| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| STD fears sparked Assange rape case - reuters story with all the dirt |
| 2010-12-07 |
| STD fears set off rape caseBy Mark Hosenball WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 7, 2010 4:27pm EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) The two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him. They just wanted to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, according to several people in contact with his entourage at the time. not only was it not rape, the women didn't even want him charged with that until the prosecuters got involved and let me guess why they were so keen to make the most out of anything they could.... The women went to the police together after they failed to persuade Assange to go to a doctor after separate sexual encounters with him in August, according to these people, who include former close associates of Assange who have since fallen out with him. One of the women, identified in the British court hearing on Sweden's extradition request as Miss A, was listed on publicity for Assange's Swedish visit as a spokesperson for a group hosting the WikiLeaks leader. People who were in contact with both Assange and other members of his entourage at the time say that the woman at some point invited him to stay at her residence. According to the accounts of Assange's associates, his overnight stays at his erstwhile spokeswoman's residence soon evolved into a sexual relationship between the two. During one of their encounters, the woman later said, a condom Assange was wearing broke or split. eople who saw Assange and the woman in the days after this incident is said to have occurred said the two displayed little if any obvious sign of tension or hostility; to some who saw them at the time, it was not clear their relationship was anything other than amicable and chaste. A few days later, however, people who were in contact with Assange then told Reuters, a second, younger woman went to a seminar addressed by Assange. FIFTEEN DOLLAR TRAIN TICKET this one would be the spy After hearing him speak at the seminar, the newspaper said, the woman, identified in court as Miss W, loitered outside the meeting hall, and eventually was invited to lunch with Assange and his entourage at a local bistro. A day after their initial meeting -- which the Mail account said included a visit to a natural history museum -- Miss W agreed with Assange that he should spend the night at her apartment about 45 minutes outside Stockholm. That night, according to the accounts of both the newspaper and people who were in contact with Assange and his inner circle, he and Miss W had sex using a condom. The next morning, however, under circumstances which remain deeply murky, the sources said, Assange allegedly had sex with the woman again, this time without a condom. Then, after a meal during which the Mail says that the woman joked that she could be pregnant, they parted on friendly terms, with Miss W buying Assange his train ticket back to Stockholm. Two people who were in contact with Assange's entourage before, during and after these events said that while some details are still unclear, it appears that after parting from Assange, Miss W became increasingly concerned that he might have given her a sexually-transmitted disease. According to the sources, Miss W anxiously tried to phone Assange to plead with him to go to a doctor and be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. However, the sources said that Assange had turned his phone off, leaving Miss W no way to get in touch with him. Becoming increasingly anxious about possible dire consequences of having had sex without a condom, Miss W then began trying to contact Assange through various people she believed were in touch with him. This eventually led her to Miss A -- who according to people who followed the case closely was not previously acquainted with Miss W. Attrocious. This is caled stalking. If she was worried about an STD then she should get herself on antibiotics/anti-retrovirals. Get tested in 3 months. Not stalk, harass and go to the police. This woman is the spy The two women proceeded to compare notes on their encounters with Assange and decided that they would insist that he should go to a hospital or doctor and submit to testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Eventually they managed to get in touch with Assange, according to a person who closely followed the case at the time. But by the time the women had wrung this concession from Assange, the source said, it was a Friday evening and hospitals and medical clinics were closed. At this point, Miss W, apparently exasperated at Assange's evasive behavior, decided to take her story to police, though initially she didn't want Assange to be prosecuted. she did want him prosecuted, that was her only goal, but she pretends that isn't the case to give herself legitimacy. According to a version of the story published by London's Guardian newspaper, which has been in close and continuing contact with Assange for months, Miss A decided to go to the police with Miss W to offer moral support, but did not want charges brought against Assange either. After taking statements from the women, according to both published accounts and to accounts confirmed by Swedish officials at the time, police officers passed the reports on to prosecutors. Based on the reports a prosecutor serving after-hours duty on a Friday night then decided to issue a warrant for Assange's arrest on suspicion of rape -- a charge which the Guardian said at the time was related to Assange's alleged encounter with Miss W. The next morning, however, the file was sent for review to a more senior prosecutor, who concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the rape accusation and canceled the arrest warrant. But the second prosecutor decided that the investigation should continue as a lesser accusation of "molestation" against Assange, Swedish officials said at the time. Over the following several days, prosecutors spoke about wanting to question Assange, though also dropped heavy hints that they wanted to wrap up their investigation rapidly -- with the most likely outcome being a closing of the file. However, new life was injected into the investigation after Miss A and Miss W hired Claes Borgstrom, a prominent Swedish lawyer. Borgstrom confirmed to reporters at the time that his clients' allegations against Assange related to efforts he made to have sex with them without wearing condoms, and his subsequent reluctance to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. i wonder why they suddenly wanted to hire a lawyer? where did they get the money for that? God it's so obvious what is really going on here. it's disgusting when Politics is allowed to interfere with the judicial process. Just disgusting. This is a threat to the freedom of all of us because they don't use these tactics only against enemies now we are all targets. Every Western journalist who writes anything critical of Government (UK, US, Australia) can expect similar attacks to lesser degrees unless we tell them that media is to be left alone, and the court system is to be left alone. Borgstrom said at the time that he would appeal the authorities' initial decision to close the rape investigation to a higher authority. Subsequently, Marianne Ny, one of three senior Swedish prosecutors who hold the title of Director of Public Prosecutions, issued a statement about the case, which, in an official translation published on the English language page of the Swedish Prosecution Authority's website, declared that: "There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgment is that the classification of the crime is rape." and how does she get to that conclusion after consensual sex, backed up by witness accounts of happy relations after the fact, backed by text messages, backed by the original police statement.... Translation: The CIA and other intelligence agencies leant on the Swedes to use any and every possible means to attack Assange. They have interfered with the judicial system in Sweden, compromising its independence and the fundamental principal of equality before the law. This willingness to trash the norms and principles of Western Democracy is a far greater threat to our freedom than anything Wikileaks published. In their official statement, prosecutors added that the original "molestation" investigation of Assange -- which was never officially closed -- also would continue and "will be extended to include all allegations in the original police report... There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Based on the information available, the crimes in question come under the heading of sexual coercion and sexual molestation, respectively." n a flurry of statements and Twitter messages after the case first erupted, Assange and WikiLeaks charged that the whole Swedish case was the product of some kind of "dirty tricks campaign" related to the group's work. In one Tweet, WikiLeaks said that "The charges are without basis and their issue at the moment is deeply disturbing." Another Tweet said: "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one." I have to say I agree. Even those that despise Assange and think of him as an enemy would have to admit that the process involved in slapping these charges on Assange looks highly suspicious Tuesday, a lawyer representing the Swedish government laid out for a British judge four specific charges of sexual misconduct, three related to Miss A and one related to Miss W. The word "rape" was not part of the charges but "unlawful coercion" and Assange's alleged reluctance to use condoms was. There you have it folks. You must draw your own conclusions. I respect everyone on this site as being patriots and people who care about their country. I also am a patriot and care about my country and its allies. I don't believe our Governments and their spy agencies should destroy our village in order to save it. Judicial independence and media freedom are not luxuries to be suspended and only given back once all our enemies are defeated "for our own safety". BS. We will have freeedom now and not surrender it - no matter what enemies we face. |
| Posted by:anon1 |
| #22 @Anon1: Publishing stolen state secrets is not "journalism". Especially since publishing said stolen state secrets has severe repercussions to America and it's allies. Not to mention the number of people killed because of his foolish behavior. Asshat is not a journalist. Period. Anon1, I'm afraid your moral compass is broken. Asshat needs to be hung by his nuts and beaten with a whiffle bat, until he understands & feels the pain he has caused the US and our allies. |
| Posted by: Mikey Hunt 2010-12-08 00:05 |
| #21 Hello TW, I hate the jihadis too. But Julian Assange is not trying to support the Jihadis. Frank G: your point about whether my personal details being released is terrorism or not is not relevant in this case. Wikileaks does not publish the personal details of individuals. "US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting." Assange in The Australian. |
| Posted by: anon1 2010-12-08 00:04 |
| #20 Translation please Skidmark? |
| Posted by: Fire and Ice 2010-12-07 23:45 |
| #19 Hospitals close on a weekend? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2010-12-07 23:43 |
| #18 Assange = Predatory Blackmail artist, not to be confused with Journalist. The textbook definition of blackmail is when wthe threat consists of the dissemination of damaging information. AHEM. Next up, psychological coercion, Assange's next tactic. First, the predator regards the vic's relationships and attempts to narrow the victim's available choices and allegiances in order to set up the victim to become instrumental to the predator's interests. The vic could be a person, a country, or a set of countries. The goals of coercion could be totally selfish, or couched as "altruistic" as is the case with Mr. Assange. In actuality, I suspect Mr. Assange is mostly out to gain power under the pretext of saving freedom of saving information. This type of coercion 'like saving souls' has religious underpinnings but there is nothing altruistic about it. Hence, the reason why people buck under the whip of an impure imposter posing as a soul saver. |
| Posted by: Fire and Ice 2010-12-07 23:16 |
| #17 anon1, any comment on this story, which directly contradicts his op-ed posted in opinion? When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election". The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased." It's the kind of moral conundrum that would unnerve most people, that made some wonder last week what the potential ramifications of the latest leak might be, but it is a subject on which Assange himself is absolutely clear: "You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion." |
| Posted by: tipper 2010-12-07 23:15 |
| #16 The Prophet Mohammed ordered his people to terrorize unbelievers for the purpose of causing them to surrender, either converting to the master religion or accepting dhimmi status, with all that entails. Mr. Assange's actions were, per his own admission, for the purpose of making the American government unable to function. Should he succeed in his aim, we will de facto surrender to the Caliphatists of Al Qaeda and all the other jihadi groups who have be working together to conquer us for their god. It does not matter that the release of this and previous information is not a current terror tactic like suicide bombs, IEDs, and hijacked airplanes, or classical terror techniques like total war and murder. The purpose is to force surrender. Will he, nill he, Mr. Assange is either a part of the jihadi war or a supporter of it. Burn him. After a fair trial on charges valid in the culture in which they were made. As for the rape rate in Sweden, nowadays a great many of them are real rapes by real jihadi gangs for the purpose of demoralizing the natives, only a portion of which are reported by the terrorized native girls. Or so I've read. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-12-07 23:03 |
| #15 #9 : releasing information is not a terror tactic. perhaps then we should see your school grades. Your personal diaries. Any emails you sent to anybody (who KNOWS what could be in those). Your medical history. Your sexual partners. Your family and friends: all of the above. After all. It's freedom to know, eh? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-12-07 22:44 |
| #14 Anon1, it is you that wants a yes club. That is why you have been BLUDGEONING readers with your thoughts about Assange, coming at it from every angle, in hope to induce submission or just get everyone so tired of hearing you they just give up. |
| Posted by: Fire and Ice 2010-12-07 22:44 |
| #13 "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion- No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists." And it gets better. This is wikipedias blurb as of today. So terrorism is much more than blowing up building, Anon1, dear. |
| Posted by: Fire and Ice 2010-12-07 22:41 |
| #12 Fire and Ice: we are debating and sharing ideas. If you want a "yes" club where everyone agrees with you, maybe Rantburg is the wrong forum. Have a look at the logo. |
| Posted by: anon1 2010-12-07 22:34 |
| #11 #9 : releasing information is not a terror tactic. Blowing up buildings is Persecuting journalists is If the US extradites Assange from Sweden, if this pretext is just so he can become a "rendition" then ANZUS is dead. |
| Posted by: anon1 2010-12-07 22:33 |
| #10 Okay. I can read. And therefore, I know the definition of rape differs in Scandinavia. Im relatively new here. But I think Anon1 really should give the Julian Assange lectures a rest. We are all adults here. Therefore, being forcibly shoved into Anon1's world of opinions for days and days is what I object to. ANON1, PEOPLE CAN FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS. WE CAN READ. WE CAN WRITE. WE CAN DECIDE WHAT WE THINK ABOUT ASSANGE. PLEASE STOP BEING ONE OF THE MOST OVERBEARING PEOPLE I HAVE HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF RUNNING ACCROSS. THANK YOU. |
| Posted by: Fire and Ice 2010-12-07 22:19 |
| #9 Maybe he's not your enemy but he is mine and the enemy of my nation for his attempts to cause political change by using terror tactics that result in people dying. I hope that everyone that's supported him gets the same treatment as well. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick - Lost Drill Bit Division - Halliburton 2010-12-07 22:18 |
| #8 Yes, Tipper, exactly right. Not rape by any standard in Australia. Regardless of whether anyone likes or hates Assange for his politics, this at least is a fact we agree on. to #5 A terrorist is an individual who uses violence against civilians to spark fear in order to acheive a political goal. Julian Assange is NOT a terrorist. He is not our enemy. He is an Australian citizen. As editor of a news site, Wikileaks, he is a journalist. Wikileaks writes stories and gives the link to the source document so people can double check the accuracy and context for themselves. |
| Posted by: anon1 2010-12-07 22:14 |
| #7 I read somewhere that Sweden has the highest incidence of rape in Europe. If the behaviour described constitutes rape, no wonder. It wouldn't be rape in any other European country. In a Muslim country the women would be stoned to death, or at least 500 lashes. I doubt that when their ancestors set off for a weekend of murder, rape and pillage across Ireland and England in the dark ages that rape then constituted "have you been tested for STD". |
| Posted by: tipper 2010-12-07 22:04 |
| #6 he's not a journalist. Jeebus. He publishes secret documents, you twit. That's espionage. Do you see him gloating over publishing documents damaging other countries? When has he published internal Russian or Chinese documents and gloated? He's an anti-western terrorist and you are too damn stoopid to explain otherwise. I'm done. It's like explaining algebra to a cat. You'll never get it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-12-07 21:40 |
| #5 He's a terrorist and terror supporter and should be treated like one. He's vermin and I hope that the families of those whose death he's caused catch him and spend a few years torturing him and broadcasting it to the world. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick - Lost Drill Bit Division - Halliburton 2010-12-07 21:39 |
| #4 Hello TW, yes, that is exactly right. The charges are a pretext. But the law should not be used in that fashion. Especially when Assange is not a bank-robbing bandit but a journalist. |
| Posted by: anon1 2010-12-07 21:21 |
| #3 For those not familar with Dr. White's turf, TW is referring to the infamous Alfonse Capone. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2010-12-07 21:09 |
| #2 anon1, you're missing the point. The charges were only an excuse to arrest Mr. Assange, as a famous Chicago gangster was once convicted for evading taxes on his ill-gotten gains, rather than for mass and individual murder, rum-running, houses of ill-repute, and all the other illegal activities his gang were engaged in. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-12-07 20:23 |
| #1 another lengthy loggorhea attack by anon1 over Assange. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-12-07 19:50 |