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."

Comments

Yo dawg, I heard

[Sockatume]

You know what, actually, after writing the title, I can't bring myself to do this. You all deserve better.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[Toe, The]

Mmmmm, "consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women." I mean, damn... Slashdot isn't usually that provocative. :P

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[DrVomact]

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.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[davev2.0]

Maybe you should try RTFA. According to TFA:

Both women say that Assange first agreed to use a condom and then refused, in the first instance by continuing with sex after the condom broke, and in the second by having sex without using a condom with a woman who was asleep, the Times reports.

Now, STFU until you know what you are talking about.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[Maxo-Texas]

It's quite simple.

Unless they tell you before hand and negotiate an alternate word for "no" (like say... watermelon), then no means no.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[DrVomact]

The summary implies that Assange couldn't be guilty because they women initially consented, disregarding the fact that with one, he refused to stop and with the other, he waited until she was asleep and did something to which she did not consent.

The summary implies no such thing. The summary says:

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."

This is an impartial statement of events. The police report was leaked. Presumably (I must presume, as no one has posted a link to the actual report.), it contains allegations on which the prosecutor's indictment was based. The summary then proceeds to state Mr. Assange's version of events. It endorses neither the police report, nor Mr. Assange's denials.

You read with insufficient care.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[clone52431]

Since they’d already been having sex and sleeping together, this is more like HungryHobo’s hypothetical girlfriend situation than the hypothetical hungry hobo situation you described.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[BeanThere]

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.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[HungryHobo]

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".

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[davev2.0]

Under the law as written, yes it is rape.

But, the part you are missing is this: Assange could and should have stopped when the condom broke and the woman asked him to stop. And, Assange should not have had unprotected sex with a sleeping woman after she had already told him she did not want to have unprotected sex with him.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[HungryHobo]

out of fashion?
The point is that what someone is doing at the time makes all the difference.

Your approach sounds lovely and clear on paper until you try to apply it to real life with real people.
If all those situations are rape simply because someone said "no" at some point with no regard to context or what they were doing at the time then it would mean my girlfriend has raped me many times, which is absurd.

a wail of "no" when you're stopping often does mean "no, keep going", a simply "no" does not make it rape if the other persons actions at the time provide different context.

and far more importantly it can be rape without "no" ever being uttered if the person clearly in any way expresses that they don't want to have sex.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[clone52431]

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.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[Thinboy00]

It is the word of two against the word of one. What makes his word worth more than theirs?

Innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[clone52431]

You don’t understand how davev2.0 interprets that (I do, I’ve had arguments with him previously). To him, that means that until you’ve proven that these women are lying, you have to assume that they’re innocent (and lock up Assange just to be on the safe side).

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[spun]

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.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[spun]

Assange tried to sidestep the investigation by turning himself in to Scotland Yard?!? You have an interesting definition of 'sidestep.' And to repeat, NO ONE is opposing investigation! Why do you keep claiming your opponents in this debate are opposing investigation?

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[DrVomact]

Please do not speak of things you obviously do not have a clue about.. If you are convicted of rape in Sweden you get to spend 2-10 years in jail, depending on the age of the victim and the amount of violence that was used.

Maybe so, but the link given by A.C. leads to the most informative article about the Assange Affair that I have seen.

I here excerpt my favorite parts:

One of the women said in her statement to police that she was obsessed with meeting the tall, wiry man she had come to see as a hero of free speech — "interesting, brave and admirable."

For two weeks after seeing an Assange TV interview, the 27-year-old woman devoured news reports about him. Then one night, she Googled his name and learned he was giving a lecture in Sweden on Aug. 14.

The woman contacted the organizers and offered to do chores if she were allowed to attend. She turned up in a bright pink sweater and sat in the front row — looking out of place amid a sea of journalists in somber suits. The ice was broken when she agreed to buy a cable for Assange's computer.

I like a woman who knows what she wants; note the carefully orchestrated campaign, the subtlety of execution. She bought him a cable for his computer Surely, that can only spell Geek Love! How could poor Julian resist?

She was invited to a post-lecture dinner, she said, and seated next to Assange. They flirted, she told police: At one point Assange hand-fed her cheese and bread. The police report says she found it "flattering."

Bleah. Disgusting. How can people do that in public? Did he spoon-feed her saccharine also?

She and Assange went to the movies, where she said they kissed. Two days later she brought him home.

But by then, she told police, "the passion and excitement had disappeared."

On the train ride to her place, she said, Assange logged on to his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter. "He paid more attention to the computer than to her," the report said.

Disaster! A clear mismatch, as she was not googling on her own laptop.

They got to her apartment at midnight — and what happened next "felt very dull and boring," she told police. She later alleged, according to a British lawyer, that Assange pinned her down and refused to wear a condom.

The bold type in the last paragraph was added by your humble editor. I think we have here the nub of the matter, so to speak. But of course, we must also consider the woman behind Door Number 2:

The 31-year-old, a feminist scholar who was working for the organization that hosted Assange's Aug. 14 lecture, let him use her apartment while she was away on a trip. But she returned early, on the eve of his lecture, and the two agreed he could stay.

