Arrest Warrant for "Sex Crimes" Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is for
samsung1
Ohio
Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for "sex crimes".
Everyone assumed it was for rape.
But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom.
As Newsweek wrote in August:
A Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-the-record confirmation of the allegations that led to the issuance—and then rapid cancellation—of a warrant on a rape charge and to a parallel investigation into alleged “molestation." Claes Borgstrom of the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women who said they had sexual relationships with Assange, said his clients complained to the police of Assange's reluctance to use condoms and unwillingness to be tested for sexually transmitted disease.
***
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assange's behavior—which they reported to police in person—related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women's request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the women's alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn't use a condom—was published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange's declining to submit to medical tests.
Similarly, the Daily Mail reported in August:
'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.'
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
***
The [second] woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ‘now and then'. Eventually he took a closer interest.
***
What he did not tell her was that the party was being hosted by the woman he had slept with two nights before and whose bed he would probably be sleeping in that night.
***
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,' she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.'
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom. He notes that:
The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
He also accuses the prosecutors of "making it up as they go along", and said that Sweden's justice system is destined to become "the laughingstock of the world" for pursuing the case against Assange.
And Assange's current London attorney - Mark Stephens - told AOL news that he doesn't even know what the charges against Assange are, but that they are not rape:
Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.
***
"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.
"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."
The strange tale of Assange's brief flings with two Swedish women during a three-day period in mid-August -- and decisions by three different prosecutors to first dismiss rape allegations made by the women and then re-open the case -- has more twists, turns and conspiracy theories than any of [Swedish novelist] Stieg Larsson's best-sellers.
So Assange might be a cad for sleeping with 2 women within a couple of days, and he might be irresponsible for having sex without a condom and then failing to submit to HIV tests afterwards.
But he has not been accused of rape under any traditional meaning of that term.
Of course, this wouldn't be so surreal if the Department of Justice hadn't launched a criminal probe of Wiklileaks, Assange didn't face potential espionage charges, representative Peter King wasn't asking that Wikileaks be designated a foreign terrorist organization like Al Qaeda, and some people hadn't called for Assange's assassination (and see this, this and this).
Indeed, Reuters provides some bizarre details courtesy of Assange's current lawyer:
Tuesday, international police agency Interpol said it had issued a "red notice" which allows arrest warrants issued by national police authorities to be circulated to other countries to facilitate arrests and help possible extradition.
"There is no arrest warrant against him. There was an Interpol red notice, which is not a warrant, alerting authorities to monitor his movements," Stephens told Reuters.
***
"We are in this position where we have never been told what the allegations are against him, we do know that he hasn't been charged, we do know that he has only been asked for as a witness," he said.
"We know that ... the offence is one of 'sex by surprise', which is not an offence known in England. He has not been given the evidence against him."
Stephens said Assange was willing to meet Swedish prosecutors but they did not want to meet him.
"We are in a very, very surreal situation at the moment it's like a Swedish fairytale."
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/20…
Everyone assumed it was for rape.
But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom.
As Newsweek wrote in August:
A Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-the-record confirmation of the allegations that led to the issuance—and then rapid cancellation—of a warrant on a rape charge and to a parallel investigation into alleged “molestation." Claes Borgstrom of the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women who said they had sexual relationships with Assange, said his clients complained to the police of Assange's reluctance to use condoms and unwillingness to be tested for sexually transmitted disease.
***
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assange's behavior—which they reported to police in person—related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women's request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the women's alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn't use a condom—was published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange's declining to submit to medical tests.
Similarly, the Daily Mail reported in August:
'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.'
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
***
The [second] woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ‘now and then'. Eventually he took a closer interest.
***
What he did not tell her was that the party was being hosted by the woman he had slept with two nights before and whose bed he would probably be sleeping in that night.
***
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,' she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.'
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom. He notes that:
The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
He also accuses the prosecutors of "making it up as they go along", and said that Sweden's justice system is destined to become "the laughingstock of the world" for pursuing the case against Assange.
And Assange's current London attorney - Mark Stephens - told AOL news that he doesn't even know what the charges against Assange are, but that they are not rape:
Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.
***
"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.
"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."
The strange tale of Assange's brief flings with two Swedish women during a three-day period in mid-August -- and decisions by three different prosecutors to first dismiss rape allegations made by the women and then re-open the case -- has more twists, turns and conspiracy theories than any of [Swedish novelist] Stieg Larsson's best-sellers.
So Assange might be a cad for sleeping with 2 women within a couple of days, and he might be irresponsible for having sex without a condom and then failing to submit to HIV tests afterwards.
But he has not been accused of rape under any traditional meaning of that term.
Of course, this wouldn't be so surreal if the Department of Justice hadn't launched a criminal probe of Wiklileaks, Assange didn't face potential espionage charges, representative Peter King wasn't asking that Wikileaks be designated a foreign terrorist organization like Al Qaeda, and some people hadn't called for Assange's assassination (and see this, this and this).
Indeed, Reuters provides some bizarre details courtesy of Assange's current lawyer:
Tuesday, international police agency Interpol said it had issued a "red notice" which allows arrest warrants issued by national police authorities to be circulated to other countries to facilitate arrests and help possible extradition.
"There is no arrest warrant against him. There was an Interpol red notice, which is not a warrant, alerting authorities to monitor his movements," Stephens told Reuters.
***
"We are in this position where we have never been told what the allegations are against him, we do know that he hasn't been charged, we do know that he has only been asked for as a witness," he said.
"We know that ... the offence is one of 'sex by surprise', which is not an offence known in England. He has not been given the evidence against him."
Stephens said Assange was willing to meet Swedish prosecutors but they did not want to meet him.
"We are in a very, very surreal situation at the moment it's like a Swedish fairytale."
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/20…
24 comments
I can certainly see where big johnson can justify his opinion that Assange has damaged the United States, but it would seem, from my perspective, that all he has done is publish some embarrassing truths. Some of the things that have been published on wikileaks offer a very disturbing raw glimpse into the way that American agents execute their duties. However, if we do not take notice of and bring to light the ugly side of what our representatives are doing, then we can neither stop those things that are truly wrong nor give our consent to those things that are truly necessary.
Every citizen has an equal stake in the government, and I feel that we have a right to know how our representatives, who are in a way our own employees, who administer their duties only by the consent of us, the governed, actually conduct their business.
In my opinion, he has advanced truth in a real way by offering the world a site for the indiscriminate exposure of sensitive government information, and also for strongly standing by it. If the public face of the United States or any other country suffers because of it, then it would seem to me that they have themselves to blame, not for allowing the release of the information, but for doing the very things that those releases show them doing.
In conclusion, I agree with big johnson that governments must play by the rules. It is my sincere hope that Assange receives the full and complete measure of his rights and responsibilities in accordance with the rule of law with regard to all of his dealings. If he did, in fact, break the law in Sweden, then he should receive a just and fair penalty in accordance with the way that that particular law is routinely enforced. If not, then he should be released.
With all due respect to alternate opinions, with thanks to those who have brought this topic to our attention and to those who have commented on it, and with a sincere hope that this discourse remains coherent and civil, I now relinquish the soapbox.
If the info he's putting out is actually harmful to the US (putting our people's lives at risk) then he's no friend of ours and I'd bet he might meet with an "accident". Freedom to put out information does not come without consequences if your actions hurt someone.
To some extent, even speech that indirectly poses a threat ought to be protected, in my opinion, whereas speech that directly poses a threat ought not to be protected. For example, I would say that a release that shows American soldiers doing something wrong, which then results in further general international anger against the USA would be warranted and should be protected. Whistle-blowing is important to the ability of any organization to be able to make corrections to bad behavior, instead of simply covering it up and allowing it to continue. It is true that a general increase in the level of anti-American sentiment might result, and that might result in one more attack than otherwise might have been carried out, and that might result in one more death than might have otherwise occurred. However, the progression of causes and effects I just illustrated is too long and indirect to be traced. The fact that a certain release would make some people upset is insufficient cause to justify banning it, especially if it reveals unjustifiable action. I have no sympathy for soldiers who violate rules of engagement or who commit war crimes. If we do not endorse their criminal actions, then we should feel no shame in revealing them.
On the other hand, speech that outs a specific informant, spy, or other covert operator who has been performing their job honorably would result in specific, rather than general, harm, and thus, I would say that such a release would not be warranted and should not be protected.
As far as I have heard, there have been no such releases from wikileaks that directly put anyone in danger. I agree with Prim0 that no such release should be tolerated. If something of that nature ever does happen, though, I would hope that the government could deal with it openly and honorably according to the rule of law.
The Schenck case
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
If even just one person dies because of the actions of Assange and Wikileaks, I say prosecute him for murder and lock him up in general population in Texas.
But regarding the obscure Swedish law... it's quite unusual. The intercourse is either consensual or it is not. If treachery with the condom makes it non-consensual, then just call it "rape" or "assault."
--------------------
^
good point primo!
Exactly, except that Assange was in the USA & on American TV as early as this past April, and no one did anything about it. This whole WikiLeaks thing has been overblown by just about all sides IMHO.
Most of the stuff that's been "revealed" by WikiLeaks is stuff that people already knew or should have known. I'm not saying that some of it hasn't been embarrassing to both the USA & other nations, but the "importance" of this issue has been waaaaay blown out of all proportion at this point.
Assange is only the head spokesman for WikiLeaks. There are literally dozens (if not hundreds) of people behind the WikiLeaks website, so going after one guy isn't going to do anything.
"On the other hand, speech that outs a specific informant, spy, or other covert operator who has been performing their job honorably would result in specific, rather than general, harm, and thus, I would say that such a release would not be warranted and should not be protected"
...just like with the Valerie Plame case.
---------------------------
"Yesterday, Wikileaks published a list of sites, worldwide, sensitive to U.S. interests. In short, Wikileaks waved a red cape in front of terrorists sying 'these are places to hit'."
Not really. The list literally has sites on it like a cobalt mine in the Congo, locations of drug companies that produce insulin & treatment for snake bites, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia (which Al-Qaeda has already tried to attack), and the Strait of Hormuz & the Panama Canal. WikiLeaks has NOT given out any info as to their exact locations, security measures, or vulnerabilities. Again, most of this stuff is much to do about nothing.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald affirmed that Plame was, in fact, a CIA officer from January 1, 2002 onward & that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003, when her cover was blown. Plame worked for the CIA in a clandestine capacity relating to counter-nuclear proliferation. Plame served the CIA as a "non-official cover" (or a deep cover officer), operating undercover in at least 2 positions in Athens & Brussels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washin…
http://www.salon.com/news/primary_source…
"Further, the prosecutor knew who mentioned her job, but still pursued others whom he knew had not."
Plame's cover was blown by Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, and Karl Rove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plame6…
Two Shots at History
It was pleasant — and frankly a little shocking — to see The Washington Post editorialize over the weekend about the new film "Fair Game," which purports to be the true story of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. Noting that Plame has labeled the movie "accurate" and that Wilson had expressed the hope that the film would help people "who don't read" or have "short memories" to understand the period, the Post blasted them both. "'Fair Game' … is full of distortions — not to mention outright inventions … Hollywood has a habit of making movies about historical events without regard for the truth; 'Fair Game' is just one more example."
Yes, yes, and again yes. The entire Plame episode, it bears recalling, was steeped in deceit from the start — a great deal from Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, a huge dollop from the press and Democrats, an assist from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and a generous contribution from Richard Armitage and Colin Powell (both of whom knew the identity of the leaker before Fitzgerald began his investigation). As I wrote at the time of Scooter Libby's trial, "The man on trial did not do the leaking. The man who did the leaking is not on trial."
For Libby, the witch-hunt was a personal tragedy. Because his memory of conversations differed from some others', he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Though his sentence was commuted, he lost the ability to practice his profession (law), paid a huge fine, and endured disgrace.
But for the country, it was a descent into dangerous demagogy. The entire case rested on a lie shopped around by the Wilsons and eagerly parroted by a press hoping to damage the Bush administration — namely that Plame was outed as a covert CIA officer by the White House as retaliation for her husband's role in discrediting President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger.
To quote Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman, "every word was a lie including 'and' and 'the.'" The White House did not leak Plame's name or identity. It turns that the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage (who opposed the Iraq War and thus had no motive to punish Wilson), was the leaker. And Wilson did not discredit the uranium story when he made his report to the State Department. In fact, his report tended more to support the claim than to refute it.
But Hollywood now enters the picture and catechizes the Wilsons' false history. Joe Wilson is right — some people who don't read will be duly propagandized. Everyone knows that Hollywood is very liberal. But you'd have to be really cynical — or well informed — to know that Hollywood will peddle outright falsehoods and pass them off as history.
Liberals always get two shots at history — one as events unfold, and another when playwrights, screenwriters, novelists, and other cultural arbiters recount events later. It's a crime against truth, but it happens every day.
In Washington, D.C., a new play opened recently. Titled "Every Tongue Confess," the play was described by The Root, a magazine for African-Americans, as "a moving response to an almost forgotten racial inferno of the mid-1990s, when hundreds of black churches in the South were mysteriously burned." The Washington Post review said that the play "tries through lyrical speeches, magical spirituality and densely interlocked subplots to locate the redemptive potential in a horrific set of circumstances: the serial burning of black churches in the Alabama of the mid-1990s."
It may be a great play. But the history is distorted. There was a ginned-up panic about black church burnings in the mid-1990s, but there actually was no epidemic, at least not until after President Clinton delivered a speech on the subject (which was followed by a rash of copycat crimes).
The press, salivating over the possibility of reaping civil rights glory, fanned the flames with headlines like "Flames of Hate: Racism Blamed in Shock Wave of Church Burnings" (New York Daily News) and "A Southern Plague Returns" (Associated Press). By the time a presidential task force issued its report showing that the overwhelming majority of the arsons (and more than half were of white churches) were the result of drunkenness, insurance fraud, burglary, and personal revenge, everyone had moved on. Of 64 arsons studied, only four turned out to have any racial motivation. Four are too many. But they aren't a "racial inferno."
But the truth is now smothered by literary license — again.
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates."
(Tasitus)
fucking politicians are trying to make a law against everything!
Physician heal thyself! LOL...
-------------------------
"Two Shots at History"
...which is an OPINION PIECE from Mona Charen, a well-known Right-wing shill...ugh...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/2…
Scooter Libby leaked Plame's covert status to reporter Matthew Cooper, period.
Did other people leak Plame's covert status? Sure, but Scooter Libby broke the law right along with them, period.
Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice for impeding the course of a federal grand jury investigation concerned with the illegal leaking by govt. officials of the classified identity of a covert agent of the CIA (Valerie Plame Wilson), making false statements to the FBI about when & how he learned that Plame was an undercover CIA agent, and 2 counts of perjury for lying to a federal grand jury. Libby was the first sitting White House official to be indicted in 130 years.
Plame's husband Joe Wilson was sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a deal to buy enriched uranium yellowcake there. The then current U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, informed him that she had already debunked that story. Wilson ultimately concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
Wilson's NY Times op-ed responded to President Bush's controversial "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinio…
On March 7, 2003, 11 days before the U.S.-led coalition invasion of Iraq, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its report determining that documents indirectly cited by President Bush as suggesting that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger were actually "obvious" forgeries.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.ir…
Still don't believe that Plame was a covert agent?? Well, take it from the mouth of General Michael Hayden, who's certainly no Lefty:
"The role of this Agency was simply saying that Ms. Plame’s relationship with this Agency, as a covert CIA officer, was a classified piece of information."
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/pre…