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".
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
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.
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
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?
(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.
Julian Assange is _special_, so little niceties like laws, rules and regulations don't apply to him.
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.
Hey! he's Australian so that arsewipe thank you very much!
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.
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
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.
He's so innocent that he fooled the police with a false confession and led them to a fake body he constructed from pork skins and clown makeup.
click
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)."
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...
I believe that one of the most often used reasons to close the doors and/or label the court decision secret is to protect the victim of the crime. This means that if JA is found guilty, the rest of the world might never get to examine the evidence, since it has been withheld to protect the interests of the victims.
Yes, I live in Sweden, but no, I am not a lawyer.
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
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..."
"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.
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."
Also, the title is inaccurate. There is no court order, someone is just making a show of requesting one. Even Slashdot editors are useful tools.
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