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 …
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...
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.
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.
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
"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) 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.
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...
"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.
""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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
>>"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?
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.
>>"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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
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.
"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!!
"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'.
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.
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.
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. ;-)
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.
"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.
"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.
>>"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.
">>"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.
"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! :-)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
"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. ;-)
"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.
"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. ;-)
"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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
".....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.
"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).
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
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.
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.
>>"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.
--"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.
"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.
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!)
"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.
"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.
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.
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...)
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.
>>"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.
"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.
...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.
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?
">>"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