That night, they went out for dinner, returned to her place for tea, and, she said, became intimate. Later, in the middle of the night, she claimed in the police report, Assange sexually molested her. In a London court Tuesday, a lawyer accused Assange of having unprotected sex with the woman while she was asleep.

Afterward, he stayed in the apartment for nearly a week.

Again, bold type provided by yours truly. I can only guess what activities are covered by "became intimate", and the sex-while-asleep bit requires some context and clarification. However, it seems odd that the feminist scholar let him stay in her apartment for a week after an act that she now classifies as "rape".

Ah, but here comes the train-wreck:

During that time, the first woman tried unsuccessfully to reach Assange and, on Aug. 20, tracked down the apartment where he was staying. The two women got to talking.

After swapping Assange stories, they jointly contacted police — and filed rape complaints.

Mr. Assange, you are so doomed.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[spun]

Just to be clear, in the transcripts of Slashdotter's sexual exploits, when you read something along the lines of [REDACTED] kissed [REDACTED] on the [REDACTED], what that actually means is something like JOE SLASHDOT kissed HIS GRANDMA on the CHEEK.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[russotto]

And you know what actually happened how? Were you there, or are you just taking Assange's self-serving word against the word of two different women?

Two different women with a chance to co-ordinate their stories.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[spun]

The report says that. Follow the timeline. Assange meets woman A, who arranged a party for him and put him up. They have sex. They hang out for days. She arranges another party. He meets woman B, who practically stalks him. They have sex. They go out for breakfast the next morning. Women A and B meet, compare notes. They realize he had condomless sex with both of them. They want him to get tested for HIV. He refuses. They both go to the police. The original prosecutor drops the charges, says there is no case. Months later, a new prosecutor (who just so happens to be instrumental in pushing the new Swedish anti-rape laws) convinces the women to reopen the case.

These facts have been reported in the UK Guardian and many, many other places.

And another fun fact, Woman A has posted an essay on her blog about using the legal system to extract revenge on men who have wronged a woman romantically.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[Tiger4]

The story might be 100% bogus. But it is still up to the Jury to decide how bogus. Or whatever passes for a Jury in Sweden.

All you need to make out charges is that the accusation be plausible and have some degree of support. OK, you have two complaining witnesses that have made sworn statements. Unless you have some directly contravening evidence or statement from them, that would be enough to get you hauled into court anywhere in the US or Britain.

Now it is up the prosecutors to prove (to the Swedish standard of proof) that the accusation is true. Seems difficult to me, given it IS a fishy story, but I wasn't there.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[davev2.0]

Yet, you state he should not be returned to be questioned, so how can there be an investigation?

The evidence is their word. His defense is his word. Who knows what other evidence there is? Perhaps they have the broken condom with his and her DNA.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[clone52431]

But, they did not co-ordinate their stories... In order for their stories to be co-ordinated, both would have the same story

You don’t seem to know what the word co-ordinate means.

That is why it needs to be investigated and he needs to be questioned.

So that he can deny it? Again?

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[spun]

There is a link to the UK Guardian right in the summary. Are you saying the Guardian is lying about the contents of the report?

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[dreampod]

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.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[kaptink]

Given the behaviour of the girls after the alledged rape, ie one throwing a party for him. And the fact they are both avid feminist activitists, my guess is they are both full of it. But its one of those things that can never be proved either way. Both girls were only very pissed off when they discovered each other and only then did they cry fowl. Now they are nowhere to be herd or seen except for the two simultanious police reports they filed at the time. No evidence. Just the words of two scorned women against Julian. And hell have no fury like two scorned women. No one will ever know for sure except for the three of them.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[clone52431]

And, so the investigators can try to find a hole in either party's story. That is how investigations work and how one can find lies and distortions, by repeated questioning and looking for inconsistency in the tellings and re-tellings.

So? All he has to do is say he didn’t do it, and give the same story again. And they have no proof, so it’s a complete waste of everyone’s time.

They already investigated, already questioned him (when he was in the country), they determined there was no case, dropped it, and told him he was free to leave the country. He did.

Any inconsistency in his tellings and re-tellings would be due to the fact that it happened 4 months ago.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[Maxo-Texas]

Five languages of love.

words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service, or physical touch.

I use all five once I'm in a relationship. I use all five at some level before I'm in a relationship.

Flowers would be under gifts. Just remember, flowers or sports car-- both are good for "1 point". It truly is the "thought that counts" for most women.
 

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh and thoughtless/automatic flowers/gifts are not worth much and may even be counted as a negative.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[swb]

What we have is a repressive social environment for female sexuality and a female sex drive with subtle yet profound differences from the male sex drive. Sprinkle on a little fear of getting pregnant (when you're the one that actually has to carry the baby) along with perhaps some tertiary fear of STDs. And of course none of this even starts to cover the vast emotional territory associated with sexuality, "romance" (for lack of a better word) and the dynamics of an intimate relationship.

