Assange arrested in Britain

Discuss

120 Responses to “Assange arrested in Britain”

  1. Ugly Canuck says:

    Here’s something to help people to keep their eyes (and thus their minds) on the right set of balls:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points

    Puerility begone!

    PS Are we really going to bomb Iran to protect women’s rights?

  2. Avram / Moderator says:

    According to this Swedish blogger, “sex by surprise” is not a formal Swedish legal term, but rather a dismissive Swedish slang term for rape.

    Which is what I suspected, because I’d encountered the English phrase “surprise sex”, also a dismissive slang term for rape, years ago. Urban Dictionary has a cite as early as 2003.

    I wouldn’t be surprised (sexually or otherwise) to find that “sex by surprise” is actually the English “surprise sex” translated into Swedish and then back into English. I’m also not surprised to learn that a lawyer speaking for one party in a legal case is not a neutral, objective source.

  3. Bulone says:

    Plutocratic society effectively wounded a tiger – Assange. It wouldn’t take long for this tiger to bite back with his trove of uncensored documents. Be afraid, be very afraid.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I created a small supporter-website I created a small supporter-website: http://has-julian-assange-already-been-deported-to-the-us.de/

  5. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know if Assange did or didn’t, but, hypothetically, if you agree to have sex with someone on the understanding that they will use a condom and then they take it off and bareback you that’s rape/sexual assault (consult your local criminal code). Consent has been vitiated. It’s the same as if you consent to have a doctor take out your appendix and then the doctor takes out your gall bladder or testicles or amputates a leg or does the surgery while masturbating (don’t laugh I covered a sex assault case in Ottawa where a doc was performing analgesic injections of morphine on a chronic pain sufferer and unzipped and stroked himself while he was doing it) In any of those cases you consented to one thing and something you didn’t consent to happened instead. As a result your consent has been vitiated (that’s what they determined in the case in Ottawa). In the medical examples that just means an assault has taken place. But in a sexual scenario it would be a (in Canada anyway) SEXUAL assault.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Just wanted to offer my emotional support, as a survivor of a sex crime myself, to the women have brought these charges. I doubt that they themselves see the charges as some kind of conspiracy theory political maneuvering and I hope that they’re able to get their lives back together soon. Things like trust and relationships can be very difficult after an experience like the one described.

  7. caipirina says:

    Among next year’s oscar contenders … the Wikileaks movie … with a tag line like ‘you cannot have sex with 2 Swedish women and then release 250.000 documents without making some enemies’

    Who should play Assange?

    • andygates says:

      Surely Julian Sands should play Assange. Both blond, foreheady, able to deliver a good intellectual rant, a little bit sexy and a little bit creepy. In fact given the names, I think they’re the same guy from two aspects of the multiverse.

      Back on topic… this sounds like a classic “he said, she said” allegation. How do those normally play out in Swedish law?

    • scifijazznik says:

      Who should play Assange?

      Crispin Glover.

  8. imag says:

    My mastercard was just declined, and there’s plenty of money in there.

    Jonathan: +1
    Jack: +1

    • Free Thinking Reality says:

      Try your Visa card.

      • imag says:

        Thanks, but I don’t have one.

        I did give to WL a few days ago. I’m curious how all this collection goes. I do worry about the accounts being seized or frozen. Hopefully Iceland is safe from this insanity.

        My guess is that money is not their primary issue. I think they are just fundraising while the iron is hot. Please don’t let that stop you from giving.

  9. Ugly Canuck says:

    The cables themselves are what matters.
    It seems that many on the nets are sharp enough to know that.

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/2059-indecent-exposure-wikileaks-hounded-for-showing-power-its-true-face.html

    ..and the continuing Saga of Assange’s Swedish Affairs shall serve to keep that interest alive.

    Gee the nets sure give a guy stuff to thinks about.

  10. Anonymous says:

    On the upside, this might raise condom awareness.

  11. DWittSF says:

    Apparently, one of the accusers has been caught ‘scrubbing’ her tweets:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

    For Swedish readers, here is the accuser’s ‘revenge’ post:

    http://www.samtycke.nu/2010/09/hamnerskn-fran-gotland/

  12. theawesomerobot says:

    Oh damn it – reports are saying that they’re actually not releasing him on bail. Not incredibly surprising, but being in custody for any amount of time can have major downsides for someone this high-profile.

  13. Jack Squat says:

    hello all, I just wanted to share a link with you.
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html#comments

  14. Anonymous says:

    From Indymedia portal:
    http://liguria.indymedia.org/node/6679

    Arrested genovese Assange
    As the Australian Italian Assange also want him in jail. The spy who stole confidential documents and electronic cable financiers, lawyers, professors, Iranians, social centers will end up in prison.
    The trap of the secret services for quite a while will no longer bother. Unless you leave the computer (as Assange). Could intercede for him his friend Putin (including former secret agents, there is always a bit of solidarity).
    From Il Secolo XIX newspaper of Genoa today:
    Pesto’s Wikileaks, the Genoese Assange ends with arrests
    Altana Peter, 45 years old, a former secret service employee, for newspapers and many blogs has become a sort of genoese Julian Assange. And the constant and widespread dissemination of confidential files on the business full-bodied of Genoa (maxi mergers of public companies, studies on the revolutions of the traffic, background information on the work of luminaries of science and especially malfeasance within the bank) keeps close to the figure of at least the suggestion Australian journalist, who made her blush with cable chancelleries over the world.
    Doing the right proportions of fame and weight of the mutual scoop, there is another detail in common with a few hours, and is purely judicial. As the creator of Wikileaks, a few days ago, was jailed in London for a crime “disconnected” to the pandemonium of these days (the accusation of rape is to have two Swedish girls forced to have unprotected sex) as well the 007 that targets the Genoese came to a standstill, in this case “home”. Proved fatal to the conviction ‘final’ documents for stolen many years ago. At the same time, Altana, is one of the main suspects for the files that between October and November were circulated through the Indymedia site antagonist, confidential documents against the Carige bank, secret messages inside your local authorities or the scientific director of the Gaslini Hospital, Lorenzo Moretta.

