Beta
×

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 Secret Swedish Police Report Leaked

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the nothing-is-sacred dept.

Crime 840

letsurock writes "The 68-page confidential report prepared by Swedish police got leaked which tells the police version on the alleged sexual misconduct by the Julian assange. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August this year when 39-year-old Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women."

cancel ×

840 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yo dawg, I heard (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615728)

You know what, actually, after writing the title, I can't bring myself to do this. You all deserve better.

Re:Yo dawg, I heard (2, Funny)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615822)

Mmmmm, "consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women." I mean, damn... Slashdot isn't usually that provocative. :P

Re:Yo dawg, I heard (0)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615996)

Assange is a millionaire ?

oh, wait, reading comprehension -- at different times...

Re:Yo dawg, I heard (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616080)

if only someone would leak all the slashdotter's sexual exploits ...




(crickets)

Re:Yo dawg, I heard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616182)

Since when is he a "the"?!

Can someone link the report? (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615766)

So its apparently been leaked...

And there's no link in Slashdots Article. And googling for it brings up hundreds of news sites and blogs who all talk about it but also don't link to the police report.

Is it being hosted somewhere? Is it possible to get a copy of the police report and not rely on what people say it says?

Re:Can someone link the report? (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615854)

So its apparently been leaked...

Rather like Assange's condom

Re:Can someone link the report? (0, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615890)

just like US police,

they can write anything they want in the affidavit and the women can claim whatever they want. All of that fails to focus on that this was pushed by the US gov't and that the US gov't is very clearly to blame for trying to blow this out of proportion (and making the US look even worse). Really, interpol for this? a 200k pound bond for a $700 fine in sweden?

I'm amazed that we still see this being pushed around the globe even though it just highlights everything and creates that much more scrutiny.

Re:Can someone link the report? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616008)

All of that fails to focus on that this was pushed by the US gov't

Do you have proof of this?

Re:Can someone link the report? (3)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616078)

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the U.S. government has any involvement in this Swedish case? Or are you just assuming, since you think the U.S. government must be out to get him, they must be behind this?

Re:Can someone link the report? (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616258)

...this was pushed by the US gov't and that the US gov't is very clearly to blame for trying to blow this out of proportion (and making the US look even worse).

Your tinfoil hat seems to be a little snug. It's cutting off the blood flow to your brain.

Re:Can someone link the report? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616280)

It's not a $700 fine. He's wanted for sexual assault.

Re:Can someone link the report? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616138)

There is a Guardian article [guardian.co.uk] which seems to talk about it very in-depth but doesn't present the raw document. They've apparently seen it though so either whoever leaked it is letting people look but not touch or there's some reason for it being kept sort-of under wraps.

I wont believe it... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615770)

... until I see it on Wikileaks.ch!

Its not on wikileaks so (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615784)

it must not be that important.

Re:Its not on wikileaks so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616128)

Its not on wikileaks so it must not be related to the US government.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Its not on wikileaks so (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616192)

Maybe only the US government is important.

We're number one! We're number one!

If only... (5, Funny)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615788)

If only there was some internet repository where leaks of this kind could be shared. It could even be made into a wiki, for easier access.

the Julian assange (1)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615796)

the Julian assange

What the hell is an assange, and why is there only one? Any relation with the Julian calendar?

Re:the Julian assange (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615832)

Isn't it French for "A monkey"?

As in, Julian, A Sange.

Re:the Julian assange (2, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615924)

It's singe, you baboon.

Re:the Julian assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616126)

phonetically though it's close enough

Re:the Julian assange (4, Funny)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615966)

Sorry, but no. "A monkey", in French, is "Un singe". If you want something funny with French and English mixing with Julian Assange's name:

Ass: you know what this means
Ange: means "Angel" in French.

So Julian Assange would be "Julian Angel Ass"

Re:the Julian assange (3, Funny)

fritsd (924429) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616172)

Aha, and that in turn explains the two Swedish women...

Re:the Julian assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616342)

Makes sense, angles are kind of known for their creepy white hair and backlighting, giving them that halo-aura. Julian naturally has creepy white hair. I think that's enough evidence.

