
Prosecutors withdraw warrant for WikiLeaks founder Assange - tshtf
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HNV1800&show_article=1
======
nkassis
This has got to be explained. Issuing such a warrant should not be taken
lightly. The fact that it was withdrawn so fast should put some pressure on
the prosecutors to explain themselves. I don't know if they have an obligation
but this just makes all the conspiracies more believable. As Colbert would say
the truthiness of the conspiracies has increased.

~~~
TomOfTTB
I'd think this would make you less likely to believe in conspiracies.

If this were a conspiracy someone at a high level would have agreed to it and
the whole point of it would be to get media coverage. What happened instead is
just the opposite. As soon as the case started getting media coverage the high
level people went into over drive to investigate the claim and determined it
was unfounded.

Even if the conspiracy was just to get the claim out there briefly the Swedish
government wouldn't have withdrawn it by saying the charge was unfounded. If
it was a conspiracy they wouldn't give a reason or they'd say it's still under
investigation. That way people who were inclined not to trust Assange could
continue to believe it.

~~~
nkassis
Tin foil hat on: I'm assuming that the high level person who looked into it
and asked them to withdraw the warrant knew not of the other high level (could
also not be swedish) person who asked for the warrant to be issued. Secret
services have ways of gettings done. But they aren't always good at it.

EDIT: clearing up what I'm trying to say ;p

~~~
TomOfTTB
I supposed it's possible but the CIA would have to be pretty reckless. When I
said high level people I was thinking their Secretary of State or higher.

Because if the CIA (or whoever in the US government) is trying to use another
country's legal system to frame someone that would be considered the
conducting operations on foreign soil. That's very much against International
Law without getting the permission of the Swedish State Department.

So if they did that without the very highest levels of government being
involved they'd be risking a very public international incident plus they'd be
cutting themselves off from ever being able to impeach Assange's credibility
in the future (because once you have a verified attempt to discredit him in
such a manner no one's ever going to believe a claim against him again).

Again I'm sure it's possible but it just seems too reckless to be plausible to
me.

~~~
ryoshu
There are 21 arrest warrants for suspected CIA operatives that kidnapped
someone in Italy: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4297966.stm>

~~~
tptacek
There are 21 _convictions_ of CIA operatives in Italy. They were convicted for
capturing Abu Omar and delivering him to Egypt in 2003.

This happened at the height of the US/Middle East conflict (before major
combat started in Iraq). Abu Omar was a prominent member of Jamaat Islamiya, a
peer organization of Egyption Islamic Jihad, a group publicly affiliated with
"al Qaeda" (probably more for PR purposes, though) and a group led in part by
Omar Abdel-Rahman, the guy who coordinated the first bombing of the WTC.

Julian Assange is not a leader of a violent Islamist movement. We are not at
war with Julian Assange. No foreign policy objective is accomplished by
kidnapping him off the streets of Sweden or Iceland or wherever he is now.

I don't want to sound (too much) like I'm advocating for the capture of
alleged terrorists off western city streets. That's not my point. My point is
this: do I believe that the CIA might try to kidnap or kill someone they
believe to be a key figure in a bona fide "terrorist" (ie: organized, violent,
competently armed, transnational militant Islamist) organization? Absolutely.

Does that mean kidnapping is S.O.P. for the CIA any time anybody antagonizes
the US? Ralph Nader better watch his ass, then; third-party left-wing
candidates pose a greater danger to the current administration.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_Julian Assange is not a leader of a violent Islamist movement_

Interestingly enough, it seems that neither is Abu Omar. After rendering him
to Egypt where the secret police tortured him for a few years (electric shocks
to the genitals, rape, beatings, the usual), an Egyptian court finally freed
him declaring that there was no evidence against him. So, to recap: the CIA
kidnapped a guy and delivered him to the Egyptian secret police for torture.
But even in an insanely corrupt dictatorship like Egypt, where prosecutors
have, um, very wide discretion let us say, they couldn't get any charges to
stick. Including association with a terrorist organization, which is a serious
crime under Egyptian law. So as far as we know, there's no reason to believe
this guy has ever done anything wrong.

I mean, if a police state like Egypt can't manage to find (or concoct)
_something_ , anything with which to convict him, how dangerous can he be? And
if he's not actually dangerous, then sending 20-odd CIA agents to kidnap him
and render him for torture seems kind of crazy....My point is: the CIA
sometimes acts in ways that make very little sense on the outside.

Would it make sense for them to kill Assange? No, it would be insane. But this
isn't an organization that has historically demonstrated an overabundance of
sanity. I doubt they're trying to kill him, but arguments premised on CIA
sanity seem...rather weak.

