We steal secrets

July 15th, 2013 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

interviews Alex Gibney:

“WE STEAL SECRETS is as brilliant as you’d expect,” James Robinson wrote for The Lumière Reader after seeing Alex Gibney’s WikiLeaks documentary at its Sundance premiere earlier this year. “It’s a hypnotic, absurd human drama and Gibney turns it over expertly and from all sides. No one has put this story together in such a complete fashion.” Via Skype from his New York office on Friday, the enduring documentarian talked passionately with Alexander Bisley about , Bradley Manning, and inspiration Martin Scorsese. …

ALEXANDER BISLEY: Here’s the rub. Two Swedish women including Anna, a WikiLeaks supporter you interview in We Steal Secrets, have made credible allegations of significant sexual crime against Julian Assange. How do his supporters maintain he should be above the law?

ALEX GIBNEY: I don’t know how they make that claim. I don’t know how he makes that claim either. In my view this is a big problem. I don’t think he should be above the law, or above criticism. Now he maintains that if he goes back to Sweden he’ll be extradited to the United States, and that’s why he’s not going. But there’s no evidence of that. In fact there’s evidence of just the opposite, that it’s harder to extradite him from Sweden than it is from the United Kingdom. 

I think that is a key point. The UK has an extradition treaty with the US. Assange has not been charged by the US Government. What he faces in Sweden is not extradition, but arrest and a trial for rape.

Now I happen to think the rape allegations are certainly not beyond reasonable doubt. But that is not the point. The accusers deserve a day in court, and Assange is not above the law.

AB: This seems to me the definition of power without accountability, which is supposedly Assange’s big thing.

AG: I agree with you. I think he’s all about holding others to account, holding the powerful to account. And he, in relation to these two Swedish women, has power. He has a huge pulpit and a large number of supporters, and he has allowed them to vilify these women without attempting in any way, shape, or form, to stop that. So yes, he’s not willing to be held to account in any way, shape or form, and that’s one of the issues I have with Assange and WikiLeaks.

AB: At first you too thought the Swedish story was a CIA honey trap? But having researched it thoroughly, you don’t believe that to be the case?

AG: I can find no evidence that it was a CIA honey trap, absolutely no evidence. So, people can say what they want, or imagine whatever they like, but until they produce evidence, as far as I’m concerned it’s a matter between one man and two women.

AB: You spent ages, including one six hour in-person session, talking to Lord Transparency about doing an interview, he suggested money, demanded control over the article, that you spread the gospel according to Assange, and then most extraordinarily, he then asked you to spy on your documentary’s other subjects in return for an interview?

AG: Correct. It was the last part that really staggered me. Julian likes intrigue, and he likes the idea of espionage. Julian likes to involve himself in all sorts of intrigue as if he’s in some kind of spy thriller, and suddenly he’s asking me for “intel”—he keeps calling it “intel”. He reprimanded Daniel Domscheit-Berg with language that was taken straight out of The Espionage Act of 1917. It’s this cloak and dagger stuff where Assange loses credibility, let’s put it that way.

He seems a control freak.

An interesting intreview.

Tags: ,

52 Responses to “We steal secrets”

  1. wellygirl (10 comments) says:

    “Now I happen to think the rape allegations are certainly not beyond reasonable doubt.”

    Is that comment based on how rape is defined in Swedish law, or based on how rape is defined in NZ law? I am not saying he did commit rape, but having heard numerous interviews done by UK media outlets with experts in Swedish law It seems the threshold for rape in Sweden seems to be set at a much lower level than in most other western countries.

    We cannot make any judgements as to whether the allegations have substance without hearing all of the evidence, or understanding the laws in the country that the alleged offence happened.

    I do believe that Assange believes himself above the law, and his efforts in trying to avoid going to Sweden, does make me wonder how much truth is in the allegations made, or at least how much of a case the prosecution has – he is acting like a guilty man.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Both women entertained Assange in their homes for several days after the alleged offences; complaining only after they met each other for the first time.

    Assange remained in Sweden for some time, voluntarily; the prosecutor found no case to answer. Who dug up some out-of-town prosecutor after he left?

    The charge is not rape. Why does Assange need to return to Sweden to “answer some questions”?

    How could Assange be extradited from the UK to the US to answer possible charges in Sweden?

    Has Sweden been involved in extraordinary rendition to the US?

    Where is UglyTruth when you need him?

    Do you understand the nature of extradition within the EU, Farrar? I repeat, Assange has not been charged with rape; he is wanted for questioning. That could have been done in the UK.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wellygirl (10 comments) says:

    Actually Dennis, a Swedish lawyer on BBC a number of months ago stated that under Swedish law he must be questioned in Sweden, they cannot conduct interviews with suspects outside Sweden, so he can’t be questioned in the UK.

    As for him being extradited to the US, that is nothing more than a red herring by Assange, it has nothing to do with the charges in Sweden, but rather because his paranoia leads him to believe that the US want to extradite him from Sweden to answer charges of espionage, though there is no evidence that the US ever wanted that, and it makes no sense as it would be easier for the US to extradite him from the UK if they wanted.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Bruce Hamilton (60 comments) says:

    Quoting Mårten Schultz, professor in civil law at Stockholm University.

    “It is a matter for Ecuador and the UK to resolve and the British government is not likely to go against the extradition ruling from the Supreme Court or the European agreement.”

    “According to the ruling, Assange should be extradited and there is no room now to argue that there is something wrong with the Swedish case. Now it is a question of enforcing the ruling.”

    “The most serious crime Assange is accused of is rape, where the statute of limitations runs out in August 2020.

    For the other crimes – unlawful threat and sexual harassment – the statute of limitations runs out in August 2015, meaning that if Assange were to stay holed up in the embassy for long enough, he could eventually walk free.

    A spokesman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority (Åklagarmyndigheten) said : “As long as Julian Assange is on British ground this remains an issue for Great Britain to resolve”.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    I am not saying he did commit rape, but having heard numerous interviews done by UK media outlets with experts in Swedish law It seems the threshold for rape in Sweden seems to be set at a much lower level than in most other western countries.

    Those experts are wrong. In the extradition judgement, it was pointed out that what Assange was accused off was criminal conduct in the UK.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Julian Assange does not face the threat of extradition from Sweden, he faces the threat of rendition. Sweden has a history of allowing the US’s international goon squad, the CIA, to ‘disappear’ people to third party torture chambers. There have been many examples of publicly elected officials, media commentators and the like in the US calling for Julian Assange’s assassination, the US, the UK and Swedish officials have refused to give assurances that Julian Assange will not be spirited away once he lands in Sweden.


    Assange’s lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Assange remained in Sweden for some time, voluntarily; the prosecutor found no case to answer. Who dug up some out-of-town prosecutor after he left?

    I see you are relying on the statements of his lawyer who was found to have lied like a flatfish at the extradition hearing.

    How could Assange be extradited from the UK to the US to answer possible charges in Sweden?

    He can’t. Sweden is applying to Assange under a lawfully granted EU extradition warrant. The Us is not involved.

    Do you understand the nature of extradition within the EU, Farrar? I repeat, Assange has not been charged with rape; he is wanted for questioning. That could have been done in the UK.

    Not, it can’t. The type of questioning the Swedish Authorities want to give him are where the Swedish police put forward their allegations against him _before_ they arrest him. It’s a formal procedure in the Swedish judicial process.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Julian Assange does not face the threat of extradition from Sweden, he faces the threat of rendition.

    Wrong. Any extradition is rendition., What you are referring to is extraordinary rendition. That could only be used against Assange if he wasn’t in the public eye, he had active intelligence about potential terror networks or attacks and the year was 2006 or earlier.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The accusers deserve a day in court

    Why do they? An accusation isn’t sufficient for proceedings to follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    My understanding Dennis is that Sweden has some concept of conditional consent. That is, if you lie so as to get consent, then the consent is not real. The assertion is that Assange lied to get consent, and that had he not lied he wouldn’t have got consent. And that in Swedish law that might be a case to answer.

    If that understanding is correct, then whether the women continued to see him whilst he continued to lie to them would be immaterial. The question is whether they continued to see him after they found out the truth. And it would appear they did not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    “Wrong. Any extradition is rendition.,”

    You are talking about a country that pressured other sovereign nations to deny air space to the Presidential jet of another sovereign nation and when that jet landed it was forcefully boarded under the suspicion it might have been transporting another well known whistle blower.

