have no idea whether Mr. Assange has committed the crimes he is accused of. If he has, then regardless of his notoriety, he should be punished appropriately. If he hasn't, then regardless of his notoriety, he should not be punished for them (and if there has been an attempt to pervert the course of justice, those responsible should be put on trial).
But with a case as charged as this, controversy will inevitably surround any court proceedings that may result. I would argue that it is of vital importance that the world outside the courtroom be able to see the evidence presented, so as to deter against any possible injustice towards either Mr. Assange or the reputation of the United States.
Here in the UK, we still have pretty heavy court reporting restrictions. In the US, of course, proceedings tend to be far more open (to the extent of televised trials). Does anybody know where Sweden falls on the spectrum?
Julian Assange is _special_, so little niceties like laws, rules and regulations don't apply to him.
Well, looks like the US intelligence and military actually LIKED the action, but now, that the details came out, they are too embarrassed to admit to the moments of joy they have received there.
Now they are desperately trying to replay the entire incident backwards, looking for the right positions and reenacting it for their own pleasure, but doing so through the TSA in the airports. You see, the entire TSA thing, with junk groping and the naked pictures, it's just a masqueraded way for the intelligence and the military structures to get the memories and experiences repeated over and over. Their top bras has a lot of air miles after all.
You can't handle the truth.
Filesystems, on the other hand, is something most people wouldn't even know how to spell...
To back this up a bit, check out this abstract claiming that the rape rate in Sweden is 3x the rest of Europe. At least 2/3s of those people are considered rapists in Sweden, when they would not be in any other country. It sounds like Sweden is going through some sort of moral panic concerning rape. So I'm disinclined to believe any rape claims coming out of Sweden.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"Nobody is above the law" is the principle Wikileaks seems to be standing for. Assange should not be exempt from the laws either. By all means, if there is sufficient evidence to warrant some questions, question him.
I personally have no opinion as to whether these charges are true or not - there just isn't enough data to support any conclusion. It could be an attempt to discredit the organization, or it could be true. So, then, go get the data, and examine the evidence, and see if there's even enough to warrant a trial.
He could have done everything he's done, without anyone in the world ever connecting it to the name Assange. The fact that he chose to sign his name to Wikileaks is all I need to make the case that he's an arrogant asswipe.
Hey! he's Australian so that arsewipe thank you very much!
If you keep repeating an accusation, the public will only remember his face and the word "rape".
As is so often the case these days, your being detained implies reasonable suspicion of your having committed something, and since a lot of people are never formally suspected of any wrongdoing, surely a person who's been detained based on reasonable suspicion on several occasions is guilty at least of something, and cannot be trusted...
Or it could simply be that he feels safer if everyone knows his name. Otherwise he could just be rubbed out and noone would be the wiser.
WikiLeaks
On Thursday 18th November 2010, @wikileaks said:
Statement by Julian Assange's counsel Mark Stephens
Finers Stephens Innocent http://www.fsilaw.com/
LONDON, 1pm Thursday November 18, 2010
On the morning of 21 August 2010, my client, Julian Assange, read in the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen that there was a warrant out for his arrest relating to allegations of "rape" involving two Swedish women.
However, even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape; as various media outlets have reported "the basis for the rape charge" purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.
The warrant for his arrest was rightly withdrawn within 24 hours by Chief prosecutor Eva Finne, who found that there was no "reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Yet his name had already been deliberately and unlawfully disclosed to the press by Swedish authorities. The "rape" story was carried around the world and has caused Mr. Assange and his organization irreparable harm.
Eva Finne's decision to drop the "rape" investigation was reversed after the intervention of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the women. The case was given to a specific prosecutor, Marianne Ny.
The only way the accused and his lawyers have been able to discover any substantive information regarding the investigation against him has been through the media Over the last three months, despite numerous demands, neither Mr. Assange, nor his legal counsel has received a single word in writing from the Swedish authorities relating to the allegations; a clear contravention to Article 6 of the European Convention, which states that every accused must "be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him". The actions by the Swedish authorities constitute a blatant and deliberate disregard for his rights under the Convention.
