backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Aug 24 at 3:53 PM


  (Source: WAFF-48)

Julian Assange, convicted computer criminal and founder of the controversial website Wikileaks, was briefly charged with rape by Swedish authorities. The charges have since been dropped, but he's still under investigation on allegations of molestation.  (Source: AP)

Assange's packed trip also allowed him to sign a partnership between Sweden's Pirate Party and Wikileaks. Assange says that the two organizations "share many values ".  (Source: Torrent Freak)
Wikileaks inks serving deal with Pirate Party, known for its support of illegal downloads

It's been a wild weekend for Sweden and the site Wikileaks.

On Friday Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange, founder and commander in chief of Wikileaks.  According to Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office, Mr. Assange had been arrested in absentia and faced raped charges on two separate instances.

Then on Saturday Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne posted an official statement on a government website stating that Mr. Assange is "no longer wanted" and "is not suspected of rape."  However, the statement indicates that Mr. Assange is still under investigation on molestation charges.

In Sweden molestation is a sex crime that can apply to nonconsensual sexual contact among adults, as well as with minors (unlike in the U.S., where it typically refers to inappropriate contact with minors).  Also, unlike the U.S., the offense is not punishable by prison time.

Sources in the Swedish media said the investigation stems from Mr. Assange's trip to Sweden last week.  During that active trip Mr. Assange reportedly had sexual encounters with two women -- aged 20 and 30.  Reportedly both encounters were consensual, but Mr. Assange then allegedly engaged in nonconsensual sexual violence.  After the women connected and shared their stories, they decided to approach Swedish police.  Ironically, Aftonbladet, the tabloid that Mr. Assange recently signed a deal to report for, was the first to publish the 30-year-old's account of the situation.

Mr. Assange on Saturday called the allegations a "dirty" trick.  He also appears to have posted on a Wikileaks-affiliated Twitter account, "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

While Mr. Assange now seems out of serious legal danger, the allegations are certainly embarrassing for Australian native who now finds himself a hot topic in the Swedish tabloid he recently launched a career with.  Mr. Assange has had his share of legal troubles over the years, being a convicted computer criminal in his home country.

Besides signing on to write for Aftonbladet, which may help Wikileaks obtain Swedish journalistic protections, Mr. Assange also found time in his apparently packed trip to sign a pact with Sweden's Pirate Party.  The Pirate Party, known for its promotion of currently illegal music, film, and video game piracy, will offer hosting service for Wikileaks.

Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge comments, "I’m delighted that we’re able to help WikiLeaks.  I love opportunities to demonstrate that one of the biggest differences between us and the other parties is that we positively leap at any and all changes to take real responsibility for changing the world, rather than just commission reports and avoiding blame like the archetypal politician."

Mr. Assange says that his organization shares much with the Pirate Party.  He states, "We welcome the help provided by the Pirate Party.  Our organizations share many values and I am looking forward to future ways we can help each other improve the world."

Wikileaks also hopes the Pirate Party will push for more protections for it in Sweden's Parliament.  Mr. Assange states, "We hope that the new Parliament will give serious consideration to further strengthening Sweden’s press protection legislation. Western democracies are not always as free as one might think, and freedom of the press needs constant vigilance.  In particular, we would welcome Sweden copying Iceland’s Modern Media Initiative, something that the Pirate Party also desires."

Currently based in Iceland, Mr. Assange has been the subject of harsh criticism from the Obama administration and U.S. military leadership, which claim that his site's massive leak of U.S. military field memos from Afghanistan may result in bloodshed.  Afghanistan's insurgency, the Taliban, claims that the first round of leaks allowed them to track down and kill a tribal leader who was aiding the U.S.  The Taliban is known for its terrorist tactics.

