Smear campaign against Wikileaks begins
thinq.co.uk
thinq.co.uk
Translation of this article in nu.nl:
http://www.nu.nl/tech/2316742/voorman-wikileaks-gezocht-verk...
STOCKHOLM - Julian Assange, the leader of whistleblower website wikileaks is since Friday even in Sweden a fugitive in two rape caes. This has been reported by the public prosecutor on Saturday morning according to the Swedish media.
Two women, aged twenty and thirty have gone to the police on Friday evening to relate their stories.
Against the one Assange is reported to have used sexual violence last weekend in the South of Sweden, the other was reportedly raped on Tuesday morning in the nearby town of Enköping.
According to the justice ministry in Stockholm the reports by the women contain enough substance to issue a warrant. For the moment it is unclear where Julian Assange is right now.
Wikileaks, a website that is running on computers in a safe house in Solna near Stockholm, was recently in the news. The whistleblowers site published tens of thousands of pages of secret American military documents about the war in Afghanistan.
--
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/7957665/Wiki...
"Julian Assange: the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."
The timing of this is just too convenient to ignore.
For now, until there is some hard evidence I'm in the 'smear' corner. But I still agree with you about the title, that's an opinion.
Exactly.
He is just too smart and just too obsessed about the cause to do something as stupid as that. Let's assume he did it once in a fit of mental incapacitation under the pressure, but then he walks out and does it again a few days later in another town? Even the average wannabe Criminal Joe would lie low for a while unless he was on a Bonnie-&-Clyde-esque rampage, which is a bit of a stretch to imagine with him.
I am willing to bet that he has been through far worse strain in the process of fighting against the Australian govt. for his son (see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...). It's unlikely that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back. Distantly possible, yes. Likely. No.
> Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most—power without accountability—is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution.
The timing is just too convenient.
Assange would have to have reasoned that a charge against him at this point in time would be so unbelievable that he could get away with this. And that is something that I find unbelievable.
Evidence. Not just 'a charge'. So, in the case of Clinton, a dress, in the case of Hurd falsified expense reports.
I appreciate that the mind of a philanderer let alone a rapist is a bit alien, but you must understand that the decisions are not entirely rational. As I state above, I find the charges suspect but "he would have known better" is not a convincing counterargument.
If he knew better he would have been running a startup and laughing his way to the bank.
This man is obsessed with one idea. Freedom. Or, his version of it and such people are really really unlikely to burn up their cause for something like this. This is a man who spent nights awake working on a cryptographic framework for his baby. This is a man who spent months trying to decrypt files while on the run. This is a man who hardly lives a life of luxury and spends almost every second of his time towards his cause. Do you think that he is rational enough to do anything else?
On the other hand, what does the USA have to lose in terms of PR? They're one of the most powerful countries in the world and they can call the shots for now, and unfortunately people know that. The shame of losing their secrets on the other hand...
I really wouldn't be surprised that the women would have been chosen for some sexual history with him or something if possible. It's a longshot, but this will become a trial by media. A blot no matter how small will overshadow the leaking of the documents, and the know that. Why? Because it makes for a better story. Think about it.
Would you rather see an hour long TV special about 16000 leaked war logs and their statistical correlations to war time deaths? As well as strategic failures that might get a bit dry?
Or, the story of an outlaw on the run :flash picture: Out for a cause :cue music: with a dark twist? Did he or did he not? With an exclusive panel to debate it.
I think that's your answer right there. Most people don't give a damn and that blot will permeate through and cloud their vision of what's going to follow, and it's not like they were eagerly awaiting it in the first place.
OT, but that assumes the "better" in "knowing better" == "having tons of money" as opposed to, say, "improving the world" which is not a foregone conclusion.
Yes, it's extreme, but his integrity has touched me whether it is right or wrong it's for history to judge. What's more important to me is that he has chosen his path and that he has the integrity to stick to it.
"That's the thing you see. This man does not know better!"
- because
"If he knew better he would have been running a startup and laughing his way to the bank."
- That is make money. rather than
"This man is obsessed with one idea. Freedom." - that is dedicating himself to a principle.
What I was trying to say was that you can't fill a full glass. This man is too consumed by his work to get into another mental pathogen for a time long enough to commit a crime like this once, let alone twice. It's just too unlikely.