We are now concerned that prosecutor Marianne Ny intends to apply for an arrest warrant in an effort to have Mr. Assange forcibly taken to Sweden for preliminary questioning. Despite his right to silence, my client has repeatedly offered to be interviewed, first in Sweden, and then in the UK (including at the Swedish Embassy), either in person or by telephone, videoconferencing or email and he has also offered to make a sworn statement on affidavit. All of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate. Pursuing a warrant in this circumstance is entirely unnecessary and disproportionate. This action is in contravention both of European Conventions and makes a mockery of arrangements between Sweden and the United Kingdom designed to deal with just such situations. This behavior is not a prosecution, but a persecution. Before leaving Sweden Mr. Assange asked to be interviewed by the prosecution on several occasions in relation to the allegations, staying over a month in Stockholm, at considerable expense and despite many engagements elsewhere, in order to clear his name. Eventually the prosecution told his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig that he was free to leave the country, without interview, which he did.
Our client has always maintained his innocence. The allegations against him are false and without basis. As a result of these false allegations and bizarre legal interpretations our client now has his name and reputation besmirch
Oh come on, how can you have a post of famous dudes doing bad stuff on a nerd website and not include Everyone's favourite journaling File System author!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The Assange case makes a good study in how the violent right goes about dealing with threats; we first saw serious suggestions that he is some sort of 'sex pest' being inserted into the media earlier this year; for instance a BBC profile piece on him contained 'hints' of this, shadow actors started adding entries to his wikipedia article, all pro-establishment media now uses a standard 'looks greasy and sleezy' stock photo of him, etc..
Then later on; he failed to resist some of the loose women who suddenly started attaching themselves to him at every opportunity; and behold; they turned out to be shills; whoring themselves for publicity and (being underhandedly encouraged by the warmongers Assuange threatens).
And now we enter the first endgame. Lets be quite clear; the decision to arrest was not really made by Swedish legal types; it was made by pro-violence media manipulators working to support the arms industry; the authorities in Sweeden are just doing as they are told.
The only crime Assuange has made against me was to not tell these whores to fuck off when they draped themselves over him.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
That's what this is. When he gets arrested, the news won't say "The swedish authorities have finally captured wikileaks founder Julian Assagne, using 'rape' and 'molestation' to get an arrest order".
They'll say: "Wikileaks founder Julian Assagne has been convicted for rape. " Then they'll make a story of how corrupted wikileaks is and how its founders are a bunch of criminals. Of course, I'm sure Fox News will add some spice to please the masses.
Hans Reiser is an innocent man.
This has CIA character assassination written all over it with a huge marker. Nice to see that Swedish courts are either lapdogs or dupes (or both). This is exactly what I expected the CIA to do to.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It strikes me as strange for a country where, right up until the current generation, one of the main traditions was everybody playing together naked from childhood through adulthood. As that tradition fades, we suddenly see a correlation with increased sex crimes?
It isn't rape if it's consenting (unless one of the people involved cannot give consent because, for example, being under age).
Or does it not work like that if you don't like the work someone does?
Noone cares. He always. does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Noone
You know how it goes...
Piss of the russkies and you get to taste polonium ... they name you "assangel"
Piss of the yankees and
They'll likely find him working for the TSA.
"I could be wrong, but still..."
Still what?
Really if he is rapist he is a rapist.
And this is in Sweden. I don't believe that the US government is out to get Assange because it is so not worth the risk. And what? Do you think President Obama is after him or are you going to blame Bush? Or maybe some shadow government that is even more powerful then the President?
Or maybe it is the Masons.
Or the Illuminati.
I think it is is the Shriners. Never trust a man in a Fez on a small motorcycle!
Really folks you don't even trust the Swedish courts to give this guy a fair shake? Or maybe you think he should be above all laws?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
click
I was given detention at school. So does Julian have to stay behind and write "I must not leak Government secrets" 500 times on the blackboard/whiteboard?
From: CIA
To: Woman dating Assange
We will pay out $xxx,xxx for the successful arrest of Assange in Sweeden.
