Assange Secret Swedish Police Report Leaked 840
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."
Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
Re:So what (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:2, Insightful)
The dude believes in total transparency, if its good for the State Department it should be good enough for Assange.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this not a government document?
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Clickwhoring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.
Assange himself is irrelevant, however. (Score:5, Insightful)
Haha (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So what (Score:2, Insightful)
in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent during the act it is still considered rape, with prision terms.
The point of contention is not the swedish law, but whether the consent was actually withdrawn and the credibility of the womens' statement. The women seem to have continued their relationship with Assange, despite the rape and condom-break incident, which makes their claims sound a bit dubious.
And? Their credibility should be judged by a jury, at trial.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
How does a condom break (no stupid jokes please) (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Says the anonymous coward....
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Throwing stones. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So what (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:So what (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm personally more of the it's a conspiracy kind though but not by the government. It's a conspiracy by Assange to create more media attention and give him a way to release his Black Mail insurance file, and claim they were trying to silence him.
Re:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the word of two against the word of one. What makes his word worth more than theirs?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Re:Old news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.