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."
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
One motive - the Swedish artillery system 'Archer' (Score:2)
Here is one of many motives - the Swedish artillery system 'Archer'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbrEBMVEDU4 [youtube.com]
.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Wouw, just... wouw.
Seek help.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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]
we're in a global economic depression. (Score:3, Informative)
What is this "we are coming out of recession" crap?
The "indicators" that they use are garbage. "Interest rates are down". So what - that means there's no demand to borrow. People are either too broke or too insecure to borrow any more.
Credit card debt down? It's because (and the credit card companies admit this) it's been written off. These people no longe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So when the founding fathers laid their lives on the line by standing up for what they believed in it was patriotism, but when Julian Assange does the same it's poor judgement?
Let's try to keep things in perspective. All Assange did was post some shit on a website.
All Thomas Paine did was publish a flyer. Let's not have any historical perspective, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
keep looking. follow the money.
the reason the US keeps having 'big wars' is because of co's like halliburton and the rest that profit EXTENSIVELY from war and foreign aggression.
the government does not directly profit from war; but certain companies surely do.
a little lesson for you about how things work in the real world.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
keep looking. follow the money.
the reason the US keeps having 'big wars' is because of co's like halliburton and the rest that profit EXTENSIVELY from war and foreign aggression.
Absolutely. I look back with fondness at how naive I was when the Iraq war started -- I thought the real motive was to steal money from Iraq!
What a fool I was. It's now evident that the plan was -- and always was -- to steal money from the United States.
7 Thousand Billion for the Iraq war so far...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And note well that this is the same government that routinely pleads poverty when the suggestion of national health care comes up.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
In other news today: 1 out of 7 Americans living below the poverty line [google.com] (43.6 million Americans whose families). Big news making the rounds on the world scene - converting the US into the laughing stock of the "first world". Someone should have stopped that from leaking out of the US Census Bureau too, damn it
And note well that this is the same government that routinely pleads poverty when the suggestion of national health care comes up.
Tax payer funds (direct and the much larger indirect money supply inflation [chrismartenson.com] is not destined for mating US society better, silly. It goes to things like bailing out banks when the fail business 101, building tanks and stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The definition of "poverty" in all these countries (including US) is really skewed, though. It wouldn't be considered that practically anywhere in the rest of the world.
Heck, I see "poor" folk around here having cars. WTF? Where I come from, if you can afford to buy a car (loan or not), you're not poor!
You were right both times (Score:2)
I thought the real motive was to steal money from Iraq!
What a fool I was. It's now evident that the plan was -- and always was -- to steal money from the United States.
But with Iraq it's resources. The more USD-denominated fuel that flows out of Iraq, the more dollars can be printed for bankers over here (esp. if those dollars will be seeking out foreign goods and labor). (See: petrodollars.)
It is no accident that we threatened Iraq with invasion just weeks after they stopped accepting USD for oil (switching to Euros instead and prompting a slew of oil producing countries to investigate a similar currency switch). Iraq had be made into an example: You do not shift your re
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. Trolling. Don't trust the government? Smart. Don't trust some guy with a website? Troll.
Different power levels (Score:4, Insightful)
I would fix that for you as:
"Don't trust an organization with $400 billion/year military budget? Smart. Don't trust some guy who's antagonizing the most powerful military organization on earth? Troll."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't trust anyone.
Looks for ways to check assertions, but /government and /personyoulike all have agendas, and nothing prevents either from having MIXED agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Trolling. Don't trust the government? Smart. Don't trust some guy with a website? Troll.
----
I don't think this is about trusting Julian Assange. It is about trusting the AFP's reporting of statements by Swedish prosecutors.
I believe that most Slashdoters, including myself, favor Wikileaks. It is my understanding that Julian Assange's primary job is to promote Wikileaks. At the present time it would appear that he is doing an excellent job! I hope it stays that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether Assange is being set up in some kind of smear campaign by the U.S. government,
"Whether Assange has set himself up in some kind of smear campaign directed at the U.S. government,"
There, fixed that conspiracy theory for you.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
I very much disagree with his use of "murder" regarding that dead reporter and associates.