From Woman dating Assange
To: Swedish Authorities
I was raped.
they *aren't* out to get you.
He smacked the elite squarely in the nose. They won't let such an affront go unpunished.
It's a matter of principal now. Peasants must not rise above their station.
It wasn't modded down, it's his default score based on karma level.
The powers that be want Assange captured and made an example of.
Assange seems quite capable of self-destruction.
It wouldn't be the first time that the geek has thought himself invincible - somehow above the law.
Rape in Sweden means sexual intercourse without consent from one of the parties.
"Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
Just like how Hans Reiser couldn't have possibly killed his wife? No, no no. She ran away to Russia!! Wait, no. She was killed by some random dude whose story didn't check out!! Wait, no. She was killed by another dude!! Wait, no.
Yes of course there are some people who are wrongfully accused for rape and that sucks but that is probably not the case most of the time.
In courts in Sweden the girls character is always in question. Was she drunk, has she had many boyfriends, is she a slut? Any of that could be reason not to convict. There has even been a case where the girl didn't have time to say no before the guy showed his pipe organ in her throat and at least one where the girl was too drunk to be able to speak where both guys where acquitted since the girls didn't protest enough
This is hardly the signs of a country in moral panic (oh and your link goes nowhere).
So why are there so many cases of rape in Sweden? There's a couple of reasons. The police most often don't laugh at the girls or kick them out again and we do take it serious when it comes to rape even if the courts sometimes fubar things. Another reason is that the spouse in Sweden can be convicted for rape of his wife. There are still, strangely enough, countries where the husband can't be convicted for raping his wife.
Don't confuse higher numbers for larger amounts of rapists or moral panic, it might just be that we are doing more things right than you are.
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
Modding that down doesn't make Assange any less of an arrogant jackass who's driven away most Wikileaks contributors.
All Scandinavian are having a *big* problem with rapes committed by arabic immigrants and asylum seekers.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
If the government wanted him out of the way that badly, you know what they would do? Have a deranged wife or brother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan walk up to Assange and stab him with a carving knife. Thats how it would happen - complete deniability and a link to his own actions in to boot. No need to make up seedy sex crime claims or whatever.
I was going write something similar, so I'll just add some comments here instead.
I'm a bit peeved with all the comments alleging that a "girl can have consentual sex and change her mind the next day and it is accepted as rape in Sweden". This is not what the courts have decided, where in fact they do seem a lot more willing to acquit than convicted in hairy cases. Which might not necessarily be the worst of things.
I'll say though that the "Was she drunk, has she had many boyfriends, is she a slut?" is not regarded as a reason to acquit by the court, although the defense attorney might be too happy to trot out that line.
"Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
.... the list of activities is endless ...
...
this is the italian version of the organization that was founded in every nato country, and probably in every country aligned with usa back in cold war.
these secret organizations were set up in order to make sure that those countries 'stayed true to western ideals' -> basically u.s. interests. and, in all cases, even the secret service of the involved country did not officially know or was involved with these organizations, despite probably having members of these organizations among themselves without their knowledge.
operations involved assassinations or character assassinations of dangerous individuals, intellectuals, politicians (death, accidents, or scandals, other means), setting up terrorist acts, even fake terrorist organizations to take blame for various actions in those countries in order to estrange the public from what the organization would claim to be. (set up fake leftist terror groups and estrange people from left ideology, or religions etc), creation and funding of various insurgent/guerilla groups in order to either aid the friendly regime (in 3rd world countries these kind of insurgence was the excuse the dictators were using for oppressive measures), or, to harass nearby unfriendly regimes, arrange any means that would ensure the u.s. friendly parties got the upper hand in elections, in democratic countries. (scandals, bribery schemes, cheating, anything)
after cold war, some of the countries have ousted and prosecuted these organizations, or closed them down. some of the countries, did not. some of the countries, were not able to do that. some, are still trying.
it is highly possible that, a version of this organization existed or still exists in usa, with, or without the knowledge of its intelligence organizations.
and this 'rape case', seems WAY too similar with the cases in the accounts that the ex-agents describe in books describing gladio, or testimonies in court cases that were conducted over these.
in case you forgot, wikipedia has a habit of exposing any kind of information to public, including very, very disturbing dealings of united states government and corporations. things even u.s. citizens cannot access and uncover
Read radical news here
I thought he was innocent too...
it is much more difficult to kill the publicly known journalists or make them disappear.
had he not openly put himself in public eye, he would have got 'an accident' or outright disappeared by now.