What you end up with is a weird situation where women have a high degree of internal conflict about sex (empowered? slut? love? like? pregnant? disease? good? bad?) and a tacit agreement among couples that stated "no" is seldom emphatic and often has many other meanings that change as circumstances change.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard

[clone52431]

You're a complex person, despicable and admirable in equal turns.

I find that most people are like that, and it’s one reason that I’m usually reluctant to use the Foe feature.

Can someone link the report?

[Monkeedude1212]

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?

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Chrisq]

So its apparently been leaked...

Rather like Assange's condom

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Attila Dimedici]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the U.S. government has any involvement in this Swedish case? Or are you just assuming, since you think the U.S. government must be out to get him, they must be behind this?

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Guardian article which seems to talk about it very in-depth but doesn't present the raw document. They've apparently seen it though so either whoever leaked it is letting people look but not touch or there's some reason for it being kept sort-of under wraps.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[TheRaven64]

Unless you can read Swedish, the original document probably won't be much use to you...

Re:Can someone link the report?

[pipatron]

The "cablegate" leaks clearly showed that the Swedish government have very close ties to the U.S. one, something that they are trying to keep from the public eye. Assuming that the U.S. are pressuring the Swedes right now is probably not very far fetched.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[pipatron]

He's wanted for questioning.

Meanwhile, we have a recent case of two Irish guys beating a Swedish guy half to death on a cruise. They were caught by the guards and on camera, and their identities and whereabouts in Ireland are known, but the Swedish government are not willing to do anything because the crime was not serious enough. Compare this with a broken condom.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[JaredOfEuropa]

I don't think the US Government is behind this, but if it turns out that they were, it would not surprise me either. There's a few strange things about this case... for example, why would Sweden oppose Assange to be released on bail by the UK, for this very flimsy allegation of rape? The case itself doesn't really merit the measures that have been taken against Assange so far.

Of course, if the US really wanted to get their hands on Assange "legally", then this would be the easiest avenue of approach. Once Assange is in Swedish custody, all the US have to do is charge him and request extradition. If that happens, my guess is that the rape charge will evaporate overnight so that nothing stands in the way of his extradition.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Pharmboy]

As someone pointed out, a $200,000 bond for a $700 fine? Any time the bond is more than the maximum penalty, particularly in an extreme case such as this, then something else is at play. Interpol is involved over a $700 fine? Has there ever been a parallel, in all history, whereby interpol would get so involved in something that is punishable by an amount slightly more than a traffic ticket? I don't know if there is direct proof that the US is involved, but it is kinda like walking in the kitchen, seeing an empty cookie jar, and child with crumbs on their shirt. No, you didn't SEE the child eat the cookies, and it is technically possible for someone else to have eaten them an put the crumbs on the child's shirt, but the smart money bets on the obvious.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Attila Dimedici]

It is a long way from something being "not very far fetched" to that same something being "very clearly" so. Of course, you also point out a reason that the Swedish government might want to string up Julian Assange without any pressure from the U.S. government.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[sourcerror]

You mean his rubberhose?

"
Written by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Rubberhose is a freeware
deniable encryption scheme for multiple file systems whose existence can only
be verified using a cryptographic key.

http://iq.org/~proff/rubberhose.org/
"

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Kozz]

He's wanted for questioning.

Meanwhile, we have a recent case of two Irish guys beating a Swedish guy half to death on a cruise. They were caught by the guards and on camera, and their identities and whereabouts in Ireland are known, but the Swedish government are not willing to do anything because the crime was not serious enough. Compare this with a broken condom.

But did the Swedish guy actually ask them to stop?

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Motard]

I saw that post too, but I suspect there's more to it.

I was thinking about it from Assange's perspective. Why wouldn't he go voluntarily to Sweden, plead no contest, and pay the fine and go free. As it is, he's a sitting duck should the US file its own charges and seek extradition.

So I bet there's a lot more at stake than a few hundred bucks.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Joce640k]

Interpol's own constitution forbids them from getting involved in cases where a crime wasn't committed in more than one member country and where the punishment is less then 12 months in prison.

This case fails on both counts. The fact that they're involved at all is clear evidence of corruption at the highest level. ...and has been pointed out on many occasions, women are raped every day. Really raped. Beaten senseless afterwards and dumped out of the backs of vans in alleyways. Traumatized and afraid to go outside for the rest of their lives. Even so it's very difficult to get the police involved and almost impossible to start a manhunt unless it's a serial rapist.

And here we have an international manhunt over a broken condom. It's a complete perversion of justice and an insult to all the women who've ever really been raped.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[Scrameustache]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the U.S. government has any involvement in this Swedish case?

They're holding him in Britain while the justice department figures out a way to drum up charges to have him extradited to United States. Furthermore the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables show evidence of the U.S. tampering with foreign justice systems through secret political pressure.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[pipatron]

It gets even more hilarious when you compare this case with the case of Joachim Posener, once described as Sweden's most wanted man, suspect of running off with a large amount of stolen money and hiding abroad for a decade. He was later questioned at a Swedish embassy in Belgium. No problems there.