What do you call it when people are unlawfully slaughtered, and then there's a cover up to hide the circumstances of those killings to make it appear that they were justified?
The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.
''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,'' [nytimes.com] said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.
There were no insurgents, no American troops were hit by small arms fire, there was no hostile force engaging that helicopter. It's lies through and through, with a pile of dead and mangled bodies underneath, and the guilty walking free.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Insurgents. Yes, insurgents.
Those kids in the car were going to murder every marine in a 10 mile radius!
One guy holding what may or may not be an RPG round doesn't make 19 insurgents out of everyone massacred around him. The people covering up those murders are telling you they found weapons? Let's believe them, after all they were telling the truth about Pat Tillman, weren't they? And they were telling the truth about Jessica Lynch, and about WMDs, right?
But, like religion, people won't believe anything that they haven't already decided on.
Yup, like if the DoD says someone is an insurgent, some people will have religiously faith that they were, no matter how much proof of the opposite piles up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're putting far too much thought in to it. What we're dealing with looks like sensitive but not highly classified information. Information that a lot of individuals have access to as part of their normal duties. So one (or more) individual(s) releases classified information to people that aren't authorized to have that information. The Government tends to get upset about that kind of thing. It doesn't matter what the level of classification is - once it's classified it becomes a Big Deal if
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's giving a "self promoting douche" quite a bit of credit..
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You think Assange could actually falsify the stuff WikiLeaks has put out?
Nope. I didn't pay too much attention to wikileaks before, but given the reaction of the US government, the Afghanistan dox were authentic.
That doesn't mean the things he says to the press are true or complete.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That doesn't mean the things he says to the press are true or complete.
I agree. But lucky for us Wikileaks organization makes it policy to release the FULL source material:
"What makes WikiLeaks different than mainstream media outlets is that they always release the source materials. They also provide up-front disclosure of any slant or intention if they edit. Assange made it clear that is was not enough to release the raw documents. He described how source material needs at least a summary for journalists to pick it up. Otherwise it falls into the gutter and is buried. He s
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
He was asked a question and he answered. He is asked to do an interview on TED, and he did one. Newspapers report on something of his private life. How is this *self* promotion, exactly?
Only douchebags attack the messenger.
I notice you posted with your name flying high, Mr Wampus. If you use your own logic, don't post your self-promoting garbage, or if you do, post AC.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
A self-promoting douche who is telling the truth about military cover-ups get much higher marks than any amount of seeminly, nice, personable people who are hiding atrocities.
It's past tiime that we looked past charm, respectability and authority as indicators of truthfulness - that has almost never been the case in gov'ts and organisations, especially when the stakes are as high as these.
Re: (Score:2)
It's past tiime that we looked past charm, respectability and authority as indicators of truthfulness...
I completely agree. And that's why I'm really suspicious of Assange trotting out the specter of Government spooks any time criticisms rise.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>This assumes that you trust this self promoting douche to not be completely full of shit.
I don't trust him. Good thing he provides video, such as the soldiers killing journalists/children, plus laughing about it ("Look a dead kid. Shouldn't have come into the middle of a warzone brat."). I trust video. Hard to refute video evidence, although I've seen a few nutcases try.
What I wonder is why our government wants to cover it up. How many thousands of similar videos exist? We probably won't find out until most of us are dead.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a lot of trust given to Assange when he claims that governments are pulling strings in a personal vendetta. That's the part that bugs me.
As for the video...
The US military should have been much more forthcoming about that particular incident. I'm assuming that the video is of the reporter in question and that the military knew that after the fact. If that's the case, it would have been better for everyone involved if that had come to light well before someone felt they had to leak evidence of the event.
Having said that... what we got to see was a nicely edited piece of propaganda. Yes, sure... there's also raw video. However, the edited version is just as much a part of the record and involves plenty of interpretations of what's going on while it glazes over other issues. I've always thought the leaking of this video was important but unfortunately overshadowed by the way it was turned in to a propaganda piece.
As for the pilots "laughing" about it... watch the video again. There's nobody laughing. There's a lot of chatter right up to the point that they discover that there's children in the van. Then there's stunned silence. That's when one of the gunship crew says "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."
