News Assange's lawyer outraged about leaked rape information

[Evo]

I find this whole thing rather ridiculous, his attorney's attitude seems hard to believe.

Assange’s lawyer wants investigation of leaks (about Assange)


his (Assange's) lawyers aren't happy to see information now being leaked about Assange.

Bjorn Hurtig, the attorney representing Assange in Sweden, now wants authorities to investigate how the police report got leaked, according to The Australian newspaper.

A Guardian spokesman defended the paper's coverage of the allegations against Assange. "Julian is not a confidential source," he said. "The argument that the papers involved with the WikiLeaks cables should not report criticism of him is one all journalists would find ridiculous."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101220/tc_yblog_thecutline/assanges-lawyer-wants-investigation-of-leaks-about-assange

Although his behavior is more in line with those of a crude and clueless teenager, I wouldn't consider it rape based on the testimony. It does indicate that he's a creep, IMO.

 

[nismaratwork]

I find this whole thing rather ridiculous, his attorney's attitude seems hard to believe.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101220/tc_yblog_thecutline/assanges-lawyer-wants-investigation-of-leaks-about-assange

Although his behavior is more in line with those of a crude and clueless teenager, I wouldn't consider it rape based on the testimony. It does indicate that he's a creep, IMO.

When it comes to rape, I realize women do falsely accuse men, but my default is still: don't dismiss the claim. When you have an egomaniac like Assange (read his interviews... or his dating profile online.. seriously) who clearly values control above all else... well... I can imagine how even consensual sex could turn nasty.

It does seem as you say, that this wasn't rape, but just... creepy. As for the irony, it's not lost on me... what a character. If you're going to make major world governments your mortal enemy... you might want to make sure that you don't have GIANT skeletons in your closet.

So, put it all together... low regard for others and for consequences, including times when they effect him negatively... he's starting to sound a little anti-social.

 

[WhoWee]

I find this whole thing rather ridiculous, his attorney's attitude seems hard to believe.

The irony is a wonderful treat.

 

[NeoDevin]

I find this whole thing rather ridiculous, his attorney's attitude seems hard to believe.

His attorney is just doing his job. If being "outraged" and calling for an investigation is the best way to defend his client, then that's exactly what he should be doing. If it was Assange himself who was expressing outrage over the leaks, I would agree that it would be inconsistent behavior, but as far as I know, he hasn't done so.

I do, however, agree that it is rather ironic that information about him and his case is being leaked to the press.

 

[Evo]

His attorney is just doing his job. If being "outraged" and calling for an investigation is the best way to defend his client, then that's exactly what he should be doing. If it was Assange himself who was expressing outrage over the leaks, I would agree that it would be inconsistent behavior, but as far as I know, he hasn't done so.

I do, however, agree that it is rather ironic that information about him and his case is being leaked to the press.

Assange went on record complaining to a reporter about the leak last week.

 

[NeoDevin]

Assange went on record complaining to a reporter about the leak last week.

Can't find anything about him complaining about the leak. Found one article about him claiming it was a smear campaign, but that's it.

 

[Evo]

Can't find anything about him complaining about the leak. Found one article about him claiming it was a smear campaign, but that's it.

I'd like to know how you perform a google search.

http://www.google.com/search?source...ge+complains+about+information+leak+about+him

 

[Zryn]

There is a large difference between someone releasing information about the secret actions of Governments, and Governments releasing information about the secret actions of someone.

Aren't Assange's cable releases related to people who are acting in a professional leadership position representing the government of a country, and not their private doings?

 

[humanino]

There is a large difference between someone releasing information about the secret actions of Governments, and Governments releasing information about the secret actions of someone.

Aren't Assange's cable releases related to people who are acting in a professional leadership position representing the government of a country, and not their private doings?

+1

There is too much irrationality or short thinking around for even this thread to be considered a treat.

 

[Evo]

As the article states

"The argument that the papers involved with the WikiLeaks cables should not report criticism of him is one all journalists would find ridiculous."

 

[Proton Soup]

When it comes to rape, I realize women do falsely accuse men, but my default is still: don't dismiss the claim. When you have an egomaniac like Assange (read his interviews... or his dating profile online.. seriously) who clearly values control above all else... well... I can imagine how even consensual sex could turn nasty.

