WikiLeaks Calls For Assange To Step Down 565
Stoobalou writes "A member of Iceland's parliament and prominent organizer for whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has turned on the site's spokesman, Julian Assange, urging him to step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden. Birgitta Jonsdottir told news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site laying bare US involvement in the war in Afghanistan and further promised revelations."
Not enough info (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a bit of a problem with not enough information about this case, so I'll try to summary what I know so far.
1: Two women who had sex with Assange went to the police and were adviced to file charges of rape ...
2: A prosecutor releases the accusations publicly to the press (not a common thing here in Sweden afaik)
3: The case is withdrawn because they realize Assange cannot be nailed for rape. The remaining charge is something akin to sexual harassment.
4: The rape charges are revived
5:
6: Profit?
No seriously I'm starting to wonder what the fuck is up with the swedish legal system.
Re:Price (Score:5, Interesting)
By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.
You mean until proven guilty? Or do you think anyone the US labels as an enemy should be considered automatically guilty and get locked away indefinitely with no habeas corpus [wikipedia.org] rights?
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Way to out yourself, spook. (Score:1, Interesting)
The Swedish government retracted one of the charges, for a while, and then reinstated it later.
Let me round it up for ya (Score:1, Interesting)
Whatever the allegations, Assange has managed to get himself into trouble. Like this other guy [dailymail.co.uk] at HP. And also this guy named Clinton (no need for URL I guess) that did not have sexual relationship with that woman.
Interesting how everybody thinks the wikileaks issue is some kind of CIA attack.
These are males. You know, the male human.
Fair play (Score:1, Interesting)
So when does wikileaks leak the police reports that were filed against him?
Being a public figure is his best defense (Score:4, Interesting)
Other Wikileaks people are urging him to separate this personal situation from Wikileaks. Really? Why? So far, I haven't seen any evidence and so all I know is that I have heard there is a rape and a case of molestation against him. I also know that the charges were initially dropped and I can only assume it was because the evidence is shaky if non-existent.
It seems to me that this has all come about because he is in charge of Wikileaks. If he were to go quiet and let someone else run the show, who knows what they will do? I'm not sure it is in his best interests to disconnect himself from Wikileaks.
Let's see some evidence. Let's get some details. If he was a "nobody" that no one has ever heard of and had nothing to fear from world governments, that would be one thing. But this guy is an enemy to some very powerful individuals and organizations. Remaining in the spotlight is all he has to defend himself at the moment. Asking him to give up his post now would be a problem.
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Interesting)
In my close circle I witnessed the "work" of two psychopathic women, so my faith is somewhat shaken. However, you must understand that I am not saying that women are worse than men. In fact, my opinion is that all humans independent of sex could do exactly the same amount of grief.
Raping someone is usually done by males.
Accusing an innocent about rape is usually done by females.
Two sides of the same coin.
*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:5, Interesting)
How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case and furthermore, commenting on it in public? In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police, and the firing of the prosecutor for not running a tight ship with a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive brances.
This doesn't pass the "smell test." Not one bit.
Did Assange do anything wrong? I don't know - but this sort of tampering by politicians makes it sure seem like someone, somewhere, *is* out to get him.
Re:Price (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole case has been handled rather poorly by the swedish justice system, when it was clear from the start that a modicum of tact would be required to avoid this media shitstorm.
It is entirely possible that those in the Swedish justice system did not care if they avoided a shitstorm. Not everyone buys into the PR hype of the modern information era, some people just do what they want. It is also possible that they knew it would start a shitstorm and handled it specifically in a way that would encourage such a thing.
Kind of obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a conspiracy nut but....
If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, sound like a horse and feels like a horse, it is most likely a horse.
Government officials tell directly to the public that if Assange doesn't hand over the files they will get him by other means and one week later you see rape charges.
How come there are still people thinking that something might be even remotely true concerning these allegations.
People like Birgitta Jonsdottir are easy to buy (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, the allegations could be true, but - Birgitta Jonsdottir is a politician, and like everyone else has a price to do or say anything. It is within the realm of probability that she has been paid to take this highly public stance.
The fact is, a smear campaign is not just a simple accusation (in this case two coincidentally made on the same day), but rather a string of questionable accusations presented to people. Sure each one can easily be disproved in most cases, but if you make enough false allegations and pay a few people (especially those who appear to give credibility to an accusation) then these lies appear to be true.
Does ANYONE actually believe the USA can illegally invade another country, kill hundreds of thousands of people and manage to hide it.... yet would just stop at a simple rape allegation?? Uh, no! It has been widely covered that the US government is actively trying to destroy credibility of wikileaks, and sadly that will involve putting US operatives or paid rats inside wikileaks with the ultimate goal of taking this organization down.
The CIA has set up dozens of puppet governments in similar ways, so taking down an enemy website by 'framing' those who run it will happen. Truth be told, that "Collateral Murder" video makes much of what has happened look like a child's birthday party. For example, the blast and shockwave from the MOAB bomb can destroy about 8-10 blocks radius of a city, and we used these in Iraq... how many people who be disgusted if we saw the aftermath of just one?
There should be consequences to crying rape (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.
I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.
Re:And so it begins (Score:1, Interesting)
"At least as far as I know" is a pretty huge qualifier. Guys that face accusations of rape, true or not, are unlikely to publicise the fact, even to their close friends.
I seem to recall an 8% figure for false rapes in the US, and that means that 8% of accusations that actually go to the police and become a "case" are in the end proven to be false. A least a few more percentage of them probably were false but were never proven to be false - cases where law enforcement believed the accusation but the courts found the accused not guilty are not counted as false accusations by the same law enforcement officials, yet certainly some fraction of those must be. Also rape accusations are not always reported to law enforcement to begin with, and probably the largest share of false accusations fall into that category, as the false accuser doesnt want or need a police report in order to gain from blackmail or extortion, and the falsely accused will still in many cases pay up to keep it quiet, knowing that even if their innocence is ultimately proven in a court of law their life would still be shredded in the process.
Re:Price (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a criminal prosecution, not a baseball game.
In most countries, the prosecution don't get many repeated attempts to pin something on you.
After the first dismissal, it should have been pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that something isn't quite right here.
That's very atypical behavior for a DA when there's a real case.
A DA only gets one chance at the plate, not 27.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually why not? Let us see all the information about the case, I'm sure it doesn't hold water. As the parent said, that a politician is rushing an ongoing investigation to bully Assange somehow I think they would be the most affected by total disclosure.
Re:Price (Score:5, Interesting)
From what's leaked it sounds like it's basically a case of someone sleeping with more than one woman, being sloppy with protection, women getting pissed off and anxious about STD's and involving the Swedish judiciary which gets the brilliant (and internally divisive) idea to use it as a pilot case on whether consent can be considered having not been given, if it was predicated upon the use of effective protection. Which is why you get one attorney saying 'rape!', the next one saying 'idiot, it's barely even minor assault in the worst case, if even intentional', and the third going 'hmmm... interesting theory, lets victimize someone (and maybe save the first attorney) to test it'.
Ah, well, if consent can be predicated upon such issues I suspect we'll get a whole load of 'rape' charges against women who said they were on the pill...
Re:wikileak thyself! (Score:3, Interesting)
It could be a good opportunity for wikiLeaks to show they are truly committed to posting all information in the public interest
They've already done that at least once when they leaked their own donor list. [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Price (Score:3, Interesting)
It should be the case because accusations are cheap, and when it comes to an allegations of a sex crime a guys life is pretty much done as soon as it hits the paper. His accusations is front page news, while is exoneration is barely a foot note on page J-57 in the weekend paper. False accusations are hard to prove, and if charges are withdrawn on a he said/she said, it's unlikely the woman will be prosecuted for it.
Sex crimes should have a total publication ban on the identity of the accused and victim unless the prosecution can provide exceptional circumstances.
Re:Price (Score:3, Interesting)
I know civics education in this country is complete shit, but I do seem to recall something about how we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law. For all we know, this woman is behind manufacturing accusations against Assange so that she can step in.
Wikileaks isn't a government and may associate or not with whomever they wish on whatever (otherwise legal) terms they wish. Assange can sue if he doesn't like it. Stop conflating the obligations of a private entity with government.
His life is going to be forever altered
Assange stepped in front of this train. Don't ask me to admire him for his 'courage' and then invoke my sympathy when he gets wrapped around the gears he chose to fuck with, whether it's the US government, a pair of sexy wenches he put the wood to or some exposed collaborator now being skinned alive in the dust of Afghanistan. These are the stakes he chose to play with and if he survives it all his reward will be vast; another bright spark making his play.
I am not willing to ever assume guilt whatsoever.
No, you'll just blindly advocate. No matter what. Just like the many advocates of this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser [wikipedia.org]
Re:Price (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, hold on, let me see if I understand this correctly. Your defense to of the fact that you're completely clueless as to the sequence of public events in this case is that I'm not a Swedish lawyer? Really? Wow, it's like you're a second grader. Are you next going to tell me that you're rubber and I'm glue and what bounces off you sticks to me?