Re:Can someone link the report?

[pipatron]

The crime was committed on Swedish water, so apparently it's the Swedes that are supposed to prosecute. The guys even confessed. The prosecutor, when pressured by the journalists about extradition, is quoted saying that he dropped the case because he can't get hold of the two Irish guys, and that they save extraditions for serious crimes like murder.

(horrible swedish tabloid with an image from the surveillance camera: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8031457.ab)

If only...

[TheL0ser]

If only there was some internet repository where leaks of this kind could be shared. It could even be made into a wiki, for easier access.

Not on wikileaks?

[MikeMo]

Shouldn't Assange have already posted it? There isn't any hypocrisy here, is there?

I'm not trolling -- I mean, seriously?

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Halo1]

Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[thijsh]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Wyatt Earp]

The dude believes in total transparency, if its good for the State Department it should be good enough for Assange.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Motard]

Is this not a government document?

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Beerdood]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Rary]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[geminidomino]

Says the anonymous coward....

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Abcd1234]

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"?

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[ubermiester]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[pipatron]

There are no charges against him, yet.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[corbettw]

The only military video I've seen on Wikileaks was not misrepresented, at all. It is clear from the video and the conversations in it that the people firing the guns on the helicopter simply did not care if their targets were valid or not. They were excited at the prospect of killing people and didn't care about anything else.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[nstlgc]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Motard]

How do I know you haven't committed severe crimes and covered them up? We'd better violate your privacy and put everything up on the web so we can all see. How can anyone trust you otherwise?

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Abcd1234]

The only military video I've seen on Wikileaks was not misrepresented, at all.

Then you don't remember the original sequence of events. The original video *was* misrepresented, in that it was edited to remove large portions of the video... it wasn't until later that the full, unedited version was provided.

Of course, you'd think, in "leaking" something, you'd just leak the whole thing and be done with it. Not so for Wikileaks...

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Motard]

I don't know if you've watched the full video, or just Assange's edit of it. If you watched the full one you know that at several points they asked for clearance to fire, and spent some time trying to figure the situation out.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[IamTheRealMike]

So let's say they didn't redact names in the first release. I recall the Pentagon itself finding that nobody had been harmed as a result of them, and I'm sure they looked pretty damn hard!

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[GooberToo]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[thijsh]

You have a right to a degree of privacy, and there is a hard line when you commit a crime because the right of victims outweighs the right to privacy.

For example your sexlife is private, you can do with your partner(s) in your own house what you both want. But when someone commits rape, or has sex with a much younger minor what would you do when you found out about it? You have a moral duty to report or 'leak' this information about a terrible wrongdoing... While gossip about who has consensual sex with who is a private matter... 'Leaking' information like that is sleazy gossip and deserves no protection.

Your example of the CC-statement is normally private, but when you come upon someone's CC-statement that has a payment for something that is clearly wrong (and I'm not talking a sex-shop item, but more along the lines of large quantities of chemicals they have no business using under any normal circumstances) you can of course 'leak' this information.

Evidence can be leaked (and in my opinion deserves protection), other stuff that people want to keep private should remain private.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[AhabTheArab]

Check out my other post which links to anther post, which has a link to a YouTube documentary

Are you serious? Do you really expect anybody to do that?

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[thijsh]

Leaking is what you do when you come across information that is evidence of some wrongdoing and you want to serve justice by exposing this. Most leakers are people within the organization who feel a moral obligation to do their part in stopping wrongdoings, not people looking for wrong stuff to leak.

Your example:
- When you hack into someone's PC and find images of a crime and leak those (I would suspect after the owner refuses to be blackmailed in this scenario) you are morally wrong and in fact committing a crime.
- When on the other hand you fix the guys broken PC and during the backup come across said photo's you are morally right to report this individual. And before going into detail of what to report and what not just use your judgement, I for one would not report a guy when I find a photo of him doing some drugs but I would report him when I found child-pornography. In fact some pedophiles have been caught this way and the technicians who reported them 'leaked' this information to the authorities like any sane person would.

I personally think that leakers are heroes who put the spotlight on crimes and wrongdoings (that would otherwise continue for a long time) at great personal risk. The worse the crime or more powerful the person/corporation/government they are in fact at risk of losing their livelihood or even life over this.

And *if* I ever commit a severe crime that causes harm to other people I fucking hope someone around me has the guts to leak this information. And when they are afraid that I might pressure or even kill them before a trial I hope there is still an organization that will allow them to leak this information anonymously. You can't be sure that I didn't commit any crime, but nothing is ever sure, you're just going to have to trust my word for now until proven otherwise. But you can help create the circumstance that it's a little more sure by making it easier and accepted to leak...

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[devent]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Beerdood]

The point was that there's no hypocrisy in this situation because wikileaks isn't in the business of releasing this type of information, hence the Tiger sexting analogy. The purpose of the site is to release documents and information related to political and corporate dealings, not a repository of celebrity sex videos and "personal information" of individuals.

Perhaps your definition of "personal private information" needs some clarification. To me, personal private information would be an SSN, birth information, personal address, mother's maiden name, bank account number, credit card numbers etc... Wikileaks goes out of it's way to redact this information, and your whole "informants could get killed" argument is the same bullshit reasoning that the diplomats are trying to say to cover their asses. If I recall from the whole afghan war logs information, a whopping 3 informant names were released - one of who which was dead, another which was a double agent, and I've yet to hear about a directly related death.

Besides that, wikileaks doesn't seem to be in the business of releasing information that's already out there on the interwebs. The police report here has already been released - so unless you can somehow prove that wikileaks originally received this document and deliberatly didn't post it, then you might have a smidgen of a point. Even then, the point here is that this police report doesn't directly affect anyone except for Julian and the two women who filed the report - which is why they wouldn't post it. The war logs & other information posted actually affect people - because it's their tax dollars supporting that war, or their back yard where some corporation is secretly dumping toxic chemicals.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Beerdood]

The difference here is that the stuff wikileaks releases directly affects people - it's their family members getting killed, their tax dollars at work, a corporation in their country buying off a government & polluting their environment etc..

The information in this police report doesn't directly affect anyone except Julian & the two women making the claim. Wikileaks is not in the celebrity gossip business

So yea, technically they're both "government dealings" I guess in that sense. But no other significant similarity

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Abcd1234]

The information in this police report doesn't directly affect anyone except Julian & the two women making the claim.

Unless, of course, the leaks expose misconduct by the police or government in an attempt to discredit someone whose proven to be a political liability.

Note, to be clear, I don't advocate for 100% information transparency... I'm not an information anarchist nutjob. My point is simply that the dividing line between "should be leaked" and "shouldn't be leaked" is *very* complicated. And in this particular case, I really don't think it's entirely clear on which side the hammer falls.

On the one hand, we have, here, leaked details about a case which could result in a trial in the media. The result could be Assange or his accusers being denied due process.

On the other hand, if there *is* something shady going on, the public needs to know about it.

Anyone claiming to have a definitive "right" answer, in this case, is either lying or an idiot.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[bcmm]

If you watched the full one you know that at several points they asked for clearance to fire, and spent some time trying to figure the situation out.

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).

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[bcmm]

Forgot to say: to me, the incident has an eerie similarity to the transcripts of intercepted Russian communications during the KAL007 shootdown. The same situation occurs: the pilot fails to report all the information he has (thought unlike the Apache crew, he doesn't appear to mislead intentionally), and is ordered to fire based on his own flawed information, leaving the same ambiguity as to who's fault the casualties are.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[JAlexoi]

Presumption of innocence takes a real hit with your comment.
No matter how conclusive the evidence you think is, we have things called courts that have to conclude that the person is not innocent. Only when those fail, we can and should break our own rules.
BTW: Violation of privacy is not the same as making things publicly available.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[debrain]

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.

Sir –

Incidentally, if you wish to make an anonymous donation to Wikileaks from a common law country (Australia, Canada, U.S., Great Britain, etc) you can give the money to a law firm and ask that they make the donation out of their trust account anonymously. In general, a retained law firm is barred by confidentiality to not disclose that you are even a client, and thanks to the client-solicitor privilege they cannot be forced to disclose that relationship by a Court except in a rare set of particular circumstances.

This is, of course, a general rule and not legal advice you should rely on. Ask the law firm what protections in the form of privacy, confidentiality and privilege they provide for you if you wish to make an anonymous donation to Wikileaks through them, and under what circumstances your identity and donation could be disclosed by way of Court order or otherwise.

For further protection, you could ask the law firm you retain to retain another law firm to make the donation.

Some firms may not wish to engage in this practice, and indeed may be barred from doing so by way of their respective law society or applicable legislation, but if they are it is certainly a measure of anonymity with seasoned and tested protections that's not easily accessible by any other means.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[GooberToo]

I (not the GP) watched the version I pulled from WikiLeaks.

Please keep in mind, Wikileaks has released that same video twice. The first time they released it, it was a heavily edited video which they painted in very poor light, which was further negatively viewed because most people honestly have no idea the reality of the environment or what the facts on the ground are. After some media (most were content to be used as propaganda tools) started pushing back because the military told them the video had been edited, they finally released the complete video. So chances are, what you are now seeing is the complete video. But having the complete video doesn't change the fact that Wikileaks used the world press as its own propaganda machine and willfully mislead and lied about the original video release.

To this day, most people still don't understand why they are seeing and allow them emotions to carry them to a final conclusion.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[BobMcD]

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.

This, by the way, is moot because you can see the range readout on the weapon's sight at this time as well. That Apache is resting at over double the effective range of every Soviet-designed RPG. They had time to figure it out, and elected to lie instead. Then later, when they had used up all their rounds, they went off on a rocket-firing spree. They were clearly going for a 'high score'.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Motard]

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.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[Magada]

If anything, the full version was worse. There's a lull of about ten minutes in which the helicopter guys just hang around and wait for something to move so they can shoot it. The edited-out bits about the girl are also horrific, showing blatant disregard for civilians from the US military (the shot-up girl is denied medical aid, basically).

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[GooberToo]

I already did.

Explain why the hell they lit up a van with a kid in it for rescuing wounded people?
No threat, no guns, no aggressive activity.

Standard operating procedure observed every day.

Just a couple of citizens trying to save lives in the place they live that was turned into a war zone.

They had daily experience indicating otherwise and absolutely no reason to expect it was any different from any other situation they've previously observed.

If Omaha was turned into a war zone and soccer mom and soccer dad pulled over to help a couple of guys groaning and bleeding all over the place and China just went and lit-up the van we would call it a war crime.

Way over simplification. The root of all this is that this is what happens when you cowardly refuse to wear uniforms. Innocent people absolutely will be killed whereby you then leverage this, truthfully or not, to ones advantage.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[snowgirl]

In the Common Law systems of the United States, client-attorney privilege only applies to solicitation of legal advice, and thus donations through a lawyer or lawyer group can likely be disclosed by any simple court order.

Now, if you go to them and ask them how to legally donate to Wikileaks anonymously, then they cannot disclose any information about that.

Re:Not on wikileaks?

[drinkypoo]

Wikileaks shouldn't have been editing *anything* (minus necessary redactions to protect names of informants, etc). They have, themselves, flat out stated they aren't journalists. They just leak things. Well, if that's true, there should be no editorializing at all. At best, they should leak *all* the original materials, and provide time indexes to things they deem "interesting".

Since they provided unedited video as well, that's essentially what they did.

Re:the Julian assange

[Abstrackt]

People these days use the Gregorian assange.

One of the women has links to anti-Castro groups

[Anonymous Coward]

On of the accusers had been kicked out of Cuba for "anti-Castro" activity and has ties to US funded political groups. It's looking a lot like CIA. Counter Punch reported on it, check it out.

Old news

[airfoobar]

This happened several days ago. The Guardian has the story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden I think The Times also had a story. No point looking for the original document -- it was in Swedish.

Re:Old news

[Tumbleweed]

No point looking for the original document -- it was in Swedish.

Ah, found it. No wonder - I was looking for the document title, "Assange Rapes Women" when I should've been looking for "Assange BORKS Women BORK BORK BORK". Thanks for the tip.

Re:Old news

[SplashMyBandit]

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.

Re:the Julian assange

[airfoobar]

It's singe, you baboon.

Re:So what

[spun]

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.

Re:So what

[iammani]

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.

Re:the Julian assange

[courteaudotbiz]

Sorry, but no. "A monkey", in French, is "Un singe". If you want something funny with French and English mixing with Julian Assange's name:

Ass: you know what this means
Ange: means "Angel" in French.

So Julian Assange would be "Julian Angel Ass"

Four Days?!

[PPH]

No wonder the condom broke!

Re:So what

[commodore64_love]

>>>in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent

There is no evidence this happened. All we have is two women who were apparently happy with Julian, but then they met each other and discovered he was two-timing, and suddenly the women weren't happy. i.e. We only have their word and their word is suspect, because they have motive to lie (to get back at the creep).

Re:So what

[91degrees]

They've made the accusation. It's evidence. Not very strong evidence I'll grant you but certainly adeuquate to bring him in and ask him.

Clickwhoring

[sirdude]

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

Re:Clickwhoring

[wjousts]

I'd assume because Slashdot editors don't like linking to the NYT because it has a semi-paywall thing. If they linked directly to NYT, you'd had pages of people complaining that they are being asked to subscribe to see the article. I had a similar experience when I submitted something from the NYT, they didn't post it for several days and then linked to a different newspaper that referenced the NYT story.

IIRC: NYT lets you see one article a day without subscribing or something like that. It's trivial to defeat by clearing your cookies, not accepting cookies in the first place, or using private browsing.

Assange himself is irrelevant, however.

[EWAdams]

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."

Re:the Julian assange

[fritsd]

Aha, and that in turn explains the two Swedish women...

Re:One of the women has links to anti-Castro group

[doperative]

Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups link

Haha

[copponex]

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

Re:So what

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:unprotected $ex with them... over four days

[Anonymous Coward]

The sex did not last for four days

That's a relief. Those viagra ads say if you last for 4 hours, call your doctor. He would have been 92 hours overdue.

How does a condom break (no stupid jokes please)

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Throwing stones.

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

I've heard differently

[phorm]

Really, because from what I've read, even the Pentagon had admitted that no troops were endangered by the leaks.

Yes, they originally stated that lives were endangered, but later had to change their tune after they really couldn't find anything to that effect.

So unless you count lives being endangered by people being more pissed off at the US in general (a symptom I attribute more to the ignorance of corporate-government policy and meddling than wikileaks), I'd say that the only real danger thus far has been to the careers of various high-up politicos and corporations.

Re:So what

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually how rape laws work in Saudi Arabia - men are incapable of rape and women are responsible for being raped.

Re:So what

[Artefacto]

A jury? In Sweden?

Re:How does a condom break (no stupid jokes please

[Philomage]

Quite easily actually. If you want to test it have your girlfriend clench her thighs just before you thrust... many women know this and use it as a test of their boyfriend's fidelity. (As in, "which is more important to him, my safety or his pleasure?")

Re:How does a condom break (no stupid jokes please

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually not that difficult that it breaks if there's very little lubrication, with each thrust it stretches more and more until it breaks. And yes, you can feel it broken because the penis causes less friction than a dry condom -- though you can easily mistake it for the onset of vaginal fluid production.

Reminds of a joke...

[Anne_Nonymous]

This geek, an uber-nerd, who looks like a cross between Johnny Winters and a vampire goes to see a priest. "I want to confess," he says. "But you're not Catholic, you're not even religious. Why would you want to confess?" "Please! I must!" So the priest says okay. And the albino vampire tells him, "The other week I fucked these two girls." "Yes, my son." "They were a couple of Swedish chicks, both great in bed." "Continue, young man." "One of them though I was such a good lay, she threw me a party. And the other one liked it so much she emailed all her friends." "This is a sin, but I don't understand why you're telling me this." "Telling you?", says the vampire, "I'm telling everyone!"

Re:So what

[cdrguru]

I believe the proper term is Sharia law, not Islamic. You can find all sorts of charming references about Sharia and rape on the Internet and I'm not going to dump them all out here.

One that is very common and enforced in at least Pakistan and Iran is the requirement that a woman have four witnesses to a rape or else she is charged with adultery.

While I haven't seen any reference to specifically "forgiving" a brother after a rape, there are certainly ample references to situations where a woman's family is expected to kill her because of a rape. Rape is assumed in most cases to be the woman's fault which leads to women being kept as virtual prisoners in their homes and being covered head to toe when they are allowed outside.

No, Sharia law isn't the rule in all Islamic countries as you don't see women being stoned to death in Egypt or Turkey. But increasingly in non-Islamic countries Sharia law is being given precedence over local laws for violations between Muslims. This is happening in the US, Australia, Germany and the UK.

Re:So what

[sgtrock]

yes, assange did something good in the world. he also did something wrong.

While I don't condone his lying to both women, I'm still not convinced that he did anything that would be regarded as illegal even under Swedish law's definition of rape. There's certainly plenty of evidence that both women spent plenty of time with him socially after the fact. There's even some evidence that these women didn't really press charges even after they found out about each other until _after_ someone in the prosecutor's office started pushing them. In the end, though, his final guilt or innocence is for a trial to decide.

However, I'm not sure that he's ever going to get a fair hearing. Based upon the correspondence that has been released by his lawyers in Britain and Sweden, I'm FIRMLY convinced that the way his rights have been trampled by British and Swedish law enforcement go far beyond the point that a fair and impartial judge would declare the Swedish equivalent of a mistrial. In this circus-like, witch hunt atmosphere? Doubtful at best.

Re:One of the women has links to anti-Castro group

[poity]

It's pretty easy to say "has ties to" and make implications, but none of those links in the article point to specific relationships. It says she wrote articles for an "anti-Castro" magazine. This magazine is accused of by one Swedish professor as having connections with an "anti-Castro" organization. Among this organization's leaders is one man who once had a public argument with a critic where he threw out some personal accusations. A blogger read these accusations, disregarded any possibility of baseless sparring between adversaries, and believed them too specific for a single man to uncover. Then, in true conspiracy theorist fashion, he searched the internet for tenuous connections between this man and US foreign aid programs as evidence

Now, let's forget about this subtle "anti-Castro"/"pro-democracy" turn of phrase, and judge these sites for the time being as unbiased, and work backwards from US foreign aid programs to Ardin. How many leaps across fact-less precipices must one make in order to arrive from one end to the other? I'd say one is too many for a rational man. I invite everyone to read all those links on counterpunch.org and to explain how this is any different from accusations thrown by 911 truthers.

Re:charges seem implausible

[HertzaHaeon]

Sex with a sleeping person is very possible. If you can't imagine how, you're not imaginative enough. Or creepy enough, I guess. Some people are heavy sleepers. Other gets very drunk. Etc, etc.

The debate about rape and abuse here has focused more and more on whether you actually say yes to sex, not so much if you say no. It makes sense in many ways. It's not always possible to say no. Maybe you're too afraid to say no, or maybe you're sleeping and can't say no.

As for what Assange did, I'll leave that to the court to decide.

Re:So what

[commodore64_love]

Not really.

There was a case where some woman accused a College basketball(?) team of rape. The school had a fit, suspended the accused players, and even suspended all games for the season. The players received a lot of hate from fellow students, newpaper reporters, and so on. The players had a motive to lie to save themselves, their team, and their scholarship.

By your reasoning the woman wins ("remains credible"). But in reality she was questioned by police, found to have holes in her story, and eventually admitted she had been lying. I think that's the case here - two women lying. And even if they were telling the truth, there's no way to prove it. So "not guilty" by lack of evidence. A US Judge would dismiss this case in about 30 minutes.

The Swedes should too.

Ideally...

[ArmchairGeneral]

As much as to the positive things being done by WikiLeaks, Julian is putting himself out there, literally. Where he is being the frontman for WikiLeaks, he has allowed himself to get into this kind of a mess. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doing the holier than thou. He knew the shitstorm that was going to happen with the cable leaks and he put himself into an unfavorable position. I would bet that if the scenario played out a dozen other times with minor changes, this wouldn't have happened, just some bad timing.

Re:How does a condom break (no stupid jokes please

[fishexe]

I think the only reasonable conclusion is this: Julian Assange has an ungodly large penis.

Re:So what

[clone52431]

it will be nearly impossible to prove that consent was withdrawn and that the other party understood that and continued anyway.

Which is why this ridiculous fabrication of a charge will be dropped moments before Assange is extradited to the US.

Re:So what

[BeanThere]

And? That's why iammani didn't put them in jail, he only posted an opinion on an Internet forum.

Sourced to a fucking blog???

[1u3hr]

Why on earth does Slashdot source this story to a blog -- http://hypedtalk.blogspot.com/2010/12/report-prepared-by-secret-swedish.html -- that quotes a "Press Trust of India" story !!, that quotes an unnamed New York Times article.

For FUCK'S sake, cite the fucking original source not what has been passed through all these useless parasites regurgitating while diluting and colouring whatever facts there were at each step? So, it took me 2 whole minutes to find at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html

What next: A Tweet referring to a blog copying a Usenet post... How can the editors let these douchebags promote their worthless blogs like this, in the guise of a news story they've plagiarised from someone else?

If the condom dont fit

[Bruha]

You must Acquit.

Re:So what

[VortexCortex]

My girlfriend takes advantage of my morning wood, while I'm sleeping... I wake up to marvelous morning sex, not rape.

Would it have been "rape" if he was going down on her in her sleep instead?

By your logic, I should always ask first before walking up behind my girlfriend in the kitchen, groping her and making out in the breakfast nook. Sexual spontaneity is a trait that many women and men enjoy.

I assume that since we're in a sexual relationship that affection and sex is welcome. If at any point she says "stop" or terminates the relationship my sexual advances will cease.

I just can't accept the notion that when your significant other is asleep, you are no longer a couple...

Re:So what

[sgtrock]

yes, it is wrong to rush to judgment

as equally as wrong as your attitude, which is obviously extremely eager to absolve him of guilt

Look, I'm NOT saying he's guilty or innocent. All I know, like you, is what I've read in the papers about the case, including this statement from his attorney from a month ago:

...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."

...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.

...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. ...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.

(emphasis added)

The fact that he was held WITHOUT BAIL for a month after all that? Despicable. His rights under Swedish and British law? Nonexistent, apparently, precisely BECAUSE he chose to push for transparency in government. Don't you find that just the least bit horrific? I certainly do.

Due Process

[Wolfling1]

So many posts about whether he's innocent or guilty...

There is a legal process to establish the fact of that. It will be decided by a jury or a panel of judges depending on the laws in Sweden.

This tirade of posts declaring his obvious guilt or innocence is just opinionated pandering to the government spin doctors who are trying to detract interest away from the substance of the leaks.

Its not our job to decide Julian Assange's fate. In trying to do so, we are reducing the chance that he will have any kind of fair trial.

Shouldn't we be more interested in our governments' lack of action regarding the crimes evidenced in the cablegate leaks?

So what have we learned

[horza]

So far I've picked up from this thread:
a) Julian Assange may have two-timed a couple of women
b) He probably isn't gay

Who cares? Did Tiger Woods leave a gossip void that simply needed to be filled?

Phillip.

Assange gets screwed hard-time

[Steeltoe]

Once a formal charge is filed, you can bet these women's sorry ass a counter-suit for untruthful allegations and collaboration is to follow.

But by the time all this has blown over, Assange's life will already have been ruined by the powerful people behind the invisible strings. These sex-allegations are perfect, dubious and speculative, but enough to mow down Assange and his credibility, together with the denial of all business with every major corporation on the planet. The right to possess money (banking) has already been taken away from him, without any evidence of criminal activity or judgements against him.

Who will step up and assist him now? It will be professional and personal suicide.. You will also get registered and surveilled for the rest of your life.

Unless we expose it all that is.

Re:So what

[mjwx]

Really? I must have missed the agenda item on the City Council docket for "allow Muslim laws to supersede the rest of this stuff".

No, you didn't miss it.

This is just more BS propaganda from the BNP/One Nation parties. "Teh evil immigrants are destroying the $NATIONS national identity and blergh", just an excuse for racism and bigotry to make up for their own fears and failures. GP should not have been modded up. Muslims are a convenient target because there's lots of negative propaganda around them already. When you consider the overwhelming majority of Muslims live in non-sharia countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Indo is right up there for religious diversity too) and that most Muslims have taken great lengths to integrate themselves into western society (particularly in OZ) it's not as bad as the ultra-nationalists make out.

But this doesn't stop them from being used as a bogeyman to scare people who dont know any better.