WikiLeaks Founder 'Free To Leave Sweden' 410
An anonymous reader writes "AFP reports that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is free to leave Sweden, after prosecutors said there was no arrest warrant against him for an alleged case of rape. Assange said the charges against him were part of 'a clear set-up,' and that he had 'two reliable intelligence sources that state that Swedish intelligence was approached last month by the United States and told that Sweden must not be a safe haven for WikiLeaks.' The news comes just one day before the Swedish national election."
Re:US Government (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, you failed to write in who the enemy was on your ballet, so they are just making up new enemies as they go along.
Take the news with a grain of salt (Score:1, Interesting)
Assange's timing of this announcement is impeccable. Looks like he's learned a thing or two from the people he investigates.
Re:innocent until proven guilty (Score:1, Interesting)
Sadly, you're right. Though I would expand that to say there's a general attitude of presumptive guilt of a defendant among a large portion of the population. 10 years ago I served jury duty where I sat in on 3 criminal trials and 1 civil case. In each of the criminal trials, it was clear that usually half of the jurors had already determined the defendant guilty even before hearing the opening argument from the prosecution. For them, the mere fact that the prosecutors had even brought the cases to trial was enough "evidence" of a defendant's guilt, they didn't need to pay attention to anything else. The whole experience was depressing as hell and really opened my eyes to just how the odds are stacked against the accused in my state, at least. I sure that the same jury attitude is as prevalent in other states, though.
Re:innocent until proven guilty (Score:0, Interesting)
Actually, this is a crock. Legally, the "innocent until proven guilty" mandate holds true in the US, even for accused rapists. In the court of public opinion, it's no different from any other crime. Does anyone here thing OJ didn't do it? (He was found innocent, after all. Practice what you preach, then.) Blago? When you first heard about Abrahamoff, did you want to give him a fair shake or did you figure he was probably guilty?
That's what I thought. The only different with rape is that there's also some sexist asshat like you who wants to whine about how rape accusations are women getting back at men rather than take the charges seriously. It's people like you that keep the majority of rapes from ever being reported because the victims are scared of being accused of being sluts.
I'm sick of being polite and reasonable with people like you: you sicken me, pure and simple.
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
To expand a bit, a very interesting way of experiencing this: I'm an American, but I frequently travel with non-American friends and colleagues to third countries, to attend academic conferences. It's sometimes embarrassing how much more interest I get than my colleagues. People have all sorts of questions/comments about the US, have a relative there, want to know if I've been somewhere, want to know what I think about movie-X, want to know what Americans think about their country, etc. But they don't have anywhere near that level of interest or questions for my Argentinian or Indian friends, besides some awkward small talk ("ah yes, Argentina, you are neighbors with Chile, right?").
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
New York Times, November 28th 2009 - 1 in 4 children currently on food stamps [nytimes.com]
Half of American Children Receive Food Stamps [medpagetoday.com]
39 Million and rising on Food Stamps [blogspot.com] - Household SNAP participants increased from 12,728,981 in Fiscal Year 2008 to 15,232,105 in fiscal year 2009, a 16.4% increase. For comparison purposes, watch the growth in household participation.
and up higher again [usda.gov] - 41,275,411 as of June. - Double digit increases in all but 4 states - average increase 18% year over year.
More from the NYTArticle:
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope all of what I said will not come true of course.
I hope it won't. But even the simple typo I made with regards to all of the poor children suggests nobody really cares what is happening.
All they can do is make quips.
Well, when these children grow up with no food, no future because our government robbed them all. They will take to the streets, they will blow buildings up and kill until the hopelessness and the poverty and corruption are removed.
The government will call them terrorists.
So sad.
-Hack
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yea, "who cares!?". A typical attitude of a US jingoist. I assure you that families of those you've blown up do care. Rather deeply in fact, to the point of taking up the ever-popular hobby of IED construction.
Yes "appropriately", particularly the part where they laugh about kids they've blown up because "How does the brat dare to live in this country where we choose to have our fun little war?! And then show up in our gun sights! What nerve!". Apparently "we blow up whatever the fuck we like wherever the fuck we like" is the "appropriate" behaviour of US troops in a self-fucking-declared war-zone (without actually bothering to declare war in an attempt to "have the cake and eat it too"). No surprise there.
Bullshit. If the US does not respect basic rules of international behaviour, which it clearly demonstrated, it also stands to reason that these rules do not apply to its opponents. In fact the US legal "luminaries" do claim exactly this, that the "rules do not apply" in their pursuit of "terrists". Polite rules like "sovereign authority". So by being pig-headed and trying to bully your way over everyone else you ended up legitimizing entities like Al-Queda. Congratulations. I am sure Osama will send you a "thank you" note any day now. For this and all the recruitment to his cause you've managed to drum up.
The difference has always been that of law. That is right, laws govern both nations and individuals. But once a nation abandons any pretense of following law and if that law ceases to have any possibility of being enforced internationally because the super-power nation in question threatens violence otherwise, so does the law cease to apply to other nations and individuals and the place becomes a lawless jungle. This is what the US has accomplished in both Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point in time, due to utter disdain the US has displayed for both international law and even its own Constitution it became quite possible to argue that Al Queda is justified in attacking targets within US territory. Again, congratulations on fucking up the only leg you had to stand on and reducing the whole thing to "we are the biggest fucking thugs on the block and so you better give us your money or we will break your kid's neck!" lever of "authority".
Keep displaying total lack of basic comprehension while trying to suggest that your opponents are immature and then your stupidity will truly shine so brilliantly that Slashdot readers will need sunglasses to read your posts.