The "why" of the quickly-withdrawn 'case' against
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange seems clear enough--it has all the initial
indicators of a fabricated attempt to defame him. But the "how" of this attempt
is murky. Here's an admittedly rough translation of part of the Swedish Prosecution Authority FAQ on their actions to date
regarding Assange (Google translation edited for clarity):
Why
was Julian Assange's name published?
Prosecutors do not normally publish the names of arrested
persons, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority was not the source [cause] of
Assange's name [being published] in this case. Assange's information reached - in a way that the authority does not know - a news service. The prosecutor's office merely
confirmed the information.
If the above is true, why didn't the Authority simply
issue a "no-comment / ongoing investigation" statement rather than confirming
that Assange was indeed the subject of investigation? If it is indeed the
Prosecution Authority's policy not to release identities, the act of confirming
an identity and making it public is no less a violation of policy than
announcing Assange's name outright.
And if the Prosecution Authority is being truthful that
it did not leak Assange's name as part of a false smear effort, who
did?
So far, the explanations offered by the Prosecution
Authority do not even begin to explain an apparent failure to follow their own
policies. All this, needless to say, doesn't even touch on the remarkable
flimsiness of the case, which was withdrawn within hours of being
issued.