This is why most people won't understand him either and this is why this smear campaign will work. He is an outsider, an "other", trying to tell those sensible folks who "know" what's good for them that their most cherished beliefs might be null and void. Where do you think the pendulum will swing?
This is why I said that.
[edit: I just recalled that whenever I used to be under a lot of positive creative stress I didn't have the time to get into my suicidal thoughts. Those moments were like a barren, but safe and beautiful harbor for me.
He isn't like me, but the thing is that our brains can have only so much on consuming us running on our minds without a complete breakdown.]
Accused of != guilty of
Occams razor
And Assange has more enemies than most, both corporate and governmental.
Remember Charles Lindbergh, the praised aviator, his boy killed by kidnappers? Same Lindy who turned a fan of eugenics and loudmouthed Nazi supporter.
Or as more recent example, Hans Reiser? Am sure that hurt to a lot of fellows here.
Let's just reserve our judgement until we get more facts.
Of course it could be true, but somehow that doesn't seem the most reasonable explanation.
But then, what do I know.
I don't think we can jump to any conclusions yet
Edit: for the down voters, thie point being made is - we have no idea of thetruth, take care speculating. Grr
It seems to me equally credible that Assange or a friend set up these false allegations, which once easily dismissed, will indeed show the world how "persecuted" Wikileaks is.
I honestly expected better of hn :-(
Scenario 16: Some women get paid to make eyes at Assange, he falls for it, they have sex, they go and accuse him of rape.
Then hope he pulls a Clinton and ends up having to define the meaning of 'is'.
If I was Julian Assange at this point I'd blow the whole thing wide open and document each and every little bit of what happened if anything, even if it makes him look less saintly. That's the best defense against a smear campaign, if anything at all happened he'll look a lot worse if he tries to cover it up.
And he may have to step down from Wikileaks pending the investigation, which is another easy win for the opposition, it would be the prudent thing to do.
I wonder why it's not child pornography, that would allow the authorities to go after every data system he ever touched, and it's way easier to make up stuff.
I understand that this fits a narrative, and perhaps it turns out he was framed. Or perhaps it turns out he is has criminal tendencies and the west used those tendencies to frame him. Or he's innocent. Or he's innocent and nobody framed him.
Simply because it fits easily into a narrative does not mean that the most likely scenario is the narrative. You could make a case that having a criminal trial would be a terrible thing for intelligence agencies. It'd just give him a bigger microphone and also put the agencies at risk of being discovered. In fact, if it is a setup, it's one of the most bone-headed setups I've ever seen. Better to just kill him. If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards.
That's the strongest argument against this being a frame-up so far. On the other hand breaking in to the Democratic party's offices wasn't very smart either and that definitely happened, and I can think of a few more cases like that.
Government agencies are definitely not above doing really stupid things that turn in to PR disasters.
But really, trying to frame some guy that a hundred-million people think is some super-hero? It's crazy. They certainly may be doing it, but it's really beyond-stupid crazy.
I'd just shoot him. Easy enough to whack somebody, and without evidence people can spend their lifetimes pointing fingers at each other. Might even make a great series of books and a movie. But with real, live people making criminal allegations that aren't true? Lots of little loose ends dangling around. Too many.
In fact, I'd bet you that even if he was guilty and was not framed, there'll be a series of investigative articles and blogs "proving" he was framed anyway. The narrative is simply too hard to ignore.
Which -- if you think about it -- would give him a free hand to commit any crime he wants. After all, no matter what he was accused of, he was framed, right?
Welcome to the hall of mirrors.
When compared to false accusations, someone getting killed by a hitman who was hired by the government would far more likely create chaos amongst the public when the truth comes out.
A hundred million fans (or more if you count the rest of the world), a couple of thousand witnesses, plenty of time has passed and we're still waiting for the truth to come out.
That makes it a stronger point, not a weaker one.
Imagine the journalistic coup if you could conclusively prove who did it and why. The fact that to date nobody has in spite of the size of the prize means that such things can happen and can be kept secret.
This could be the first part of it. Combine it with the first solider to die which is linked to the information released, and any goodwill the public feels towards him is going bye-bye.
