back to article Documents in Assange rape probe leak onto the net

It has to be the most ironic twist ever to befall Julian Assange, crusader for a cause he calls “radical transparency.” A hundred pages of official documents in an investigation that the WikiLeaks founder sexually molested two Swedish women have been leaked onto the net. According to Wired.com, which broke the story, the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Again?

    This story again? I think it was already well covered back in December when the Guardian leaked it... Not sure on what these documents shows really, if anything. These are interviews with the complainants so they couldn't really be complementary now could they?

    To me the strangest thing is how both women have kept condoms from their encounters with Assange, for over a week! Now, who does that really..

    He might not a gentleman, maybe it's even true he doesn't flush and shower regularly enough, but I'm sorry can't see enough in the files for the circus surrounding his extradition and placing him in solitary confinement for days...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Yes Again...

      It seems that the commentards are out in full force defending Assange.

      To address points you raise..

      The Guardian did their investigations and reported on what they found. (True, these papers probably add nothing new.)

      What makes this action newsworthy is that Assange ala Wikileaks' claim to fame is posting 'leaked' documents. Now the tables are turned.

      What makes this action newsworthy is that it shows the evidence the Guardian found and clearly demonstrates that Assange was blowing smoke and deflecting the charges by saying that this was all a 'put on' by the US and that he was innocent of the charges.

      What this shows is that there is evidence to suggest that these charges are serious and that the complainants were interviewed and that there is merit to their allegations.

      1. Naughtyhorse
        FAIL

        unless, of course...

        And i'm just thinking aloud here..

        The us govt arranged for these 'statements' to be made (actually having statements makes the case look more credible than a nod and a wink between the us gov and swedish gov), so that credulous dullards like yourself would be duped into thinking this case was anything more than a load of old bollocks.

        And it's no surprise at all that this has been leaked - it wouild be astonishing if it weren't.

        and, i'll have to double check this, but quoting the same bollocks sourse on two different occasions dosent really make the quotes anything more than bollocks in the first case and bollocks repeated in the second.

      2. Chris Thomas Alpha
        FAIL

        clearly demonstrates?

        I'm sorry, I don't see how it clearly demonstrates anything at all, how do you conclude anything from the half facts and fictions given by both sides.

        seems you have a logic failure. both sides are acting a little irrationally.

        the girls kept condoms from a sexual encounter for a week, you don't think thats strange? I usually put each and every condom I use in a wrapper of toilet tissue and straight in the bin after having sex with my girlfriend, I happen to think it's a normal thing to dispose of them afterwards, why was they kept?

        and is is against the law to act like an asshole? cause jesus, some days I must be public enemy number one.

        assange is pissed his sexual life is put into public view whereas senators are pissed their diplomatic lives are exposed in the same way, well, this is kind of understandable, sexual encounters are treated to some people as the highest private act they can do, whereas sending out emails from their office, you can't compare them, one is emotionally connected and the other is just sending an email saying how scary the chinese are. I can understand why assange would be pissed, it's ultra private and now it's exposed for the world....

        it's like being called a rapist in public, then when you get angry, you are told "well, you made those senators angry, so I don't see what the big deal is" I mean WTF?????

        so again, I don't see how anything was demonstrated clearly, perhaps you can clarify

        1. Wize

          @Chris Thomas Alpha

          "...in a wrapper of toilet tissue and straight in the bin..."

          If they have the fortnightly bin connections we have, they you could retrieve your evidence later if required

        2. Ian Michael Gumby
          WTF?

          @Chris Alpha

          "I'm sorry, I don't see how it clearly demonstrates anything at all, how do you conclude anything from the half facts and fictions given by both sides."

          I'm afraid you've misunderstood.

          The post isn't a question of Assange's innocence or guilt, but of the fact that there was a police investigation in to the allegations. That these allegations are in fact real and that they are not some stunt/ploy to get Assange out of England so he can be extradited to the US. Assange had been playing the ' The Big Bad US wants to get poor widdle ol' me...' in the press. That was until the Guardian reporter outed him. Or rather he put an end to their 'If the Swedes had any evidence they would have shown it to us. So where's the evidence' spin.

          This leak clearly shows that both the evidence exists and that it had been provided to Assange and his cartooney in England.

          And that is what we can conclude. That there is a valid complaint against Assange in Sweden. Is this new? No. But it is definitive.

          With respect to the rest of your post...

          You have three things that Wikileaks have posted which have 'tweaked' Uncle Sam's nose.

          1) An edited and prejudicial video of American forces following RoE yet causing collateral damage as gunmen use journalists and civilians as shields. [It has been reported in the NYT that Assange edited out the RPG toting bad guy from the vid.]

          2) The leaks of Iraq/Afghanistan after action reports. (Marked classified)

          3) The leaks of US consulate messages which were marked classified.

          Of these things... what was the probative value of these leaks? To put it bluntly, what evidence exists that there was any illegal activity occurring by the US government?

          None. So to call the actions of Wikileaks 'whistle blowing' is doing a disservice to those who actually blew the whistle on illegal government and corporate actions. I applaud the soldiers who stepped forward in the Abu Ghraib prison incident(s). I applaud those who forced the EPA to do an investigation in to the Chromium-6 leakage in to our cities water supplies. I applaud those former Sun and Oracle employees who blew the whistle on their over charging the government. That is whistle blowing.

          Assange is an alleged rapist in Sweden. He escaped jurisdiction and he's fighting extradition.

          Why? Its simple. He goes back to answer the questions. The worst case is that he gets charged, found guilty and loses any hope of Swedish citizenship. (NOTE: That is the worst case.) Actually the fact that he is fighting extradition and even the accusation is probably enough for the Swedish government to deny him citizenship. A criminal conviction could potentially make it impossible for him to travel to Sweden since he isn't a citizen of the EU. (He's Australian right?)

          So please get your facts straight. You'll find that you're defending a person who created his own bed...

          1. unitron

            Were there two videos?

            "1) An edited and prejudicial video of American forces following RoE yet causing collateral damage as gunmen use journalists and civilians as shields. [It has been reported in the NYT that Assange edited out the RPG toting bad guy from the vid.]"

            What I saw wasn't anyone using anyone as a shield, it was a bunch of guys nonchalantly standing around a street corner until suddenly they were no longer standing.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby
              Boffin

              unitron...two vids?

              Actually yes if you consider what Assange put out on the web was an edited version of the actual footage to intentionally not show the guy carrying the RPG.

              Now why do you think Assange edited out the part about the bad guy and the RPG?

              This is why I asked if you know the RoE. That's rules of engagement. Its what Western Combat forces can legally do under certain circumstances. I say Western Combat forces because the bad guys running around with machine guns and RPGs, IEDs and Suicide Bombers will do whatever the fsck they want because they don't care about human life.

              I also don't think you understand how people are being used as human shields. You probably have this TV/Movie image of a gunman tying a group of people up to surround him so he can't be taken out by sniper fire. The reality is a tad different. Having wives and children play outside and around a known 'safe house' where they are meeting so that there won't be a drone attack and take them out.

              Note that it was the NYT that outed Assange's editing and reported the presence of the RPG toting bad guy. They reported this to show Assange's bias and willingness to twist the truth in order push his agenda...

              1. Scorchio!!
                Thumb Up

                Re: unitron...two vids?

                "Note that it was the NYT that outed Assange's editing and reported the presence of the RPG toting bad guy. They reported this to show Assange's bias and willingness to twist the truth in order push his agenda..."

                Hey, can you give me a link? I've been following this for quite a while and, as you know, discovered that he's not so innocent - a convicted criminal with an interesting personal history - and this would be the icing on the cake for me. As it is the reaction of woman #2 when she discovered, during police interview, another woman had been through the same experience as her (tears) was very interesting. Something that some people would prefer to avoid, I guess.

              2. Scorchio!!

                Re: unitron...two vids?

                ""Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area." "

                Hmm. Interesting. The last flakes of credibility surrounding Julian Assange's pure and innocent image are peeling off. Pay wall, memoirs, 'my data' and other stuff... ...priceless.

                I've not had much time to spare or I'd probably have seen his comments before. If the other stuff I'm reading counts for much he's as good as admitted guilt. The trouble with all of this stuff is finding the original source material and then determining if it is veridical.

                As to using a RPG to defend an area, hmm. What an indiscriminately powerful weapon to use in close quarter combat. As a soldier I was trained to dread them. Assange's naiveté is quite possibly evidence that a brain is not enough to provide accurate assessments of evidence. He is, as someone else put it, combat naive.

    2. Steven Knox
      Headmaster

      Complementary

      I'd guess they probably go rather well together. Now as to whether they're complimentary...

    3. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC

        >>"If Assange is lucky, these constant leaks from Swedish authorities will be enough to convince a British judge that these are classic smear tactics"

        Which by classic hindsight-fuelled double-bluff conspiracy logic, must therefore mean that Assange leaked them himself, either to try and avoid a trial, or to big up his martyr status and book sales.

        After all, he's supposed to be some kind of flawless fucking genius, so why would he not do something apparently to his advantage?

      2. Ian Michael Gumby
        WTF?

        @ Repeated leaks...

        Clearly denial ain't a river in Egypt.

        Look, hate to burst your bubble, these aren't repeated leaks. There was a reporter who dug and got the information to show Assange was making claims in the press he knew to be false as a way to deflect from these charges and to gain the sympathy of the simple minded folk who still believe everything they see or hear on TV.

        There was recently *one* *leak* of the court documents and that Wired uncovered them.

        The irony? It appears that the leaks occurred in the UK as these were the documents that were meant for Assange's lawyers and his eyes only.

        I find it amazing as the lengths the commentard supporters go to re-enforce their denial.

        Down posting people's posts that contain the facts that are critical of Assange? C'mon get real.

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

          1. Ian Michael Gumby
            WTF?

            @AC Posted Thursday 3rd February 2011 15:48 GMT

            First I doubt you know the meaning of eStalker...

            But whe you write the following:

            "Yes they are, this is but the 3rd set of documents leaked. The last batch were in December, before that it was the police reports prior to the extradition request even beibg issued."

            Uhm, yeah. Now I'm confused. Is this a 3rd set of leaked documents or the third time a single set of documents have been leaked?

            And since you seem to be an expert on this... what do you define as being leaked?

            A reporter uncovering the documents? Or an anonymous source posting the documents on the 'net for all to see?

            Heck, you stand there and accuse me of 'making up facts' as I post, yet you seem to be unclear on what you mean when you post.

            To the best of my knowledge this is the first set of Assange's legal documents to be leaked anonymously to the web. If you know of other batches, please by all means share.

            With respect to the leak coming from within Assange's camp in England, I refer you to the following quote:

            "The documents appear to consist of pretrial discovery material that prosecutors provided to Assange’s Stockholm lawyer Björn Hurtig last year, which Hurtig subsequently faxed to the office of Assange’s British attorney Mark Stephens. The documents begin with a Nov. 23 cover letter addressed to Stephens’ co-counsel, in which Hurtig advises: “Please note that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else.”"

            I don't know about you, but when I have to fax confidential documents, I don't let the faxed documents out of sight. But I can't control the receiving end of the fax machine.

            So I would say it would be most likely that the leak happened in the UK.

            I'd say that this is the most plausible explanation.

            But since you're supporting a nut jobber who's paranoid, lets introduce some alternative theories.

            Theory #1: The UK law firm uses a fax server and the admin receives the fax and then emails them to the lawyer. The lawyer's e-mail account was then hacked by unknown hacker.

            Theory #2: The original docs were scanned w cover letter, sent via e-mail. See theory #1

            Theory #3: Unknown government agency has a tap on the lawyer's phones (either side) and intercepted the fax. Thus they are publishing this information as a way to further discredit Assange.

            I would have even added a theory that the NSA intercepted the fax, but they monitor cell and satellite calls from around the world. Land lines would require a physical tap.

            It seems to me, that you not only don't have your facts straight, but you seem to attack the poster not the content.

            1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

              1. Ian Michael Gumby
                Grenade

                @RegisterFail

                You don't know much about lawyers, do you?

                Lawyer A, Assange's Swedish legal team sends a fax to their counterparts in England.

                On the sender's side, you have the lawyer and their paralegal team. They send the fax and then file the communications in Assange's case folder. (Documenting that they sent the fax and billable hours ...)

                Do you think that they would jeopardize their careers just to leak something of no importance? Please remember that the material in the fax isn't what makes this newsworthy but the actual leak itself.

                In terms of motive and opportunity... the likelihood of the leak happening there is highly unlikely unless you want to claim a 'Watergate' moment and someone burglarized their offices?

                Lawyer B. Assange's English legal team gets the fax. So who gets the fax. A paralegal? An admin?

                Do they have one copy, or do they make a copy file it and send the other copy on to Assange's lawyer who then sends a copy on to Assange himself?

                The point is that if you consider that there have already been defections in Assange's camp... the most probable point of the leak was on the Brit side of the communication. For all you know it could have been someone trawling through their trash. Oh wait, Assange is a paranoid fuck because everyone is now really out to get him. So don't you think he'd shred the documents? You want to get technical there are multiple points in the path where the document could have been duplicated and 'stolen' on the Brit side.

                And remember that one of the documents is the actual cover letter itself, so you can't say the leak came from the outside....

                Do I really have to draw you a map?

                For conspiracy nutter, you really are a tad slow.

                1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    @RegisterFail

                    >>"One would've thought the thousands of downmods you've had would give you a hint that you're in the wrong, and are being stupid,"

                    You seriously equate popularity with correctness and brilliance?

                    Surely, if someone is obviously wrong, a smart person would explain how they were wrong, rather than just reaching for the 'Do Not Want!!!' button?

                    In reality, it's clear that (especially regarding certain topics involving Assange, copyright infringement and Anonymous) it's very easy to get a flood of downvotes simply by stating an easily checkable fact that various people would rather pretend didn't exist, or by asking a simple question that various people can't readily answer, and hence downvotes really have little sting.

                    Some of the time, they suggest that someone actually touched a nerve, but that people who don't like the post know they can't really respond without looking like a dick.

                    Knowing that a decent number of junior hivetards have been upset by the truth can give one a fairly warm glow inside.

                    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        @RegisterFail

                        Though surely, *if* the web-posted fax pages are legit, IMG seems to be right about the source of the leaks, they *didn't* get leaked by the Swedish authorities, but by some source downstream of the UK lawyers' incoming fax machine?

                        And as I pointed out, there's a huge difference between people actually pointing out flaws in an argument and people whose greatest contribution is clicking on a 'dislike' button.

                        On topics such as this, votes are are pretty meaningless as an indication of correctness.

                        I've frequently seen it happen that when someone says something about TPB, Assange, Anonymous, etc that's a simple ( but 'desirable') untruth and someone either states the truth or dares to doubt the claim, that the first person can get showered with upvotes and the second plastered with downvotes, even when a few seconds of checking would show anyone beyond doubt what the true situation was.

                        When there's a cosy club of people demonstrably too thick or idle or blinkered to do any research before voting, that makes the votes themselves fairly worthless.

                        I'm sure if I wanted to get upvotes, I could do so pretty easily by telling certain people what they wanted to hear, even if I knew or suspected what I wrote was untrue.

                        >>"You only have to read up to see that your premise that I haven't explained what's wrong with his argument is false ut that's typical of people like him, and seemingly you- you work based on logical fallacies, you bend the truth, and you tell lies."

                        And you only have to actually read what I wrote to see that I was talking about the many people who vote but don't write replies, in response to your suggestion that downvotes supposedly counted for something.

                        If you *really* want to misinterpret what I wrote and take it personally to give you an excuse to jump on your high horse, I can't stop you, but at best, it does make you look a bit thick, especially when you're whining about *other* people making arguments fit.

                2. Scorchio!!
                  Thumb Up

                  @Ian Michael Gumby

                  Given the leak was of the actual fax from Sweden to the UK [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar ] it's definitely on the UK side, (unless of course we posit an echelon intercept!), so your deductive exercise is spot on. Perhaps the evul CIA have been at it again. BTW, conspiracy nutters are always slow, unless they find information which they think advances their silliness. In which case it's 'full ahead flank speed'.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      The Swedes are known for that

      The Swedes are known for keeping stale stuff -- perhaps it's a sexual form of surströmming?

  2. Goat Jam
    WTF?

    Agreed

    I can't see how this "leak" tells us anything that we didn't already know and nor do I see how it inciminates Assange at all.

