Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Assange Rape Case Reopened

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the some-things-never-end dept.

Censorship 529

eldavojohn writes "Wikileaks' Julian Assange had a warrant issued for his arrest in Sweden on the charges of rape. But it was withdrawn shortly thereafter. Now the case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges.' On top of that, a new site (parody?) called wikileakileaks.org has been launched by the chief editor of Gawker to give Wikileaks a taste of its own medicine. You can find links to details on the molestation charges there."

cancel ×

529 comments

Childish (4, Informative)

RafaelAngel (249818) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434468)

Gawker is just mad they didn't get the scoop. Maybe next time they should offer Assange cash. Apparently that's how they get their scoops.

Re:Childish (0, Redundant)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434494)

Gawker is just mad they didn't get the scoop. Maybe next time they should offer Assange cash. Apparently that's how they get their scoops.

Citation needed.

Re:Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434564)

Gawker is just mad they didn't get the scoop. Maybe next time they should offer Assange cash. Apparently that's how they get their scoops.

Citation needed.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/04/gizmodo-iphone-4g.html [latimes.com]

See, that wasn't so hard...

Re:Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434620)

What, you missed the "Let's buy a stolen iPhone prototype and tear it apart" clusterfarble?

Re:Childish (2, Funny)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434866)

I don't see anger mentioned in any of these.

Still waiting for that citation...

Re:Childish (5, Interesting)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434864)

Gawker media has become Fox News of the blogs. But unlike Fox, their loyalty is only towards money - weather it's earned with facts, rumors or slanders.

Re:Childish (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434944)

Someone should launch wikileakileakileaks.org

By the way, the website wikileakileaks welcomes with a misquote ... not a good sign.

Wikileakileaks will make it harder for wikileaks to publish sensitive information. When the people behind wikileaks are known, more death threats than in recent years will be successful in surpressing releases. Some other sites might come along and pick up Wikileaks agenda, but they will definitely do a worse job.

Next time... (1)

sjs132 (631745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434484)

He'll just wear the darn condom! REALLY.... This is a joke, right?

Re:Next time... (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434814)

according to the daily mail [dailymail.co.uk] there is some confusion over whether the condom used with woman A broke intentionally or accidentally, but they claim that the police report clearly shows that the condom was worn but it failed. Then the following report about woman B from an anonymous source:

One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. 'I didn't feel I knew him very well,' she explained.

So let's see, at night she said wear a condom, in the morning he boned her without one, but she went out and bought him breakfast and left him in her apartment even though she "didn't know him very well", so obviously she wasn't too concerned.
It seems to me from where I am sitting that one or both of these women were coerced or at least cajoled into testifying against him on the basis of their anger for both being seduced by the same guy who wasn't as into them as they were into him. It's called jealousy, and it's sad, and at least one of these women has already realized that.
Of course, there could be additional facts to which I am not privy...

Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434492)

But at first I read the headline as "Ass rape case reopened"....

Re:Is it just me? (3, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434508)

Freud would be so proud.

Coming up next (3, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434500)

Now the case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges.'

The case will then be dropped.

It will then be reopened to investigate 'looking at boobs, whilst pulling out his shirt collar and making a phwooar face', which will also be dropped.

Don't worry, they'll get him even if they have to resort to the testimony of a girl who was pushed over by him in the playground when they were both 4 years old.

Re:Coming up next (5, Interesting)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434600)

In this case, the testimony of someone who wrote "a seven step guide Ardin published in January to 'legal revenge' that involves, in one example, sabotaging a victim's sexual relationships." [gawker.com]

not that that makes Assange pure, holy, or free of any wrongdoing, but perhaps it should make one think...

Hrm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434504)

Does anyone else think this stinks?

Re:Hrm... (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434628)

Yes. To high heavens.

so, serving cheese works with women... huh (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434512)

how do you get the woman to the cheese?

Re:so, serving cheese works with women... huh (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434666)

Unlike mice, building a huge maze doesn't work. Women tend to just glare at you as if you're supposed to bring the cheese to them.

When you can't beat 'em... (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434518)

...try charging them with everything you possibly can.

Molestation charge (4, Funny)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434526)

Note that "molestation" is a broad category of sexual offenses in Sweden. Two women came forward to the police to report sexual misconduct, but denied that rape had occurred. Thus the dropping of the rape charge. In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course. Apparently, in other cultures, this is a sexual offense.

Re:Molestation charge (4, Insightful)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434572)

Oh wow

The only time you hear about molestation in the US is when it involves a minor.

Re:Molestation charge (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434688)

Or in lyrics by The Clash "indecision me molesta!" There, being Spanish, but with the same Latin roots that basically mean "to bother or harass."

Re:Molestation charge (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434654)

If that is the case, I know a lot of serial molesters.