Mr. Assange, though, claims that the only solution to eliminating government corruption is complete transparency.  He is currently preparing to release more documents, even as the U.S. government reportedly scrambles to protect its Afghani informants from the potentially deadly cost of exposure.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So tell me, Mick...
By rs1 on 8/21/2010 10:57:49 PM , Rating: 5
...just how much money did it take to buy your journalistic integrity? I mean, when I saw this story on CNN I knew it wouldn't be long before you'd be out with another heavily biased article on the subject, but I think with this article you've sunk to a new low. Let's see:

quote:
Reportedly both encounters were consensual, but Mr. Assange then engaged in nonconsensual sexual violence.


I wasn't aware that being charged with a crime is the same as having committed a crime. You have left a very important word out of that sentence, and that word is allegedly . It can go in between "then" and "engaged", or you can shorten in to "alleged" and place it between "in" and "nonconsensual". Even an amateur journalist should know better than to leave it out entirely.

Even if the charges were valid, which the Swedish authorities have already ruled they are not, until a conviction is handed in Assange is only an alleged criminal, not a proven one (unless you're Nancy Grace, in which case the rules are different and you're a terrible, terrible person...are you Nancy Grace?). But I shouldn't need to tell you this. You're the one that's supposed to be the journalist.

quote:
After the women connected and shared their stories...


Wait a minute, doesn't that sound just a little implausible to you? I mean, allegedly Assange had "nonconsensual violent sexual encounters" with two unrelated women on two separate occasions, and yet somehow they managed to run into each other and strike up a conversation about how they were both assaulted by Assange? Neither one went to the police independently? That doesn't seem just a little worthy of investigation to you? I mean, did they know each other beforehand? If not, how did they find each other? And if they weren't going to independently tell the police what had happened, why in the hell would either one tell a strange woman that they had just met?

You're the (alleged) journalist here, Mick. These are the questions you're supposed to come up with yourself. And then you're supposed to do your own research to answer them.

quote:
the allegations are certainly embarrassing for Australian native who now finds himself a hot topic in the Swedish tabloid he recently launched a career with


What do you base that on? Has he said that he's embarrassed by the incident? Have you actually bothered consulting and reputable sources in the Swedish media (because you certainly didn't bother to link to any, although you seem more than happy to link to your own articles, and anything else that you feel will portray Assange in a negative light)? Because if you had, you would have found that the charges against Assange have been thoroughly discredited, and are now being viewed as an attempted character assassination/smear campaign against him. You conveniently forget to make any mention of this whatsoever in your article. Covering both sides of a controversial issue is another thing that any journalist should know to do as a matter of standard operating procedure.

If this incident is embarrassing to anyone, it's to the people who botched the smear campaign against Assange (and by association, the people who green-lit it in the first place). And, as a seemingly willing player in the propaganda game, it should be embarrassing to you as well, Mick, but then you just know no shame, do you?

quote:
Afghanistan's insurgency, the Taliban, claims that the first round of leaks allowed them to track down and kill a tribal leader who was aiding the U.S.


No, you claim that. You never provided any evidence of the Taliban making that claim. As the very first comment on the article that you link to points out, you provide no evidence whatsoever that the murder is in any way related to the leaked documents. Your statement here is a downright fabrication and you should be ashamed. You are entitled to your opinions, but when operating in journalist mode, you need to be big enough to set those aside. If you cannot, then you have no legitimate business serving as a journalist, and I will be happy to petition for your removal from the dailytech writing staff.

In closing, expect the molestation charges to also be formally thrown out shortly, expect most reputable news organizations start reporting this is an botched character assassination attempt, and expect Mick to ignore all of this and label Assange as a "suspected rapist and molestor" in his next propaganda piece.

And to everyone who supports what Mick is doing because they disagree with what Assange has done, look, I'm not saying that Assange's actions were right, but Mick's biased "reporting" on this issue is definitely wrong, and I'm calling him out over his shoddy journalism and attempted propaganda campaign. Two wrongs don't make a right. Slander, libel, fabrication, and propaganda is not the solution to this issue. We, as a society, should be better than this.




RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: So tell me, Mick...
By rs1 on 8/22/2010 12:04:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Man, don't you think you're on the soapbox a bit much here?


Maybe, but I'm pretty sick and tired of Mick's biased "reporting" on this topic. And I don't think it's asking too much to expect people to reject the use of propaganda on principle alone, even when they happen to agree with its intent.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: So tell me, Mick...
By snyper256 on 8/22/2010 3:33:23 AM , Rating: 5
Just because someone break a law, doesn't mean they're an evil horrible person who deserves no respect.

Laws can be completely arbitrary. It's entirely possible all over the world to become a "criminal" without doing anything bad to anyone.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: So tell me, Mick...
By dark matter on 8/22/2010 7:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
You still cannot go around claiming to speak on behalf of people, nor can you accuse someone of something that didn't happen. Regardless of your feelings towards them, or what they have done in the past.

And that's the end of the matter Reclaimer77.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By erikejw on 8/22/2010 4:54:32 PM , Rating: 3
Some additional info:

Actually it was one case of alleged rape and the other was much weaker, some sexual "something".

Both woman have claimed he was not any violent at all so it was something else they claimed he had done.

Apperently they connected to each other on the Internet afterwards(how?) and then decided to go to the police together to "chat" and they did not want to press charges, instead the police woman they talked to did that.

The young inexperienced prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand who happens to be married to a man working for the head of the swedish justice department took the decision and a few hours later when a superior arrived and she spent a few minutes with the details of the charges they were revoked and that is extremaly rare. Usually it takes months to change the charges and noone interferes with decisions made, they stick together.

She who took the first decision have disappeared and gone underground and have received harsh criticism from former general prosecutors etc.

It seems there was no legal ground to take the actions she did. Either a witness has to be present or there have to be technical evidence. None of those were present and she refuses to talk to anyone or give any information about her actions.

There have also been claimed that one of the woman have already left the country. What does that mean?


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: So tell me, Mick...
By PaterPelligrino on 8/22/2010 3:48:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Have you forgotten that this guys a convicted criminal?


Obviously Jason has his own agenda here. What started as a discussion of Wikileaks and its decision to make public US military documents, now seems to have mutated into a personal vendetta against Assange. But even if the charges of sexual misconduct are true - and you have to admit the timing on this is very suspicious - why is this of any importance?

Nothing that Assange does with his dick at 2 in the morning has anything to do with Wikileaks. There is a formal term for this kind of logical error; it's called the genetic fallacy , which is defined as "a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself." For example, there have been many brilliant authors and artists - Naipaul and Picasso come to mind - who were terrible human beings, but that does not discredit the value of their creations. Henry Fonda was supposedly a horrible father. Hitler committed a genetic fallacy when he dismissed Einstein's theories as "Jewish science". The Vatican considers homosexuality to be aberrant but they haven't painted over the Sistine Chapel because it turns out Michelangelo was gay.

The point in all this is that nothing about Assange's personal life is relevant when evaluating the merits of the Wikileaks military secrets case; and personaly, I am no more intersted in Assange's sex life than I am in Britney's.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By PaterPelligrino on 8/22/2010 3:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
Why was my above post born with a rating of 1? Could it have been because of my use of the word 'gay', or does the DailyTECH forum automatically punish anyone who mentions Britney Spears? Let's see if this post also gets a 1.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: So tell me, Mick...
By dark matter on 8/22/2010 7:42:23 AM , Rating: 1
Are you JasonDick?


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By B3an on 8/22/2010 7:54:27 AM , Rating: 5
You can talk.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Helbore on 8/22/2010 12:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
What does that tell us about all your -1 posts, then?


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By knutjb on 8/22/2010 5:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Because votes are purely opinion, the comment might or might not be a joke. Not every -1 post is bad or wrong, just not popular.

