5 ms·
Prosecutors withdraw warrant for WikiLeaks founder Assange
- w1ntermute 16y agoAnyone have ideas as to why they would even bother with making such a charge just to withdraw it so quickly? It looks especially bad in light of Wikileaks' recent activities.
- studer 16y agoAccording to the interview with one of the victims, it was a consensual situation that got out of hand (in two separate cases). That description is perfectly consistent with the behavior of the prosecutors here; under Swedish law, depending on the exact details, such behaviour might be interpreted as rape, molestation, or just someone being an asshat. After digging into the details, the prosecutors seem to have gone from the rape end of the scale to the asshat end, and that's not a valid cause for arrest.
- orborde 16y agoLink?
- Hagelin 16y agoCrappy Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2FNyheter%2F1.2105516%2Fkvinnan-anklagelserna-forstas-inte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-annan&sl=sv&tl=en http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&i... It’s based on this article, but Google won’t translate it: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
- rue 16y agoThis, alternately, lends credibility to a smear campaign or a cash grab. In the case of the former, flaunting rape allegations only to withdraw them makes people susceptible to taking the insidious "asshat" argument at face value without wondering too much because it seems that everyone is acting responsibly and rationally in contrast to earlier. In the latter, having filed charges whether successful or not (and with the same "asshat" implication) legitimises selling the story to gossip magazines. In both cases, there is some tarnish to the reputation unless completely debunked. Or of course the allegations are true.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nkassis 16y agoThis has got to be explained. Issuing such a warrant should not be taken lightly. The fact that it was withdrawn so fast should put some pressure on the prosecutors to explain themselves. I don't know if they have an obligation but this just makes all the conspiracies more believable. As Colbert would say the truthiness of the conspiracies has increased.
- TomOfTTB 16y agoI'd think this would make you less likely to believe in conspiracies. If this were a conspiracy someone at a high level would have agreed to it and the whole point of it would be to get media coverage. What happened instead is just the opposite. As soon as the case started getting media coverage the high level people went into over drive to investigate the claim and determined it was unfounded. Even if the conspiracy was just to get the claim out there briefly the Swedish government wouldn't have withdrawn it by saying the charge was unfounded. If it was a conspiracy they wouldn't give a reason or they'd say it's still under investigation. That way people who were inclined not to trust Assange could continue to believe it.
- nkassis 16y agoTin foil hat on: I'm assuming that the high level person who looked into it and asked them to withdraw the warrant knew not of the other high level (could also not be swedish) person who asked for the warrant to be issued. Secret services have ways of gettings done. But they aren't always good at it. EDIT: clearing up what I'm trying to say ;p
- TomOfTTB 16y agoI supposed it's possible but the CIA would have to be pretty reckless. When I said high level people I was thinking their Secretary of State or higher. Because if the CIA (or whoever in the US government) is trying to use another country's legal system to frame someone that would be considered the conducting operations on foreign soil. That's very much against International Law without getting the permission of the Swedish State Department. So if they did that without the very highest levels of government being involved they'd be risking a very public international incident plus they'd be cutting themselves off from ever being able to impeach Assange's credibility in the future (because once you have a verified attempt to discredit him in such a manner no one's ever going to believe a claim against him again). Again I'm sure it's possible but it just seems too reckless to be plausible to me.
- Ardit20 16y agoWow. This is simply amazing.
- vaksel 16y agomy guess is that they were following standard operating procedure with the warrant(i.e. no matter how vague...everything has to be investigated)...but then decided to use common sense for a change. + the warrant was issued by an on duty prosecutor and dropped by the chief prosecutor. So could just be the case of someone trying to make a name for himself...only to get smacked down by his boss who had to deal with the controversy on their day off.
- studer 16y agoBoth prosecutors are women. And it's the original arrest warrant that has been withdrawn; the investigation is still open.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- slim 16y agohttp://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ > The status of the profession has gradually increased, and becoming a prosecutor is today a very attractive proposition for young lawyers. They are probably hinting to a noob mistake.
- Hagelin 16y agoI’m guessing that they simply added the short Assange statement to the front page of the english site, and that the text below it has nothing to do with it.
- nickpinkston 16y agoScrew 24 - this thing is getting way more interesting! I'm sure Julian is going nuts about all of this craziness, and my thoughts are with him - but seriously, he's now attained "International Man of Mystery" status.
- bvi 16y ago10 bucks that there will be a movie on this guy coming out within a year.
- dmillar 16y agoIf the US government is going after Assange (and they clearly would like to talk with him on American soil), why? Isn't this akin to blaming the messenger. Fix your own dam leaks (pun intended).
- lhnz 16y agoAfter all of the caution around jumping to conclusions on whether we were just witnessing smear tactics... They've now tarred his name with no evidence and generated a massive media buzz and FUD around the fictional rape charges. It certainly seems like wikileaks have made enemies that are very happy to play dirty.
- flipbrad 16y agowhat if it was self-generated?
- flipbrad 16y agoI should maybe elaborate. You claim for weeks that you fear being the target of a smear campaign. How better to protect yourself from one, than to vaccinate the entire public? Find two accolytes to report the alleged rape and molestation on just barely credible terms, and then either have them withdraw them or bring to light certain facts that mean that the charges HAVE to be dropped (factual inconsistencies, for example, or a previous record of crying wolf; etc). Do this quickly on a saturday morning when newsrooms are too understaffed to do much reporting and will probably not have much time between the issuing of the charges and the withdrawal to actually spread the uncorrected, daaging rumours; just the retraction. Result? CNN runs a front page headline next to not-negative press about you (charges withdrawn) suggesting to all its viewers that you might well be the target of a smear campaign. Future journalists AND readers will be immunised and healthily sceptical the next time something like this is attempted. If this was a wikileaks taskforce's test balloon, wouldn't they have done it in a normal newsday?
- GiraffeNecktie 16y agoA nice subtle smear. It'll go into the narrative as "Julian Assange who was once charged with rape in Sweden, and is the founder of anti-government site Wikileaks ..." They're not trying to destroying him at this point, just ramp up the pressure. They have to be a little bit careful because he does, apparently, have that encrypted and distributed information bomb.
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoMy, my. This story just gets better and better. So how do you have a rape allegation by two separate women (as I understand it?) that is baseless? I understand how the charges could be baseless, but the prosecution's job should be to determine if the allegations have merit, not try the case. So why do the charges have merit one day and not the next? Look, if there is a charge, investigate it. If not, don't. But charging him one day and withdrawing the next just leads to even more conspiracy theory madness. What this sounds like is "Well if he was just Joe Blow, we would have arrested him, but given the nature of his stature..." I'm sure that's not the case, however. Would like to hear more on this. Must have been some information that we were not privy to.
- rdtsc 16y agoAs someone mentioned, I think this is a media test and a warning of the things to come. They probably asked 2 women to cry "rape" to see 1) how media and people would react and 2) to discredit him. It doesn't matter if charges never stick -- it discredits him by creating doubt. It is the basic "OJ trial" situation -- "just because we couldn't convict doesn't mean he is not guilty" -- so just convicting someone and having all the media report it, is enough to tarnish Julian's morality image. And it just so happens that Julian and Wikileaks is on a higher moral ground and that is what keeps them popular. They are the modern day information Robin-Hoods. If they can be made to look immoral their image and credibility will forever be destroyed. No matter if charges don't sick. As for the warning. I think some operations that CIA engages are intentionally not kept too secret as to serve as a warning and intimidation without actually putting in a press release. It is basically the same tactics that FSB (ex KGB) used when they assassinated Litvinenko. They could have probably arranged an armed robbery or freak car accident, but by using radioactive polonium with traces all the way to the Sheremetovo, they issued a loud and clear threat to anyone willing to criticize or betray the FSB in the future.
- nixy 16y agoHere is my theory: Assange tours Sweden, meets loads of female journalists. Sleeps with some of them. Does something during the act which the women don't like (but don't really think too much about). The women come into contact a week later in their work. They share details and blow whatever happened out of proportion. They go to the police and then tip off the tabloid they both work for. Prosecutor realize whatever happened can't be charged as rape or molestation.
- dtf 16y agoThat is the precisely the type of "no smoke without fire" thinking that those who consider Wikileaks a gadfly will be delighted to see stick.
- rdtsc 16y agoIt would be interesting if CIA managed to send in one of their young sexy female agents to pose as a journalist, sleep with Julian and then cry rape so charges can be filed and he can be discredited. As an interesting aside. KGB back in the 40-50 used sometimes use their female agents to set up honey pot operations. They would entrap foreign diplomats or nationals, then under threat of blowing their cover, try to get them to collaborate.
- jacquesm 16y agoThat didn't take very long now, did it. I hope we'll get to the bottom of this, either Assange is a jerk, but maybe not a criminal or he deserves to be exonerated. But I've never heard of a case that was filed on Friday evening, hits the news big time on Saturday morning and has the main charges dropped after an arrest warrant has been issued on Saturday afternoon. Either there was cause to issue a warrant or there wasn't. Weirdest thing. But tens of millions of people have seen the name of Julian Assange next to the word 'rape' in sensational headlines all over the world, so in that sense the damage has been done.
- radu_floricica 16y agoOccam's razor would point towards two young women looking for a bit of attention.