back to article Assange lawyers fume over leaked rape case docs

Lawyers for Julian Assange are "angry" and "concerned" that someone leaked confidential Swedish police files detailing the rape allegations against the WikiLeaks founder, according to a report citing conversations with his legal team, and the team intends to launch a formal complaint with the Swedish authorities. It's unclear …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Rab Sssss
    Happy

    ah

    side dish of irony anybody?

    For a bonus helping complete teh following phrase...hoist by you own .........?

    1. Anonymous John

      And another bonus if you know

      that the phrase starts with "hoist with".

      1. Anonymous John
        Unhappy

        Hmm

        Five commentards who don't like smug pedantic bastards.

      2. TeeCee Gold badge
        Headmaster

        Re: And another bonus if you know

        Actually the original quote from which this is taken starts with: "For 'tis the sport....", but who's counting?

        1. Titus Technophobe
          Coffee/keyboard

          Petard?

          Anyway it is very funny that this the luminary of Wikileaks is a bit upset that somebody has leaked on him. So that would be a do as I say ……

    2. johnnymotel
      Coat

      hoist by your own...

      penis?

  2. Ashton Black

    Even so...

    Apples and Oranges. One is a government trying to be unaccountable, the other is a single citizen. One is trying to prevent embarrassing revelations, the other is attempting to go through due process.

    Not ironic, but predictable.

    1. BillG
      FAIL

      Apples = Apples

      One is a government trying to prevent embarrassing revelations, while the other is an individual trying to prevent embarrassing revelations.

      As I understand it, releasing the details of the investigation is not illegal by Swedish law. It's not illegal by US or British law, either. You can read a lot more detail than that about ongoing investigations in any newspaper in the USA. As a matter of fact in US newspapers they publish the actual text messages, verbatim.

      The hypocrisy of the Wikileaks activists will be their undoing. That's why every single effort of the Wikileaks activists have failed, utterly failed, completely failed.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Failed failed failed.

        Repeat it some more and it will become true.

        "One is a government trying to prevent embarrassing revelations, while the other is an individual trying to prevent embarrassing revelations."

        And this is the same how? One is a leak about people taking the liberty of rolling over you while you pay them. The other a leak about people being rolled over while they have to pay.

        The same? Only if you are posting from State Worship Central [tm]. How's the aircon in there?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Apples are what now?

        So you admit that the US and UK governments should be tried for multiple murders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        If it weren't for most governments holding themselves to a different level of accountability, wikileaks wouldn't have gained any traction with most of us.

      3. It wasnt me

        Im confused

        Whats all this got to do with apple ? Was it released on an iPad. Help please !!

      4. Scorchio!!

        Re: Apples = Apples

        I noted some way back that this story will be full of twists and turns. Anyone doubting the insightlessness of Assange, Julian, might want to listen to this interview:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm

        His view of equality is asymmetrical, right down to his apparent sexist view of the women as being "in a tizzy" about the semen he allegedly pumped into their bodies, rather than into a rubber sack.

        Rule 1, Julian is never wrong. Rule 2, when Julian is wrong really it is someone else or another organisation that is wrong.

        Now just be grateful for the effects that he has had on the world, and don't you worry about the welfare of the PRC and Saudi informants. This had to be done, the convict Julian Assange assures us of this, and he is unquestionably right. Hmm.

        1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge
          Stop

          He isn't ....

          ... a convict. He has not been found guilty of anything.

          1. Scorchio!!
            FAIL

            Re: He isn't ...

            "... a convict. He has not been found guilty of anything."

            Oh but he is. Maybe your reading material is selective, or perhaps you believe that denying and minimising (common amongst offenders and their supporters/facilitators) a thing will make it go away, but no you are wrong, Assange is a convict. He was convicted for hacking into US defence computers, stealing their passwords and those of other organisations:

            "County Court Judge Leslie Ross said at the time he believed Assange had hacked into computer systems purely to empower himself, and not for any personal gain. But he warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to 10 years."

            Here he is, minimising his offences:

            [Despite the judge's stern words Assange said.] “Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution.”

            So you are in good company, with the convict Julian Assange. If you look at the profiles of offenders you will find the antecedents of their offending behaviours go back to an early age. This conviction marks one milestone in the development of Assange's behaviour. That you are so completely blind to it and deny that he is a convict, that he has been convicted, signals to me something that I have observed in this matter, namely that Assange's supporters are either blind to his offences (that would be due to the same halo effect that allegedly makes him seem so attractive to vulnerable women), or deliberately turn a blind eye to them.

            So you are *WRONG* and what is more I have posted the material on a couple of occasions, thus demonstrating that you didn't read it, and also that reposting material for the benefit of those who do not have the full picture is probably important.

            No denial makes a difference to the fact that Julian Assange was convicted of a crime 19 years ago, the crime of hacking passwords from US government/defence computers and those of other organisations. He even methodically dated the acquisition of each password. Presumably so he could keep track on how regularly they changed, or the likelihood that he would need to crack the password again. I say this because it is indicative of his modus operandi, and will figure highly in investigations into the current affair, during which he has employed a trick favoured by the Labour party in respect of trust funds; they *thought* that trust funds would make the origin of a fund safer, because they would technically be blind to them. It's almost like a firewall, and you have to admire him for his technique.

            I predict that this wall will crumble. Watch and see over the next few months because, believe me, he will have put a foot wrong somewhere, and it will be his undoing.

            It should be noted that Assange has yet to face a US court for the offence of hacking their defence computers, and I would not be surprised to see that they have reviewed the case.

            HTH.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
              Black Helicopters

              @Scorchio!!

              Good find.

              The interesting thing is that it explains a lot about Assange and his hatred of the US Govt. It also suggests that there may be more evidence against Assanage than just the act of 'publishing' stolen documents.

              I think as the case against Manning continues, more evidence against Assange will come out. It also means that while 'Espionage' is just a political charge, there could be more charges that are not political in nature may happen.

              The articles you linked to in other posts indicate that he was charged in being in possession of the passwords but not actually caught in the act of hacking. You're right that he could still face charges in the US, however, I think that enough time had passed that they couldn't charge him in the earlier crime. Of course that doesn't mean that they can't use it as evidence against him.

              1. Scorchio!!

                Re: @Scorchio!!

                "You're right that he could still face charges in the US, however, I think that enough time had passed that they couldn't charge him in the earlier crime."

                I'm not sure about that. This is not domestic crime, it is international, and I remember the Carlos case:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal

                Also look at the Rote Armee Fraktion case, for which cases in Germany are being tried some 30 years later. Some offences were also committed in 1993, which is a good target comparison, though Assange has not directly killed anyone, merely released data that point to informants located at specific GPS points. Be sure that a massive amount of elint is going into this right now, and don't assume it's US only. Last time I looked a former Russian KGB Colonel died for upsetting some very senior people in the Russian establishment. They do not mess about!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I am with BillG here.

      Apples = Apples.

  3. moonface

    Potential loss of cash cow.

    I am quite impressed by the Guardian's impartiality, in this instance.

    Let's hope that Julian doesn't retaliate and cut off their supply of Wikileaks.

    1. breakfast
      Thumb Up

      Absolutely

      Damn right- those leaks were their Christmas holiday- no need to do any real reporting, just wait for the next big bunch of leaks to go out and hey presto: News!

    2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

      He Can't.

      Wikileaks or Open Leaks make the leaks public. The Guardian has just the same rights to view them as anyone else.

      So what if they don't get it first. They'll still get it before the majority of readers care and they don't have to spend a dime.

  4. raving angry loony

    difference?

    Can someone point out to me where Wikileaks has leaked information about an active court case that could prejudice someone's trial?

    I, for one, can see the difference between leaking documents about the internal workings of ORGANIZATIONS and those working as part of that organization, and leaking documents that affect one individual in particular, outside of their role within an organization. One is what investigative journalism is supposed to be about, the other is the most infantile tabloid sensationalism.

    Frankly, I wish the Swedish courts would just charge Assange and let him with clear, or not, his name in court. This half-arsed public character assassination and harrassment is getting tiresome and puerile.

    Of course, it helps draw attention away from the real news - the contents of the cables themselves. So I guess the tactic is working well for those would would rather those remain out of the public eye. The strategy is working well too, as I can't find a single US or Canadian newspaper that is actually reporting on the cables themselves, but only on the continuing character assassination of Assange.

    1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
      Happy

      Correct

      The Wikileaks cables are being ignored by the mainstream press and TV in the USA - unless you count the calls to kill Assange as publicity.