Reclaimer77 frequently writes things I disagree with and many habitually mark him down without reading but I don't think he is entirely wrong nor was he outrageous in what I read.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Helbore on 8/23/2010 9:49:24 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with you, but Reclaimer was the one who said a post rated at 1 meant it wasn't a very good post. His own logic meant that he was criticising every single post of his on this thread, too. I thought the irony was worth pointing out to him.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By AstroCreep on 8/22/2010 11:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
Because of the verbiage you used; a word that begins with a "D" and rhymes with "Click".

It's happened to me a few times as well. It seems any profanity or Perceived Profanity results in a lower-score right-off-the-bat.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Helbore on 8/22/2010 12:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
As does replying to someone with a negative rating.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By jamesjwb on 8/22/2010 5:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
happened to me the other day when posting something controversial. It was born at 1, after literally 2 seconds.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Ammohunt on 8/22/2010 11:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
Thats why there is so much corruption in Congress becasue of people like you that gloss over serious character flaws. Can a child molester be a good senator sure! do i want a child molester representing me in government hell no! Common sense is just not that common anymore.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: So tell me, Mick...
By PaterPelligrino on 8/22/2010 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 5
You're so anxious to score points that you aren't thinking straight. I said nothing about giving "criminals and scumbags a free pass", nor did I say no one should ever be judged for his crimes. Where the f**k does that come from? All I said was that Assange's sexual behavior - criminal or not - has nothing to do with whether or not Wikileaks did the right thing when it published American military secrets.

Let's perform a little thought experiment here. A guy pulls a drowning child out of the river, and everybody claps the guy on the back and says he did a great thing. Two weeks later he's arrested for years of beating his wife. Does that mean that pulling the kid out of the water is now a bad thing? Would you go and throw the kid back in? You seem to think that I don't want the wife-beater to go to jail. Show me in my original post where I said anything about exonerating criminals.

I have no idea what kind of person Assange is. If he's guilty of rape or whatever, fine, throw his ass in prison - rapists are scum. But the Wikileaks thing has to be judged on its own merit. Is that too complex for you to get your head around?

Anyway, I think I know what's going on here. You seem to think Wikileaks shouldn't have published those documents, so you just take Assange's trouble with the Swedish police as somehow being vindication of your prior judgment. It's amazing how many people are incapable of seeing the flaw in this kind of circular reasoning.

btw, has it also escaped your attention that I haven't taken a position on the Wikileaks controversy?


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2010 7:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All I said was that Assange's sexual behavior - criminal or not - has nothing to do with whether or not Wikileaks did the right thing when it published American military secrets.


Well that's not even a debate. Of course they did the wrong thing. Are you insane? But I think that's the heart of this issue. Assange is viewed as some sort of hero or champion of rightness by a lunatic fringe on Daily Tech and the web, so he's defended. If he was a hum drum tax attorney or whatever, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the leaks were about anything else, nobody would care. It just so happens his leaks, in crazy peoples minds, are vindication. So they don't really care who does it or what kind of person is at the wheel.

quote:
You seem to think Wikileaks shouldn't have published those documents, so you just take Assange's trouble with the Swedish police as somehow being vindication of your prior judgment.


Actually none of my arguments were based on this recent allegation. He's ALREADY a convicted criminal and dirtbag. It's not like I need MORE proof to back my opinions up.

Even if nobody has been killed yet because of his leaks, it's a known fact that he's taken an already volatile situation and made it worst. Lives HAVE been effected, that's not up for debate. His threat to release even more secrets, whatever the cost, shows what kind of person he is.

quote:
btw, has it also escaped your attention that I haven't taken a position on the Wikileaks controversy?


You clearly have. I don't need you to spell it out for me when you've said it in so many words.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By PaterPelligrino on 8/23/2010 12:34:24 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
You clearly have. I don't need you to spell it out for me when you've said it in so many words.

