Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Courts Your Rights Online

Assange Rape Case Reopened 529

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the some-things-never-end dept.
eldavojohn writes "Wikileaks' Julian Assange had a warrant issued for his arrest in Sweden on the charges of rape. But it was withdrawn shortly thereafter. Now the case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges.' On top of that, a new site (parody?) called wikileakileaks.org has been launched by the chief editor of Gawker to give Wikileaks a taste of its own medicine. You can find links to details on the molestation charges there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Rape Case Reopened

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Coming up next (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Defenestrar (1773808) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:21AM (#33434600)

    In this case, the testimony of someone who wrote "a seven step guide Ardin published in January to 'legal revenge' that involves, in one example, sabotaging a victim's sexual relationships." [gawker.com]

    not that that makes Assange pure, holy, or free of any wrongdoing, but perhaps it should make one think...

  • by airfoobar (1853132) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:26AM (#33434658)
    I'm aware of that. If Assange stays around, he'll be sure to release a LOT more classified stuff over the years than what there is in that archive. It's a game of Chicken, really -- Assange stays around and keeps releasing stuff forever, or Assange is taken care of now and there's only a limited spill.

    Though, even if Assange is killed off, there's bound to be someone else who'll take his place. What's more, the new guy will be a lot more careful to hide his identity and whereabouts...
  • by grimJester (890090) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:33AM (#33434724)
    I've been following the case and the speculation around it on Swedish forums and blogs. A story in English that seems to have what is known / believed to have happened without any obvious errors can be found here [dailymail.co.uk].

    In addition, it's known the police officer interrogating the younger woman has filed a complaint about not being allowed to give her view on what offenses if any were described to the first prosecutor and that her colleague who contacted the prosecutor refused to communicate. The colleague says she has contacted superiors and others and everyone agreed the charge would be rape. The initial prosecutor is under investigation for possibly issuing an arrest warrant without enough cause to do so and, in addition, for confirming Assange's name to a journalist.

    The lawyer of the women says the published story is missing crucial details. He also says he's gone through material used in the preparation of the current law on rape in Sweden. To the question of why the older woman filed harassment charges instead of reporting a rape, he replied "She's not a lawyer".

    Given that the chief prosecutor dismissed the charge of rape saying there's no reason to disbelieve the younger woman's story, but no crime has been committed, but the organization supervising the work of prosecutors think otherwise, it would seem to me there's disagreement on whether there was consent or not. If it was an issue of whether a sex act is rape vs molestation vs harassment etc, they wouldn't be flipping between rape and no crime like this.

    What's absolutely clear is that much of the speculation on what Assange could have done is completely and utterly wrong since the chief prosecutor would never have simply dropped a case where he's accused of strangleholds, forcing himself on a sleeping woman, etcetc.
  • Re:Childish (Score:5, Interesting)

    by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:46AM (#33434864) Journal

    Gawker media has become Fox News of the blogs. But unlike Fox, their loyalty is only towards money - weather it's earned with facts, rumors or slanders.

  • by SoTerrified (660807) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:47AM (#33434872)

    And if you believe that, you've already bought into the Pentagon propaganda.

    I ask you one simple question... If he was such a 'douchebag' all along, why did we not hear ANY of this until he dared to challenge the US military? Why are all these little details suddenly 'leaking' now? The obvious answer is that it's all BS. But no one even questions it. It's scary how blindly people follow media.

  • by tmk (712144) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:47AM (#33434880)
    The credibility of Wikileaks is at stake, but not because of Assanges bedtime stories.

    For example: Assange claimed for years, Wikileaks contributors are protected by the Swedish law, he even threatened to sue anyone who tried to expose a Wikileaks source.

    But if you read the Twitter-stream of Wikileaks carefully, you will see this: this [twitter.com]:

    Confirm our editor applied for Swedish residency on Aug 18 to obtain prior-restraint protections http://bit.ly/czWlGT [bit.ly]

    When you follow the link, you will read nothing about "prior-restraint" protections - in fact Wikileaks has until now no protection at all under the Swedish press laws. And they will not get it soon, because Wikileaks did not fill out the application correctly.