      I'm much amused that the Tea Party (who basically run on the platform that "Government can not be trusted") fails to see that the Wikileaks cables prove their point in many cases ... but then, "thinking" doesn't see to be their strong point. Overall, the cables seem to give the impression that the US diplomatic corps are not the bunch of Muppets that most people had assumed they were - I'm quite impressed!

      Purchases from amazon.com this month = $0

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Not black and white

      The situation is far from black and white in this case.

      Although I do support what Wikileaks is doing, I have to say that they really should have seen this coming.

      The Merkens claim that the information being divulged would (and they are probably right) affect on-going diplomatic processes and negotiations with other governments as private opinions by partisan members were disclosed to the public. That's roughly analogous to publishing client/lawyers discussions during a trial.

      If what is reported is true, I would think that Assange's lawyers would have been better to not make such a big deal of this leakage as the irony is not going to be lost on most people.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Tomato, tomahto.

      Please, answer the following question honestly. Suppose there would be a similar trial running of a spokesman of a large organization, whether commercial or non-commercial (UN, Greenpeace, you name it), but non-governmental in any case. Suppose WikiLeaks would disseminate similar information about the trial. Would you chastise them for that act?

      1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

        @Tomato, tomahto

        Suppose Julian Assange comes to your house in person, breaks down your door and steals all your photographs and documents and posts them on a great big bill board in town. Would you chastise him for that?

        What I presented is just silly. And you are likewise presenting a hypothetical situation, which as far as I know hasn't happened, and you certainly give no instances of it happening so as far as "you" know it hasn't happened, and you are asking us to consider it and take it into account when judging Wikileaks. First find an instance then come back and try again.

        1. LoD
          Pirate

          @Geoffrey W

          My implicit argument was: given a similar situation (the subject in question is an individual with a large degree of responsibility in a prominent non-governmental entity), with a small irrelevant difference (the entity in question is something one not exactly might sympathize with), the OT would be likely to react differently.

          To my understanding, you argument against the following: you may criticize an organization on the basis of a hypothetical situation, on a basis of another, real situation, with subject and object roles reversed. Of course this is entirely wrong.

          But here's the thing: that's NOT even remotely the same statement!

          Please, no straw men, I'll get hay fever ;).

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          No....

          What he is saying is if ASSange run a bank or similar then you would be loving the fact that the info has been leaked.

          It is because you see ASSange as some sort of hero that you don't like the turn about.

          1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

            Re: No....

            I see what you have done there and it is very clever and satirical but please stop now.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Frankly, I wish

      "Frankly, I wish the Swedish courts would just charge Assange and let him with clear, or not, his name in court. This half-arsed public character assassination and harrassment is getting tiresome and puerile."

      The situation at the moment is that the Swedish authorities want to question him about some allegations against him, and have issued an arrest warrant to that effect. He is refusing to travel to Sweden to discuss those allegations with the police, and as such the Swedish authorities have requested that the UK authorities arrest him on their behalf and extradite him to them.

      If this is being unecessarily drawn out and unecessarily played in public then it is bacause Assange has chosen to do it this way.

      1. strum Silver badge

        Tosh

        >If this is being unecessarily drawn out and unecessarily played in public then it is because Assange has chosen to do it this way.

        While Assange was still in Sweden, the relevant prosecutor dropped the case.

        After he had left Sweden, another prosecutor re-opened the case (we can only speculate why). Despite many efforts from Assange's lawyer, that prosecutor has failed to address any charges or questions to Assange. Indeed, that prosecutor has repeateadly avoided any contact from Assange's brief.

        You have fallen for the propaganda.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          WTF?

          If its propaganda...

          then why is Assnage's lawyer crying foul over 'leaked' documents?

      2. Scorchio!!

        Re: Re: Frankly, I wish

        "If this is being unecessarily drawn out and unecessarily played in public then it is bacause Assange has chosen to do it this way."

        Indeed. His lawyers will regret this. Those who live by the sword die by it, ditto the net.

    5. Scorchio!!

      Re: difference?

      "Can someone point out to me where Wikileaks has leaked information about an active court case that could prejudice someone's trial?"

      Worse than that, Assange et al. admit that

      "He said that some leaks risked harming innocent people—“collateral damage, if you will”—but that he could not weigh the importance of every detail in every document. [...] A year and a half ago, WikiLeaks published the results of an Army test, conducted in 2004, of electromagnetic devices designed to prevent IEDs from being triggered. The document revealed key aspects of how the devices functioned and also showed that they inte rfered with communication systems used by soldiers—information that an insurgent could exploit. By the time WikiLeaks published the study, the Army had begun to deploy newer technology, but some soldiers were still using the devices. I asked Assange if he would refrain from releasing information that he knew might get someone killed. He said that he had instituted a “harm-minimization policy,” whereby people named in certain documents were contacted before publication, to warn them, but that there were also instances where the members of WikiLeaks might get “blood on our hands."

      http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=9

      From the documents I'm pulling together I can see the US might pull a bug shoot together. His disingenuous excuse for contemplating the idea of selling his leeks is revealing. Slowly it's becoming clear in so many ways that there is a lot of dirt in the background on this man.

  5. Anji
    WTF?

    Shome Mishtake Shurely?

    I'd have thought that releasing this information was guaranteed to ensure a fair trial would be impossible. If you can't have a fair trial you should not have any trial at all.

    1. Dr. Ellen
      FAIL

      Oh?

      Define "fair", if you will. I usually see this term as meaning "the defendant has a good chance of being acquitted, even if he DID eat the vicar's daughter and the judge and jury saw it."

      1. G Wilson

        Title

        > Define "fair"

        Without prejudice. As in, not judged before evidence is properly presented (with full benefit of rules of trial and evidence) - which this release would tend to make unlikely.

        Leaking *by a state* is not so much ironic, as entirely asymmetrical.

    2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      Inept lawyers?

      My first thoughts when I read the story were, "Why are the lawyers bleating - this is gold for them". If they are so inept that they can't turn this to the advantage of their client by arguing that there is no way that any conviction will be safe, then they need to find a new career.

    3. John I'm only dancing
      Stop

      Fair trial?

      There is no such thing. I would have thought Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr would have used the trial by media defence after they had been hung, drawn and quartered by the red tops. But no, that was never going to happen. The prosecution would argue that sufficient time had elapsed and any juror would have 'forgotten' about that coverage.

      The same will be true here. I personally think Assange is a self-serving, publicity seeking prat, but that does not detract from what WikiLeaks publishes. Take Assnage out the equation and what have you got. Shady Government as always. The pursuit of him by various Government's is solely to deflect attention away from the truth about them.

      Sweden is just a sock-puppet in all this. Conveniently, they may have a little dirt, whether true or not, on Assange and it being utilised to the full by self-interest.

  6. Chad H.
    Stop

    "trial by media"

    As someone who does believe that the timing of these charges is more that a little suspicious, I almost choked in disbelief on the quote there from the defence saying they don't want a trial by media.

    The defence started the media trial with the witch hunt claims, the sweedish lawyer saying he can't produce the intercepted SMS evidence (or say exactly what's in it) without fear of contempt of court etc, etc.

    Bed made, now lie in it

    1. Raumkraut

      But he started it!

      Actually no, this whole thing kicked off in the media when "someone" told the press that accusations of "rape" against Assange had been made with the police. This on the very same day those accusations were made, and before any official documents were filed, IIRC.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Doesn't matter who started it....

        In most cases all we see from the accused and their lawyers is "No Comment", "Can't comment on the case before it goes to trial"

        Yet Assange (or more accurately his defence) have been crying to the media about conspiracy theories. I don't care whether it was them or someone else who tipped the media off, they've played a very active role in the drama so far.

        So yeah, I kinda agree, they made their bed...........

        That said, I dare say they'd have been in for some reasonably dire consequences had they leaked info that would help their defence.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

      You mean 'trying the case in the media'.

      The media will always 'try a case'. That is the reporter and paper will gather whatever facts they can find and they will present their views and some of the facts. (If you don't think that news organizations are not biased then you live in a dream world. Just ask CNN or Fox if the other isn't biased when they report on a story... ;-)

      But 'trying the case in the media' is where the defense team tries to bring credibility and do damage control by making statements to the press that may not be factual or they may present the facts but intentionally draw erroneous conclusions.

      I'll give you an example of a single case where both happened.

      In Cleveland Ohio, back in the 50's Dr. Sam Sheppard killed his wife. He claimed that a burglar killed his wife and attacked him. The hospital 'gossip' amongst the doctors was that the wounds looked superficial and self inflicted.