Now you're reading something into my words that just isn't there. Setting aside the question of whether or not we should even be fighting these wars - about that I have very strong opinions indeed - and limiting the discussion to the leaks, I can see that both sides have valid points and I really can't say where I stand on the issue. Sometimes life's like that.

However, character assassination is sleazy. If you want to weigh into the debate, keep to the point, what does Assange's willy have to do with anything?

(Actually, what I really want to talk about is John McCain's secret love-child with that black woman - does anybody have a pic of the mother and child?)


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By PaterPelligrino on 8/23/2010 12:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You clearly have. I don't need you to spell it out for me when you've said it in so many words.

Now you're reading something into my words that just isn't there. Setting aside the question of whether or not we should even be fighting these wars - about that I have very strong opinions indeed - and limiting the discussion to the leaks, I can see that both sides have valid points and I really can't say where I stand on the issue. Sometimes life's like that.

However, character assassination is sleazy. If you want to weigh into the debate, keep to the point, what does Assange's willy have to do with anything?

(Actually, what I really want to talk about is John McCain's secret love-child with that black woman - does anybody have a pic of the mother and child?)


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By michael67 on 8/23/2010 4:32:03 AM , Rating: 1
Let me put it in simpler terms, Most Americans don't trust there politicians to do the right ting all the time.
Guise what, non Americans trust them even a lot less to do the right thing till them.

And these reports about the war in Afghanistan mean noting, what the US government is really shitting there pants over, is the State department cables.

If there is in it, what i think is in it, things like personal opinion's about other country's and leaders, that could hurt the US diplomatic relations really bad.

As for Wiki Leaks, I think there goals are honorably (to get rid of (government corruption), how they go about it, I don't know, most of what they put up was pretty good, on the Afghan reports they properly could have done a better job, doo.

And a site like Wiki Leaks could imo have a function to keep governments honest.
I am still not sure if this will do it, and to be honest I think the criticism they got till now was deserved.

Hope they do the next time a better job in screening the information better before releasing.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Paj on 8/23/2010 7:45:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Assange is viewed as some sort of hero or champion of rightness by a lunatic fringe on Daily Tech and the web, so he's defended.


Hardly a fringe - hes won a few awards for his journalistic works, inlcuding one from the Economist. You could say he has more integrity than 99.9% of journalists working today, as he doesnt have to spin or doctor anything to please an audience – or an editor – at all. Hes exposed injustices all over the world - including the killing of two journalists in Iraq by a US helicopter. Its not hard to see why the US military wouldnt want THAT to be widely known - and would take any means necessary to discredit him.

Was publishing the Afghan documents the wrong thing to do? If it endangers the lives of good people, then yes. Another point worth noting - Wikileaks contacted the DoD for assistance in redacting the documents, so important identities would be protected. The requests were ignored.

But if it exposes injustice and cover ups as well? Harder to call. Do the ends justify the means?


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Ammohunt on 8/24/2010 3:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
So if there is a cover up of atrocities by US Soldiers why would they(the soldiers) report civilian causality numbers in the first place? Wouldn't they want to hide that fact? I mean they are all evil baby killers aren't they?


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By michael67 on 8/23/2010 12:22:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
do i want a child molester representing me in government hell no! Common sense is just not that common anymore.

What dose these accusations have to do whit child molestation.

No one in his right mind want some one like that in office.

On the other hand, I would not give a shit if my president, would like to be gang-banged in the ass, as long as it dose not stand against the moral standpoints he stands for.

As long as it not illegal by law what he dose, its fine by me.

On the other hand I have big problems whit any form of financial ore moral corruption by politicians.

As when it comes to Assange I don't care what he has done, if he is guilty of the aqustions he has to face up to what Swedish laws demand.
But that dose not take anything away what Wiki Leaks organization stand for, the one has noting to whit the other in this case.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By superPC on 8/21/2010 11:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We, as a society, should be better than this.


