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."
Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Funny)
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 (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: (Score:3)
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 (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: (Score:3)
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
Re:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Now, STFU until you know what you are talking about.
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: (Score:3)
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 s
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: (Score:3)
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 (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:5, Informative)
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 (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:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 (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: (Score:3)
Two different women with a chance to co-ordinate their stories.
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 [washingtonexaminer.com] 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: (Score:3)
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.
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:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Funny)
So its apparently been leaked...
Rather like Assange's condom
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:4, Interesting)
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/ [iq.org]
"
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:4, Informative)
There is a Guardian article [guardian.co.uk] 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: (Score:3)
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:4)
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (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: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: (Score:3)
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? (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.
If only... (Score:5, Funny)
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Four Days?! (Score:4, Funny)
No wonder the condom broke!
Clickwhoring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clickwhoring (Score:4, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sourced to a fucking blog??? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [nytimes.com]
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 (Score:3)
You must Acquit.
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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 committi
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 w
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this not a government document?
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.
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.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (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: (Score:3)
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 oth
Re: (Score:3)
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
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.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Says the anonymous coward....
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (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:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 chanc
Re: (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
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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? (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.
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.
I've heard differently (Score:5, Informative)
Really, because from what I've read, even the Pentagon [hotair.com] 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: (Score:3)
Perhaps your definition of "personal private information" needs some clarification. To me, personal private information would be an SSN, birth i
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:the Julian assange (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the Julian assange (Score:5, Funny)
Ass: you know what this means
Ange: means "Angel" in French.
So Julian Assange would be "Julian Angel Ass"
Re:the Julian assange (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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:So what (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And? That's why iammani didn't put them in jail, he only posted an opinion on an Internet forum.
Re:So what (Score:5, Informative)
>>>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).
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:4, Informative)
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:So what (Score:4, Interesting)
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:One of the women has links to anti-Castro group (Score:5, Informative)
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 [counterpunch.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:How does a condom break (no stupid jokes please (Score:4, Funny)