Julian Assange Faces Rape Investigation In Sweden — Updated 1017
mpawlo was one of many readers who have sent news that a warrant has been issued in Stockholm, Sweden for WikiLeaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange. The investigation apparently involves "one report of rape and one report of harassment." The story was broken by Swedish tabloid Expressen (original in Swedish), and later picked up by more reputable sources like CNN and the BBC, who say the warrant has been confirmed by Swedish authorities. The WikiLeaks Twitter feed has commented three times about the charges so far, first saying they were warned of 'dirty tricks,' then that they hadn't been contacted by Swedish police, and then a statement from Assange saying the charges are without basis.
Update: 08/21 15:58 GMT by S : Multiple sources are now reporting that the warrant for Assange's arrest has been withdrawn. Aftonbladet has coverage in Swedish. Chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
Update: 08/21 15:58 GMT by S : Multiple sources are now reporting that the warrant for Assange's arrest has been withdrawn. Aftonbladet has coverage in Swedish. Chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Government plays dirty when you expose their secrets
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, any charges against Assange are going to look that way, real or fabricated. Remember the old joke about conspiracy theories: if there's evidence to support them, then the truth has been uncovered, and if there's no evidence to support them, that just proves the conspirators are doing a good job of covering up.
My prediction is that this whole affair will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it's ever resolved, or how it is. If you want to don your tin foil hat, then you can say that his character assassination has been successfully completed at this point. The fact that there is not one, but two claims both does a better job of character assassination, and makes it stick that much better. From this point forward, even if he's been cleared at a later point, there will forever be that stigma in whispered tones at the edge of conversation, "Julian Assange? I heard two girls accused him of rape".
Re:This just in (Score:5, Interesting)
You should be aware that the two women knew each other, and went to the police together. They claim that they were molested by Assange independently in two different cities, with a few days between, without one of them thinking to warn the other.
He IS Innocent! (Score:5, Funny)
Someone just leaked the entire plot on Wikileaks.
Re:He IS Innocent! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:4, Funny)
Or if he needs to become a supervillain bent on world domination, i wonder if Gene Hackman can help anyways.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, how about this: The girls are members of a political group in Sweden that would like to discredit Assange and hatched the idea of accusing him themselves.
Your attempt to use Occam's Razor in this case could easily apply to anybody accused of any crime ever. Somehow I don't think this is a reasonable tool to use to discern fact from fiction in this case.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
#3 doesn't make any sense if you live in the real world. Assange is a human being just like you or me. No one likes to be accused of rape. It is one of those guilty until proven innocent things like molesting children. No sane person would intentionally scheme to have themselves falsely accused of it. It is exactly what you would use to frame someone though. Only the timing is suspicious to people. Very suspicious. Coincidences like this simply don't happen in the real world. The CIA are obviously counting on the general public being stupid and gullible. I wonder if the Swedish attorney general is as well. I suspect what really happened is when these women were cross examined their stories were just not convincing. And when the women realized that they weren't being believed they withdrew, secure in the knowledge that they would still get some amount of CIA funds just for the accusations. It is funny that the US Government agency considered it necessary to recruit 2 accusers. I guess they thought that would be more convincing. They neglected to consider that it makes the whole thing even more unlikely. Assange may be somewhat suicidal with how he has crossed the US Military (they will get their revenge), but he would not be so stupid as to rape, not just one, but two women while being actively hunted by the CIA etc. I have little doubt that very soon Assange is going to be in an unfortunate accident. His plane will crash or he will be in a fatal car accident with a blood alcohol level off the charts and lots of illicit drugs in his system. Maybe there will also be a kilo of heroin in his glove compartment and a stack of kiddie porn and bomb making equipment in his trunk.
Meanwhile, out in dozens war-zones... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Informative)
One suspects bail will be opposed, and a request to prevent the accused using the internet and or computer, or options limited so Julian can only use certain access internet ports that have wall to wall TCP/IP trace on.
The Swedish courts can't do things like that. They can decide on prison sentences, community service, fines, and a few other things, but they can't forbid someone from using Internet, or make up new types of punishment on the fly.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Funny)
The Swedish courts can't do things like that. They can decide on prison sentences, community service, fines, and a few other things, but they can't forbid someone from using Internet, or make up new types of punishment on the fly.
Somebody mod that country +2 Insightful.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like you haven't ever visited a Swedish "häkte" (arrest).
First of all, there is no "bail" in Sweden. Either you are arrested, or you are free awaiting sentencing.
In the Swedish legal system the prosecutor can decide that you need to be arrested if any of the following is fulfilled:
1. There is a risk of additional criminality
2. There is a risk that the person hampers the criminal investigation
3. There is a risk that the person flees
4. There is a minimum sentence of 1 year and no reason not to arrest the person
5. The person does not have a residence in Sweden.
Additionally, the prosecutor can decide to add "restrictions". These can include no communication with the rest of the world. This is done if communication can be expected to hamper the criminal investigation. The prosecutor has to defend the decision to keep a person arrested every 14 days, but the court can decide to keep the person arrested, with restrictions, for a very long time (years), if the investigation goes slowly.
If you are sentenced to prison in Sweden you can end up in an "open" prison (typically for lesser, non-violent, crimes). There there are few restrictions. Or you can end up in a "closed" prison (violent crimes, longer time). In a closed prison the amount of communication with the rest of the world is very limited, and communication with the rest of the world is typically monitored. Don't expect to use an Internet connection (or even a computer!) there.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Funny)
In defense of the US government plant who is making the charges, he does look kind of like a rapist.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if anyone noticed what type of photographs of Assange the different media organizations chose to accompany this story. I am a photographer and it was the first thing I noticed. In a majority of cases they are ones in which he is not looking into the camera (that is, not looking at the reader) which makes him look shifty, ones in which he is shot from strange angles (above or below, signifying either looming over the reader in a threatening fashion or being on a lower level than the reader) and photos in which he has non symmetrical (long associated with unattractiveness in psychological research) or negative expressions on his face. That's media spin for you. Most people don't realize how they are influenced by such visual clues and don't even register them consciously.
On a side note much of the reporting on wikileaks contains similar subtle cues. You will read: Controversial whisleblower website wikileaks releases Afghan war documents.... but not Whisleblower website wikileaks releases documents about controversial war in Afghanistan.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Funny)
Hrmm, first thing I said to myself was, "He looks like a computer nerd."
I guess I'm looking through #cf6275 colored glasses, though.
Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Interesting)
Crime needs three things: motive, means, opportunity.
Motive, no big deal, being a heterosexual male is enough.
Means, easy, every man comes equipped with that.
Opportunity, that's the big problem.
I have lived in Sweden and cannot say I had any difficulty in picking willing girls in bars there, and I'm not even famous like Assange.
A man with his record of fighting government corruption would have an idol status in Sweden, he would have to hire security guards to keep the girls away.
If there's one case where the accused should be presumed innocent, this is it.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Informative)
So how do you explain the larger number of reported rapes in Sweden then?
http://www.thelocal.se/19102/20090427/ [thelocal.se]
"Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe - twice as many as "runner up" the UK, a new study shows."
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, swedish law classifies a lot of things as "rape" that wouldn't be rape in other countries (this can be seen by looking at swedish rape statistics before and after the relevant changes to the law).
Also, from the article you linked: " The figures can however be somewhat distorted as it is often only assault rapes by strangers and aggravated acquaintance rapes that are reported in many of these countries - as was the case in Sweden 40 years ago.".
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, swedish law classifies a lot of things as "rape" that wouldn't be rape in other countries (this can be seen by looking at swedish rape statistics before and after the relevant changes to the law).
Also, from the article you linked: "
The figures can however be somewhat distorted as it is often only assault rapes by strangers and aggravated acquaintance rapes that are reported in many of these countries - as was the case in Sweden 40 years ago.".
According to aftonbladet.se both girls _willingly had sex with him_ but said he had a skewed view on women. They also said they are not afraid of him and he was non-violent.
I wonder what kind of actions he did that constitutes rape then?
Source: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Informative)
As I stated, compared to many other countries Swedish rape laws are pretty strict, lots of things that would not be considered rape in other countries are considered to be rape in Sweden (legally at least).
Also, Assange, Wikileaks and the Pirate party hav been in the media a lot in Sweden. And by "in the media" I mean "on the front page". So I'd guess most people here do know about Assange and Wikileaks.
Re:Not Rape? (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't have to be, in Sweden, you can be convicted for rape without penetrating anything. Forced petting is enough. You do not even have to use force, only go against the will of the person that is the victim is enough.
The bad thing with this is that it leads to people starting to distrust the law and the authorities.
Re:Not Rape? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Norway there was even a "reckless rape" charge for a while. It was for the times she said yes, but he ought to have understood that she really meant no. Fortunately, even the feminists agreed that this was demeaning to women (not being deemed capable of saying yes and no is pretty demeaning).
Re:Not Rape? (Score:5, Funny)
I was raped once.
Of course I didn't find out until his credit card was declined.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Interesting)
So how do you explain the larger number of reported rapes in Sweden then?
Because women are strongly encouraged to report rape here, and the police tend to take their accusations very seriously. Don't confuse the number of reported crimes to the actual number.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe"
Highlighted the reason why. Let me make up som example numbers;
Sweden - actual rapes 1,000 - reported 50% = 500 rapes.
Exampleistan - actual rapes 20,000 - reported 1% = 200 rapes.
Which country has the most rapes?
See the problem?
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I imagine how "hey girl, wanna see my leaked documents" is a great pickup line
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
By your argument Mike Tyson would have been innocent of rape purely on his celebrity status granting him a plethora of women willing to sleep with him.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Informative)
You're assuming the point of rape is to fulfill sexual desire -- it's not, it's about wielding power over someone else..
That's the feminist/social sciences dogma. See Palmer & Thornhill, A Natural History of Rape [wikipedia.org] for a different point of view.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the US they've coined a term for the PC way of going about sex: Enthusiastic Consent. [suite101.com] It is an outgrowth of the PC version of "No means No!" from the 1980's. In the 80's in the US they counseled college kids that they had get permission at each step of the way. They actually had role-playing seminars where you'd ask "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You really got the feeling that these people had never had a real sexual encounter in their lives, and wanted to make sure that nobody else did either.
From the women's rights site on Enthusiastic Consent:
Under this model, the person initiating contact is required to take account of and not exploit a relationship, the other person's intoxicated state, or the power of peer pressure or social conditioning.
So this has morphed into an "anything can be considered rape" model, where even getting an affirmative "yes" to each of these questions is not enough. The "yes" has to be truly enthusiastic to count. So telling a girl that you love her and want to have sex with her is rape - because you are exploiting your relationship. Have a couple of drinks together? Rape. Tell her "it's Ok, everybody does it?" Rape. Know somebody who lives in a society that is OK with casual sexual encounters? Ooops, that might be social conditioning - better not try to hook up. 'Cause that's rape.
As anyone who frequents /. knows, the power of PC thinking is pervasive. It is like fight club - you cannot discuss PC, because discussing PC means that you are not PC - and therefore are evil. So even linking to source material that written by PC people and espouses their PC beliefs requires an AC posting - lest ye be branded un-PC and evil! So yeah, I agree with you: rape does seem to be all about power - of the feminist kind.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but in Assange's case, he wields power by publishing secret documents. Not quite the profile of a rapist.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Informative)
Add alcohol/drugs to it and it gets even messier. Lots of people don't remember what they do when they are drunk.
Sure, if the person is unconscious it's rape (unless the "victim" liked it even the next day ;) ), but there's a wide range between unconscious and totally sober.
There was a girl who was drunk when she hugged and kissed me (after I fetched her back to her home). She claimed and claims to have no recollection of it. I guess there's a reason why her mom wanted me to be the one to fetch her home after all the partying. She's a pretty hot girl, I'm sure more than a few guys would have been unable to resist her charms.
If I had succumbed I wouldn't have been able to maintain my status as Slashdot Virgin :).
As for honesty. Lots of people lie about stuff they are willing to do. After all there was that girl who signed up for 56 tattoos and changed her story when her dad found out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8104645.stm [bbc.co.uk]
So I'm pretty sure there have been many girls who have consensual sex with guys and change their story later on, whether because boyfriend/dad/husband/peer group/public disapproves, or they "remember it differently" when they are more sober.
Looking at some of those sex survey statistics, either the girls or guys are lying, or the guys have unknowingly been fucking guys :) (which could also be the case if alcohol is involved ;) ).
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Errr...no, no it isn't. Being in possession of a penis and attracted to women does not make anyone a potential rapist or provide motivation for being one. I simply don't understand this strange correlation you seem to be making here.
--bornagainpenguin
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rape is felt by the victim as an act of dominance and control. We have no reason to believe the motivation of the perpetrator and the feeling of the victim are correlated.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's a chance Assage committed a horrible crime. Does that really change anything about his work with WikiLeaks, questionable though it's been at times. HIs actions may contextualize prior or future events, but they cannot solely define them.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless he's a raging alcoholic, I don't think Assange is so stupid to rape twice in a week, while the US government is looking for him and he has the attention of the world. Of course, there is a slight chance the allegations are real, but I find it very peculiar that no such charges has been made earlier. I'm with the conspiracy theorists on this one. I was fairly trusting in the 90's, but after the 00's I don't trust the industrial-military complex nor the US Government to play by the rules.
I agree about how people are usually more complex than hero/villain, though. Assange may very well have other skeletons in his closet, but - well - I think "they" picked the crime to be rape simply because it's a "he said, she said" kind of crime unless there was a huge scuffle. As such, it's perfect for character assassination - charges of rape sows the seeds of doubt in the heads of those who are not firmly behind Assange (and don't think this through).
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Next you'll be arguing that it's possible that Roman Polanski is both a child-abusing rapist and a great filmmaker, that Bill Clinton is both a skilled chief executive and diplomat and a horn-dog, that Oscar Wilde was both a pederast and a great playwright, that D.W. Griffiths was both an innovative director and a racist. And we all know that's simply not possible!
Re:This just in (Score:5, Funny)
What? Next you'll be arguing that it's possible that Roman Polanski is both a child-abusing rapist and a great filmmaker...
Yeah, right. What are you going to argue next; that slashdot is a great site for simplistic one-dimensional flame wars, and a fantastic source of poorly edited news stories with little substance? Get your head checked, man!
truth speaks for itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.
This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.
By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
And when someone is forced out by rumour and accusation, why do you think their successor will fare any better? All you've achieved is (a) shown that using such tactics is a great way to get rid of people who cause you problems and (b) fucked up someone's life when they're the person that admitted guilt by leaving their job because of rape accusations.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
The threat of punishment does not deter most criminals, who believe they will not be caught, or who are committing a crime of passion.
The act of punishment, which in the modern world means incarceration in most cases, leads to further crime.
Perhaps we should be trying to help people instead of locking them in a box, or in countries like the USA, a rape factory.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't change the past leaks, no. But it does question the leadership of Wikileaks and its future. If he's convicted, there'll be a need for a new figurehead; if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.
Actually.. If he is acquitted, he is not suspected any more. He is vindicated. Or are you trying to fulfil your own prophesy?
Rape is a brutal and despicable crime. And is unusual in that the accused is tried and convicted before they set foot in court in some people's minds purely because they have been accused...
What such people fail to accept though, is that accusations are easy. The accusation can be made long after any hope of any kind of forensic evidence is gone. Think of the last non related woman you had any interaction with.. They are perfectly capable of making an accusation. Does that make you guilty?
How about the last person who saw you naked. Can they describe a distinctive mark anywhere on your body? Is that proof or a reasonable thing for someone who engaged in consensual sex to be aware of?
Proving the crime either way is hard.
But just out of curiosity.
Suppose the two women in question withdraw the accusation in a few weeks? Will he still be probably guilty?
Suppose it is found that the two women in question each had a substantial amount of money deposited in their bank accounts the day they filed the charges?
Suppose someone drops off a document detailing this very strategy as CIA operating procedure?
Or suppose these two women are just trying to get some hush money from a publicly known figure?
You must surely admit that the timing of the incident is very convenient. Suspiciously well timed. I acknowledge the possibility. I don't assume it. Not a conspiracy nut. Just someone who is aware of how eager an embarrassed government can be to cover up the facts if they can.
Not the first time such things have been done by various governments. And I'm sure it would not be the last.
Or he may be unarguably and completely guilty. We have no idea. You believe what you want. I'll wait for the case to be heard before I make any judgement either way.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
The statement from the public prosecutor is closer to the second. She did not merely say the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, she said there was no reason to suspect that any crime had happened.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, they wouldn't leave it to chance: If they found him, they'd likely just plant a gun on him (if he isn't carrying one) and claim they had to shoot him because he was resisting arrest for rape.
Or to put it another way: If they put the same effort into doing something about Osama bin Laden as they're putting into doing something about Julian Assange, I suspect bin Laden would be either in Gitmo or 6 feet under by now. But the again, maybe that's because Assange committed the cardinal sin of questioning the US military, whereas all Osama's done is blow up a few buildings and since then acted as a convenient Emmanuel Goldstein.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making the completely incorrect assumption that the US wants him dead. (Well, the US government. As an American, what I want and what the US government wants are two different things.) The US government doesn't. Dead men become martyrs for their cause.
The US policy has always been to discredit Wikileaks, by discrediting Assange himself, by placing false information on the site, and by generally doing everything they can to smear anything related to it as unreliable.
A rape charge is perfectly within the realms of what the US's policy on Wikileaks. Remember, their plans were leaked onto Wikileaks, and the plan wasn't to destroy Wikileaks outright, but rather to convince everyone that they're not trustworthy.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't take a paranoid to see the US government (or another government) having an agent find a way to get alone with Assange for a half an hour and then accusing him of rape. Hell, just get an agent to sleep with him (he is a male, it isn't hard) and have her give it a little extra twist and now you have physical evidence of a rape. What is generally physical evidence of rape is just a vagina that has seen been used a little too hard. It is pretty trivial to fake. Rough sex will do it (easy to do if the plant is the aggressor), but you don't even need the person you intend to frame. Just grab a nearby vegetable and give yourself a few rough ins and outs when you are not in the mood and that will pretty much do it.
Framing Assange is pretty trivial.
1) Molest yourself with a dildo when you are not in the mood.
2) Seduce Assange to score yourself some physical evidence
3) Complain to the authorities
4) ???
5) Profit
We are never going to know the truth unless someone has a high quality video of the alleged rape, or the accuser is proven to have ties to an intelligence agency. There will be good reason to suspect that it is a frame (easy to do), yet no proof to the contrary.
My advice to anyone who is fucking around with the US government... tape yourself 24/7 and never for any reason turn it off. If they want to make it look like you committed a crime, it is trivial.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't US government bashing. If he was releasing English documents or French documents at this moment I would swap out US for France or England. He just so happens to be releasing a few thousand US military classified documents making the US kind of high on the suspect list these days. I would expect pretty much any government in the world would be more than happy to do far worse to protect military secrets.
As for the "but he is still alive!"... seriously, Assange dying wouldn't be a LITTLE suspicious? Assange himself isn't the problem. It isn't like if he dies it all goes away. Turning him into a martyr, which is exactly what will happen if he ends up dead, won't solve anything. If anything, it will make it a thousand times worse. Wikileaks would just release everything, the US (or whatever nation he has pissed off recently) would look like shit, and everyone would agree Wikileaks is justified if governments are resorting to murdering disgruntle open government advocates.
Pinning him with a couple of rape charges which don't even need to stick to be effective is exactly the most ideal move you could make. You don't turn him into a martyr, but you do damage the public face of Wikileaks. Further, like I said, it is a pretty damn easy charge to hit him with. It is certainly easier than martyring the guy. Just get a woman to make the accusation. Bonus points if she seduces him and then after (or before) the fact goes to town on her va-ja-ja with a dildo to give it some physical evidence of rape. Trivial, nearly impossible to disprove, and well within the capability of pretty much any spy agency.
I am generally pretty much not into conspiracy theories, but in this case, extreme skepticism is called for. More than one government has the incentive to do it, it is brain dead easy to pull off, and it is the single most damaging thing you could possibly do to wiki leaks. As an added bonus, it doesn't even have to stick to do damage. Sweden could drop the charges tomorrow saying there isn't enough evidence and the damage would already be done.
I'm not saying he couldn't be a rapist, but some hardcore skepticism is needed when someone who has pissed off every spy agency in the world is suddenly having his reputation trashed.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Say the US secret services wanted to get the WikiLeaks founder locked. Why not do something much simpler like planting child pornography on one of his computers?
I think you may over-estimate the capabilities of the US intelligence agencies here. For one, we can assume that someone like Julian Assange takes precautions when it comes to having their home computers hacked. When I say precautions, I mean they're going to have their computers locked down. Most hacking that happens is either mass scanning to find vulnerable systems or, if specifically targeted as this case would need to be, dependent on a target that doesn't keep a rigorously up to date and secure system. So a remote hack to put child porn (or other incriminating evidence on there) may not be possible. Particularly in a country where the telecomms wont casually hand over information to the US Intelligence Agencies.
So then you have to go for physical access. And whilst it's very hard to prevent people from breaking into your home if they're determined, it's a great deal easier to make it hard to do so undetected. Intelligence agencies will have access to locksmiths who can open up a door without force, and they'll have security people who can disable some burglar alarms using manufacturer codes, etc. But this works against the casual home-owner. If someone wants to take a couple of hours setting up more secure systems, 24/7 camera feeds or spending a bit of money on more serious alarms, locks, etc. then it's going to get really difficult. Particularly in anything other than a secluded countryside home where the owner is away all day. And we haven't even got started on the actual tampering with the computer yet. Stick a sick picture on someone's NTFS partition? Easy. Mount someone's encrypted home partition and add something in, make sure it's also added to their last few weeks backups (because you don't want it to provably have appeared whilst the owner was known to be away for the weekend. Oh, I could go on. Basically, if you know what you're doing and you take the time to prepare, and I assume both for this guy, then you can make things really fucking difficult for the intelligence agencies. Particularly if they're from a foreign country that your government wont fall over for.
Mud-slinging is actually, imo, the US governments easiest response and to be honest, expected. There are always those who will say "no smoke without fire".
These rape and harassment charges are trickier to fabricate. Remember, this is not the 19th century, there is plenty of forensic muscle in existence that can prove or disprove rape.
That I don't believe. Either way, in fact. You can check bruises in likely places that can suggest force, but some people like forceful sex and this can be consensual and bruises can be fabricated if your intent is to frame. As regards disprove rape, that's even worse. Far worse, in fact. If someone submits out of fear, it is still rape even if there are no bruises. And if you're thinking of the state of the vagina afterwards, that you can see evidence that they weren't very wet or relaxed during sex, again, this disproves nothing. It is actually quite possible for the body to be responsive to sexual stimulation during rape, even to the extent that a person reaches climax. Forced orgasm, or simply a lot of wetness, can be very confusing for a victim who questions whether it meant they were willing or not, what it says about them. It can make people feel very ashamed even though it's simply their body doing what seems natural to it. But it's still rape so long as one party was made to have sex through force or the threat of force, and forensic science can't "prove or disprove rape".
Not Fair! (Score:5, Funny)
Any enemy of the US is our friend.
It's not fair that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets to post here when he keeps Iran's Internet connections locked down.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet you'll shut up the next time something bad happens to your country and the U.S. parks a giant hospital ship off your shores and starts dispensing free medical care.
While I don't deny that the US sometimes does good, invading a country and then offering hospital services to some of the victims is not a recipe for popularity. The people of Iraq didn't ask USA to dispose their dictator by force.
I agree that the grandparent was out of line, though. Bashing USA in every conceivable way is not a solution.
Hopefully that won't happen, but if it does, you probably won't turn to Russia, or China, or North Korea, or any of the countries truly deserving of your ire.
I'd turn to Germany, England, Norway and Denmark.
Nope, the world always expects the U.S. to do all the heavy lifting, and when we do, you still complain.
As critical as I am of US foreign policy, this is unfortunately true. If the USA didn't take care of many of the hotbeds and warzones of the world, some other country would have to assume the responsibility. A friend of mine expressed it roughly like this: "Most people don't want to find out what could make them miss George Bush."
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway the strange thing (to me) about these charges isn't that they surfaced, it's that they were issued in Sweden, one of the biggest liberals of the European liberal democracies and perhaps the least likely to gin up bogus charges...
... Swedish authorities ginning up charges at the behest of US interests??? ask the pirate bay...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_raid [wikipedia.org]
Re:This just in (Score:4, Interesting)
Assange himself masterminded these girls reporting the rapes. It doesn't seem like that bad of an idea if you can later have the girls recant their story, and then claim they were coerced by CIA agents or something... how do you expect the US to prove that the girls weren't coerced by CIA agents?
In this version of the story, Assange comes out way ahead and the US government not so much. Just keep an open mind...
Re:This just in (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot the bit about guaranteeing security, for free, for the better part of the last century. That cost a few bucks for sure, but none of that matters. ... Being reminded that the taliban really are the bad guys doesn't fit with the world view these idiots like to project.
Selling weapons to your enemies [wikipedia.org]
Destabilising democracies and supporting fascist dicators [wikipedia.org]
bombing civilians [wikipedia.org]
supporting terrorists [wikipedia.org] including the taliban [wikipedia.org]
supplying weapons to mass murderers [wikipedia.org]
preventing colonies from gaining independence [wikipedia.org]
deploying nuclear weapons against civilian targets [wikipedia.org]
unilaterally [wikipedia.org] invading [wikipedia.org] soveriegn [wikipedia.org] nations [wikipedia.org]
turture [wikipedia.org], illegal detention [wikipedia.org]
starving children [wikipedia.org]
mind control experiments [wikipedia.org]
obstructing the prevention of terrorism [pkpolitics.com]
dropping bombs on everyone you possibly can [politicalinquirer.com]
Gee thanks guys. We would all just love all that security you have been guaranteeing, when do you suppose it will be delivered? On second thoughts, I think we might just sort out our own security from now on.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Funny)
(bad stuff) [wikipedia.org] ...
(bad stuff) [wikipedia.org]
(bad stuff) [wikipedia.org]
Sounds like we're going after the wrong wiki. Wikipedia seems to be the real threat to the the US. Any volunteers to say Jimbo gave them the bad touch?
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the guy whose biggest legislative initiative could have been titled the Insurance Company Revitalization Act is to the left of Jimmy-the-Peacenik Carter? Left of Lyndon "Great Society" Johnson? Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt? Sounds like someone here slept through history class.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so it's the US's fault that the taliban is cutting off woman's noses? OOOOOOOOOOk. Next.
No, it's not entirely the US government's fault; it's mainly the fault of the people who did it. But if the US government helps put a gang of people in power, and members of that gang commit atrocities, you'd sorta expect that people would pin part of the blame on the US government (and anyone else who has supported the bad guys). Every legal system recognizes concepts such as "accessory" to a crime, and puts part of the blame on people who support and assist the actual criminals.
BTW do any of you idiots hail from former soviet bloc counties? Thought not.
The fact that there are other evil people in the world isn't justification for being evil yourself. No legal system anywhere accepts "Other people are committing crimes" as exoneration for a crime that you committed or were an accessory to.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, that was just "truly deserving" ; ).
Why? Can you dispute the original comment, rather than making another stupid anti-America rant? Haiti certainly benefited from our parking a giant hospital ship off of its shores, and while we were doing all that, other countries were complaining that we had created "too large" a presence there (meanwhile sending no aid of their own) as if thousands of dead or dying people could give a damn about that. In fact, they wanted more of our help.
I might add that the nations who we buy oil from make a pretty damn good piece of change from it, so your implication that the U.S. just attacks any country with oil reserves and takes it from them is just, well, utterly full of shit. Unbelievably so, in fact. You might ask the good people who were once subjects of the Soviet Union how they would feel about your comment. They know what it's like to have something taken from them at tankpoint.
Sorry, that was just truly deserving and I don't need to put quotes around it.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
no sane person outside US likes US
Huh?
and everyone in ex-USSR hates you.
Funny ... I know a number of Russians and people from other places that were once members of the USSR. They tell me you're full of shit, and if they do "hate" the U.S., they emigrated here because they hate their own governments more. You may consider watching less State-sponsored television, and use your Internet connection to get news from a more unbiased source. Personally, I can recommend the BBC: their journalistic standards are much higher than you'll find in most U.S.-based news organizations, or any totalitarian country for that matter.
And, after educating yourself, you still see nothing wrong with the original poster's comment, well, it just means you're a willfully-ignorant bigot. I can't help you with that, although ignorance is a curable condition.
If you play with matches... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmph (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmph (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't think Reiser had any enemies with a motive for framing him, though?
You obviously never read LKML!
No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing some (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that then, as now, a large number of posters have decided that there is just no way he could have done it. With Reiser when the guilty verdict was handed down there were still plenty of people who decried how stupid the jury was, how there clearly wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty and so on... Until he confessed and gave the location of the body.
Same deal here, people have presupposed Assange's innocence because they like him. I don't mean given him the benefit of the doubt and said "Well let's see what evidence comes up," I mean saying that this is clearly an evil government plot, even though there is, of course, no evidence of that at this point.
It is just how it goes here. Geek heroes can do no wrong in the eyes of some and they'll come up with any number of reasons as to why something they did clearly must be a frame job by someone else.
As for this particular case, I'll have to see what, if anything, comes out. It could be a deliberate smear campaign against him, though I'm a bit doubtful of that as the risk of backfire would be pretty large. Could just be someone making shit up, this happens even to people who aren't well known never mind people who are. Could be he actually did it, the guy has a massive ego and questionable morals and may not have even thought he did anything wrong. We'll just have to see if anything comes of this.
Of course, the utter lack of information at this point won't stop a massive number of conspiracy theories from being posted here about how this is clearly a government frame job.
Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so (Score:5, Insightful)
people have presupposed Assange's innocence because they like him. I don't mean given him the benefit of the doubt and said "Well let's see what evidence comes up," I mean saying that this is clearly an evil government plot, even though there is, of course, no evidence of that at this point.
Yeah, well, quite possibly that is because the majority of /. readers are from the USA. You know, where you are PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
So until there is sufficient proof offered, Julian, in the eyes of most Americans, is completely innocent and the charges are completely bogus.
Likewise, until sufficient proof is offered, the US government is not performing a conspiracy. But /. does tend to draw out the conspiracy theories ;)
-Rick
Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a classic "character assassination" campaign. After the charges have been trumpeted all over the world, the widely-publicized arrest warrant has been withdrawn and a few hours later the Swedish Public Prosecutor announced that "he is no longer even under suspicion"... and yet from now on every time his name is mentioned, the easily impressed by the authority types with limited attention span will go "isn't that the rapist/traitor/terrorist/child-molester guy?"
It also served its job as a final "warning" from the power elite to this guy: "See what we can do? We can destroy you and make you a villain and no one will help you! You are defenseless against our power!"
So congratulations are in order. Now you can proudly consider yourself a honorary member of the dirty-tricks arm of the Pax Americana, unlike the rest of us, "tin foil hat" "conspiracy nuts" who smelled a rat from the get-go ...
Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so (Score:5, Informative)
We need to invent a pithy expression for this sort of "I like him therefore he is right" reasoning. How about "volo hoc ergo propter hoc"?
It's not just rhetorical, it's a cognitive bias. And there's already a name for it and plenty of research on it: see "Halo Effect" [wikipedia.org].
Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Julian is crazy, but he is not stupid.
Tell That To His Dick (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just sayin'
Folks here seem to believe that rape is some item on a to-do list, waiting to be ticked off.
Not saying that whole thing is not part of a Dirty Trick, just that if there IS some truth to it, rational thought has nothing to do with it.
Funny aspect of this (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the article the two women did not actually accuse him of rape, only that they asked the police for guidance relating to what allegedly happened.
This point is rather interesting, as in e.g. Norway (which has very similar legal system) you can and often will get a year or more prison sentence if you knowingly falsely accuse someone of rape.
Re:Funny aspect of this (Score:4, Interesting)
This point is rather interesting, as in e.g. Norway (which has very similar legal system) you can and often will get a year or more prison sentence if you knowingly falsely accuse someone of rape.
That is interesting. I mean, it's an acknowledgement that a. rape is a serious crime and that b. an accusation of rape can have terrible consequences for the accused, even if eventually proven innocent.
I dunno, though: here in the U.S. the system is generally pretty biased towards the woman, and if they tried to pass a law like that here, the complaint would be that it would make a woman afraid to report a rape, or attempted rape, because she might go to prison (mistakes do get made.) That does give women considerable power to really screw a man over if they want. I have no idea how often that happens.
Re:Funny aspect of this (Score:5, Informative)
In some ways the damage is done (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Every newscast from now on: (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought Child Porn (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were the judge on this one I would accept no evidence short of a witness such as Nelson Mandela. I hope they solidly investigate his accusers to check what they have been up to for the last while and see if they have any relations to US interests or large payoffs.
Sweden is a strange place (Score:5, Interesting)
Proper response (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Proper response (Score:5, Interesting)
Except the charges have already been withdrawn. My (completely made up) guess, is that the girls were seen having "relations" during US surveillance, who then turned around and offered them money or something similar to throw some charges at him. As soon as the charges were filed, the US had already leaked the rumors of the charges to major newspapers (one must look at the timing of all this). It seems either Assange or some other entity either forced the police to do some very fast and good work and drop the case, or the police threatened the girls with the Swedish 1 year in jail for false accusation of rape, who then withdrew their charges. Just my two cents though =).
Statement from Swedish Pirate Party's leader (Score:5, Informative)
An excerpt in a quick-and-dirty translation by me:
Re:Statement from Swedish Pirate Party's leader (Score:4, Informative)
Funny how small but important details get lost in translation.
What he actually wrote was that 'Vi känner inte människan', which would be translated as 'We don't know the person'. That is to say; what kind of person he is.
Warrant CANCELED (Score:5, Informative)
Breaking news on BBC... the arrest warrant has been canceled... definitely sounds like dirty government tricks now...
Re:Warrant CANCELED (Score:5, Insightful)
I was expecting something like this might happen. If this was targeted character assassination that's mission accomplished. Assange's name dragged through the dirt and his as well as Wikileaks' name associated successfully with rape. Now everyone can start using the following in any new press releases on a next wikileaks release: "Julian Assange, who was recently accused of rape in Sweden, has released...."
I am really curious if anyone is going to try to get to the bottom of this and find out what the hell just happened. Where did the accusations come from, why was it decided an arrest warrant should be issued and why has that same arrest warrant been withdrawn not even 24 hours later. This just stinks to high heaven. My guess? Some vague statements will be issued by the Swedish prosecutors office and that's all we'll ever find out.
Agency (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not going to be able to catch the CIA on this. Part of the deal when they pay you is that if you get caught, they will deny knowing you. As everyone discovered with the Valerie Plame case, being a government asset doesn't mean they give a shit about you. You exist, in reputation or in biological function, as long as you are useful to the State. I honestly have no idea why anyone would sign up given the history of The Agency.
The CIA is unconstitutional. It operates under a secret budget and outside the rule of Law. It has led to nothing but abuse, misery, and hasn't done anything but provide people from around the world with a good reason to hate the United States.
Intelligence services don't mean you train commandos to rape and torture and kill portions of the civilian populace in order to enforce your political will on a sovereign country. It doesn't mean you buy politicians off and then give them a bunch of weapons and training to do your dirty work for you in exchange for resource access. It means you have feelers around the world so you are always in the loop, so if some dictator does go batshit insane, then you prepare a response and let him know that you've got about ten million tons of reasonably accurate weaponry that you're going to drop if and only if he does carry out an attack.
Yes, it leaves you open to the possibility of terrorism committed by a few sociopaths, but that's the price you pay to live in a free and open society. The alternatives are far worse.
False accusations, conspiracy. Yes it is. (Score:4, Interesting)
and suddenly, rape charges come up.
if there is ANYone who can still think that such big coincidences can happen, i have only one word to call them :
morons.
the powers behind these kind of shit, apparently have grown a lot lax and reckless lately. in 1960s, they would at least give some time before coming up with their game so that public wouldnt be able to see the correlation in between the two events. but apparently, they dont need to. for there are people who still can be as stupid as not to be able to see the linkage.
If I didn't know any better... (Score:5, Funny)
If I didn't know any better, I'd honestly think this is the next plot in Stieg Larsson's Millennium series.
Re:Timing,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Timing,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
Well what it could do, at least for some people, is call motives in to question. Right now you see two major theories at to why he does what he does and in particular why he chose to leak a bunch of classified data which appears to have little to no public value:
1) He really believes in this "freedom and openness at all costs," thing. He is a zealot perhaps, but an idealistic one. He really thinks that the best thing for the world is to have no secrets that all information from any source should be public for all to see. What he does is not at all about him, it is about the greater good, about making the world a better place. He believes that what he does is necessary.
2) He's an egomaniac with questionable morals who likes puff himself up be getting the better of people and exposing them. He leaks indiscriminately, including documents of no real value (like sorority secrets) because it gets him attention, power, and gives him a thrill. All the "public good" stuff is just bullshit, he doesn't really care, it is all about him and his ego.
Well, if he actually committed a rape, it would indicate that #2 is more likely. You obviously have to have some twisted morals to want to rape someone and ego and power are a big part of it. It is as much about exerting your will on another as the sexual gratification. So it would be an indicator that indeed his work on Wikileaks was for self centered reasons.
Now even if he did it all for selfish reasons that doesn't mean that you are required to find it worthless. You could certainly say "I don't care why he did it *I* believe it is valuable and necessary, and a good thing for society." The value needs to be evaluated independent of anything he says or does and nay reasons he has.
Re:"Enemy of the State" (Score:5, Interesting)
Bah, as a swede this hurts, but essentially our government is a US lapdog. Witness the fiasco with the pirate bay for a glaring example, where the prosecution initially refused to press any charges because they felt there was no real case. Then suddenly a few months later they got the people behind it sentenced to pay record damages (1.35 M USD) AND jail time corresponding to a major case of assault and battery in a kangaroo court with the chairman being a member of several pro-copyright lobby organisations, and acquaintance of several of the legal counsels on the plaintiffs side.
I don't know about Denmark these days, but something is definitely rotten in the state of Sweden these days, and I think it was a major mistake of Mr Assange to decide to have anything to do with us.
Re:Character assasination in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is a false accusation, and I believe it is, I would also suspect that agents would be assigned to astroturf media sites with posts supporting the accusations and charges.
Re:Character assasination in progress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Character assasination in progress (Score:4, Informative)
Assange is too high profile to kill off. Cue the rape/childporn/furry accusations.
Hardly. Nobody is too high a profile to kill off. That's why people that are really high profile have private security forces, why our President has the Secret Service. If you're too big a problem, you can and will be killed if you piss off the wrong organization. That's pretty much the way it is.
Re:Character assasination in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
He's too high-profile to be killed off without it being obvious. Terrorists don't tend to care about PR all that much, or would even be glad to take credit for an attack. The US government, on the other hand, has an image and moral high ground to protect. Particularly in this case, where the leak greatly damages their credibility, killing the leaker would make it much worse. Hence the character assassination.
(However, Assange should worry about pissing off Mossad. From what they pulled off in Dubai, they don't seem to care about image issues or international opinion much either.)
Re:Shame on you (Score:4, Funny)
America, you should be ashamed of the way your country wages war. Using the accusation of rape as a weapon....
You have to admit that it's an improvement over shooting your own or allied troops.
Re:oh he is guilty (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, in your example, I think the Taliban would be the guilty party?
As for your Sun Tzu quote, it's always wise to read a book all the way through :):"A government should not mobilize an army out of anger, military leaders should not provoke war out of wrath. Act when it is beneficial, desist if it is not. Anger can revert to joy, wrath can revert to delight, but a nation destroyed cannot be restored to existence, and the dead cannot be restored to life. Therefore an enlightened government is careful about this, a good military leadership is alert to this. This is the way to secure a nation and keep the armed forces whole".