Look, you claimed that the charges were dropped and completely fail to recognize the actual public fact that the charges have been brought again. So when you suggest that it's over and done with, and the only reason the story persists is because of some shadowy conspiracy among random slashdot posters, the media and politicians -- well all it shows is that you're kind of dumb because you haven't even made the effort to confirm that what you believe to be true actually is true.
The sports metaphor was to highlight the fact that you obviously aren't paying attention.
However if you really want to compare the length of our respective dicks when it comes to legal knowledge, I'll offer you this challenge:
The LSAT is being administered on October 9, you take it, I'll take it and we'll see who scores better. Shit, I'll even put some money on it. How would you like to wager $1000 USD?
That will make matters worse. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then the governments of the world will bribe, torture, threaten, everyone associated with Wikileaks everywhere and it wont just be Julian Assange being charged with rape, it will be everybody associated with Wikileaks being charged with rape, murder, tax evasion, Wikileaks will be treated like a terrorist organization.
How can Wikileaks be saved post Assange? That should be the question. Can Wikileaks as a concept even work? I suspect that against a government as mighty as the US government no matter how advanced Wikileaks ever becomes it will never be able to compare to the 600 billion dollar military budget, trained killers, operatives, satellites, and secret spy weaponry.
Re:Price (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering the fact that "wikileaks founder Assange accused of rape" made headline news across the bloody planet...did he really have a choice?
Well - yeah. He had a choice. He could have distanced his work with Wikileaks from his personal life. But I don't think that's what Assange is about.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Free speech takes a back seat when it directly causes harm, calling "fire" is the most famous example. A politician declaring someone guilty in public is seen in most western countries as causing harm to the process of a fair trial. Such prejudicial pronouncements of guilt by politicians and journalists can see them held in contempt of court. In otherwords politicians and the media are free to make or report allegations but they are not free to pervert justice by conducting a "trial by media".
I don't know if this is how it works in he US but it's certainly how it works in many other countries that value the right to a fair trial.
For her culture, it might be standard procedure... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've noticed a difference between some political systems I know best - British, Canadian, American. British and Canadian Members of Parliament, cabinet Ministers, and so on, generally will resign at the drop of an accusation that stands a chance of lasting more than a few news cycles - anything even debatable. If they don't, the PM tends to ask for a resignation. It's nothing to do with guilt; it's about Party Vs. Member.
The political agenda is in the hands of the Party, and even the PM is expected to put it ahead of his own career. You resign, not because you're guilty, but because it's bad for the Party (capital P!) to have the news be about the accusation story. It should be about whatever bill or program they're flogging this week. So the guy resigns, the accusers do a dance of victory - and are staring at another person in the position the next morning, one with the same agenda and probably the same qualifications. It makes it a very minor victory.
(The resigner, by the way, is generally rewarded with the best jobs the party can hand out...and if the problem does turn out to be minor, they show right back up in public office soon after, trumpeting their heroic sacrifice for the team at rallies. Long-run, being a smear victim is probably a career plus...)
American politicians, on the other hand, seem to regard resignation as confession, and fight to the bitter end, past where EVERYBODY knows they're guilty. (OK, Nixon resigned...after his friend Barry Goldwater told him that impeachment was certain and that he had maybe SIX votes in the Senate.)
So she may be just saying "The material's good enough to keep the news filled with police and court statements for weeks or months, so Do The Right Thing." ... and there'll just be another Wikileaks rep on the job in the morning.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Interesting)
In a lot of US states, it's rape if you pretend, to the person you're having sex with, to be married them, aka, if you trick them with a fake marriage. Apparently this has happened enough there's a law about it.(1)
I discovered this oddity while arguing online, correctly, that lying to, or even impersonating someone, does not make it rape.
Turns out, because of how the law is written, probably unintentionally, impersonating someone's spouse manages to fall under the law. 'Pretending to be a specific different person who is married to them' is a subset of 'pretending to be married to them', even if the law was actually aimed at the 'Being your actual self, but pretending to marry them' subset.
But impersonating anyone else is entirely legal, as is lying in general.
1) Strictly speaking, it's probably also fraud, if the tricked party paid for anything for the other person under the assumption they were married to that person. But it wouldn't always be fraud, and could easily be avoided by the scumbag.
The Russians call it Kompromat... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Price (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Preponderance of Evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been more than a few cases in the UK recently (and Greece I see) where women have been found to be crying wolf. Just have a look at this list:
http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/search/label/lying%20about%20rape [blogspot.com]