Note how this differs from your quote. What the heck did you quote? Wikileaks provides a transcript. They provide video. Yet what you've got you in your mind is very different than actual events. Ponder that over a bit. We all bring our biases to the table. You hear US troops jeering over the death of a child. I heard US troops being shocked and then pulling themselves together with bravado.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? It IS a propaganda. It shows that US routinely commits criminal acts and then covers it up. So it's a good propaganda.
Exactly. That's the propaganda part. The edited video reads in a lot of what was going on and ignores other things that doesn't fit with the anti-US / anti-war message.
As for interpretations... Well, let's say that we can also 'interpret' 9/11. Like, saying that it's a valid act of war, and not terrorism. You see, twin towers were economically significant buildings. So it was OK to bomb them. See?
And with that, you've done a great job at making my point. The same treatment was done with the video.
Re: (Score:3)
The edited video removes a lot of the imagery of armed individuals and makes a big deal about which individuals are reporters and their cameras. It then replays the part where vehicles run over bodies and troops chuckle. While the gallows humor is shocking, that's all it is and Wikileaks is clearly going for shock value. Next we have commentary critical of sending the wounded children to local Iraqi facilities. And then we get to re-play the part where Wikileaks points out the children in the van - it t
Hard to refute video evidence??? (Score:4, Informative)
Two words for you Shirley Sherrod.
Video evidence can be edited to presenting misleading versions of the facts, quotes out of context, essential details left out,etc,etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_of_Shirley_Sherrod [wikipedia.org]
Then there also people like Commodore_64_love, make up crap to embellish the story
btw: Im watching the actual unedited video.
Also the "brat" quote was FAKE go actually listen to the actual video.
When the gunner found out the
the actual quote "Well its their fault for bringing kids to a battle" no laughing when they said that.
Plus the kid WASNT DEAD! Another FAKE claim, the kid was wounded in the belly and the gunner said "damn" and called for
a medical evac of the child at minute 18 of the unedited video.
runaway was telling the truth and got smeared as a flamebait.
Go look at the video yourself instead of making up phony quotes.
http://collateralmurder.com/ [collateralmurder.com] even the website doesnt claim the kid was killed
Re:Hard to refute video evidence??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's another recent example of a quote taken deliberately out of context. President Obama a couple weeks ago:
Out of context:
Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody.
In context:
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year -- for everybody. By the way, this was by design. ...Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent...
YouTube [youtube.com]
Full transcript [whitehouse.gov]
Democracy only works correctly when the voters aren't being lied to by the media. We know politicians lie all the time, but I believe it is vitally important that their lies are reported to us accurately in good faith, so that we can exercise our own judgment. This isn't biased reporting, this is deliberate deception, pure and simple.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Weren't no dead kids, and no one laughed."
True. The kids were the only ones that survived. Their entire family was killed, though. You are also ABSOLUTELY WRONG about them not laughing, however. They were AUDIBLY ENJOYING THEMSELVES.
"They properly blamed the INJURED children on the people who had dragged the kids along to rescue their compatriots."
No, blaming it on random passers-by who saw bleeding, dying people on the street and deciding to do the right thing and bring them to the hospital was NOT PROPER. Excuse me, but the US military personnel were the ones that fired the bullets at both the dead journalists and civilians AND at the children. "Hey, I just shot a bunch of civilians, journalists and children, but it's totally not my fault!"
"Those armed men in the video had fired on American troops, only minutes earlier."
NO! You clearly didn't do your fucking research. THESE PEOPLE WERE CIVILIANS, PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, THAT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE REPORTED SHOOTING. They were just hanging out with some journalists that came to take some photos. What the fuck? How fucking stupid can you be? PLEASE, I'm sure I'll be modded down as flamebait for saying this, but how the fuck can you possibly be saying EXACTLY what the military were saying even though there's empirical evidence that the army version of the story was an utter fabrication?
"But, the basic facts remain - the Apache took out a unit that had fired on American troops."
That's not a basic fact. That's a basic misstatement. A fabrication. A lie, and you're repeating it like you're on the US army's payroll.