It does seem as you say, that this wasn't rape, but just... creepy. As for the irony, it's not lost on me... what a character. If you're going to make major world governments your mortal enemy... you might want to make sure that you don't have GIANT skeletons in your closet.

So, put it all together... low regard for others and for consequences, including times when they effect him negatively... he's starting to sound a little anti-social.

and then there are the anti-social sociopaths that write articles about how to take revenge...


as for the lawyer/assange complaining about leaks... i guess depending on how the law works around there, they may be setting it up as grounds for dismissal of charges since it may be jeopardizing assange's right to a fair hearing.

 

[Evo]

as for the lawyer/assange complaining about leaks... i guess depending on how the law works around there, they may be setting it up as grounds for dismissal of charges since it may be jeopardizing assange's right to a fair hearing.

That's what I'm thinking.

 

[xxChrisxx]

It's tit for tat. He leaked stuff, so someones doing it back.

I can't make my mind up about all this. He's obviously done 'something', but it does seem quite convenient that he majorly pisses off a government and suddenly rape/sexual deviancy/whatever charges appear. It does smack of politics pulling the stings behind the scenes.

Even if he gets let off, it's the classic thing of throw enough mud and some of it will stick.I suppose we've just got to wait and see this soap opera play out.

 

[Zryn]

I suppose we've just got to wait and see this soap opera play out.

In science 'subjective bias' and 'conclusions before proof' are demons that need to be exorcised, but in this forum all that goes out the window.

Assange is a demon among us and the world police will save us, **** yeah!

 

[Evo]

In science 'subjective bias' and 'conclusions before proof' are demons that need to be exorcised, but in this forum all that goes out the window.

Assange is a demon among us and the world police will save us, **** yeah!

You're in politics.

 

[Evo]

Here's a good synopsis.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...sange-issues-threat-and-complains-about-leaks

 

[nismaratwork]

and then there are the anti-social sociopaths that write articles about how to take revenge...


as for the lawyer/assange complaining about leaks... i guess depending on how the law works around there, they may be setting it up as grounds for dismissal of charges since it may be jeopardizing assange's right to a fair hearing.

Yes, there are those as well, although when I said "anti-social" I mean, "Anti-Social Personality Disorder", formerly known as... Sociopathy and/or Psychopathy. I'm not sure who you're referring to when it comes to revenge books... that seems like it would be asking for a lawsuit. Then again, you have 'The Turner Diaries', which clearly influenced/guided Macveigh, so maybe you can write whatever the hell you want.

For the second part, I think you're right, otherwise my take on Asssange is that he would want to save face.

 

[Astronuc]

Is he just or is he really ?

 

[turbo]

Assange may be an egomaniac and a jerk. It seems, however that both women who complained remained on friendly terms with him until they compared notes and then decided to complain together. The Swedish prosecutors said that they wanted to talk to him, so he stayed in the country at his own expense, until he was told that they didn't need to talk to him. Now, not only is Sweden trying to haul him back into the country, they are leaking details of the police reports. Assange's lawyer is wise to protest and point out the prejudicial nature of such public airing, prior to his client's being charged.

It would be difficult for Assange to get a fair hearing after the public smearing, IMO, so the release of the police reports seems like an ill-considered move if there is any intent to actually prosecute him. This whole situation is playing out very oddly.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is he just or is he really ?

??

Turbo-1: He definitely doesn't have the strongest case against him, so face it, beat it... end of story, name cleared.

 

[NobodySpecial]

I do, however, agree that it is rather ironic that information about him and his case is being leaked to the press.

If the material was deliberately leaked by the police/government as a campaign against him then that is different from wikileaks.

It's different to politicians that leak confidential information that puts them in a good light while being offended by wikileaks.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a large difference between someone releasing information about the secret actions of Governments, and Governments releasing information about the secret actions of someone.

Well don't make me beg - what's the difference?!

If the material was deliberately leaked by the police/government as a campaign against him then that is different from wikileaks.

How so? Isn't that exactly what he's doing with wikileaks? Waging a "campaign" against the US government?

Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but I still love the irony.

 

[Zryn]

There is a large difference between someone releasing information about the secret actions of Governments, and Governments releasing information about the secret actions of someone.

Freedom of the Press compared to Privacy Invasion & Abuse of Power.

How so? Isn't that exactly what he's doing with wikileaks? Waging a "campaign" against the US government?

How much dirty laundry about Biden have we found out, compared to how much dirty laundry of Assange.

 

[russ_watters]

Freedom of the Press compared to Privacy Invasion & Abuse of Power.

So you're claiming wikileaks is a press outlet? Based on what criteria?

I see nothing about wikileaks or Assange that implies they are a press outlet and him a reporter. He's just some guy with a website. Heck, I have a website - am I a reporter too?

Regardless, Assange released secret government documents - that's an invasion of the government's privacy. Both did the same basic illegal thing: they released information that was legally secret. And Assange, of course, wasn't even legally allowed to have the information, much less release it.

How much dirty laundry about Biden have we found out, compared to how much dirty laundry of Assange.

What does "dirty laundry" about Biden have to do with anything?

 

[rootX]

Well don't make me beg - what's the difference?!

Same difference as:
A) Some students in UK damage government property.
B) Government finds their houses and damage their personal properties.

More relevant example would be:
A) Student releases Palin information
B) In response, Govt. releases the student personal information

 

[nismaratwork]

Freedom of the Press compared to Privacy Invasion & Abuse of Power.




How much dirty laundry about Biden have we found out, compared to how much dirty laundry of Assange.

I don't buy this for a minute. First, are you telling me that when he started this little crusade, it didn't occur to Assange that pissing off nations might result in consequences? Second, in a more general sense, he released personal information, or information that could lead to the identification of informants... rather personal. Legally, I have no familiarity with Swedish law, but in the USA court proceedings are a matter of public record.

 

[russ_watters]

Same difference as:
A) Some students in UK damage government property.
B) Government finds their houses and damage their personal properties.

More relevant example would be:
A) Student releases Palin information
B) In response, Govt. releases the student personal information

They look pretty similar to me - same act by different entities. So what exactly is the difference you see?

 

[NobodySpecial]

How so? Isn't that exactly what he's doing with wikileaks? Waging a "campaign" against the US government?

No they are releasing all the information they are sent.

There is a difference between a news organisation reporting things they are told and a government deliberately leaking police information to damage someone.

Would it be more acceptable if wikileaks was a paper newspaper with shareholders?
Next time a WSJ journalist asks an awkward question at a white house briefing the government leaks their police record - that's fair isn't it?
After all they are all for press freedom?

 

[Evo]

What does "dirty laundry" about Biden have to do with anything?

When one has nothing valid to post they resort to posting something irrelevant.

Internet troll - someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...l&sa=X&ei=uHwRTaLoD4XmsQOi4_SQCw&ved=0CBcQkAE

 

[nismaratwork]

No they are releasing all the information they are sent.

There is a difference between a news organisation reporting things they are told and a government deliberately leaking police information to damage someone.

Would it be more acceptable if wikileaks was a paper newspaper with shareholders?
Next time a WSJ journalist asks an awkward question at a white house briefing the government leaks their police record - that's fair isn't it?
After all they are all for press freedom?

Do we have any evidence beyond Julian Assange's word that it was the government leaking this in an organized manner? I imagine any info about him is worth a lot of money right now, and leaks are common.

Evo: BINGO.

 

[NeoDevin]

I'd like to know how you perform a google search.

http://www.google.com/search?source...ge+complains+about+information+leak+about+him

Sorry, I was following the links in the original article, rather than googling, and was in a rush.

 

[russ_watters]

No they are releasing all the information they are sent.

[tap, tap, tap] Yes - information that they know is secret and is illegal to release. How they got the information does not change that!
[edit] And you do accept that wikileaks is releasing the information for the purpose of damaging the US government, right?

There is a difference between a news organisation reporting things they are told and a government deliberately leaking police information to damage someone.

[tap, tap, tap] 1. Again, substantiate the claim that wikileaks is a news organization.
2. Substantiate your claim that if it is a news organization, releasing classified information is not illegal.
3. wikileaks did "deliberately leak...information to damage someone", right??

