Despite efforts to the contrary by Kirsty Wark, Assange finally manages to communicate that he feels he has been as cooperative as possible.

Broadcasted on BBC Newsnight, 16th December 2010.

From Youtube:

"Wark uses Interrupt!

Assange is immune to the attack!

Assange uses Rationality!

Critical hit!

It's super effective!"


I know it could be simply marked down as good journalism, but I found it disturbing that she was attempting to get him to say anything pertaining to the validity of the allegations, or to issue apologies towards the alleged victims (an apology would implicitly admit there was wrongdoing). Anything he said at that point could conceivably have been used against him. He deftly sidestepped those questions, but her persistence was creepy.


"Is there a danger, that the irresponsible sexual misconduct by yourself will damage Wikileaks?"

No, not biased at all...


On the one hand you have a biased pushy interviewer, on the other hand you have Assange who is weaseling himself through the answers like an experienced politician.

"No court documents have been provided to me, in English" -> So apparently they have been produced in Swedish....

"That I appear in one of every 10 google hits for rape shows the smear campaign against me is working" -> I am sure that has nothing to do with Assange being a press whore (or if you want it put less biased, a famous person in an ever growing Internet entangled in a longwinded public case). If you were to look for 'Assange' and 'albino' you get a disproportional number of hits as well...


Jeez, sanderbos. Seriously, imagine if your name was so closely aligned with rape. He may be a media whore, but he's a person too. This shit has gone completely wild, and he's no choice but to ride it to the end. He could very well spend the rest of his life in jail, if the Americans get their hands on him.


@kymbos You don't spend the rest of your life in jail for 'consensual rape' (my summary from what I have gathered, and I have attempted to read up on this, the case essentially boils down to consensual sex followed by sort of sort of non-consensual sex (whether a 'no' was uttered by the woman at any time is for instance unclear)). So I assume you are mixing up the rape case and the american wikileaks scandal.

Can you provide any proof that the Americans have *anything* to do with the Swedish rape case, anything at all. Because as I have said I have kept with much of the reporting, and from what I have seen all info on possible American involvement is pure conjecture. To be clear, my personal opinion is that the Swedish activities are in no way influenced by Wikileaks fallout, not just because there is no hard evidence but just because it seems like a silly conspiracy theory to me (smearing somebody with a fake rape plot: Good plan, smearing somebody with some weird sex by surprise plot: Stupid plan)

Regarding the publicity regarding the rape case. Yes, it is a shame that this gets so much coverage yet may have no substance, and it seems very possible that the offenses if they did occur are relatively minor. Like *any* celebrity, his personal life is under a magnifying glass, and that is not fair (for any celebrity).
On the other hand, there are several things he could have done differently:
- When the charges were first brought forward, immediately take it up with the women, strife for resolvement. In what I've read, there is only mention of him having talks with the authorities, not the victims/ 'victims'. Especially after the case was first dropped presented a great opportunity to at least attempt to fix misunderstandings.
- During the many interviews he has given, go into detail on what happened during those nights from his perspective, including the actual sexual activity and condom usage. Give the full side of his side of the story.
- As soon as it became clear that Swedish authorities wanted him back, go back to Sweden. He landed on an Interpol list (must have known this if he googled his name daily) yet did nothing!

All of these things I would have done differently from how he tackled them. Yes, it is very possible that his lawyers advised against any of these things, but you are not required to listen to your lawyers...


As a follow up to my previous comment, let met link to a new article with more details on the case (the rape case, not the wikileaks case):

The reason for my addendum; I summarized the case in my previous comment as 'consensual sex followed by sort of sort of non-consensual sex'. While sort of matching up with the guardian article, it seems a better description (for the woman I was summarizing for) would be: Woman did not want to have unprotected sex, then they have unprotected sex, woman regrets this very much after the fact, question is how much she objected to having unprotected sex.

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

notify when someone comments

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More