Read radical news here
http://www.google.com/search?q=operation+gladio&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a here's your justice.
Read radical news here
Earlier, it was almost impossible to get convicted for rape in Sweden, as even if you had technical evidence, it was just word against word to what had actually happened (you're not likely to have any witnesses to the actual act). Now, eager to correct this, it's swung the other way, you seem to be able to get convicted based on the claims of the "victim" alone, because who would possibly lie about such a serous thing*!
*Except those who have been found lying about such a serious thing. But let's not worry about those cases. They're acting in a way that's not compatible with our irrational "feminist" world view, so let's just cover our ears and chant lalalalalalalala until people are done talking about them.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Get a guy and a girl drunk, let them have sex, and if the girl regrets it in the morning it's "rape".
You seem to have some experience with this - would you care to elaborate?
I know that you have a thing called "statutory rape" in the States, where it is rape if you sleep with a girl under a certain age, even if she consented and is willing to give evidence in court to that effect. That, of course, is an idiotic piece of legislation constructed by puritans or the like; but elsewhere, rape simply means exploiting another person's weakness to have sex with them that you would not otherwise have had. That obviously includes getting a girl drunk or spiking her drink with something.
Lifetime judges may be blind but DA's are often elected political creatures.
"Lifetime judges" are human, and are thus just as prone to arrogance, corruption, deceit, and bias as any elected DA or judge. I simply do not understand the reliance by some on the theory of impartiality of judges with life tenures. The idea that life tenure makes them impartial doesn't even work in theory when you think about it. All it does is make them unaccountable. The fact is that there ARE no perfect judges, because there are no perfect people. This is why lifetime tenure for SCOTUS justices was one of the few really bad ideas of the Founders. Limit their terms on the bench. Otherwise, you've basically got a collection of unaccountable kings.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
wanting to believe and actually believing are two different things. one of these requires evidence, and not just circumstantial.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
From what I hear, "rape" in Sweden isn't necessarily what we'd think of as rape. Even in the US, rape isn't always "rape rape". Get a guy and a girl drunk, let them have sex, and if the girl regrets it in the morning it's "rape". I would assume it's some such bullshit until proven otherwise.
You're right - what we normally think of as rape, or "rape rape", is the violent knife-wielding attacker type. That however is a slim minority of rapes. By dismissing the others as "some such bullshit", you're dismissing the vast majority of criminal rapes.
Furthermore, your whiny fears about a girl regretting it in the morning are blown way out of proportion. False allegations of rape occur just as often as false allegations of robbery, but you aren't complaining about robbery being "some such bullshit". In fact, the majority of false allegations actually allege rape-rape or violent rape, because the false allegation is a cry for attention. Hence, a story about an attacker who jumps out of the bushes is much less likely to be true than a story about a guy who slipped something in a drink, or followed a girl into the bathroom while his bodyguard blocked the hallway.
In short, unless you're a rapist, you are not likely to be accused of rape. And many studies on predatory theory have shown that rapists do know they're rapists, commit rape multiple times, and consciously target vulnerable women and ply them with drinks to reduce their ability to fight back.
Right. Because, like you, they don't know the difference between discrediting an irritation, and creating a martyr.
This should be mod'ed up!
"I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape."
People in the public eye do stupid things all the time. Murder, rape, assault, dog fighting, attempted murder all come to mind in just the last year.
Just like in the Hans Reiser case, no nerd will ever be willing to believe Assange can do any wrong. Reiser was so ridiculously, obviously guilty but you had people about how they were such smart people they knew there wasn't enough evidence when in fact there was enough evidence to convict him if only 1/3 of it was presented.
