Slashdot Mirror
Assange Secret Swedish Police Report Leaked
letsurock writes "The 68-page confidential report prepared by Swedish police got leaked which tells the police version on the alleged sexual misconduct by the Julian assange. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August this year when 39-year-old Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women."
So its apparently been leaked...
And there's no link in Slashdots Article. And googling for it brings up hundreds of news sites and blogs who all talk about it but also don't link to the police report.
Is it being hosted somewhere? Is it possible to get a copy of the police report and not rely on what people say it says?
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
Donate free food here
So in Sweden you are guilty until proven innocent? I know that women's groups in Sweden were trying to make rape a "guilty until proven innocent" crime, but I thought the Swedes sensibly rejected that unjust notion.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Indeed, this fallacy keeps popping up. If I commit severe crimes and attempt to cover it up you have the right, and I would even dare to say *duty*, to violate my privacy for justice. People and governments alike may keep some things hidden, but there is a limit to both.
The dude believes in total transparency, if its good for the State Department it should be good enough for Assange.
Is this not a government document?
Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of an individual's sex affairs. Dealings between government and corporations and whatnot.
This would be hypocritical if wikileaks leaked something like Tiger Woods' sex messages to his mistress or something along the lines of that. Plenty of sites posted that information, and possibly lots of trashy tabloids and gossip magazines - but wikileaks did not.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
Why is the summary not linking to the original article and instead pointing to a blog-post which is supposedly regurgitating a Press Trust of India release based on the NYTimes article? This story is also about 3 days old :S
Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's actually rather clever of him to serve as a lightning rod for Wikileaks, while the actual work continues to go on. Right-wing congressmen can call for his assassination all they like; even if it were to happen it would not affect the publication of the leaks. In fact, it would almost certainly trigger the mass publication of the unredacted material. "The personal strengths and weaknesses of a leader are no true indicator of the merits of his cause."
I piss off bigots.
Yeah. If I dared to tell anyone that I didn't think Mohammed was the last messenger from God while I was in Saudi Arabia, and they jailed me for it, oh well. Gotta respect their laws while you're there.
Of course that's absolute bullshit. Any law that denies a person a right to defend themselves from undue process of law is unjust, period, unless it's putting away someone you don't like. I've read through the document, and I do think Assange should submit himself to further evidentiary proceedings once he is assured of receiving the same treatment as someone who isn't on the shitlist of half of the world governments.
Let's all remember why the authorities have decided that he doesn't deserve equal rights:
"He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends." -Joe Biden
exactly
assange is a human being with human weaknesses, like all of us
however, this particular flawed man started a movement for transparency which is laudable
the proper response is to pay homage to the man for his good works, and chastise him for his transgressions in the bedroom, at the same time
but apparently people can only process assange as devil or angel. when of course, this is a gross simplification that serves nothing other than to mark the person as an idiot who cannot bring himself to chastise the man (or laud the man)
you who say "assange can do no wrong" or "assange can do no right", which is the starting point for many comments here, you are no better than the chattering monkeys who engage in celebrity worship on TMZ. you are simply no better if you cannot bring yourself to repudiate the man for his transgressions in the bedroom (or if you can't bring yourself to praise the man for his transparency efforts)
the man, honestly, means nothing. but the MOVEMENT he helped start (and will not stop, with or without him) remains a permanent virtue on his permanent record (just as permanent as the rapes)
yes, assange did something good in the world. he also did something wrong. it is possible for you to acknowledge both. so do it, and free yourself from shallow pointless celebrity worship, which is what you do when you mindlessly defend assange on an UNRELATED ISSUE to his transparency work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent during the act it is still considered rape, with prision terms.
The point of contention is not the swedish law, but whether the consent was actually withdrawn and the credibility of the womens' statement. The women seem to have continued their relationship with Assange, despite the rape and condom-break incident, which makes their claims sound a bit dubious.
And? Their credibility should be judged by a jury, at trial.
Shouldn't Assange have already posted it? There isn't any hypocrisy here, is there?
No, because this is not at all the kind of document that WikiLeaks posts. Their primary interest is stated as:
...exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations.
Contrary to popular belief, WikiLeaks is not about revealing any information that anyone might ever try to hide. WikiLeaks is about revealing unethical government/corporate behaviour.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.
Its illegal to be a BNP member and hold certain jobs with the UK government and leaking that list exposed some lawbreakers in the government.
I've got a problem with those laws, but at least they are public laws.
