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."
The way he's driven off other Wikileaks contributors sure supports the case that's Assange's an arrogant asswipe.
"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."
Rape? Sexual Molestation? "Unlawful" Coercion (as opposed to lawful coercion?) Sounds like the kind of thing usually slung around as an excuse to pick someone 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.
I could be wrong, but still...
Living With a Nerd
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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!
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.
"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.
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...
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
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
Modding that down doesn't make Assange any less of an arrogant jackass who's driven away most Wikileaks contributors.
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
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
This should be mod'ed up!
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
Although IANAL, IMHO Mr. Assange has demonstrated by his actions that he is the kind of slimy piece of Sh!!te that would place the lives of hundreds, or even thousands of dedicated service men and women at risk to to prove what a clever little pr!ck he can be. It takes no stretch of the imagination at all to believe that a person of his arrogance and sociopathic lack of conscience would coerce a woman into sex and think he was doing her a favor. Hopefully the muslims in prison will treat him as one of their "virgin rewards" and do to him what he has done to society.
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
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?
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.
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."
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.
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
...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!"
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.
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.
That'll make it much harder for him next time !!
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?