Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
To do it twice within a few days?
And to do it to women who both know each other?
This just doesn't pass the smell test.
I don’t really know, though, how this is supposed to change my opinion of Wikileaks in any way. What they do is valuable, no matter what Assange did or did not do.
as far as changing opinion, it's just so that reporters would report on wikileaks as "a whistle blower website whose founder is on the run from the law after being accused of rape" and to report on the guy as "founder of Wikileaks and accused rapist"
Just take a moment and think about what would be necessary to frame someone. That doesn’t seem like a simple task to me. We are talking about Swedish police and prosecutors here, police and prosecutors who know that they would be in the spotlight and under intense scrutiny the moment they decided to prosecute Assange. Sweden is not exactly known for its corrupt police and prosecutors, taking that route seems like a stretch.
How do you get two completely normal women (and not any random women, women which have some, however torturous, connection to Assange) to lie to the police? They, too, must know that they would be under intense scrutiny the moment they talked to the police. Lying to the police is no joke, it’s a crime. It’s also a risk for the briber. Who’s to say that one of those women doesn’t break under the intense scrutiny and reveal the conspiracy? If there ever is a trial it will be public and intense stress for the two women. They will also be evaluated, probably several times, by a psychologist. Those two women are not professionally trained super agents.
It's not proof, but there is a strong motive, so it's worth keeping the mind open to the possibility just in case.
For us, there's no evidence for anything. All we know is that someone powerful governments don't like has been accused of some very suspicious sounding charges right before releasing some kind of potentially sensitive document.
>Just take a moment and think about what would be necessary to frame someone. That doesn’t seem like a simple task to me.
It's very simple in the case of things like rape. You just get someone to make a claim and sit back and wait. Did you read the article? The women simply asked advice of the police and the police filed charges without any evidence from them. This is how rape is handled in Sweden (among other places) since women are often afraid to come forward. There is nothing to go on but the word of two anonymous women.
>They, too, must know that they would be under intense scrutiny the moment they talked to the police.
So far it appears that they've only talked over the phone (that's all it takes). As far as I understand they haven't even given a statement or any evidence.
> Lying to the police is no joke, it’s a crime.
If you can prove it. How are you going to prove they're lying? Even if you could prove they didn't have sex that wouldn't prove they didn't believe what they told the police. You would have to prove they were never alone with him.
> It’s also a risk for the briber.
If they even know who the briber was.
2. Whether or not the validity of the accusations can be proven or not, this is slanderous and a well-timed smear. It is a huge shame that it has been leaked to the media.
3. Regarding Julian Assange, at the very least I admire his resolve against incredible mounting pressure.
4. If he is found guilty does that mean the afghanistan war logs are fake and the government are right? ;)
5. For now this is just a baseless accusation. I would prefer to only traffic in facts.
1) From what I know, there hasn't been any mentionable cases where the Swedish police has been either bribed or done something questionable. At least not in recent time.
2) The two women went to the police for consulting about the two claimed events. The police looked at both cases, and decided that both cases were serious enough to prosecute Assange. The two women did apparently not want to prosecute Assange due to his "position of power". (From expressen.se - Whether that's reliable or not)
The most reasonable to guess if Assange has not raped them, is that the girls are lying. However, I'm questioning whether it's easy to make a horrible foolproof lie so bad that the police wants to prosecute him.
No, I'm not going to guess on anything at the current moment. I'm going to wait until all the facts have been laid on the table. Much easier that way.
Not to mention the legally dubious raids by the Swedish police on the hosters of the Piratebay, that seemed to have been bought and paid for by Hollywood.
By the way, is it normal police procedure in Sweden to tell the world's media that some dude is wanted for rape within a few hours of the accusation?
> By the way, is it normal police procedure in Sweden to tell the world's media that some dude is wanted for rape within a few hours of the accusation?
I would suppose that the media would sniff out as much information as fast as possible regarding Assange, because of his position. Also Expressen claimed certain things other media channels couldn't. E.g. all Norwegian newspapers cited Expressen.se for the information, and whenever they tried to get a confirmation from the Swedish police, they only got things such as "I can confirm that he is indicted. But since this is a delicate matter, I can not comment on the investigation beyond that."
Only thing I don't get is how on earth you'd be able to argue that Assange has a "position of power" or that you fear him - is he some kind of uber-rich tycoon or politically connected kingpin or something ? Or did they fear he'd wikileak their private facebook ?
To me it's textbook character assassination - even if the claims are withdraws (maybe especially if they are without an investigation or trial), people will vaguely remember this and Assange will be 'tainted' forever.
I'm not saying well-known people don't do bad shit (Polanski ?) but some kind of hard evidence (a rape-kit confirmed DNA match) would have / would be most welcome in this spooks-rich context.
Apparent based on what? The prosecutor hasn’t made any such statement?
1) Talking about and reliving the experience over and over and over to police, prosecutors, judges, juries, family and friends, delaying your ability to "move on".
2) Being mercilessly attacked by legal challenge from your rapist, including attempts to defame your character (defense attorneys trying to prove you are a "slut"), and whatever else they can throw at you to try and make your life miserable so you'll drop the charges.
3) Significant legal expenses.
The fortitude required to actually see a rape case through is immense. Assuming that because someone dropped the charges they must have been lying is just as bad as assuming that because someone had charges brought against them that they are guilty.
Our legal system is better than most, but it's far from perfect. Have some compassion.
What matters concerning wikileaks is the authenticity of the leaked documents.
Not the various crimes that the founder may or may not have committed.
Why you'd bring Reiser of all people in this is beyond me... Is it because Assange is kind of a geek and Reiser a programmer ? If this seems like a valid connection to you, I wonder how much persuading you'd need before agreeing with throwing, say, all muslims in jail right away.
What you said is completely pointless. You could just as well have typed a meaningless random word like dgedfgrdgjlkdfgjdflg.
If you want to draw a comparison, to make a point, to disagree with what I say, do so, instead of merely implying something, and letting your readers fill in the blanks.
Assange is not free to smuggle drugs, just as the government is not free to plant drugs on him to try to accuse him of something that he didn't do.
Both are illegal.
The problem is in separating fact from fiction and making sure that you do the right thing. Juries have that problem anyway.
Jag anser inte att det finns anledning att misstänka att han har begått våldtäkt, säger Eva Finné i ett pressmeddelande från Åklagarmyndigheten.
Quick translation: I dont think there is any reason to suspect that he has comitted rape says prosecutor Eva Finné.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/assange-inte-langre-missta...
"Chief prosector Eva Finné has come to the desicion that Julian Assange is not suspected of rape. Considering that, Assange is no longer arrested in his absence."
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ [== Swedish prosecutor's office news announcements, swedish version: http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Anhallen-i-sin-franvaro...
As far as I've seen (and I've only really read stories about Assange that have been posted here) what he's demonstrated is "war is horrible, and it's not going very well". That's important for us to know, but it's hardly ground-breaking.
That's when they started to get serious headwind from various governments though.
I know what Wikileaks has done. None of it fits the description "fac[ing] the most powerful government in the world [and] uncover[ing] their lies" any more than the most banal of broadsheets does.
Since you seem to know the answer, perhaps you could point me to one of two examples of extreme lies that Assange has helped uncover.
I speak for myself, because this is my approach in regards to accusations; others may defend him solely for the presumption of conspiracy and would be quick to label a different guy as a rapist.
I'm sure that, even if documents incriminate Assange, they will be posted.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/21/sweden.wikileaks....
CNN is just following up.
There is a bit of information in how this story first made its way in to the world.
Now I don't know Julian Assange personally, but I do know one dutch hacker that he hangs out with and if there is anybody that I'd be very wary of when pulling such tricks that would be the guy.
It would be quite a circus show though. We would get to learn about every little detail. In this kind of case, it should not be a sample of the public, that is the jury of 12 ordinary people of the public who decide, but the entire public. Have the entire trial in public, in front of the cameras, and let the public know everything the jury does.
But anything that damages the man that can not be directly traced back to the source will do fine. In that case, the obvious choices are either possession of child porn or rape. And the first would be hard to pull off with a paranoid tech-savvy guy.
Which leaves accusing him of rape, which is the perfect crime to frame someone with, since you can take it all the way to court without a shred of physical evidence.
None of this excludes the possibility that he actually did it, but it is the perfect scenario for a frame-job.
Don't think it will come that far though. I would put my money on the following scenario: 1) Assange turns himself in.
2) He is led away in front of the cameras in an unnecessarily humiliating and public way, making him look like a criminal, which is a very powerful image.
3) The victim mysteriously disappears, making sure there will always be lingering doubts.
Damage done, operation successful. Even if it won't stop Assange, it will scare the crap out of anyone thinking of helping him.