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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.