The problem is the name of the charges is inflammatory, and carries certain connotations in different parts of the world. From the details that have emerged, it really does sound like he is just a player.

Re:Molestation charge (0, Flamebait)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434710)

In Sweden everything that a woman can find offensive is a molestation charge. And if they have consentual sex while mutually pissing drunk, then it's rape.

This is more or less the consequences of senior socialist politicians getting too much power, enabling them to take their reality-detached feminist education pet projects too far.
The swedish political system is similar to the US. In the us you either chose between the elephant right wing or the donkey right wing. In sweden you chose between the blue socialists or the red socialists, though of course, the red socialists have had two decades in power so they've been able to entrench the country with their north korean style indoctrination for a while now so things are even more stagnated.

Re:Molestation charge (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434758)

Either you have no idea about what Sweden is like, or you have no idea about what North Korea is like.

Re:Molestation charge (3, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434824)

Wow, you really don't know much about Sweden.

A lot of the weirdness when it comes to our current sex-crime laws come from a short period during which radical feminism was very popular, then several leading figures in the swedish radical feminist movement accidentally revealed themselves to be completely batshit crazy which brought things sort of back to normal, but just like in most other countries the laws stayed.

As for the left and the right, if anything our right-wing "Alliance" is a mix of "baton liberals" (international definition of liberal, not the US one. They basically believe in free trade and freedom for the rich and powerful while everyone else should be kept in check by the threat of violence, drug testing and any other crypto-fascist control measure they can come up with), loud-mouthed christians (who have very little actual political clout as very few people actually vote for them) and conservatives while our "left" is basically the social democrats who are no longer particularly social democrats as they have traveled toward the center, the left (former communist) party which isn't nearly as radical as it once was and the greens.

Re:Molestation charge (2, Informative)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434862)

The swedish political system is similar to the US. In the us you either chose between the elephant right wing or the donkey right wing.

You rattle on about "senior socialist politicians" in Sweden, but you think the major parties in the USA are both right wing? Megan's laws (I like to call them "The Ultimate ThinkOfTheChildren Acts") pretty much make it illegal for a male of any age to get within 20 yards of a female below 18, or have to wear a virtual scarlet letter for the rest of his life. Heck, a minor doesn't even have to be involved; you can just be caught peeing outside and be recorded as a "sexual offender". In other words, they are just a stroke of a pen away from scorned women filing rape charges like in Sweden. I don't even have to get into how many truly socialist bills have been passed in just the last two years. When you have trillions of dollars being spent-- none for inarguably constitutional uses such as defense-- and a big tax hike across the board, that's redistribution of wealth by definition.

Re:Molestation charge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434954)

The right wing is hardly socialist, and neither is the left wing. They're both closer to what might be called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism [wikipedia.org] .
"Right wing" and "left wing" are relative terms, and changes depending on country. The meaning of socialism doesn't however.

In Sweden everything that a woman can find offensive is a molestation charge.

[...]north korean style indoctrination[...]

Do you actually believe these things, or are they just for dramatic effect?

Re:Molestation charge (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435044)

"Right wing" and "left wing" are relative terms, and changes depending on country. The meaning of socialism doesn't however.

Have you never listened to the Americans? Their definition of socialism is a lot different then the one that I know.

Re:Molestation charge (5, Informative)

halfaperson (1885704) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435078)

How this got modded up is beyond me. I've lived in Sweden for my entire life, and I while this country has its pros and cons just as any country, what you describe just isn't true.

In Sweden everything that a woman can find offensive is a molestation charge. And if they have consentual sex while mutually pissing drunk, then it's rape.

Umm, I've never even heard of a woman filing molestation charges for just being "offended". Where did you get that from? And I've had consensual sex (yeah, this is /. I know) "while mutual pissing drunk" countless times without ever beeing accused or even afraid of such accusations.

This is more or less the consequences of senior socialist politicians getting too much power, enabling them to take their reality-detached feminist education pet projects too far. The swedish political system is similar to the US. In the us you either chose between the elephant right wing or the donkey right wing. In sweden you chose between the blue socialists or the red socialists, though of course, the red socialists have had two decades in power so they've been able to entrench the country with their north korean style indoctrination for a while now so things are even more stagnated.

As a liberal I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent, but "north korean style indoctrination"? Geez, let's get some perspective.

Re:Molestation charge (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434740)

In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course.

It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.

Re:Molestation charge (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434924)

Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.

Well, with that hair, he really should be going more for pastels.

Uh... I mean yeah, women... not fair man. Beer and stuff.

Re:Molestation charge (2, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434952)

It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.