"BTW - both kids were taken to hospital and treated. I never did hear how badly they were hurt, or how well they are doing now - funny that the media doesn't cover stuff like that, huh?"
Yeah. That dastardly liberal media!! Always covering up the good things the US army does.
Actually, we know they were seriously injured. By the way, did you know that the commanding officer ordered the children to *NOT* be taken to the hospital, but instead be turned over to Iraqi police? Yeah, that happened. They did NOT go linea recta to the hospital.
Again, I'll probably be modded down for flamebait due to the tone of my message, and that's probably accurate, but I most sincerely hope someone reads this and mods you down as well. You don't know a thing about the actual situation and it's painful to see you repeat this demonstrably false army drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to assume that the US DoD would hide away pictures of children they helped recover...
Sooo...I guess he must think that the US military would normally keep an Apache helicopter on-station orbiting the area for hours to take gun-camera footage of the entire aftermath including the eventual transport of injured civilian children long after the initial events took place?
Does anyone think they just keep an infinite supply of multi-million dollar attack helicopters and their crews in the air just to reco
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
The guys on the ground called the Apache in BECAUSE they were fired on.
Shots were heard, but Americans were not actually fired at. There's a difference between "I heard gunshot" and "I was fired at". Go try to find evidence to support the claim if you want, but I warn you that you'll find nothing but the right-wing echo chamber of claims that they were fired at.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are multiple sections to that video, in the first the apache pilots discover a group on the ground and assume they're the ones who had been doing the shooting. They think they see an RPG but don't bother getting a better image, despite these streets being used extensively by the civilians whose city the war is being fought in. Furthermore, despite proof from after the event that the video was not enough to distinguish a weapon from a camera, these events aren't seen as a mistake and no changes have been made to prevent it from happening again.
Even if, and there's no reason to assume they are, those men the reporter was with were the insurgents currently being sought, no efforts were taken to link them to the attack before killing them all.
In the second they destroy a vehicle full of rescuers, calling them compatriots of the slain though independent sources verify that the man was driving his children elsewhere and they came across a pile of bodies in the street - in Iraq, usually the work of a roadside bomb - and stopped to help the survivor. The rescuers, despite crew expectations, were not seen to handle a single weapon (let alone collecting weapons as was feared) and when they were prepared to drive off, could have been followed, or at worst been stopped by disabling the van with a single round instead of trying to kill all the passengers.
Finally, the building they fired the missiles into was occupied by non-insurgents (even if you assume the people seen with guns were insurgents and didn't just leave via the back door). They were not under pressure at the time and could have monitored the building until troops arrived and cordoned it off, but they took the expedient route.
Murder, murder, and murder.
There are vague excuses but nothing that would stand up if used by anyone else. If you even performed a citizen's arrest on a car thief on the same evidence they had on the rescuers (ie, incredibly circumstantial) you'd be locked up. And yet our military and ardent supporters can't even admit we made a mistake, let alone that it was a horrible one.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I will not even bother mentioning stuff like war crimes etc for it would be clearly lost on the apologists like you.
But this goes even beyond that. War you say? Fucking war YOU started, unilaterally, you mean. Without even bothering to officially declare it. And don't even try to pretend that the UN authorized it for some of us do not have the memory span of a goldfish and were actually watching the proceedings at the UN and witnessed the clear failure to obtain the approval of the Security Council, Powell's pathetic dog-and-pony show notwithstanding.
So in accordance with this "logic", if I decide to rob you and so I proceed to your house wherein I blow away your kids and wife and then torture you for the location of your safe, but I am careful to call the whole thing "war on Internet users who call themselves sumdumass", this makes it all right then, no? After all "shit happens in war"!
Oh you mean it is different because instead of me, just one guy, it is the Holy And Divine US Government Douchebags of Manifest Destiny who claim to be in a "war", backed up by the Infallible Gas Bags of Punditry on The Idiot Boxes of Infotainment! And so if your Holy Centurions do it, its righteous and just, but anyone else doing it is a clear sign of Satanic Villainy and Dastardly, Insurgent Defiance of The Rightful Rules of the Universe and they should get "what's coming to them". Intestines of children hanging on tree branches near blown up playgrounds and dismembered wedding parties in ruins of their homes. US Empire has its costs and others must pay them. Got it.
