Smear campaign against Wikileaks begins

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/21/smear-campaign-against-wikileaks-assange-begins/

by shrikant • 16 years ago

79 153 16 years ago

thinq.co.uk

smutticus• 16 years ago

Here is the Google translate link for the original article in Swedish. http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&h...

jgrahamc• 16 years ago

Yeah, could be a smear. Could also be true. Let's not have senstional titles on HN.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

Assange is more than likely aware that he is a 'target of opportunity' to many institutions, which would make him very circumspect about doing stuff that could endanger either his reputation or the reputation of wikileaks.

The timing of this is just too convenient to ignore.

For now, until there is some hard evidence I'm in the 'smear' corner. But I still agree with you about the title, that's an opinion.

todayiamme5• 16 years ago

>>>would make him very circumspect about doing stuff that could endanger either his reputation or the reputation of wikileaks.<<<

Exactly.

He is just too smart and just too obsessed about the cause to do something as stupid as that. Let's assume he did it once in a fit of mental incapacitation under the pressure, but then he walks out and does it again a few days later in another town? Even the average wannabe Criminal Joe would lie low for a while unless he was on a Bonnie-&-Clyde-esque rampage, which is a bit of a stretch to imagine with him.

I am willing to bet that he has been through far worse strain in the process of fighting against the Australian govt. for his son (see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...). It's unlikely that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back. Distantly possible, yes. Likely. No.

rue5• 16 years ago

"Clinton/Hurd/Any number of politicians/civil servants/CEOs is more than likely aware that he is a 'target of opportunity' to many institutions, which would make him very circumspect about doing stuff that could endanger either his reputation or the reputation of <whatever>."

mseebach3• 16 years ago

There's an option more that isn't smear: that the accusations are real, but that he's innocent.

Accused of != guilty of

ErrantX4• 16 years ago

One thing i have learned in my job is this; generally coincidences happen all the time. The real conspiracies etc. Are much much more infrequent.

Occams razor

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

How convenient.

Translation of this article in nu.nl:

http://www.nu.nl/tech/2316742/voorman-wikileaks-gezocht-verk...

STOCKHOLM - Julian Assange, the leader of whistleblower website wikileaks is since Friday even in Sweden a fugitive in two rape caes. This has been reported by the public prosecutor on Saturday morning according to the Swedish media.

Two women, aged twenty and thirty have gone to the police on Friday evening to relate their stories.

Against the one Assange is reported to have used sexual violence last weekend in the South of Sweden, the other was reportedly raped on Tuesday morning in the nearby town of Enköping.

According to the justice ministry in Stockholm the reports by the women contain enough substance to issue a warrant. For the moment it is unclear where Julian Assange is right now.

Wikileaks, a website that is running on computers in a safe house in Solna near Stockholm, was recently in the news. The whistleblowers site published tens of thousands of pages of secret American military documents about the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/7957665/Wiki...

http://twitter.com/wikileaks

"Julian Assange: the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

mwg2• 16 years ago

Let's hope we remember innocence until proven guilty. The timing is suspect though.

hermanthegerman• 16 years ago

Of course if you want a smear campaign, you choose a charge that ensures that the innocence before proven guilty principle is immediately dropped.

I wonder why it's not child pornography, that would allow the authorities to go after every data system he ever touched, and it's way easier to make up stuff.

shrikant3• 16 years ago

Yep, surprised that it's not child porn. Wikileaks hosts quite a lot of pointers to child porn resources in the form of country-wise website banlists.

notahacker• 16 years ago

Child pornography would certainly be a far more effective smear charge if you wanted to discredit the movement and not just the individual behind it.

RyanGWU82• 16 years ago

Smear campaign? Only according to the accused rapist.

Scenario 1: Two Swedish women really are pressing charges against Mr. Assange.

Scenario 2: The U.S. Pentagon is so upset by Wikileaks that they've convinced a Swedish prosecutor to file baseless rape charges, without actual victims, against the Wikileaks spokesman.