    http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/genova/2010/12/11/AMQLEDPE-wikileaks_assange_genovese.shtml

  15. user23 says:

    meanwhile, operation payback continues to fire their lazors and DDoS Assange’s apparent enemies. Ironically, anonops.net is being DDoS’d as well.

    I have the tingly feeling that WW2.5 has just been declared.

  16. Rob Beschizza says:

    The ‘new paperwork’ the Brits received, detailed a little in the bail hearing, outline more details of the allegations.

    Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations.

    She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of 14 August in Stockholm.

    The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

    The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.

    The third charge claimed Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on 18 August “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

    The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

    Given these specifics, the earlier ‘sex by surprise’ and ‘broken condom’ stuff really is irrelevant now except as (rather convincing) evidence that the prosecutors are acting under political influence/crap at issuing arrest warrants/etc.

  17. Free Thinking Reality says:

    You can still send WikiLeaks money. Just sent 10 euros (about $7.50 USD) via Visa to the site https://donations.datacell.com/. It worked just fine.

    Here’s the confirmation text:

    Thank you for your donation.

    Your payment of EUR 10 has been received 7.12.2010
    With your VISA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Reference : XX757

    The Wikileaks Team, Sunshine Press

    Don’t believe you can’t make contributions until you confirm it yourself. Be courageous. Keep WikiLeaks strong.

  18. Jack Squat says:

    As this story has grown it last few days it finally made much more sense to say,who gives a crap about this sex sting? Does it do anything to discredit the data already out and the data that is to come? I don’t think so. All of this focus on these allegations is exactly what the goons responsible for the deplorable state of perpetual war. I have said it before,the elitist pigs are being exposed as to who they really are,,pure-true-evil.

    • imag says:

      I would argue that they are just self interested.

      Dianne Feinstein is especially good at the game: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/04/red-alert-feinsteins-husband-hits.html

      I also don’t think Obama is evil. I think they’ve got him totally bound up. There are systematic problems. The military industrial complex and the banking cartels are forces that are beyond even the office of the Presidency at this point.

      I think it’s sad that Obama doesn’t seem to be fighting them a bit more, but I think he’s probably too pragmatic to do it. It takes a zealot to risk his or her family to go up against the banks and the military; I think Obama is just looking to do what good he can, while avoiding the really serious problems.

      Lieberman is a nutcase who wants a fascist state, as far as I can tell. Maybe he’s evil.

      Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal are just part of the banking industry, which sure isn’t going to support the truth getting out. Self interest again.

      People want bigger cars, bigger houses, and their own security. We have elevated greed even above all, including our ideals. This is the result. I think calling it “evil” is too simple, and prevents us from seeing solutions.

      The way the Constitutional founders drafted a system around the various parties’ self interest was pretty astonishing, and it served us for over 200 years. Something like that process may need to happen again for us to get back a system that functions for the people. It will have to rule out corporate personhood. I’m not holding my breath.

  19. Anonymous says:

    So, the international banking mafia has absconded with how many trillions, bin Laden is still free, and the global international “justice” system has mobilized to apprehend a guy who had sex without a condom?

    This is a fucked up planet.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Some of that type of shit was bound to brake…

    Whatever his actual role with wiki leaks is… Smear jobs are standard procedure for people with elevated visibility – doesn’t matter if he is with or against the system.

    If he is against the system, should get smeared to lower his credibility with the common idiot – who still looks at character APPEARANCE instead of CONTENT and QUALITY. Meaning: when a child rapist serial killer says that 2+2=4 it is just as correct and valid as when a living saint says 2+2=4.

    And if he is with the system smear jobs give him credibility as they are expected and would raise lots of suspicion if they were lacking…

    And whether or not he is stupid enough to fall in for the old trick with – commissioned young cunny jail bait, remains to be seen.

    And who cares any way … Accusations are often harder to refute than actual facts.

    Classic case of bullshit weaving…

  21. Anonymous says:

    >You know, say what you will about Assange, but the
    > guy’s got fucking balls.

    And he should be rewarded for it, not arrested. He’s done the world a favor.

    It’s funny, but whenever the government invades OUR privacy they always say that “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear”, right?

    Well, if *they’ve* done nothing wrong…

    • dada says:

      Assange in Australian op ed
      “People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars.”

      name one just war Mr Assange

      • Jack Squat says:

        two “just” that come to mind would be the
        2 we are in now. Did the usa need to go to
        war in Iraq? 911 was an inside job and both
        the war we are in now are fake and based on
        false flag events/Loose Change.

  22. Abelard Lindsay says:

    I must say, that is a truly outstanding sex inquiry.

  23. theawesomerobot says:

    He actually just turned himself in – this was all planned ahead of time. He’ll likely be out on bail within a day or two (unless of course they decide he’d be a threat to the public).

    He’s not really vital to the operation of the group, as he put it himself he’s just kind of the “lightning rod”. This is the best way to keep the focus off of his controversy (because being in hiding is way more interesting to the media outlets than simply turning yourself in); probably the best move in the end as long as the government treats this fairly.

    As a side note: I also learned through this that the British bail system isn’t actually based on any sort of monetary value, just perceived public threat. Man, those guys are backwards /s

  24. GrymRpr says:

    “Wikileaks’ Julian Assange was arrested today in Britain. The charges stem from the outstanding sex inquiry in Sweden, where he was accused of sex offenses. ”

    Should read:
    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange was arrested today in Britain. The charges stem from the outstanding sex inquiry in Sweden, where he was accused of having “Sex Without a Condom”.

    Arrest Warrant for “Sex Crimes” Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is for “Sex Without a Condom”, NOT Non-Consensual Rape Using Force
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

    • Niklas says:

      Forcing non-consensual sex without condom is having non-consensual sex is rape. What is your problem with that?

      • Cowicide says:

        Forcing non-consensual sex without condom is having non-consensual sex is rape.

        Did this happen? Were you there? Why don’t you come forward with your eyewitness testimony?

        • Niklas says:

          I was not referring specifically to what Assange did or did not do. I was trying to stop the whole “Nanana, she did not violently kick him out of the door, therefore it is not rape”-brigade that subscribe to the middle ages p.o.v. on women rights from ruining this thread.

          As for whether Assange did confess to knowing that she did not want sex with him:

          Read the transcript at http://www.aklagare.se/

      • GrymRpr says:

        “Forcing non-consensual sex without condom is having non-consensual sex is rape. What is your problem with that?”

        Forcing?

        Arrest Warrant for “Sex Crimes” Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is for “Sex Without a Condom”, NOT Non-Consensual Rape Using Force
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

  25. bjacques says:

    Yeah, that was a radio interview with WingnutDaily. Disagreements are one thing, but tossing red meat to wingnuts is beyond the pale. Anyway, I’ve been reading the email chains that Mr. Young posted to nettime.org (disclosure: I’m a subscriber and know some of the people on it). The first chain shows philosophical differences arising already between Mr. Young and (I presume) Mr. Assange even before the $5 million figure is broached.

    But it’s plain Wikileaks hoped at that time (7 Jan 2007), even before going public, to scale up from 20 or so people who need to eat (make that about $500,000 if they all quit their jobs) to a multilingual capability presumably involving more people. $5 million is ambitious, but not silly money for what they hope to do. Secure server space can’t be cheap.

    Whatever. Going through the first email chain, I find Assange’s prose a bit over the top sometimes. But if it really gets too much, you say ciao bella and walk. But between Christmas and the Epiphany, Young went from lodging mild but sarcastic criticisms to pitching a fit. And then throwing WL’s business out on the street. The irony, man! A somewhat well-known (in the 1980s and 1990s) serial ex-member of various alternative groups would approve.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I suppose MK-ULTRA guys will have a ball with him while he’s in custody. Expect radical changes of posture soon after he’s out of the dock.

  27. benher says:

    This Rape case is huge! Interpol, the UN, the UK, the US, some other U’s, and the rest of the Anglo-sphere are burning the candle at both ends… to bring this SEX(y) criminal to JUSTICE!

  28. FruitSmack! says:

    So…is his arrest going to see the release of the encrypted documents that Wikileaks had in case of shutdown of the site or the arrest of Assange?

    • Rob Beschizza says:

      Eightball says no.

      • FruitSmack! says:

        That would be disappointing, just from a curiosity stand point, but since he turned himself in, I’m guessing you’re right.

        Still, we’ve had W, Cheney, and Co. basically admit to the world at various points that they’ve committed what most consider war-crimes and people haven’t batted an eye (or worse, defended their actions) so no matter what is in those documents, I’m sure they won’t lead to anything happening. Depressing.

        I wonder if Julian Assange ever gets depressed that there is more coverage and outrage of his (potentially) trumped up legal issues than there is for the kind of stuff that Wikileaks releases.

        • theawesomerobot says:

          If there even is anything in the documents. The best part of the insurance is that it may fully well be a bluff. I sure hope we find out someday.

  29. jennybean42 says:

    I mean, if “Sex without a condom” is a crime, I know a hella lot of sex criminals.

  30. happyez says:

    I like your thinking. Just to be contra for the hell of it…

    Assange is more than that.

    1. Figureheads are important. If they take him down, they scare other people who might think of doing the same thing. Also, once they are done with him, how long do you think the rest of the Wikileaks core team will last? They will all go down.

    All is not linear my friend. A few things:
    • the org was reliant on JA, as JA made it clear that he was to be relied upon. From what I heard, his attention on the US was taking WL from it’s original aim to publish everything on govt around the world.
    Now that JA is out of the picture, for now, WL now has a chance to reorganise. Under massive stress. I believe they can do it, because you need incredible intelligence to work within WL.
    • the core team may expand. People who were put off by JA’s arrogance, now has a chance to come in. I would assume that the amount of help WL has been offered has been huge.
    It all depends on what they do with it
    • Figureheads, like JAm, are very important I do agree. However, a new figurehead may or may not arise.
    A lot of people give based on personality and links to it, not on beliefs
    However…
    WL has a lot still going for it, because they have the banking docs to leak yet, the rest of the Cablegate stuff, and a lot more around that they haven’t had time to look at.

    Another thought, as this arrest etc approached, I would imagine that JA etc would have seen that this time in the org is about to go, so I would think they would have worked out a strategy to combat this. Otherwise, its goodbye WL

    If WL goes down, because of internal phuckups and other leakers, then I feel less for them, and hope that people learn from it, and improve. Sadly, so will the ‘establishment’. So all is level.

    me thinks…

    2. If Wikileaks has to just start throwing every leak they get straight on Bittorrent, then the information flow really might be dangerous for anyone named. Wholesale release is likely to be a mess, although it may be the only way to keep the net wide enough to allow free dissemination.

    I would doubt they’d torrent unredacted info. That is a suicide mission.
    Bulk release will probably only happen if the people left in WL are not as smart as JA.

    3. Wikileaks – due to the public face of Assange – is getting more leaks the more they leak. Leakers are scared (with reason). They want to go to a proven organization. They don’t want to just throw stuff at a sketchy group of anonymous hackers. Bringing down Wikileaks and Assange means that there will be fewer leaks. The USG knows this – that’s why they’re going after him.

    I agree totally. It will take time for this new ex-WL staff mob to get going. However, in a years time, if they improve on WLs model…

    Nice points you’ve made!

    • imag says:

      Likewise – nice points.

      I think the whole figurehead thing is interesting. It shows that people still respond to a personality. If the USG persecutes an organization, it won’t have as much carrying capacity in the media. I’m not sure whether the public face does more harm than good, but I’m suspecting that it is a net positive for WL.

      Without Julian, the Powers that Be could demonize the organization at will, labeling them as simple terrorists. And I think without Julian, the press would be less interested in reporting the cable info. It obviously cuts both ways, as they report on him at the expense of the cable news. I may absolutely be wrong.

      I do think we’re going to learn a lot in the next month about the strategies that will be used over the next couple decades. And I suspect that Assange will go down in history as one of the key pioneers, no matter how it goes.

  31. ibbers says:

    the swedish side of things is super murky – all mixed up swedish politics some how (http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2010/08/strangest-blog-thread-yet-on-swedish.html)

    whilst at the same time, my (and Assange’s) PM has decided he is guilty of ‘illegality’ – best not to worry about the rule of law when the interests of foreign powers conflict with the interests of Australian citizens (plus, our Foreign Affairs Dept seems to have a culture of devaluing Australian citizenship – we ignore citizens being tortured, we also deport Oz citizens to other countries, or just lock Oz citizens in ‘illegal refugee’ camps for the hell of it).

    There’s a blog on the original UK #twitdef issue regarding a ‘conspiracy of sentiment’ which is relevant partly to the wikileaks issue too (http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2010/11/a-conspiracy-of-sentiment.html).

  32. Brillobreaks says:

    So let me see if I got this straight- two feminist anti-casto CIA operatives had sex with him, bragged/blogged/celebrated/twittered it publicly shortly thereafter, delete the celebrator twitters and accused him of rape. Worst operatives ever, or worst conspiracy theories ever? I can’t quite decide.

  33. awjtawjt says:

    Hahaha! What a crock. “Sex by surprise”. LOLOLOL.

  34. ibbers says:

    i’m also mildly concerned about the legislative onslaught that is sure to be attempted once the dust settles from all of this. i’d bet anything that something’s already in the pipeline – however unrealistic it is.

  35. GrymRpr says:

    And I’ll leave this here:

    Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

  36. Anonymous says:

    When did we capture Osama bin Laden? We must have, right? Because I thought he was the world’s most wanted man, not this Assange fellow.

  37. nanuq says:

    So does this mean they’re finally going to start cracking down on other fugitives from justice charged with sex offenses, i.e. Roman Polanski?

    Didn’t think so.

  38. Rob Beschizza says:

    Notwithstanding the fact that Assange is possibly or even obviously being hounded for political reasons here, I feel compelled to point out that you can be charged with rape in many jurisdictions should you refuse to stop after consent is withdrawn.

    Foreign charges often sound absurd or trivial when lifted from their meaningful legal context, but hyping that angle is pointless when it boils down to something everyone understands, even if the charges themselves appear specious for other reasons.

    • GrymRpr says:

      Melbourne barrister James D. Catlin, who acted for Julian Assange in London in October:

      “Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.”

      http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

      Rob, Please point out any place where it says they withdrew consent.

      • Rob Beschizza says:

        See, your problem is you can’t stop confusing the truth (as you and most people see it) with the fact that prosecutors can and do apply charges whose truthfulness is doubtful. Really, how can this be your first rodeo?

        The law here is analogous to ‘widthdrawn consent,’ however easy it is to make it look stupid when translated into English. (Another translation has been “sex by surprise,” also absurd in English but at least indicative of the fact that there is, from the law’s standpoint, a real issue of consent.)

        The political pressures clearly involved in the prosecution are a better target, IMO, than word games over the naming of foreign sex offenses.

    • Irene Delse says:

      “Foreign charges often sound absurd or trivial when lifted from their meaningful legal context, but hyping that angle is pointless when it boils down to something everyone understands, even if the charges themselves appear specious for other reasons.”

      I’d rewrite that as “something everyone in one given culture understands (or should understand), but which is a frequent occasion for blunders for people outside that culture”. There’s a whole painful history of cultural misapprehensions leading to bad sex encounters, notably when one party is confused about the signals the other party is sending.

      • mathdemon says:

        There’s a whole painful history of cultural misapprehensions leading to bad sex encounters, notably when one party is confused about the signals the other party is sending.

        You mean like when NO in one culture means YES in another? Isn’t that a common “misapprehension” between rapists and their victims?

        • Irene Delse says:

          If you’ve already decided what happened, obviously there’s nothing to debate about. You may even take the place of the judge and jury, for that matter.

          • mathdemon says:

            If you’ve already decided what happened, obviously there’s nothing to debate about. You may even take the place of the judge and jury, for that matter.

            I don’t know what happened. Maybe it was rape, maybe it wasn’t. I’ll quote you again:

            I’d rewrite that as “something everyone in one given culture understands (or should understand), but which is a frequent occasion for blunders for people outside that culture”.

            Confident enough to rephrase Rob’s sentence indicates to me that you think you know what happened. Your claim was “cultural misapprehensions leading to bad sex encounters, notably when one party is confused about the signals the other party is sending.”

            I don’t know how much you think Australian culture diverges from Swedish culture, but I would say not enough for a “no” to be interpreted as “yes”. I assume that a nod is “yes” and a shake of the head is “no” in both cultures, and as both spoke English, I am sure a “no” means “no” in both English with a Swedish and an Australian accent. “Cultural misapprehension” might have been plausible (but still far fetched) if the girls were from Bulgaria (where a nod is a “no” and a shake is a “yes”). Unless one believes that all blonde Swedish “vackra flickor” are “sluts” who actually mean “yes” when they say “no”, the signals can impossible be misunderstood. So if there can be no misunderstanding, a “bad sex encounter” creates a rapist and a victim.

            Having said that, I still don’t know if rape occurred or not. The court will have to decide on that.

  39. Damien says:

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-founder-arrested-in-london-20101207-18ogq.html

    Julian Assange is being defended in court by none other than Geoffrey Robertson QC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Robertson)

    This is going to get even more interesting.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Wow! Assange cornered and detained, his bank account closed, Paypal refuses to accept donations from him and his lawyers are being harassed. All that mess for a broken condom?

    In other news, the Bin Laden family is still wealthy.

  41. Anonymous says:

    I am not a lawyer but my father was a senior policeman in the UK, we have been listening closely to the news reports and they constantly say Julian is wanted for ‘questioning’ in Sweden on these charges. However my father tells me that under UK law someone cannot be extradited for questioning, the evidence must be already held by those making the charge. The guilty party must be ‘guilty’. That has not been determined.

    Welcome to a another facet of the smear campaign.

    Regards.

  42. Free Thinking Reality says:

    Sorry your MasterCard did not work. Both Visa and MasterCard prepaid credit and debit cards can only be used in the US. That may be the problem. Tried https://donations.datacell.com/ again and it still works. Keep trying. The fallback is to do a bank transfer to Iceland. Let’s keep WikiLeaks strong.

  43. redesigned says:

    anyone who thinks this is not a smear campaign, needs to pull their heads out of their a**! imho.

  44. ncinerate says:

    Ok, so far the plan is going well. Operation honeypot is a success, the condoms split as expected. Now Sweden follows along with their sexual charges against sex without a condom – predicated on Assange potentially having HIV.

    Now all they have to do is give Assange HIV and we’ve got a murderer on our hands!

    Thankfully, one of the operatives was already HIV positive, so that should make things simpler.

    Seriously though, I wonder if there is -anyone- else in sweden facing similar charges (sex by surprise?!? sex without condom?!?). Do we have a swedish lawyer laying around here that can tell us if there’s been any sort of prosecution vs people for similar “offenses”? And do these offenses end up with a defendant denied bail?

    Things are looking really really fishy.

  45. Jack Squat says:

    Just a quick reminder that the cause is growing!
    Please if you can help in any way start now.
    This is the new war. We must be willing to
    sacrifice more that our worthless money..stay
    strong people. This is the battle we have been
    waiting for! Gear Up!
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27007.htm

  46. enkiv2 says:

    http://23ae.com/2010/12/assange-is-not-the-target/ is the best writeup of this I’ve seen. We have to remember: Assange is little more than a pretty face, and a scapegoat in a scape-the-goat scheme that is ultimately doomed. Why anyone is shocked (or even surprised) that wikileaks exists (or that it *gasp* releases leaks) I don’t know.

    • imag says:

      Assange is more than that.

      1. Figureheads are important. If they take him down, they scare other people who might think of doing the same thing. Also, once they are done with him, how long do you think the rest of the Wikileaks core team will last? They will all go down.

      2. Despite, the FUD, Wikileaks has been very responsible about its information releases. They have worked with international media to redact documents, and to make sure that information is appropriately discussed. If Wikileaks has to just start throwing every leak they get straight on Bittorrent, then the information flow really might be dangerous for anyone named. Wholesale release is likely to be a mess, although it may be the only way to keep the net wide enough to allow free dissemination.

      3. Wikileaks – due to the public face of Assange – is getting more leaks the more they leak. Leakers are scared (with reason). They want to go to a proven organization. They don’t want to just throw stuff at a sketchy group of anonymous hackers. Bringing down Wikileaks and Assange means that there will be fewer leaks. The USG knows this – that’s why they’re going after him.

      4. Finally, just from a human standpoint: we should not let someone who stands up be taken down without a fight. It is up to all of us to do what we can to prevent it. If you speak up, or if you want to run a freenet node, wouldn’t you want people to stand up for you if the USG started attacking you?

      I agree with your overall point – the internet is just starting to spool up in terms of what it can do. I disagree, though, with the characterization of Assange as an unimportant actor.

  47. bradmofo says:

    He has been denied bail. No surprises, then.

    • imag says:

      This is sick. No bail for a broken condom case, where one of the “victims” talked about how proud she was about her conquest the next day.

      WL really needs to get the bank info out there.

      • Niklas says:

        WL really need to out the truth on this case out there. If there is so much possibility to discredit the prosecution, why not do it?

  48. teapot says:

    Pfft, what a load of bullshit. If Miss A and Miss W were a little more consistent with their accusations this whole farce would seem a little more believable.

    Also it was a bad idea hiring a lawyer who seems more interested in raising his profile instead of, you know justice. Can’t wait for Julian to be acquitted. Even if he did something untoward (which I seriously doubt such a paranoid control-freak who is aware of the target on his back would do) his accusers have bungled their case so badly that a judge would have to be an idiot not to dismiss the charges outright based on:

    *The flaky, ever-changing “evidence”
    *The defamation and loss of character he has already sustained (for which I hope he sues Miss A & Miss W)
    *The suspect behaviour of the “victims” (bragging about their conquests) and the fact that nothing was a problem until the two met. In any interaction you are either angry you have been done wrong by, or you aren’t… it’s not something that should change a great deal after the fact (unless our good friend jealousy is involved).

    You get no sympathy from me when you drag someone’s reputation through the mud based on very little fact. The only redeeming thing is that when he gets found innocent these women will from that point forever be known as the only two people in the world who were able to contain Julian Assange’s wikileaks.

    Sorry, I just had to.

  49. ncinerate says:

    What I want to know is how does anyone hope to prove -any- of these charges.

    I mean, the whole thing seems like a huge he-said she-said. Clearly there was consensual sex – then broken condoms (2 in a few days, coincidence?), potentially “holding her down” with his body after the broken condom, maybe he had sex while she was sleeping (she must be a -heavy- sleeper, can’t see this actually happening). What possible evidence could they have to make this a valid prosecutable offense?

    Seems like a great big joke. This is pretty clearly sending a message. They -can- get to you, they -will- get to you, and there will be nothing you can do about it.

    • Michael Smith says:

      “I mean, the whole thing seems like a huge he-said she-said. Clearly there was consensual sex – then broken condoms (2 in a few days, coincidence?), potentially “holding her down” with his body after the broken condom, maybe he had sex while she was sleeping (she must be a -heavy- sleeper, can’t see this actually happening). What possible evidence could they have to make this a valid prosecutable offense?

      This case in Australia seems similar to me, but they got a conviction.

    • Anonymous says:

      This has less to do with proving the charges than having an extended stretch of time in which the media – mainstream and otherwise – gets to pound into the public’s collective memory the association between “Assange”, “Wikileaks” and “sex crime”. The details will get lost in the cacophony, while the “knowledge” that Wikileaks is an organization lead by a rapist will stick, at least in enough minds that the talking heads can keep pushing that button and getting a rise out of people. This will be the case weather he did it or not. Like others have said, this has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with smearing Wikileaks.

  50. Ugly Canuck says:

    Gee – I find the laws relating to the extradition of people wanted for crimes in one country from another country fascinating….

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11943192

    …but then again, doesn’t everyone?

  51. imag says:

    Visa and Mastercard have made it impossible to donate to WL by credit card.

    Fucking Evil.

  52. mathdemon says:

    The Swedish case against Assange is built around the possibility of Assange having HIV. If he has HIV (and I still don’t understand why he didn’t give a blood test back in Sweden, and instead decided to run), mutual consent means jack shit.

    Additionally, this whole deal about the accuser having links to the CIA. If this is true, didn’t Assange know about this possible link? Wouldn’t this mean that we could then accuse Wikileaks of having CIA-links, as the accuser was a Wikileaks-volunteer, by the same logic? It seems plausible that this accusation is being spread by Assange’s lawyer(s). What does that say about Assange? What kind of people is he really surrounding himself with? But who is going to leak THAT information? Who’s going to watch the watchers who watch the watchers? As Assange now is in a position of power, somebody should start thinking about watching him.

    More questionmarks:

    - How can we verify that every single dispatch in Wikileaks’ possession is genuine? How can we know that they are true? What if a fraction of these thousands and thousands of dispatches, maybe 100-200 (or 1000-2000 for that matter) are manufactured for the purpose of disinformation?

    - We don’t know the source of the leak (and neither Wikileaks nor the U.S. govt. will verify Bradley as the source).

    - We don’t know the exact amount (as all of them have not been released). Wikileaks can claim to be in possession of a finite number of dispatches, but unless we can get a count from independent sources, we don’t know.

    This “freedom of information”-revolution is dead-born. We are being shoved this “hero” (and who really knows who Assange is?) down our throats, and everybody has lost their ability to think critically.

    My 2 cents.

    • imag says:

      The US Government has not called into question a single cable. Not one. Don’t you think they would, if the cables were faked? Or do you think they would apologize to the international community about faked cables.

      And why would they make up the number of cables? Who cares if they have 25,000 or 250,000, really? It’s the content that counts, and everyone but you and the Iranians seems to realize that the content is real – and the Iranians think Wikileaks is part of a plot by the US government, which makes no sense at all.

      So please stop telling us to think critically when your critical thinking skills are taking you in the wrong direction.

      • toyg says:

        The Iranians *say* it’s a plot and blablabla. The Iranian government plays to its own internal public, like the North Korean one, so you can’t really try to interpret their statements (unless you happen to live there and know the situation on the ground).

        Iranian rulers probably decided that they didn’t want to be seen at home as “surrounded and hated by their own friends”, so they’re spinning conspiracy theories.

      • Anonymous says:

        “The US Government has not called into question a single cable. Not one. Don’t you think they would, if the cables were faked?”

        Why would they, if they were the ones faking (some of) the cables? The CIA has been engaged in international public disinformation campaigns for as long as it has existed, and that includes planting false information. It’s not like anyone would believe a US Government denial, anyway, so why bother?

        Misinformation campaigns also includes hiding or withholding true information, or giving undue weight to some true information while selectively downplaying other true information that does not support the “narrative” that the people in charge want to create.

        The best place to plant a lie is between two truths. And the best way to propagate a lie is by getting your enemies to spread it, by releasing it to a hostile source, and the best way to get a source to have the credibility of being hostile to you is to attack it.

        One can’t help but notice that a lot of these leaked diplomatic cables support the neo-con line about Iran, while none of the cables so far shed any negative light on Israel. Do you really believe there are no negative diplomatic cables about Israel? And yet, it all seems to be about Iran, Iran, Iran. The country it just so happens that the neo-cons want the USA to attack.

        There’s no way we can know the full story about how these leaks got to Wikileaks in the first place; it isn’t just do-gooder whistleblowers who leak, you know. The Bad Guys in government leak, too. Everyone leaks for their own reasons – including Bush, Cheney, Scooter Libby etc – recall Valerie Plame. It’s only a “crime” when the leak isn’t designed to help the government, ie, only when it is meant to expose government wrong doing it is a “crime”.

        So while the idea behind Wikileaks is good and the people running it may be as honest and up front about their motives as can be, that doesn’t preclude the Bad Guys from using Wikileaks for their own purposes.

        It wouldn’t surprise me if the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing – ie, one branch of govt. in the CIA is using Wikileaks to spread misinformation while another branch of govt. in the CIA or elsewhere is trying to shut down Wikileaks to stop the leaking because they can’t control who leaks what.

  53. imag says:

    Visa and Mastercard have made it impossible to donate to WL by credit card.

    Fucking Evil.

  54. Oskar says:

    Everybody on the internet needs to stop speculating about what happened during the alleged rape right fucking now. The reason everyone is speculating is that the Swedish prosecutors don’t release information regarding a crime before that crime goes to court. The women in question have said very little to the press about what happened (the only real statement I could find was one of them calling the idea that it was a frame-up from the pentagon ridiculous), and Assange obviously denies it. We simply don’t know what happened, if it was a dispute about condoms or whatever. We don’t know. Nobody but the people involved know. Stop reading sketchy blogs.

    What we know is that we are talking about several women, not just one, and that the charge is not some minor charge, it’s serious. He’s been charged with rape and sexual molestation. This is the text of the Swedish penal code concerning rape:

    A person who by violence or threat which involves, or appears to
    the threatened person to involve an imminent danger, forces another
    person to have sexual intercourse or to engage in a comparable
    sexual act, that having regard to the nature of the violation and the
    circumstances in general, is comparable to enforced sexual
    intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least
    two and at most six years. Causing helplessness or a similar state of
    incapacitation shall be regarded as equivalent to violence.

    Sure, he might be innocent. But he wasn’t charged with “Sex by surprise”, “sex without a condom”, or anything else silly-sounding. He was charged with rape. Stop believing things you read on sketchy blogs, where the writers don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

    • wrybread says:

      “Stop believing things you read on sketchy blogs, where the writers don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”

      Presumably that would include your rant, appearing as it does on a “sketchy blog” (I mean that as a compliment), and, I think, by someone who “doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about”?

      But the much greater point is that these charges are obviously being used to intimidate and silence him. There’s plenty of full-on rapists running around Europe, and somehow none of the other ones warrant this kind of manhunt.

  55. awjtawjt says:

    I wouldn’t donate to wikileaks. What are you thinking? Do you donate to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal?

    • imag says:

      The NYT and the WSJ use advertising and corporate ownership for their funds. That’s why we don’t seen independent investigation on these subjects from them.

      That’s why we need journalist capacities like Wikileaks. The corporate owned media won’t/can’t do their jobs.

      So do I donate to maintain a free press on this planet? Goddamn right I do. I pay a hell of a lot more to the other three branches of government, and I’m not very impressed the fact that they’re spending my money killing people, silencing people, and torturing people.

      • awjtawjt says:

        Sure, but how about a viable business model instead?

        • imag says:

          So you’re saying they should *sell* the information? Yeah, that would go over well.

          It’s a cliche, but the power of the internet is that it lets small players publish without massive resources. The fact that a small player doesn’t *need* a for-profit model, the fact that they can publish for just the cost of web service – that’s a really good thing for free speech.

          Our history has been plagued by media controlled by the wealthy and powerful. The fact that we have a mechanism to be freed from that should be celebrated, not criticized.

          Or are you one of those people who thinks we can only trust things if they generate money? If so: would you ever loan a family member money without charging them interest? Do you value libraries? Do you believe that you should charge a friend if they ask a favor from you? The point I’m making is that the most important things often do not, and should not, have profit motives attached. I think this is one of them.

          • awjtawjt says:

            I’m not saying what they should or should not do… or that everything needs to be corporatized (yuck, no)… all I’m saying is that if I had that information, I’d be looking for the highest bidder. I’d gladly trade a showmanship opportunity for landing a huge whale of cash. Hey, call it what you will: I’m practical.

          • imag says:

            Oh. I see. My guess is that the risk/reward tradeoff is not that good for trading in leaks. I wouldn’t expect someone who did that on a regular basis to live long. I also doubt they’d publicize like Wikileaks does.

            The thing to remember is this: the powers that be will bring up ANYTHING possible to make Assange look bad. The fact that there’s not more ammunition suggests to me that he’s not that bad a person.

          • HeavyManners says:

            “Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic “public interest” PR, says Cryptome operator John Young in a scathing critique of the site.”
            http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/

          • imag says:

            Where is the evidence?

            You know, say what you will about Assange, but the guy’s got fucking balls. He’s not stupid. He knew what he was doing when he said he was going to release information on the banks, and on Russia. He knew what he was getting into with Cablegate.

            Is he a narcissist? I have no idea. I do know that he’s putting his life on the line to bring out the truth. People who are able to do that are not always “normal”. If he were normal, he’d be sitting on his ass in front of the TV, working for The Man. How many revolutionaries were normal, nice gents? You think the guys who started the revolutionary war were a bunch of nice little cream puffs?

            For chrissakes people. Of course the guy is not “normal” (not that I know anyone who is). “Normal” people don’t take on an entire US empire, the international banking cartel, and Russia in one week.

            But the ACTIONS I have seen him take fit precisely with what he said he was going to do, and what he says he wants to do. And when I read what he says, it makes a lot of sense:

            http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php

            In fact, what Assange says makes way more sense to me than what Feinstein is saying, or the US Attorney General. *Those* people are narcissistic. Those people are attacking us. Put the credit where it is due.

          • Ugly Canuck says:

            Good ol’ Cryptome.

          • Anonymous says:

            Imag, you really need to be more educated on Wikileaks and the media in general. The DID try a model of selling their information to media outlets, in an auction format. Assange himself talked about it. You can easily find it online.

            Your assertion that private journalists are always going to be open and honest is a incorrect. Actually, private citizens more often write about subjects they know and like and tend to be more biased about it, intentionally or unintentionally leaving out other points of view or facts that disprove or contrast what they are writing.

            It is more often the case that PAID journalists cover things more broadly and that the better articles are written by those who do not have a vested interest in a subject. Assange, again, said this about his own network as it grew.

            Your assertion that journalists in larger media outlets are some how inherently more biased is inaccurate. I have worked in both large and small outlets and often there is more “business pressure” at smaller outlets because the bottom line hits closer to home. I’ve had far more lively and ethical journalistic debates and have seen more integrity at larger newsrooms. Sometimes when there is a lot of money involved it allows editorial departments to create a shield against the business side. The NY Times has many times written bad things about companies that advertise in their paper.

            Certainly they have faltered (see lead up to Iraq war), but that doesn’t mean small-timers don’t, as well.

            There are limits, of course, massive media conglomerates are not a good thing, and when an owner (see Rupert Murdoch) has editorial influence, that’s bad news altogether.

            But don’t be so naive/idealistic as to think private citizens are any less truthful sometimes. The failure of the mainstream media lay mostly in its inability to understand how to use the Internet, not because the blogosphere is someone more honest.

            I think the answer is for major media orgs to be set up as non-profits, whereby they make enough to pay staff operations costs. Works fairly well for NPR.

  56. Jonathan says:

    How about a Swedish criminal lawyer as the next BB guestblogger?

  57. Rob Beschizza says:

    If you can’t make it through a denunciation of these charges without calling women bitches or some other similarly moronic thing, don’t be surprised if your comment vanishes.

  58. Lobster says:

    Assange is just one man. He did not produce the leaks, he facilitated information that would have found its way into the public eye one way or another. We need to stop idolizing – and vilifying – this man. He is not the story here.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Assange is pretty smart, he may well be safer in custody, those Russian serkit service polonium teacup assassins, nevermind Neocons, bankers and deposed despots.

    It would be embarrasing if he was wakked in custody of Her Majesty.

    The last thing the evilcrats want is a martyr.

    Democracy requires an informed electorate.

    These guys have definitely drawn a line in the sand, I mean you either believe in freedom or you want to be ruled. The laissez faire attitude by the sheeple of oh well we are in difficult times rings as false as backscatter scans.

    We need to take responsibilty for the evil done in our names by the rulers.

    Fsck this fscking war and crash and crisis lets get the heck into space.

    When I was born men were on the moon.
    Then we turned our backs on the sky, and became dirty complicit, scared, retaliatory, violent sheep.
    Our destiny is out there.

    Julian Assange lead us to the stars.

  60. Ugly Canuck says:

    “…when it boils down to something everyone understands”

    Does it?
    If you say so, I guess.

    How is US Government mal- and mis-feasance as revealed by the cables leaked by Wikileaks so far, related in any way to any individual’s sex life?

    Or is that “something everybody understands”, too?

    Maybe that’s why the “news media” is so silent and unhelpful about the actual texts and contents of the cables?

  61. sdmikev says:

    Bail denied:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_on_hi_te/wikileaks

    Let this be a lesson to you kids out there. If you expose the plutocrats or government corruption, you WILL be taken down.
    Freedom and the flow of information and truth have no place in the 21st century. Our overlords cannot allow it.
    Next on the list was supposed to be Wall Street insiders. Funny how all this is coming down this week.

  62. Mister44 says:

    So what did he do – fuck a moose? I thought Europe was pretty liberal in their views on sex. You know – chips, dips, chains, whips.

Leave a Reply