Assange Rape Case Reopened 529
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 But it was withdrawn shortly thereafter.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."
Childish (Score:4, Informative)
Gawker is just mad they didn't get the scoop. Maybe next time they should offer Assange cash. Apparently that's how they get their scoops.
Re:Childish (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wondered few days ago why on earth Gawker has started such hate campaign against Julian Assange: they have several posts with titles like "Are Wikileaks Activists Finally Realizing Their Founder Is a Megalomaniac?". What is their motivation?
Did Remy Stern rape and murder a girl in 2001? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Childish (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
Wild guess here, but probably because someone with mod points thought it was funny.
No surprise you're posting as AC with such ludicrous leaps of logic . . .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Still waiting for that citation...
Re:Childish (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks secrecy is bad. Sunlight is good for all parties in political discourse, not just some of them. If wikileaks was entirely unbiased and published everything that came across the wire then there might be an argument to be made. But they aren't unbiased, so being subject to scrutiny is appropriate so that we can understand where they are coming from to be informed adequately so that we can properly assess what they are telling us.
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
absolutely. i understand if Assange and his fellows want to stay off the grid as much as they can, try to keep their lives private. Fine. But the public organisation, Wikileaks, which seems predicated on the idea that ALL information should be public, that the public needs to know everything in order to keep everyone honest...their operations should be completely open. "We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people." They weaken their claim by resorting to secrecy in their own activities. If they feel that making public the operations of the organisation would impinge on their individual privacy, then I'd say that perhaps they are too personally involved and that, in the interests of better serving the public (their stated raison d'etre), they should maintain better separation between their private life and their job. The other tack, attempting to cloak their professional activities with personal privacy, is untenable. And I completely dismiss out of hand any suggestion that they're trying to protect wikileaks from hostile governments with privacy. If those hostile governments are omniscient enough to keep track of all their credit card expenditures as they travel on the rail networks, they are surely already well aware of where Wikileaks' financing comes from as well as any other details they want to know about the operations. I doubt they're truly keeping wikileaks secret from the government, only from the public.
Next time... (Score:2)
He'll just wear the darn condom! REALLY.... This is a joke, right?
Re:Next time... (Score:5, Insightful)
according to the daily mail [dailymail.co.uk] there is some confusion over whether the condom used with woman A broke intentionally or accidentally, but they claim that the police report clearly shows that the condom was worn but it failed. Then the following report about woman B from an anonymous source:
So let's see, at night she said wear a condom, in the morning he boned her without one, but she went out and bought him breakfast and left him in her apartment even though she "didn't know him very well", so obviously she wasn't too concerned.
It seems to me from where I am sitting that one or both of these women were coerced or at least cajoled into testifying against him on the basis of their anger for both being seduced by the same guy who wasn't as into them as they were into him. It's called jealousy, and it's sad, and at least one of these women has already realized that.
Of course, there could be additional facts to which I am not privy...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 sky
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Next time... (Score:5, Funny)
The Daily Mail is perfectly trustworthy. You're just upset because they're telling the truth about the black gay Muslims who are ruining good, honest, hard-working, British society with their evil immigrant ways that killed Princess Diana (peace be upon her).
Amusingly, you will see their figure for the number of street cameras in Britain, which was created by counting the number of, mainly private, CCTV cameras in a mile busy shopping street in London and multiplying it by the number of miles of roadway in Britain, quoted here quite often. In spite of having been debunked, this is still used by a lot of Slashdot posters as evidence that Britain is an Orwellian surveillance state.
Re:Next time... (Score:4, Interesting)
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:5, Insightful)
Strikes me that the rape charge could be motivated by the CIA or another intelligence organization, or more likely she's using the claim as a way of protecting herself should she wind up pregnant as a result. I'm not sure about her religious beliefs, but there's a lot of Christians that believe that abortion is only OK in the case of rape or incest.
Re:Next time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Rape implies the sex was non-consensual. If the sex was consensual but the risks of unprotected sex were not, that would be more appropriately regarded as assault (similar to subjecting someone to such risks in other ways, such as deliberately exposing them to various hazardous substances without their consent).