The sexual revolution is not over until that statement no longer holds! People always confuse feminism with the sexual revolution but that is just half the story. It's time for men and women to be completely equal in rights while keeping in mind the differences and strong points of both sexes. And to achieve that we first need to get trough the masculist revolution. Although I must admit I am not looking forward to the prospect of walking around on high heels... ;)

Re:Molestation charge (5, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435080)

After reading this [gawker.com] , assuming it's at all accurate, whatever you attribute these charges to, they are all absolutely ridiculous. So... the guy had sex with two women, both groupies, who found out about the other one, and then got angry that they had agreed to have sex without a condom with him because shocker-of-shockers, he had banged some other woman recently.

This is classic rape-after-the-fact, i.e. not rape at all, since they had already consented to the relationship. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the guy forced himself or coerced anybody. Nor even that he lied or misled anybody, beyond saying that he'd call and then not calling.

I think Julian Assange is a narcissistic creepy fellow, and I have serious reservations about some of what Wikileaks has done. I support the goal of more openness in government, but they do a terrible job at presenting information in an unbiased fashion (at least with those leaked videos) and they dump out huge volumes of classified information without consideration as to whether the public interest in that material outweighs the risk to people's lives of having that information disclosed.

I don't claim to know whether these charges originate with the US Government in any way, but it sounds more like the by-product of the Swedish legal system gone completely and absolutely bonker-nuts-insane, having criminalized relatively normal everyday behavior among single men and women.

Who did and what did? (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434532)

How big wonder it really is that after the USA Government made threaths to Wikileaks workers, there came public denigration about the wikileaks?

Gawker? (0, Troll)

ManiaX Killerian (134390) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434538)

Sorry, why is the opening of a boring site by some wanker "news for nerds"?

source of allegations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434542)

"The two women are said to know each other and to have met Mr Assange at a rally organised by Sweden's Pirate Party, which campaigns for freedom of information and has agreed to host some of WikiLeaks's new computer servers.

Despite insisting early yesterday that Mr Assange was wanted, Sweden's chief prosecutor Eva Finne said later: 'I have come to the decision that he is not suspected of rape. Considering that, Assange is no longer arrested in his absence.'" link [dailymail.co.uk]

Assange is in trouble (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434552)

Fact is, Assange stays alive as long as he's in the news. The moment he fades out of the public's eye, he'll probably be assassinated -- or worse. There is a possibility that the rape charges are meant to keep him in the spotlight, but there's also a chance they are meant to smear his name... who knows?

And Gawker can kiss my shiny metal ass. Wikileaks attacks nasty governments all over the world, "Wkileakileaks" attacks a single organisation that is already under fire by said nasty governments. I hope you can see the difference, and I hope you'll understand why I don't think it's very funny.

Re:Assange is in trouble (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434584)

He has that rather large encrypted "insurance" file floating around the internet. If he disappears for whatever reason, the key will be released. Shit got real, yo.

Re:Assange is in trouble (2, Interesting)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434658)

I'm aware of that. If Assange stays around, he'll be sure to release a LOT more classified stuff over the years than what there is in that archive. It's a game of Chicken, really -- Assange stays around and keeps releasing stuff forever, or Assange is taken care of now and there's only a limited spill.

Though, even if Assange is killed off, there's bound to be someone else who'll take his place. What's more, the new guy will be a lot more careful to hide his identity and whereabouts...

Re:Assange is in trouble (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434720)

If he disappears for whatever reason, the key will be released.

How?

Re:Assange is in trouble (2, Interesting)

fmobus (831767) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434882)

There are two methods I can think of:

1) Assange could have someone he trusts hold the key and release it should he die (or worse)

2) Assange could have a dead-man switch setup: every X days, he presses a button somewhere (over ssh or something) that keeps the key from being released. If he doesn't press the button for X+1 days, the dead-man switch system releases the key.

Of course, I think method two works the best, as it doesn't depend on a third-party (that could be killed by his opponents before the key gets released). Also, depending on how you design for method two, the key-releasing system script and the button script could be in different hosts, so that if the opposers killed one system, the other would fail safely.

Re:Assange is in trouble (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434984)

Yeah, like he'll tell you that... That's part of the secret! :)

Re:Assange is in trouble (1, Insightful)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434766)

I hope you can see the difference, and I hope you'll understand why I don't think it's very funny.

Yes, Assange-Wikileaks releases confidential information getting good people killed in the process. Gawker creates a parody site that gives back a little medicine that Wikileaks are dishing out and does no real harm.

Basically if you expect everyone else to be open, you have to be open yourself. If Assange doesn't like that then he is a hypocrite.

Re:Assange is in trouble (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434946)

I hope you can see the difference, and I hope you'll understand why I don't think it's very funny.

Yes, Assange-Wikileaks releases confidential information getting good people killed in the process.