On the other hand, wikileaks leaked their own donors list. As far as I know its not illegal to donate to wikileaks, even if mastercard, visa, paypal and BoA say otherwise, so maybe you do have a point.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Seriously, condoms are tough things. You can stretch them well beyond anything they are designed to contain, blow them up to many times their normal volume. They are intended to prevent pregnancy (as well as infection) and are subject to stringent testing.
How likely is it that a condom would 'break', and even if it did, how would either of the participants know about it if they were in the middle of rumpy pumpy. That is assuming it wasn't left hanging in threads flailing about all over the place.
If Assange did 'break' the condom intentionally as has been suggested, how is it claimed he did it? Did he tear it in half, take the scissors to it? Bite it?
This part of the accusation seems otherworldly.
Says the anonymous coward....
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
A police investigation *isn't* "government dealings"?
You mean documents should not be released based on the whims of the individuals but should instead be based on a reasoned and sensible analysis of what's being released and the impact on the people(s) involved?
And of course unintended consequences are nothing to worry about because Assange knows what he's doing and has thought out all the implications and we can trust that no one else will follow his lead?
You're saying this is not a PR war between Assange and the US that has little or nothing to do with better govt?
I guess I must have been mistaken after all.
No, there is no difference, at least not how Assange publishes information on Wikileaks. Wikileaks is a real organization, just like many corporations. Are you saying that leaks relating to illicit activity of, say the head of a major bank should not be published? Even if that is what you are saying, Wikileaks begs to differ. In the recent cable leaks, was a lot of information relating to individuals health conditions, medical records, affairs, etc. Why should the head of Wikileaks be allowed a pass, when the people he reports on aren't?
And before anybody comments, that in Assange's case, they are trumped up charges by the CIA or some government, please don't. The charges against him were filed before his current leaks which are pissing off many a government, particularly the US. Besides, do you really think if the CIA was clairvoyant, they wouldn't use this ability on something more important like Iraq or Afghanistan?
Whether what he did with the two woman is right or wrong, is up for the Swedish court system to decide. Releasing information about the case, while embarrassing for him, is no different than what he does. Heck, for all we know, his organization is the leak, so he can claim he can't get a fair trial now that the info is out.
Personally, I think that if the women's accounts are true, he should be held accountable. I'm pretty sure, as is the case with the second woman, that having sex while one is asleep, means it is not consensual. If the prime minister of some country had done it, Wikileaks would be all over it. There is an old saying about people in glass houses and stones.
There are no charges against him, yet.
c++;
A jury? In Sweden?
Informants names are redacted.
The idea that diplomacy and transparancy are mutually exclusive is a cop-out.
The misrepresentation is debatable.
At what point are you going to stop being a propagandists tool?
Right back at you, sir.
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Hmmm. divulging that one of the political aids has a brain tumor that may not be treatable and another is suspected of having HIV, seems to be both personal and private information. In addition, do you think that if a congressman or prime minister was accused of these charges that Wikileaks would not release it? The reason Wikileaks didn't release a story about Tiger Woods is because, if you aren't the first to release it, then it's not really a leak, is it?
Wikileaks can serve a noble purpose, and I believe they do, however, they can just as easily server other purposes. There are always consequences for one's actions and what is noble for one person may not be for another. Wikileaks tries and takes the approach that they are just releasing information and it is up to the readers or others to determine what to do with it. However, that is a pretty naive attitude to take when real people's lives are involved.
Assange is upset that his personal information regarding the alleged sexual misconduct got released. I imagine the same can be said for anyone arrested of DWI or any criminal charges. Yes, they may be innocent until proven guilty (in the US, anyway), but the arrest and leveling of charges are public and put in the local newspaper. However, what he has done, through Wikileaks is even more insidious - if you had cancer, or were gay, or had HIV, how would you feel if your friends, family, coworkers, the whole damn world found out about it from something like Wikileaks, just because you happen to be associated with some government. I'm sure the world is a much better place knowing that some aide, whatever her name is, will be spending her last Christmas with her family as she isn't expected to live another year. But then, Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of individuals, so I guess, somebody else did under their name.
Not only was the video misrepresented, it was edited.