In the same vein of legal exploration, if a male consents to sex on the conditio
Re:Next time... (Score:4, Funny)
Coming up next (Score:4, Funny)
Now the case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges.'
The case will then be dropped.
It will then be reopened to investigate 'looking at boobs, whilst pulling out his shirt collar and making a phwooar face', which will also be dropped.
Don't worry, they'll get him even if they have to resort to the testimony of a girl who was pushed over by him in the playground when they were both 4 years old.
Re:Coming up next (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Coming up next (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that like going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?
In other news, she's not too bad looking, [ibf.uu.se] not the most attractive woman but after a few drinks I could see something happening.
Re:Coming up next (Score:4, Insightful)
Your assumptions abound. Yes, it could be like "...going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?"
It could also be like going to a concert to listen to music, getting invited back stage because you're hot, and having a lecherous musician paw and grope you when you just accepted the invite because you were excited to meet someone you previously held in high regard. You have no idea.
You are identifying with Assange and imagining all of the things that evil people might try to do to him, then treating those imaginings as fact. I think what Assange has done is important, and that he is making enemies. I don't think that he is infallible, and I don't think it wise to presume his guilt or innocence until you know both sides of the story and try awfully hard to recognize and mitigate your own biases.
Re:Coming up next (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, I RTFA (how apt an acronym) and:
1) I had a really hard time believing the whole thing wasn't a joke...
2) But if those really are the turn of events, they only seem to support Assange's "dirty tricks" assertion. But as a slashdot reader, I'm not particularly familiar with the whole one-night-stand culture and social conventions. And apparently Assange isn't either?
3) But above all else -- if all I have to do is embarass the US military in order to get women like Anna Ardin (job title: "Forskningsassistent" ) to come play "dirty tricks" on me, WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!
--
I support public education: I married a teacher.
so, serving cheese works with women... huh (Score:2)
how do you get the woman to the cheese?
Re:so, serving cheese works with women... huh (Score:5, Funny)
Unlike mice, building a huge maze doesn't work. Women tend to just glare at you as if you're supposed to bring the cheese to them.
Re:so, serving cheese works with women... huh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cats don't expect you to send them half your paycheck every month when they decide to leave.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So women are like cats then?
Here, pussy, pussy, pussy. Here, pussy. Come here!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
how do you get the woman to the cheese?
Grow it between your toes. Trust me.
When you can't beat 'em... (Score:3, Funny)
...try charging them with everything you possibly can.
Molestation charge (Score:5, Funny)
Note that "molestation" is a broad category of sexual offenses in Sweden. Two women came forward to the police to report sexual misconduct, but denied that rape had occurred. Thus the dropping of the rape charge. In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course. Apparently, in other cultures, this is a sexual offense.
Re:Molestation charge (Score:5, Insightful)
The only time you hear about molestation in the US is when it involves a minor.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in lyrics by The Clash "indecision me molesta!" There, being Spanish, but with the same Latin roots that basically mean "to bother or harass."
Re:Molestation charge (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be careful reading that much into a particular word when working between languages. (Translation issues are a bonanza for inciting war).
Re:Molestation charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case, I know a lot of serial molesters.
The problem is the name of the charges is inflammatory, and carries certain connotations in different parts of the world. From the details that have emerged, it really does sound like he is just a player.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.
Re:Molestation charge (Score:5, Funny)
Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.
Well, with that hair, he really should be going more for pastels.
Uh... I mean yeah, women... not fair man. Beer and stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.
The sexual revolution is not over until that statement no longer holds! People always confuse feminism with the sexual revolution but that is just half the story. It's time for men and women to be completely equal in rights while keeping in mind the differences and strong points of both sexes. And to achieve that we first need to get trough the masculist revolution. Although I must admit I am not looking forward to the prospect of walking around on high heels... ;)
Re:Molestation charge (Score:5, Informative)
After reading this [gawker.com], assuming it's at all accurate, whatever you attribute these charges to, they are all absolutely ridiculous. So... the guy had sex with two women, both groupies, who found out about the other one, and then got angry that they had agreed to have sex without a condom with him because shocker-of-shockers, he had banged some other woman recently.