He's in a pretty sweet position - he could go on a rape and murder rampage and get caught on camera, with 10 live witnesses, and then blame "the man" for trying to set him up and some of the more clueless among us nerds will believe it.
Note I'm not saying he's guilty - just that nerds love conspiracy theories. As others have said, Sweden has a strange definition of "rape", so who knows if he did anything even remotely wrong.
Heh. At first I read that as "Swedish Court Order _Detination_ of Wikileaks Founder..."
Totally different meaning, that one.
End the FUD
I think you vastly overstate Assange's 'following' - there is nothing there to make him a martyr.
Howver, the way its currently playing, he gets to scream and shout about a conspiracy against him - not much of a discreditation if people are still listening to him...
This is part of the US's PUBLICLY REVEALED campaign to discredit WikiLeaks. The way to do so? Ad Hominem. Make the story about the messenger - over and over, again.
It wouldn't matter if WikiLeaks were fronted by Charles Manson - that's not the point of the disclosures.
But once more, you fall for the legerdemain.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39729526
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9948-news-a-comment-pentagon-campaign-to-discredit-wikileaks-downshifts.html
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/news/gt/blog/us-plan-to-discredit-wikileaks-leaked/?cs=40078
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/time-o25.shtml
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
and that would sprawn up dozens of new assanges, make him a martyr, start serious investigations and public press about the incident and who did it, and, regardless of who did it, it would make united states be the scapegoat.
Read radical news here
your problem.
you have taken them in. disregarding their cultural inheritance.
Read radical news here
i live in a muslim country, and i can testify to the above statement by the parent. dont be overly politically correct. it clouds analytic mind.
Read radical news here
Is it possible that Julian Assange is just being framed for WikiLeak's publishing of classified U.S. military documents related to the war in Afghanistan?
I think you vastly overstate Assange's 'following' - there is nothing there to make him a martyr.
That's because they haven't sent someone to "gut him with a hunting knife" or however they put it.
And the discrediting IS happening, whether he's guilty or not. That much is evident by the fact that there's the ongoing debate here every time /. posts a story about it.
it can only discredit him and wikileaks in the minds of right wing americans. since they are so quick to believe anything that is 'against' their country, or military, as evil, and associate whatever lie or truth that is told them, with them.
in europe, this would further alienate europeans from america and americans. it will increase the tendency of blaming anything bad that happens to any people who are not pro-american, on america. this, actually may not be so incorrect either.
Read radical news here
because they have concentrated on embarrassing u.s. government, the foremost trouble instigator on the face of the planet, it is a problem ?
lets see how a lot of those troubles in third world countries have started, and who started it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
oh my. it turned out to be united states.
Read radical news here
"a site for people in oppressed countries to leak out information that their rulers would rather keep under wraps"
That statement covers every country in the world. The people with money and power always have things to hide, as they fear loosing their money and power over others as others (just like them and really as ruthless as them) seek to take their money and power. (Ultimately because they want others to be less powerful than them). Also the act of seeking power over others is inherently the act of seeking to oppress others into following the wishes of the people in power. Therefore all their words are really to hide this core truth of their behavior, regardless of which political party they are in.
Its why democracy partly works as it attempts to balance the competing sides against each other, preventing any one side from totally getting all their own way at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately democracy totally fails when all the competing sides find some common ground ideas they share, where they all want the same thing. Which is exactly what we are getting with the moves towards ever more Police State levels of spying and control over us all, ultimately because everyone who seeks power over others, all wants the same thing, they all want power over others. Therefore they keep seeking more ways to gain power over others and they fear others like them getting these powers first.
In such a world we need a way to monitor and feedback against governmental excesses which grow without limit, such as the increasing spying and control, so we need sites like Wikileaks to allow us all to see and so publically police the people in power to prevent them increasingly undermining democracy to create their increasingly totalitarian levels of control.