The facts are:
o Children are not uncommonly shooting at soldiers. Children commonly have weapons in hand by the age or six.
o Vans are commonly used to take terrorists and weapons from the scene. All too often, "civilian deaths" are misreported because their weapons were taken before soldiers can arrive to secure the area. That's why the had to obtain permission to engage the van - and got it.
o The reaction you saw is in fact, the common reaction of morale people forced to kill others. Its extremely well documented. Those who don't act as such, commonly have extreme mental health issues as a result of not venting with such bravado.
o In a war zone, if you are seen with others who have weapons, YOU ARE A LEGAL TARGET. In this case, HE WAS A LEGAL TARGET.
o The screens in the Apache are actually fairly small. Contrary to comments by others, the resolution is actually fairly poor. Cobra's actually have far better resolution - especially at night (not a factor here). Poor resolution in combination with a small screen in combination with the footage which was specifically edited out means Wikileaks was purposely pushing an anti-war, anti-American agenda via world class propaganda.
The above combined with the Average ignorance for war, editing, lies, so on and so on, they created a massive reaction. The simple fact is, if you believe the story provided by Julian Assange, for that specific video, you are now a propagandist's tool. The fact is, he lied to you and used you.
There is no more or less evidence then there is in most rape cases of this kind. This is more of a Date Rape then the stalker rape, and Date Rape is always a He Said She Said situation. There is no evidence to support your claim that this is a vendetta for him cheating on them. If anything they slept with him because they were drawn to his celebrity status, and if they were aware he was in the habit of sleeping with any woman who threw themselves at him they would of course want a condom used. Mostly out of fear of an STD or they just didn't want his kids. Then we have his dating profile from years back and it sounds a bit too much like the guy who just wants to get a woman pregnant. Also condoms don't break that easily unless you're doing it on purpose or are an idiot. I've seen a condom stretched around a microphone and not break. So he ether got one that was way too large like the guys in India have a problem with the condoms being too big, or he put it on wrong but since it broke before he was finished the pinching an inch wasn't the issue since that only breaks when you're done, it may have been defective which can happen but is very rare, or he diliberatly sabotaged it like when a woman uses vasoline knowing that it will break the condom.
I'm personally more of the it's a conspiracy kind though but not by the government. It's a conspiracy by Assange to create more media attention and give him a way to release his Black Mail insurance file, and claim they were trying to silence him.
I guess that Slashdot, Taco, and letsurock have forgotten that when the women says stop and the man doesn't, it is rape, even here in the U.S.
I don't follow. Are you actually saying that because they make or permit posting on the Assange affair, they are pro-rape?
As for "when the women (sic) says stop"...well, it's not quite that simple, is it? Let's pretend we're all adults here. Some women like to play games of "let's pretend", sometimes it's literally too late to stop, sometimes signals are simply not understood. I agree that, ideally, if either sexual partner wishes to terminate the activities, they should be forthwith terminated (er, the activities, I mean). And in an ideal world, that would always happen.
Legally, such "rapes" are very difficult to prosecute in any country that has a sensible code of laws. If it is clear that the woman willingly began to have sex with someone, and she alleges that she cried "stop" at some point (perhaps because her partner was doing something she didn't like), unless the partner admits that this happened—that he heard, and did not stop—then this will be a case where the only two witnesses to the alleged crime contradict each other. If there is evidence of physical injury, that is indeed another matter.
There is a simple way to avoid these complications: don't go to bed with people you don't know. Take note, Mr. Assange.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
I can't believe this is +5 insightful. All people have a right of privacy, it doesn't matter if they have commit a crime or not. We have the government to investigate, protect and to punish and we are not a lynch mob anymore. That's why we have private courts and the names and pictures of criminals are censored.
Governments on the other hand have no rights of privacy, none at all. Because a government have it's power from the people for the people. Reporter of leaks was never before punished, the reporter of leaks was hailed as press heroes.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Is it basically their word against his, or has he also admitted that that's what happened? Far as I can tell, he's denied their version of events. It's not rape if they're just making it up.
"... and in the second by having sex without using a condom with a woman who was asleep"
I'll refrain from making silly jokes like 'slashdot forumites probably wouldn't understand this', but do you realize that unless she's extremely heavily under the influence of narcotics, it's all but impossible to have sex with a woman who is asleep without pretty much waking her up completely in the process? (And pretty much on first penetration, because if she's asleep she won't be dilated or wet either, so you'd have to use a sizable amount of force.) Story sounds a bit fishy to me. Add to that they seemed perfectly happy and then only seemed to decide later it was 'rape', after they found out he was cheating.
the finer points however get a little more complex.
for example in practice:
"no we shouldn't!" means "yes"
"no we can't!" means "yes but shhhhh"
and even a shriek of "ACK! NO! eeee!" confusingly often means "kiss there again!"