In the next year, he can probably look forward to going from a modern day Robin Hood to some weirdo, introverted, odd male hacker who is trying to disrupt our ordinary lives.
They do now.
> And the fact is, it won't be too hard to convert most of the people who do know of him and like him into disliking him.
That has probably happened in the last 48 hours.
That being said, it would be an idiotic way of dealing with this situation. It smacks of amateurism, and while I may have qualms with what american intelligence agencies do, they are very good at what they do, and certainly not amateurs.
Even accusing him of rape discredits or puts a cloud over him and what he is trying to accomplish. It probably does not reflect that badly on whatever wikileaks publishes, but will hamper his efforts to lobby for whistle-blower protections in different countries.
Just taking that risk is bordering on the insane.
The best way to get rid of 'inconvenient' people is to have them commit suicide leaving no note or to have them have tragic accidents.
Here in the UK they are reopening the inquiry into Dr. Kelly's death, and his death, whether a suicide or otherwise, came amides the dawning of the war in Iraq, so perhaps of a different magnitude, but, he was also a relatively little known person.
You can accuse him of rape though. Now that would leave you doubting. It is not so hard, pay some person a million, or ten million, and its a fairly good deal. It is tremendously hard to prove an untruth and they might get the result that they want. Otherwise, he would still be the alleged rapist, and fox news would probably just call him a criminal, and the trial can go on and on and during that time he might be kept in prison.
As for whether he is a criminal or being framed, both may be true indeed, but that neither may be true is not quite possible. If he innocent, he is being framed, either by the victim, or something way bigger than the victim.
"I understand that this fits a narrative" As doctors might say, if the symptom fits the illness no point looking at other things. It might in this case indeed be different as we are not diagnosing an illness, but common, what are the chances that the guy raped someone and molested someone? What are the chances that he did so now, only a week or so after some nutter called for him to be arrested even though then there were no allegations of committing any crime.
I hope however that you are right. Otherwise, our society would have arrived at that point where the little child cries, but the emperor has no clothes, and at least we all will stop pretending that our system is brilliant, that freedom of speech is indeed paramount, that in this country the rule of law rules for kings and peasants alike and instead will realise that we need to fight for such things and not take them for granted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-inv...
And Dr. Kelly was very well known, especially because of the whole 'Sexing up' press coverage.
A bullet to the head would be problematic.
This government appears to be thinking of reopening the files however. People have come out saying that there are doubts about the inquiry, that its conclusions are not plausable. My point was therefore that we live in a democracy where the death of someone, even where mighty powers are concerned, is not simply shrugged under the carpet.
The other problem I have with this is that rape is an awful way to frame someone. You need to condition someone to stand up to extreme amounts of interrogation and cross-examination. A single slip-up in memorization of facts can cost the entire case. It is not nearly as simple as "pay someone 10 million and have them say he raped them", we're talking about world class psychiatrists and world class lawyers, the victim needs an incredible amount of practice to be able to convince them that they are telling the truth. The American government has the NSA at their disposal, they could frame him a million ways and make it stick, they would not use a random swedish woman.
That is not to say that the American government isn't happy about it, nor that they aren't encouraging this story, nor that Assange did it, but this certainly isn't the work of the American government.
That is a terrible idea from the perspective of the US government.
"You'll find a live saint much easier to handle than a dead one." Assange is in himself not that powerful, he represents an idea, and his followers are scarier than 4Chan, because they're a superset of 4Chan, and they don't just do what they do "for the lulz." They do so because they believe in it. Killing Assange would mobilize them like nothing before. It doesn't matter who did it. Accusing him of rape sows discord among moderates. They want to kill the movement, not Assange.
"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
- Joseph Goebbels
Ask the victim to describe the assailants crotch area etc. and cross check.
DNA tests if the guy was stupid enough not to wear a condom (but this was Assagne).
Corresponding physical injuries or bruises as described by the victim on the assailants body (there's almost always a struggle in a rape).
Clothing with traces of the victim for example hair samples from a jacket, shoe or clothing unlikely to be rinsed(in case he claims that they have never met).
Trace biological evidence on the scene (can be faked though).