CITATION NEEDED

The murderers responsible for thousands of dead bodies are claiming that by exposing their acts he's the one getting people killed, and imbeciles are believing them. The pentagon said that it *could* lead to people getting killed (because they're careful word weasels) and you gladly swallowed that load, took it to the conclusion they were leading you to, and now you're making baseless claims that are getting modded up.

Re:Assange is in trouble (2, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435086)

Has Wikileaks provided any citations or evidence of all the war crimes that they've asserted the documents they're releasing "may contain evidence of"?

What, you mean both sides are making shit up, and people are believing the side that fits their assumptions and view of the world?!

I'm shocked. I thought the internet was a bastion of reasonable, careful, and deliberate thought. Next you'll be telling us that MSNBC and Fox News are BIASED!

Re:Assange is in trouble (0, Flamebait)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434794)

Wikileaks attacks nasty governments all over the world

So what? So does Al Qaeda. Attacking nasty governments is not inherently a good thing.

In the case of Wikileaks, the short-term political goal of discrediting the United States is being pushed forward without consideration for the long-term effects on the state of the world. I mean, come on. The US isn't going to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan (or avoid its next military confrontation, for that matter) just because of Wikileaks. Making the US mission more difficult through leaks of classified information only increases the cost in blood of these military actions. It's the same preposterous logic that Iraqi anti-US insurgents have held, that continuing to blow people up will somehow make the US leave sooner rather than later. Just accept that the US is doing these things, and it will be over a lot sooner and with a lot less pain.

Re:Assange is in trouble (5, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434898)

I'm sorry, but fuck that. There's a huge difference between Al Qaeda and Wikileaks -- one is blowing people up, while the other is making sure the government is transparent.

And yes, the more people know what their governments are doing, the more likely it is they'll step up and say "stop it" when the government starts bombing hospitals. Shutting people up by keeping them ignorant is evil no matter what spin you put on it. It's plain stupid when you shrug and say "it's inevitable" -- like you did.

Reading the police report... (-1, Flamebait)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434560)

http://gawker.com/5624854/wikileaks-founders-molestation-police-report-leaked-his-top+secret-moves-revealed [gawker.com]
Wow! So, if you consent to have sex with your groupie in Sweden, the police can come after you for not wearing a condom??? First they call no-condom wearing perfectly consensual sex between adults "rape" then they take it back and finally return calling it "molestation". And of course this became a problem for the woman/women only after they found out he was not playing "exclusive".
Is it just me or is it utterly retarded? Remember, this is not the ol' American South where most of the worlds idiocy emanates from.

Re:Reading the police report... (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434578)

Wow! So, if you consent to have sex with your groupie in Sweden, the police can come after you for not wearing a condom???

This doesn't seem unreasonable, if you consented to have sex with a condom on. However, it seems like proving it should be difficult, barring videographic or photographic evidence.

Re:Reading the police report... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434714)

People are allowed to change their mind for any reason or for no reason at all about whether they are wanting to have sex or not and the others should respect that new decision. Not having condom sounds like one of the more reasonable reasons to change ones mind about the thing.

Re:Reading the police report... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434874)

Shut up Bitch and make me some dinner!!!

Re:Reading the police report... (3, Insightful)

Halifax Samuels (1124719) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434886)

I just changed my mind about letting my friend borrow that $80 from me a few years ago that he already paid back. I'll be contacting the police shortly about this theft and subsequent donation.

You don't get to just change your mind once the action in question has been completed. Then all you can do is chalk it up as a mistake. I wouldn't let someone borrow my car for the day only to call the police an hour later and report it stolen because I decided I wanted to go buy some cheese doodles at the grocery store and needed my car for it.

Re:Reading the police report... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434754)

Yeah, "rape by deception". It's an absurd example of the most contorted kind of legal logic that exists in a Western-style democracy. Radical feminist dogma enshrined into law. I really don't see how anyone has sex in Sweden without filling out a bunch of release-from-liability-and-prosecution forms ahead of time.

They should talk to Sergeant Trotter (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434562)

I hear he's the murderer in the Mousetrap.

Re:They should talk to Sergeant Trotter (0, Offtopic)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434622)

you just had to fucking cross post the spoiler didn't you.

Re:They should talk to Sergeant Trotter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434940)

Sorry, I made a wikileak.

Re:They should talk to Sergeant Trotter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434948)

It was the Sergent. Happy now?

This isn't tasting it's own medicine (4, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434574)

Governments either are or should be open, something which, unfortunately for any of their citizens, is routinely opposed and undermined by the very same people who swore to represent their fellow citizens, uphold the law and respect democratic values. Sites such as wikileaks are here to enforce the rules of government that those who managed to find themselves in positions of power and influence actively push to quench or undermine.

The main point is that governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour, and their constituents must be informed of their actions and of the consequences that they bring. In short, every government, due to their nature, must be opened and failing to be so constitutes a violation of their own founding principles.