"No" while grabbing your head and pulling it a little to the left or right can simply mean "no, a little to the left/right"
"No" while you're slowing down can mean "speed up" or if uttered while speeding up can mean "slow down"
"Nooo, damnit!" while doing something acrobatic can mean "Ah, my back, I've pulled something.... but don't stop" depending on physical actions
Meanwhile without any verbal "no" simply pushing you away or grabbing a hand with the appropriate expression can mean very clearly "no".
If you watched the full video, you'd know that they got clearance because they claimed they'd seen an RPG (it was a camera, but they could've just been stupid at that point), and then claim it has been fired (which they cannot possibly believe).
It is conceivable that they mistook the event at 2:43 in the YouTube video, when the (large) camera was pointed directly at them, as an RPG being aimed at them, but if anyone was looking down the camera that the recording came from, they knew it wasn't fired. Again, immediately after this happens, they report on the radio that an RPG was fired, not just aimed. From the transcript: "02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot". (Time difference is due to 25 seconds of text at the start of the YouTube video).
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
And you know what actually happened how?
Well, let’s see. What we know:
Guy has consensual sex with woman A.
Guy has consensual sex with woman B.
Time passes, during which one/both women continue seeing Guy.
Woman A and woman B learn Guy has been fucking both of them.
Woman A and woman B both come up with stories about how they told him to stop, no not without a condom, was asleep, etc. how he “raped” them both.
What a coincidence, obviously we should believe them over anything Guy has to say.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
It is the word of two against the word of one. What makes his word worth more than theirs?
Innocent until proven guilty.
$ make available
Mate, when a woman has a new man he's the 'World's Best Screw' (or at least that what she tells her friends). Later on, as time has passed, his standing in her mind changes. The man has probably not changed that much (although passion diminishes, so possibly less effort is involved) but mostly the woman's perception of him. It is a change mostly in her own mind and feelings for someone. Here we have a classic case of it. Two women who were hot for Julian suddenly changed their minds when they found out he is a 'playa'. Not only did they change their minds about him but they also selectively re-wrote history ("oh, he's a bad lay" despite them coming back for more over weeks) as they are wont to do. Perhaps they were the lousy lays but never think of turning the mirror on themselves? The funny thing is that a Big Deflection is going on and governments and media are trying to make it about Julian's sex life and hairstyle rather than the content of the leaked cables ... and suckers fall right into it.
Nobody is saying that Julian shouldn't be questioned. We are saying, the facts, as outlined in the police report, show a particular pattern of behavior from the women in question. That pattern, hanging out with the guy for days afterward, throwing a party for him, and so on, do not indicate that the women felt that any sort of crime had taken place until they met each other and determined that Julian was sleeping with them both. Actually, several people HAVE said that Julian does not need to be questioned. That includes the original prosecutor. The fellow prosecuting now was also instrumental in getting Sweden's rape laws changed to their current incarnation. Coincidence? Possibly.
I hear two things being said, quite clearly. One: no one is guilty until PROVEN innocent. Two: the women did not behave like rape victims, they behaved like jilted lovers.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, we're saying people need to be very careful before making rape accusations. These accusations are serious, which is why we must always be cautious not to hit an innocent person with them. There are inconsistencies in this case, and light should be shed on these before calling Assange (or anyone else) a rapist.
He stayed in the country for the police to interview but they refused. Then after a cursory meeting they told him he could leave the country which he did. The next day a prosecutor in a different part of the country reinstated and increased the charges. While in the UK he offered to meet with the police through teleconferencing, meeting at their embassy, or by telephone but was refused and they insisted on his returning to the country (at his own expense) to be questioned. Additionally while refusing to inform Assange's lawyer of what charges were being investigated (in violation of international law) they were selectively leaking information to the press (which is highly ironic, but also wrong).
While he may have commited a crime of a sexual nature, the prosecutor has been acting in bad faith from the beginning and unwilling to make reasonable accomodations.
If you watched the full video, you'd know that they got clearance because they claimed they'd seen an RPG (it was a camera, but they could've just been stupid at that point), and then claim it has been fired (which they cannot possibly believe).
I find it rather odd that you can determine what hey possibly could believe. You and I watched a video and came to different conclusions. Afterwards, many people slowed things down and enlarged and enhanced images and people still disagreed.
Meanwhile, the aircraft crew was there. Not only could they see what was recorded, they had a panoramic view. I think they had a few more data points. Who's to said that an RPG round was not in the air?
If they just wanted to kill people they could've just gone ahead and done it.