    I've little doubt that Assange is a bit of an self important arse who has taken to living the rock'n'roll lifestyle due to his recent notoriety but being an inconsiderate bed hopping bastard does not equate to "rapist" in any sensible country in the world and the fact that a couple of wannabe groupies got their knickers in a twist after the fact should be totally irrelevant.

    1. Nick Galloway

      Book sales

      Come on guys, the man has an autibiography to sell. He has to keep himself in the news to help push sales!?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Agreed

      I seem to remember that Assange's primary claim WASN'T that the original allegations were cooked up by the US, but the strange rehashing of it by a Swedish politician long after the original charges were dropped and he was given leave to exit the country.

      I don't really understand how this new supposedly new release of information impacts on that at all.

      I do see the irony of the "leakage" but none of it is particular fresh or unexpected.

      1. david wilson

        @skelband

        "I seem to remember"..."long after the original charges were dropped "

        Then you seem to remember wrong.

        For a start weren't ever *charges*, just different people with different opinions on the merits of a particular investigation, and on whether an *arrest warrant* was justified.

        The investigation seems to have been on, then quickly off, and then relatively quickly back on again after the lawyer for the women protested.

        When it came to Assange leaving the country, was he actually told the investigation had been terminated, or merely that it wasn't currently judged necessary to prevent him going anywhere else as long as he would return if asked?

        There's a *huge* difference between those two situations.

        It's a fairly big thing to prevent someone leaving a country, potentially for a long time, and unless that's common practice in similar cases, had the happened not doubt any number of people would have considered that as evidence of unfair treatment.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          @david wilson

          Actually David, I think it is your memory that is lacking:

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/23/assange_swedish_claims/

          An arrest warrant *was* issued then dropped. I don't think it is unlikely that the Swedish police managed to obtain an arrest warrant if they didn't have charges to pursue.

          What does seem to have happened (and we only have conjecture here) is that he was arrested, the women and Assange questioned, then sent on their way with a flea in their collective ears for wasting police time.

          Most of the "facts" of the case can be found here:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/world/europe/02wikileaks.html?_r=1

          What these leaks do seem to outline is how shaky, inconsistent and unlikely these women's case is. If I was a witness in a trial where evidence like this was put before me, my opinion of their credibility would be very low indeed. When remove all the nonsense about Assange being smelly, not flushing the toilet etc (which is totally irrelevant, although rather embarrassing I would have thought) there is very little of substance remaining.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby
            Boffin

            @skelband... Slightly OT...

            In http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/23/assange_swedish_claims/

            you see the following:

            "Assange told Al Jazeera TV he had no direct evidence of spook involvement but had been warned 11 August by Australian intelligence services to expect such a slander campaign. He said he learnt of the allegations when he saw them on TV on Saturday morning. Assange is on holiday in northern Sweden."

            (Riight... Australian 'intelligence service' telling Assange what to expect....)

            Which made me look at the following question "Assange welcome in Australia?"

            (You can google using this search parameter and come up with the following:)

            http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/06/has-australia-abandoned-wikileaks-julian-assange/

            http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/pm-has-betrayed-me-assange-20101204-18ks8.html

            http://www.indianexpress.com/news/issues-with-cancelling-assange-passport-australia/720415/

            and the latest:

            http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8759753/our-hands-tied-gillard-tells-assange/2/

            (from Feb 2)

            If Assange is not afraid of the charges in Sweden, why is he looking to bail back to Australia?

            (Oh he misses his home... kinda flies in the face of his long standing 'nomad' lifestyle.)

            And that's kind of the point. Assange is a mess of contradictions....

            You read the reports and come to the conclusion as to how shaky the women's testimony is.

            You said :" What these leaks do seem to outline is how shaky, inconsistent and unlikely these women's case is."

            While its your opinion and its a valid opinion, you still need to ask yourself is it enough information for there to be charges brought forth under Swedish law? Neither you nor I know Swedish law so we can't say for sure. Evidently there is enough to risk the negative publicity and file an arrest warrant for Assange.

            What do you think those investigators would find out if/when they interview Assange directly?

            Now remember those links I just posted?

            The Australian government is cooperating with the US. Australia has troops in Afghanistan and to quote one of the articles...

            "Ms Gillard has asserted that Mr Assange's actions were illegal. A taskforce of Australian soliders, intelligence officers and officials is investigating whether he has breached any Australian laws.

            Mr McClelland yesterday said Mr Assange might not be welcome back in Australia if he is convicted over the leaks. He confirmed Australia was providing ''every assistance'' to US authorities in their investigation."

            -=-

            When you play with fire, the odds are you are going to get burned.

          2. Scorchio!!
            Thumb Down

            @skelband

            Whether or not an arrest warrant had been dropped, Assange had agreed that he would return to the police and finalise his interviews. He did not. He left for England, where he now fights extradition, because the Swedish police want to finish the interview process before the Swedish CJS makes a decision about prosecution.

            Details of Assange's poor hygiene are relevant, from the perspective of Scandinavian views on sexual hygiene and the non transmission of any STD. People in the UK are not very clean in this regard, so it's unsurprising that failing to use a condom (making the sex non consensual, thus rape) might be seen as unimportant.

          3. david wilson

            @skelband

            >>"Actually David, I think it is your memory that is lacking:"

            >>"An arrest warrant *was* issued then dropped. I don't think it is unlikely that the Swedish police managed to obtain an arrest warrant if they didn't have charges to pursue."

            So you think people are generally charged *before* being arrested for questioning?

            They may have had suspicions he may have done something wrong, but I seem to remember Assange's lawyer making a big deal about how the Interpol notice was unjustified because Assange *hadn't* been charged with anything.

            And *if you'd actually read what I wrote*, I was quite aware about the initial arrest warrant which Is why I said there was disagreement over it.

            Which there was.

            Are you *always* this cautious and well-informed when accusing other people of ignorance?

    3. Ian Michael Gumby
      WTF?

      @Goat Jam

      Perhaps if you understood the significance of the 'leaks'...

      First, what you thought you knew was based on a reporter in the Guardian. Reporters don't disclose their sources. What we learned there was that the information of the accusations were credible.

      Second. This leak was sensational for two facts...

      1) Its a leak apparently from Assange's own legal team and is a leak that shows the hypocrisy known as Assange.

      2) Its the actual complaint against Assange. While you may not call non-consensual sex 'rape', the laws in Sweden do. And that's what counts. These are the actual documents which outline the case against him. They aren't forgeries. And yes, while these are allegations... they are strong enough for the Swedish Police to issue an arrest warrant to someone who had left their jurisdiction.

      As to your comment about the actual crime and being in a sensible country... I guess your idea of a sensible country is one where if a woman accuses a man of rape, she's the one guilty and should be stoned to death.

      1. david wilson

        @Ian Michael Gumby

        >>"As to your comment about the actual crime and being in a sensible country... "

        Seems a bit like Julian saying (according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations)

        that he's 'being victimised because Sweden has a tougher approach to prosecuting rape than other countries'.

        Who made him go to Sweden?

        If I can't manage without a beer, I don't go to Saudi Arabia.

  3. duncan campbell

    This wouldn't be "rape"

    in most of the wierld. And quite honestly it is a hideous insult

    to anyone who has actually been raped.

    So the question is would this normally be considered rape in Sweden ? ...

    Somehow I doubt it.

    1. John Riddoch

      Rape definition different in Sweden

      There was a comment I saw previously that Sweden has various "degrees" of rape, all the way up to the "normal" definition of rape in the rest of the world. As I understand it, what Assange is accused of is at the lower end of the scale, but still comes under the heading of rape as defined in Swedish law.

      As an aside, it's worth considering that Assange could be able to use all these leaks to get a mistrial declared as arguably it's going to be impossible to get a fair trial given the fact that most of the documents have been made public outwith the court.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Yes, it is

      Sex without consent is rape in any civilised country. If the consent is conditional on using a condom, and he doesn't, it's non-consensual and therefore rape. If the girl is asleep when he starts screwing her she can't have given consent, so it's rape.

      Just because she agreed on another occasion is irrelevant, or maybe you're one of those dickheads who also thinks that men are entitled to force their wives to have sex, and that it can't be rape because they're married?

      Assange is a self-important asshole, and the world will be better off without him and his childish antics.

    3. Windrose
      Unhappy

      This would be rape.

      "So the question is would this normally be considered rape in Sweden ? ..."