On the other hand, private citizens do not have that responsibility. Private citizens have the right to privacy and do not have absolutely any responsibility or obligation to disclose every single piece of information regarding their lives, their business or even their relations. They are entitled to live free from tyranny and free from any oppressive influence imposed by their government and, even moreso, by fellow citizens.

Therefore, trying to impose to private citizens the very same full disclosure principles that is expected from governments is either a perfect sign of ignorance or a poorly thought out harassment campaign based on an unexplainable demand for revenge. I don't know why that the idiot from Gawker believes the idea to persecute Assange is any reasonable or even if he decided to do that to be able to profit from the controversy. What I know is that this sort of campaign, which is nothing more than persecuting someone for his attempts to defend healthy and lawful government behaviour is not in anyone's best interests.

Re:This isn't tasting it's own medicine (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434780)

This. "A taste of his own medicine" would be a site devoted to pictures and gossip about Gawker staff.

The hypocrisy of this guy is just amazing. Pot calling kettle black.

A site devoted to publishing half-confirmed stories about famous or somewhat famous people and their private lives is outraged that Assange would dare to publish documents detailing government and corporate malfeasance?

Re:This isn't tasting it's own medicine (1)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434796)

I don't know why that the idiot from Gawker believes the idea to persecute Assange is any reasonable or even if he decided to do that to be able to profit from the controversy.

Gawker is just upset that a different website is stirring up drama with the internet, and on a much larger scale then gawker ever could. They're just trying to cash in on that.

Re:This isn't tasting it's own medicine (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434816)

Exactly. What I think is hilarious is that if these same things would have been released about fraud in a company everyone would be calling Assange a hero, but do it to actually make democracy work and apparently Assange is equivalent to Bin Ladin.

Re:This isn't tasting it's own medicine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434842)

secrecy really is necessary, under certain circumstances, for a government to operate. Neither you nor Assange seem to grasp this.

War plans must remain secret, such as number of troops, troop deployments, troop missions. Disclosure of any of these will result in a more difficult war to win. Same with names of foreign sympathizers/helpers.

Cutting edge military tech must be secret. Any country with cutting edge tech has a nice advantage. If it's your country, do you really want to lose that advantage, which functions both as a deterrent to invasion as well as nice help if battle ensues?

Certain national policies must remain secret. consider foreign negotiations. Negotiators don't put all their dards out on the table. They negotiate, trying to get the best possible outcome for their own side, which may or may not include the best possible outcome fo rhte other side, but an outcome the other side will accept/commit for what they give. If the other side knows what you're willing to give up, they have a distinct advantage - they can press for you to give up everything for the minimal price to themselves.

Spies. Every country has spies. Spies are necessary for uncoverin gthe things other countries want secret. But each country wants their own spies' activities to remain secret.

The list goes on, but this should be enough to indicate that your dream of 'full disclosure' is both unrealistic and stupid.

now, regarding assange getting his own medicine, it's actually a reasonable exercise for him to learn how difficult it is for an organization to work if full disclosure is applied. If he doesn't get how difficuilt it becomes to accomplish even simple tasks, why should he apply the same standard to a much larger organization, where mistakces and secrets are of larger magnitude (strictly for size of th eorg)?

do you, maybe, start to get it? can you come back to reality, a little, instead of dreamland, yet?

Re:This isn't tasting it's own medicine (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434972)

secrecy really is necessary, under certain circumstances, for a government to operate. Neither you nor Assange seem to grasp this.

Letting people hide their crimes and get away with murder is not how a democracy is supposed to work. There is a legitimate need for secrecy and it is being ABUSED by governments, it's not ok to let them get away with that.

Bad assumption (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434894)

governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour,

You are assuming that ethical and legal are the same thing. They aren't.

Re:Bad assumption (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434960)

You failed to read what I've wrote, or at least understand what was written. There is a good reason why I explicitly stated that any action performed by a government must be both free from illegalities and unethical behaviour.

That's Great (3, Insightful)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434608)

That's great. Someone comes forward with evidence of war crimes, and all anyone wants to talk about is his sexual habits.

I was just in Denmark, a friend and I met 2 Swedish women in a bar. Contrary to the rumors, they did not have blonde hair. They were out celebrating a recent birthday, and appeared to have all the same motivations going for them as anyone from anywhere else in the world.

Let me be the last person on Earth to attack a victim, if this 'molestation' actually happened that is just awful. But let me be the first to say, war crimes are more important. Evidence of armies going around wiping out villages is not something to ignore because there is some juicy innuendo (which may or may not be true) going on.

Wag The Dog (the movie) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434660)

(reversed): "What's the only thing more interesting to the media than a war? A sex scandal."

Re:Wag The Dog (the movie) (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434726)

What you said makes me unhappy, because it is so true.