This is classic rape-after-the-fact, i.e. not rape at all, since they had already consented to the relationship. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the guy forced himself or coerced anybody. Nor even that he lied or misled anybody, beyond saying that he'd call and then not calling.
I think Julian Assange is a narcissistic creepy fellow, and I have serious reservations about some of what Wikileaks has done. I support the goal of more openness in government, but they do a terrible job at presenting information in an unbiased fashion (at least with those leaked videos) and they dump out huge volumes of classified information without consideration as to whether the public interest in that material outweighs the risk to people's lives of having that information disclosed.
I don't claim to know whether these charges originate with the US Government in any way, but it sounds more like the by-product of the Swedish legal system gone completely and absolutely bonker-nuts-insane, having criminalized relatively normal everyday behavior among single men and women.
Re:Molestation charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Molestation charge (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, you really don't know much about Sweden.
A lot of the weirdness when it comes to our current sex-crime laws come from a short period during which radical feminism was very popular, then several leading figures in the swedish radical feminist movement accidentally revealed themselves to be completely batshit crazy which brought things sort of back to normal, but just like in most other countries the laws stayed.
As for the left and the right, if anything our right-wing "Alliance" is a mix of "baton liberals" (international definition of liberal, not the US one. They basically believe in free trade and freedom for the rich and powerful while everyone else should be kept in check by the threat of violence, drug testing and any other crypto-fascist control measure they can come up with), loud-mouthed christians (who have very little actual political clout as very few people actually vote for them) and conservatives while our "left" is basically the social democrats who are no longer particularly social democrats as they have traveled toward the center, the left (former communist) party which isn't nearly as radical as it once was and the greens.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You rattle on about "senior socialist politicians" in Sweden, but you think the major parties in the USA are both right wing? Megan's laws (I like to call them "The Ultimate ThinkOfTheChildren Acts") pretty much make it illegal for a male of any age to get within 20 yards of a female below 18, or have to wear a virtual scarlet letter for the rest of his life. Heck, a min
Re:Molestation charge (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be erroneously conflating "socialism" and "authoritarianism"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah yes, paying for healthcare is stealing, but spending money on military is fine. You guys are really weird sometimes.
Seems to me the US military has done more to extend the lives of US citizens than public-funded medicine ever has or will.
If you want to drop our military spending to some sort of "average" or "normal" level consistent with that of other countries, I think you'll find that we'll end up with an "average" or "normal" military in terms of capabilities.
If, instead, you're arguing for everyone to buy into their own private military as opposed to having a publicly funded one, you're dumber than a Democrat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Seems to me the US military has done more to extend the lives of US citizens than public-funded medicine ever has or will.
What on earth do you base this on? Medicine has been hugely beneficial. Plagues have wiped out half the population of a country in a single go. The Black Plague alone killed 100 million people.
Even WW2 had only around 50 million deaths for all countries combined, and that was the highest death toll ever seen for a war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are forgetting the advances in medical technology and personal hygiene (that's the big one, right there) that are a direct result of warfare and the well-keeping of armies in combat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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, e
Re:Molestation charge (Score:5, Informative)
In Sweden everything that a woman can find offensive is a molestation charge. And if they have consentual sex while mutually pissing drunk, then it's rape.
Umm, I've never even heard of a woman filing molestation charges for just being "offended". Where did you get that from? And I've had consensual sex (yeah, this is /. I know) "while mutual pissing drunk" countless times without ever beeing accused or even afraid of such accusations.
This is more or less the consequences of senior socialist politicians getting too much power, enabling them to take their reality-detached feminist education pet projects too far. The swedish political system is similar to the US. In the us you either chose between the elephant right wing or the donkey right wing. In sweden you chose between the blue socialists or the red socialists, though of course, the red socialists have had two decades in power so they've been able to entrench the country with their north korean style indoctrination for a while now so things are even more stagnated.