Well you know what they say in MIB movies right? A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it!


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By techieman on 8/22/2010 1:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
Reportedly both encounters were consensual, but Mr. Assange then engaged in nonconsensual sexual violence.

I wasn't aware that being charged with a crime is the same as having committed a crime. You have left a very important word out of that sentence, and that word is allegedly . It can go in between "then" and "engaged", or you can shorten in to "alleged" and place it between "in" and "nonconsensual". Even an amateur journalist should know better than to leave it out entirely.


To be fair, the author began the sentence with 'reportedly.' In fact, that may be the best word; 'alleged' is fairly strongly associated with the police, however, as far as I'm aware the police have never actually alleged that Mr. Assange engaged in 'nonconsensual sexual violence'. However, the article pretty strongly hints that it had been reported that he had engaged in such acts.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By dark matter on 8/22/2010 10:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
The words Jason used were as though it were fact and not supposition.

"Reportedly both encounters were consensual, but it was believed Mr Assange then engaged in non-consensual sexual violence"


That is the difference between a flake like Jason and an actual reporter. The difference is subtle, yet it is something that takes a little bit of thought. From the continual drivel that spouts from Jason I imagine that a skill he has lacking.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By stepone on 8/22/2010 7:51:44 AM , Rating: 3
Someone please give this a 6.

Biased articles against piracy is one thing, but this involves serious charges & should not be handled with the same slanted "journalism".


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Lerianis on 8/22/2010 3:03:02 PM , Rating: 3
Well, that is all we get from DailyTech on the whole Wikileaks thing: SERIOUSLY slanted reporting.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Azure Sky on 8/23/2010 12:21:19 PM , Rating: 3
another vote for a +6


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By sprockkets on 8/22/2010 9:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...just how much money did it take to buy your journalistic integrity?


When he checks how many people click on his trolling headlines and watches the $$$ come in.

I mean this is typical Mick. He'll post something tech related but can't help putting in some irrelevant information to sex up the article.

Whenever Jason Mick posts in the comment sections, it shows he is not an idiot. It just proves that his lame a ss articles are all about the Benjamins.

On a side thought, I think it is incredibly stupid that local news stations are reporting anything about Apple now, as if they are newsworthy.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By teng029 on 8/22/2010 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 4
Journalistic integrity requires one to be a journalist to begin with, which is something Jason Mick will never be accused of being. Frankly, I'm surprised that no one's come out with the usual "it's a blog, not a news story BS."

Still, I thought it was a great post; I'd give it a +10 if I could


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Drag0nFire on 8/22/2010 2:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
You know, as long as you keep making these comments, Mick will keep writing these articles. Everyone reads them to see how bad they are, and Mick's ratings go up.

If you want Mick to stop writing these articles, vote with silence!


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By BZDTemp on 8/22/2010 2:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
From what I have read on Aftonbladets website where they, among other things, bring an interview with Mr. Assange and also an interview with the older of the two women the currently know facts are (note all my translation from Swedish):

1. Mr. Assange say he does not know who the two women are. He will not confirm or deny having had sex while staying in Sweden for privacy reasons. He denies having done anything wrong. He also mentions having been warned someone may try and discredit him but says not if it is with the current situation in mind.

2. The older of the women says in her interview that she was contacted by the younger woman and that they went together to the police because she wanted to support the younger women. No details to what supposedly have happened is given apart from the older woman saying she experienced something similar to what the young woman claims. She also says there is no conspiracy.

3. As for the two women knowing each other supposedly they are all part of the organization that invited Mr. Assange to come and speak in Sweden. Something along those lines were in the early press reports.

4. Mr. Assange is still in Sweden as from what I can tell there is no "last week" as it is all within the current week we are taling about (Weeks here are mon-sun).