The simplest explanation is the most likely.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

Scenario 1a, two Swedish women get a bunch of cash in return for filing a bogus charge of rape (edit: which is just as hard to prove as it is to disprove, causing a lot of smoke absent any fire at a time when wikileaks needs to be seen as 'clean' and on the moral high ground).

It's not as if governments haven't been doing shit like this for ages.

Indeed, the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Until this hit the wires I figured Assange is just a bit too paranoid, this charge is so over the top that I'm no longer convinced he's paranoid but that he was right all along.

After all, not one but two rape cases out of the blue reported by two women that know each other just when wikileaks is about to release a bunch of incriminating material after refusing to budge under pressure?

It's technically possible, but that's the only thing this charge has going for it at this point in time, evidence is what it is all about.

shrikant3• 16 years ago

Indeed. I was always curious - if the RIAA/MPAA could flex international muscle to get ThePirateBay raided, why not the Pentagon/CIA?

tomjen32• 16 years ago

The simplest explanation is this: the US paid two Swedish women to accuse Mr. Assange of rape.

This isn't unusual - most rape accusations are false, since there are a lot of sociopaths out there (who have no shame), and the real victims are too ashamed to step forward.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

> most rape accusations are false

That does a disservice to the very large number of rape victims out there.

Some rape accusations are false, but to claim the majority of them is false would require a citation I think.

For instance:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166281.php

reports that most of the 'good' (as in done in a scientific setting) studies report 8 to 10% of rape accusations are false.

See also:

http://www.slate.com/id/2231012/

bruceboughton• 16 years ago

Woah! Who died and made you omniscient? At most, you could state than most rape charges are unproved. And that doesn't prove much.

mseebach3• 16 years ago

How is the explanation that the US did not pay said women not simpler? Or even that an organisation much smaller than the US government did it, if money actually changed hands? Say, a former executive of one of the financial institutions that Assange bothered a few years ago. It's not like Assange don't have enemies outside the US government.

noverloop• 16 years ago

Scenario 2 should be 'The pentagon payed two women to file a credible suit based on their most accurate Intel about his whereabouts.'

m_eiman2• 16 years ago

Scenario 1.1: Two women file false reports of one rape and one sexual harassment; possibly on behalf of the US government (or someone else who doesn't like Wikileaks)

Scenario 1.2: Someone who knows his every move is being watched (by the media, if nothing else) rapes one woman and sexually harasses another one in under two weeks.

The simplest explanation is often the correct one, but that doesn't mean we should restrict ourselves to just two possible explanations.

Also your second scenario doesn't match the currently known facts: the women who filed the reports aren't made up, regardless of whether the charges are.

mseebach3• 16 years ago

Rapes are seldom the outcome of a rational decision.

Scenario 1.3: Assange parties with two women, gets slightly too fresh with them and the ensuing sex wasn't completely as agreed on.

Scenario 1.4: Assange parties with two women and the morning after, they decide he's a douchebag and gets worked up that he took advantage of them and what happened was really, actually rape.

cabalamat4• 16 years ago

I disagree. What are the probabilities that:

(1) an average man is accused of rape (say in a year)

(2) a person who a government would very much like to bring down is the subject of made-up allegations

Regarding (1), i don't have figures for Sweden but in the UK there are c. 14k reported rapes a year versus 25M adult males, so P = 14k/25M = 0.00056

Regarding (2), I don't have figures but suggest off the top of my head that 0.01 is reasonable.

0.00056/(0.00056+0.01) = 0.053

So Bayes' theorem suggests a roughly 5% probability that the accusations are real and 95% that they are concocted by the US or some other government.

cabalamat4• 16 years ago

Oops my analysis was wrong -- there are two rape cases.

Probability of two unrelated rape cases coming to light just at a time convenient for the US authorities -- about as likely as me getting pocket aces in every hand during a poker evening.

Tautologistics• 16 years ago

Scenario 3: Assange coordinated with these two women to file charges in order to convince people that he really is under attack by various governments and garners more support for his cause and efforts.

I do not necessarily believe this scenario but since where throwing possibilities out there.

kilian• 16 years ago

Well, that certainly sounds convenient at the very least. Two women in two towns, with Assange charged in absentia.