As a liberal I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent, but "north korean style indoctrination"? Geez, let's get some perspective.
Re:Molestation charge (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone actually quoted the text of the swedish law on molestation in a previous story and the wording was something along the lines of "if someone does something by word or deed that offends the sexual personality, integrity or something or other" I'd have to dig it up but I remember it being ridiculous, and a strict reading of it did mean that basically anything I woman found offensive could technically be a crime. Simply say "Hey nice ass" to a woman walking down the street, or even a friend, could theoretically be a criminal offense because the text included "by word"
This isn't tasting it's own medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments either are or should be open, something which, unfortunately for any of their citizens, is routinely opposed and undermined by the very same people who swore to represent their fellow citizens, uphold the law and respect democratic values. Sites such as wikileaks are here to enforce the rules of government that those who managed to find themselves in positions of power and influence actively push to quench or undermine.
The main point is that governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour, and their constituents must be informed of their actions and of the consequences that they bring. In short, every government, due to their nature, must be opened and failing to be so constitutes a violation of their own founding principles.
On the other hand, private citizens do not have that responsibility. Private citizens have the right to privacy and do not have absolutely any responsibility or obligation to disclose every single piece of information regarding their lives, their business or even their relations. They are entitled to live free from tyranny and free from any oppressive influence imposed by their government and, even moreso, by fellow citizens.
Therefore, trying to impose to private citizens the very same full disclosure principles that is expected from governments is either a perfect sign of ignorance or a poorly thought out harassment campaign based on an unexplainable demand for revenge. I don't know why that the idiot from Gawker believes the idea to persecute Assange is any reasonable or even if he decided to do that to be able to profit from the controversy. What I know is that this sort of campaign, which is nothing more than persecuting someone for his attempts to defend healthy and lawful government behaviour is not in anyone's best interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad assumption (Score:2)
governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour,
You are assuming that ethical and legal are the same thing. They aren't.
It's ok because wikileaks does it to governments? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, your belief that governments and their employees should have different rights to 'private citizens' is fundamentally flawed and doesn't create a fair and equal society at all. It creates a tyranny of the majority where people pick and choose which people should have which rights.
Don't believe me?
OK then: Tell me exactly who should be treated as 'government' and who s
Re:It's ok because wikileaks does it to government (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me exactly who should be treated as 'government' and who should be a private citizen. Give me a cast iron definition in a single sentence.
One of the general principles I teach my kids is that people who think that difficulty in drawing an infinitely precise line based on a trivially simple criterion constitutes an argument are intellectually bankrupt.
Here's my counter-challenge: give me a cast-iron definition in a single sentence that will tell me exactly, to within the width of an atom, where the ocean ends and the land begins. Can't do it, can you? You can't even get one that will be good to within a couple of meters! So I guess you have to accept that boats and cars are impossible, as they would require knowing excatly where the land ends and the water begins.
Difficulty in defining precise boundaries is completely unrelated to the the ability to clearly identify entities that are undoubtedly on one side of the (ill-defined) line or the other, and only people who've never been to the beach can possibly believe otherwise.
Re:This isn't tasting it's own medicine (Score:4, Insightful)
Please cite the crimes being hidden that have been revealed by this raw dump of intelligence data? I think I must have missed those news stories about how wikileaks blew the lid off the war crimes being committed, despite my careful attention to multiple news services.
That's Great (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great. Someone comes forward with evidence of war crimes, and all anyone wants to talk about is his sexual habits.
I was just in Denmark, a friend and I met 2 Swedish women in a bar. Contrary to the rumors, they did not have blonde hair. They were out celebrating a recent birthday, and appeared to have all the same motivations going for them as anyone from anywhere else in the world.
Let me be the last person on Earth to attack a victim, if this 'molestation' actually happened that is just awful. But let me be the first to say, war crimes are more important. Evidence of armies going around wiping out villages is not something to ignore because there is some juicy innuendo (which may or may not be true) going on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:That's Great (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The of course, we have the civilian casualties, currently standing at a few hundred.