Fuck I hate US jingoist, imperialist fucks who think USA can do no wrong and the shit of US mercenaries smells like roses. All of these people in these videos would be alive and well if you hadn't invaded Iraq on made up pretenses and lies, you stupid fucks. YOU and your countrymen bear all the responsibility for their deaths. And yes, it was murder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are major differences and they are the reason why this is not going to happen.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I must call BS on this one. I, too, saw the vid, heard the radio chatter, and I got news for you, the group pictured did NOT appear to be armed. The resolution was not ideal,of course, so I might have missed something, sure. Were those people insurgents? Perhaps, the video was possibly out of context, so that wasn't entirely clear. Did THIS particular group of alleged insurgents recently attack THAT Apache? Not during the course of THAT video, they spent alot of their time either oblivious to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I must call BS on this one. I, too, saw the vid, heard the radio chatter, and I got news for you, the group pictured did NOT appear to be armed.
Go look at the unedited video. You can clearly see weapons. At least an AK-47 and something that appeared to be a RPG. Like you noted, resolution isn't very good so it's hard to tell. In the edited piece, all you get is the gunship crew mistaking cameras for weapons.
Did THIS particular group of alleged insurgents recently attack THAT Apache? Not during the course of THAT video, they spent alot of their time either oblivious to the gunship before being attacked, or sustaining injury and casualties afterward. Not exactly the behavior of someone who'd recently engaged in hostile combat action, is it?
That's one of the things that's misleading about this video. There's ground-forces coming down the road towards this location. The group is looking around the corner at them - I suspect that's what the photographer with the mis-identified
Please know your subject (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
why do you care so much about random other countries?
This is an exceptionally 'American' statement that reinforces a rather negative stereotype about ignorance and moral detachment towards the rest of the world. To 95.5 percent of the worlds population, the USA is just another 'random country'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't really true, in my experience, due to the US's superpower role and especially its cultural exports. Whether it's what people are discussing on a daily basis, or what you find in newspapers, the US has a large role in a lot of countries, and gets treated much differently than just another random country with 5% of the world's population. Ask someone in Greece or Egypt what they think about the US, and what they think about Indonesia, and you get a lot more opinions about the US.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason anyone cares about the US, because you keep meddling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even the sourced stuff is usually bullshit.
It's not bullshit that Assange is free to leave Sweden now, but do continue quibbling about minor details.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the government wants evidence, they (usually) get a warrent. When the public wants evidence? Much harder.
Yes. But that doesn't change a single thing I said.
US Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:US Government (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as an absolute liberty that allows you to do anything you wish without consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But it seems the libertarians think it should be so.
No Libertarians don't think that. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
two reliable intelligence sources? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the term is "character assassination".
innocent until proven guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Guilty until proven innocent is traditional for males accused of sex crimes in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Guilty until proven innocent is traditional for males accused of sex crimes in America.
where are my mod points when I need them? MPU
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or anywhere else for that matter. Especially if the sex crime involved someone who's age falls withing the local definition of "child".
Re:innocent until proven guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Guilty until proven innocent is traditional for males accused of sex crimes in America.
Historically, I think you would find many women who would disagree with you.
Sexual assault experts dispel date rape myths [stripes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a presumption of innocence in the court room. Cops don't pull you over for speeding and presume you're innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one, but TWO intelligence sources? (Score:2)
Wow. I think I can tell when someone is bullshitting me. Or else the western intelligence community has gotten ridiculously porous lately.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Institutions Like Wikileaks Exist (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hacking means responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
"Assange leaked information that caused real-world consequences. Big consequences, like death and torture"
Citation needed. Even the Pentagon had to attach a "might possibly" to that claim. If you can actually back up that assertion, you'll be doing better than them.
Assange didn't leak anything (Score:2)
That information was leaked by the US military, not by Assange. He merely published the leaked information. If Assange got that information, it could just as easily have been obtained by the Taliban or any other organization.
When you have information that could cause death and torture, it's your sacred duty to make sure no one will be able to get that information.