Of course it could be true, but somehow that doesn't seem the most reasonable explanation.

ErrantX4• 16 years ago

I reckon this is a Wikileaks "cookup" to prove how hounded and persecuted they are.

But then, what do I know.

I don't think we can jump to any conclusions yet

Edit: for the down voters, thie point being made is - we have no idea of thetruth, take care speculating. Grr

tome9• 16 years ago

I don't know why you got downvoted for this. Many seem to be happy with the idea that an unfriendly government paid these women to smear Assange's name.

It seems to me equally credible that Assange or a friend set up these false allegations, which once easily dismissed, will indeed show the world how "persecuted" Wikileaks is.

ErrantX4• 16 years ago

Yes, the point wasn't so much i think that's the case - it was just to show how, hours after this has occured, we can hardly figure out the truth.

I honestly expected better of hn :-(

aw3c22• 16 years ago

The smart wikileaks-supporting and not-believing cyber warrior would not talk about it. Even by criticising like this, you are giving attention and spread the accusations.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

That's the cowards way out, not the smart way out.

It's all over the news, from China to the Netherlands and further.

The smart wikileaks supporting and skeptical cyber warrior would do best to reserve judgement but to show that there is a reason why there is probably more than meets the eye here.

aw3c22• 16 years ago

I missed that this was everywhere already.

PassTheAmmo• 16 years ago

The Local usually is the best source for Swedish news in English. http://www.thelocal.se/28496/20100821/

Isn't wikileaks hosted in Sweden btw? I don't think it would be affected, but still a thing to keep in mind.

rue5• 16 years ago

One cannot really make the judgment on this being a "smear" or not at this point: to include it in the title is irresponsible at best.

The circumstances seem a bit odd (two assaults so close to eachother without a previous history) which could suggest framing either by an external entity or the women involved.

According to http://expressen.se, the women apparently do know eachother and have at some point been reluctant to co-operate with the investigators expressing either "being scared to death" or "being in fear for their lives" because of Assange's high status (the meaning being a bit unclear from the context).

Still, the accusations are serious and need to be investigated - which should have happened without publicity but that tends to be utopic when a public figure is concerned.

effn• 16 years ago

Sorry, but "being scared to death" and "being in fear for their lives" are your words, and has not appeared in any news reports so far.

The Swedish word "livrädd" just means "terrified", not that you are in fear for your life.

rue5• 16 years ago

That is what I intended to convey with "scared to death" which in English is used colloquially to mean "terrified". I appreciate that translation is likely the intended meaning.

I gave both translations because the term used was "livrädd", not merely "rädd". This could be an intentional obfuscation of the sentiment behind the words - thus, it could be read to state they said they were "scared to death" (or "terrified" if you prefer) or actually in fear for their lives. Implications with plausible deniability.

elmindreda• 16 years ago

The Swedish translates more closely as his position of power, not high status.

DanielBMarkham2• 16 years ago

I would caution commentators not to make false dichotomies here. It is not necessarily a choice between Assange committing a crime and Assange being framed. Both may be true. Neither may be true.

I understand that this fits a narrative, and perhaps it turns out he was framed. Or perhaps it turns out he is has criminal tendencies and the west used those tendencies to frame him. Or he's innocent. Or he's innocent and nobody framed him.

Simply because it fits easily into a narrative does not mean that the most likely scenario is the narrative. You could make a case that having a criminal trial would be a terrible thing for intelligence agencies. It'd just give him a bigger microphone and also put the agencies at risk of being discovered. In fact, if it is a setup, it's one of the most bone-headed setups I've ever seen. Better to just kill him. If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

> If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards.

That's the strongest argument against this being a frame-up so far. On the other hand breaking in to the Democratic party's offices wasn't very smart either and that definitely happened, and I can think of a few more cases like that.

Government agencies are definitely not above doing really stupid things that turn in to PR disasters.