The very Wikipedia article you link to, and your second statement above, contradict your first claim that the leak was "a fat load of nothing". Wikipedia says "revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents," and "Hundreds of civilians have been killed by coalition forces in several instances that were not previously revealed."
The fact that hundreds of civilians have been killed by NATO troops and that this has been hidden from the public is significant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's great. Someone comes forward with evidence of war crimes, and all anyone wants to talk about is his sexual habits.
I thought that was kind of the point. Isn't it obvious that this is a smear campaign to discredit him and distract from the evidence?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, he's being smeared / discredited by a hardline feminist member of the far-left organization which invited him to speak in Sweeden in the first place. Right. Makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you think is the worst crime he should be allowed to (allegedly) commit before he gets arrested then? Shall we draw the line at rape? Murder?
Re: (Score:2)
What you said makes me unhappy, because it is so true.
I am going to go be sad for the world now.
puppies (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
He also flipped off a box of kittens and punched a baby in the face. In his defense, the baby was being a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmmm. Puppy stew. Only kitten stew is better, with a side of roast baby seal.
Molestation in Sweden = assault (Score:2)
From what I've understood, "molestation" in Swedish law isn't necessarily sexual. It seems closer to what anglophone systems call "assault". FWIW.
Harassment (Score:2)
The word "ofredande" translates to molestation, but the actual law text makes it pretty obvious what it's about. See how even Google's translator can't make up its mind on molestation vs. harassment.
Why not call it what it really is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Smear campaign. (Score:2)
These "charges" seem to be that Assange had a one-night stand with some girl. If you were one of the millions of other guys having one-night stands that night, it's a nonissue. If you're associated with Wikileaks, you're a rapist or molestor.
Assange was charged with rape in a highly public manner. It was all over the news everywhere that Assange was a suspected rapist. The next day, it was withdrawn, because there was nothing to the case. Now they're going to do it again. Soon I'm sure he'll be a child mole
A lot known, a lot missing (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Oh come on! (Score:2)
That parody site is in no way comparable to the journalistic right to out the wrongdoings of one of the worlds largest governments. When the government hides stuff like the video of the air-str
More important issues (Score:5, Interesting)
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]:
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Newsp [theaustralian.com.au]
There are a couple of misunderstandings here (Score:5, Informative)
2) The charges on molestation was never completely dropped. The attorney was still arguing for the charge to be rape of two persons, while the case was still classified as "molestation" (note: not sexual molestation). The judge was to decide whether to re-open the rape charges, as requested by the attorney. This was to be decided yesterday, but since new information came up, it was delayed until today. And obviously it was decided that the rape charges should be reopened. The submitter claims that "case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges'", this is therefore only partially true, since the charge now is:
rape ("våldtäkt"), sexual forcing ("sexuellt tvång") and sexual molestation ("sexuellt ofredande"). This is A LOT worse for mr Assange than only "molestation".
It is probable that Assange will be taken into custody (to prevent him from attacking more swedes)... (Google translate with more on this. [google.com])
3) Yes, Sweden has less macho culture than most other countries. Yes, women in Sweden more often dare to report rapes/sexual offences to the police. Yes, the police usually actually listens to them. And no, this is not a bad thing.
Glad to see more information here (Score:4, Insightful)
As with most things in life, and especially most things in law, it isn't cut and dried.
Unfortunately you are talking to a very biased audience here. For many /. types, Julian Assange is a hero. He mad the US government look bad and they don't like the US government so that makes him a great man. Now something you also discover, certainly in US culture but I suspect in most of them, is that when people decide someone is a hero, they want to over look any potential wrong doing from that person. Faults are downplayed, or claimed to be creations of those who would seek to bring down the hero.
You see it big time in history books. Try and find a US history book that mentions any faults of any president. They were all model citizens according to that telling of their lives.
So same thing here. Read the comments and you'll see most people are convinced this HAS to be a CIA (or US government at any rate) plot. They aren't interested in the facts of the case, or that Sweden might be its own nations with its own laws and its own reasons for an investigation. Their hero is being attacked and thus it must be for nefarious reasons. They can't accept that he could possibly do both things they approve of and things they do not.
Oh the irony (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
(!)
Perfectly understandable (Score:4, Funny)
Of course he didn't wear a condom -- they prevent leaks!
Re:Is it just me? (Score:4, Funny)
Freud would be so proud.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Freud would be so proud.
Which Freud do you mean? Psycho therapist?
Re:Is it just me? (Score:4, Funny)
Which Freud do you mean? Psycho therapist?
In this case I think its Psycho The Rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
If he disappears for whatever reason, the key will be released.
How?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 g
Re:Assange is in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, the more people know what their governments are doing, the more likely it is they'll step up and say "stop it" when the government starts bombing hospitals. Shutting people up by keeping them ignorant is evil no matter what spin you put on it. It's plain stupid when you shrug and say "it's inevitable" -- like you did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, the more people know what their governments are doing, the more likely it is they'll step up and say "stop it" when the government starts bombing hospitals.
Any person who didn't already know that civilian casualties occur in wars would have to be a drooling moron. What new information did wilikeals bring to the table? What do we know now about wars that we didn't know before Pope Assange the First graced us with his presence?
That's right: nothing. We didn't learn a goddamn thing. All his actions did was stir up controversy, needlessly endanger lives, negatively impact ongoing operations, and, apparently, get him laid. If you could point to just one posit
Re:Assange is in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you can see the difference, and I hope you'll understand why I don't think it's very funny.
Yes, Assange-Wikileaks releases confidential information getting good people killed in the process.
CITATION NEEDED
The murderers responsible for thousands of dead bodies are claiming that by exposing their acts he's the one getting people killed, and imbeciles are believing them. The pentagon said that it *could* lead to people getting killed (because they're careful word weasels) and you gladly swallowed that load, took it to the conclusion they were leading you to, and now you're making baseless claims that are getting modded up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Has Wikileaks provided any citations or evidence of all the war crimes that they've asserted the documents they're releasing "may contain evidence of"?
What, you mean both sides are making shit up, and people are believing the side that fits their assumptions and view of the world?!
I'm shocked. I thought the internet was a bastion of reasonable, careful, and deliberate thought. Next you'll be telling us that MSNBC and Fox News are BIASED!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, contrary to the popular opinion in some quarters of Slashdot, there actually is a genuine national security concern with some sensitive information, and a good reason for it not to be public. I'm not saying that every time a government bleats "national security" they are justified in doing so. I'm not saying there shouldn't be stronger controls, or additional independent checks, to make sure that the privilege of hiding data from the public is only used under circumstances when it is truly justifi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 acknowledge
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're missing the larger point, which is this:
1) WikiLeaks has asserted that there is evidence of war crimes in this data;
2) They (and the rest of the crowdsourced investigative journalists who are no doubt combing through the data) have been unable to produce any evidence that supports their assertions;
Shouldn't they be held to the same standard you're holding GP poster to? Both groups should either provide evidence, or shut up with the accusations and rhetoric until they have evidence to suppo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. To high heavens.
Re:Assange guilty of first degree douchebaggery (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Assange guilty of first degree douchebaggery (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Perhaps because before that point no one knew or cared who he was?
Fact of the matter is, you and the GP post know the exact same thing about the reality of the situation -- absolutely nothing. Pretending otherwise amounts to ego masturbation. You assume he's bought into the propoganda, and he assumes you're wearing a tinfoil hat.
And you want to know the real truth? Neither of you will ever have a provable position. That's the reality of the world you're on.
Re: (Score:2)
guilty?
I in which court?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't get to just change your mind once the action in question has been completed. Then all you can do is chalk it up as a mistake. I wouldn't let someone borrow my car for the day only to call the police an hour later and report it stolen because I decided I wanted to go buy some cheese doodles at the grocery