Re:the Julian assange (5, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615884)

People these days use the Gregorian assange.

Not on wikileaks? (2, Funny)

MikeMo (521697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615814)

Shouldn't Assange have already posted it? There isn't any hypocrisy here, is there?

I'm not trolling -- I mean, seriously?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615864)

Maybe Assange didn't have access to the report?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (5, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615874)

Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615948)

What is good for one is good for the other.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615950)

You always find something "different", some minor quirk that suits your mischievous view of the world. Leftards are really the champions of sophism, no doubt about it.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (4, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615964)

Indeed, this fallacy keeps popping up. If I commit severe crimes and attempt to cover it up you have the right, and I would even dare to say *duty*, to violate my privacy for justice. People and governments alike may keep some things hidden, but there is a limit to both.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615976)

Umm, the leaked documents ARE government documents, so based on your government/personal criteria they are fair game. Just because they cause embarrasment and discomfort (Who wants to be know as a violent sexual predator who is lousy in bed? Not our boy, Julian, apparently.) they should not be withheld. In fact, the Wikileaks position has been that even if their release causes death, government "secrets" should be published.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616326)

You unpatriotic fuck! people who protect our country should be protected by its people. Instead you'd let some fuckstick with secret information publish it regardless. All for what? so you can enjoy watching transexuals being spanked by midgets without feeling regret.

Free internet? the internet even with regulation would be free. It just would exempt all the shit that fills the pipes with self abusing crap.

Assange is a know nothing twit that cant keep it in his pants. The question is ... is he a e-"kim jong il" aswell or just another loser like the rest of yas!

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615994)

And shouldn't the US government be twisting laws to try to prosecute whoever leaked the police report? Or is it up to the Swedish police to twist some laws?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (5, Insightful)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616004)

Is this not a government document?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (-1, Troll)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616044)

Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?

You mean like the privacy of the people who are known as informants? And embassies and embassidors where transparency is absolutely not possible to do their job? Or how about the the willful misrepresentation of leaked military videos?

At what point are you going to stop being a propagandists tool?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0, Troll)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616226)

Clearly some time before you, Mr Fox News.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616094)

Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616196)

Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?

I consider a publicly know individual equivalent to a corporation when it comes to expectations of privacy. Expectations of privacy make no sense when discussing a government.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616222)

Posting Anon as already modded.

Yes, there's a huge difference between private people and public organisations. However, Assange already crossed the line with the BNP membership list that got posted through Wikileaks, which prompted a huge amount of personal harrassment of individuals and families.

You may say "their fault for joining a distasteful organisation", but the Human Rights charter states that everybody has a freedom of association with any legal political party, and a freedom of thought. Which means you may not like what someone thinks, but if it's legal, you need to respect their view (or at least ignore it; your choice). You don't have the right to break the data protection laws, or the human rights laws to score a political point. And you certainly don't get to use harrassment as a weapon..

By all means publish and leak the activities of the BNP which are probably very shady (like all political parties really), but to remain seen as even slightly impartial, you do not publish the names and addresses of individuals unless you can prove they were guilty of some misdemeanor. After that debacle, I lost a huge amount of respect for Wikileaks, and viewed them as cavalier, spiteful, and with a strong left wing agenda (The opposite of the RedWatch of old).

Having crossed the line himself to the personal level, he gets no sympathy from me. And so far, I've not seen his address published, so he's one step better than the BNP members he outed.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616276)

Do you seriously think a person has an expectation that criminal charges against him will be kept secret?

No. Fuck off.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616320)

Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615916)

Shouldn't Assange have already posted it? There isn't any hypocrisy here, is there?

I'm not trolling -- I mean, seriously?

since its part of an active investigation he might be legally obligated not to put it on wikileaks. I know in many high profile cases the parties involved are not allowed to talk about it. That doesn't mean hes not the source of the leak still however.....

Re:Not on wikileaks? (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615998)

The dude believes in total transparency, if its good for the State Department it should be good enough for Assange.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616334)

but if he believes he is innocent and him releasing documents would cause him more legal trouble, then its just a bad idea. And not in anybody's best interest. An innocent man(Idk if he is or not) shouldn't have to cause himself more legal trouble.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616100)

  1. He was legally obligated not to put the other documents on WikiLeaks. Why grow a conscience now?
  2. Both he and the /. crowd insist on maintaining this shaky assertion that "WikiLeaks is not just Julian Assange" (despite all appearances to the contrary, highly supported by the actions of Mr. Assange himself). Let someone else put it up.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (5, Insightful)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616006)

Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of an individual's sex affairs. Dealings between government and corporations and whatnot.

This would be hypocritical if wikileaks leaked something like Tiger Woods' sex messages to his mistress or something along the lines of that. Plenty of sites posted that information, and possibly lots of trashy tabloids and gossip magazines - but wikileaks did not.

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0, Troll)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616166)

Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of an individual's sex affairs.

Get a grip on reality. They DO divulge personal private information which can get informants and their families killed. Wikileaks, to date, has done so TWICE ON A MASSIVE SCALE. Given an option, I'm sure the informants would rather have their bedroom secretes released rather than the fact they informed on murderers.

Is that you, Hillary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616236)

Actually, $(SUBJECT) says it all...

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616254)

Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of an individual's sex affairs.

Get a grip on reality. They DO divulge personal private information which can get informants and their families killed. Wikileaks, to date, has done so TWICE ON A MASSIVE SCALE. Given an option, I'm sure the informants would rather have their bedroom secretes released rather than the fact they informed on murderers.

[citation needed]

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616070)

Since when is Assange a government?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616284)

Good question.

How many other documents from individual court cases appear on Wikileaks? If Wikileaks has a long history of trying to acquire documents from notable court cases and posting them while the cases are still in progress, then, yes, there would be hypocrisy here.

However, I don't think Wikileaks is known for tracking criminal or civil court cases while they are in progress. The notable leaks that have been reported are things like military memos and diplomatic cables, yes?

It is entirely possible that Wikileaks isn't hosting this because this isn't the sort of document they normally deal in, or they haven't posted it yet because (like the diplomatic cables and military documents) they haven't had time to edit names and other identifiable information out of them prior to release, as is their habit.

Actually, posting this to Wikileaks just because it's about the site's founder would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it?

Re:Not on wikileaks? (3, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616336)

Shouldn't Assange have already posted it? There isn't any hypocrisy here, is there?

No, because this is not at all the kind of document that WikiLeaks posts. Their primary interest is stated as:

...exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations.

Contrary to popular belief, WikiLeaks is not about revealing any information that anyone might ever try to hide. WikiLeaks is about revealing unethical government/corporate behaviour.

unprotected $ex with them... over four days (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615852)

Over the course of 4 days someone keeps saying that they are wearing a condom and they keep accepting this without proof? At some point the liability has to transfer to the foolee rather than the fooler.

Re:unprotected $ex with them... over four days (1, Flamebait)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615904)

No, dumbass. The events occurred over a total of four days. The sex did not last for four days, nor did the deception. The accounts say Assange had sex with one woman then, four days later, had sex with another woman.

You really need to go back to elementary school and improve your reading comprehension skills.

Re:unprotected $ex with them... over four days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616164)

You really need to go back to elementary school...

That's a big assumption there.

So what (0, Troll)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615896)

That article has every known detail.

in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent during the act it is still considered rape, with prision terms.

If julian was half as smart as he thinks he is he wouldn't have done what he did. Instead he fscked two women without knowing the local laws regarding such things, and is in turn being fscked back.

If you screw a woman in some countries without their father's approval beforehand it is rape. Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother. Why is the fact that different countries have different standards so hard for people to understand? the UK rape laws don't apply in sweden, Islamic law doesn't apply in the USA, chinese law doesn't apply in Russia.

Why should Julian be treated any differently than any other tourist as they visit foreign lands? oh I know because he is special, god like even. he is like the Catholic church immune from doing something wrong ever, any crime he might have done is automatically a crime againist GOD and therefore not really a crime.

He freely admits he slept with both of those women. he is trying this case in the court of public opinion because he knows he will lose in a court of law because he is guilty, of a crime in sweden. i don't have to like the swedish law but I do have to respect it when i am there.

Re:So what (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615946)

So in Sweden you are guilty until proven innocent? I know that women's groups in Sweden were trying to make rape a "guilty until proven innocent" crime, but I thought the Swedes sensibly rejected that unjust notion.

Re:So what (5, Informative)

iammani (1392285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615960)

in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent during the act it is still considered rape, with prision terms.

The point of contention is not the swedish law, but whether the consent was actually withdrawn and the credibility of the womens' statement. The women seem to have continued their relationship with Assange, despite the rape and condom-break incident, which makes their claims sound a bit dubious.

Re:So what (1, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616312)

in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent during the act it is still considered rape, with prision terms.

The point of contention is not the swedish law, but whether the consent was actually withdrawn and the credibility of the womens' statement. The women seem to have continued their relationship with Assange, despite the rape and condom-break incident, which makes their claims sound a bit dubious.

And? Their credibility should be judged by a jury, at trial.

Re:So what (5, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616036)

>>>in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent

There is no evidence this happened. All we have is two women who were apparently happy with Julian, but then they met each other and discovered he was two-timing, and suddenly the women weren't happy. i.e. We only have their word and their word is suspect, because they have motive to lie (to get back at the creep).

Re:So what (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616086)

They've made the accusation. It's evidence. Not very strong evidence I'll grant you but certainly adeuquate to bring him in and ask him.

Re:So what (1)

Beetle B. (516615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616076)

If you screw a woman in some countries without their father's approval beforehand it is rape. Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.

You had me until you started spouting drivel.

What other silly stereotypes do you harbor, I wonder?

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616084)

Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.

[Citation Needed]

If anything, that would be more of a cultural practice in some parts of some countries, like certain villages of Pakistan, rather than an Islamic law. There really isn't such a law where you have to kill the wife because the brother raped her.

none of those mention rape .. (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616118)

None of those mentions rape, so why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist?

The accusation in the fourth point, involving Miss W, falls into the category of rape under Swedish law.

An arrest warrant, issued on 20 August, was withdrawn the following day, when one of Sweden's chief prosecutors, Eva Finné, said she did not think there was "reason to suspect that he has committed rape". On 1 September, Marianne Ny, the Swedish director of prosecutions, overturned Finné's judgment. "Considering information available at present, my judgment is that the classification of the crime is rape," said Ny. link [guardian.co.uk]

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616124)

hehe, nice to see such informed trolls on slashdot 'under islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife...', i guess you wrote the book on shariat?

Re:So what (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616154)

Are you telling me to respect the laws of countries where women get raped and it's their fault so they get killed as a result? In the UK, we live by British morals and British justice, and any stupid Swedish laws about unprotected sex between consenting adults being considered rape don't amount to much. With that said, I will fight Assange's extradition like I would fight the extradition of a woman from an insane Islamic country who came to the UK looking for sanctuary from her murdering husband.

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616198)

What a strange post. You assume, without addressing the issue directly, that Assange did what he is accused of. I'm sure his defence will be that he did not, and given the backgrounds and connections of his accusers there is every chance that he is telling the truth.

The issue is not one of Assange expecting preferential treatment because of Wikileaks, or of him respecting foreign laws while in a foreign country. To pretend that these are the issues is classic straw-man debating.

The question is quite simply whether Assange did what he is accused of. He quite probably did not.

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616202)

It's spelled "fucked" you idiot! Learn to spell! Meantime laws that are assigned or patently unfair shouldn't be honored as legitimate. You go know that at least one if the women fucked Assange again willing after the alleged incident. You cannot allow a double standard so as to allow women to cry rape as soon as she finds out she not the only birch getting it. Assange should just likewise claim he was raped when he "withdrew consent" and be done with it. Then it's a he said/she said thing. Of course doing this would expose the obvious double standard here.

Re:So what (1)

waleedk (603557) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616212)

Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.

This is categorically wrong. Islamic law has no such injunction, and this is the type of utter drivel and FUD that makes it hard for Muslims and non-Muslims to co-exist. Rape is a punishable crime in Islam, regardless of who commits it.

I challenge you to present any evidence of your claim.

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616218)

"Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother."

Anything to back this statement up, or are you relying on "truthiness"

Haha (3, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616224)

Yeah. If I dared to tell anyone that I didn't think Mohammed was the last messenger from God while I was in Saudi Arabia, and they jailed me for it, oh well. Gotta respect their laws while you're there.

Of course that's absolute bullshit. Any law that denies a person a right to defend themselves from undue process of law is unjust, period, unless it's putting away someone you don't like. I've read through the document, and I do think Assange should submit himself to further evidentiary proceedings once he is assured of receiving the same treatment as someone who isn't on the shitlist of half of the world governments.

Let's all remember why the authorities have decided that he doesn't deserve equal rights:

"He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends." -Joe Biden

Re:So what (1)

jpbelang (79439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616260)

If you screw a woman in some countries without their father's approval beforehand it is rape.

And I would think they would have tons of trouble having you extradited from the U.S. or the U.K. Not that this has anything to do with the case at hand.

Re:So what (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616300)

exactly

assange is a human being with human weaknesses, like all of us

however, this particular flawed man started a movement for transparency which is laudable

the proper response is to pay homage to the man for his good works, and chastise him for his transgressions in the bedroom, at the same time

but apparently people can only process assange as devil or angel. when of course, this is a gross simplification that serves nothing other than to mark the person as an idiot who cannot bring himself to chastise the man (or laud the man)

you who say "assange can do no wrong" or "assange can do no right", which is the starting point for many comments here, you are no better than the chattering monkeys who engage in celebrity worship on TMZ. you are simply no better if you cannot bring yourself to repudiate the man for his transgressions in the bedroom (or if you can't bring yourself to praise the man for his transparency efforts)

the man, honestly, means nothing. but the MOVEMENT he helped start (and will not stop, with or without him) remains a permanent virtue on his permanent record (just as permanent as the rapes)

yes, assange did something good in the world. he also did something wrong. it is possible for you to acknowledge both. so do it, and free yourself from shallow pointless celebrity worship, which is what you do when you mindlessly defend assange on an UNRELATED ISSUE to his transparency work

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616322)

Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.

Honour killings are part of the persistent pre-Islamic traditions, NOT part of Islamic law. Same goes for female circumcision (a common misconception on Slashdot). Please do not attribute such items to Islamic law.

One of the women has links to anti-Castro groups (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615906)

On of the accusers had been kicked out of Cuba for "anti-Castro" activity and has ties to US funded political groups. It's looking a lot like CIA. Counter Punch reported on it, check it out.

Re:One of the women has links to anti-Castro group (5, Informative)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616210)

Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups link [counterpunch.org]

Old news (4, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615908)

This happened several days ago. The Guardian has the story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden [guardian.co.uk] I think The Times also had a story. No point looking for the original document -- it was in Swedish.

Re:Old news (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615988)

No point looking for the original document -- it was in Swedish.

Uff da! [everything2.com]

Re:Old news (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616306)

Indeed! [memebase.com]

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616016)

Right on, man! Nobody speaks or reads Swedish because it's a dead language! Also it's not like there are any free translation services available on thet internet!

Re:Old news (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616092)

Interesting that so far all of the coverage that I've seen has focussed on 'Miss W' when the far more serious stuff relates to 'Miss A,' who also claims that he was the 'world's worst screw,' which can't be good for someone with an ego the size of Assange's.

Re:Old news (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616112)

No point looking for the original document -- it was in Swedish.

Ah, found it. No wonder - I was looking for the document title, "Assange Rapes Women" when I should've been looking for "Assange BORKS Women BORK BORK BORK". Thanks for the tip.

Slashed (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615918)

Lucky there's no link on an official site, we could have /. the server.

Where is this document? (1)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615962)

Where is this leaked document? I'd like to read it since the media often likes to give the wrong picture.

Re:Where is this document? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616250)

I don't know about the document, and I agree, media does really often get things wrong, accidentlly or on purpose. Almost on topic would be this recent documentary about wikileaks by swedish public television, as an example of media as good as it gets, I think. http://svtplay.se/v/2264028 [svtplay.se] (It's in english and should be accessible from outside sweden.