      "I consent to sex given that you use a condom" - "Ok. *proceeds without one*"

      Yeah, that'd be sex without consent - aka rape. If it is proven. Which, at this point, looks unlikely. Luckily Sweden has pretty modern laws in this field.

      Or do you truly believe that "Just because she didn't WANT to have sex doesn't make it rape!"?

      Loads of places have laws like that. Sweden, I'm glad to say, has gotten over THAT old crap.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes, it is

        By that argument, 9/10s of the world should be locked up.

        Also, I don't understand how the condoms that they've kept (weeeeeiiiiiiiird) are proof that he didn't use a condom.

        1. Alex 14
          WTF?

          So...

          You either think 9/10 of the world have had non-consensual sex under the circumstances AC described or you forgot the 'joke alert' icon for your first sentence...

        2. Ancient Oracle funkie
          Thumb Down

          @AC 10:48

          > By that argument, 9/10s of the world should be locked up

          So 90% of the world (not just the men) have non-consensual sex? Twat!

        3. James Butler

          Condom Keepers

          The allegations are that the condoms he used in each instance broke during the sex act, and that Assange should have know it and stopped plooking right at the moment of breakage, if for nothing else than to reload with a fresh skin. He is being charged with rape because the condoms broke and he didn't stop, not because he wasn't using one, and its the broken condoms that the ladies kept as evidence.

    4. Scorchio!!
      Thumb Down

      Re: This wouldn't be "rape"

      "in most of the wierld."

      He failed to use a condom. Sex would have been consensual if he had used one. In Scandinavian culture sexual hygiene has for decades been a contrast to the UK, where attitudes to condom use, sexual hygiene and passing on STDs are fairly lax. In, e.g., Sweden failing to use a condom has taken on greater significance since the advent of HIV. The Germans hold similar views on sexual hygiene:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20014765-10391698.html

  4. Ed Deckard
    Stop

    Irrelevant

    As the Swedish gov't has practically admitted they're only asking for an extradition in order to hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute him for something else entirely, at this point it doesn't matter if Assange is guilty of this particular charge. He'll most likely never be tried for it at all.

    If the story was posted for its entertainment value because it's oh-so-ironic, I submit it would be far more ironic and entertaining if the leakers of this particular document got similar treatment as Bradley Manning has for similar conduct.

    1. Marcus Aurelius
      FAIL

      Wrongs and rights

      "As the Swedish gov't has practically admitted they're only asking for an extradition in order to hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute him for something else entirely....."

      Where has the Swedish Government admitted this? In fact they have openly stated that it would be next to impossible to do so as you can't export the subject of a European Arrest Warrant to a non-EU country; once the warrant ends for any reason, he is free to exit Sweden. Assange would have an explicit right to be returned to the "arresting country" i.e. England

      Getting Assange from Sweden to the US is more difficult than getting him from the UK to the US.

      Anyway thats enough pro-Sweden, any allegations of rape brought just because two women found he wasn't exclusive should've been thrown out long ago. And the fact the condoms were kept as souvenirs when they don't form any part of the circumstances of alleged sexual misconduct is just .... ewwww!!

      1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        1. Marcus Aurelius
          FAIL

          Swedish Prosecution Authority says you're wrong

          http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/

          "Different rules apply within the EU (surrender) and outside the EU (extradition).

          Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations.

          Concerning surrender to another country within the European Union, the Act states that the executing country under certain circumstances must approve a further surrender.

          On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA. "

          Makes it perfectly plain that Sweden cannot send Assange to the US without the say-so of the UK....

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Boffin

          @AC RE: Marcus Aurelius

          I'm afraid you're reading in to the Swedish government's statements.

          "He's presumably referring to the fact that Sweden stated they'd drop their rape case if the US put forward an extradition request. This suggests Sweden doesn't actually care about the rape case and is mainly interested in seeing him extradited to the US."

          [This refers to the OP's comment.]

          And you continue:

          "If Sweden was only interested in it's own justice goals, then it would tell the US and everyone else that the rape trial is going ahead regardless of whatever extradition requests come in."

          Uhm... that is not what they are saying.

          What they are saying is that if the US charges Assange with a crime over the leaks, the the seriousness of that charge would in their view trump the rape allegation/charges and they would therefore waive their right to extraditing Assange to Sweden.

          To infer that Sweden's charges are just a ploy is dead wrong.

          Go talk to a lawyer.

        3. Scorchio!!
          FAIL

          Re: RE: Marcus Aurelius

          "As the Swedish gov't has practically admitted they're only asking for an extradition in order to hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute him for something else entirely....." (Ed Deckard)

          "Where has the Swedish Government admitted this? In fact they have openly stated that it would be next to impossible to do so" (Marcus Aurelius)"

          "He's presumably referring to the fact that Sweden stated they'd drop their rape case if the US put forward an extradition request." (AC)

          This is the most beautiful example of a non sequitur argument (a conclusion that does not follow from the original premiss/evidence) I have yet seen here. Saying they'll drop their extradition request if the US makes one is not the same as saying "they'll hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute". Not going ahead with extradition != going ahead with extradition in order to facilitate US extradition.

          This is the logic of the nursery. I just hope that you never do jury service. To see why read the literature on juries and algorithmic vs heuristic logic in their assessment of evidence.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        Umm

        "Getting Assange from Sweden to the US is more difficult than getting him from the UK to the US."

        The US does what it wants, when it wants. They walk around in my homeland with guns drawn and threatening the populace for no other reason than they can.

    2. Scorchio!!

      Re: Irrelevant

      "As the Swedish gov't has practically admitted they're only asking for an extradition in order to hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute him for something else entirely"

      A cite for this as yet unproven claim would be useful. No one has produced such a piece of evidence, so why don't you take on the rôle of trail blazer and give us all a link to the original source material?

      If you don't I will be forced to conclude that you have been spewing a 'terminological inexactitude'.

  5. JaitcH
    Stop

    Assange can't comment without compromising his legal options

    Given that these are 'privileged documents' in the jurisdiction in which he might be charged, Assange would be well advised to keep his mouth shut otherwise any benefit to him arising from the release of these documents will be lost to him.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby
      WTF?

      @ Jaicht

      Playing lawyer? :-)

      Look,

      I'll make it simple... the release of these documents are not prejudicial. They are the facts of what the police have gathered in evidence against Assange.

      Any lawyer would tell you to keep your mouth shut at all times.

      I don't know what benefit you may thing exists.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        re: these documents are not prejudicial. They are the facts

        I think you'll find it's the court's job to determine facts - police reports just detail claims and observations. But don't let reality get in the way of your vitriolic little rants.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          @AC... intentionally dense?

          Whoa! Perry Mason!

          The courts do not determine the facts. They take the facts presented and they ascertain a decision of innocence or guilt (criminal) or a verdict in favor of the plaintiff or the defense (civil). The individual who's lawyer is more persuasive in arguing which side has the better facts will win. All of this based solely on the evidence provided by both parties.

          The documents in the leak are not prejudicial meaning that they will not taint any potential jury pool. They are the actual documents that the prosecution has sent to Assange's defense team. They are outlining the case against Assange.

          Does Sweden even offer jury trials?

          The point I was trying to make was that the OP commentard was going off the deep end.

          Go get a copy of Blacks Law dictionary. ;-)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            re: arguing which side has the better facts

            The court takes the submissions which are /presented as fact/ by each party, and decides which are more likely to /actually be factual/ - therefore the facts aren't facts until the court has decided they are, they're just submissions to the court. I would suggest that you try to get a clue before spewing more nonsense, but based on past evidence that's unlikely to happen.

        2. Scorchio!!
          FAIL

          Re: re: these documents are not prejudicial. They are the facts

          "I'll make it simple... the release of these documents are not prejudicial. They are the facts of what the police have gathered in evidence against Assange.

          Any lawyer would tell you to keep your mouth shut at all times." (Gumby)

          "I think you'll find it's the court's job to determine facts - police reports just detail claims and observations. But don't let reality get in the way of your vitriolic little rants." (AC)

          Your response has damn all to do with his comments and is in that sense another non sequitur; he referred to the police correctly, in their role as 'finders of fact', whereas the courts/juries are 'triers of fact', but don't let this important jurisprudential distinction trouble your mind as you ooze your argumentum ad hominem posts, eh?

