Fiasco: Rape charge reinstated against Wikileaks tool

Crazy question: If you’re a prosecutor thinking of bringing a charge as explosive as rape against a suspect as politically infamous as Assange, wouldn’t you want to make sure the case is airtight before talking about it? When you know, to a metaphysical certainty, that you’re going to be accused of a smear campaign against the left-wing hearthrob du jour, why not take extra care to protect yourself from that charge by staying away from the press until you think you have enough to convict? The ironic result of these endless “maybe something happened, or maybe it didn’t” shenanigans will be to cast so much doubt on the D.A. that people will wonder about the charges even if Assange is convicted.

Anyway, file this away for the next time you hear someone say how vastly superior Scandinavian governments are to our own.

“There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape,” director of prosecutions Marianne Ny said in a statement…

A Swedish duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Assange on August 20th over rape allegations. But chief prosecutor Eva Finne abruptly withdrew it the next day, saying new information had come to light.

Then last week Finne said there was no reason to believe a crime had been committed, adding however that she had enough evidence to keep looking into a molestation allegation from another woman against Assange…

Ny told AFP that overturning another prosecutor’s decision was “not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either.”

He was questioned on Monday for an hour, but only about the molestation charge; according to his lawyer, not until today was the rape charge even mentioned. As for the specifics of what happened, read this useful piece at spiked sifting through Swedish reports about Assange’s contact with the alleged victims. One is the spokesman for … a socialist group that invited him to speak at a seminar they organized; the other was a volunteer at the same seminar. Based on the details, it could be that something terrible happened or it could be that one or both are disgruntled about “sexual relations turned sour.” A Pentagon conspiracy, though? Nah.