Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday January 08 2017, @07:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the reporter-not-under-USA's-thumb dept.

The Indicter reports

Author and investigative reporter Celia Farber has prepared for publication in The Indicter, an updated analysis of the Swedish Assange case. The in-depth analysis concludes that the police reports confirm Julian Assange's testimony, as given to the prosecutor in her questioning conducted at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It has also been established that the crucial allegations against Mr Julian Assange, as have appeared in the Swedish and international media, in fact were constructed by the police and were not what the complainants really said or wished to achieve.

It has been discovered that it was the police, or the prosecutor's office, which unlawfully and/or unethically leaked the "allegations" to the evening paper "Expressen", which is clearly known for its declared NATO sympathies. Regrettably, but also predictably, this was an opportunity for Western mainstream media to create a scandal around the founder of WikiLeaks. Likewise, it was an occasion used by the MSM to insidiously attack the organization that had partly exposed the corruption of the governments they represent, and partly surpassed them in journalistic efficacy and objectivity.

But it was more than purely vendetta-time; it was a well-articulated campaign which started that day in August 2010 when--according to the Snowden documents--the US government asked the countries participating in the military occupation of Afghanistan under US command to prosecute Julian Assange. Sweden obeyed; others cooperated.

Nevertheless, the Afghan Logs and the Iraq Logs exposed by WikiLeaks remained published. The WikiLeaks founder did not surrender. The Assange case, already politically in its origins, turned into a spiral of increasing geopolitical dimensions.

[Continues...]

Our position has always been that the above-described political aspect has always been present in the 'Assange case' and we could hardly be--in principle--interested in furthering a discussion on details pertaining the intimacy of Mr Assange or of other people around the constructed 'legal case'.

However, we regard this analysis of Ms Celia Farber--A Swedish-born and America-based journalist familiar with the intricacies of the Swedish culture and language--as important material, which we hope will help to end the overblown discussion on the 'suspicions' or 'allegations' against Mr Assange. These allegations have constituted the essence of the artificial debate that the Swedish prosecutors periodically orchestrate, through press releases or erratic press conferences of the type "we have nothing new to communicate".

We have also published--in the same spirit of clarification--the statement of Mr Julian Assange given to the Swedish prosecutor during the interview in London. In the context of this new analysis by Celia Farber, we also recommend the reading of "The answer given by Julian Assange to the Swedish prosecutor in the London questioning of 14-15 November 2016".

From that page:

6. On 23 August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné stated she "made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape".

7. On 25 August, the Chief Prosecutor found that "The conduct alleged disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed".

8. A week later, I learned to my surprise that a different prosecutor by the name of "Marianne Ny" had reopened the preliminary investigation without any consultation or opportunity for me to be heard--after I had already been cleared and the case had been closed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 08 2017, @07:51AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 08 2017, @07:51AM (#450972) Homepage Journal

    An old analysis would have been sufficient. Both women were interviewed by European news agencies soon after these allegations were made public. Both women stated publicly that there was no rape. Some new details that I hadn't seen before are exposed in this report, but nothing essential. The new details merely make Ny and Miss A look worse. These women colluded to destroy a man's reputation, for political reasons.

    --
    Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:05AM (#450982)

      Yet, the question comes up for me: The Celia Farber with the Wikipedia article, famous for publishing the most insane drivel possible to find without doing any fact-checking whatsoever? Is that what's called "investigative reporter" nowadays?
      If so, any reason why nowadays the fact that she wrote is anything other than an argument for it being WRONG?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:51AM (#450992)

        Intelligence agencies have a lot of money. Money is what done it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:43PM (#451026)

        Anti-vax. Great, that's exactly what the Assange saga needed.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @05:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @05:02PM (#451078)

        I think we can call the actions surrounding the rape charges something akin to well orchestrated and organized fake news - or propaganda. Perhaps it didn't start that way, but it quickly became a tool to distribute the message that wikileaks is not to be trusted because of the clear lack of christian values demonstrated by the messenger.

        It doesn't have to be about an election to fit the criteria; dirtying the waters is as old as politics itself. Propaganda itself often can be viewed the same way as conspiracy theories, except propaganda is usually considered to be the message of the present powers in charge. Conspiracy theories are typically from an entity not in charge.

        It is often best to not trust either, but examing each for the small truths usually hidden inside. Some of it, of course, may be entirely false -- but Lincoln's observation that not everyone can be fooled all of the time has lead to temperance in the movement to spread lies. Eventually someone sees the truth, and it often can be hidden better if some of the truth is in plain sight. That way people skip past what they are looking for as they seek something else...

        And that is very much what many of the governments involved in this had wanted people to do -- look past the simple truths and focus on lies. If they were able to make the guy disappeared, by the time someone figured anything out, he'd already have died in a plane crash or thrown out of one over the ocean somewhere.

        • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday January 08 2017, @05:37PM

          by art guerrilla (3082) on Sunday January 08 2017, @05:37PM (#451095)

          upside-down world:
          assange/snowden/manning/sterling/etc should be free, (as in FUCKING FREE); and the cohort of killary/t-rump/obama/bush/etc (oh hell, just round up the whole .1%, just to be sure) should be jailed for krimes against the constitution, krimes against humanity...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:31AM (#450976)

    So shocked. Shocked. Just shocked.

    More shocked than a man with a copper antenna in a lighting storm at 0% humidity.

    More shocked than a politician caught telling the truth.

    Just shocked.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:23AM (#450984)

    Footer fortune strikes into the heart of the matter yet again.

    Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by wisnoskij on Sunday January 08 2017, @01:59PM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday January 08 2017, @01:59PM (#451017)

    The Russians must of hacked these records and replaced his victims with sleeper agents.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:08PM (#451020)

      It's the start of the Russian pod person invasion!

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 08 2017, @03:48PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 08 2017, @03:48PM (#451049) Homepage Journal

        OMG! I didn't realize the pod people were RUSSIAN!! Now I'm scared!

        --
        Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @04:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @04:11PM (#451060)

          They're not, they're CIA.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:22PM (#451158)

      When shortened, "must have" becomes "must've".
      "Must of" is not a thing.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday January 08 2017, @11:10PM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Sunday January 08 2017, @11:10PM (#451231) Journal

        When shortened, "must have" becomes "must've".

        I've always assumed that people were improperly writing "of" in place of the full word "have" in sentences, not effectively misspelling "must've." Then again, I could be totally wrong; I've never quite understood how people could mangle frequently–used words/phrases after seeing them written correctly on a regular basis.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Sunday January 08 2017, @04:10PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 08 2017, @04:10PM (#451058) Journal

    When the rape allegations first broke, it was instantly obvious that they sure were convenient for the governments and big businesses. They had powerful motive, and definitely the means to hoke up stuff and create opportunities.

    As I recall, the women denied it all along, and that part of the story was flipped. Woman: "He did not rape me." Headline: "Woman says he raped her." It's just like Diebold claiming their voting machines had been tested and validated, when they had failed the testing.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:01PM (#451146)

    exec has linked to [soylentnews.org] an item by really smart anti-Authoritarian Craig Murray.
    A Must Read: Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar [beforeitsnews.com]

    There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange

    ...and, hey! BeforeIt'sNews no longer center-justifies its HTML[1] like an 8 year old little girl would.

    [1] Now, they might yet be doing that--via CSS; since I don't typically bother with CSS, they might still be doing it there without my knowledge.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:04PM (#451150)

      For gods sake gewg just log in.

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by requerdanos on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:21PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:21PM (#451157) Journal

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @03:04PM (#451150)

        For gods sake gewg just log in.

        Umm...

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Monday January 09 2017, @02:23AM

    by Magic Oddball (3847) on Monday January 09 2017, @02:23AM (#451288) Journal

    This article would have been a lot better if the author hadn't analyzed & approached the entire thing from the outset with the intention of finding some way to exonerate Assange and with an open bias against what he considers "feminism." I'm not against Assange, but any decent analysis should be clear–headed and impartial, dedicated only to the facts; otherwise I'm left wondering what contradictory or unflattering information the author may have left out for fear of undermining his stance.

    She is careful that he always use a condom, she explains. In the morning she wakes from intercourse with him again. She is worried about HIV and asks if he has a condom. He answers that no, he doesn’t. She feels it is too late to stop him. According to the police report, the intercourse takes place against her will and the event came to be called rape.

    She consented to having protected sex (out of fear of STDs), and made it clear she absolutely did not want to have sex without a condom. He waited until she was unconscious so she couldn't refuse consent, then penetrated her bareback knowing it was actively against her wishes/will. It's not in the gray area of performing a sex act she'd already consented to earlier...

    Given rape is defined as penetration without consent (including active refusal) in most First–World countries, the act wasn't merely "called rape." Whether or not the person it happened to wishes to prosecute the act or shrugs it off it's still against the law.

    The article later makes this bizarrely contradictory (or simply biased?) statement:

    no evidence of unsafe sex

    ...? There couldn't be any "evidence" unless she either recorded the entire encounter or ran to the police without cleaning herself.

    Then it veers into over-the-top WTF:

    At the end of it all, it clear that Assange did not like condoms, (who does?) but also clear he did agree to use them in both instances. I am pretty sure all that “happened” here was one ejaculation that escaped its latex guardian somehow or other.

    Wait, what? Yeah, he "agreed" to use a condom with the second woman, but then violated the agreement and penetrated her bareback anyway. Sure, with the first woman we could say that the ejaculate "escaped" — but that doesn't apply when he deliberately didn't use a "latex guardian." That'd be like agreeing to not drive your partner's new Ferrari, waiting for them to leave, taking it on a joyride, then claiming that the car merely "escaped…somehow" while you were sitting in it.

    ...

    I'd analyze the article further, but I'm a bit too mentally checked–out from the shock of unexpectedly losing one of my pets today.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:58PM (#451675)

      ...? There couldn't be any "evidence" unless she either recorded the entire encounter or ran to the police without cleaning herself.

      So then there is no case.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:14AM (#452413)
      That's because in the real world it's not black or white, there can be shades of grey (maybe not 50 but whatever ;) ).

      The "explicit consent" people may think otherwise but a fair number of people are happy to be woken up from sleep with an orgasm from being fucked by a person they trust and like/love. Might even be one of their fantasies. Go google...

      Assange breached their trust (unprotected sex) but maybe the women didn't feel it was enough to call it rape. Maybe they were checking with the police to see if there was something in-between in the law books, like a lesser degree of sexual assault or similar.

      And then the US Gov decides to get involved.

      It's like an acquaintance punches me and I check with the cops to see whether it's assault and then the US Gov gets involved and uses my case to take out the acquaintance. While I might not be happy with being punched, I might start to feel even unhappier with the US Gov hijacking my case.
  • (Score: 1) by Burz on Monday January 09 2017, @08:00AM

    by Burz (6156) on Monday January 09 2017, @08:00AM (#451365)

    ...was appointed by Sweden's so-called "Ronald Reagan of Europe" who employed Karl Rove as his political strategist. Essentially America-Uber-Alles sycophants.

    Apart from her, the only one who wanted to press charges was the one "victim" who worked for the CIA. So the US gov't was paycheck and opportunity to her, to say the least.