I am going to go be sad for the world now.

Re:That's Great (1)

IhateMonkeys (874193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434756)

War crimes are more important to YOU.
I'm sure the two "victims" think quite differently about the relative importance of the alleged crimes.

Re:That's Great (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434884)

Let me be the last person on Earth to attack a victim, if this 'molestation' actually happened that is just awful. But let me be the first to say, war crimes are more important.

Bill Clinton, is that you? BTW, that's what logical people like to call a "false dilemma".

Re:That's Great (3, Interesting)

victorhooi (830021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434888)

heya,

Err yeah, but there's little evidence of these so-called war crimes so far.

I mean, Assange drummed up excitement, played the media really well, and then released these so-called Afghan War Diaries, to much fanfare...and it's turned out to be a fat lot of nothing.

Most of the data in there was already public knowledge.

Let's see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary [wikipedia.org]

Err, we have evidence that Pakistan is screwing over the US, UK and other NATO nations, and aiding the Taliban to kill our soldiers. Great....so what happens now? We try to charge Pakistan with war crimes? Lol.

Then we have evidence that Iran likewise is helping the Taliban and screwing us over. We're going to charge them with war crimes as well? We can't even get them to have clean elections....

Oh, and our good chum North Korea as well.

The of course, we have the civilian casualties, currently standing at a few hundred. Very regretable, and tragic. However, it's in contest how much of it's avoidable, and how much of it was caused by negligence, say, or poor regard for the civilian folk. Ultimately, that's a question for a court to decide - however, I don't see anybody actually making a solid case for any charges of war crimes. I mean, gee, most of these incidents are caused by cross-fire, bad-luck, panicking soldiers, or the Taliban deliberately trying to drag civilians into the conflict, or using questionable tactics.

Hardly any evidence of the grand conspiracy all these silly, IT'S A CONSPIRACY hippies are decrying about.

Then we have evidence in these war diaries that the Taliban is deliberately targeting civilians, and has killed some 2000 to date. Gee, we're going to charge the Taliban with war crimes? We can't even catch them all yet.

Hmm, then we reveal that the Taliban is using heat-seeking missiles to shoot down our aircraft. Oh great, another revelation.

I mean, seriously guys, the defence of Assange is getting pretty flimsy. He needless endangered Afghan informants and screwed over active military operations, just so he could get his name in the papers - and what, he reveals a bunch of useless information.

Sure, the US military, in fact, many militaries have a tendency to just mark everything classified, "just to be safe" even if it's completely stupid. But really...what of note was revealed here?

Cheers,
Victor

War crimes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434974)

I keep hearing 'war crimes' bandied about, but I haven't heard anyone go further than 'this violates my own personal sense ov right'. I hate tobbreak it to you, but a crime requires a legal violation. If you're going to claim war crimes, at least have the decency to specify exactly what crome you believe has been committed, and exactly what legal document makes that activity illegal. your personal scale fo right and wrong doesn't count, here. All that counts are: laws of the country who allegedly committed the crime, laws of the country against whom the crime was supposedly committed, and treatirs to which the allegedly criminal country is a signatory. Oh, and keep in mind that the laws of the alleged victim country do not apply outside its borders - if it wants to enforce those laws, it needs to enFORCE them, that is, use force, aka go to war.

oh, and just to be complete, 'casualties of war' is a well understood concept - maybe not by you, and maybe not by many peopl eon /. , but it's reality, and its part of war. mistakes happen, innocents and enemies stray too close, and the wrong people die. it sucks, but it's part of war. It's also, oddly, a valuable part of war, as it discourages countries from provoking wars that might occur on their own soil - nobody wants their own civilians to die.

Re:That's Great (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435032)

That's great. Someone comes forward with evidence of war crimes, and all anyone wants to talk about is his sexual habits.

Mission Accomplished! The "he's a narcissist and it's all about him" line wasn't doing enough to drown out the important info, so they had to up the level of shrill. And the fact that it made it to the paper faster than the speed of light? Pure unexplainable coincidence, not evidence of conspiratorial behavior at all.

puppies (5, Funny)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434626)

i hear assange also picks up stray puppies and stews them up. into puppy stew. with puppies in it.

Re:puppies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434826)

Rumor has it that the girl throwing puppies into a river on that youtube video is actually Assange on his typical Thursday morning workout. In wednesday he does goatse stretches to stay limber.

Re:puppies (1, Funny)

Manfre (631065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434860)

He also flipped off a box of kittens and punched a baby in the face. In his defense, the baby was being a dick.

Re:puppies (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434920)

Mmmmm. Puppy stew. Only kitten stew is better, with a side of roast baby seal.

Re:puppies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33435066)

I heard that Assange has a secret laire where there are a hundred recycle bins lined in row, and in front of each bin is a cage with a cute live cat in it. When he's feeling particularly stressed, he allegedly goes down the row of recycle bins taking out each cute kitty out of its cage and dropping it in the bin! All the while laughing manically like all Australians do. Really creepy stuff.

Hmm.. This sounds like something I should submit to Gawker's wikileaksleakyleaks site (whatever the hell it is). Maybe I should get some friends to help. (Your mission, Anonymous, should you choose to accept it...)

Molestation in Sweden = assault (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434636)

From what I've understood, "molestation" in Swedish law isn't necessarily sexual. It seems closer to what anglophone systems call "assault". FWIW.

Harassment (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434908)

Google translation of the Swedish Wikipedia page. [google.com]

The word "ofredande" translates to molestation, but the actual law text makes it pretty obvious what it's about. See how even Google's translator can't make up its mind on molestation vs. harassment.

Why not call it what it really is? (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434662)

The real charge is "Pissing off the CIA."

Re:Why not call it what it really is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434836)

So the Swedes are in the US's pocket?

Re:Why not call it what it really is? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434916)

Right-- because Sweden's bizarre, archfeminist morality laws aren't the real problem here.

Re:Why not call it what it really is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33435094)

Julian Assange works for the CIA...

Smear campaign. (1)

Spewns (1599743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434708)

These "charges" seem to be that Assange had a one-night stand with some girl. If you were one of the millions of other guys having one-night stands that night, it's a nonissue. If you're associated with Wikileaks, you're a rapist or molestor.

Assange was charged with rape in a highly public manner. It was all over the news everywhere that Assange was a suspected rapist. The next day, it was withdrawn, because there was nothing to the case. Now they're going to do it again. Soon I'm sure he'll be a child molestor, a Satan-worshipper, a terrorist, etc. This is all politics.

And it's also nothing other than a huge distraction. Even if Assange truly were a rapist, it doesn't somehow invalidate the thousands of incriminating documents that were leaked or any of the other good work the organization does.

A lot known, a lot missing (3, Interesting)

grimJester (890090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434724)

I've been following the case and the speculation around it on Swedish forums and blogs. A story in English that seems to have what is known / believed to have happened without any obvious errors can be found here [dailymail.co.uk] .

In addition, it's known the police officer interrogating the younger woman has filed a complaint about not being allowed to give her view on what offenses if any were described to the first prosecutor and that her colleague who contacted the prosecutor refused to communicate. The colleague says she has contacted superiors and others and everyone agreed the charge would be rape. The initial prosecutor is under investigation for possibly issuing an arrest warrant without enough cause to do so and, in addition, for confirming Assange's name to a journalist.

The lawyer of the women says the published story is missing crucial details. He also says he's gone through material used in the preparation of the current law on rape in Sweden. To the question of why the older woman filed harassment charges instead of reporting a rape, he replied "She's not a lawyer".

Given that the chief prosecutor dismissed the charge of rape saying there's no reason to disbelieve the younger woman's story, but no crime has been committed, but the organization supervising the work of prosecutors think otherwise, it would seem to me there's disagreement on whether there was consent or not. If it was an issue of whether a sex act is rape vs molestation vs harassment etc, they wouldn't be flipping between rape and no crime like this.

What's absolutely clear is that much of the speculation on what Assange could have done is completely and utterly wrong since the chief prosecutor would never have simply dropped a case where he's accused of strangleholds, forcing himself on a sleeping woman, etcetc.

Words blur together (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434770)

Reading this on not much sleep, in the morning, "Assange" and "rape" combined together to form "Assrape" when I read the subject. I had to do a double take.

Assange guilty of first degree douchebaggery (1, Insightful)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434790)

Honestly, the guy sounds like an arrogant prick from all of the WikiLeakiLeaks (should be called WikiLeaksLeaks).

You would have to be somewhat arrogant to make an enemy of so many governments. But I think that this world-wide conspiracy to bring down Assange is more fancy than fact. The Pentagon really doesn't have to conspire to bring Assange down; he is clearly capable of doing that himself. So I'm not sure that his nomadic lifestyle and overly cautious aversion to leaving footprints is warranted. It seems like just another aspect of his narcissism, as well as a means to seduce women.

I still think that Assange is on an important mission, and it would be sad to see that mission fail because Assange was so stupid. Bottom line, this is all so fucking amateurish it's unbelievable. Assange is going to defeat his own purpose merely by being himself.

Re:Assange guilty of first degree douchebaggery (4, Interesting)

SoTerrified (660807) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434872)

And if you believe that, you've already bought into the Pentagon propaganda.

I ask you one simple question... If he was such a 'douchebag' all along, why did we not hear ANY of this until he dared to challenge the US military? Why are all these little details suddenly 'leaking' now? The obvious answer is that it's all BS. But no one even questions it. It's scary how blindly people follow media.