~~~
tptacek
It was not _insane_ to kidnap Abu Omar. From what I can tell, it was coldly
rational and warranted in a cost/benefit sense, based on the evidence
available to the government at the time.

 _Should_ the CIA have kidnapped him? No. We can see one strong argument
against extrajudicial detention and exfiltration right here: it puts us on a
slippery slope, where we have to take pains to argue about why we might kidnap
a "terrorist" ("ah, but what's a _terrorist_! it's whatever you say it is,
righ!"... _sigh_ ), but wouldn't kidnap a free-speech activist.

You can present no evidence that the "CIA" or any other agency in the US
government is plotting the kidnap, murder, or even the propaganda-based
discrediting of Julian Assange. All you can do is posit that something like
that _might_ happen, and sit back waiting for everyone else on the message
board to try to prove the negative. Isn't that fun?

~~~
MichaelSalib
_It was not insane to kidnap Abu Omar. From what I can tell, it was coldly
rational and warranted in a cost/benefit sense, based on the evidence
available to the government at the time._

I do not see how it could be rational. Based on years of torture, we
apparently have learned nothing that could justify a conviction in even a
kangaroo court.

Look, I know that many people believe that everyone who any government
anywhere ever declares to be a terrorist is automatically guilty. But really
now: he hasn't been convicted of anything. Even though he was tortured for
years. Even though was under the control of a police state that has a long
reputation of convicting innocent people the state doesn't care for. And
despite all that: no convictions. Which means he never should have been
kidnapped and tortured. When you kidnap and torture innocent people, you are
doing something wrong.

 _All you can do is posit that something like that might happen, and sit back
waiting for everyone else on the message board to try to prove the negative.
Isn't that fun?_

Again, you seem very confused. I'm not trying to disprove your larger
assertion. I'm calling into question subsidiary arguments that you've made.
Those subsidiary arguments are not proving a negative, so you need not weep
any more on that score. Now, since you've made many many subsidiary arguments,
I don't think that calling a handful of them into question seriously damages
your larger claim, but if you believe otherwise....

~~~
tptacek
Please stop trying to get me to justify the kidnapping of Abu Omar. I don't
think it was the right thing to do, and the evidence suggests that it wasn't
an effective course of action.

I'm doing my best to foresee all the various ways this discussion can turn
into an HN referendum on the "war on terror", and I'm obviously failing,
because I'm reading things about genital electrocution and discussing the 2003
kidnapping of a Jamaat Islamiya recruiter instead of what has _actually
happened_ with Julian Assange, someone who's newsworthy exclusively for having
posted files to the Internet.

------
DanielBMarkham
My, my. This story just gets better and better.

So how do you have a rape allegation by two separate women (as I understand
it?) that is baseless? I understand how the _charges_ could be baseless, but
the prosecution's job should be to determine if the allegations have merit,
not try the case. So why do the charges have merit one day and not the next?

Look, if there is a charge, investigate it. If not, don't. But charging him
one day and withdrawing the next just leads to even more conspiracy theory
madness.

What this _sounds_ like is "Well if he was just Joe Blow, we would have
arrested him, but given the nature of his stature..."

I'm sure that's not the case, however. Would like to hear more on this. Must
have been some information that we were not privy to.

~~~
rdtsc
As someone mentioned, I think this is a media test and a warning of the things
to come.

They probably asked 2 women to cry "rape" to see 1) how media and people would
react and 2) to discredit him. It doesn't matter if charges never stick -- it
discredits him by creating doubt. It is the basic "OJ trial" situation --
"just because we couldn't convict doesn't mean he is not guilty" -- so just
convicting someone and having all the media report it, is enough to tarnish
Julian's morality image.

And it just so happens that Julian and Wikileaks is on a higher moral ground
and that is what keeps them popular. They are the modern day information
Robin-Hoods. If they can be made to look immoral their image and credibility
will forever be destroyed. No matter if charges don't sick.

As for the warning. I think some operations that CIA engages are intentionally
not kept too secret as to serve as a warning and intimidation without actually
putting in a press release. It is basically the same tactics that FSB (ex KGB)
used when they assassinated Litvinenko. They could have probably arranged an
armed robbery or freak car accident, but by using radioactive polonium with
traces all the way to the Sheremetovo, they issued a loud and clear threat to
anyone willing to criticize or betray the FSB in the future.

------
jacquesm
That didn't take very long now, did it. I hope we'll get to the bottom of
this, either Assange is a jerk, but maybe not a criminal _or_ he deserves to
be exonerated.

But I've never heard of a case that was filed on Friday evening, hits the news
big time on Saturday morning and has the main charges dropped _after_ an
arrest warrant has been issued on Saturday afternoon.

Either there was cause to issue a warrant or there wasn't.

Weirdest thing.

But tens of millions of people have seen the name of Julian Assange next to
the word 'rape' in sensational headlines all over the world, so in that sense
the damage has been done.

------
GiraffeNecktie
A nice subtle smear. It'll go into the narrative as "Julian Assange who was
once charged with rape in Sweden, and is the founder of anti-government site
Wikileaks ..."

They're not trying to destroying him at this point, just ramp up the pressure.

They have to be a little bit careful because he does, apparently, have that
encrypted and distributed information bomb.

------
slim
<http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/>

> The status of the profession has gradually increased, and becoming a
> prosecutor is today a very attractive proposition for young lawyers.

They are probably hinting to a noob mistake.

~~~
Hagelin
I’m guessing that they simply added the short Assange statement to the front
page of the english site, and that the text below it has nothing to do with
it.

------
w1ntermute
Anyone have ideas as to why they would even bother with making such a charge
just to withdraw it so quickly? It looks especially bad in light of Wikileaks'
recent activities.

~~~
studer
According to the interview with one of the victims, it was a consensual
situation that got out of hand (in two separate cases). That description is
perfectly consistent with the behavior of the prosecutors here; under Swedish
law, depending on the exact details, such behaviour might be interpreted as
rape, molestation, or just someone being an asshat. After digging into the
details, the prosecutors seem to have gone from the rape end of the scale to
the asshat end, and that's not a valid cause for arrest.

~~~
orborde
Link?

~~~
Hagelin
Crappy Google translation:

[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&i...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2FNyheter%2F1.2105516%2Fkvinnan-
anklagelserna-forstas-inte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-
annan&sl=sv&tl=en)

It’s based on this article, but Google won’t translate it:

<http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab>

------
nixy
Here is my theory: Assange tours Sweden, meets loads of female journalists.
Sleeps with some of them. Does something during the act which the women don't
like (but don't really think too much about). The women come into contact a
week later in their work. They share details and blow whatever happened out of
proportion. They go to the police and then tip off the tabloid they both work
for. Prosecutor realize whatever happened can't be charged as rape or
molestation.

~~~
dtf
That is the precisely the type of "no smoke without fire" thinking that those
who consider Wikileaks a gadfly will be delighted to see stick.

------
vaksel
my guess is that they were following standard operating procedure with the
warrant(i.e. no matter how vague...everything has to be investigated)...but
then decided to use common sense for a change.

\+ the warrant was issued by an on duty prosecutor and dropped by the chief
prosecutor. So could just be the case of someone trying to make a name for
himself...only to get smacked down by his boss who had to deal with the
controversy on their day off.

~~~
studer
Both prosecutors are women. And it's the original arrest warrant that has been
withdrawn; the investigation is still open.

~~~
MWinther
Actually, if one is to believe the media over here, the rape charges have been
dropped. The molestation ones still remain, though.

~~~
studer
Yeah, you're right. Also see my other comment.

------
radu_floricica
Occam's razor would point towards two young women looking for a bit of
attention.

------
lhnz
After all of the caution around jumping to conclusions on whether we were just
witnessing smear tactics...

They've now tarred his name with no evidence and generated a massive media
buzz and FUD around the fictional rape charges.

It certainly seems like wikileaks have made enemies that are very happy to
play dirty.

------
nickpinkston
Screw 24 - this thing is getting way more interesting!

I'm sure Julian is going nuts about all of this craziness, and my thoughts are
with him - but seriously, he's now attained "International Man of Mystery"
status.

------
Ardit20
Wow. This is simply amazing.

------
flipbrad
what if it was self-generated?

~~~
flipbrad
I should maybe elaborate. You claim for weeks that you fear being the target
of a smear campaign.

How better to protect yourself from one, than to vaccinate the entire public?
Find two accolytes to report the alleged rape and molestation on just barely
credible terms, and then either have them withdraw them or bring to light
certain facts that mean that the charges HAVE to be dropped (factual
inconsistencies, for example, or a previous record of crying wolf; etc).

Do this quickly on a saturday morning when newsrooms are too understaffed to
do much reporting and will probably not have much time between the issuing of
the charges and the withdrawal to actually spread the uncorrected, daaging
rumours; just the retraction.

Result? CNN runs a front page headline next to not-negative press about you
(charges withdrawn) suggesting to all its viewers that you might well be the
target of a smear campaign. Future journalists AND readers will be immunised
and healthily sceptical the next time something like this is attempted.

If this was a wikileaks taskforce's test balloon, wouldn't they have done it
in a normal newsday?

------
dmillar
If the US government is going after Assange (and they clearly would like to
talk with him on American soil), why? Isn't this akin to blaming the
messenger. Fix your own dam leaks (pun intended).

------
bvi
10 bucks that there will be a movie on this guy coming out within a year.