    Another migration board spokesperson, Gunilla Wikstroem, told Swedish news agency TT the application was on hold since some information was missing,

    This is only one of the countless contradictions Assange was caught on. For example Assange claimed in 2009 a 17 year old Wikileaks contributor by the police in Iceland to press him for information about Wikileaks. In fact the juvenile was caught breaking into a business premises and was subsequently interrogated in the presence of his parents, police did not even know about any Wikileaks connections. Even when he had to wait for less than 30 minutes at an airport in Australia Assange did spread conspiracy theories about foul play and intelligence agency involvement.

  • by fmobus (831767) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:48AM (#33434882)

    There are two methods I can think of:

    1) Assange could have someone he trusts hold the key and release it should he die (or worse)

    2) Assange could have a dead-man switch setup: every X days, he presses a button somewhere (over ssh or something) that keeps the key from being released. If he doesn't press the button for X+1 days, the dead-man switch system releases the key.

    Of course, I think method two works the best, as it doesn't depend on a third-party (that could be killed by his opponents before the key gets released). Also, depending on how you design for method two, the key-releasing system script and the button script could be in different hosts, so that if the opposers killed one system, the other would fail safely.

  • Re:That's Great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by victorhooi (830021) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @08:49AM (#33434888)

    heya,

    Err yeah, but there's little evidence of these so-called war crimes so far.

    I mean, Assange drummed up excitement, played the media really well, and then released these so-called Afghan War Diaries, to much fanfare...and it's turned out to be a fat lot of nothing.

    Most of the data in there was already public knowledge.

    Let's see...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary [wikipedia.org]

    Err, we have evidence that Pakistan is screwing over the US, UK and other NATO nations, and aiding the Taliban to kill our soldiers. Great....so what happens now? We try to charge Pakistan with war crimes? Lol.

    Then we have evidence that Iran likewise is helping the Taliban and screwing us over. We're going to charge them with war crimes as well? We can't even get them to have clean elections....

    Oh, and our good chum North Korea as well.

    The of course, we have the civilian casualties, currently standing at a few hundred. Very regretable, and tragic. However, it's in contest how much of it's avoidable, and how much of it was caused by negligence, say, or poor regard for the civilian folk. Ultimately, that's a question for a court to decide - however, I don't see anybody actually making a solid case for any charges of war crimes. I mean, gee, most of these incidents are caused by cross-fire, bad-luck, panicking soldiers, or the Taliban deliberately trying to drag civilians into the conflict, or using questionable tactics.

    Hardly any evidence of the grand conspiracy all these silly, IT'S A CONSPIRACY hippies are decrying about.

    Then we have evidence in these war diaries that the Taliban is deliberately targeting civilians, and has killed some 2000 to date. Gee, we're going to charge the Taliban with war crimes? We can't even catch them all yet.

    Hmm, then we reveal that the Taliban is using heat-seeking missiles to shoot down our aircraft. Oh great, another revelation.

    I mean, seriously guys, the defence of Assange is getting pretty flimsy. He needless endangered Afghan informants and screwed over active military operations, just so he could get his name in the papers - and what, he reveals a bunch of useless information.

    Sure, the US military, in fact, many militaries have a tendency to just mark everything classified, "just to be safe" even if it's completely stupid. But really...what of note was revealed here?

    Cheers,
    Victor

  • Re:Next time... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sjs132 (631745) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:13AM (#33435164) Homepage Journal

    ok... ok.. I got it, so they are pissed that they were just used as a penis cozy and now upset that it wasn't exclusive. So women being women and scorned now show fury by trying to make life tough for him with trumped up charges.

    Hmmm... Sorry, she fed him. At that point there was a payment (food & train ticket) made for the sex and then becomes a male prostitute doing her a service. Case closed. Go home. :)

    He must have a magical penis to get this kind of attention. His client list is going to skyrocket. Maybe we should erect a statue? ;)

  • Re:Next time... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DarkIye (875062) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:26AM (#33435336) Journal
    Just to let you know: The Daily Mail is never to be cited for anything, ever. Ever. It's simply not factual on a regular enough basis to be used in such a way.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:13AM (#33436048)

    Pia Engstroem Lindgren, a spokeswoman for the women’s lawyer, Claes Borgstroem

    The lawyer has a spokeswoman.It seems to me that this lawyer must be really expensive. Who pays for her?

    And yes, I post as an Anonymous coward. This is an americancentric site, isn't it?

  • by FatSean (18753) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:21AM (#33436166) Homepage Journal

    I keep hearing that Remy Stern raped and murdered a girl in 2001. Why isn't he commenting on this? Does his silence mean confirmation?

  • Re:Coming up next (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:30AM (#33436306)

    .....and you think the Swedish lapdog judicial system would pass up on such a juicy bit like Julian Assange? Remember, the whole system is deeply political and all about delivering political expediency and protecting the prestige of the involved, nothing else. See earlier cases against the so called "pathologist" and the "general physician" in the murder case of prostitute Catrine da Costa [note, the wiki article on the topic is missing lots of information, like that one of the main "witnesses" was a small child who's mother was involved in an infected divorce with one of the defendant at the time.], and of course the kangaroo trial against the pirate bay for previous examples. There are plenty more if you care to look.

    Julian Assange should stay far away from Sweden unless he'd like a stay in our prisons, because even if there was no conspiracy to begin with, now it's about prestige and the fact that the judicial system has been exposed as the jackasses they are.

  • Oh the irony (Score:3, Interesting)

    by trifish (826353) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:39AM (#33436418)

    What made me laugh in the Bloomberg article was this gem of irony:

    "Assange is also disappointed that his name was released to the media, he said."

    (!)

  • Re:Next time... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Somewhat Delirious (938752) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:58AM (#33436738)

    Orwellian, no. Endemic surveillance society, as a recent human rights report called it, no doubt. Alas we seem to be all headed in the same direction in Europe as well as the US.

  • Re:Next time... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MoldySpore (1280634) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:01AM (#33436790)

    I don't understand why people are so surprised that two women cried "rape" and it wasn't actually rape. This happens all the time. And it is usually under these circumstances, where the woman or women in question have a grudge against the guy or are just pissed off he cheated or whatever the reason. Rape charges should be met with the HIGHEST scrutiny because they are VERY easy to make and get charges brought up against someone, which usually winds up ruining that person's reputation REGARDLESS if they did it or not.

    That is exactly what has happened here. The damage has been done. There are now thousands, perhaps more, people who watch the main stream media who are now saying: "OMGZ! Wikileaks is illegal, they endanger our troops, the US Government said they bad, AND they rape people too!"

    It really is a sad state of affairs for this to be happening. Hopefully these scorn women come to their senses and drop the charges. If he really DID rape them, then yea sure bring him to trial and put him in jail. But this all smells REALLY fishy, and it has nothing to do with either woman's hygiene.

  • Re:Next time... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Estanislao Martínez (203477) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @12:08PM (#33437860) Homepage

    Yeah, that seems kind of odd to me. Failing to use a condom for the second time isn't rape unless she withheld consent from that time.

    Not so sure about this. It depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in question, but there are jurisdictions where using certain types of deception or fraud to obtain consent to sex is rape. The classic examples are deceiving a woman as to your identity (e.g., if her boyfriend's twin brother were to impersonate him), or making her believe it's a necessary part of a medical procedure (yes, this has happened). The most infamous recent case: a Palestinian man convicted of rape because he told the woman that he was Jewish [guardian.co.uk].

    It's not a stretch to say that it's rape if a man obtains consent for sex by falsely telling her he will wear a condom.

    By that logic, if a woman insist on using a condom each time then after several months of a committed relationship and several STI tests they have sex without he could be brought up on rape charges.

    Well, you know, having sex with somebody against their consent is rape. Unlike what your comment implies, there is no magic moment where, once you've fucked her long enough, you no longer need her consent or to respect her conditions for that consent. If you've got a problem with her insistence on the condom you're not entitled to disregard them and have things your own way by either force or deception.

  • by gumbi west (610122) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @12:25PM (#33438044) Journal

    What if we dropped our medical system and went to socialism? If our experience was like every other developed country in the world, national spending (government plus private) would be cut in half, life spans would increase and infant mortality would drop. It's not like there is a few countries that have had socialized medicine work well and others than have had it work poorly for their national health care. It is also not like some have had it cost more than we spend and others have had it cost less. No, every other developed country pays less for longer lives.

    I don't really care about stories about waits or anything anecdotal, what I care about is results. Plus, if you think there are no waits in the US... you haven't been to see my doctor recently.

    Think of France. You get whatever you want there and pay nothing more than the taxes. You can have a doctor visit your house 24-7, for no additional fee. They pay half as much of GDP on this as we do on health care. You might think the doctors aren't as good, but then why do they live longer?

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @03:24PM (#33440740)

    Don't be simple, not even wikileaks believes that.

    Maybe not, but they are apparently fine with making claims like this [bbc.co.uk]: '[Assange] also said Wikileaks had "tried hard to make sure that this material does not put innocents at harm".'

    Of course, the Pentagon refused to help, leaving wikileaks to do the best they could.

    Of course they did! What did you think they were going to do, invite Wikileaks staff in to check the rest of their sensitive records just in case?!

    I'd wager that the threat is largely political; anyway, this sort of thing is probably good on the whole.

    I couldn't disagree more.

    For one thing, Wikileaks' actions may have brought more information into the public domain. There clearly is risk associated with doing so, as you acknowledged yourself above. Some people clearly have been damaged, even if there are no confirmed cases as a result of this one particular leak yet. On the other hand, while the defenders of Wikileaks are quick to demand proof of any actual harm caused by the leaks, no-one seems to have even claimed to show any specific benefits it has brought.

    Moreover, a less sensationalist, more focussed release of some of that information, managed properly by a critical free press, might have been much more effective at forcing a government to address genuinely inappropriate actions. And as long as people who want government accountability are chanting the Wikileaks anthem, there is less incentive to introduce serious reforms in the real checks and balances, people in a position of oversight with actual powers to do something when things are going wrong.

    Basically, Wikileaks is a vigilante, anarchist organisation. If you think that way of operating governments really is "probably good on the whole", I hear Somalia is a nice vacation spot this time of year.

  • by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @04:34PM (#33441736)

    Of course they did! What did you think they were going to do, invite Wikileaks staff in to check the rest of their sensitive records just in case?!

    Send someone over to redact documents? Beats the alternative...

    no-one seems to have even claimed to show any specific benefits it has brought.

    Well, there's the whole exposing government incompetence thing - seems that a lot of classified stuff is classified because it's easier than making a call or because it's embarrassing.

    Moreover, a less sensationalist, more focussed release of some of that information, managed properly by a critical free press

    Yeah, where were you planning to find that?

    more effective at forcing a government to address genuinely inappropriate actions.

    Okay, how about free speech zones and the standing agreement that people who ask hard questions at white house press conferences don't get invited back? Genuinely inappropriate, and nothing much has been done.

    And as long as people who want government accountability are chanting the Wikileaks anthem, there is less incentive to introduce serious reforms in the real checks and balances,

    Because? You haven't done more than state an opinion.

    Basically, Wikileaks is a vigilante, anarchist organisation.

    And thank god for that - there's precious little journalism going on in the media these days - it's all muckraking and press releases.

Economists state their GNP growth projections to the nearest tenth of a percentage point to prove they have a sense of humor. -- Edgar R. Fiedler

Working...