Chapter 1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615968)

September 16, 1991. Today it finally began! After all these years of talking and nothing but talking we have finally taken our first action. We are at war with the System, and it is no longer a war of words.

I cannot sleep, so I will try writing down some of the thoughts which are flying through my head.

It is not safe to talk here. The walls are quite thin, and the neighbors might wonder at a latenight conference. Besides, George and Katherine are already asleep. Only Henry and I are still awake, and he’s just staring at the ceiling.

I am really uptight. l am so jittery I can barely sit still. And I’m exhausted. I’ve been up since 5:30 this morning, when George phoned to warn that the arrests had begun, and it’s after midnight now. I’ve been keyed up and on the move all day.

But at the same time I’m exhilarated. We have finally acted! How long we will be able to continue defying the System, no one knows. Maybe it will all end tomorrow, but we must not think about that. Now that we have begun, we must continue with the plan we have been developing so carefully ever since the Gun Raids two years ago.

What a blow that was to us! And how it shamed us! All that brave talk by patriots, "The government will never take my guns away," and then nothing but meek submission when it happened.

On the other hand, maybe we should be heartened by the fact that there were still so many of us who had guns then, nearly 18 months after the Cohen Act had outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States. It was only because so many of us defied the law and hid our weapons instead of turning them in that the government wasn’t able to act more harshly against us after the Gun Raids.

I’ll never forget that terrible day: November 9, 1989. They knocked on my door at five in the morning. I was completely unsuspecting as I got up to see who it was.

Read more... [avrtech.com]

Four Days?! (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34615978)

No wonder the condom broke!

Where's the report? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34615980)

All I'm seeing is spin everywhere. It reeks of damage mitigation.

More "Leaked Documents" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616030)

so will this set of leaked docs end up on wikileaks too!? ;)

Clickwhoring (4, Insightful)

sirdude (578412) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616088)

Why is the summary not linking to the original article [nytimes.com] and instead pointing to a blog-post which is supposedly regurgitating a Press Trust of India release based on the NYTimes article? This story is also about 3 days old :S

charges seem implausible (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616104)

Although there is no link to the original Swedish document, and I can't read Swedish anyway, the article indicates that Assange is being accused of 2 counts of rape. Both instances seem ridiculous for different reasons. I have had condoms tear and not realize it until I pulled out. So that alone is not a consent issue. In the other instance, how the hell is it possible to have sex with someone while they are asleep, with or without a condom. Would they not wake up before you even had the chance to stick it in? The key issue in both cases is whether or not Assange was in fact told to stop. Either he was or he wasn't. If he was told to stop, and continued anyway then it was rape by US definitions. If he was not told to stop and the women just got pissed off later for various reasons it was not rape by most normal definitions of the term. If Assange was not told to stop then I think CIA involvement becomes quite plausible. The accusers should be thoroughly investigated for secret money transfers etc. If they are Swedish citizens working for the CIA could they be liable for espionage charges under Swedish law? Wouldn't that make them traitors to the Swedish government?

Assange himself is irrelevant, however. (5, Insightful)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616140)

It's actually rather clever of him to serve as a lightning rod for Wikileaks, while the actual work continues to go on. Right-wing congressmen can call for his assassination all they like; even if it were to happen it would not affect the publication of the leaks. In fact, it would almost certainly trigger the mass publication of the unredacted material. "The personal strengths and weaknesses of a leader are no true indicator of the merits of his cause."

Taste of his own medicine (0)

techstar25 (556988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616214)

So Assange is getting a taste of his own medicine. You know what they say "What goes around, cums around." ... or something like that.

Isn't (1, Flamebait)

Blue6 (975702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616230)

This guys fifteen minutes about up

autism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616294)

There is a theory that Assange is autistic, which would account for his tumultuous relationships. http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf146011-0-15.html [wrongplanet.net] Check out what Mercurial wrote, who considers herself autistic.

A Farce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616296)

What bothers me is the government isn't concerned how obviously fake these charges appear. I miss the days when the western democracies pretended its citizens had rights.

Kia Ora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616344)

What is it with this Wiki thing anyway? I come from a country where Wiki was once a popular girls name. My mother had an Aunty Wiki (apparently she was married to uncle Bob.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?