Re:Assange guilty of first degree douchebaggery (4, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435056)

And if you believe that, you've already bought into the Pentagon propaganda.

I ask you one simple question... If he was such a 'douchebag' all along, why did we not hear ANY of this until he dared to challenge the US military? Why are all these little details suddenly 'leaking' now? The obvious answer is that it's all BS. But no one even questions it. It's scary how blindly people follow media.

Perhaps because before that point no one knew or cared who he was?

Fact of the matter is, you and the GP post know the exact same thing about the reality of the situation -- absolutely nothing. Pretending otherwise amounts to ego masturbation. You assume he's bought into the propoganda, and he assumes you're wearing a tinfoil hat.

And you want to know the real truth? Neither of you will ever have a provable position. That's the reality of the world you're on.

Re:Assange guilty of first degree douchebaggery (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434876)

guilty?

I in which court?

Re:Assange guilty of first degree douchebaggery (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435092)

"first degree douchebaggery" is not something that courts rule on.

Leaky leaks (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33435026)

WikiLeakiLeaks (should be called WikiLeaksLeaks).

Yeah, but WikiLeakiLeaks sounds funnier. It sounds like something a two-year-old calls his wet diaper. "Mommy! Wicky Leaky Leaks!

Oh come on! (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434798)

This is just childish... Trying so hard to find dirt on the founder of an organization is ridiculous. And they forget that 'finding' dirt on Assange in no way means that Wikileaks is *evil* all of the sudden. Even the worst people in history had some good ideas, and Wikileaks is a great idea for people of the world!

That parody site is in no way comparable to the journalistic right to out the wrongdoings of one of the worlds largest governments. When the government hides stuff like the video of the air-strike which was certainly not a matter of national security but a PR problem they lose all credibility with their complaint that Wikileaks harms national security... We all know they worry about their image, not about the informants in Afghanistan, but that was the only valid excuse they could come up with. Hiding the identity of the people leaking these documents that the government does not want you to see is clearly in the interest of protecting these people from attacks like these on Assange since we know the government will play dirty. If the identity of a whistleblower is not protected no-one will leak, and the information can still be suppressed by the government.

Now before you start pointing out that the same applies to the informants you have a valid point, they rightfully deserve protection too... but instead of blaming Wikileaks like the sheep the government hopes we all are remember who wrote down those informants name and address and then failed to protect that information. I am fairly sure the people of Wikileaks, who after all have to do battle with world governments and also have their ass on the line, do a much better job of protecting their 'sensitive' information (damn it feels like fucking Iran when that is considered sensitive). But since the great people from Wikileaks are all about full disclosure of wrongdoings I also think that the moment that Wikileaks pulls stunts that can't stand the light of day they will post the evidence of those acts on the Internet themselves. This parody site totally misses the point: an individual has a right to hide some shit from the government which the government considers 'bad', never the other way around!

tro77 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434818)

those Obligations.

Pissing off the CIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434852)

I read the police report. He is accused of non-consentually breaking the condom on purpose during intercourse. Assange claimed it was a mistake, but the girl didn't believe him.

This constitutes molestation in Sweden.

More important issues (4, Interesting)

tmk (712144) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434880)

The credibility of Wikileaks is at stake, but not because of Assanges bedtime stories.

For example: Assange claimed for years, Wikileaks contributors are protected by the Swedish law, he even threatened to sue anyone who tried to expose a Wikileaks source.

But if you read the Twitter-stream of Wikileaks carefully, you will see this: this [twitter.com] :

Confirm our editor applied for Swedish residency on Aug 18 to obtain prior-restraint protections http://bit.ly/czWlGT [bit.ly]

When you follow the link, you will read nothing about "prior-restraint" protections - in fact Wikileaks has until now no protection at all under the Swedish press laws. And they will not get it soon, because Wikileaks did not fill out the application correctly.

Another migration board spokesperson, Gunilla Wikstroem, told Swedish news agency TT the application was on hold since some information was missing,

This is only one of the countless contradictions Assange was caught on. For example Assange claimed in 2009 a 17 year old Wikileaks contributor by the police in Iceland to press him for information about Wikileaks. In fact the juvenile was caught breaking into a business premises and was subsequently interrogated in the presence of his parents, police did not even know about any Wikileaks connections. Even when he had to wait for less than 30 minutes at an airport in Australia Assange did spread conspiracy theories about foul play and intelligence agency involvement.

Stand by Julian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33434962)

We will stand by Julian and will not let the
smear campaign distract us from the real
issue here.

Missing the Original Stories, Not News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33435010)

Back when the news hit about the warrant being rescinded and the rape charges dropped, the Swedish authorities were quoted as saying that molestation was still being investigated. This is not a new development.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...