Just like how Hans Reiser couldn't have possibly killed his wife? No, no no. She ran away to Russia!! Wait, no. She was killed by some random dude whose story didn't check out!! Wait, no. She was killed by another dude!! Wait, no.
This. But people are quick about coming up with arguments about why this case is totally different, and this time they are surely right about the accused being innocent. There can be no other answer.
This whole thing is really stupid. If they were to question me about anything, I would say "No Comment". Don't talk to the police! There is only downside for the questioned/accused in that strategy. If they had any real evidence at this point, they would go to a judge and get an arrest warrant. Therefore, they have no evidence and no case. It's a fishing expedition. So what's the point? The point is to cause embarrassment and/or unjust imprisonment, or worse.
If you're going to shake the twin pillars of Empire and Oligarchy, best be pure as the driven snow.
Seriously. We invented phones so we wouldn't have to shout over long distances, or travel. Are there no phones in Sweden?
Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.
Isn't that the classic feminist definition of rape? It doesn't matter when it became unwanted contact only that it is unwanted.
The existence of the allegations is a fact.
We have two competing hypotheses to account for that fact
Having read the allegations, I find it very difficult to discount the second hypothesis.
If your goal is to prosecute a guy for a crime, you bring charges and you prosecute. If your goal is to assassinate his character, you draw out the process as long as possible, using innuendo in the media, without actually involving the courts.
This reeks of the latter.
"We're thinking of getting an arrest warrant to detain Assange for questioning involving these charges that we keep bringing against him and then dropping, but we haven't actually done it yet. We're just putting it out there in the media that we're thinking of doing it. We'll tell you more when we maybe do it next week, or decide not to, so we can keep getting media attention."
False allegations of rape occur just as often as false allegations of robbery
So robbery has a 40% false allegation rate*? I never knew.
*"False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12)
Wow, the GP's wordplay joke just went right over your head, didn't it? You may wish to wipe the foam off your chin and reread.
Advice: on VPS providers
Furthermore, your whiny fears about a girl regretting it in the morning are blown way out of proportion. False allegations of rape occur just as often as false allegations of robbery, but you aren't complaining about robbery being "some such bullshit".
You are asserting the relative numbers of the two. Do you have any evidence, or are you just making up numbers to support your argument? And I would expect the numbers of false reports of robbery to be much higher and be in one of two categories, either revenge against a specific person (divorce or such) or insurance fraud where some unknown person removed a number of insured items of value. Of those two, the targeted one would seem much less likely. For rape, it's very rare for the person raped to have never met and have no means of identifying the rapist. As such, the few false "someone unknown raped me" claims are likely a cover-up for a pregnancy from a known person. However, there is a large amount of shame about sex in the US (and elsewhere). Having consentual sex isn't something that can be taken back later. However, the consent for it can be taken back. Someone with regrets may want to protect their image, their morals (ironically through violating others), or such. Since the sex can't be undone and the consent can, that leaves only one option.
Learn to love Alaska
How about we turn the tables then. You have a quickie with a woman because you think she looks very hot and has large bosoms but eventually you learn that it was all makeup and padded pushup bras.
Can you claim rape ? You clearly would not have done it with her in her natural condition.
The classic feminist definition of rape is that all heterosexual intercourses are rapes because women are too oppressed by society to be able to give consent freely.
Which is obviously against the /. Code of laws anyways, so its still unlawful in some cases.
When his job is to put out LEAKS of crime, corruption and conspiracy HE IS BETTER INFORMED than most people about the kinds of things that can be done to him - likely more aware than the government pawns and even some corrupt officials...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
False allegations of rape occur just as often as false allegations of robbery
So robbery has a 40% false allegation rate*? I never knew.
*"False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12)
Yeah, Kanin's study has been discredited by everyone, and was flawed from the outset due to his tiny sample size. Try going to the FBI or Department of Justice, who use nationwide statistics, and say it's 3%.
You are asserting the relative numbers of the two. Do you have any evidence, or are you just making up numbers to support your argument?
Yep. The DoJ's annual report has consistently said between 3-5% rate of false accusations, and it's the same across all crimes.
However, there is a large amount of shame about sex in the US (and elsewhere). Having consentual sex isn't something that can be taken back later. However, the consent for it can be taken back. Someone with regrets may want to protect their image, their morals (ironically through violating others), or such. Since the sex can't be undone and the consent can, that leaves only one option.
Yes, since women's reputations are so well protected when they accuse someone of rape... Why, look at this thread - I don't think anyone has called the women involved whores, sluts, gold-diggers, bitches, liars, etc.
I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.
...why have they failed in every country that fell to Islam? They seem to be able to exert power over the weak, but go up against anyone or anything with some backbone, and this organization seems to be as vicious as a wet noodle.
Government people don't get in trouble for lying - even big lies that lead to war - not much is done. The damage is not undone with vindication in part because the media and the public are less interested in dull vindications they like juicy shocking scandals / accusations. Then there is the impression psychological aspect where most people are guilty until proven innocent (unless you have a counter bias) and the extreme power of repetition -- the bad stuff gets repeated over and over while the vindication or retraction is lucky to be heard once. Then there is the whole illogical human side where people don't judge truth by logic or facts by appearance and feeling.
They are going to ruin his reputation, according to their plans which were leaked and seeing it coming is not much of a defense. We are talking about one of the best government propaganda machines in the world and the birthplace of much of the life altering techniques being used on everybody since WW1. They can demonize whole peoples and races and motivate a significant percentage of normal people to go kill others (whether or not its for a good cause is beside the point.) This is just 1 little man with some truth; he is going to lose overall even if he survives. The truth might set him free in a WORKING legal system but it will not likely do him much good in public opinion.
The wasteful pentagon with money to burn literally (million dollar bombs used on camels) quite likely is putting some effort into this. I wouldn't be surprised if they clone some of his skin cells make them into stem cells and into sperm -- close enough enough to pass a typical DNA test (its not likely he'd get the best expert to point out the flaws) among other dirty tricks which would be well within the history of the pentagon and the CIA (sadly, Americans don't believe such proven acts so they can do the WORST things and people won't think they'd really do it, same concept as BIG LIES go over easier.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You're not fooling anyone blair1g.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Without hard proof - its a he said - she said situation. No need to risk faking anything other than to pay somebody to lie and pressure officials (who are weak opponents to an empire like ours.) A clever person would bring cases like this against him rather than risk a leak or mistake in something that involves too many people and too much room for error; however, doing something practically is not what the Pentagon or the CIA is known for...
He wins, reputation harmed, money lost, possibly some jail time served. Bring another suit. Just find a poor kid who needs some money... or who doesn't want his parents jailed...
I don't see why they didn't just go into full blown pedophilia? Why would that be too much? A teenage girl might be risky I suppose... but hey, they can keep their eyes open. In the end, they may get him on some stupid charge nobody believes or cares about; like drugs or tax evasion - at that point he won't have the support / reputation to cause much of a stir when they screw the law to nail him.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"Caught like a duck in a noose!"
Are you seriously a racist?
Let's take it one step further. Victoria's Secret appears to sell equipment designed to deceive males for the purpose of sex. By the logic presented two posts above, they support male rape.
What's always confused me is how you even prosecute something like this. In most of these cases it sounds like there is no evidence except what both sides claim, no physical evidence, no witnesses, etc.. So the judge or jury is left trying to decide if they believe the male or if they believe the female.
What about claiming you're rich Hollywood producer then the next day she finds out you lied? A despicable act to be sure. But most people would not call it rape (fraud maybe, or some other crime). But some people would.
What if instead she finds you you really don't like long walks on the beach, that you borrowed your roommate's sports car for the night, or that your jokes really aren't funny when she's sober, or that you're just completely uninteresting when you're not drunk, or that you were only saying things that she wanted to hear, etc... Is that coercion?
However the reliability goes down the toilet.
Assange goes to court, is found guilty and thus can be contained on a "short sentence", is then isolated, is some how "neutralised" (maybe made sick or something).
Until he stops his life will continue to be on the run, they will be after him until they get him, somehow. We will see more of this type of behaviour, whether it's true or not is irrelevant - the game is get Assange.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I find it deeply concerning that he got away with rape. The original account which he was allowed to plead down from wasn't a simple matter of statutory rape, it was definitely what everybody agrees is rape. He was allowed to plead down to lesser charges then flee the country and likely won't ever serve whatever the meager sentence would have been because the countries involved apparently thinks that it's OK to rape children if you're a prominent celebrity.
That'll make it much harder for him next time !!
Perhaps so, but the fact is that the police in Norway made a very controversial statement claiming that *all* assault rapes for the past three years were committed by non-european immigrants, most, from africa and the middle east.
The police called for action of some sorts, but i can't really see that mandatory non-rape classes for immigrants would really work...
http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2009%2F04%2F15%2Fnyheter%2Fvoldtekt%2Finnenriks%2F5759702%2F
There are of course many more rapes committed by Norwegians and Europeans, but in those cases the victim and the perpetrator knew each other in some way - typically a "domestic rape" or domestic violence scenario. (Or perhaps like whatever happened between Assange and the two ladies...)
Since the number of assault rapes is rather low compared to "other" rapes, one might argue that it's not a big deal, but it's clearly a problem since it affects women's lives. (Albeit mostly indirectly, because of the media scare.)
You may argue that there is no point in analysing the problem on the ground that is not possible to do anything reasonably intelligent about it, and that it might just defame immigrants. However, I fail to find a reason to not discuss facts, other than to avoid being called a racist.
"Lawful coercion" does exist: it's called "arrest" or "detainment".
Really. I didn't realize that sex was part of the deal when you're arrested.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I dunno....if you look at the actions of Bush and Cheney, with their being 'ok', and actually encouraging torture, and MANY practices that had previously been considered 'heinous' and worthy of 'war criminal prosecution', it seems that the US has easily started to fall into the category of an oppressive government.
Many of these acts were covered up -- and there's likely many more that we'll never know of or hear of. That seems like 'censorship' by the government of information that the *rulers* would have rather kept under raps.
So just because it's now the US, how is this different?
Unfortunately, Cheney, and many conservatives are "end justifies the means" type people -- this isn't the way the US has traditionally been. Evidence that was collected improperly -- wasn't allowed to be used to prosecute people. Now -- that's no longer the case. Corporations can now spend unlimited funds to sway public opinion to whatever suits corporate interests -- even it involves starting a war to secure corporate interests OR stir up needed corporate business. As near as I can tell Halliburton made billions -- all paid for by the US tax payer on a war that was generated under multiple false pretenses. IT appears it was done purely for profit and business motives. Of course moving from there to using military means that were also unethical is no big change. It's all part of a huge corruption that was allowed and to some extent is still being allowed to grow in influence in the US -- and it's being billed
by the propaganda machine as being "OK".
Large numbers of Americans think horrible acts are now 'ok'...the moral sensibilities of US citizens have been horribly jaded -- and it will take strong and unpleasant remedies to get people to back to ethical government -- likely not possible in this generation without government collapse or revolution -- something that is unlikely to happen. But with
the current education systems being bought out and corrupted by 'no child left behind' nonsense, that really means no-child is allowed ahead, the US's internal ability to recover very dim.
What wikileaks did was *GOOD* -- the truth about what we did needs to be brought out in the light. That's the only way people in the US will have a remote chance of understanding what the government is doing in our name. MANY won't care, and feel it's more important to "look good", But that's a very strong indication that those people are part of the problem.
Obama sold the people out to save the conservatives -- he claims he did it to bury the hatchet -- but that didn't happen. Those people have cranked up the rhetoric against all his policies. Unfortunately, it's hard to fight the wacko's as they, themselves are evidence. They have become the hated 'perpetrators of atrocities' that they fought against and 'hated' so much. Indeed, it's another classic case of becoming what you hate.
So is showing Americans what they have become, 'wrong'? Isn't what wikileaks did entirely what they were doing all along? Getting out word about atrocities done by governments that try to keep such information secret?
So don't shave, then rape?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.