      Because Dr.Sheppard came from a very influential and well respected family, the case against him was not initially pursued. It wasn't until after reporters for the Cleveland Plain Dealer continually made inquires and ran stories until the Police finally investigated Sheppard and made an arrest after his story started to fall apart. (This is an example of where Sheppard was tried in the press.)

      He was found guilty and went to prison. 10 years later, a young F. Lee Bailey got Sheppard a new trial because of some comments made by the judge. Bailey 'tried his case in the media' in an effort to get Sheppard a new trial. When he was successful, in the 10 years, people died, and witnesses couldn't remember all of the facts. So Bailey got Sheppard released. My father was an attending at the time this happened and he believed that Sheppard was guilty. Most did, except for Sheppard's son. IMHO I believe Bailey had to try his case in the media in an effort to get Sheppard's initial trial overturned and get Sheppard a new trial. Without the press watching, I seriously doubt that the courts would have granted a new trial. (Sheppard was let go on a technicality).

      So here you have a case that shows both examples of the Media trying the case and the case being tried in the media.

      With respect to Assange, I believe that he wants his case tried in the media because he wants the attention.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trial by media?

    From what I've seen, the trial is of the Swedish system and the complainants rather than of JA

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Did anyone seriously...

    ... not see this coming :p

    Everyone and their dog will be leaking anything they can now if Assange's name appears in it.

  9. IanDav
    Happy

    Governments must be happy

    There must be a few governments enjoying this one. Such wonderful irony.

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre Silver badge

      I don't think so

      As mentioned that leak seriously compromises the possibility of a fair trial. Some cases have been dismissed for less than that.

      1. El Zed

        and the point is..

        That it doesn't matter.

        The whole intent is to smear the character of Assange, not to give him a 'fair' trial, I seriously doubt that these allegations would have ever led to Mr. Assange ever seeing the inside of a courtroom in Sweden, that wasn't their intention.

        The point is, putting this rather crudely, shit sticks.

        Even if he went to trial in Sweden on whatever charges, even if the charges are dropped or he's found not guilty, the association of his name with wikileaks and sexual assault will stick in people's minds, constant repetition in the media of the same BS over the past couple of weeks has taken care of that...I refer you to the good Dr. Goebbels quote about lies and repetition.

        I'm neutral on this one, though I find it amusing that the media whore that is Assange has been hoist with his own petard. He knows the rules of the media game, considering some of the material wikileaks handles he should know the rules of the games various spook squads round the world play by, really, he should have been just a wee bit more careful where he dipped his wikki..

        1. Scorchio!!
          FAIL

          Re: and the point is..

          "The point is, putting this rather crudely, shit sticks."

          As the convict, Julian Assange, knows only too well, having practised it for years now. Payback is always difficult, and it is clear from his words that Assange is walking a difficult and tortuous path:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm

          I am sure the prosecutors have a certified 'original copy' of the interview.

          1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge
            Stop

            Again ...

            ... he isn't a convict. Do you understand "innocent unless proven guilty"? He has not been convicted of anything, he is not in prison serving a sentence, HE IS NOT A CONVICT!

            (Sorry for shouting, Sarah, but sometimes it just gets too much)

            1. Scorchio!!
              FAIL

              Re: Again ...

              "... he isn't a convict. Do you understand "innocent unless proven guilty"? He has not been convicted of anything, he is not in prison serving a sentence, HE IS NOT A CONVICT!

              (Sorry for shouting, Sarah, but sometimes it just gets too much)"

              Oh yes he is:

              "It was not until five years after the police raid that the case again him was finalised. Pleading guilty to 24 charges, he was fined the equivalent of about £900 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

              County Court Judge Leslie Ross said at the time he believed Assange had hacked into computer systems purely to empower himself, and not for any personal gain. But he warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to 10 years.

              The judge told Assange he acknowledged ‘the unstable personal background that you have had to endure and the nomadic existence that your mother and yourself were forced to follow, and also the personal disruption that occurred within your household’.

              The judge added: “These offences could only have been committed by an intelligent individual, and you now have this black mark against your name. If there is any repetition of this behaviour, I would have thought your chances of avoiding a jail sentence would be very slim.”

              Despite those stern words, Assange told the judge: “Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution.” "

              http://www.thestar.co.za/assange-has-a-secret-of-his-own-1.1003105

              Julian Assange is a convict. Now print out and eat your words

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                WTF?

                Down voted?

                Wow.

                Here's a post that shows that Assanage is a 'convict' and provides quotes, links and a bit of a view in to Assange's character.

                Yet it gets down voted?

                I guess some people just don't want to hear the truth. Even when presented with the truth I bet they'll argue that it was a conspiracy and he was 'set up' by the US Government for planting that information on his toy computer.

                1. Scorchio!!

                  Re Down voted?

                  It is both a compliment and alarming when people vote down the truth as though it were some commodity of popularity. To tighten up my language from logic, this is the argumentum ad populum in action; many people believe Julian to have a clean sheet, free of convictions, they vote on it, it is true.

                  As a theory of knowledge, however, this approach fails where things like the law, brick walls and other hard, kickable objects are concerned. This is why an American politician said, I think some 60-70 years ago, that we have to take the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

                  Back to the point, it is always alarming when people in democracies hold the sort of epistemological theory that Kim Jong Il would favour, and it is amusing that I have stung so many people, as evidence by the way people vote me down in general. Why there are even people saying they don't GAD how irrational their logic and thus epistemology are, they agree with this sleazy, shady man in spirit and that is all that matters. Thus are tyrannies born.

      2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        WTF?

        Absolutely not...

        The information 'leaked' was the actual accusation by the women and none of the investigation in to the allegations.

        What the story did was refute accusations by Assange and his lawyers.

        It also showed that there was no 'honey pot'.

        It publicly destroyed Assange's reputation by exposing his alleged crimes and the fact that he was spinning some tall tales.

        The story doesn't taint the jury pool nor was anything that isn't already known published.

  10. ratfox Silver badge

    Heh

    The similarities are striking.

    And, you know, I am not at all certain anymore that this is a set up... The reactions of the girls seem plausible. Especially the part about being convinced at the police station to press charges.

    Though it is unlikely they ever imagined the explosion their accusation would create... Holy $#!7...

    1. Asgard
      Big Brother

      Lawyers have to say all this

      @ratfox, to start with, lawyers have to say all this. As for plausible, WTF!

      ratfox, I don't believe you are one of the anti-Assange posters, but I believe you are easily swayed by them. You do need to be more critical of what you hear (and yes even what I say, critical thinking doens't have exceptions, test everything you hear from everyone). For example I see on here, a number of anti-Assange posters have totally (and very probably (straw man style) intentionally) missed the fact its Assange's lawyer who was saying this, not Assange.

      But lawyers have to say this about not talking about the case publically, because that is the principle upon which a "fair trial" is supposed to be based, i.e. don't allow media to bias jury before trail. Which is also the reason Assange himself cannot comment on the case in detail, as its yet to go to trial. Lawyers have to say this or they wouldn't be doing their job. Also anyone leaking this would also know lawyers would have to say this, which just plays into their game plan to make him look bad once more.

      As for this from the news "I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing - trying to make Julian look bad."

      So who could possibly have a reason to try to make him look bad? … The only people would be people who fear what is being leaked. People in money and power. People like politicians.

      By the way, after doing some more digging today, it turns out the lawyer against Assange isn't just a lawyer. By a complete stroke of luck he is also a social Democratic politician! ... he even started up his law office with Social Democratic politician and former Minister for Justice Thomas Bodström. So he is an extremely influential lawyer/politician with very powerful friends.

      So strange how a case about a broken condom is being taken on by such a legal & political big gun as him.

      The more I hear about this case, the more it sounds like a complete stitch up. Its like I said the other day, if people can't believe that governments would seek to frame someone then there's no hope for that kind of person to understand, because the only way to hold such a belief is to be completely ignorant of history.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        question what you hear...

        "As for this from the news "I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing - trying to make Julian look bad."

        So who could possibly have a reason to try to make him look bad? … The only people would be people who fear what is being leaked. People in money and power. People like politicians"

        It equally could have been leaked by his own defence team. I do not believe that this leak actually damages his case in any way, since had it gone to trial, this would have been one of the first pieces of evidence released. So what's to say that this was not some government smear campaign against The Accused, but a ploy by his defence team to make him look victimised? Other questions you might want to ask could include "who has a previous track record of leaking sensitive documents?" and "who had gained most from leaking sensitive documents?"

        And before the Assange fanboi's accuse me of being anti, I'm not. I don't particularly care about wikileaks, what bothers me is the almost rabid unthinking support / anti feeling which goes on from both sides without properly thinking about things.

        Yes, this COULD have been a government ploy to get this man arrested and yes these docs COULD have been leaked to make him look bad, but equally this COULD have been a genuine complaint against someone who has chosen to use their status to try to hide what he did in a veil of conspiracy theories and the leak COULD have been done by his own team to garner sympathy.

        For all the arguing, none of you really know what Assange did or did not do in sweden, there are only 3 people who really know, we'll have to wait and see.

      2. breakfast
        Stop

        No help needed

        Nobody needs to help Assange look bad, with his "hope the Sorting Hat puts me in Slytherin" demeanour and egotistical harping, he has always - since long before any of this came out - come across as a creepy guy.

        Regardless of whether this is a set-up, he could have done a lot better by Wikileaks ( and made less of a target of himself ) if he had not spent so much time over the last five years going "Me me ME! Look at me everyone! Who is the face of Wikileaks? It's me! Julian Assange! I'm the man! Check me out! I'm so secret and stealthy and so much cleverer than everyone! And did I mention Wikileaks? That is basically ME!"

        1. strum Silver badge

          Tosh (2)

          >if he had not spent so much time over the last five years going "Me me ME! Look at me everyone! Who is the face of Wikileaks? It's me! Julian Assange! I'm the man! Check me out! I'm so secret and stealthy and so much cleverer than everyone! And did I mention Wikileaks? That is basically ME!"

          Balderdash. I doubt if one human in a million had heard of Assange before he was targeted by the Yanks, after the Cable leaks. They (and their friends in the mainstream media) have made it all about Assange. And you've fallen for it.

      3. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: Lawyers have to say all this

        "its Assange's lawyer who was saying this, not Assange."

        Instead of posting this drivel you could listen to the interview in which Assange himself states the women were 'in a tizzy':

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm

        How patronising of him. Correction, how generous. He's irrevocably put himself in the public domain.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Asgard

        In case you're wondering why the downvote;

        You tell people to think critically, yet give a pro-assange assessment of events. As the next poster says, it could well have been Assange's defence. After all, a leak which prejudices a 'fair' trial could be sufficient to have the case thrown out of court. Especially useful if he did actually commit the act!!!

        What bothers me about the whole situation is we will never know the real truth. If Assange is convicted, most of you will still be claiming it's a conspiracy theory. Hell, a signed confession from the man himself probably wouldn't be enough to convince a significant proportion of his supporters!

        I'm trying so hard to keep an open mind until ALL the evidence is available (at least all that wil be made available) but some people seem to be happy basing their judgements upon prejudices (both good and bad). I fucking hope none of you have ever been called for Jury duty!!!!

  11. ElReg!comments!Pierre Silver badge
    FAIL

    Irony shmirony

    There is not a single bit of irony there. There is arguably no ongoing case so the leak is not illegal, but it still seriously jeopardizes a possible trial (by compromising the possibility of a fair trial).

    Given that the charges -if they are ever pressed- are likely to be "sex by surprise", which I am told carries a max fine of roughly 80 pounds*, the "trial by media" is likely to be used by the defense to have the case dismissed, and it's likely to work. More serious cases have been dismissed for less than that. Of course the defense lawyers need to be seen as fuming, but in private they must be patting each other's back.

    Now to indulge in a bit of conspiracy theory, I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn that the leak was the work of a partisan of Assange, not one of his enemies.

    *you read well. So much for the "seriousness of the allegations" first used to refuse the bail.

    1. Brangdon

      @ElReg!comments!Pierre

      "Given that the charges -if they are ever pressed- are likely to be "sex by surprise", which I am told carries a max fine of roughly 80 pounds*," - do you have references for that? As far as I can tell, the whole "sex by surprise" thing was an invention of Assange or his supporters. It is not part of Swedish law. What he is actually used of is having sex with a woman while she was asleep, knowing that she wouldn't consent if she were awake.

      Part of the Guardian's rationale for publishing was that a lot of the information was already out there, but in garbled form. I imagine Assange's team is upset because some of his smoke screen is now dispelled.

  12. K. Adams
    Boffin

    Ironic? Yes. Unfortunate? Possibly...

    People will be quick to jump all over Assange's legal Counsel and cry "Hypocrites!"

    After all, the whole "Goose/Gander" thing seems to make up a sizeable portion of a lot of peoples' moral genome.

    However, there is quite a difference (in my mind) between exposing a Government's alleged collective misdeeds and/or internal policy, and releasing material that is liable to taint the jury pool and damage an individual's defence in a Criminal Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

    To me, it's a matter of scale: Releasing a cache of documents about the actions or thoughts of a Government as a whole has a lot less of an impact against the Government in question (relative to its power, and the associated privilege of Sovereign Immunity), than the impact a leaked collection of documents can have with regard to a judicial proceeding directed at a specific individual.

    To wit, the Cablegate affair is unlikely to have the effect of toppling the Federal Government of the United States from power, whereas a leaking of confidential info relating to Mr. Assange's sexual assault cases could very well impact his future status as either a free man (or prisoner).

    Disclaimer: I am not stating this as an indictment of the actions of the Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, the United States, or Mass Media; not having read any of the leaked documents, and knowing only as much about Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as most other well-read folk keeping current with prescient events, I am not in any position to either support or oppose their actions or motivations in releasing the Cables. I am attempting to observe events objectively, and to provide analyses based upon the outcome of similar, prior events and legal precedent.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Fantastic

      Someone else being objective. We should meet up and start a club for objective observers, could probably fit the membership in a single cupboard though. It'd need to be pitchfork proof to protect us from the rabid fanbois and anti-assangers though!

    2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      @K.Adams

      Unfortunately, this is not the case.

      First, Assange hasn't been arrested or officially charged has he? The arrest warrant is to bring him in for questioning right? (He did leave the country and wasn't in the country and missed an appointment, right? So much misinformation on these boards its hard to keep the time line straight.)

      So to say that information was 'leaked' and because of the 'leak' he can't get a fair trial is ludicrous. As someone else posted, the leak could have come from outside of the Prosecutor's office... and the fact that someone also reported that the Guardian felt that it was ok to publish the data because it was already in the public eye.

      And that's where the irony exists.

      The amount of 'Harm' is objective. It would be difficult to directly tie the death of a person to the Wikileaks leaks, yet its probable that someone would think twice of coming forward if he or she felt that their identity would not be protected so that information which could have saved lives was never passed on. So there is some truth to Wikileaks claim of a lack of harm in releasing information that they feel that the public should know.

      On the other hand, Assange's legal team is crying foul because while they have been out trying their case in the court of public opinion, where they can make assertions and allow some to make erroneous conclusions without recourse... Information that contradicts their 'publicity message' has been made public. So now there is 'Harm' that Assange may or may not get a fair trial. But that 'harm' too is subjective. Assange hasn't suffered any physical harm from the leak. Nor has his defense team produced any evidence in the court where the 'leaked' information has contradicted his statements and has caused harm. Keep in mind that what is said outside of the court room has no bearing on the court case unless it can be proven to taint the jury pool.

      So exactly what 'harm' has occurred?

      BTW, trying a bad case in the court of public opinion has been going on for a long time.

      Drew Peterson in IL. OJ Simpson... interestingly enough F. Lee Bailey, one of his lawyers made his bones getting Dr. Sam Sheppard out of jail after 10 years for killing his wife. (But that's another story) In these cases you have someone who was probably guilty. (Peterson is still on trial, but OJ and Sheppard were guilty) Yet I digress.

      So it is ironic that the lawyers for Assange claim that no harm came from leaking information, yet cry foul and harm when they are on the reverse side of the coin.

      Assange can still get a fair trial in Sweden. So their claims of harm are exaggerated. (Of course all this does is silence the critics and fanbois who claim that it was all a government frame up.)

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    But whats the Truth?

    Can someone please "SPEAK" to the 2 babes whose allegations have led to all this? Interview them formally and put out their statement? (Photos would help). What's their identity and why can't they give a public interview? Surely this will clarify a lot of hot air ! Or was it a honeytrap.

    It appears they are least interested in pursuing rape charges and its the trumped up Swedish police (US pimps- in this instance) who are doing the dirty bidding.

    And why so late, after the Wikileaks triumph on Iraq papers? Is it a coinicdence? No way Jose !

    Mines the Kevlar lined bulletproof one!

  14. Mike S

    Most Ironic Statement of the Year

    "I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing - trying to make Julian look bad."

    I mean, if you replace Julian with United States, I'd imagine you could find a US government official who said the same thing.

    The one thing that bugs me about this - why leak it to the Guardian? What if there were some sort of website out there where any could anonymously post stuff? Sort of like Wikipedia, but with information that had somehow "leaked"? I'd call it LeaksWiki.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      @Mike S

      I'm not sure that someone 'leaked' anything.

      From reading the Guardian article, I saw a couple of things that stuck out...

      1) Assange and his attorney claimed that this whole thing in Sweden was a smear job to discredit him.

      2) Neither Assanage nor his attorney were privy to the information that the Swedes had against him.

      The reporter investigated and found that the information he presented in his article was information that was available and to his knowledge known by the defense.

      So it wasn't as if an anonymous source just leaked the information. Yet another myth that it appears to be presented by Assange's publicity defense.

      The truth is less shady than that.

  15. Steve X

    Poor Julian

    So they're worried because leaking the documents might "make Julian look bad".

    Where's the ROTFL icon?

  16. Neal 5

    now,now children,

    play nicely, or you'll have to go to bed early.

  17. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    No Surprise

    This has 'smear' writ large all over it.

    Anyone who thinks there is a similarity between dissemination of embarrassing quasi-secret OLD documents, and the written evidence in an ONGOING court case really needs to think again.

    The only good thing to take away here is that in this case government and police are being shown very clearly to be totally corrupt. I guess it all depends on how hard 'the man in the street' (tm) tries to not see it.

    1. ratfox Silver badge

      Huh?

      What do you mean, OLD documents? Many the cables are about current foreign governments, with which the US have very much ongoing relations. And these relations will keep going long after the charges against Assange have been dropped or confirmed.

    2. Anton Ivanov
      Thumb Down

      The 30 (or 50 in the case of UK) year limit is there for a reason

      The 30-50 years limit used in most countries is there for a reason. It is more or less the limit past which a document release will not prejudice current relationships between governments and will not influence the politics in other countries in a manner that is _AGAINST_ the interests of the country holding the documents.

      Imagine what would have happened if let's say the orders of Churchill for British coastal defences along the channel to stand down on the day of the run of the pocket battleships through the channel were given to Stalin on the next day when he nearly quit the alliance? Would the world be better off for that?

      By the way the fact that orders do not even officially exist in British archives (so much for 50 years secrecy limit) is not even necessary any more to figure out if they were given. The lag-to-decode of Bletchley and what they decoded in which years is now known, the fact that the German naval codes were cracked is also known, the fact that Britain already had working radar at the time is also known and what Churchill did at Coventry is also known. 2+2=4 even for very large values of 2. However, it is now nearly 70 years past that date and not the_DAY_ _AFTER_.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I

    LOLed

    Anyone got a link to the defence fund for the guy that leaked details about El Primo Leaker's court case? That's a defence fund I'd donate to. After all; the information...it wants to be free....

  19. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Personnally...

    I think Assange should just "deal with it".

    Beyond the titillating stuff like Qaddafi's buxom, blonde nurse and the occasional American diplomat alleging that Britain has royals behaving badly, Wikileaks' Afghan/Iraq field reports leak a few months back apparently did name a couple informants against the Taliban (informants who have probably at least moved across Afghanistan by now), and his leaked diplomatic cables have outed a prominent Lebanese cabinet secretary providing info on/conspiring against Hezbollah. Call me alarmist, but my impression is that this kind of behavior can get you killed in Afghanistan or Lebanon.

    Now this Swedish rape case may be a set-up to discredit Assange. (though I can't figure out what what the Hell the U.S. has on the Swedish government to get one of Europe's most geopolitically indifferent governments to perpetrate some kind of character assassination black op .) And from what I have read about the actual rape case it sounds like Julian Assange was mostly guilty of juggling casual sex with two friends who found out about eachother and got mad about Julian sleeping around. Be that as it may, Julian is mostly threatened with embarrasment and what I guess would be a bit of jail time (I don't know anything about Swedish justice, but I can't see any sentence running more than a few years nominal length, then reduced for good behavior/etc. ) The people he ratted out above could end up tortured and dead.

  20. Neal 5

    Good attempt to influence peoples way of thinking.

    I suggest you take the establishment view and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

  21. bofh80
    FAIL

    Black and White - Welcome to the Gray area.

    So IRONY. IRONY. IRONY. go on say it again.

    Now to all the folk who've been with the US gov on this, who are saying that this stuff should be leaked on assange, his bail address should be given out. To you people who are reading this.

    You are AGREEING WITH ASSANGE.

    You are AGREEING that the information should be free and open.

    Welcome to the free world, i'm with ya.

    Oh the IRONY.

    And to the people leaking it, to the judges who condone the current behaviour. You are simply proving his case.

    Chew on that for while.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Squiggle
      FAIL

      Mine's the dictionary ...

      IRONY

      –noun, plural -nies.

      the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.

    3. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      WTF?

      @bofh80

      No. Not at all.

      We're simply saying that its ironic that the one point behind Wikileaks is that all information should be made public (good bad or indifferent) yet when in practice, lawyers for Wikileaks are crying foul because their beliefs are now causing themselves harm. That's the irony.

      I don't agree that all information should be made public. There are definitely a lot of things that should not be known or secrets that should not see the light of day. While governments have laws and rules regarding the de-classification of documents, having an unofficial third party with no oversight dump documents in to the public... with no context given... I do have an issue with that.

  22. fidodogbreath Silver badge
    FAIL

    Just last week...

    ...his lawyer, speaking about the rape allegations, demanded "Where's the evidence?"

    Now he knows. It's in the Guardian.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: Just last week...

      ... seems that the Guardian has the allegations rather than the evidence

      1. breakfast
        Coat

        Indeed

        Presumably the evidence would have stuck the pages together.

        1. Scorchio!!
          Thumb Up

          Re: Indeed

          I wonder if Monica Lewinsky's blue cocktail dress means anything to Julian. The combat jacket please, there, it's in front of you. Thanks.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Just Desserts

    Add me to the list of people thinking Assange got what he deserved.

    If you espouse radical transparency for other people, then you should have it for yourself. Yes, the released police files might prejudice the case against Assange. And yes, the released diplomatic cables might prejudice diplomatic efforts of the US.

    It's important to remember that the wikileaked documents don't contain a smoking gun of bad behavior, just some candid analysis that is normally kept confidential, to preserve the feelings of the analyze-ee. Assange has no moral high ground here. He was just being an a**hole in the most public way he could do. "Look at me, look at me!!" he said. And now we're all looking. And there's stuff to see.

    I suppose if sinister agents of the US government infiltrated the police and siphoned off the documents, that would be pretty bad behavior. If it was just one of hundreds of local officials with access to the records and a sense of irony, I'd say it was just the wikileak spirit of needless spite catching on, and thanks to Mr Assange for showing them the way.

    Lets do what the US did about the original leaker of the diplomatic cables; find the perpetrator and charge them with whatever crime it is to disclose this info. (Oh, wait, it isn't any kind of crime. Job done).

    This may well become the gold standard by which irony is measured. When songs are sung and stories are told about the great legends of irony, this will live forever.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: Just Desserts

      "If you espouse radical transparency for other people, then you should have it for yourself."

      There's a difference between the thing people call "privacy" and the thing people call "transparency". Generally, the actions of governments and the exercise of public office don't merit privacy: when those people are doing their jobs on your behalf, you should be able to demand to know what they spend their time doing, and that amounts to transparency. When those people are off the clock, they (like everyone else) have a right to privacy, which means that you shouldn't be trying to film their bedroom from the house across the street, intercept their mail, or stuff that would be regarded as interfering with their private life.

      "When songs are sung and stories are told about the great legends of irony, this will live forever."

      I think you can only afford to be that smug if you've made a great point, but you failed at the privacy versus transparency fence. Back to square one you go.

      1. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: Re: Just Desserts

        "There's a difference between the thing people call "privacy" and the thing people call "transparency"."

        Wrong, no there is not in the case of an ideologue, a self appointed individual and convict to boot for the very same offence that he is perpetuating (in case you didn't read that, it's "perpetuate", not "perpetrate"; I await evidence for the latter) right now. Public appointments are generally made after scrutinising the histories of those nominated. People who apply for jobs in sensitive posts are subjected to positive vetting. Assange has not been scrutinised, though years back he very clearly stole passwords for a number of organisations, including the US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon and, when sentence was passed he insightlessly rambled thus: “Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution.”

        It's always someone else who is guilty when it comes to Saint Julian, isn't it? Even his fan bois and gurlz feel the same way.

        Offenders minimise and deny, Assange would appear to be no different. The spectacle of people repeating the process on his behalf when there is an observable publicly available behavioural history is unsavoury to say the least. That's before the story of a woman who bore him a son is revealed, but she's hidden herself away. She must have seen this coming. That must be why she fled after his arrest.

        This man's actions will result in the loss of many of our online freedoms. As Bill Thompson of the BBC put it, it is democracy's "Napster moment":

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12007616

        Wake up. Wake up.

        1. EvilGav 1

          Convict ?? !! ??

          How is Assange a convict ? To be a convict, you have to be tried in a court of your peers and *convicted*. Being arrested does not make you a convict, it doesn't even make you guilty of anything, it makes you a suspect.

          Whilst the hard of thinking may, eventually, come round to your way of thinking, it still wont make the statement true.

          1. Scorchio!!
            FAIL

            Re: Convict ?? !! ??

            Can you read? Julian Assange is a convict. He was convicted for the offence of hacking and stealing passwords from, among other organisations, US defence computers. Now grow up and do some reading, you are in urgent need of it:

            "It was not until five years after the police raid that the case again him was finalised. Pleading guilty to 24 charges, he was fined the equivalent of about £900 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

            County Court Judge Leslie Ross said at the time he believed Assange had hacked into computer systems purely to empower himself, and not for any personal gain. But he warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to 10 years.

            The judge told Assange he acknowledged ‘the unstable personal background that you have had to endure and the nomadic existence that your mother and yourself were forced to follow, and also the personal disruption that occurred within your household’.

            The judge added: “These offences could only have been committed by an intelligent individual, and you now have this black mark against your name. If there is any repetition of this behaviour, I would have thought your chances of avoiding a jail sentence would be very slim.”

            Despite those stern words, Assange told the judge: “Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution.” "

            http://www.thestar.co.za/assange-has-a-secret-of-his-own-1.1003105

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Flame

          Re: Re: Just Desserts

          "Wrong, no there is not in the case of an ideologue, a self appointed individual and convict to boot for the very same offence that he is perpetuating (in case you didn't read that, it's "perpetuate", not "perpetrate"; I await evidence for the latter) right now."

          First of all, just to clear this up, regardless of how Assange sees the world, informed observers make a distinction between transparency and privacy. Even if someone believes in and advocates transparency ("an ideologue" in your words), it doesn't mean that their privacy is up for grabs unless certain private actions contradict what they represent and advocate publicly.

          And in fact, my comment had nothing to do with any scrutiny of Assange in relation to criminal proceedings, but I think you'll find that eliminating a person's privacy is a good way of jeopardising a prosecution. Maybe the Swedes won't see the need for a jury trial - for some kinds of offence, there are other forms of trial in use, at least in various parts of Scandinavia - but down the line, it might be difficult to get a bunch of jurors in the US to show up with an open mind about those "perpetuated offences" unless the aim is to cry "national security", of course, and invoke the whole orange jumpsuit circus.

          1. Scorchio!!
            Grenade

            Re: Re: Re: Just Desserts

            In addition to Assange's admission that there will be 'collateral damage', this:

            "Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most—power without accountability—is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution."

            "http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=10

            Someone earlier commented that the Afghan informants who've been exposed will move to safer parts of the country. It is now possible that there is no safe part, given the state of (e.g.) the formerly quiet Kunduz province, and there have been incidents in the very quiet, thin strip in between eastern Tajikistan to the north, Jammu and Kashmir (ring any insurgency bells in your head does it?) to the south. Probably the Chinese border to the far east is sealed off. They aren't playing this silly religious game if they can help it. That's another story.

  24. AndrueC Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Well, I Lol'd

    Leaking information is bad, m'kay?

  25. Richard Bijster
    FAIL

    One should not presume guilt.

    I do find El Reg's somewhat gloating and rather biased reporting over all of this rather repugnant and childish, One can't help feeling that The Register really has a chip on its shoulder when it comes to Assange and the whole Wikilieaks affair.

    1. Billl
      WTF?

      re: One should not presume guilt.

      Are you kidding? El Reg relies on leaked documents and rumour in everything they write. This particular story just brings up the complete hypocrisy of Assanges lawyers. If you can't see the irony, then you need to have your irony bone checked by a professional.

      Personally I don't see anything wrong with Assange releasing these documents. The US gov needs to be a bit more careful with who has access. It's not like Assange broke in and stole it.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    This is only part of the evidence

    I thought there were key SMS text messages between the women which indicated a consipracy, but which are still regarded as secret and not released to the media.

    Where are the phone SMS records of all parties. Surely the Police have them :) Not only would we see how the girls were thinking, but maybe also Julian. I can't wait for the SMS leak.... LOLOL

    .

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      why do you think that?

      "I thought there were key SMS text messages between the women which indicated a consipracy, but which are still regarded as secret and not released to the media."

      You think there are some secret things but you can't be sure because they've not been released.

      Why would you think that?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Troll

    not irony

    It's not irony, wikileaks and most "hacktivists" are all about government transparency, but personal privacy.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    who did the leaking

    Would it be cynical to wonder if Assange had the police docs leaked himself, so as to claim that he couldn't get a fair trial? He is a known serial document-leaker. What spin does that put on the story?

    I'm just sayin'

  29. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    This just about sums it up...

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1917900&cid=34616510

  30. This post has been deleted by its author

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Er, actually, about the actual contents of the leaked documents

    I read it in the Guardian and I'm convinced that Julian is not a rapist. And so far it's only the lawyers who have complained, I suppose they have to go thru the motions, fair trial stuff and blah blah...

  32. Steve Brooks

    true or false?

    "You are AGREEING that the information should be free and open." The thing is this is not actual information, at the moment its just a claim, whch could be true or false based on the results of a trial. Freedom of information is based on the fact the actual information is being concealed, the sms messages that the lawyer says he is forbidden to reveal fit this case, the charges and claims are not actual information in the same sense.

  33. Cunningly Linguistic

    Two things are clear...

    1) A lot of commenters here don't understand what "irony" is, including the author of this article.

    2) I think Assange is more concerned about the world knowing he's shit in bed rather than the fact that he made good use of his morning glory.

  34. Jeff 11
    WTF?

    Yes, there's a difference, but...

    There's also a big value judgement going on here that most of you ignoring - the release of documents potentially embarrassing to governments being good, the release of documents potentially embarrassing to an individual being bad. If everyone were to cast a critical eye at evidence, then the availability of any documents should be beneficial to all. Individuals can be just as corrupt as governments. And because of anonymity, there's also very little guarantee of verifying the authenticity of much of this material.

    If Wikileaks embodies the freedom of information, then there should be no good and bad, and the public should be free to cast their own judgements. I don't believe for a second that there aren't big, big agendas and financial backers pulling the strings of this farce, on both sides.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ironic, but not hypocritical.

    I am not a wikileaks supporter because I support "leaks", I'm a wikileaks supporter because they revealed the authorities doing wrong things and lying about! I have nothing against classified documents or secrets. Never have. It's the actual content that matters. I wouldn't normally be happy about classified information being leaked! However, when it shows the government is lying to you about something, it's probably a good thing it's being leaked!

    I've never been a fan of Assange. If these accusations are true, he's really a creepy little jerk. It seems to fit his personality. It doesn't seem like it could be proven either way. So maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I'm more concerned about Assange's right to publish leaked material than I am about Assange. I wish people wouldn't focus so much on the people instead of the issues.

    I'm far more concerned about the women in this case than Assange. These things are supposed to be secret in order to protect them just as much as the accused. Many women would not come forward about a sexual assault if they feel it's going to be published in such great detail.

    Yes, it is funny and ironic that someone known for leaking information is mad about some leaked information, but it's nothing beyond that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Freedom of information paradox

      "It's the actual content that matters. I wouldn't normally be happy about classified information being leaked! However, when it shows the government is lying to you about something, it's probably a good thing it's being leaked!"

      So what you are saying, in a nutshell, is that people should read the secret documents before they're able to read them, in order to establish whether or not they should be able to read them?

      Thanks for your contribution.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    Oh really...

    "It's unclear whether they see the irony."

    I'm sure that Assange's lawyers would be blissfully ignoring that side of the matter, certainly being quite sufficed with the pay and the publicity. Speaking of which, isn't publicity really one of the key features of the matters outside the courts, as regardless of any of Assange's idealistic claims?

    ... but all in good cheer, El Reg.

  37. elderlybloke

    He has not been formally charged !

    Why then was he arrested in England about an alleged crime in Sweden .

    The law really is an ass or rather it is an ars.

    1. AndrueC Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Arrested v. charged

      If you don't know the difference between being arrested and being charged then you, sir, ought to research your country's legal system.

      No amount of leaked documents can compensate for that kind of ignorance.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      @elderlybloke

      "The law really is an ass or rather it is an ars"

      It really is an ass - that's the word Dickens used. He was referring to the animal, or rather the qualities popularly ascribed to it, not part of one's anatomy. (The full quote is “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.” - Mr Bumble has just been told that the law supposes a wife acts under her husband's direction. More usually quoted as "the law is aN ass")

      Mine's the one with too many 19c novels in it.

    3. Scorchio!!

      Re: He has not been formally charged !

      "Why then was he arrested in England about an alleged crime in Sweden .

      The law really is an ass or rather it is an ars."

      He has been arrested pending extradition, in order to facilitate the question and answer session with the police that was supposed to have taken place before he left Sweden without telling the local police.

      That departure will be the reason why he is currently bailed, and it will be why the Swedish authorities contested bail; he is by definition at risk of absconding, given the circumstances of his (cough) premature departure from Sweden. His argument that he is not to be called to random countries for enquiries is BS; there is no random here, the Swedes want him back to resume the Q & A process that he abruptly terminated. Nothing random there, only a perceived need to resume an enquiry, and all of the attempts to minimise what has happened are at best egregious. At worst, well I'd be booted by the moderatrix if I expressed myself fully, though I am amused by the thought that Assange thinks he can move around the world uninterrupted including those countries he targets. Arrogance? That is the view that seems to come out of the Guardian, Cryptome and other sites I've read.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Troll

    The title isn't required, and must not contain letters and/or digits.

    But secretly they're smiling and laughing, because this is a good thing. It makes their defence case stronger because everyone involved in the case *could* be influenced by this leak. Wouldn't surprise me if it was their own plan from the start.

  39. Deadly_NZ
    Coat

    And here is a little gem i found

    While having a surf to see where a link led and i found this little gem

    http://rightwingnews.com/2010/07/the-cia-should-kill-julian-assange/

    Oh these are the real friends of Sarah palin and her cronies

    Mines the one with the snipers rifle next to it

  40. kryan74

    Hypocrisy

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

    Liberals will always try to draw moral equivalencies when trying to justify their irrational argument. I was not aware of the politics behind British newspapers and blindly started reading different articles. If I had gone with the comments I read on The Guardian alone, I would have drawn the conclusion that the Brits really do hate us. I am pleased with them leaking the police files, but more pleased with with my conclusions regarding the media in the United Kingdom. You also have a Huffington Post. Then, there is the rational media. It is good to see people in the United Kingdom denouncing wikileaks and understanding the bigger picture behind Assange.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I don't think you really understand

      Firstly, although Assange is a bell-end of monumental proportions, he cannot really be accused of "leaking whatever he wants regardless of consequences".

      Clearly much of the material has been redacted and so far very little of it has actually been leaked - whether this is because the unleaked stuff is potentially harmful to named individuals (as in getting them killed harmful, not just slightly embarrassed) or simply because the unleaked stuff is worthless is a different matter.

      Also, it is an accepted fact that Assange requested assistance from the US embassy in London in order to present the documents in a way that ensures at risk individuals remained protected. The embassy refused, which Assange will no doubt argue implies that none of the information actually endangers anyone. probably not true but you need to hold your own government up to scrutiny if lives are risked.

      And finally, we generally aren't denouncing Wikileaks in the UK - we typically think Assange is an arrogant, self serving, publicity-whore twat but we also expect to have our governments held to a high standard and we know things like Wikileaks at least goes some way towards that.

      The Truth is the Truth no matter who tells it. I have heard legend that once even Fox News broadcast something that turned out to be true. I also heard a whole division was sacked because of it though...........

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Only 1 Problem

        "The Embassy Refused"

        Who wouldn't expect them to? You're planning on publishing leaked documents that they don't want published (for whatever reason), you really expect them to help?

        AFAIK Cryptome have never had a problem doing the redactions themselves, perhaps Wikileaks need "less haste, more speed" hammered into their skulls?

        Other than that pretty much agree with you

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        @Lee: "we typically think Assange is an arrogant, self serving, publicity-whore twat "

        Sounds like most UK politicians then.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Take THAT Wikileaks!!

    Trying to fight corruption & high-level crime! Who do you think you are??

  42. Sir Adam-All
    Grenade

    everyone's an expert

    Seems to me like it's fair game.

    As far as I can see, wikileaks leaks shit to the world, and now that world has turned on it's head and Assange and his mega-corp-wanna-be is being served some of their own medicine.

    I can hardly see a day when he is going to be sat in court facing charges of rape, more so of harming the public interest with the materials leaked to the masses.

    Let's just sit back and see what money can buy, or should I say WHO money can buy.

  43. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Assange

    I heard him being interviewed by John Humphreys on R4 this morning. Assange would not answer any question straight. He's just a spoiled liitle rich kid playing at being the messiah when it suits him and he is an arch-hypocrite.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Black Helicopters

      "spoiled little rich kid"

      huh?

      I'm no expert and I don't particularly care for him but I thought Assange grew up in a very patchy broken home and was effectively an itinerant for some time as a youth. Is that incorrect?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ac spoilt little rich kid

        That's what I remember reading, too - his mother kept moving, had a couple of dodgy relationships, didn't have much money, and didn't send him to school as she was worried he would show too much respect to "the man" if he did go to school.

        I am not sure who provided the background to the article I read though - it did sound all rather cinematic - taught at home, self taught hacker, mother moved to cheaper apartment so she could buy him his first computer, avoiding jail for hacking into Nortel, plus a custody fight for a child and a failed marriage.

        1. AndrueC Silver badge

          Huh

          Sounds like the kind of unfortunate, crappy upbringing that fails to instil family values and a sense of social responsibility in a child.

          Oh.

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    lol

    funny how the tables turned, they get upset.

    sorry - have no sympathy for him - especially after this mornings Radio 4 Today interview...

  45. Gavin 8
    FAIL

    Is it Irony?

    WIkileaks made public a load of documents allowing us to have some insight in to how public servants (that we pay trillions in tax revenue to) run our country for us, so we can really see how honest they are while they burn OUR hard earned cash. There's value in that.

    The Swedish government, wasted the public's tax money prejudicing a trail for one man who no one pays tax money to.

    There's not really much of an irony in that, the sooner these blood sucking public servants get it through their thick skulls that they're here to SERVE, the better. That's how the private sector they seduced so much by works. I live in hope that these leaks will help with the realisation.

    Julian in contrast is NOT a public servant and no one gives a shit what he does until proven guilty, unless of course they're being petty and revengeful (most probably on tax payers money). Ironically, public servants very rarely manage to go on trail for anything unless they're being made a scapegoat by their peers, so there's no legal recourse for deciding whether they're guilty of wrong doing or not without the leaks.

    One day we might have a fair and just system where the servants are forced to follow the same rules they enforce on everyone else. Until then, we'll need these leaks to provoke public support for real justice.

  46. Scorchio!!
    Thumb Up

    Sauce

    What's that you say Assange lovers? What's leaky sauce for the goose is not leaky sauce for the gander? Must be a white sauce, eh? ;-)

    Oh the supreme irony, the man whose activities threaten our very freedom - because the blowback/reaction to this is going to be swingeing - cannot take a dose of his own se^HE^HE^HEmedicine. Well I am surprised. No, really I am.

    1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      "...threaten our very freedom" ...

      ... Yeah, right.

      1. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        ""...threaten our very freedom" ..."

        "... Yeah, right."

        The response to what is happening will change your tune. Read. Think:

        "I fear that Wikileaks is as likely to usher in an era of more effective control as it is to sweep away the authoritarian regimes that Julian Assange opposes. "

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12007616

        Assange will provoke a response that will cause more bitterness than you've seen so far. Bear in mind that the idiots in the British and Australian Labour parties wanted to control the environment long before this and, with the Tories beginning to make a similar noise, it won't be long before something happens.

        It is a mark of psychopaths and other frontal lobe damaged individuals that they do not foresee the consequences of their behavioural acts. Don't be in that category.

  47. Mad Mike
    FAIL

    Masive difference

    There is a huge difference between the two cases here.

    With Wikileaks, they are leaking information that was intended to either never be released, or released so many years into the future, everyone is dead and nobody cares, except possibly historians.

    With leaking details from Assanje's case, they are leaking information that would naturally become available during the trial (it would be presented) and therefore subverting justice. Indeed, there is a clause in British law that says if this information gets into the press and he can reasonable show he wouldn't get a fair trial as a result, the case collapses and he cannot be tried!! So, in this case, they might be doing the women an injustice.........

    So, this release potentially prejudices the trial and is simply releasing the information a few months, at most a couple, of years early. But then, this never has had anything to do with fairness. Assanje always helped with the inquiry by the Swedish police, answered all their questions and even asked persmission to leave the country. They agreed!! Now, they want him held in custody in case he runs!! Why didn't he in the first place then? Really is beyond a joke.

    Anyone who supports this is clearly not in favour of justice and clearly can't understand the difference between personal information and non-personal information.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I thought you were about to make a different point

      When you were talking about the difference in time-scales between publishing and the intended 'release' dates, I thought you were about to say something sane. Then you ruined it.....

      If somethings considered important enough to be kept secret for (say) 50 years, why do you consider it better to leak that than something that'll be public within the next 5 years anyway?

      Not arguing either way, just can't see the logic in your post

  48. Cardinal Monkeygimp
    Badgers

    Well Well Well

    Who didn't see this coming ?

  49. Tigra 07 Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Anxiously awaiting the results

    At least here in the UK, he's safe.

    If they say he'll be deported, in 10 years he might actually have been deported.

    That or he'll use the human rights act to prevent deportation and/or gain citizenship ;-]

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Sideshow

    1. Assange is/isn't an arsehole

    2. Assange is/isn't a rapist.

    Can we get back to the REAL story now?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      sideshow

      1. Whether Assange is an arsehole or not is merely personal opinion

      2. Neither you, nor I, nor the courts know whether he is a rapist or not

  51. D. M
    FAIL

    Am I reading the Reg?

    You guys can do better, and should do better. The pro-US of A media here has reported the same story with big headline that painted him "totally black". But even they stated that the complaint was not because the leak itself, but rather the news paper SELECTED published only the part that makes him looking bad. In other word, the problem is the leak was deliberately frame him, to destroy his character and creditability.

    It does also prevent any kind of fair trial. This might be what gov (in particular US of A gov) want. They know that they have nothing to charge him, so instead to lose in court, they focus on personal attack.

    The whole affair was not about lock him up 'n' shut him up (because they know they have no legal way to do so), but also frame him as some sort of dirty a**hole sex offender.

    1. Titus Technophobe

      and yet it doesn't read like that

      The gist of the Guardian thing seems to be that Assange was claiming that the Swedes were not providing the 'defence' with details of the alleged offence. Then the Guardian seems to have published this information really to show that this isn't maybe true.

  52. D. M
    Unhappy

    Public servants do follow the same rules

    those lying blood sucking bastard politicians who do not follow the rules.

    Public servants are just like any other working people, they do what they were told to do, in order to keep their job. They are the slaves, slaves are not be blamed for their action. It is the masters you are after.

  53. Tom 13

    Goose...

    meet Gander.

  54. spencer
    FAIL

    Slight fail from pretty much everyone..

    Quoted from:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/21/julian-assange-defends-decision-sweden

    "The Guardian was allowed access to documents relating to the case – including interviews with some of the central characters – but none of these were leaked to the newspaper.

    It is understood Assange's defence team had seen copies of everything seen by the Guardian. Assange's final bail hearing was on Thursday 16 December.

    The Guardian published an article which included some details from the police statements online at 9.30pm on Friday 17 December, and in the Guardian newspaper on Saturday 18 December"

    from theregister staff to the 3 pages of comments here.. fail.

  55. BreatheInThink

    The difference is that Wikileaks sources its articles rigorously

    Charges that are not communicated directly to an accused person who is ready and available to receive them, are now "leaked" to the corporate media. How does anyone know that these leaks are valid, when the entire process is already so biased and contaminated?

    When Wikileaks leaked the "collateral murder" helicopter video, it sent journalists to interview involved persons on the ground. There are pictures and video interviews with the children and others injured in that attack. We know that leak is for real.

    But how do we know that this leaked information is true? Journalists, do your jobs. That is the lesson that Wikileaks has been trying to teach you. Instead, some would prefer to shoot the messenger.

  56. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's just a game for the paid liars

    The paid liars are just trying to create a basis for claims that Assange can't get a fair trial due to media coverage. It's all a scam to allow Assange to escape accountability for his actions.

  57. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    don't bite the hand that feeds you.. or something like that

    isn't this interesting? I guess it could not happen to a nicer guy. Assange has no qualms about leaking stolen documents, but then his lawyers turn around and cry wolf when someone leaks his police files. Not that this is the right thing to do, but don't get upset when there are copycats out there. When you start playing with the big boys, you better be prepared.

  58. kain preacher Silver badge

    Re: Just Desserts

    Lets do what the US did about the original leaker of the diplomatic cables; find the perpetrator and charge them with whatever crime it is to disclose this info. (Oh, wait, it isn't any kind of crime. Job done).\

    So the fact that the guy who leaked them is in jail means nothing. Read up on American law. Disclosing top secret documents is a crime. But I suppose you are going to tell me leaking classified documents is not illegal in your country so no crime was committed even though it was an American citizen that violated American law .

    1. Scorchio!!
      Pint

      Re: Re: Just Desserts

      In this thread, probably populated mostly by people from the UK, concepts like patriotism, protecting the state and a UK cultural identity are going to reflect the state of the nation, a nation in which patriotism is very frequently mistaken for national chauvinism, racism and the like. Having had 17 disastrous landslide Conservative years we had 13 from Labour, in which the population was deliberately, calculatedly increased by some 7.27%, not due to reproduction, but because of a mixed clandestine immigration policy and a disastrous border policy. Whether we will recover from this is hard to say but, in a time when energy and food crises loom, we have to sort it out, reduce the numbers perhaps with policies like those in the PRC. You are unlikely to find anyone in the Assange threads embracing the topic of patriotism fully; they're more interested in blindly idolising the new ideologue, St Julian from Oz, who is to lead their new national group, the Internetties (people from the north east will understand this).

  59. This post has been deleted by its author

  60. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    telling the truth is never a crime

    >Disclosing top secret documents is a crime.

    Tell it to Bob Woodward.

    The Swedish govt leaking his case files has surely prejudiced any trial/extradition - the dailymail brigade should be more worried by that situation but maybe don't really get it?

    The US doesn't seem to have anything from it's jurisprudence - or they would have had a charge by now.

    Scorcio!! = tl:dr / ru15

    1. Scorchio!!

      Re: telling the truth is never a crime

      "telling the truth is never a crime"

      Read Plato's republic, in which it's clear that returning a man his spear may be immoral if he intends killing someone with it. Think about that before your bogus comparison with Bob Woodward.

      Second paragraph, meaningless. Third paragraph, well meaningless, if only because jurisprudence is not at issue here, but rather *statute*.

      Last line: truth is not something spewed out in a soap, or in the X factor, a web search or some other dreary, butterfly intellect cultural phenomenon. The truth is hard continual graft, like polishing rocks. Were you sufficiently erudite you might have quoted Wittgenstein, but you clearly won't know to what I allude; I conclude this is consistent with your lack of knowledge on law and jurisprudence, and that the primary source of this is a lack of education. Learning helps, but I accept that YMMV. In Usenet I'd filter you, but here you'll amuse.

      HTH.

  61. Adam T
    Pint

    Leaks of Facts vs Leaks of Accusation

    I'm unable to read all the comments due to too much Brown Ale.

    However it does seem fairly straightforward to me even in this state that leaking details of an accusation is a bit different to leaking facts of wrongdoing and mischief.

    One is innocent until proven guilty, the other is already guilty but trying to hide it from the likes of legal and public inspection.

    The assange details would surface in the natural course of events anyway when it came to his actual trial. The stuff WikiLeaks has publicised wouldn't.

    This isn't me defending Assange...hell I don't even advocate WikiLeaks, I'm not convinced by crusades of any kind. Crusades don't usually end well and they tend to leave a trail of destruction. I'm surprised nobody's twisted one of those handy new anti-terrorism laws to nail him down if everything being said about "threatening national security" isn't groundless politico warbling.

  62. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    WHY THE PANIC DELETE?

    explain this bit for me..one of the women who brought the action had posted a tweet to her friends basically saying she fancied assange.., and around the time of the offence.

    Upon realising this, she deleted the 'tweets'..why? if it was just innocent texts why panic over them? and enough to delete them..

    Even more baffling is what happened next, which is that a reporter who found this out, then discovered that copies of these 'tweets were held at another site. He contacted that site to inform them about those copies, and within minutes the site went offline for several hours,,#when it came back online the tweets and all traces of the womans data had been wiped. why?

    why would a site do that? what? go offline for several hours and lose revenue from advertising over the ramblings of a love struck woman. do you think 'outside pressure' was involved?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019