C'mon guys - Is there anything to your posts or not? You need to do a lot better. This [from Assange's lawyer and you] just seems to me like whining when the shoe gets put on the other foot. At least (as pointed out earlier), Assange's lawyer is getting paid to do that.

Would it be more acceptable if wikileaks was a paper newspaper with shareholders?

I don't think it matters, but either way, you are claiming that they are and that that makes it ok, so you must prove both.

Next time a WSJ journalist asks an awkward question at a white house briefing the government leaks their police record - that's fair isn't it?
After all they are all for press freedom?

That bears no resemblance to the situtation here and no one said it was OK to release the court documents. All we're saying is that it is essentially the same. You think wikileaks was right, so you also seem to think we must think the government is right - even when I explicitly said above that I didn't!

 

[Evo]

There is a difference between a news organisation reporting things they are told and a government deliberately leaking police information to damage someone.

This happens to be a case of a news organization reporting things they are told.

Do you have any proof of anything else? Do you know who gave the information to the news? Please share, because no one else knows.

 

[nismaratwork]

This happens to be a case of a news organization reporting things they are told.

Do you have any proof of anything else? Do you know who gave the information to the news? Please share, because no one else knows.

AFAIK the allegation that this is a leak of some kind, and not the result of normal journalism is one entirely of Assange's (or his lawyer's) creation. Even if it was a leak, that doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy... maybe he just rubbed Sweden the wrong way...

 

[rootX]

They look pretty similar to me - same act by different entities. So what exactly is the difference you see?

Only difference I see is that one entity is responsible for maintaining order while other is not. I expect Govt. to stay in legal limits and enlarge its legal limits if required rather than putting itself in illegal activities.

 

[jreelawg]

There is kind of a difference, in that, Assange will go on trial for what was leaked, where as Scientology, or the DOD for example won't. I think there should be some kind of protection for whistleblowers. If an organization is secretly breaking the law, should that same organization have the power to make reporting the violation illegal. Wiki leaks in theory is set up to combat injustice, whereas the leak pertaining to Assange's case, is itself a form of injustice.

Where my argument falls apart, is the fact that governments do have the authority to break the law in secret, it's called clandestine operations. The fact is there is a level in which there is no such thing as justice, and there are laws protecting this system.

 

[humanino]

Until now the US government has not been able to come with any better charge than what the OP has dismissed based on the leaks we are supposed to discuss here. Maybe the mentors should not support the discussion changing to a topic which does not belong here, and has been discussed somewhere else. Or maybe this discussion is simply not worth pursuing.

 

[Evo]

Only difference I see is that one entity is responsible for maintaining order while other is not. I expect Govt. to stay in legal limits and enlarge its legal limits if required rather than putting itself in illegal activities.

No one says the government leaked anything. Correct? Someone gave the information to the press. I seriously doubt that it was the *government* since they would not want to jeopardize their case, correct?

 

[Zryn]

I'm too slow to respond to all this while working

WikiLeaks is an international new media non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources and news leaks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks"

Assanges dirty laundry is aired everywhere when he merely represents Wikileaks. Bidens dirty laundry is not aired everywhere when he represents the Government.

This is one sided, though neither's dirty laundry should be relevant.

There appears to be no legal standing to charge Assange on doing anything wrong to date, but there is a lot of dirty laundry, heresay, misinformation, subjective idea's, speculation and preconceived notions. Is it too much to ask for innocence until proven guilty?

I hope that the amazing world captivating case of not wearing a condom (how many people are murdered, raped etc per minute in America? How many people die of hunger, disease, malnutrition in the world?) comes to an end soon, either way.

And I hope that you all have a Merry Christmas

 

[Evo]

Until now the US government has not been able to come with any better charge than what the OP has dismissed based on the leaks we are supposed to discuss here. Maybe the mentors should not support the discussion changing to a topic which does not belong here, and has been discussed somewhere else. Or maybe this discussion is simply not worth pursuing.

What? You mean Sweden? You said US in error. The OP is about Sweden.

The US has conspiracy charges against Assange as described in another thread.

 

[NeoDevin]

[tap, tap, tap] Yes - information that they know is secret and is illegal to release. How they got the information does not change that!

As was discussed ad nauseum in other threads, whether it was against local law for him to release it is very debatable. (It was against US law, but whether US law can/should apply is also debatable.)

Does anyone here know whether it was against Swedish/EU law for the information about Assange and the case against him to be released? I don't know if it is or not, but if it is, then whoever leaked it should be prosecuted. (Just like whoever gave the documents to Wikileaks from the US should be prosecuted, as they clearly broke US law while in the US jurisdiction)

[tap, tap, tap] 1. Again, substantiate the claim that wikileaks is a news organization.

This depends on how you define "news organization". They are publishing "news" (certainly must be news, if it was old, no one would take note of it). Your claim seems to be that because they don't have stockholders and give their news away for free, depending on donations for support that it's not a news organization.

It's an organization, and they publish news (some of it, like the gun cam, they even make extensive commentary on). Ergo, a news organization. If you are using some other definition of "news" or "news organization", let me know.

2. Substantiate your claim that if it is a news organization, releasing classified information is not illegal.

I am not a lawyer, nor a US citizen, but I believe in the US that precedent has been established that a news organization (NYT in the relevant case, if memory serves) is within their rights to publish classified information.

3. wikileaks did "deliberately leak...information to damage someone", right??

Wikileaks' claimed intent is not to "damage someone" but rather to force transparency on supposedly democratic governments, in particular the most influential democratic government. Their reasoning goes something like: "You can't have true democracy without openness." Whether you agree with their reasoning or methods doesn't mean you can assign whatever motive you like to them.

All we're saying is that it is essentially the same. You think wikileaks was right, so you also seem to think we must think the government is right - even when I explicitly said above that I didn't!

I personally have never said that Wikileaks was "right". Simply that they had the right. Assuming there are applicable laws prohibiting the release of the court documents, the Swedish government did not have that right.

Having said that, no one here has presented any reference to any relevant law prohibiting the release of the court documents. I expect there is one, as many countries prohibit the release of information regarding an ongoing investigation, but no one has yet cited it. Was the leak even illegal, or is everyone whining about something that was intended to be public knowledge anyways?

Edit: Upon further consideration, it may also be against local laws for a news outlet to publish information about an ongoing investigation (much like in Canada and the US, it is against the law for news outlets to publish information about minors involved in a crime). Is anyone here from Sweden and able to comment on the legality of the leak and subsequent publication?

 

[Evo]

I'm too slow to respond to all this while working

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks"]Wikileaks @ Wikipedia[/URL]

Why looky there, someone is trying to alter the wikileaks page. Why I wonder who that might be?, Eh?

 

[Gokul43201]

So you're claiming wikileaks is a press outlet? Based on what criteria?

Perhaps based on the standard definition, accepted in US courts, namely: "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" - Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin.

 

[Newai]

As was discussed ad nauseum in other threads, whether it was against local law for him to release it is very debatable. (It was against US law, but whether US law can/should apply is also debatable.)

Countries can and do claim extraterritorial jurisdiction among allies for their mutual benefit as outlined in their treaties, which we have with some European countries. Those treaties are legally binding to you and I as much as any local law.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps based on the standard definition, accepted in US courts, namely: "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" - Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin.

That makes me a journalist.

 

[NeoDevin]

Countries can and do claim extraterritorial jurisdiction among allies for their mutual benefit as outlined in their treaties, which we have with some European countries. Those treaties are legally binding to you and I as much as any local law.

This discussion belongs in the other thread, not here. I was merely mentioning that it was debatable (as evidence by the whole other thread debating it).

 

[NeoDevin]

That makes me a journalist.

And me. What's wrong with that?

 

[Gokul43201]

That makes me a journalist.

Don't complain to me. Take it to the US Supreme Court.

 

[Newai]

This discussion belongs in the other thread, not here. I was merely mentioning that it was debatable (as evidence by the whole other thread debating it).

Looking over the discussion, I don't see how it doesn't belong here and I don't see how it's debatable.

 

[humanino]

What? You mean Sweden? You said US in error.

No, no error, I said and meant US government.