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, 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (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.