    The US considers itself above international law and it is utterly naïve to believe that the US would not consider extraordinary rendition if they thought they could get Assange. This is about demonstrating to others the sanction they face if they demonstrate dissenting attitudes to US hegemony.

    Julian Assange would be incredibly foolish if he did not think the US were out to get him any way they could.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    his paranoia leads him to believe that the US want to extradite him from Sweden to answer charges of espionage, though there is no evidence that the US ever wanted that

    You’re dreaming; of course the US want that. Who do you think is much more important to the US – Kim Dotcom or Julian Assange? Kim Dotcom is small fry but the US want him too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    That could only be used against Assange if he wasn’t in the public eye, he had active intelligence about potential terror networks or attacks and the year was 2006 or earlier.

    The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to a “hi-tech terrorist”, the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    You are talking about a country that pressured other sovereign nations to deny air space to the Presidential jet of another sovereign nation and when that jet landed it was forcefully boarded under the suspicion it might have been transporting another well known whistle blower.

    Who gives a fuck about Bolivia? If the stupid jerk that is president of that shit-hole didn’t want his plane searched, he should have objected, not given the Austrians permission (free clue: there are pictures of him smiling at the time). And he could have avoided the show altogether by providing accurate information on who his plane was carrying to the French.

    And if the US really had the clout that you claim, the SAS would have stormed the pissant banana republic embassy that Assange’s hiding out in within 48 hours.

    The US considers itself above international law

    No, it doesn’t.

    and it is utterly completely and utterly paranoid to believe that the US would not consider extraordinary rendition if they thought they could get Assange.

    There. I fixed it for you. HTH.

    This is about demonstrating to others the sanction they face if they demonstrate dissenting attitudes to US hegemony.

    There are far more troubling people than Assange or even Snowden. They are for the most part gadflies.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Wow. Yoza actually thinks a statement by Joe Biden of all people is a serious statement on US policy? Shows what a retard he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Sweden is seeking Assange’s extradition, despite the fact that he has not been charged with any crime. Two women in Sweden allege rape, molestation and unlawful coercion. Both women admit that they had sex with Assange willingly. However, one claims that Assange did not use a condom during intercourse. The other alleges that he had sex with her when she was not fully awake. Assange admits having had consensual sex with each woman, but rejects any criminal wrongdoing.

    In August, Sweden’s chief prosecutor Eva Finne dropped the rape investigation against him on the grounds that there was no “reason to suspect that he [Assange] had committed rape.”

    By this time, however, the allegations against Assange had been disclosed to the media by the Swedish authorities. The rape investigation was then re-opened at the instigation of Claes Borgström, acting for the women. Borgström is a Social Democrat who served in government between 2000 and 2007. One of the two women making the allegations is associated with the Christian wing of Swedish Social Democracy.

    Sounds suspiciously like a politically motivated prosecution, or is that persecution?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    If he stands trial in Sweden he will more than likely be found guilty. If he is found guilty no one will be offering asylum. After a possible very short term of imprisonment he will be formally repatriated to his home country, Australia. He will then be extradited to America, given a short secret trial and incarcerated in solitary confinement for the next 1000 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Ross,

    He can only be charged with a crime if he has been questioned beforehand. That is what is extradition to Sweden to face questioning is all about.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    unaha-closp: which takes us back to why the US wouldn’t have just had him extradited from the UK if that’s what they want. Of all the countries in the world they could extradite from, surely that’s the easiest?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    He will then be extradited to America, given a short secret trial and incarcerated in solitary confinement for the next 1000 years.

    Given Bradley Manning’s trial is hardly short and secret, you are talking out of your ass here.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    When Naomi Wolf, a feminist and advocate for rape victims, comes out and supports Assange, you know these allegations of rape are likely to be politically motivated.

    http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    To my mind the morality of it is simple: Sweden’s laws surrounding rape are a violation of human rights. Lying to get laid should be a civil issue, not a criminal one. Assange is a ratbag, but he is perfectly within his rights to avoid extradition any way he can.

    It’s interesting that many people who would baulk at extraditing someone to face charges of homosexuality in another country have no problem telling us Assange should be flown back to Sweden to dignify this nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    There is also criticism of the documentary using the establishment playbook on dealing with whistle blowers.


    By spending an inordinate amount of the film on Assange’s alleged personal misdeeds and Manning’s gender dysmorphia, Gibney, who should know better, given that his other stellar socio-political documentaries (Taxi to the Dark Side and Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room) have relied on and benefitted from whistleblowers, perpetuates the usual smears that the government levels against whistleblowers and their allies: that they are vengeful, unstable, or out for fame and profit.

    The documentary does not focus on the substance of what the leaks revealed to the world like the collateral murder being carried out in Iraq by the US military and their hired mercenary forces, instead the documentary indulges in cheap character assassination in an attempt to fudge over the most horrific crimes committed against humanity this century.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    So Naomi Wolf is willing to dump on alleged rape victims simply because they dared accuse to Saint Julian? Nice to know that her feminism and advocacy for rape victims only goes so far. I suppose the next step for her is to accuse Roman Polanski’s victim of being a lying slut.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    He can only be charged with a crime if he has been questioned beforehand. That is what is extradition to Sweden to face questioning is all about.

    You are wrong. He doesn’t need to go to Sweden to be questioned.

    “As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter.”

    http://www.friatider.se/swedish-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-explains-why-assange-is-not-questioned-in-london-you-do-not-dictate-the-terms-if-you-are-a-suspect-get-it

    That sort of begs the question – why don’t Swedish prosecutors interview Assange in London? Maybe they have no interest in what he has to say. They simply want to charge him and – whether convicted or not – extradite him elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. All_on_Red (1,742 comments) says:

    err, while staying with a friend, in the morning, while she was asleep he climbed on top of her and started to have sex.
    Is that acceptable?
    Dennis, go and stay with Judith for a few days and then try that on. Do let us know how it works out for you…
    Also , in the other case, he said he would use a condom and didn’t. In Sweden , lying about having protected sex is a crime.

    Ross69
    “When Naomi Wolf, a feminist and advocate for rape victims, comes out and supports Assange”
    I think this says more about Wolf ‘s politics than anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    To my mind the morality of it is simple: Sweden’s laws surrounding rape are a violation of human rights. Lying to get laid should be a civil issue, not a criminal one.

    Rape by deceit is a criminal offence here in New Zealand and people have been convicted by it. So much for your awareness of human rights violations.

    Assange is a ratbag, but he is perfectly within his rights to avoid extradition any way he can.

    Even to the extent of taking hostages, torture and murder? Or perhaps you can get a bit of a clue before you post?

    It’s interesting that many people who would baulk at extraditing someone to face charges of homosexuality in another country have no problem telling us Assange should be flown back to Sweden to dignify this nonsense.

    If the offences Assange was accused of were not criminal offenses in the UK then he could not have been extradited. But then again whomever allowed you access to a computer to rant idiotically and otherwise make a fool of yourself is obviously sick and tired of attending to your special needs…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    So Naomi Wolf is willing to dump on alleged rape victims simply because they dared accuse to Saint Julian? Nice to know that her feminism and advocacy for rape victims only goes so far.

    So you know more about rape than she does? Did you even read the article?

    She can see a politically motivated prosecution – and she makes several points as to why this case doesn’t stack up. Your hatred of Assange doesn’t allow you to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    You are wrong. He doesn’t need to go to Sweden to be questioned.

    You are wrong. I’ve specifically explained why and pointed to the extradition judgement. Read that before posting further garbage.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Even to the extent of taking hostages, torture and murder?

    I’m not aware that Assange has done any of those things. But certainly the US government has been complicit in illegal renditions, torture and murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery. The interview was conducted in co-operation with Serbian police. Thus, at the same time that Ms. Ny claimed it was an impossibility to interview the founder of Wikileaks in London, her colleagues were busy interrogating an infamous gangster in Serbia.

    Goodness, how could Swedish police do such a thing? They actually questioned a suspect in a foreign country. Metcalph, I hope you’ve complained to the Swedish embassy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. All_on_Red (1,742 comments) says:

    Ross,
    The women who have complained are/were his supporters. They are the ones pushing the complaints. The Police are just acting on them. Do you think the Police should ignore them? wow.
    The double standard and hypocrisy from the left is unfortunately not surprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Ross, read what I wrote. I didn’t say questioning was impossible. I said the questioning they wanted to give Assange was a necessary step before charging him. That type of questioning can only be done in Sweden itself. If you are going to continue to circlejerk, do so in private with your fellow cretins and spare the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Heh, well done on slapping metcalph down Ross.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    The idea that the apologists for global US state terrorism are staunch supporters of women’s rights in Sweden should be too ridiculous entertain, yet there is a weird chorus on Kiwiblog that demands this crazy fantasy is credible.

    The only reason anyone reading this blog is even aware of these women is precisely because the US government is out to get Julian Assange for publicising the ugly crimes that country has committed against humanity.

    It is really that simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    metcalph (1,081) Says: July 15th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    If the offences Assange was accused of were not criminal offenses in the UK then he could not have been extradited.

    Completely, utterly and totally wrong. The “offences” are not offences in the UK. Extradition within the the EU is automatic by simple request.

    Anyone who thinks this is about Assange shagging women he was living with at the time is a lawyer or simple-minded.

    Assange stayed in Sweden after the “complaints” made when the two women met and compared notes. The prosecutor in Stockholm(?) found no case to answer. After he left “someone” found a prosecutor from some country town.

    If I tried to shag Judith would she would notice? Perhaps not, I was a dentist, and always promised: “You won’t feel a thing.”

    A beautiful girl stood at the edge of a cliff. A lawyer said, “What about a root before you jump?”

    She answered, “You filthy scumbag … NO!”

    “That’s all right, I’ll wait at the bottom.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    In Sweden, a woman may accept payment for sex but the man will be arrested. Quote from Swedish Police, “Sex is not a human right.”

    After food and shelter, sex is next. Human right or otherwise, men have lied for sex since we could talk. Women have evolved in this environment. Don’t tell me they can’t play the game to their advantage. All of them.

    Heard about the girl who complained she was raped by an idiot? Said she had to show him what to do…

    Rape is a stinking rotten crime which should be, in certain circumstances, punishable by execution. Inviting a man to your home and sleeping with him and entertaining him for several days after the “offence” is not rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The women who have complained are/were his supporters. They are the ones pushing the complaints. The Police are just acting on them. Do you think the Police should ignore them?

    No, they shouldn’t ignore them. Police should follow correct procedure which they have not done thus far. Clearly, you think an accuser should have more rights than an accused.

    According to Wolf:

    “The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to the US media. The only people who have access to those documents are police, prosecutors and the attorneys. Often, frustratingly, rape victims themselves cannot get their own full set of records related to their cases. In normal circumstances, the leaking of those transcripts would be grounds for an immediate investigation of the police and prosecutors who had access to them. Any official who leaks such confidential papers faces serious penalties; lawyers who do so can be disbarred. And yet no one in this case is being investigated or facing any consequences. It seems quite likely that the Assange documents were leaked by the police or prosecutors because they got a signal from higher-ups that they could do so with impunity.

    Indeed, these are all major aberrations–suggesting that somebody at the top has interfered.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    That type of questioning can only be done in Sweden itself.

    Oh so the type of questioning you are referring to is different from the type of questioning that Sweden uses with other suspects when they’re interviewed abroad? You’re making it up as you go along.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “It was, I think, more about jealousy and disappointment on their [the women’s] part. I can prove that at least one of them had high expectations that something big would happen between them and Julian.”

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/rundle-assange-accuser-wrote-of-need-for-revenge-against-cheating-lovers/

    It looks like revenge seems to be the motive for at least one accuser’s claims. I wonder if the accusers have been reminded that they could face charges if their claims are false.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Some info about the accusers.

    http://www.operationprotest.com/julian-assange-rape-allegations-story-behind-the-girls

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    One of the accusers has serious issues around her credibility. In fact, it’s difficult to understand why prosecutors are so determined to question Assange, given their case is so weak.

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    Right. Naomi Wolfe closes with the line:

    And who is at the very top in Sweden? Players working with Karl Rove, who was a party to the Swedish government’s collusion in the Bush regime’s rendition/torture program. As Britain holds its hearings into Julian Assange’s fate, we must take careful note of that connection.

    In other words, I took my tinfoil hat off, and they took over my brain. Karl Rove…..isn’t he last decades conspiracy theory, and well out of things now? Hell, his party isn’t even in power, is Obama working with Karl Rove now? Batshit. Crazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    “Karl Rove…..isn’t he last decades conspiracy theory, and well out of things now? Hell, his party isn’t even in power, is Obama working with Karl Rove now?”

    Would you care to enlighten us, as to the difference between the foreign policy objectives of the Democrats versus the foreign policy objectives of the Republicans, PaulL.

    Karl Rove key player in Swedish WikiLeaks probe

    “Karl Rove’s help for Sweden as it and the Obama administration investigate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could be the latest example of the adage, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”

    As sex and spy probes move forward, word is getting out about how Rove, the former Bush White House strategist, has advised Swedish Prime Minister Fredric Reinfeldt for the past two years”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. All_on_Red (1,742 comments) says:

    Gee Ross, so a woman who was made to have sex against her will wants revenge. Who would have thought it.
    Your comments say a lot about your attitude to women.
    You don’t like women do you. Forced yourself on women too have you?
    But hey, for the sake of the “cause”- they don’t matter. The left are always quite happy to throw their supporters to the wolves.
    Also you and your fuckwit mate Bozo seem to think that just because most of us think Assange is a narcissist rapist who is being a coward by hiding and avoiding answering questions that we are against what wikileaks does.
    I’m no blind supporter of the US, especially under the utterly useless Obama.
    Well you’d be wrong, but then both your comprehension skills are pretty low.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    All on Red,

    You’ve got it really bad for Assange. anyone would think he slept with your wife. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    most of us think Assange is a narcissist rapist

    Well, you certainly think he is a rapist despite the fact his accusers have admitted the sex was consensual. Funny that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    It is the threat of being disappeared into the CIA torture dungeons network that is preventing Julian Assange from returning to Sweden to face these allegations.

    Try wrapping your comprehension skills around this Greenwald article, Red.

    ‘Assange’s lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should be.”

    All_on_Red: “You don’t like women do you. Forced yourself on women too have you?”

    So now not only those who are well known whistle blowers (or those who publicise the whistle blower’s evidence) have to defend themselves against accusations of sexual abuse, but people who defend those whistle blowers and their publicists also must answer to accusations of sexual abuse. Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Karl Rove wants Assange “hunted down”…not for alleged rape but because he had the temerity to release information.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8a8EWiWls

    As for Karl Rove, he apparently claims to be part-Swedish!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74KeDc2Uoqw (see from 3.30)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. All_on_Red (1,742 comments) says:

    Ross
    “anyone would think he slept with your wife. :)”

    My wife died 22 years ago. But he probably thought she was “just sleeping” and because she said nothing at the time that the sex was consensual.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    So, you are in bed with a woman you shagged the night before. You wake up and fancy a dawn-breaker.

    You force your penis into her vagina, she doesn’t notice she’s opened her legs.

    Her hospitality continues until she realises you will shag anything. She cries rape.

    Heard about the elephant that fucked the mouse? Stood on it and fucked it completely…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    Rape by deceit is a criminal offence here in New Zealand and people have been convicted by it.

    I’m sure it is, but I don’t think that’s what’s at issue here. We’re not talking about fraud or mistaken identity. The deceit involved here is of the “I think I’m falling in love with you *crosses fingers*” variety, or the “no, I’m not seeing anyone else” variety. To call that rape is an insult to genuine victims of rape, which is a traumatic crime.

    But then again whomever allowed you access to a computer to rant idiotically and otherwise make a fool of yourself is obviously sick and tired of attending to your special needs…

    Actually it was your mum, her tongue was getting a little tired from rimming me. Dude, if that’s all you’ve got, stick to the playground, not Kiwiblog. Let’s raise the tone of the conversation for starters, and stop trivialising rape by using that word to describe things which are not rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote