Wikileaks Founder Questioned Over Alleged Molestation, Still Denies Charges
August 31, 2010
Sweden (ChattahBox) – RAW is reporting that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been officially questioned over the molestation allegations he says are dirty tricks to damage his credibility.
I agree with Assange, I think they are dirty tricks. Yes, this is a biased opinion, but let’s take a second and look at the sequence of events.
First, Wikileaks – which has been a controversial whistle blower site for years – messes with the U.S. government. This isn’t the first time they have let loose documents related to the U.S., but it is the first major release of classified documents related to the Afghanistan war, a war we are definitely not winning. Seeing the mistakes made that led to the deaths of civilians, and the subsequent cover up, is obviously damaging.
Next, they call for the document release to be stopped. Assange refuses, despite calls from the White House that claim civilians can be hurt by insurgents if they find out they aided the military. Wikileaks maintains the need for transparency to help eliminate and rectify the mistakes made, rather than hiding them.
Suddenly, Assange is accused of rape, a serious allegation, by two women in Sweden. So, what do Swedish authorities do? They allow the media to begin reporting the details and accusations, despite no formal charge being filed and no arrest being made. Then, just as it is reported globally, they drop the charge and instead accuse him of molestation.
Now, molestation is pretty much a non-crime in Sweden, because it is a generic term, not like it is in the U.S. It basically covers such things as “physical misconduct”, which can mean next to anything. It is usually punished by a fine, but in very rare cases a year in jail.
He has now been officially questioned, but for what? How do you go from being accused of something as serious as rape, and then have it bumped down to molestation, which is not a sex crime in Sweden? How is it possible to have such an extreme discrepancy in stories?
Because there was no rape. There was no molestation. Just from a logical point of view, the entire thing makes no sense, unless you put it into the context of a set up. His credibility has been compromised because of this, which puts his site under question, and diminishes his growing public support.
Or, so it seems it was hoped.
The problem is this is such a ridiculous attempt at dirty tricks that it is almost embarrassing. The cries I have heard over these allegations was not “How could he?!”, but “How could they?!”, and it seems pretty obvious that it was all a poorly orchestrated attempt to give media the chance to call him an accused sex offender.
Except, even if he was found guilty of molestation, in Sweden it is not a sex crime.