Wikileaks Rd3

This whole thing is getting wild… it’s almost too crazy.

he’s up on 4 charges of sexual mis conduct, 2 of which are for not using a condom??? you can be charged with that???

The other two charges are for use of force, basically two wikileaks volunteers said he held them down or something… sooo weak…

One charge over Miss A is that Assange “sexually molested her” by ignoring her request for him to use a condom when having sex with her.

Another charge relates to “Miss W,” who alleged Assange had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping on August 7.

so the chicks were naked in bed with him but it was not consentual

most comprehensice details about the ‘rape’ charges i’ve seen so far:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) The two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him. They just wanted to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, according to several people in contact with his entourage at the time.

The women went to the police together after they failed to persuade Assange to go to a doctor after separate sexual encounters with him in August, according to these people, who include former close associates of Assange who have since fallen out with him.

The women had trouble finding Assange because he had turned off his cellphone out of concern his enemies might trace him, these sources said.

Assange, who was arrested and held in custody by a British court Tuesday, has both admirers and detractors. His WikiLeaks group publishes secret documents from governments and companies, most recently making public a vast trove of U.S. State Department cables between Washington and embassies abroad that have cast a revealing and sometimes embarrassing eye on the inner workings of U.S. diplomacy.

Assange’s elusiveness may have worked against him in the Swedish investigation, which might well have gone nowhere had he taken the women’s calls and not left Sweden when police started looking into the allegations.

The Swedish investigation has undergone head-spinning twists and turns. After initially issuing a warrant for Assange’s arrest on rape and molestation charges in mid-August, a Swedish prosecutor dropped the rape charge the next day. After this U-turn, it appeared likely that the whole investigation of the 39-year-old Australian computer hacker would be abandoned.

Assange’s accusers then hired a lawyer who declared he would press prosecutors not only to keep the investigation going but to reinstate rape charges. The case was soon transferred to one of Sweden’s three Directors of Public Prosecutions, Marianne Ny, who indeed decided to reinstate the rape investigation and continue the molestation probe. She ordered that Assange should be subject to official interrogation about the allegations.

After Assange left the country, Swedish authorities issued a European arrest warrant under which Assange could be detained and returned to Sweden. A spokeswoman for Swedish prosecutors affirmed, however, that at the moment Assange is not formally charged in Sweden with any criminal offense, but is only wanted for questioning.

SWEDISH ENCOUNTERS

The most serious accusation Swedish prosecutors made against him in a statement on their website is that he committed “rape, less serious crime” – the least serious of three levels of rape charges that are on the statute books in Sweden. Conviction carries a maximum four year jail sentence and a minimum of less than two years, depending upon the circumstances.

As described by several people who were in contact with Assange and his inner circle at the time the allegations against him surfaced, both of his accusers are young Swedish women who came into contact with him during a visit to Sweden on behalf of WikiLeaks.

One of the women, identified in the British court hearing on Sweden’s extradition request as Miss A, was listed on publicity for Assange’s Swedish visit as a spokesperson for a group hosting the WikiLeaks leader.

People who were in contact with both Assange and other members of his entourage at the time say that the woman at some point invited him to stay at her residence.

Assange’s financial resources are opaque, but by most accounts he maintains an austere lifestyle, supporting himself on the donations of wealthy and not-so-rich supporters and overnighting in a succession of friends’ spare rooms.

According to the accounts of Assange’s associates, his overnight stays at his erstwhile spokeswoman’s residence soon evolved into a sexual relationship between the two. During one of their encounters, the woman later said, a condom Assange was wearing broke or split.

People who saw Assange and the woman in the days after this incident is said to have occurred said the two displayed little if any obvious sign of tension or hostility; to some who saw them at the time, it was not clear their relationship was anything other than amicable and chaste.

A few days later, however, people who were in contact with Assange then told Reuters, a second, younger woman went to a seminar addressed by Assange.

FIFTEEN DOLLAR TRAIN TICKET

According to an account published by London’s Daily Mail – which said it had access to heavily redacted versions of the statements both women made to Swedish police – the second woman had become obsessed by Assange after watching him on television. After hearing him speak at the seminar, the newspaper said, the woman, identified in court as Miss W, loitered outside the meeting hall, and eventually was invited to lunch with Assange and his entourage at a local bistro.

A day after their initial meeting – which the Mail account said included a visit to a natural history museum – Miss W agreed with Assange that he should spend the night at her apartment about 45 minutes outside Stockholm. The paper says she had to pay for his $15 train ticket because he had no cash and didn’t want to use a credit card in case it would help authorities locate him.

That night, according to the accounts of both the newspaper and people who were in contact with Assange and his inner circle, he and Miss W had sex using a condom.

The next morning, however, under circumstances which remain deeply murky, the sources said, Assange allegedly had sex with the woman again, this time without a condom. Then, after a meal during which the Mail says that the woman joked that she could be pregnant, they parted on friendly terms, with Miss W buying Assange his train ticket back to Stockholm.

Two people who were in contact with Assange’s entourage before, during and after these events said that while some details are still unclear, it appears that after parting from Assange, Miss W became increasingly concerned that he might have given her a sexually-transmitted disease.

According to the sources, Miss W anxiously tried to phone Assange to plead with him to go to a doctor and be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. However, the sources said that Assange had turned his phone off, leaving Miss W no way to get in touch with him.

Becoming increasingly anxious about possible dire consequences of having had sex without a condom, Miss W then began trying to contact Assange through various people she believed were in touch with him.

This eventually led her to Miss A – who according to people who followed the case closely was not previously acquainted with Miss W.

LEGAL CLINIC

The two women proceeded to compare notes on their encounters with Assange and decided that they would insist that he should go to a hospital or doctor and submit to testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Eventually they managed to get in touch with Assange, according to a person who closely followed the case at the time.

But by the time the women had wrung this concession from Assange, the source said, it was a Friday evening and hospitals and medical clinics were closed.

At this point, Miss W, apparently exasperated at Assange’s evasive behavior, decided to take her story to police, though initially she didn’t want Assange to be prosecuted.

According to a version of the story published by London’s Guardian newspaper, which has been in close and continuing contact with Assange for months, Miss A decided to go to the police with Miss W to offer moral support, but did not want charges brought against Assange either.

After taking statements from the women, according to both published accounts and to accounts confirmed by Swedish officials at the time, police officers passed the reports on to prosecutors. Based on the reports a prosecutor serving after-hours duty on a Friday night then decided to issue a warrant for Assange’s arrest on suspicion of rape – a charge which the Guardian said at the time was related to Assange’s alleged encounter with Miss W.

The next morning, however, the file was sent for review to a more senior prosecutor, who concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the rape accusation and canceled the arrest warrant. But the second prosecutor decided that the investigation should continue as a lesser accusation of “molestation” against Assange, Swedish officials said at the time.

Over the following several days, prosecutors spoke about wanting to question Assange, though also dropped heavy hints that they wanted to wrap up their investigation rapidly – with the most likely outcome being a closing of the file.

However, new life was injected into the investigation after Miss A and Miss W hired Claes Borgstrom, a prominent Swedish lawyer. Borgstrom confirmed to reporters at the time that his clients’ allegations against Assange related to efforts he made to have sex with them without wearing condoms, and his subsequent reluctance to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

Borgstrom said at the time that he would appeal the authorities’ initial decision to close the rape investigation to a higher authority. Subsequently, Marianne Ny, one of three senior Swedish prosecutors who hold the title of Director of Public Prosecutions, issued a statement about the case, which, in an official translation published on the English language page of the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website, declared that: “There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgment is that the classification of the crime is rape.”

In their official statement, prosecutors added that the original “molestation” investigation of Assange – which was never officially closed – also would continue and “will be extended to include all allegations in the original police report… There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Based on the information available, the crimes in question come under the heading of sexual coercion and sexual molestation, respectively.”

In a flurry of statements and Twitter messages after the case first erupted, Assange and WikiLeaks charged that the whole Swedish case was the product of some kind of “dirty tricks campaign” related to the group’s work. In one Tweet, WikiLeaks said that “The charges are without basis and their issue at the moment is deeply disturbing.” Another Tweet said: “We were warned to expect ‘dirty tricks’. Now we have the first one.”

Assange kept to this theme in subsequent statements to the media. “I know by experience that WikiLeaks’ enemies will continue to bandy around things even after they have been renounced. I don’t know who’s behind this but we have been warned that, for example, the Pentagon plans to use dirty tricks to spoil things for us.”

But Assange was also quoted saying that he had “never, whether in Sweden or in any other country, had sex with anyone in a way that is not founded on mutual consent.”

The Swedish prosecutor, Ny, said Tuesday the case was a personal matter and not connected with his work releasing secret U.S. diplomatic cables. “I want to make it clear that I have not been put under any kind of pressure, political or otherwise,” Ny said in a statement.

Tuesday, a lawyer representing the Swedish government laid out for a British judge four specific charges of sexual misconduct, three related to Miss A and one related to Miss W. The word “rape” was not part of the charges but “unlawful coercion” and Assange’s alleged reluctance to use condoms was.

Assange understood in August that Swedish authorities were seeking to question him about sexual misconduct charges, but the WikiLeaks founder left the country anyway, fearing a “media circus,” according to someone who spoke with him at the time.

By bolting Sweden without appearing for interrogation, however, Assange forced the Swedes and British to launch an international legal effort that has created precisely the kind of media extravaganza he hoped to avoid.

link here: article

The dude will have to carry waivers around to be signed by groupies pre-sex

I hope this guy makes it out alive. At least all the press is helping his cause, it’s a little harder for him to strangely disappear now without people asking questions.

Now i know why you guys are so silent on this issue… you wont be able to work for uncle sam if you support or endose it :slight_smile:

commenting on them online or distributing them might create a pattern of behavior that raises red flags during screening for the highest levels of security clearance

once again we are being distracted and lied to. Nearly everything they are saying he is guilty of, he isnt because its impossible to prosecute someone for treaosn who is not a us citizen and who has not stolen anything. Remember he just runs the site, he is not the one finding the documents, he is just making them available, hes not stealing anything. Heres ron paul making sense yet again.

https://youtu.be/nxPB9yy7IJ4

Gasp, agreed.

Yeah I’m starting to rethink my “hang him by his balls” initial reaction. That whole freedom of the press thing might be more important might be more important than the secrets of a couple of illegal undeclared wars…

Guys, this is no fun if we’re all going to agree… plus you’re going to lose access to some federal jobs unless you put up a solid front :slight_smile:

I read this article on Reuters today and it does a good job of articulating what i think we all felt a little bit but couldnt quite put our finger on why.

LINK

In a nutshell, mainstream media has proven too eager to tow the official line (read: puppets of the GOV) and has therefore lost credibility. Wikileaks represents a new way of getting content out into the wild that contradicts the official line and is therefore good at keeping media honest when facing the official position. As a result, the GOV will likely have to be more tactful or something…

i’m paraphrasing poorly here, read on.

John Pilger says WikiLeaks a force for good in journalism

  • “The War You Don’t See” a wake-up call for media

  • Reporters must question official version of events

By Mike Collett-White
LONDON, Dec 14 (Reuters) - Revelations on the WikiLeaks website which have enraged governments around the world should force the traditional media to rely less on official sources, award-winning journalist John Pilger said.

In an interview to discuss his film “The War You Don’t See”, the veteran Australian reporter told Reuters the internet, and more specifically WikiLeaks, would bring about a “revolution” in journalism which too often failed to do its job properly.

One reason the media did not challenge the U.S. and British governments’ justification for going to war in Iraq in 2003, later shown to be misplaced, was their eagerness to believe the official version of events, Pilger argued.

He said the same was true of television coverage of the Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, when British broadcasters appeared willing only to use Israeli video rather than trawling the internet for alternative footage.

“That mindset that only authority can really determine the ‘truth’ on the news, that’s a form of embedding that really now has to change,” said Pilger, who has covered conflicts in Vietnam and Cambodia, written books and made several acclaimed documentaries.

“There’s no question about the pressure on it to change coming from the internet and coming from WikiLeaks – it will change,” he added in the interview ahead of Tuesday evening’s broadcast of his new film.

"That is the canker in all of this, it’s the compulsion to quote, not necessarily believing the authority source. But then once you quote it and you put it out on the wires or you broadcast it, it takes on a sort of mantle of fact and that’s where the whole teaching of journalism is wrong.

“Authority has its place, but the scepticism about authority must be ingrained in people.”

In The War You Don’t See, Pilger interviews leading broadcast journalists including Dan Rather and Rageh Omaar, who agree that journalists failed in their basic duties during the build-up to the Iraq conflict.

It seeks to highlight how British television reporters based in London were quick to accept what they were being told by officials in Westminster, which did not necessarily reflect what was happening on the ground in Iraq.

OTHER SIDE OF STORY

The film shows how independent journalists occasionally provided evidence that countered the official version, while WikiLeaks was a relatively new source of sometimes disturbing information with the potential to embarrass the authorities.

The documentary opens with extended clips from classified U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters that killed a dozen people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff. WikiLeaks released the footage in April.

Pilger also interviews WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, remanded in custody in Britain last week after Sweden issued a European arrest warrant.

Assange jokes that since it is officially wrong to retain information and to destroy it, his only choice was to publish.

Pilger, one of several prominent figures who offered a surety to secure bail for Assange, praised the recent publication of secret U.S. embassy documents which have attracted global media coverage.

“I think the WikiLeaks disclosures have been like watching a great parade of wonderful scoops,” Pilger said in the interview.

"(It is) basic rich journalism that is telling people how the world works. It’s not just telling them what a prime minister said. It’s not framing it in how governments or other vested interests want us to think about something.

“It’s giving us the story in their words. I think it’s a revolution in journalism.”

The War You Don’t see is aired on ITV on Tuesday evening and is being screened at select theatres across Britain. (Reporting by Mike Collett-White, editing by Paul Casciato)

ooooooooooooooooooooookay… Ron Paul… you’re so awesome… i would probably go down on you

There are 2 wikileaks threads?! Bing’s been trying to throw me off, lol.

This guy is an anarchist who doesn’t like “the system,” so arguing his rights within the very system he’s trying to break is kinda ironic. And arguing he’s a form of the press or media and that he’s trying to make the system more honest is naive when his stated goal is NOT to make the system more honest but to make it less effective;

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040,00.html

It’s ironic to make the argument that he’s getting more information out to the people and that’s somehow a good thing when in fact the end result of this is less flow of information. We lacked shared, easily accessible information between sources before 9/11 and implemented systems to increase access and communication. Because of wikileaks, we’ve further locked down that interconnected access to less people. Chances of leaks are decreased yeah, but so is access to that information.

Translation; choke off information so governments can’t function and ultimately can’t stay in power.

But he’s an anarchist; That’s what they do, lol. He’s just another conspiracy theorist who thinks there is a greater conspiracy and feels he can do something to bring it down.

Good luck chief.

From a legal standpoint, all the talk about charging him under the Espionage Act is just political posturing from a reactionary political class. Dissemination of Information laws have a better chance of getting him in the US then anything. My prediction is that he gets extradited to the US but beats any espionage charges.

You’re making an oversight here IMHO.

You can lock down and close the systems as much as you want, but no matter what you do there will still be humans interacting with the information and sharing it.

The system didnt leak the information to wikileaks, a few humans did.

Even if there was only one man in the US who had access to all top secret information… if it’s worth leaking… and you piss him off, he can leak it. He couldnt before Wikileaks.

That creates an enormous and irrevocable risk of accountability on companies and governments with only one all-encompassing solution in my eyes. And that is; making decisions that are ethical and of sound judgement. Doing so would be infinitely more effective at preventing leaks than closing information systems. Why would anyone leak information that demonstrates key individuals making reasonable decisions??? Even if it were a decision to go to war or drop a nuke, which conspiracy theorists will always question. If all you can leak is a conversation that demonstrates a reasonable cost vs. benefit analysis then you have nothing to leak.

Lies get leaked. Unethical behaviour gets leaked. Cheating gets leaked. Stealing gets leaked. Withholding important information gets leaked.

Good decisions don’t get leaked because they don’t get hidden.

Now, ultimately the fate of Assange will be irrelevant. Openleaks, Indoleaks and all the mirror sites will continue to operate without and sometimes in spite of him.

The big negative i see here is the amount of information.

It would have been better to whet an appetite for it with a few moderate documents and then release a few big pieces of transformative information.

250,000 pieces of information is overload. It’s egotistical.

It doesnt matter how much truth is in the documents anymore, no one will be able to rationalize it all in a single mind. And so, even if clear and decisive crimes are revealed through these leaks there is a very strong potential that they will go overlooked as simply another cable drop.

When less people have access to an information system, the chances of an information leak decrease. I never said less access = zero leaks, only that;

Agreed, and I never said otherwise. Read Assange’s stated intents again. I’m saying it’s ironic that the media and others are saying “hoary for all this new information! Freedom of speech / press!” when Assange has said the point of all this isn’t the information that’s released (cause), but the reaction to the information release (effect.)

We’ve had plenty of leaks in the US before this with much greater consequences. Anyone could leak anything before Wikileaks was around and if this information was given directly to the New York Times for instance, it would probably have more credibility. Wikileaks arguably didn’t even make the leaking process easier because any news source would have published and put it online too since their immunity has already been tested in court. Anyone saying otherwise is just running their mouth. Do some research on it.

Again, it’s not the content of the information that’s released (cause), but the reaction to the information release (effect.)

He’s dumping out as much as he can to invoke the reaction that he wants. Read his own words, it’s not like he’s trying to hide it.

He’s released nothing of major significance, all in a massive quantity. Sure this is the largest leak in history in terms of document size, but it doesn’t hold a flame to the meaningful and policy-shattering leaks to newspapers about our government long before the internet was around. He’s leaked nothing that couldn’t be revealed though a Freedom of Information Act request and a few embarrassing personal diplomatic cables. All because he wants a reaction to it.

lol;

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s lawyers and supporters are up in arms that someone leaked the confidential police report detailing graphic rape allegations against him.

Irony is not their strong suit.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/19/2010-12-19_julian_assanges_police_report_detailing_rape_charges_leaked_wikileaks_heads_lawy.html#ixzz18fgFimmD

I don’t know if the rape charges are trumped up or not, but you can’t deny that’s funny.

I even think it is shameful that Assange’s right to a full defence may have been compromised by the leak of the as-yet unsubstantiated allegations contained in his Stockholm police file.

Still, it is the height of hypocrisy to insist Assange be free to leak whatever he wishes, regardless of the consequences, to discredit others with whom he disagrees ideologically, then appear to be genuinely shocked when the same tactics are used against him.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/20/lorne-gunter-really-wilileaks-assange-enraged-by-being-leaked-against/#ixzz18fhWM3ck

Yeah nothing’s really resulted from this has it? Just kind of a lot of noise and confirmations of that which everybody already knew.

Besides you can’t tell me that this guy isn’t guilty of some bad shit. Just look at him. He’s got evil villain written all over his greasy albino hair. You know he’s got at least one underground lair.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0726-julian-assange-wikileaks.jpg/8376627-1-eng-US/0726-Julian-Assange-WikiLeaks.jpg_full_600.jpg

yeah i think you’re arguement will hold in court.

Most of the effects are “hypothetical” like the 75-year-old dentist who escaped Iran fearing for his families life: LINK. That’s why Assange didn’t make TIME’s “Person of the Year” - because we haven’t seen much out of this.

The only thing for sure is that lower-level secret access has been restricted to higher levels between government agencies, which was the effect Assange was looking for. It puts a dent in the armor of our post-911 era of broader information sharing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7300034n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

60 minutes interviews from tonight + some special features.

honestly, i’m in total awe of how smart this guy is. He took some heavy questioning from Kroft and met with very precise and relevant counterpoints.

For me, he is the most intriguing person alive.

Wikileaks just nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

and rightfully so.

if they awarded it last year to that chinese guy who was in captivity then Wikileaks will definitely get it…

The Nobel Peace prize isnt for sale or under political pressure like the Time Person of the Year award

They gave one to Obama for doing nothing, Wikileaks better get one, lol.

i stand corrected, the NPP is totally for sale in teh name of publicity