Wikileaks spokesman Julian Assange has been arrested by police in London and will appear in court later today. A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "Assange was arrested by appointment at a central London police station at 9.30 this morning. "He will appear at City of Westminster magistrates later today." Thirty-nine-year old …
I hate to say this but ...
i wonder if all the court documents about the case will be posted onto wikileaks?
quote of the day
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." -- Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels
I wonder why UK news outlets including the Register
are not publishing the details of the alleged charges. Who's gagging you?
The so-called rape charge is a charge of consensual sex with a broken condom. Both women were texting and tweeting boasts about their conquests, until they found out they'd both slept with the same guy and went to the police together, having already "aligned" their stories.
A clearer example of a fit-up I have yet to see, so I ask again "Who's gagging you?"
Re: I wonder why UK news outlets including the Register
I have to be quick telling you this so please excuse tht typos but there is a man in sunglasses and a suit standing in the corner of the offce, he's been here all daay and I think he may have a gun.
But i'm sureit's not related to this or anything.
Stop taking the piss.
He's been there all day
...and you haven't thought to give the poor man a cup of tea or coffee?
I despair at the state of journalists these days.
TRUTH HAS SPOKEN
Of course a reply of hate speech towards your comment using a quote by Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels would be something like.... Hey wait why do you hate America!?!?!?!
Of course only sheeple would prefer to listen to a lie thinking the lie = American patriotisim.
Re: Sarah Bee
You don't have to worry unless he has a piece of white twisted cable sticking out of one ear.
Oh and if he has cable sticking out of both ears then call Torch Wood immediately.
Maybe this will help
Ok, this is AlterNet, but bear with me...
Assange's London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715. "Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."
...because when I posted similar comments to yours a few days ago they all got moderated out.
Re: Re: Sarah Bee
I can't stare at him for too long, obviously.
Commentards please note - we're moderating heavily on this, because we are part of a larger conspiracy, so please don't whine if you get rejected. Much obliged.
I'm going to make tea for the mysterious man now, he's been standing there for several hours with no lunch or anything and there's no harm in being nice, is there?
Re: Re: Re: Sarah Bee
You _ARE_ going to put a whole bottle of laxative in his tea _AREN'T_ you?
This is not a question!!
Re: It's funny
Oh yes. I rejected those because you said things that could be libellous or at least dodgy that we don't want on the site, and I didn't want any of us to lose our jobs. We're being fairly cautious, possibly over-cautious, but that's why. We don't want to be in a world of shit at all because of the blurtings of any of our commentards.
The comments were 'similar' to the extent that they were on the same subject. So... yeah. But you can just chalk it up to general conspiracy if you prefer. It's a pretty good catch-all.
And now if you'll excuse me I have another 100 possible legal bombs, carelessly flung by you lot, to carefully sift through.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarah Bee
No because he's on our side OH GOD I'VE SAID TOO MUCH
re:sarah and the man in sunglasses
his is probley form apple to stop you releaseing details on the specs of the new ipad2...hold on that is the door.......
Re: re:sarah and the man in sunglasses
That'll be it.
I'm closing this thread now, but there will be another one along on this subject presently (oh goody!).
Seems par for the course...
Standard smear tactic by governments looking to discredit someone- Attach them to a sex scandal.
Wikileak is more than just one guy
Assange should answer the charges and be condemned if guilty. Bottom line is no one is above the law, not even Assange.
At the end of the day, Wikileak will continue with or without him.
What are the chances that they'll "discover" something more interesting when examining his personal laptop?
>>"Standard smear tactic by governments looking to discredit someone- Attach them to a sex scandal."
If it's a standard tactic, how often does it happen in western nations, compared to people who should know better pissing all over their own career by doing something reckless?
method of operation
This from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10774473
...a leaked document, purportedly by the US army counterintelligence centre, looks into the threat posed by Wikileaks to national security - and how to marginalise it.
"The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistle-blowers could potentially damage or destroy [the website's] center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site," the document reads.
This is best resolved in a fair and balanced court of law.
The problem is, how do you (a) try him with the current media storm, (b) show that the trial is fair and balanced?
I'm not one for conspiracies, but if this is a smear campaign (i.e., the claims are insubstantial and get retracted before real proof is needed), it's a hideous abuse of multiple justice systems.
What if he actually did it?
There could be many a person trying to get a guilty man off with a crime by shouting 'conspiracy'.
How about waiting for the actual trial?
I am in favour of what he has done, re. the leaks, but if he's been up to no good then he deserves all he gets.
Let's hope he gets an unbiased and fair trial, however I am not holding my breath, judging by the number of enemies he has made.
In Sweden: Burst Condom == Rape!
I think in Sweden you can insure against rape, so you can also cash in big...
Interesting how they started a smear campaign before he was even on the radar of the state... He was on US radar, sure, for the previous leak, which contained little or no classified data and was not technically a crime.
Interesting also how one would not assume that paying a member of a government to provide classified documents from a secure server would not be seen as illegal and have multiple world governments immediately demanding his arrest.
Even more interesting how it is Sweeden issuing the arrest warrant, and he has yet to be issued the same in the USA or the whole of Europe.
You know how bad things are
when we're no longer sure that Sweden can be trusted in this case.
WikiLeaks has caused huge embarrassment for the Swedes, the leaked cables show that their policy of being a neutral player in the Baltic is no such thing. The current Swedish government have got plenty of interest in seeing this prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
They can arrest and put someone in court the same day, if they reveal government secrets.
However, serial rapists, mass murders etc. have months even years before any kind of court.
I'm no legal expert, and maybe one can correct me if I'm wrong, but the hearing today is in realtion to an extradiation request, not the crimes themselves.
In the cases you mention, "serial rapists, mass murders etc" the authorituies need time to collate evidence for and a against i.e make sure they have enough information to put the person in prison (similarly the defence needs time to prove innocence if applicable).
I the case of Mr Assange, they simply need to determine that he is the man that the extradition is for (he handed himself in so we can assume that is covered) and that he will be given a fair trial if he is handed over.
Again, I'm no legal expert, but this is why I believe the case can be heard so quickly.
Perhaps "serial rapists, mass murders etc" was a bit at the extreme end of the spectrum, either way, never heard of anything being heard in a court within hours of an arrest...
Indeed, you are correct. I would assume this is under the European Arrest Warrant which does not have a very high standard of evidence required in order for it to be enacted. Indeed, pretty well no evidence at all, on the basis that all the relevant countries are covered by the ECHR. I believe you can only be extradited on a charge which can be matched to an illegal activity in the UK. So you can't be extradited to Austria for holocaust denial which is an offence there. However, even if the detailed interpretation of what Julian Assange did, or did not, get up to in Sweden wouldn't result in a guilty verdict in the UK, there's plenty of fudge space. The Swedes do not have to provide any prima facie evidence of any crime (which you would for extradition to most of the World).
The arrest is for questioning at this stage and is going to be interesting due to the somewhat arcane and intricate area of Swedish sexual politics.
It depends on the jurisdiction, level of the court involved, and time sensitive nature of the case as it may be.
Arraignments typically happen within days, if not hours, even for minor crimes. Grand jury hearings also tend to happen pretty quickly. most large cases take years to get in court not because of court availability, but because of legal maneuvering of legal teams, motions for requests to delay, time required to process physical evidence, and more.
There have been news reports here of people being tried for major crimes, recently, within days of being arrested. A woman who drove her car purposefully of a bridge with her 2 kids in the back seat, let them drown, and then pretended it was an accident and called police, she was in court within a week. Same for several recent shootings. Full trials might take a year or more to schedule and conclude, followed by appeals, but they were in court quickly, and those who plead guilty were sentenced pretty quick as well.
Assange is not fighting this. It shuold be quick to extradite, and reasonably quick to prosecute.
I hope he has backups
I am looking forward to what he has on UFO's according to an interview in the guardian! That'll be a proper leak!!!
Already out there
From what I can make out, Assange has already put a lot of the information out there in encrypted format and will simply release the keys when necessary. This protects against them downing his websites etc. The files are already out there and distributed widely, so any attempt to get them back is doomed to failure. The only thing they could try to do is prevent him saying anything!! He could shout the passwords in court!!
It all sounds like standards smear tactics, but all looks rather odd to me. Has anyone considered how Assange can get sensitive information like this from what would normally be many sources? Are there really that many people willing to send this information to him despite penalties of life in prison etc.? Not just one person, but many? Whilst the governments might be crying out about this, I'm not so sure they're not leaking it themselves.
>looking forward to what he has on UFO's
JFK was actually shot by the Roswell aliens? Get a grip - there are no little grey men.
Best you can hope for is more of the same, somewhat embarrassing, but just confirming what everyone already knew about US foreign policy and practice.
I can predict how that would go.
"Some more of our pilots have reported seeing strange objects flying alongside their planes. We really shouldn't have given them so many amphetamines."
there's already been an arrest
The guy who did the copying was known, very quick, and was arrested. Assange recruited and PAID him.
This was low clearance data. Though classified, it might have only taken public trust or basic security clearance to have access to the servers this stuff was on. He was an analyst, responsible for review of such data, and thus had access to all of it. This was a single data set, not multiple disparate systems.
Desperate people do desperate things. Some people (many screaming about this data), would believe it should have been released anyway, and may be easier to convince to steal it.
A data analyst who is not an IT analyst may not have even understood that copying this data to a thumb drive would have been logged and would be very easy to trace. Preventing access is tough, especially from people who's job it is to HAVE access, but logging access is easily done and easily reviewed, if not proactively. He probably had no idea it would be so easy to catch him.
"Has anyone considered how Assange can get sensitive information like this from what would normally be many sources? Are there really that many people willing to send this information to him despite penalties of life in prison etc.? Not just one person, but many"
Of course ther are many sources. There are also many other documents leaked via WikiLeaks over the last years, this is just the highest profile case.
Of course the goverments (employees) are leaking the information. Assange is not the source of the information. Assange does not "get sensitive information like this". Wikileaks is an organisation, Assange is just a founder. Whistleblowers send the documents to Wikileaks. Wikileaks has many volunteers, their job is to vet the information, decide what to publish and to protect the whistleblowers.
what did I mess? is this a different charge from the previous one? The way I understood it, it was _old_ history catching up to him!
The Metropolitan Police said: "He is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010."
-- I thought they merely wanted to interview him in connection with the alleged offences, he wasn't actually accused of anything at this stage? Is this the Swedes changing their minds, or is it just the Met spinning it into something more serious than it actually is.
Of course, the whole thing stinks to high heaven....
What is the deal here?
Can anyone explain exactly what he is accused of?
As I understand it, both women admit it was consensual sex. So how does that become one count of rape, one of unlawful coercion and two counts of sexual molestation?
This whole thing stinks
I just wish I were rich enough that me boycotting Amazon, Pay Pal etc would make the slightest difference to them
it makes a difference
as long as enough people do it.
it is not hard.
don't buy from amazon
don't pay with paypal if possible and don't leave any money in your paypal account.
Depends on definition of rape...
There's something in the details; from Wikipedia page for Assange (yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't always 100% accurate):
"He is wanted for questioning on suspicion of "sex crimes"; it is reported that while having consensual sex his condom broke and he either did not disclose the breakage to his partner or continued after his partner asked him to stop"
If that's the case, it's not "rape" in the traditional sense of the word, but from what little I understand, it counts as rape under Swedish law.
Of course, the whole lot of it smacks of government interference, particularly the Swiss bank account being closed yesterday; I'm sure there's 100s of accounts in Switzerland with dubious addresses being used, why was his picked on?
Swedish law on rape
Swedish law makes the definition of rape very broad. AFAIK, Assange is accused of having sex without a condom = rape in Sweden.
I'm not sure that this is bad for Assange though. Whereas the UK is a member of NATO and a staunch ally of the USA, Sweden is a neutral country. Furthermore, unlike the UK, Sweden does not have a fast track extradition treaty with the USA, where many are quite vocal about what should happen to Assange.
It had been dropped once before due to lack of evidence
Back in August the swedish authorities dropped the warrant due to lack of evidence:
They are also saying that although the sex started as consensual it did not end tha way:
'According to media reports, Assange slept with two women during a visit to Sweden in August. One of them has been quoted by a Swedish newspaper as saying that the sex was consensual for a start, but ended with abuse.
In an interview with Aftonbladet, one of the women dismissed claims that the allegations had been orchestrated by the Pentagon.'
We shall see where this all goes, i dont want to prejudge the ruling but even if it was any Joe of the street it would be an odd case. It just so happens that the most powerfull and influential government in the world wants custody of this man at the same time, it does complicate ones view.
Sweden is not that neutral in practice. We are not a member of NATO, but participate in numerous NATO drills. Ever since Sweden agreed to stop it's research into developing nuclear weapons in the beginning of the sixties (I'm not joking) they have informally been under the US of A's nuclear umbrella.
I don’t mind that Sweden cooperates with they yanks. I’m opposed to the fact that when it’s discovered nobody stands up and takes the blame.
In the case of the American embassies’ monitoring of Swedish (and every other country they operate in I would expect) citizens, the decision to withhold information from the parliament and in the end the public was not taken by a minister but someone with a much lower rank, who can not be held responsible. Fantastic!
Sweden, neutral? Don’t think so. Maybe during WWII… no wait, half of us were Nazis back then… and let “tze Germans” pass through our country back and forth to Norway just to avoid being taken by force.