Interrogation. (even very smart people tend to slip up)
Standard investigations (alibis blah blah the entire detective book routine)
----
I think that the real problem is that it takes too long to verify for the 24 hour news cycle unlike a murder.
All the above only really proves intercourse; proving the ''intent'' is the hardest part of law enforcement.
I don't know whether Assange is framed or not. But bringing these two into the discussion seems a bit ridiculous. If Adolf and Joseph knew so much, maybe they could have won the war?! Or, at least, avoided declaring war on the US in 1941, when they had no reason to do so.
Just to give a bit of context, Hitler and Goebbels considered the US a failed state, ruled by Jews and corrupted by Negro culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
Their criticism (including "big lie" accusations) comes from this point of view.
There's a common meme of saying the Nazis had bad judgement (they did get some major decisions wrong) and that as a consequence they were stupid. The second point is largely not true: Hitler, Goebbels, Goering etc were in fact quite intelligent -- they could hardly have taken over a country otherwise.
Just because someone's evil, don't assume they're stupid.
Once I think I would have agreed. But that's a pre-Rovian way of thinking.
All that will really stick in the public mind is the fact that "Wikileaks" and "Rape" appeared together in a single headline. Everything else is a footnote.
Assange said "Jag har inte blivit kontaktad av polisen."[0]
Translates from Swedish as "I have not been contacted by the police."
0: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/anklagelserna-skakar-wikile...
"The warrant was issued late on Friday, said Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden's prosecutors' office.
Swedish police have been trying to contact Mr Assange, but have not yet been able to, she told the BBC.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047025
The initial article from the ”tabloid” also contained quotes from a prosecutor confirming the story.
The circumstances seem a bit odd (two assaults so close to eachother without a previous history) which could suggest framing either by an external entity or the women involved.
According to http://expressen.se, the women apparently do know eachother and have at some point been reluctant to co-operate with the investigators expressing either "being scared to death" or "being in fear for their lives" because of Assange's high status (the meaning being a bit unclear from the context).
Still, the accusations are serious and need to be investigated - which should have happened without publicity but that tends to be utopic when a public figure is concerned.
The Swedish word "livrädd" just means "terrified", not that you are in fear for your life.
I gave both translations because the term used was "livrädd", not merely "rädd". This could be an intentional obfuscation of the sentiment behind the words - thus, it could be read to state they said they were "scared to death" (or "terrified" if you prefer) or actually in fear for their lives. Implications with plausible deniability.
Isn't wikileaks hosted in Sweden btw? I don't think it would be affected, but still a thing to keep in mind.
It's all over the news, from China to the Netherlands and further.
The smart wikileaks supporting and skeptical cyber warrior would do best to reserve judgement but to show that there is a reason why there is probably more than meets the eye here.
1) I've done two college papers on date rape. In most cases, date rape involves alcohol (ie impaired judgment) and bad communication, often due to cross cultural misunderstandings.
2) I read once that if you ask a room full of (American?) women how many of them have been raped, half the hands go up. If you ask them how many of them said "No" and then had sex anyway, 90% of the hands go up. Given that the legal definition of rape hinges on consent, I think it's pretty clear that even women who haven't had completely consenting sex have difficulty figuring out whether or not they were raped. (On the flip side, I think there is a counterargument that sometimes, even when she initially said "no", maybe it wasn't really rape -- which muddies the water even further.)
My point: I think genuinely, unquestionably consenting sex is really a quite difficult standard to meet and there are many cases of less than ideal encounters where it ends up being a judgment call on the part of the woman as to a) how she views it in her own mind ("rape" or something else) and b) whether or not to publicly accuse/charge someone.
I will toss out the idea that a man who feels not only okay with but morally compelled to publish all kinds of stuff the American government doesn't want published (ie without their consent and over their protests, with consent being the legal lynch-pin for the definition of rape) might well start applying that general thought pattern to other situations. People who are very morally self righteous frequently feel justified in treading on the will and rights of others and then pat themselves on the back for being "heroes". I can imagine someone who feels he knows what is best for others basically telling himself "these two women needed it and I'm just doing what is best for them".
You can't equate the fact that the American government protests about having their secret stuff leaked to 'knowing what's best' for women that don't want sex with you.
I'm just waiting for the inevitable groupies that will jump out of the woodwork that they too have been accosted by Assange at some point in the past and only now dare to speak up.
It's bound to happen, even if it is true...
Funny, though not really unexpected, that you would focus on that one remark when most of my post was basically sympathetic and outlined facts concerning how difficult it is to determine these things, even for the people involved, much less outsiders who weren't there when whatever happened, happened.
So I took it very personal, and I'd hate to think that there would be a strong correlation between people standing up to governments and rapists.
Sorry I hit a nerve. Intended as a humorous observation: Given that politics is dominated by men and most people view rape as something committed only by men, perhaps there is (purely coincidentally) some kind of correlation there.
I'm not someone who places much value on politics. Maybe someday that will change. I believe "The government is best which governs least." I believe attacking the government so it feels all the more compelled to defend itself is counterproductive. I believe in the "light one candle rather than curse the dark" philosophy. I believe that fighting against some "evil" is a waste of time and the time and energy involved in doing so would be better spent building something good in the world. I believe letting opposition to evil define your actions is a win for the thing you view as evil.
The English bible says "The meek shall inherit the earth". I have heard the French version is "The nonchalant shall inherit the earth". I prefer the French version. I've got my own self-righteous streak and have stepped on plenty of toes in my time. I find it counterproductive and continue to work on being non-chalant and offering alternatives rather than attacks. It's slow but I think it's really more productive.
Peace.
The things that are happening around us are pretty scary indeed, and it's not the meek that will stop them.
For instance, in my country we now have a nation wide register of finger prints of non offenders. We have DNA data banks, license plate registration systems, identification requirements and so on.
Wikileaks is a force pushing in the opposite direction, something that watches over the watchers. You can't directly attack wikileaks, but you can attack the people behind such initiatives. That person could easily be me or a hundred others who are not going to stand by idly while our freedoms are being eroded.
My passport is about to expire, I will not renew it because I don't feel like giving up my fingerprints to authorities that have already been seen to abuse every little bit of data they have on us.
Former East block citizens are shocked at the ease with which we have given up our privacy in return for a non-existent threat.
We need wikileaks, or something like it. I'm against the way wikileaks is taking sides in issues, I think it should just dump whatever it receives as long as it has been verified to be true and not editorialize. But I can see how attacking a man is much easier than attacking a concept, and after the attacks on the concept have failed we should not be too surprised to see attacks on the man.
I think if you want a better government, you need to make better people since government is run by people. I think if you want a government that places a high value on respecting the rights of its citizens, you need to foster a population of people that really respect each other. I think spitting in the face of the current government doesn't foster such an environment. It fosters something else, something I don't want in my world. You cannot compel others to be respectful. You can only teach them to do so. The best way to teach it is to model it, to live it. So I believe the antidote to the scary stuff going on is to just go through life having compassion for others and doing my best to treat them with respect. It's sort of like "the broken windows theory". Yeah, I know, the way the theory is written has serious flaws. But it's the best model I know to reference which is well-known and might be a concept people here will be familiar with.
Anyway, I'm just trying to clarify my view as to why I think wikileaks isn't necessarily here nor there in the grand scheme of things. My original point: Shit happens. This isn't necessarily about the government framing him and it isn't necessarily about him being a bad dude and serial rapist. There are other possible explanations and too little info to really go on.
Have a good day. I'm going offline now.
Thanks.
In English law rape can only be committed by a man.
In England "rape" is a crime which requires the criminal to penetrate with a penis. There are many other forms of sexual assault that are punished just as severely as "rape" but are just not known by that name. They can be, and are, committed by men and women.
No problem.
In England "rape" is a crime which requires the criminal to penetrate with a penis. There are many other forms of sexual assault that are punished just as severely as "rape" but are just not known by that name. They can, and are, committed by men and women.
The problem is that I am unaware of a word or law which specifically defines and names some opposite equivalent, which suggests the concept is absent from our language and therefore absent from our culture. The word "rape" also gets used as a metaphor in non-sexual situations where someone feels violated in an ugly manner. (Someone on HN used this word to describe how they felt about Google Buzz making so much of their personal info public by default when it launched.)
This looks like a setup. But that's different from saying Assange is still an okay guy even if he did it.
Fully agreed. No is no. There's plenty of fish in the sea.
If someone wants to play 'hard to get' they deserve to be left alone, on the more than likely chance that they mean what they say.
That's what I was primarily responding to. You don't say it directly, but you're using very weaselly language to suggest that in some cases it isn't a terrible thing to ignore a woman when she says no. You're not just 'putting out statistics.'
No, not my point at all and I don't know how you are getting that. My point is that such situations are often not as cut and dried, black or white as people would like them to be. That doesn't make me an apologist and it isn't weasily language. It is just reality that life isn't always easily categorized.
I suppose, if I do something without the consent of my parents, I might also have sex without the consent of a woman? That's just silly.
Scenario 1: Two Swedish women really are pressing charges against Mr. Assange.
Scenario 2: The U.S. Pentagon is so upset by Wikileaks that they've convinced a Swedish prosecutor to file baseless rape charges, without actual victims, against the Wikileaks spokesman.
The simplest explanation is the most likely.
It's not as if governments haven't been doing shit like this for ages.
Indeed, the simplest explanation is the most likely.
Until this hit the wires I figured Assange is just a bit too paranoid, this charge is so over the top that I'm no longer convinced he's paranoid but that he was right all along.
After all, not one but two rape cases out of the blue reported by two women that know each other just when wikileaks is about to release a bunch of incriminating material after refusing to budge under pressure?
It's technically possible, but that's the only thing this charge has going for it at this point in time, evidence is what it is all about.
This isn't unusual - most rape accusations are false, since there are a lot of sociopaths out there (who have no shame), and the real victims are too ashamed to step forward.
That does a disservice to the very large number of rape victims out there.
Some rape accusations are false, but to claim the majority of them is false would require a citation I think.
For instance:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166281.php
reports that most of the 'good' (as in done in a scientific setting) studies report 8 to 10% of rape accusations are false.
See also:
That does a disservice to the very large number of rape victims out there.
Some rape accusations are false, but to claim the majority of them is false would require a citation I think.
Indeed. I've often heard that claim from people who don't (or don't want to) believe that in most cases of rape the victim knows the perpetrator. According to statistics in Sweden, only one third of rapes are performed by someone unknown to the victim[1].
There was a case like this on TV here recently, where a young boy who has been found guilty of rape (twice!) gets a lot of sympathy from his community while the victims are trash-talked along the lines of "she actually wanted it and changed her mind later"[2].
1: (swedish pdf) http://www.bra.se/extra/measurepoint/?module_instance=4&...
2: (more swedish) http://www.google.se/search?q=uppdrag+granskning+v%C3%A5ldt%...
[edit, added]
Oh, I also forgot one very interesting question: why would a woman falsely accuse someone of rape? In the case of a custody battle I can see the logic, but what would be the gain of accusing an acquaintance (who account for a third of reported rapes)? If it's a case of "did something she later regrets", wouldn't it be a lot easier to just deny that it ever happened?
I think it's more likely to be a case of denying to herself that she wanted it in the first place.
Not that it happens often, but sometimes it really does.
And that number is way, way more than 10% percent.
But that wasn't clear from my comment.
You are attempting to shut down discussion by asking for sympathy for rape victims. It is logically a non-sequitur and is just an appeal to emotion.
According to the wikipedia summary of the studies, 8% of accusations where the accuser cooperates result in the police concluding they were false.
These numbers explicitly exclude cases where the charges are dropped or where the accuser does not cooperate with the police. Since false accusers are likely to do both those things (to avoid being revealed as a liar), the scenario being studied excludes many false accusations. Additionally, there are likely to be false accusations where the police are unable to determine whether they are false.
8% is almost certainly a lower bound.
> You are attempting to shut down discussion by asking for sympathy for rape victims.
No, I merely pointed out that there are plenty of rape cases that are real and that pretending that the majority of rape cases are faked is not exactly realistic.
Rape is a tough thing to confront, even if it is real and there are a very large number of rape cases that are never even brought to the stage of accusation.
True rape cases also have many instances where charges are dropped or where the accuser will not cooperate with the police because it is simply too painful.
At least 1 in 10 rape accusers are liars. Pointing out this fact does not do a disservice to actual rape victims. It simply gives us a prior for determining whether these women are actually rape victims.
(I.e., before knowing any facts about this case, we can conclude that a rape accuser is 92% likely to deserve sympathy and 8% likely to deserve jail time.)
Scenario 1.2: Someone who knows his every move is being watched (by the media, if nothing else) rapes one woman and sexually harasses another one in under two weeks.
The simplest explanation is often the correct one, but that doesn't mean we should restrict ourselves to just two possible explanations.
Also your second scenario doesn't match the currently known facts: the women who filed the reports aren't made up, regardless of whether the charges are.
Scenario 1.3: Assange parties with two women, gets slightly too fresh with them and the ensuing sex wasn't completely as agreed on.
Scenario 1.4: Assange parties with two women and the morning after, they decide he's a douchebag and gets worked up that he took advantage of them and what happened was really, actually rape.
(1) an average man is accused of rape (say in a year)
(2) a person who a government would very much like to bring down is the subject of made-up allegations
Regarding (1), i don't have figures for Sweden but in the UK there are c. 14k reported rapes a year versus 25M adult males, so P = 14k/25M = 0.00056
Regarding (2), I don't have figures but suggest off the top of my head that 0.01 is reasonable.
0.00056/(0.00056+0.01) = 0.053
So Bayes' theorem suggests a roughly 5% probability that the accusations are real and 95% that they are concocted by the US or some other government.
Probability of two unrelated rape cases coming to light just at a time convenient for the US authorities -- about as likely as me getting pocket aces in every hand during a poker evening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Meadow#Cot_death_trial_cont...
Indeed not, and I never said they were. Indeed if a rapist rapes one woman, then he's more likely to do it again than a man who has never raped.
My point was that it's less likely that a man will be accused of two unrelated rapes at the same time, than just be accused of one rape.
I do not necessarily believe this scenario but since where throwing possibilities out there.
This I think this is the most likely scenario. Reference: Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryan, Mike Tyson.
Typically victim compensation is orders of magnitude lower than in the states. Also Europeans are not as litigious as Americans are in situations like this.
Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryan, Mike Tyson are all American cases and have very little if any bearing on this.
If he did have sex with those women and it was consensual then he has a real problem on his hands.
Yes it is an interesting situation if he did have consensual sex with those women.
C'mon, a man who knows is being watched by intelligence agencies because of the information he divulges, agencies which have covert and public disinformation programs, would actually go ahead and do such criminal behavior? Possible? Perhaps, but absolutely unlikely to the point where the notion is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm beginning to wonder how many of the posts claiming that it's a likely possibility are paid shills from the various disinformation services.
The suggestion that people that have been here for years are paid shills guilty of disinformation is beyond the pale.
I agree that this is most likely a smear and at a minimum blown up, but evidence is where it is at and people that defend the 'other side' of the argument (especially ErrantX and DanielBMarkham) are for the most part just playing the devils advocate and cautioning you to think for yourself instead of following the herd.
Believing that these claims, at this point in the affair, have any serious possibility of being real is to be ignorant of the history of the way power structures way. Discrediting dangerous figures which are too well-known to be dissuaded silently is common to the extreme.
And seriously, we're talking about the same power structure that has put dictators and thieves in places throughout the world when it was convenient. A smear campaign is about the least dishonest thing that they could do.
You accused a bunch of people and now you point outside of HN to bolster your non-existent case. Rubbish.
I'm not taking issue with your interpretation of the case against Julian Assange, I'm taking issue with your case of there being paid shills in this thread. Give HN some credit.
Then I think you've misunderstood Hacker News.
It's public knowledge that corporations, PR agencies, governments, militaries and intelligence agencies have disinformation programs, some of the them frighteningly public and hidden in plain view. The credibility of Assange is about a thousand times better than his opponents, even if you don't agree with his position.
This guy seems like a real creep to me anyway, and honestly I don't think Wikileaks has done much good in releasing all of these confidential documents.
I mean, all he has done is try to turn the American people against their government, on top of endangering them at the same time by releasing CONFIDENTIAL documents to the wrong people.
In my opinion, this guy deserves to be locked up, even if it has nothing to do with this alleged "smear campaign".
I think that if this is a smear campaign that is exactly the sentiment that it was aiming for.