Also I think something needs to be clarified. Yes, Aftonbladet are the first to bring an interview with the 30 year old woman. They are a real newspaper not some rag that just print only things going in a specific direction. They also have columnists critical of how Wikileaks reveals everything including names of some alleged Afghan informants. However Aftonbladet is not the newspaper that publicized the original story of Mr. Assange being sought after having supposedly raped two women.

Finally let me mention the media all over and especially in Sweden are looking into wtf happened. A lot of retractions are being written - something which may stop the many death threats being made towards Mr. Assange.

I don't know if he has done something wrong or not but I do know many people in the media must have a very bad taste in their mouth (or at least they should have). As for DT I must say this place has joined the party rather later and as such should have done some more homework. (DT's details on what Piratpatiet is also rather misleading and this also goes for their relation to Wikileaks).

All in all DT has hit a new low :-(


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Azure Sky on 8/23/2010 12:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for this, its good to get a more complete story, you know, the kind of story jason should have posted in the first place...


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By johnsonx on 8/22/2010 3:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
Certainly in this context 'reportedly' is the same as 'allegedly'... any suggestion otherwise is really splitting hairs to an absurd degree.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By iceonfire1 on 8/22/2010 11:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, can't resist--I think you forgot to sign this "Summer Glau"

http://xkcd.com/406/


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Azure Sky on 8/23/2010 11:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
Hes American, and here, from personal experience, if your accused of a crime, it is NOT "innocent till proven guilty" but "guilty till proven innocent.

when you go to court they NEVER use "allegedly" they or "alleged victim", its "the victim" and "the offender" (or a bunch of other terms that mean same thing as offender)

and I have to agree Mick, Normally I have liked your work, but this story is way to bias, as have been your others about this topic, Look, I am AMERICAN and have been since birth, and I personally find YOUR reporting and lack of proof to be very faux-news-like, you know the "news" orginization that went to court to get the right to FLAT OUT LIE and call it news.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blog...
read that, watch the videos...then see yourself.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By clovell on 8/23/2010 12:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
> Reportedly both encounters were consensual, but Mr. Assange then engaged in nonconsensual sexual violence.

What part of the word "reportedly" do you not understand in this context? It is synonymous with "allegedly". Try learning English a little better - I know it's not your first language.

Wanna know how I know? Jason's Wikileaks articles recieve praise from about 16:00 - 0:00 GMT. After that, all the international nutjobs who think Assange is some sort of journalistic saint come here and BS the ratings.

Anybody who's read enough of Jason can feel the restraint bleeding through each of his sentences in this article.

> Wait a minute, doesn't that sound just a little implausible to you? I mean, allegedly Assange had "nonconsensual violent sexual encounters" with two unrelated women on two separate occasions, and yet somehow they managed to run into each other and strike up a conversation about how they were both assaulted by Assange? Neither one went to the police independently? That doesn't seem just a little worthy of investigation to you? I mean, did they know each other beforehand? If not, how did they find each other? And if they weren't going to independently tell the police what had happened, why in the hell would either one tell a strange woman that they had just met?

Could be that it was a 3-way that ended in a 2-way. Who cares? You rail against Mick for "interjecting opinion & bias" and now you're pissed at him for not offering commentary??? What's you're problem, dude? Because it sounds like you got a hard-on for Mick & Assange.

> No, you claim that. You never provided any evidence of the Taliban making that claim. As the very first comment on the article that you link to points out, you provide no evidence whatsoever that the murder is in any way related to the leaked documents.

Your stupidity knows no bounds. Newsweek made the claim, and it's been accepted as credible, that - at the very least - the Taliban is using the leak to CLAIM that they were able to kill a tribal leader. Again - reading comprehension, and English - you're proving my point here, dude.

So, as for your accusations of bias - strawmen - all of them. You've managed to misread the entire article, even as you quote it. Until you can comprehend an arguement, try not to be such a self-righteous pr!ck about it.


RE: So tell me, Mick...
By Howard on 8/23/2010 7:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Do you not know what the word "but" means?


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki