14 ms·

This might be a good moment to remind people that Assange has been the victim of a successful smear campaign since the moment a woman did NOT make a rape allega

This might be a good moment to remind people that Assange has been the victim of a successful smear campaign since the moment a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden. Nils Melzer, UN special rapporteur on torture, actually went over the original proceedings and gave a long format interview on the matter lately. He too took some convincing to even touch the case, that's how effective sexual violence as a smear tactic is. Which is a damn shame, given that there's plenty of real sexual violence to go around, and which now once more gets harder to make visible. Here's the interview: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea... tl;dr: Assange was right about everything that has been made falsifiable: secret indictment, spying on his lawyers, extradition to the US, no fair trial, the whole lot. He's showing every mental and physical sign of being tortured. He needs help, and he's being denied the very rights that western society purports to uphold. EDIT: and that is leaving aside the whole dimension of Sweden, the UK, Equador, and of course the US making (even more of) a precedent out of him. What this means for the free press, and the relationship between freedom (of expression, of information, and in this case of truth, really) vs national "security" (in this case, the national security to not be held accountable for shooting down civilians) should send shivers down everyone's spines. EDIT 2 To the people downvoting: care to express which part of the above exactly you disagree with? Do you think it's factually incorrect? How about correcting it then? Do you think it's inappropriate? Why so? Off topic?

xkemp 7y ago
It's sad to see this conspiracy theory being voted to the top. For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying. With, in this case, often the gall to claim that this would somehow "protect real victims".
- 112 7y ago
  "For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying." That's just dumb.
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  Okay, I have to say I'm sorry for the phrasing of my comment. Not because I think any of it is untrue, but because I could have foreseen that the "NOT" part is not explicit enough about what I mean. So here goes... What I did mean (and I take this straight from the article) is that at least one of these women explicitely refused to sign a statement speaking of rape, because that was not what she came to report, or what she thought happened. She texted as much to a friend, too. Yet the police not only went ahead with an investigation based on a statement that the only witness had refused to sign, but they also altered said statement afterwards to re-open the case when the first statement was disregarded as a credible account of what happened, yet not an account of a crime. So I'm explicitly not saying that this first woman lied. She said the truth, told her story, and in her story, there was no rape. A prosecutor in Stockholm agreed with her, as did Assange. So this is the word of the police, against the prosecution, the defendant, and the purported victim and only witness. Hence my phrasing of "a woman did NOT make a rape allegation". I hope that clears that up. And note the singular in that sentence up there. The second woman is different of course, and at least she clearly stated a rape allegation. I'm not the one to pass judgement on that. But the people who are, and who have seen the evidence, seem to not be convinced. Further, at the point where the second allegation even enters the picture, the case had already completely derailed, so if or if not the breaking of the condom was intentional, and if or if not such a condom could credibly hold no DNA whatsoever is pretty moot at that point.
tw04 7y ago
He’s not being extradited for rape, he’s being extradited for being a Russian asset. The rape allegation being falsified could be completely accurate and still irrelevant to his crimes. He stopped being protected as a journalist a long time ago. That link white washes Assange to an incredible level. Snowden was a hero, Assange is a Putin lackey who got caught.
rmc 7y ago
Assange attempted to appeal his extradition from the UK. One way to challenge that is to show that what you are being accused of isn't a crime in the UK. The UK High Court judgement is informative. What Assange is accused of (the 4 counts) would be crimes in the UK. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html Just one bit from your linked article: “But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom.”. I'm sorry, Assange tried to penetrate a woman who was asleep?! That's not right
- upofadown 7y ago
  The accusation here seems to be that the revised statement was simply fabricated by the Stockholm police without any input from the woman.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >. I'm sorry, Assange tried to penetrate a woman who was asleep?! That's not right Though the authenticity of this claim is dubious, the correct response would be to send him to Sweden for trial. That is not what is likely happening, he is being targeted for his political actions.
cheez 7y ago
I have no idea why this is getting downvoted. Odd.
- Traster 7y ago
  Probably because every time this comes up, it's the same one guy making asburdist claims like Assange's completely self-enforced time in the Ecuadorean embassy was illegal detention by the UK government.
  - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
    For something to be self-enforced, doesn't one have to be able to walk away freely if one so chooses?
    - xkemp 7y ago
      Not if there's a warrant out for your arrest, no.
  - 101404 7y ago
    No idea if its "the same guy", but this is a link to an interview with the UN special rapporteur on torture about his investigation into Assange.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    That doesn’t sound too different from many prisons. Is it not detention if it’s “easy” to escape?
  - k1m 7y ago
    The "same one guy" is one way of describing Nils Melzer, here's another: > The problem for the propaganda system targeting Assange is that Melzer is not just someone blogging on the internet; he is the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. In addition, he is a professor of international law at the University of Glasgow and holds the Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in Switzerland, where he has been teaching since 2009, including as the Swiss Chair of International Humanitarian Law (2011–2013). Melzer even speaks fluent Swedish. In other words, it is hard to imagine anyone better qualified to comment on the Assange case. - https://www.medialens.org/2020/burned-at-the-stake-the-un-special-rapporteur-on-torture-demolishes-the-fake-claims-targeting-julian-assange/ https://www.medialens.org/2020/burned-at-the-stake-the-un-sp...
gnomewascool 7y ago
Thank you for your post and for the fascinating (and terrifying) link. I have no idea why you're being down-voted. I was planning to suggest submitting the link as its own "story" but apparently it already was, two weeks ago.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22201381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22201381
FireBeyond 7y ago
There are things in the interview that are rather subjective (and things that are objective, and that I didn't know, admittedly). But this is ... quite misleading...: > A constitutional democracy would probably investigate Chelsea Manning for violating official secrecy because she passed the video along to Assange. But it certainly wouldn’t go after Assange, because he published the video in the public interest, consistent with the practices of classic investigative journalism. An investigative journalist wouldn't suggest to their source that they cover their trails and implicate innocent third parties in the egressing of confidential data[1], assist their source with cracking passwords, passively and actively ("I'm working on it, no luck yet"), or in the event that Assange was doing neither, just leading Manning on, would not lie to their sources while again, still encouraging them to break the law. [1] by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >An investigative journalist wouldn't suggest to their source that they cover their trails An investigative journalist should absolutely try to help their source stay safe from danger. >by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy The account they were attempting to access was a generic windows admin account tied to nobody. A perfect patsy.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > An investigative journalist should absolutely try to help their source stay safe from danger. I'm not sure "commit more federal crimes" is "staying safe from danger" > The account they were attempting to access was a generic windows admin account tied to nobody. A perfect patsy. This I did not know. My above point still stands, but at least no innocent third parties are being also dragged into things, absolutely.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      >I'm not sure "commit more federal crimes" is "staying safe from danger" If your options are "commit more victimless federal crimes" or "allow the army to punish you" it is.
hrktb 7y ago
It’s so far from the narrative we’ve been hearing for years now, than even reading your comment triggers a “that’s just some batshit conspiration theory” reaction on the moment. Going through the link requires putting aside that reaction. I missed the link posted two weeks ago, and I am so glad you commented. It’s really chilling and takes time to fully process.
- stubish 7y ago
  And different countries are being fed different narratives, which is why discussions are so polarized and volatile.
  - totalZero 7y ago
    Some countries are being fed both. Look at Ecuador. Ex-president Rafael Correa decries the fact that Assange, who had been granted Ecuadorian citizenship in addition to his political asylum, was dragged out of a sovereign embassy by UK police. He notes that an IMF deal occurred somewhat concurrently with the surrender of Assange. Current president Lenin Moreno claims Assange wouldn't clean up after his cat and smeared poop on the walls of the embassy. Moreno ejected Assange shortly after blaming WikiLeaks for the publication of photos and messages hacked from the Moreno family's smartphones.
Bendingo 7y ago
Very well said. And thanks for the interview link.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
> a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex, which would count as rape in my jurisdiction. The article also recounts testimony of him waking up a woman by penetrating her which would also count as rape in my jurisdiction.
- humble_engineer 7y ago
  It doesn't count as rape in any jurisdiction, but it is Orwellian newspeak at its finest.
- _-___________-_ 7y ago
  > It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex Actually, she supposedly accused him of intentionally breaking it, but also said that she didn't notice until later, which casts doubt on the "intentionally" part.
  - tpetry 7y ago
    Poking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we cant really guess who is wrong or right.
    - _-___________-_ 7y ago
      I agree. More information is needed before any judgement could be made one way or the other.
    - himinlomax 7y ago
      Whatever happened with that condom, that definitely falls under "reasonable doubt." Considering what happened to Assange after that, the first thing that comes to mind is the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
      - 7y ago
DagAgren 7y ago
You are leaving out a LOT of the story in this post. Such as his connections with both the Russian state and the Trump campaign, or his person history of sexual misconduct and awful behaviour towards women.
- zwirbl 7y ago
  Did you actually read the interview? It lists and explains evidence that this history of sexual misconduct is, at least in large parts, intentionally constructed by the public authorities
  - DagAgren 7y ago
    There are other cases that are not related to these particular two at all.
    - zwirbl 7y ago
      could you point me to some article about that?
      - DagAgren 7y ago
        This is an article about general absolutely awful behaviour: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
      - DagAgren 7y ago
        Also, https://www.thedailybeast.com/free-press-group-set-to-cut-off-wikileaks https://www.thedailybeast.com/free-press-group-set-to-cut-of...
        zwirbl 7y ago
        While both these articles go into details about unsavory awful behavior, there is no indication of (additional) sexual misconduct in them. Claiming that there are more cases despite that seems misleading. While I do not approve of Assanges actions and statements as detailed in the intercept article, being a douche is not evidence of sexual misconduct
sorenjan 7y ago
The article is not completely truthful about what happened, at least according to the police report. The interviewee claims to speak fluent Swedish, so there's no way he'd miss it accidentally. Here's the short version of what happened according to the official police investigation[0]: Assange and a woman have consensual sex. He wants to have sex without a condom, she insist he wears one. Eventually he agrees, and they have sex and then fall asleep in the bed. The next morning she wakes up by him penetrating her. She asks "are you wearing anything?" to which he replies "you". Her main reason she wanted him to wear a condom was fear of STDs, so she thinks there's no point in stopping now since the eventual damage is already done, so they continue. He comes inside her. When she later asks the police if there's a way of forcing Assange to take an HIV test the police decides that what she's describing constitutes rape, and starts an investigation. The whole problem is that she gave her consent under the strict condition that he'd wear a condom. When he started having unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping, he didn't have her consent. Call that what you want. [0] https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf#page=13 https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/... Edit: OK, I see that that's mentioned later in the article. But the part about rewriting the statement isn't completely truthful either: > "Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W." What the mail actually says is that there are two hearings, but only one formal one, and they want the second one included too. The supervisor writes: "Make a new hearing. Paste the text in that and assign the hearing to the case. Sign the hearing."
- christophilus 7y ago
  He seems to think the official docs were altered. Either way, his point is that we are all focused on this trial and accusation, rather than the numerous war crimes that WikiLeaks exposed, and that was the intent all along. Mission accomplished.
  - sorenjan 7y ago
    That's not what's stopping anyone from investigating the war crimes though. Even if Assange never would have com to Sweden and never would have been accused (guilty or not) of rape, those war crimes wouldn't have been any more investigated that they are now. Look at Khashoggi, nothing happened. Look at Russia's annexation of Crimea, there's some sanctions but the current US administration is against them. Look at China, they have concentration camps for Uighurs. And so on. I don't have any problem believing that Assange did have sex with a sleeping woman without a condom, it fits what I've perceived as his personality. And him locking himself in the embassy after having exhausted his legal means in the UK was his own doing. But that's all about one person, the war crimes are part of a system that doesn't care about him. This whole mess is candy for conspiracy theorists. Remember that Wikileaks fanned the flames in the middle of Pizza gate: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/d9uoxzw/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wik...
bjourne 7y ago
Rape falls under public prosecution. That means that the prosecutor is forced to press charges whether the plaintiff wants it or not. According to the two women he did some questionable things that the prosecutor thought could be enough to convict him. The two women's stories are out in the open while Assange instead opted to flee the country and has not commented on the allegations. What I think is a shame is that you are accusing these two women of being part of a smear campaign and/or a secret conspiracy to frame Assange when there is exactly zero evidence for that theory. We don't know what happened in those bedrooms - it's word against word. But the words of two people generally weighs heavier than the word of one. Especially when this one refused to be questioned by the police. EDIT: It's fine if you downvote my comment or flag it. It's still true.
- JacKTrocinskI 7y ago
  Are you that naive? Evidence and witness testimony can be easily fabricated by authorities (happens all the time), especially when the authorities are out to get someone and have political and personal reasons to do so. What's your reasoning for believing these women's testimony other than made up fact by police?
  - DagAgren 7y ago
    What is your reasoning for believing they WERE made up? It certainly isn't evidence of any kind.
    - ubercow13 7y ago
      The interview in the top-level comment seems to cover that.
      - DagAgren 7y ago
        The interview with the guy who is making a claim that it's all a conspiracy based on... him not knowing how the Swedish justice system works? "Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?" Because in Sweden, the suspect is first interviewed, and then charges are filed, and Assange himself has chosen to not make himself available for interview? That is not a great way to establish credibility, and the tone he says this stuff in is entirely that of someone who is pushing an agenda with little regard for truth.

xkemp 7y ago

It's sad to see this conspiracy theory being voted to the top. For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying. With, in this case, often the gall to claim that this would somehow "protect real victims".

112 7y ago
"For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying." That's just dumb.
black_puppydog 7y ago
Okay, I have to say I'm sorry for the phrasing of my comment. Not because I think any of it is untrue, but because I could have foreseen that the "NOT" part is not explicit enough about what I mean. So here goes... What I did mean (and I take this straight from the article) is that at least one of these women explicitely refused to sign a statement speaking of rape, because that was not what she came to report, or what she thought happened. She texted as much to a friend, too. Yet the police not only went ahead with an investigation based on a statement that the only witness had refused to sign, but they also altered said statement afterwards to re-open the case when the first statement was disregarded as a credible account of what happened, yet not an account of a crime. So I'm explicitly not saying that this first woman lied. She said the truth, told her story, and in her story, there was no rape. A prosecutor in Stockholm agreed with her, as did Assange. So this is the word of the police, against the prosecution, the defendant, and the purported victim and only witness. Hence my phrasing of "a woman did NOT make a rape allegation". I hope that clears that up. And note the singular in that sentence up there. The second woman is different of course, and at least she clearly stated a rape allegation. I'm not the one to pass judgement on that. But the people who are, and who have seen the evidence, seem to not be convinced. Further, at the point where the second allegation even enters the picture, the case had already completely derailed, so if or if not the breaking of the condom was intentional, and if or if not such a condom could credibly hold no DNA whatsoever is pretty moot at that point.

tw04 7y ago

He’s not being extradited for rape, he’s being extradited for being a Russian asset. The rape allegation being falsified could be completely accurate and still irrelevant to his crimes. He stopped being protected as a journalist a long time ago. That link white washes Assange to an incredible level. Snowden was a hero, Assange is a Putin lackey who got caught.

rmc 7y ago

Assange attempted to appeal his extradition from the UK. One way to challenge that is to show that what you are being accused of isn't a crime in the UK. The UK High Court judgement is informative. What Assange is accused of (the 4 counts) would be crimes in the UK. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html Just one bit from your linked article: “But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom.”. I'm sorry, Assange tried to penetrate a woman who was asleep?! That's not right

upofadown 7y ago
The accusation here seems to be that the revised statement was simply fabricated by the Stockholm police without any input from the woman.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>. I'm sorry, Assange tried to penetrate a woman who was asleep?! That's not right Though the authenticity of this claim is dubious, the correct response would be to send him to Sweden for trial. That is not what is likely happening, he is being targeted for his political actions.

cheez 7y ago

I have no idea why this is getting downvoted. Odd.

Traster 7y ago
Probably because every time this comes up, it's the same one guy making asburdist claims like Assange's completely self-enforced time in the Ecuadorean embassy was illegal detention by the UK government.
- Kim_Bruning 7y ago
  For something to be self-enforced, doesn't one have to be able to walk away freely if one so chooses?
  - xkemp 7y ago
    Not if there's a warrant out for your arrest, no.
- 101404 7y ago
  No idea if its "the same guy", but this is a link to an interview with the UN special rapporteur on torture about his investigation into Assange.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  That doesn’t sound too different from many prisons. Is it not detention if it’s “easy” to escape?
- k1m 7y ago
  The "same one guy" is one way of describing Nils Melzer, here's another: > The problem for the propaganda system targeting Assange is that Melzer is not just someone blogging on the internet; he is the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. In addition, he is a professor of international law at the University of Glasgow and holds the Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in Switzerland, where he has been teaching since 2009, including as the Swiss Chair of International Humanitarian Law (2011–2013). Melzer even speaks fluent Swedish. In other words, it is hard to imagine anyone better qualified to comment on the Assange case. - https://www.medialens.org/2020/burned-at-the-stake-the-un-special-rapporteur-on-torture-demolishes-the-fake-claims-targeting-julian-assange/ https://www.medialens.org/2020/burned-at-the-stake-the-un-sp...

gnomewascool 7y ago

Thank you for your post and for the fascinating (and terrifying) link. I have no idea why you're being down-voted. I was planning to suggest submitting the link as its own "story" but apparently it already was, two weeks ago.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22201381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22201381

FireBeyond 7y ago

There are things in the interview that are rather subjective (and things that are objective, and that I didn't know, admittedly). But this is ... quite misleading...: > A constitutional democracy would probably investigate Chelsea Manning for violating official secrecy because she passed the video along to Assange. But it certainly wouldn’t go after Assange, because he published the video in the public interest, consistent with the practices of classic investigative journalism. An investigative journalist wouldn't suggest to their source that they cover their trails and implicate innocent third parties in the egressing of confidential data[1], assist their source with cracking passwords, passively and actively ("I'm working on it, no luck yet"), or in the event that Assange was doing neither, just leading Manning on, would not lie to their sources while again, still encouraging them to break the law. [1] by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy.

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>An investigative journalist wouldn't suggest to their source that they cover their trails An investigative journalist should absolutely try to help their source stay safe from danger. >by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy The account they were attempting to access was a generic windows admin account tied to nobody. A perfect patsy.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > An investigative journalist should absolutely try to help their source stay safe from danger. I'm not sure "commit more federal crimes" is "staying safe from danger" > The account they were attempting to access was a generic windows admin account tied to nobody. A perfect patsy. This I did not know. My above point still stands, but at least no innocent third parties are being also dragged into things, absolutely.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >I'm not sure "commit more federal crimes" is "staying safe from danger" If your options are "commit more victimless federal crimes" or "allow the army to punish you" it is.

hrktb 7y ago

It’s so far from the narrative we’ve been hearing for years now, than even reading your comment triggers a “that’s just some batshit conspiration theory” reaction on the moment. Going through the link requires putting aside that reaction. I missed the link posted two weeks ago, and I am so glad you commented. It’s really chilling and takes time to fully process.

stubish 7y ago
And different countries are being fed different narratives, which is why discussions are so polarized and volatile.
- totalZero 7y ago
  Some countries are being fed both. Look at Ecuador. Ex-president Rafael Correa decries the fact that Assange, who had been granted Ecuadorian citizenship in addition to his political asylum, was dragged out of a sovereign embassy by UK police. He notes that an IMF deal occurred somewhat concurrently with the surrender of Assange. Current president Lenin Moreno claims Assange wouldn't clean up after his cat and smeared poop on the walls of the embassy. Moreno ejected Assange shortly after blaming WikiLeaks for the publication of photos and messages hacked from the Moreno family's smartphones.

Bendingo 7y ago

Very well said. And thanks for the interview link.

erikpukinskis 7y ago

> a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex, which would count as rape in my jurisdiction. The article also recounts testimony of him waking up a woman by penetrating her which would also count as rape in my jurisdiction.

humble_engineer 7y ago
It doesn't count as rape in any jurisdiction, but it is Orwellian newspeak at its finest.
_-___________-_ 7y ago
> It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex Actually, she supposedly accused him of intentionally breaking it, but also said that she didn't notice until later, which casts doubt on the "intentionally" part.
- tpetry 7y ago
  Poking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we cant really guess who is wrong or right.
  - _-___________-_ 7y ago
    I agree. More information is needed before any judgement could be made one way or the other.
  - himinlomax 7y ago
    Whatever happened with that condom, that definitely falls under "reasonable doubt." Considering what happened to Assange after that, the first thing that comes to mind is the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
    - 7y ago

DagAgren 7y ago

You are leaving out a LOT of the story in this post. Such as his connections with both the Russian state and the Trump campaign, or his person history of sexual misconduct and awful behaviour towards women.

zwirbl 7y ago
Did you actually read the interview? It lists and explains evidence that this history of sexual misconduct is, at least in large parts, intentionally constructed by the public authorities
- DagAgren 7y ago
  There are other cases that are not related to these particular two at all.
  - zwirbl 7y ago
    could you point me to some article about that?
    - DagAgren 7y ago
      This is an article about general absolutely awful behaviour: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
    - DagAgren 7y ago
      Also, https://www.thedailybeast.com/free-press-group-set-to-cut-off-wikileaks https://www.thedailybeast.com/free-press-group-set-to-cut-of...
      - zwirbl 7y ago
        While both these articles go into details about unsavory awful behavior, there is no indication of (additional) sexual misconduct in them. Claiming that there are more cases despite that seems misleading. While I do not approve of Assanges actions and statements as detailed in the intercept article, being a douche is not evidence of sexual misconduct

sorenjan 7y ago

The article is not completely truthful about what happened, at least according to the police report. The interviewee claims to speak fluent Swedish, so there's no way he'd miss it accidentally. Here's the short version of what happened according to the official police investigation[0]: Assange and a woman have consensual sex. He wants to have sex without a condom, she insist he wears one. Eventually he agrees, and they have sex and then fall asleep in the bed. The next morning she wakes up by him penetrating her. She asks "are you wearing anything?" to which he replies "you". Her main reason she wanted him to wear a condom was fear of STDs, so she thinks there's no point in stopping now since the eventual damage is already done, so they continue. He comes inside her. When she later asks the police if there's a way of forcing Assange to take an HIV test the police decides that what she's describing constitutes rape, and starts an investigation. The whole problem is that she gave her consent under the strict condition that he'd wear a condom. When he started having unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping, he didn't have her consent. Call that what you want. [0] https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf#page=13 https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/... Edit: OK, I see that that's mentioned later in the article. But the part about rewriting the statement isn't completely truthful either: > "Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W." What the mail actually says is that there are two hearings, but only one formal one, and they want the second one included too. The supervisor writes: "Make a new hearing. Paste the text in that and assign the hearing to the case. Sign the hearing."

christophilus 7y ago
He seems to think the official docs were altered. Either way, his point is that we are all focused on this trial and accusation, rather than the numerous war crimes that WikiLeaks exposed, and that was the intent all along. Mission accomplished.
- sorenjan 7y ago
  That's not what's stopping anyone from investigating the war crimes though. Even if Assange never would have com to Sweden and never would have been accused (guilty or not) of rape, those war crimes wouldn't have been any more investigated that they are now. Look at Khashoggi, nothing happened. Look at Russia's annexation of Crimea, there's some sanctions but the current US administration is against them. Look at China, they have concentration camps for Uighurs. And so on. I don't have any problem believing that Assange did have sex with a sleeping woman without a condom, it fits what I've perceived as his personality. And him locking himself in the embassy after having exhausted his legal means in the UK was his own doing. But that's all about one person, the war crimes are part of a system that doesn't care about him. This whole mess is candy for conspiracy theorists. Remember that Wikileaks fanned the flames in the middle of Pizza gate: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/d9uoxzw/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wik...

bjourne 7y ago

Rape falls under public prosecution. That means that the prosecutor is forced to press charges whether the plaintiff wants it or not. According to the two women he did some questionable things that the prosecutor thought could be enough to convict him. The two women's stories are out in the open while Assange instead opted to flee the country and has not commented on the allegations. What I think is a shame is that you are accusing these two women of being part of a smear campaign and/or a secret conspiracy to frame Assange when there is exactly zero evidence for that theory. We don't know what happened in those bedrooms - it's word against word. But the words of two people generally weighs heavier than the word of one. Especially when this one refused to be questioned by the police. EDIT: It's fine if you downvote my comment or flag it. It's still true.

JacKTrocinskI 7y ago
Are you that naive? Evidence and witness testimony can be easily fabricated by authorities (happens all the time), especially when the authorities are out to get someone and have political and personal reasons to do so. What's your reasoning for believing these women's testimony other than made up fact by police?
- DagAgren 7y ago
  What is your reasoning for believing they WERE made up? It certainly isn't evidence of any kind.
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    The interview in the top-level comment seems to cover that.
    - DagAgren 7y ago
      The interview with the guy who is making a claim that it's all a conspiracy based on... him not knowing how the Swedish justice system works? "Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?" Because in Sweden, the suspect is first interviewed, and then charges are filed, and Assange himself has chosen to not make himself available for interview? That is not a great way to establish credibility, and the tone he says this stuff in is entirely that of someone who is pushing an agenda with little regard for truth.