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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Re:US Government (Score:2, Interesting)

    by davester666 (731373) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @11:42AM (#33627694) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 19, 2010 @11:54AM (#33627784)

    Assange's timing of this announcement is impeccable. Looks like he's learned a thing or two from the people he investigates.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 19, 2010 @01:07PM (#33628354)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 19, 2010 @01:58PM (#33628726)

    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)

    by Trepidity (597) <.delirium-slashdot. .at. .hackish.org.> on Sunday September 19, 2010 @02:16PM (#33628832)

    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)

    by Securityemo (1407943) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @03:16PM (#33629250) Journal
    Not true. I'm Swedish, and the U.S. is "the center of the world."
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomhudson (43916) <.barbara.hudson. ... bara-hudson.com.> on Sunday September 19, 2010 @04:12PM (#33629652) Journal
    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 house that receives food stamps, according to a report in the Nov. 2 issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

    More than a quarter of American children (26.1%) will receive food stamps by the age of 5, the study found.

    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:

    This is the first recession in which a majority of the poor in metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, giving food stamps new prominence there. Use has grown by half or more in dozens of suburban counties from Boston to Seattle, including such bulwarks of modern conservatism as California's Orange County, where the rolls are up more than 50 percent.

    Use among children is especially high. A third of the children in Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee receive food aid. In the Bronx, the rate is 46 percent. In East Carroll Parish, La., three-quarters of the children receive food stamps.

  • Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hackus (159037) on Sunday September 19, 2010 @10:12PM (#33631764) Homepage

    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)

    by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Monday September 20, 2010 @02:03AM (#33632848)

    Who cars if it was authorized or not in this context.

    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.

    Those people acted accordingly and appropriately no matter how much you want to close your eyes and ignore the fact that they were in a war.

    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.

    I suggest you look up and study "sovereign authority", sovereignty, and perhaps you should try to explain why you somehow have it and why the US somehow does not. And while you are at it, stop using bad analogies that couldn't be further from the truth and perhaps you wouldn't appear to be suck a jackwad to everyone.

    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.

    Umm... Yea. When a country does something, it's an act of war, when you do it, it's just a douche bag who hasn't mastered the mental capability to understand the topic he is speaking about. When countries can't come together and work things out rationally, they go to war. When you get pissed and start killing people, you are a murderer. And yes, there is a difference, A difference as big as you killing someone doing nothing but standing there and you killing someone trying to kill yourself.

    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".

    If you do not know what that difference is, or how it applies, then I suggest you go back to your teachers tomorrow when high school is back in and ask them about it.

    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.

    Oh I see now. It's just another reason to bash America. Listen, no one said the US can do no wrong, what was said if that these people didn't do

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...