          Moreover, if you actually take the time to look at the source leaked documents here:

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar

          You will clearly see they were faxed to "Jennifer Robinson Fax nr: +442073445600", from his Swedish lawyer, who said:

          "Dear Jennifer,On request from my client Mr Julian Assange, I hereby send You the following documents. Please notice that the documents are legally priviliged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else"

          Oh, that was an epic fail was it not? It makes your failure to read the facts and apply them in responding to the OP pale into insignificance, does it not? Bad security in London lawyer's office, read all about it.

      2. Scorchio!!
        Thumb Up

        Re: @ Jaicht

        "Any lawyer would tell you to keep your mouth shut at all times."

        A good lawyer would have good IT security and the documents would not have been leaked. The commentards have been blaming the Swedish and other government int facilities. If you look carefully on the document I linked the copy was of a fax from his Swedish lawyer to his English lawyer. Moreover, the commentards are so desperate that they'll even show surprise that having sex with someone against their will (that is, without a condom, when they stipulated no condom, no sex) could be rape. Then there is the classic Brit lack of informedness about Scandinavian attitudes to sexual hygiene, the use of condoms, and so on. Then there is this from Germany:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/15/germany-hiv-girlband-noangels

        These people, who claim to be enlightened, informed and caring suddenly lose all of that when it comes to the matter of rape. It speaks volumes about them. If Assange is both found guilty and found to have a STD watch the commentards tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

        1. david wilson

          @Scorchio!!

          >>"If Assange is both found guilty and found to have a STD watch the commentards tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

          If Assange is ever found to have a /serious/ STD, watch the people queueing up to explain how it must have been the result of a grand CIA conspiracy.

          1. Scorchio!!

            Re: @Scorchio!!

            ">>"If Assange is both found guilty and found to have a STD watch the commentards tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

            If Assange is ever found to have a /serious/ STD, watch the people queueing up to explain how it must have been the result of a grand CIA conspiracy."

            It will of course have nothing to do with his promiscuity and failure to use protection. I can hear his mother's voice/education when he says "a gentleman never tells". That ain't no gentleman, though it may be Bubba's new biotch. ("Are you wearing anything" "You", my foot".)

            I think he ought to receive a visit from the Terrence Higgins foundation whilst he is here. If there is enough time left, that is.

    2. Scorchio!!
      Happy

      Re: Assange can't comment without compromising his legal options

      "Given that these are 'privileged documents' in the jurisdiction in which he might be charged, Assange would be well advised to keep his mouth shut otherwise any benefit to him arising from the release of these documents will be lost to him."

      Unfortunately for him, asking Assange to keep his mouth shut in public is like asking a bear to stop shitting in the woods. The main difference is probably that the bear will first check the environment for threats. It's a bit like putting on a condom before sex! :-)

  6. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    And what does it say about me that I read the line as "which quietly circulated on Swedish massage boards"?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      re: what does it say about me?

      Me too.

    2. Scorchio!!
      Happy

      Re: Bah!

      "And what does it say about me that I read the line as "which quietly circulated on Swedish massage boards"?"

      I think it's time to remember the late Monty Python's occasional line; "and now a massage from the Swedish Prime Minister!". Line spoken by Palin.

  7. ben edwards

    Hm

    It's not an attack on his WL deals, it's an attack on his masculinity (performance, hygiene). They can't hurt him through his social behavior, but the bedroom behavior is a good way to kneecap anybody.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Huh?

      I'm sorry Ben, but you lost me.

      The case in Sweden is about a guy who had non-consensual sex with a couple of women that decided to come forward and file complaints.

      I don't know Swedish law, but from what I've read, both women agreed to sex if Assange used a condom. Since he didn't it became an issue of non-consensual sex.

      How is this a 'kneecap' attack?

      This has nothing to do with the US or any potential charges he may face there or anywhere else based on his dumping of classified documents.

    2. Scorchio!!

      Re: Hm

      "It's not an attack on his WL deals, it's an attack on his masculinity (performance, hygiene). They can't hurt him through his social behavior, but the bedroom behavior is a good way to kneecap anybody."

      Although you were almost there ("hygiene") you miss the central point's significance; for decades sexual hygiene has been an important concept in Scandinavian life, including the use of condoms, as a means of reducing if not eliminating STDs. A man whose hygiene is demonstrably poor who also does not use a condom is not merely going to be a distressing memory, but also potentially a vector for infection, especially if he went ahead and had sex when the sexual partner insisted on use of a condom.

      For Scandinavians hygiene in bed is more than merely something meriting a derogatory comment, it is obligatory. Poor hygiene and no condom? Not priceless.

  8. LinkOfHyrule
    Grenade

    Who cares

    Fed up of hearing about Mr Ass-anger now. *Invents Ass blocker extension for firefox*

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Irony.

    The thing I find the most ironic is the way so many so called journalists are focussing all their attention on Assange and then turn around and call him a media whore.

    It is also ironic that the only leaks that get reported are ones that add to their character assignation of him.

    The only people whoring Assange are these aforementioned hacks.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    If this wasn't "leaked" by the US then there is a bridge you could buy in the UK

    This is their attempt to "get even" - At least one of the women has worked for the CIA before and I would bet was on the payroll to get him. The leaks show just how corrupt the US government is so who would be surprised at their complicity except the cooped "main stream press" who conveniently look the other way. Wired should be more savvy than this to think they "broke" the story.

    1. MGJ
      WTF?

      Legal Ignorance

      What part of "the documents appear to consist of pretrial discovery material that Swedish prosecutors provided to one of Assange's attorneys" is it that you are struggling with? Assange demands to know what he is charged with and why. In order to have a fair trial, the defence has equal access to the evidence gathered by the prosecution. That is then leaked; what is that to do with the US, UK or Swedish state? If he hadnt had access to the material, no doubt he'd be whining that he didnt know the basis for the case against himself, and couldn't prepare a defence.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Paranoid coward

      --"and I would bet was on the payroll to get him. "

      What - by filing about the weakest possible sexual assault charge - one that seems only borderline prosecutable?

      Surely, the CIA could have done better than that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        @AC 14:07

        No, actually it's perfect. The "crime" that they want to get Assange on would trump the rape charge easily, and since he is already a criminal under the justice system in a state that supports extradition to the US... he can thus be extradited.

        Now, someone with the capacity to think - and I don't suggest for a minute that you have this capacity - would sit down and consider the facts.

        1) At least one of the two accusers are known to work with the FBI.

        2) Remember that the condom with evidence was retained. This is not only unusual behavior but screams "evidence retention".

        3) The US are pretty pissed that they didn't get to control the information that the public was already entitled to.

        4) The Swedish police force already released Assange because the charges the two girls raised were groundless.

        5) The US cannot extradite Assange without having a real crime to prosecute, and especially without him being in a country that supports US extradition.

        6) The Swedes called Assange back on charges they had already cleared.

        7) Sweden has friendly extradition laws with the US which would allow the US to take precedence if they had a more crucial claim, false or otherwise.

        I could go on...

        1. Scorchio!!
          Happy

          Re: @AC 14:07

          "At least one of the two accusers are known to work with the FBI."

          So much so that you actually provided a link to original source material proving your point!

          Go on then, I'll bite; produce some proofy woofy. Go on!

      2. Scorchio!!
        Happy

        Re: @Paranoid coward

        "Surely, the CIA could have done better than that?"

        Didn't you know? This is like the blood farms in Blade; the CIA has women stockpiled in warehouses outside of every major city in the world, sleazy and demure. Whenever one is required it is dropped in the appropriate place, legs apart, equipped with every necessary item, including CIA manufactured used/ripped condoms, complete with DNA from the soon to be accused.

        It is a very simple matter of point and click, as any infotard, freetard or commentard would tell you!

        Tsk, tsk, you must get up to date with the latest form of conspiracy if you are going to catch out the commentards! :-)

        I heard the defence argument on Radio 4 news that the Swedes are only going to hold him for the US, never mind the fact that it is under the circumstances easier to extradite from the UK than from Sweden, but that never stopped a good conspiracy theorist k00k. Soon you will read that the Illuminati have been working in concert with the Evul CIA, FBI, GCHQ and vampire noble houses, to detain Assange for illicit anal probing. I tell you it's Independence Day all over again, and don't you DARE to argue with the commentardies. ;-)

    3. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: If this wasn't "leaked" by the US then there is a bridge you could buy in the UK

      "This is their attempt to "get even" - At least one of the women has worked for the CIA before and I would bet was on the payroll to get him. The leaks show just how corrupt the US government is so who would be surprised at their complicity except the cooped "main stream press" who conveniently look the other way. Wired should be more savvy than this to think they "broke" the story."

      Proof please?

      I thought not.

      1. david wilson

        @Scorchio!!

        If someone was a 'known CIA collaborator', why would the CIA use them in some covert operation?

        Are they really that short of 'clean' agents?

        1. Scorchio!!
          Happy

          Re: @Scorchio!!

          "If someone was a 'known CIA collaborator', why would the CIA use them in some covert operation?

          Are they really that short of 'clean' agents?"

          That sort of invincible logic never put off a conspiracy theorist. They have impenetrable carapaces over their brains, topped with a foil covering in case of scary transmissions, or thought theft. ;-)

    4. Scorchio!!
      Grenade

      Re: If this wasn't "leaked" by the US then there is a bridge you could buy in the UK

      "This is their attempt to "get even""

      Still no proofy woofy from you. However, read the original document. You will see from looking at the from and to data that the leaked fax document was sent from his Swedish lawyer to his English lawyer. Unless you are claiming that the lawyer was hacked or had an inside leaker (and this would be an ironic form of fair game!), then you are speaking from a point mid way between your buttocks:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar

      Faxed to "Jennifer Robinson Fax nr: +442073445600", from his Swedish lawyer, who said:

      "Dear Jennifer,On request from my client Mr Julian Assange, I hereby send You the following documents. Please notice that the documents are legally priviliged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else"

      Perhaps this is a bit like Rosemary's baby; the English lawyer is p\/\/||\|d by the evul CIA. Hmm.

  11. Gordon 17
    Unhappy

    No documents

    well it was worth a look but they have been taken off :-(

    1. Scorchio!!
      Coat

      Re: No documents

      "well it was worth a look but they have been taken off :-("

      Come and get your shiny fax document, from Assange's Swedish lawyer to his English lawyer:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar

      I think I'll have the Swedish penis enlarger pump, baby. Next to my coat. Thank you.

  12. Bleepme
    Coat

    He's Australian...

    ...and we all know what that means. Seriously though, deport the man. Nothing to do with us, and Sweden is not exactly Soviet Russia (in my experience, anyway). Save a few quid for the country.

    1. The Fuzzy Wotnot
      Pint

      Nice!

      So next time you do something ever so slightly annoying like smash a glass on a shelf in IKEA, we can deport you to the land of the midnight sauna without asking any questions?

      Everyone on the planet is entitled to some form of justice and review of their actions, if they deemed criminal, so let the law give an opinion before you decide to start rewriting the Human Rights act, eh?

  13. daemon_byte
    WTF?

    and why would the US need Sweden to have him

    They have a very favourable extradition treaty with the UK already. If this entire thing was to get him there they can just demand him from the UK and we are obliged to hand him over.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Custody

      Seems obvious to me.

      Find somewhere in the world that can arrest and hold the guy on anything while the US compiles its case, then when the US come to present their charges at some point in the future, they already know exactly where he is.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC

        >>"when when the US come to present their charges at some point in the future, they already know exactly where he is."

        Yeah -because he's such a low-profile individual, deviously flying around on his own passport that the USA would never be able to find him otherwise.

    2. Steen Hive
      Flame

      Don't need no steeenking treaty

      Sweden don't need an extradition treaty, or due process, or publicity - Säpo can just quietly dress him in a hood and manacles and dump him on a CIA plane at Bromma Airport, like they have been exposed as doing to others.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Individuals vs. gov't transparency

    They government is supposed to work for us... a government FOR the people, BY the people... they are civil servants... of course everything they do should be transparent to the people who elected them.

    In contrast, Julian Assange's personal matters are his own. He does not owe transparency to anyone.

    Anybody who thinks that exposing the details of his personal life is the moral equivalent of exposing the WORK-RELATED documents of CIVIL SERVANTS needs a reality check.

    I imagine that anybody who points out such a parallel thinks he's extremely clever, but think about the situation for another 30 seconds and you will realize that it's nonsensical.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Well said.

      "I imagine that anybody who points out such a parallel thinks he's extremely clever, but think about the situation for another 30 seconds and you will realize that it's nonsensical."

      Therein lies the crux.. they'd need a little intelligence to think about it.

    2. The Indomitable Gall

      But wait...!

      Assange posted data dump detailing live military actions that put lives in danger. That's not just "exposing work related documents", it's massively irresponsible.

      And the diplomatic memos didn't tell us anything new about international diplomacy, they just made international diplomacy more difficult.

      Assange has gone well beyond the boundaries of responsible disclosure, hence why people consider him fair game for the same sort of treatment.

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Individuals vs. gov't transparency

      ".....They government is supposed to work for us... a government FOR the people, BY the people....." Yes, and that would be all the people of Sweden, not just you Fosjays. I'm taking a wild guess here but I suspect the Church of St Julian is not achieved 100% popularity in Sweden, and that there is a sizeable chunk of the populance quite happy to see their laws enacted, especially womens' rights groups.

      ".....of course everything they do should be transparent to the people who elected them....." Debateable, especially in the areas of negotiations with another country that might be abandoned if they leaked out (such examples spring to mind as the early peace talks between MI5 and the Provisional IRA, arranged with Sinn Fein MPs but which would have been extremely unpopular with many Northern Irish had they leaked out; the negotiations between Israel and Egypt - Sadat was assassinated for his part in the subsequent peace deal; Swedish involvement in the talks between the Allies and high-ranking members of the German forces during WW2 to remove Hilter). Whilst I'm all for accountable democracy and transparency to a degree, some things are simply better conducted behind closed doors.

      "....In contrast, Julian Assange's personal matters are his own. He does not owe transparency to anyone....." You assume that this was some "accountability" exercise, whereas the sites and messages I have seen relating to these docs seem more concerned with humour, i.e., taking the p*ss out of Assange's personal hygiene and sexual habits. Please note the leak was not to the general public, it wasn't sent to the press, it just seems to be a few people having a laugh at someone in the public eye, which is completely different to Assange's leaking of government secrets for money approach. Please adjust your tin hat, it's not all one big conspiracy out there.

    4. Scorchio!!
      Big Brother

      Re: Individuals vs. gov't transparency

      "Julian Assange's personal matters are his own. He does not owe transparency to anyone."

      Oh yes he does. A source always needs to be scrutinised for ethics, credibility and such like.

      Just as I would not buy a used car from Toni Bler I would not buy one from Assange. (Resists temptation to make used condom dealer joke and fails).

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Reg.

    What's the Register's hang up with Assange?

    There's a weird seething undercurrent of resentment against him in all these wikileaks based stories. While he's a bit of a prat and should go to Sweden and face a court, I don't see what the source of all the hatred is.

    1. Semaj
      Dead Vulture

      Jealousy is my Guess

      He got instant fame where as no one's really ever heard of The Register outside IT circles.

      Or maybe it's because the documents didn't get leaked here but to the lowly tabloids.

      1. david wilson
        Headmaster

        @Semaj

        >>"Jealousy is my Guess"

        I think you mean 'Envy'

    2. Knochen Brittle
      Thumb Down

      Simple: it's called Pavlovian Obeisance to whomsoever buttereth their toast.

      Many of El Reg's staff/writers/commenteers are tech-support types formerly or currently working for British or US Offense Contractors/Military and are pre-programmed to express twitchy-ring syndrome should anyone be so impolite as to expose the criminal machinations of their paymasters, Warmonglers Inc.

      Naturally these same low-grade hypocrites, while endlessly harping about the alleged pecadillos of JA, are not at all squeamish about the subject of the very real rape of targeted Nations or individuals therein, as long as it's performed by psychos in 'Western' uniform within 'Rules of Engagement' under cover of an ex post facto 'approved' war-crime.

      Also, this hostility to vanguard truth-tellers is entirely unrelated to the blossoming campaign by the same war-criminal organisations [who have most to loose on the propaganda front by exposure of their dirty linen] to attempt to poison the public mind against WikiLeaks et al by an attack on the organisation's credibility and thus range of collaborating sources.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html

      http://mirror.wikileaks.info/leak/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      The JonB

      El Reg isn't out to get Assange. Because of Wikileaks, there is an IT angle.

      Whether you love/hate Wikileaks, Openleaks, etc... it represents a paradigm shift in how we perceive privacy in the internet age.

      Do some of El Reg's reporters think Assange is a twat? Yes.

      Are they biased against him? No, not really.

  16. tirarelamaniglia

    Before you start your tirades or spins, check facts... here

    http://rixstep.com/1/20110201,00.shtml

  17. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Irony? Don't think so ...

    There is no real irony here because the situations are completely different.

    On one hand there are leaked documents about individuals involved in an internationally recognised legal process which is still on going and in which all the parties are innocent until proved guilty.

    On the other hand you've got leaked documents proving Governments and politicians are happily covering up all sorts of real, actual, proven crimes against people and democracy. Politicians work for us and we have a right to know when they lie. Hilary Clinton claiming to stand for democracy while at the same time trying to spy on the UN for example.

    If you uncover a war crime it is pretty stupid for it be dismissed because you forgot to get your car an MOT.

    I think the facts stand for themselves. Assange annoys the US government and all of a sudden two women appear out of nowhere, make a load of allegations they didn't think of reporting at the time, and then miraculously appear to have a collection of week-old used condoms to hand.

    1. david wilson

      @AC

      >>"If you uncover a war crime it is pretty stupid for it be dismissed because you forgot to get your car an MOT."

      Though, of course, Julian didn't 'uncover' anything.

      He just happened to be someone that a person actually taking risks chose to give information to.

      Had he never existed, it could easily have been given to someone else, or to a proper journalist.

      >>"I think the facts stand for themselves. Assange annoys the US government and all of a sudden two women appear out of nowhere, make a load of allegations they didn't think of reporting at the time.."

      I think the hyperbole and illogic in what you write speaks for *itself*.

      Unless you're alleging that the US only worked out who he was in between the sex and the reporting of the sex, why would there need to be a delay?

      On the other hand, if you're claiming that the US had been planning things for a while, why 'women appear out of *nowhere*'?

      Is there somewhere /other/ than 'nowhere' that /legitimate/ victims of sexual assault are supposed to have been loitering beforehand?

      Do women have to be D-list celebrities or above to be capable of being assaulted?

      Maybe they aren't as famous as Julian, but that doesn't automatically make them inferior.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Unless...

        --"He just happened to be someone that a person actually taking risks chose to give information to."

        Unless, of course, he encouraged the person to get hold of the information.

        Anyone with evidence he actually did that would probably find the US government extremely happy to talk to them.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @AC

      "On the other hand you've got leaked documents proving Governments and politicians are happily covering up all sorts of real, actual, proven crimes against people and democracy. Politicians work for us and we have a right to know when they lie. Hilary Clinton claiming to stand for democracy while at the same time trying to spy on the UN for example.

      If you uncover a war crime it is pretty stupid for it be dismissed because you forgot to get your car an MOT."

      -=-

      Ok, What war crime was uncovered by Wikileaks?

      Seriously. Look at the last major leaks that Wikileaks has taken credit for.

      (Al Jeezera didn't say where they got their leaks when they launched their 'transparency' site... ;-)

      So leak #1:

      Its an edited video which was released and went 'viral' showing a US military chopper shooting at armed gunmen who are in the midst of a pair of journalists and some civilians. Note that the NYT stated that the video was edited to not include footage of an enemy combatant toting an RPG.

      [Sorry no WAR CRIME there. What's the RoE? for US servicemen?]

      Then there's leak #2:

      All those after action reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

      While news journalists like the NYT took their time and redacted information to protect informants and others... Wikileaks dumped the documents unedited (redacting key information that could cause harm). In all of those documents... what crime or alleged crime was uncovered?

      [NONE.]

      Then we have the coup de grace... leak #3:

      Wikileaks dumps all of those 'classified' communications...

      And what did we learn?

      Was there any 'crime', 'criminal activity' or *any* whistle blowing news worthy data there?

      [NOPE]

      So tell me oh wise and all knowing AC, what probative value (yes that a legal term) did wikileaks generate?

      And yes, there is irony in the leaking of Assange's legal docs.

      He believes in transparency. Complete transparency. So its ironic that he got his pants pulled just as he pulled others pants down. The truth is that in all of Wikileaks posted documents, no illegal acts were uncovered yet in the Assange document leak the evidence to his criminal conduct in Sweden is revealed. That is the irony.

  18. Bernard M. Orwell

    An assumption

    I can only assume that the powers that be, especially in Sweden, will now pursue the leaker of these documents with all the means they can muster and that it will be forcibly inserted into every headline in the world by news-hungry journalists?

    I mean, surely the leaking of confidential court documents and statements is a serious criminal matter? Perhaps they will blame the media forum inwhich these documents were published and seek to get it shut down using national laws that they will attempt to apply internationally? Perhaps the perpetrator will end up in a Swedish prison, held in solitary confinement, watched 24hrs a day, subjected to what Amnesty International refer to as 'torture' in order to extract a 'voluntary confession'?

    No? Pardon? Doesn't Sweden do that? Oh...they're civilised. I see.....

    (Shame that they have such draconian "sexual conduct" laws!)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Draconian huh?

      Requiring consent for sex is about as draconian as it gets.

    2. MGJ
      FAIL

      Who leaked it?

      It was his defence papers that were leaked; should Sweden prosecute his defence team? You'd certainly start whining if they did so

    3. Ian Michael Gumby
      Big Brother

      @Bernard Orwell

      Show me that the leak occurred in Sweden.

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: @Bernard Orwell

        "Show me that the leak occurred in Sweden."

        (There were at least two leaks in Sweden, in two different women.)

        Bad taste aside, as someone else has reminded us, UK defence papers were leaked. Perhaps one of the commentards will now claim that his defence team has been infiltrated by the FBI, CIA, British or Swedish security services, or some other team of scalp hunters.

    4. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: An assumption

      "No? Pardon? Doesn't Sweden do that? Oh...they're civilised. I see.....

      (Shame that they have such draconian "sexual conduct" laws!)"

      Do you go ahead and have sex with someone, even if they say no because you are not wearing a condom?

      Interesting how, when she awoke to find him having his way, she asked him if he was wearing anything and he responded "You".

      Oh, and when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    definition of leaked

    Anonymously handed over to the media by the US/UK or Swedish security services ...

  20. EWI
    Grenade

    "Wired", as in the guys who shopped Bradley?

    'Nuff said.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hypocracy not Irony

    Surely the important point here is the people who complain about Wikileaks are themselves leaking!

  22. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Slight difference

    The Amerian embassy documents that wikileaks published are a bit different to documents in a trial. If anything this makes it harder to convict Assange because it could be argued that he won't get a fair trial - and fair trials are based on running everything according to the book.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby
      WTF?

      @AC Re: Slight difference...

      This is why I said that these documents are not prejudicial. The release of these documents will not in anyway have an impact on Assange getting a fair trial, assuming he loses his extradition hearing.

      (Or the US trumps Sweden by seeking their own extradition, assuming that they conclude their investigation by then...)

  23. ahahaha you won't catch me that easy again
    FAIL

    for clarity

    1) lots of people think assange is a glory huntin diddy.

    2) lots of people think assange should be elevated to superhero status

    3) he clearly lacks social skills, in the sense that he mis-understands the "no condom, no sex" rule seemingly provided by both these women

    4) he may have low hygiene standards

    5) i understand the case had been dealt with (I could be wrong, don't care) prior to that naughty scamp assange's release of diplomatic files

    6) the furore arising from the documentary evidence that a certain super power's diplomats actually lacked diplomacy skills, along with a similar state of affairs with some of its lapdog states, and high profile "public figures", caused, well a furore.

    7) after much head scratching, said super power got cheesed off that they couldn't prosecute the scamp themselves, and invited some swedes to re-open/re-examine the facts surrounding the sexual assault charges, thus permitting them to request extradition.

    8) these charges have absolutely nothing to do with wikileaks, nor any of the generally perceived (on here i think) good stuff arising from it.

    9) both sides gain from this - assange gets increased profile, albeit as an entry on a register, and possible incarceration - though he'll be warmly received on release (ironically, as he wasn't when said incidents happened - allegedly). The yanks are seen to be doing something, when really they can't do anything at all.

    10) Everyone's a winner. Except for us having to listen to this crap over and over again.

    In summary - wikileaks - good.

    assange - bit of a twat really (allegedly)

    swedish prosecutors - "how high obama?"

    yanks - emotionally damaged third party, but putting on a brave face - bless.

    1. david wilson

      'for clarity'

      >>"3) he clearly lacks social skills, in the sense that he mis-understands the "no condom, no sex" rule seemingly provided by both these women"

      That's not really 'lacking social skills' in my book.

      *I* lack social skills, but it doesn't stop me understanding that other people have boundaries.

      Ignoring people's wishes seems more like not caring about other people than failing to understand them.

    2. Steven Knox
      FAIL

      Except

      "7) after much head scratching, said super power got cheesed off that they couldn't prosecute the scamp themselves, and invited some swedes to re-open/re-examine the facts surrounding the sexual assault charges, thus permitting them to request extradition."

      Except that a) Sweden denies the US was involved in the rape prosecutions, b) the US has not charged Assange with anything (a prerequisite for extradition), and c) as has been mentioned before, the UK has easier conditions and a more conciliatory record w/r/t extraditions than Sweden. It's all well and good to presume based on your personal bias that the US is pulling strings behind the scenes, but there is no actual evidence of such as yet.

      "8) these charges have absolutely nothing to do with wikileaks, nor any of the generally perceived (on here i think) good stuff arising from it."

      Except that, again, anyone paying attention to the news already knew everything "leaked" by wikileaks -- both the war documents and the (un)diplomatic cables. Wikileaks simply brought this information in front of people who are not observant enough to recognize it to begin with, or to deal with it responsibly.

      "9) both sides gain from this - assange gets increased profile, albeit as an entry on a register, and possible incarceration - though he'll be warmly received on release (ironically, as he wasn't when said incidents happened - allegedly). The yanks are seen to be doing something, when really they can't do anything at all."

      Nobody gains from this. Everything from the leaks to the still not moving forward prosecutions are the result of selfish, irresponsible behavior from most if not all of the individuals involved. Some may benefit in the short term as you described, but the long-term cost is too high for anyone to rightly claim a victory.

  24. Nick Pettefar

    Just Thinking Aloud

    Do the condoms contain Wikileaks?

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Unredacted?

    Are they unredacted? Of course not. They just reveal the negatives. Standard gov/spook smear technique. Saddest part - the idiots that buy into it.

  26. david wilson

    Fair trial?

    Since Sweden doesn't have jury trial, instead having trial by a mix of professional and lay judges, would that tend to make their system less vulnerable to prejudicial pre-trial publicity?

  27. cjmUK
    Thumb Down

    My Swedish friends say...

    ...it's a complete stitch-up.

    All this information and more has been in the public domain in Sweden for quite a while. The overwhelming majority of the population appear to be surprised at the action of their authorities in this case - they find it all highly unusual. And most think that that the case, is an excuse the get Assange detained somewhere, prior to an extradition to the US.

    As a country, Sweden isn't usually one to kow-tow to American whims, but nor are they usually pitched against the US either - so I tend to take these opinions at face value.

    1. Rob Dobs

      Banks Maybe

      I know Sweden isn't switzerland, but they do have national banks....Assange claims to have a lot of damning evidence against banks.......any chance this is less about the Sweden's support of the US, and more about protecting themselves from something assange may have on them?

      Granted I assumed he meant US banks (Bank of America specifically, because they have behaved so criminally recently as it is.) but maybe a Swedish bank is in the mix?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @cjmUK

      >>"The overwhelming majority of the population appear to be surprised at the action of their authorities in this case"

      What's 'overwhelming majority'? - 75%+?

      Link to survey results and questions asked?

      1. Scorchio!!
        Thumb Up

        Re: @cjmUK

        ">>"The overwhelming majority of the population appear to be surprised at the action of their authorities in this case"

        What's 'overwhelming majority'? - 75%+?

        Link to survey results and questions asked?"

        Let's not forget the questions of sample bias and ascertainment bias. IOW, birds of a feather flock together; go to a pub, ask people if they like beer, conclude that most of the UK like beer. Bad design, not a good basis for the use of inferential statistics.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Grenade

      @cjmUK

      Your Swedish friends?

      Is that like a pimply faced geek in the US claiming to have a Canadian girlfriend?

      Or do you include the 'Swedish Chef' character on the Muppets as your source?

  28. Daniel Garcia 2
    Welcome

    21st Century Hamlet on the making....

    The oppressor's wrong -check

    The proud man's contumely -check

    The pangs of despised love -check

    The law's delay -check

    The insolence of office -check

    1. Steve Roper
      Thumb Up

      You forgot

      The spurns that patient merit of th' unworthy takes - check (going by the comments in this forum anyway!)

      But whether Assange might his quietus make with a bare bodkin remains to be seen...

  29. json
    Troll

    its called Willyleaked..

    'nuf said.

  30. Stu 3
    Thumb Up

    Read them

    I've read the documents now and if I was on jury (not that Sweden has such a thing) I'd be voting for 'Not Guilty'. In both cases it seems that the women involved found Assange to not be the cool guy they thought he was and have suffered from buyers remorse - especially once they found out he was trying to screw his way round Stockholm.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    His days are numbered

    It will be nice to see Assange get what he deserves.

  32. thecakeis(not)alie

    It must truly a shock for some people...

    ...to discover their heroes are indeed aught but men.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    I read them too

    Yep - they overtly wanted sex with a high profile guy, got it, then afterwards discovered he was "bonking around". Tsk tsk, shame on you Julian for bonking all these young "moral groupies".

    Sweden, where consensual sex can be prosecuted as rape

    Paris, because she's Paris

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      If you're a man

      If you are a male idiot rather than a female one, please keep this in mind - if she asks you to use a condom and you refuse and then go at it anyway, that is not consensual. It doesn't matter how 'high profile' you are. Consent can be qualified, and in this case the qualifications were flouted. Considering your adulation of Mr High Profile Guy and his ways, you'd do well to heed this in each of your no doubt infrequent encounters with women.

      1. Stu 3
        Stop

        If you are stupid

        My understanding is that he did use condoms when pushed to. One of the plaintiffs alleges that he deliberately broke the condom - something which Assange denies.

        Buy by your logic on conditional consent, can I have a woman charged with rape when she tells me she's on the pill when in fact she isn't?

        1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: If you are stupid

          It's about infection, not impregnantion. So no.

          1. Stu 3
            FAIL

            Wrong Sarah

            The issue raised by the previous poster was not complying with terms of consent not the potential outcomes of flouting the terms of consent.

            To be clear, I agree that agreeing to use a condom and then not using one is wrong. As would be lying about using contraceptive pills.

            The plaintiff in this case raised both the issues of pregnancy and infection.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Stop

              Wow

              And you actually go around calling other people stupid.

              1. Stu 3

                Re:Wow

                Care to explain?

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Lock him up, FFS

    Take him away to Guantanamo Bay, I don't give a fuck, so this can finally go back to being about providing an open forum for leaked documents. Assange has indicated in the past that collateral damage will be necessary to achieving his aim of holding the powerful accountable for their actions; so if Manning can go down in flames for the greater good why not Assange too? Fuck him. Just take him away please, I'm sick of this shit. The last thing the world needs is another fucking bullshit messiah.

  35. duncan campbell
    Grenade

    Would it be "rape"

    If it were not Julian Assange?

    I have found no evidence that Sweden has ever prosecuted any of

    it's own for rape over a broken condom.

    And those things DO break.

    Anyways, my honest advice is to always take it lyin' down with yer hands

    behind yer head, after you get a signed release. *Anything* else can,

    and will, be respun into rape given suitable malice, and that includes goin' down.

    1. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: Would it be "rape"

      "If it were not Julian Assange?

      I have found no evidence that Sweden has ever prosecuted any of

      it's own for rape over a broken condom."

      Wrong; when one of the women awoke, to find St Julian inside of her, she asked if he was wearing anything. He responded "You".

      She allegedly did not consent to have unprotected sex. Scandinavian attitudes on sexual hygiene have for decades been way ahead of those in the UK. It is rape if she did not consent to have unprotected sex; she allegedly did not and he allegedly knew that.

  36. elderlybloke
    Thumb Down

    Liberty and Equality

    and all that, should mean that the female accusers should be named as well as the accused.

    Is that too much to ask in the present era where the girls say they want equality in everything?

  37. Scorchio!!

    Source material

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021