Demonizing the guy who got the informatio
Re: (Score:2)
The information wasn't leaked "by the military" (which makes it sounds like some sort of official, counter-intelligence op). It was leaked by one guy -- a SPEC4, not even a non-com, who had a history of being not that stable. He chose to leak it to people who had a reputation for, and a history of, publishing documents whether they really should or not.
WikiLeaks is culpable in that, had they not been in existence, chances are the information never would have been stolen in the first place. Most reputable
Re: (Score:2)
I surely hope the US military would try harder to filter what information goes to a "SPEC4", whatever does that mean.
People with "a history of being not that stable" should have no place in the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Spec4 is an E-4 (pay grade) Specialist. Corporals are also an E-4 pay grade, but are the lowest rung of non-commissioned officer in the Army.
He probably should have been flagged during background checks for his clearance, but apparently he wasn't. It doesn't sound like he had access to anything that he wasn't really supposed to be able to get at in order to do his job. He was just an unscrupulous jackass with no sense of responsibility who apparently hadn't had it beaten into him effectively enough.
Re: (Score:2)
So who dropped the ball by letting such incredibly sensitive information pass through the hands of a spec4 with a history of instability? Hopefully THAT person isn't also trusted to decide who is acceptable to handle nuclear weapons...
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same bullshit argument as "its your fault you got robbed because you left your house unlocked while you walked to 7-11 to buy cigarettes and taquitos, but ran into a friend on the way back and got held up for 15 minutes."
Just because you don't lock the door doesn't mean its not the thief's fault you got robbed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the thief's fault that you got robbed. It's your fault that you didn't lock up your guns properly.
Responsible people always think about the consequences of anything they do, even if those consequences aren't due to their personal fault.
Car analogy: someone runs a stop sign across your path. Do you brake, or do you push the pedal to the metal to crash him? It's not your fault that he didn't stop at the stop sign.
Re:Assange didn't leak anything (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find more disturbing is what has happened since then: We've seen both Petraeus and also some politicians start telling people how Assange and Wikileaks are "responsible" for the lives of soldiers, and are "endangering" the lives of soldiers. I mean yeah, shift the blame why don't you? Wikileaks is surely more responsible for soldier's lives than the politicians and generals who send them as an occupying force without a viable strategy.
Even better, now Petraeus was making comments about how irresponsible Koran-burning would be. So what has happened, in a few short months, is the FIASCO which is the Afghan "war" has now turned into something to club the civilian population about the head with. Anything you do or say that doesn't represent the official government policy means that you're "endangering the lives of our troops".
I am glad I am not American, but why do you keep voting for these people?
Re:Hacking means responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I partially agree with you. Manning violated US law, he violated his oath to protect and defend, he broke a myriad of orders from superior officers - burn him at the stake.
It is an illegal act to follow an illegal order. Murder of non-combatant civilians is illegal. Coverup of murder of non-combatant civilians is an illegal act as well. No one could possibly release this information without violating some type of nondisclosure agreement, but releasing this information was critical to the uncovering of crimes committed in the name of the people of the United States of America, who have a right to know.
Julian? Well - he's not subject to US law. He broke no oath, he disobeyed no orders, he was under no obligation to defend the US from anything at all. Say some harsh words to him, maybe even say a few bad things about him - but let the man go his way.
"Let" him go his way?
Concentrate on Manning, and any other little freaks like him.
Freaks? For delivering us information that we wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
Assange leaked information that caused real-world consequences. Big consequences, like death and torture
[CITATION NEEDED]
But don't spend too long looking, because you're repeating a lie.
Re:Hacking means responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange leaked information that caused real-world consequences. Big consequences, like death and torture, not small consequences like Microsoft missing out on seven bucks because you pirated Windows 2000.
- you little piece of shit, how about the actual truth: USA government + military caused death and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan and also other places by proxy.
Wikileaks may actually help to stop this insanity that USA is descending upon the world.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more along the lines of releasing thousands of people's medical histories and letting everyone sort through the data to try and find something wrong.
-John
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's been tried. Turned out to be a great place to get kiddypr0n by all accounts.