Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Censorship The Media News Your Rights Online

WikiLeaks Founder 'Free To Leave Sweden' 410

Posted by timothy
from the totally-generous dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Founder 'Free To Leave Sweden'

Comments Filter:
  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by binarylarry (1338699) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @10:21AM (#33627550)

    I'm an American but why the fuck is our govt telling Sweden "what they're allowed to do."

    Listen up US Military: you're the ones who fucked up, you're supposed to keep this shit secret and you failed it.

    • Here is one of many motives - the Swedish artillery system 'Archer'

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbrEBMVEDU4 [youtube.com]

      .

    • by binkzz (779594)

      I'm an American but why the fuck is our govt telling Sweden "what they're allowed to do."

      Listen up US Military: you're the ones who fucked up, you're supposed to keep this shit secret and you failed it.

      It's rather common for the American government to do so (or for any sufficiently large country that can get away with it). United Fruit for example; the US government violently removed the democratic regime from Guatemala because they were forced to pay tax. [wikipedia.org] Something that baffles and scares me. China, Russia and Japan all do it as well, of course, and I'm sure my country would too if it was really big.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by hackus (159037)

      You are kidding right?

      Have you been living under a rock lately? I mean you do live in the US right?

      Stop watching CNN, Foxnews and all the other crap that is on T.V. and start investigating these things yourself.

      It isn't that hard.

      In a nutshell to bring you up to date:

      1) The US has plans to expand the war through the middle east through a variety of groups to use the Military we have to enforce globalist policies.

      2) The middle class has nearly been destroyed. Within 5 years it will be gone. At the curren

      • by Splab (574204)

        Wouw, just... wouw.

        Seek help.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by hackus (159037)

          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

      • by gregrah (1605707)
        Ummm... citation needed?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tomhudson (43916)
          Here's a bunch of them on one claim - you can do you own research on the others.

          New York Times, November 28th 2009 - 1 in 4 children currently on food stamps [nytimes.com]

          MARTINSVILLE, Ohio -- With food stamp use at record highs and climbing every month, a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.

          Half of American Children Receive Food Stamps [medpagetoday.com]

          Nearly half (49.2%) of American children will, at some point between the ages of 1 and 20, reside in a hou

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cetitau (951106)
      You language is so eloquent. It's so easy to say what you just said and unfortuntately its all true. What you left out, however, is that no matter how well intentioned (not the rape but the release of the documents) Mr. Assange's actions to release 90,000 classified US documents might have been, it showed very, very poor judgement. As a not-so-powerful individual, Julian assumed he could embarrass a world power (a real one, not a presumed one) with impunity. If this poor judgement is indicitive of his
  • US Government (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sonicmerlin (1505111) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @10:26AM (#33627590)
    I thought we used our military intelligence on the enemy. I don't remember voting for our president and current government to use its powers to harm those who value liberty over secrecy. It would be interesting to hear more details about Julian's tipsters' info.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by davester666 (731373)

      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.

    • Re:US Government (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @10:58AM (#33627818)

      There is no such thing as an absolute liberty that allows you to do anything you wish without consequences.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hitmark (640295)

        But it seems the libertarians think it should be so.

        • And your comment should be rated "ignorant" not funny.

          Libertarians believe liberty should be the guiding principle to all law making because liberty allows an individual to pursue happiness. You can't pursue happiness if all your actions and behaviors are "recommended" by bosses and other people who view you as property.

          Also among libertarians you have the cryptofascists who aren't libertarians at all who want to give all authority to corporations. Just as you have authoritarians who claim to be Democrat or

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by hitmark (640295)

            Well the people i have encountered that most loudly proclaim "i am a libertarian!" seems to be spoiled brats that want to drink and drive 24/7, no matter who those activities may endanger beyond themselves (either directly or via the cleanup that follows). Or want to proclaim their right to jump of a mountain, but then call on the "accursed" government services to risk their people to rescue them when their jump got them stuck in a difficult to reach location.

            In essence, where are the libertarians with some

  • Free to leave (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @10:27AM (#33627600) Homepage Journal

    But still has his reputation scarred for life. I wouldn't take a private plane out of town, if i was him.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss (770223)

      But still has his reputation scarred for life...

      The issue of his ungentlemanly behavior with these two ladies has not yet been resolved. While Julian Assange continues to make suggestions of a "smear", in actuality there is no evidence of any such thing. In fact, one of his accusers is a long-time Wikileaks supporter.

      It *IS* relevant to consider "smear" campaigns and watch for them, but just because Assange is involved in a "noble cause" doesn't mean he isn't a creep with the ladies. Many males in his position would become susceptible to ego bloat, an

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        Of course i realize he could be guilty regardless of how 'good' his cause it, and if so should be locked up forever. The problem is the circumstances and timing here lead one to think its a smear campaign, especially since no charges are being filed for this particular incident.

  • Is the documentation for this claim posted on wikileaks yet?

    Or is he just asking us to trust him, at the same time he's telling us to not trust anyone else?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kestasjk (933987) *

      Is the documentation for this claim posted on wikileaks yet?

      Or is he just asking us to trust him, at the same time he's telling us to not trust anyone else?

      I didn't think he was asking us to do anything..

  • by mtrachtenberg (67780) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @10:55AM (#33627792) Homepage

    In the United States, we are supposedly treated as innocent until proven guilty. But the early comments I see here seem to indicate that, despite the government of Sweden saying he is not charged with any sex crime, he should be treated as guilty until (an impossibility) proven innocent.

    I hope those of you who feel that way understand that whatever values you claim to support, they are not what were traditionally considered "American".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Duradin (1261418)

      Guilty until proven innocent is traditional for males accused of sex crimes in America.

    • by wampus (1932)

      He was investigated for... something to do with fucking a groupie without a condom as near as I can tell. Who suggested that he's guilty of anything related to that in this thread?

    • by Sepodati (746220)

      There's a presumption of innocence in the court room. Cops don't pull you over for speeding and presume you're innocent.

    • by Burz (138833)

      What's interesting is that people assume Bradley Manning is actually guilty of leaking State Dept. cables because Lamo produced a chat transcript after "Collater Murder" became a fiasco for the Pentagon.

      We don't know that Manning was the person chatting with Lamo. We only know that Manning is still being held incommunicado by the US military in Kuwait.

  • Wow. I think I can tell when someone is bullshitting me. Or else the western intelligence community has gotten ridiculously porous lately.

    • by astar (203020)

      Actually, the usual criteria for something that might be claimed credible is two independent sources. Obviously, in evaluating source material, you are more interested in what is said in private, than what is said to the news media. And if you do like media reporting, how do you evaluate "source unidentified because he is not authorized to comment." ?

      One way to evaluate what's his names intelligence sources is to observe that there is a good chance that, given the story told as true, some significant port

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @01:11PM (#33628792) Homepage Journal
    Because the traditional media, which is supposed to keep our elected officials somewhat in check, has completely failed and abdicated its position. None of the 24 hour News networks are actually News. They're adult drama entertainment. Vague fearmongering is so much cheaper and easier than actually having to go out and find stories.

    Good investigative reporters always draw the ire of the authorities, who would much rather their shameful behavior go unreported. Funnily enough it never seems to occur to them to not behave in a manner of which they're ashamed. I guess that would probably mean less gold for them to dip their balls in, or something.

    There may be some truth to the pentagon's assertion that operatives' lives may be put in danger by the release of these documents, but I bet there's a lot of juicy stuff in there that they'd just rather not have the rest of the world learning about. I'm pretty sure the American public is a lost cause, but the rest of the world still has some weight behind their opinion.

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department

Working...