DanielBMarkham2• 16 years ago

Which is the strongest counter-argument. :)

But really, trying to frame some guy that a hundred-million people think is some super-hero? It's crazy. They certainly may be doing it, but it's really beyond-stupid crazy.

I'd just shoot him. Easy enough to whack somebody, and without evidence people can spend their lifetimes pointing fingers at each other. Might even make a great series of books and a movie. But with real, live people making criminal allegations that aren't true? Lots of little loose ends dangling around. Too many.

In fact, I'd bet you that even if he was guilty and was not framed, there'll be a series of investigative articles and blogs "proving" he was framed anyway. The narrative is simply too hard to ignore.

Which -- if you think about it -- would give him a free hand to commit any crime he wants. After all, no matter what he was accused of, he was framed, right?

Welcome to the hall of mirrors.

Robin_Message2• 16 years ago

It could just be some mid-level person, US spook say, who has done this, since they would not be worried about the longer term consequences or getting found out. Someone could easily take some of the leaks personally.

lhnz3• 16 years ago

That might be true, but on the other hand considering Assange's paranoia it is difficult to accept that he would put himself in this position.

mukyu• 16 years ago

Just killing him would not discredit him and might even be seen as increasing his credibility. There is also the 'insurance' file that was released, which presumably would have the key released upon his capture or death, but probably not in this case.

Even accusing him of rape discredits or puts a cloud over him and what he is trying to accomplish. It probably does not reflect that badly on whatever wikileaks publishes, but will hamper his efforts to lobby for whistle-blower protections in different countries.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

On the other hand if (and that's a very big if) there will be another whistle blower that details (assuming this was a set-up) how it was done with hard proof and that data is released through any outlet but wikileaks it will do damage to the relevant authorities beyond belief.

Just taking that risk is bordering on the insane.

The best way to get rid of 'inconvenient' people is to have them commit suicide leaving no note or to have them have tragic accidents.

flog2• 16 years ago

At least they weren't as transparent to go straight to "nazi" or "pedophile". These sorts of accusations seem to stick around, even if the case is dropped.

Qz2• 16 years ago

If it were Barack Obama then yes, the rape accusation would be the end all be all of the whole thing. But this guy isn't exactly considered by most to be a standup guy to begin with. The accusation of rape just looks out of place and ridiculous.

thingie• 16 years ago

If a false accusation can turn into a PR disaster, what about the killing? That'd be a PR apocalypse. And also, your target shouldn't be Assange as an individual, he should be quite expendable if there were other people motivated to replace him, which seems to be a very likely scenario, if he was assassinated.

Ardit207• 16 years ago

You can't just shoot him. This is not communism, nor nazism, nor fasicm, this is democracy, where the rule of law is supreme. If he is shot, there would be no people arguing about pointing fingers, everyone would know who dun it, there would be little room for doubt.

Here in the UK they are reopening the inquiry into Dr. Kelly's death, and his death, whether a suicide or otherwise, came amides the dawning of the war in Iraq, so perhaps of a different magnitude, but, he was also a relatively little known person.

You can accuse him of rape though. Now that would leave you doubting. It is not so hard, pay some person a million, or ten million, and its a fairly good deal. It is tremendously hard to prove an untruth and they might get the result that they want. Otherwise, he would still be the alleged rapist, and fox news would probably just call him a criminal, and the trial can go on and on and during that time he might be kept in prison.

As for whether he is a criminal or being framed, both may be true indeed, but that neither may be true is not quite possible. If he innocent, he is being framed, either by the victim, or something way bigger than the victim.

"I understand that this fits a narrative" As doctors might say, if the symptom fits the illness no point looking at other things. It might in this case indeed be different as we are not diagnosing an illness, but common, what are the chances that the guy raped someone and molested someone? What are the chances that he did so now, only a week or so after some nutter called for him to be arrested even though then there were no allegations of committing any crime.

I hope however that you are right. Otherwise, our society would have arrived at that point where the little child cries, but the emperor has no clothes, and at least we all will stop pretending that our system is brilliant, that freedom of speech is indeed paramount, that in this country the rule of law rules for kings and peasants alike and instead will realise that we need to fight for such things and not take them for granted.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

Dr. Kelly is just about the worst example to trot out to prove that such stuff is investigated properly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-inv...

And Dr. Kelly was very well known, especially because of the whole 'Sexing up' press coverage.

lmaonade2• 16 years ago

They /can/ shoot him though. All it takes is an angry war widow who feels their life is forfeit without their partner. A little encouragement and the means to enact the murder and you have an assassin who cannot be traced back to you. But, he's simply not important enough to be assassinated. While the media coverage of him may make it seem like he is the bane of the American government, they have much more important things to worry about. This approach was perfected by the CIA during the cold war, but it has been a long time since someone in the public eye was important or dangerous enough to warrant an assassination.

The other problem I have with this is that rape is an awful way to frame someone. You need to condition someone to stand up to extreme amounts of interrogation and cross-examination. A single slip-up in memorization of facts can cost the entire case. It is not nearly as simple as "pay someone 10 million and have them say he raped them", we're talking about world class psychiatrists and world class lawyers, the victim needs an incredible amount of practice to be able to convince them that they are telling the truth. The American government has the NSA at their disposal, they could frame him a million ways and make it stick, they would not use a random swedish woman.

That is not to say that the American government isn't happy about it, nor that they aren't encouraging this story, nor that Assange did it, but this certainly isn't the work of the American government.

swombat• 16 years ago

If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

- Joseph Goebbels

slim• 16 years ago

How would you prove there was no rape? Rape has always been the ideal smear, because typically nobody else is in the room. It's a classical. You can do nothing about it.

zeteo3• 16 years ago

Hitler and Goebbels forewarning us about the despicable means the US government uses to bring down whistle-blowers... Ummm...

I don't know whether Assange is framed or not. But bringing these two into the discussion seems a bit ridiculous. If Adolf and Joseph knew so much, maybe they could have won the war?! Or, at least, avoided declaring war on the US in 1941, when they had no reason to do so.

Lagged2Death• 16 years ago

"If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards."

Once I think I would have agreed. But that's a pre-Rovian way of thinking.

All that will really stick in the public mind is the fact that "Wikileaks" and "Rape" appeared together in a single headline. Everything else is a footnote.

Daishiman3• 16 years ago

The amount of propagandish trolling in this thread is incredible. It is absolutely clear that this is a smear campaing.

C'mon, a man who knows is being watched by intelligence agencies because of the information he divulges, agencies which have covert and public disinformation programs, would actually go ahead and do such criminal behavior? Possible? Perhaps, but absolutely unlikely to the point where the notion is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm beginning to wonder how many of the posts claiming that it's a likely possibility are paid shills from the various disinformation services.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

You're out of line I think.

The suggestion that people that have been here for years are paid shills guilty of disinformation is beyond the pale.

I agree that this is most likely a smear and at a minimum blown up, but evidence is where it is at and people that defend the 'other side' of the argument (especially ErrantX and DanielBMarkham) are for the most part just playing the devils advocate and cautioning you to think for yourself instead of following the herd.

Daishiman3• 16 years ago

General Motors hired prostitutes to solicit Ralph Nader because of his automobile safety activism (from Reddit): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Automobile_safety_a...

Believing that these claims, at this point in the affair, have any serious possibility of being real is to be ignorant of the history of the way power structures way. Discrediting dangerous figures which are too well-known to be dissuaded silently is common to the extreme.

And seriously, we're talking about the same power structure that has put dictators and thieves in places throughout the world when it was convenient. A smear campaign is about the least dishonest thing that they could do.

tome9• 16 years ago

I'm beginning to wonder how many of the posts claiming that it's a likely possibility are paid shills from the various disinformation services.

Then I think you've misunderstood Hacker News.

Daishiman3• 16 years ago

Have you seen Reddit when there the topic of health care or global warming was raging? There was an incredible amount of new users with no comment history suddenly jumping in and defending ths position strongly and not commenting on anything else.

It's public knowledge that corporations, PR agencies, governments, militaries and intelligence agencies have disinformation programs, some of the them frighteningly public and hidden in plain view. The credibility of Assange is about a thousand times better than his opponents, even if you don't agree with his position.

motters• 16 years ago

Paid shills or "astroturfers" seem to be fairly common in other areas of endeavor - especially where there is money or political influence at stake - so I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of it also happening here. One way to unmask such individuals it to check their profiles to see how long they've been members of the forum. If their membership is in the order of a few weeks or less, and they havn't commented on other stories then it's quite possible they could be astroturfers.

flog2• 16 years ago

I suspect WikiLeaks would have a plan in place if Assange was removed. WikiLeaks should live on and continue to do it's work.

joezydeco• 16 years ago

You mean like that encrypted "Insurance" file that's on there?

Mz9• 16 years ago

FWIW:

1) I've done two college papers on date rape. In most cases, date rape involves alcohol (ie impaired judgment) and bad communication, often due to cross cultural misunderstandings.

2) I read once that if you ask a room full of (American?) women how many of them have been raped, half the hands go up. If you ask them how many of them said "No" and then had sex anyway, 90% of the hands go up. Given that the legal definition of rape hinges on consent, I think it's pretty clear that even women who haven't had completely consenting sex have difficulty figuring out whether or not they were raped. (On the flip side, I think there is a counterargument that sometimes, even when she initially said "no", maybe it wasn't really rape -- which muddies the water even further.)

My point: I think genuinely, unquestionably consenting sex is really a quite difficult standard to meet and there are many cases of less than ideal encounters where it ends up being a judgment call on the part of the woman as to a) how she views it in her own mind ("rape" or something else) and b) whether or not to publicly accuse/charge someone.

I will toss out the idea that a man who feels not only okay with but morally compelled to publish all kinds of stuff the American government doesn't want published (ie without their consent and over their protests, with consent being the legal lynch-pin for the definition of rape) might well start applying that general thought pattern to other situations. People who are very morally self righteous frequently feel justified in treading on the will and rights of others and then pat themselves on the back for being "heroes". I can imagine someone who feels he knows what is best for others basically telling himself "these two women needed it and I'm just doing what is best for them".

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

Promoting government and corporate transparency is a service to humanity, raping people is a crime.

You can't equate the fact that the American government protests about having their secret stuff leaked to 'knowing what's best' for women that don't want sex with you.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable groupies that will jump out of the woodwork that they too have been accosted by Assange at some point in the past and only now dare to speak up.

It's bound to happen, even if it is true...

Mz9• 16 years ago

My experience with people is that a strong personality trait tends to influence all details of how they live their lives, not just what kind of work they do. Someone willing to take on the American government because of the strength of his convictions is someone I would say has an extremely strong personality trait.

Funny, though not really unexpected, that you would focus on that one remark when most of my post was basically sympathetic and outlined facts concerning how difficult it is to determine these things, even for the people involved, much less outsiders who weren't there when whatever happened, happened.

pointillistic• 16 years ago

If the CIA wants to get you, they will when you least expect it. Note the case Viktor Bout who was set up in a sting in Thailand. And even though most certainly Viktor Bout was working on behalf of the Russian government, he crossed the line by supplying arms to Afghanistan. And now he is literally behind bars: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/world/asia/21thai.html

pauldelany• 16 years ago

True. If, however, this is indeed a smear campaign - think about what options are open that wouldn't make him a free-speech (or 'whatever') martyr - extradition / assassination would have that effect - this wouldn't. Judgement needs to be reserved (as in all such cases of rape accusation) until the facts are in. The facts, however, may not be in for a very long time (months, maybe a year). In the meantime, the media is now free to start every news update on Wikileaks / Assange with 'Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, and accused of rape in Sweden...'.

sometimes• 16 years ago

Is it conceivable an organization like the CIA has deeply 'undercover' operatives, who are living in foreign countries, as citizens of those countries, working as teachers, doctors, milkmen, etc., but who could be pressed into service when circumstances required?

lhnz3• 16 years ago

Irregardless of whether it is false or true, this is clearly a smear due to the timing and media involvement.

Hagelin2• 16 years ago

It’s interesting that Assagne dismisses Expressen as a ”tabloid” when he has signed up to be a columnist for their main competitor Aftonbladet. While I don’t read either of them and would agree with the labeling, both papers also do a great deal of real investigative journalism (Expressen being right-wing and Aftonbladet left-wing, and this being Sweden ”left-wing" and ”right-wing" are both a great deal to the left of the american right-wing).

jlgosse• 16 years ago

Well, he has gotten away with some seriously illegal and ridiculous shit with Wikileaks in the US, so maybe he thinks that he is REALLY above the law now that he's in Sweden.

This guy seems like a real creep to me anyway, and honestly I don't think Wikileaks has done much good in releasing all of these confidential documents.

I mean, all he has done is try to turn the American people against their government, on top of endangering them at the same time by releasing CONFIDENTIAL documents to the wrong people.

In my opinion, this guy deserves to be locked up, even if it has nothing to do with this alleged "smear campaign".

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

> In my opinion, this guy deserves to be locked up, even if it has nothing to do with this alleged "smear campaign".

I think that if this is a smear campaign that is exactly the sentiment that it was aiming for.

Ardit207• 16 years ago

He had that sentiment already which is encouraging.

lhnz3• 16 years ago

What he did was illegal?

chegra2• 16 years ago

I think he did have sex with those women. I think it was consent. The women realize they can make money out of this and charge him with rape. No government plots.

This I think this is the most likely scenario. Reference: Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryan, Mike Tyson.

jacquesm28• 16 years ago

Sweden is not the United States, you can't make money out of a rape case there in the same way.

Typically victim compensation is orders of magnitude lower than in the states. Also Europeans are not as litigious as Americans are in situations like this.

Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryan, Mike Tyson are all American cases and have very little if any bearing on this.

If he did have sex with those women and it was consensual then he has a real problem on his hands.

chegra2• 16 years ago

Well talking from what I know of cases involving celebs and being accused of rape, this seems most likely.

Yes it is an interesting situation if he did have consensual sex with those women.

jimrandomh• 16 years ago

To all those wondering why he was not framed for possessing child pornography instead, the answer is simple. In order to "catch" him with CP, it would have to be unencrypted. And anyone can see that the only plausible explanation for unencrypted child pornography in the possession of someone as paranoid and encryption-savvy as Assange, is that it was planted there deliberately.

w1ntermute• 16 years ago

This could just be a stunt pulled by the tabloid that reported it:

Assange said "Jag har inte blivit kontaktad av polisen."[0]

Translates from Swedish as "I have not been contacted by the police."

0: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/anklagelserna-skakar-wikile...

Hagelin2• 16 years ago

Although the arrest warrant has now been withdrawn:

"The warrant was issued late on Friday, said Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden's prosecutors' office.

Swedish police have been trying to contact Mr Assange, but have not yet been able to, she told the BBC.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047025

The initial article from the ”tabloid” also contained quotes from a prosecutor confirming the story.

confuzatron• 16 years ago

I'm really gobsmacked by the amount of fevered bullshit conspiracy-theorising being spouted by the vast majority of folk on this page! You should be ashamed of yourselves. Fucking laughable. Down-vote away.

cleo2• 16 years ago

Perhaps the ladies were dumped and got pissed, or changed their mind a bit into the act, or perhaps Julian is not quite familiar with the expectations of a Swedish woman in bed heheh we will defend our female rights and expectations!). When the ladies happened to meet (quite interestingly) after a lecture by Julian, they changed information and decided to go to the police. They only gave info and the police decided to make a case (the police are more aware than Julian about correctness with feminist and human values at this point in Swedish rape case history)..then one thing led to the other. The Pentagon is not amused. This "untouchable" guy keeps farting on their faces for years, then they're accused of doing a really ridiculous framing job.

cleo2• 16 years ago

Nothing like bad publicity...Julian soon to be more famous than MJ. Nothing like news with entertainment value! Add to this a weird but convincing sex appeal..

Smear campaign against Wikileaks begins

Related Stories