Wikileaks' Julian Assange

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

This guy is in the news all over, first due to his involvement in several leaks, and now due to the charges of sexual assault in Sweden.

On one end while the charges are murky they may be plausible, on the other the timing of the charges and subsequent hunt of the man are suspect to say the least.

So what it is, that a man who is (understandably) paranoid of different governments, who moves frequently and travels light, actually 'raped'* two women, or that the case is just part of a witch hunt to shut him and wikileaks down?

*in the Swedish legal definition, read the charges.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I'm doubtful that he actually raped those women. One of them has connections with the CIA and I'm damn sure this is a botched smear tactic.


You know what's great? The Pentagon and associated entities were given the opportunity to look these over before wikileaks published 'em and they turned down that opportunity. And then triggered the Streisand Effect by doing what they did. If they had just kept their mouths shut and ignored it, things would have been much quieter.

[Aggie]

According to the charge, it's possible that he is guilty (having this shorthanded as 'rape' in the North American media, while technically correct, is misleading - sexual assault is closer to the mark but still misleading IMHO). It does seem rather convenient, timing-wise.

I get the vague impression (from various sources) that he might not be a particularly nice human being, but that's a bit besides the point.


I'm still not decided, personally, on where to stand with the manner in which the leaks have been conducted and where the greater good lies.


EDIT:  Since we (and much of the global media) is beating around the bush in regards to the details, here's one of the clearest descriptions I've seen yet, from the Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Sex-accusers-bragged-about-conquest/articleshow/7068149.cms

When Assange arrived in Stockholm, Ardin invited him to stay at her flat while she visited her family for a few days out in the country. Ardin returned home on August 13; she and Assange had sex that night. Both have admitted a condom was used and it broke. On August 20, Ardin would go to police alleging that Assange deliberately broke the condom during sex.

Ardin's co-accuser, 26-year-old Sofia Wilen, an aspiring photographer, had sex with Assange on the evening of August 16 and again the following morning. The first time, a condom was used; the second time, there was no condom. On August 20, Wilen would go to police alleging that Assange had refused to wear a condom.

After both sexual encounters, neither woman seemed to harbour any resentment against Assange. One of Assange's lawyers has been quoted as saying: "The exact content of Wilen's mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilen's nor Ardin's texts complain of rape."

On August 14, the day following the night of "crime", Assange delivered a 90-minute speech about how war's first casualty is truth. Ardin was in attendance (as was Wilen) but showed no signs of the previous night's "trauma". At 2 o'clock that night, while hosting a party in Assange's honour at her flat, Ardin tweeted: "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing."

After going to police on August 20, she deleted these tweets. After sex with Assange on the morning of August 17, Wilen went out, and bought, then cooked breakfast – oatmeal and juice.

On August 18, Wilen called up Ardin and told her that she had unprotected sex with Assange. She said she was upset he didn't use a condom and was afraid she might have contracted an STD or become pregnant. Ardin said she too had had sex with Assange. On August 20, both women filed charges against him.

And an obscure Swedish law was invoked. It is sometimes called the "surprise sex" law. In essence, it holds that if a woman withdraws her consent at any point during intercourse, and the man continues, it becomes rape. This transition from consensual to non-consensual sex is what Assange is accused of. The penalty is reported to be a fine of $715. But he has been arrested and now denied bail.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Personally I think that the whole secrecy thing is grossly overrated, to put an IT example there is this operating system called Linux in which all the security features are transparent and open, and it is the safest OS in the market today, precisely because everybody can see and plug a hole the moment one is found.

On the same token, governments claim the need for secrecy but what happens behind said secrecy is frequently what wouldn't happen if there were some eyes overseeing what is said and done. The claim that the leaks put soldiers in danger is overstated to the extreme, in fact I would think that the effect is the opposite, less black ops with "collateral damage" and a more responsible use of force when there is oversight.

As for the case itself, it is practically impossible to know if the guy is jerk or a victim (it's a he said, she said case), but the timing is incredibly convenient. It clearly looks like a clear warning of what happens to those who stand in the way of governments and corporations.

[Aggie]

I don't find it particularly helpful to release the diplomatic 'cables'.  Diplomacy is an exercise in publicly kissing arse and privately passing on the truth of the matter to those who need to know.  Some of this stuff consisted of open secrets anyways, but I don't really see the value of dropping tact in dealings between nations, much of which is really just little white lies, but looks very bad when brought to open daylight*.  I also question the reported lack of editing to protect informants and sources that may now be in danger.  Whether that's a major travesty or just desserts for 'traitors' depends on one's perspective.

More nefarious activities are IMHO are worth exposing, especially where administrations are doing things their citizens would object to and keeping it covered up to prevent public outrage.

There seems to be both going on here.


_{*Good thing there's no 'WikiMarriageLeaks' to release documents providing evidence that he really does think you look fat in those pants.}

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

EDIT:  Since we (and much of the global media) is beating around the bush in regards to the details, here's one of the clearest descriptions I've seen yet, from the Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Sex-accusers-bragged-about-conquest/articleshow/7068149.cms

When Assange arrived in Stockholm, Ardin invited him to stay at her flat while she visited her family for a few days out in the country. Ardin returned home on August 13; she and Assange had sex that night. Both have admitted a condom was used and it broke. On August 20, Ardin would go to police alleging that Assange deliberately broke the condom during sex.

Ardin's co-accuser, 26-year-old Sofia Wilen, an aspiring photographer, had sex with Assange on the evening of August 16 and again the following morning. The first time, a condom was used; the second time, there was no condom. On August 20, Wilen would go to police alleging that Assange had refused to wear a condom.

After both sexual encounters, neither woman seemed to harbour any resentment against Assange. One of Assange's lawyers has been quoted as saying: "The exact content of Wilen's mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilen's nor Ardin's texts complain of rape."

On August 14, the day following the night of "crime", Assange delivered a 90-minute speech about how war's first casualty is truth. Ardin was in attendance (as was Wilen) but showed no signs of the previous night's "trauma". At 2 o'clock that night, while hosting a party in Assange's honour at her flat, Ardin tweeted: "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing."

After going to police on August 20, she deleted these tweets. After sex with Assange on the morning of August 17, Wilen went out, and bought, then cooked breakfast – oatmeal and juice.

On August 18, Wilen called up Ardin and told her that she had unprotected sex with Assange. She said she was upset he didn't use a condom and was afraid she might have contracted an STD or become pregnant. Ardin said she too had had sex with Assange. On August 20, both women filed charges against him.

And an obscure Swedish law was invoked. It is sometimes called the "surprise sex" law. In essence, it holds that if a woman withdraws her consent at any point during intercourse, and the man continues, it becomes rape. This transition from consensual to non-consensual sex is what Assange is accused of. The penalty is reported to be a fine of $715. But he has been arrested and now denied bail.

Lolwut. I totally understand the suprise sex thing, but if there's no condom, and you didn't care at the time, you shouldn't be able to retroactively decide you weren't ok with it and get him busted. I also kind of don't think he probably broke the condom purposely - that sounds too fishy for a situation like this.

[Aggie]

^Agree.  Broken condoms happen, and IME a man tends to notice first, but it would be difficult to purposefully break one mid-coitus without a sharp object handy.  I would consider it reasonably likely that he might have noticed and kept on, but it would be almost impossible to prove that in court.

For the latter case, if Mr. Assange refused to wear a condom on the second occasion, it was Ms. Wilen's right and obligation to refuse sex.  From what I understand of the law, he could still be guilty of coercing her into sex without a condom, so it will depend on exactly what transpired.

I've read elsewhere that the two went to the police after discussing similarities - i.e. sex without a condom - in their experiences.  It's tenuous, IMHO.  If there were two broken condoms, I would be more suspicious.

[Griffin NoName]

If everyone operated to "Griffin's Law" none of this would (leaks) be necessary. Never write anything down or speak out loud anyything you don't want to be public. <until we have proper telepathy this works>

Personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Nothing in the leaks surprises me.

As to "rape" charges, I don't like coincidences.

<cynic>

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

According to NPR today, those "rape" charges had long since been dismissed by the government in question-- they [the allegations] are old, or so I was told.

It's likely it's just a "dirty license tag"* to have an excuse to arrest and question him.

Not that I'm dismissive of rape-- far from it.  But I strongly suspect it's just a ploy-- else why now?  Why shortly after the latest leak, and not immediately when the charges were first leveled?

Too convenient.

____________

* many states have this on their books:  you cannot legally drive with a dirty license tag.  Obviously, what constitutes "dirty" is solely up to the traffic cop, but it always gives him an excuse to pull someone over for suspicious activity--or just to harass/intimidate them, if that's his intent.

[Sibling DavidH]

Whether or not Assange is doing a good job, it's hardly surprising he's now in the mess he is.  Seems to me, it could get a lot worse for him yet.  Consider the case of David Kelly here.  He blew the whistle on WMD and now he's dead - either 'they' killed him or drove him to suicide, there's no third choice.
Here is the Daily Mash's prediction.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I heard he was placed in a rough jail in the meantime. I don't know if they'll push him down the stairs but they sure will make it easy for him to have an 'accident'.

I don't find it particularly helpful to release the diplomatic 'cables'.  Diplomacy is an exercise in publicly kissing arse and privately passing on the truth of the matter to those who need to know.  Some of this stuff consisted of open secrets anyways, but I don't really see the value of dropping tact in dealings between nations, much of which is really just little white lies, but looks very bad when brought to open daylight*. 

Generally speaking it isn't helpful but most of the scandal is about how impolite diplomats were or things I personally think should be known like the Saudis wanting the US to do their dirty deeds for them.

Besides, if a diplomat is too 'candid' in his communications* of state perhaps he shouldn't be in diplomacy at all.

* jerkish in many cases.

[Griffin NoName]

Consider the case of David Kelly here. 

Yes,  I've always been suspicious of his death. And the medical evidence seems flimsy.

I agree, things will get worse for Assange.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I bet there's a running pool somewhere on his life expectancy.

[Lindorm]

Assange was charged with one count of rape and one count of "sexuellt utnyttjande", sexual exploitation or abuse I suppose you could translate it as. The initial charges were originally dismissed, but then renewd in a higher instance in the legal system. From what I have been able to read about the case here in Sweden, there's quite a bit more to it than just a broken condom. On the other hand, the actions of the prosecuting attorney so far can only be seen as very strange and very much at odds with normal Swedish legal practice.

Ms Ardin is a bit of a political high-flyer with ties to the Social Democrats here in Sweden -though her political convictions are more of the Anthony Giddens/Blair lukewarm wish-wash variety than any genuine labour convictions, I'd say. Career-wise, she has been keeping all sorts of odd bedfellows and friendships, including some very strange Miami-based anti-Castro groups -probably the source of the rumours that she is a CIA agent.

So, two not-very-nice careerists (Assange and Ardin) first hitting it off, then not hitting it off, then trying to score political points off each other's backs, with a prosecutor with political amibtions of her own thrown into the mix, and then the whole thing exploding in their faces?

[Swatopluk]

Your last half-sentence somehow conjures up NSFW images

From what I read in the papers the main point is that the condoms allegedly bursted in both cases and that only when the two women compared notes they became suspicious that Assange may have done it deliberately. If true that would explain why it took so long before the women went to the police.

Still looks like a rather fishy affair to me. Is the Reichstag burning?