Slashdot Mirror


Sweden Defends Wiki Sex Case About-Face

crimeandpunishment writes "Mistake? We didn't make a mistake. That's what Swedish prosecutors said Sunday as they defended their handling of a rape allegation against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The Swedish Prosecution Authority said the prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant Friday did not make a mistake, even though a higher-ranked prosecutor withdrew the warrant the next day. A spokesperson for the Authority said: 'The prosecutor who took over the case yesterday had more information, and that is why she made a different assessment than the on-call prosecutor.' Assange, who was in Sweden seeking legal protection for the site as it prepares to leak more Afghan war documents, told a Swedish tabloid newspaper, 'I don't know who's behind this but we have been warned that for example the Pentagon plans to use dirty tricks to spoil things for us.'" We covered the warrant being issued and withdrawn yesterday.

49 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Foreshadowing. by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They will get him. Eventually. I hope not, but I believe they will. Through defamation, assassination (character or otherwise), I just want to forecast now, that as a pessimist / realists / tinfoil hat wearer, they will get him.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Foreshadowing. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this stage it's going to take one hell of a trick to pull that off though. Assange's opponents don't have all that much credibility left, so even if someone does have major legitimate dirt on the guy it's gonna be a heck of a job getting public opinion on their side.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:Foreshadowing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, just like there isn't anybody left to believe Obama is a muslim, or wasn't born in the US.

    3. Re:Foreshadowing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a question of credibility, that is irrelevant, it does not matter. What matters is whether by what they do to him, whether credible or not, it discourages others from choosing to doing the same as him. That is what is essential, and is precisely why I think they will assassinate him, and I do not mean "character". This is also why Pvt Manning continues to be held incommunicado at the special torture facility in Kuwait.

    4. Re:Foreshadowing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need public opinion to put a bullet behind his ear, leave him in a dark alley and way away. If they want him quiet, they'll get what they want.

    5. Re:Foreshadowing. by Cutterman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
      Cardinal Richelieu

    6. Re:Foreshadowing. by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      internet doesnt bow to any of these. see, here you are, talking about it. like millions talking about it on many other sites.

    7. Re:Foreshadowing. by blhack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You give the public way, way, way too much credibility. I'm sitting in a coffee shop right now surrounded by about 20 people, if you had to guess, how many of them do you think know who Julian Assange is? Know what wikileaks is even? Know that Sweden incorrectly accused him of rape at the behest of the Obama Administration as an attempt to discredit him?

      None? 1, maybe?

      All it's going to take is a "raid" on his home where they find child pornography on one of his computers. He will go to jail for the rest of his life and, from that point forward, everything that comes from wikileaks will be something that came from "that organization that distributes kiddie porn".

      Yes, the Swedes messed this up, badly, but the overwhelming majority of people don't even know that it happened, and even the majority of them don't realize that wikileaks is a lot more than Julian Assange. Despite this, he will be discredited and, with him, wikileaks will go away. /sad

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    8. Re:Foreshadowing. by Elldallan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The swedish government did not mess things up. Two women who seemed to have credible accusations against Assange came forward and accused him of rape.
      Over here in Sweden rape is very prioritized at the moment so the prosecutor acted according to the accusations(which at the time seemed credible) and started an investigation into wether Assange was guilty of a crime or not.
      There is nothing to fault in that action as long as the accusation seemed credible or do you think that when somone is accused of a crime the government should first spend several days or weeks looking into wether the accuser is credible or not? Or should the prosecutor do what is normally the norm, start an investigation and follow the eveidence in the direction they lead, if there is little to no evidence or witnesses/accusers turn out not to be credible then the case will be dismissed before ever reaching a court.

      If the two women who brought the charges were either agents of CIA(or some other agency) or where coerced/bribed by aforementioned agencies then that is unfortunate but that is not something the police and prosecutors can know or assume and they can't just ignore accusations because the accused is a public person wanted by the United States etc. Justice is slow but until you are formally sentenced in court you are in the eyes of the justice system and the government assumed to be innocent, that the media completely blows things out of proportions and goes wherever the profit is not something the prosecutor can or is even allowed to take into consideration when deciding wether or not to start an investigation.

    9. Re:Foreshadowing. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Assange's opponents don't have all that much credibility left

      My friend, your assessment is based on your personal associations with people that think like you, and your reading list of like-minded web sites and publications.

      But, guess what? The sad fact is that there are MANY people who *DO* support "the war" and do not think as you do. Many more than you realize. There is a *significant* number of Americans and non-Americans that are completely "on-board" and consider this WikiLeaks dude a sociopathic danger to freedom and apple pie.

      By *assuming* the majority believe as you do, you provide a dangerous weakness. Over-confidence often leads to catastrophic failure.

      You're an idealist, but be warned: Not everyone is. Not everyone cares. Not everyone believes as you do, and in fact you are in the minority.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    10. Re:Foreshadowing. by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      every time he or wikileaks is talked about in the conservative press they'll be sure to throw in something like "who has been accused of rape" or some variation.

      And rape is one of those ones you simply cannot shake off, it's socially unacceptable to not believe a claim of rape or even be sceptical about it.
      Nobody wants to side with the rapist so wikileaks loses a lot of support right off the bat.

    11. Re:Foreshadowing. by fractoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, generally 'turned into rape' means one of two things: She changes her mind halfway through (or her boyfriend walks in unexpectedly) and she cries rape in order to avoid taking any personal responsibility. Or, worse, she changes her mind the next day and retroactively withdraws her consent.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    12. Re:Foreshadowing. by moortak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really don't get why everyone assumes a frame up job would have to originate with the US. Wikileaks has pissed off a lot of people with enough resources to cause trouble. Some of the people they have exposed have just as bad a record on how they deal with enemies and I'm sure can spot an opening when everyone is assuming the US.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    13. Re:Foreshadowing. by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume you mean the first one, and if so I agree that "she changes her mind after it's in, he keeps going" in the general case is rape. I was simply suggesting it as a scenario which fits the statement "started as sex, turned into rape".

      It's not always clear cut, though. How much notice does she have to give him to get out once she changes mind? How clearly must she communicate this decision at the time? I've heard of cases where the woman changes her mind and calls it rape because the guy is inside her at the moment she changes her mind. Worse yet are cases where the couple are both very drunk, they get it on, and later the woman decides she was too drunk to have given consent. Somehow the man ends up being charged with rape even if he was more drunk at the time.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  2. Assange and his team are doing great things by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish I had his skill and his balls. He, at least, is going some way to watching the watchers.

    And if there are any times that attention whoring is absolutely warranted, it is now.

    I just hope he's not David Kelly'd.

    Before I go, let me just accuse every /. commenter below me in this article of rape. I hope you judge Assange for the accusations against him as you'd hope people treat mine against you.

    1. Re:Assange and his team are doing great things by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>let me just accuse every /. commenter below me in this article of rape

      Worse: Accuse them of child rape. Even if you are found "not guilty" you'll still be treated as a pariah. We need to stop assuming someone is guilty upon mere accusation, and instead assume they are innocent until the Lords have proved their case.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Assange and his team are doing great things by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry. In this day and age of hyper-feminist(and yes it is womens groups who are at fault for this), with any and all hits of anything relating to rape, child rape, pedophilia, child abuse, etc. You're already screwed, because the law has already decided in various countries that you have the hint of guilt, you're already guilty. Leaving in some cases may not even counter your accuser, because they're required to be protected to the fullest, even from questioning.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Assange and his team are doing great things by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because he's unfortunately right. Women's groups chose to make an extremist example out of those crimes rather than the more accurate version of what really goes on. Consequently, good luck if you've been so abused, because it's unlikely to say the least that anybody's going to believe what really happened, let alone consider what you want out of all that if it doesn't involve extremely harsh punishment of the accused.

      If you're really curious, The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children--and its Aftermath. Excellent book, if a bit depressing.

    4. Re:Assange and his team are doing great things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I haven't read the book but I'm not surprised. After all in that infamous Georgia case where the guy got jailed for aggravated child molestation aka consensual oral sex, I'm sure the girl ("victim") would have been more mentally scarred by the State's actions than the guy's.

      Same goes for the other similar stuff. Imagine you're a 15 year old with raging hormones etc - being told by many authorities that your beloved cute 17 year old boyfriend raped you and that it was wrong, when you actually enjoyed a lot at the time is definitely not going to do wonders for you. You'd feel guilty for enjoying it. You'd be unhappy that he's going to jail. You'd be angry at him for raping you. You'd be angry at him, yourself, the "whole world" for so many reasons.

      Being exposed to the "Harsh Real World" that way is going to be more mentally scarring.

      So if you were a parent you'd try to figure out a better way of dealing with the issue without getting the State involved.

    5. Re:Assange and his team are doing great things by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many hyper-feminist cops or judges have you met? How about hyper-feminists in congress or the senate?
      I really do not think things are as simple as you state or the blame as simply handed out. You are just doing the "blame the smelly hippy and their dog" trick when they are little more than noisy bystanders. Most of the stuff you are complaining about comes directly from lazy law and order politics designed to demonstrably kick heads and show the elected official is "strong".

  3. Not a mistake? by loteck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a man can be publicly accused of rape, a warrant issued for his arrest, and his name splashed all over the international media PRIOR to you being 100% sure you want to bring him in on those charges, then I would say something is seriously wrong with your system of justice.

    1. Re:Not a mistake? by Zironic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Warrants are public, there's not much the justice system can do really to prevent international media from splashing it up if they want to.

    2. Re:Not a mistake? by Kidbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the justice system. They did not "publicly accuse" anybody of anything. They did exactly what they should do in this case. Two women contacted the police and informed them of a crime that had been committed. They needed to speak to the accused, and since it's a matter of a foreign citizen that is expected to leave the country soon, they chose consider him "anhållen i sin frånvaro", something that has somewhat wrongly been translated to "arrested", as that's the closest counterpart in English speaking nations. This, they did in order to give the police authority to actually detain him long enough for an interrogation.

      The "publicly accusing", "name splashed over international media" and whatnot is the work of media, and has absolutely nothing to do with the justice system.

      What would you have them do? Ignore the accusations? Interrogate the witnesses more thoroughly so the suspect had plenty of time to leave the country? Keep in mind that ill treatment (e.g. harsh interrogation shortly after the crime) of rape victims is not something that's particularly popular around here (for good reasons).

      For the record, I am convinced that Assange isn't guilty (although I believe the whole thing is the result of a pair of very confused women, rather than a military conspiracy), but I honestly don't see how a justice system would become better by ignoring self proclaimed victims reporting crime to the police...

  4. Re:Honesty by xnpu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed. I assume that false accusations are illegal under Swedish law. Why aren't we seeing the names of the people that actually committed the crime here.

  5. Follow this story! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At the end of the day, I'm driving home and hear on the radio that Assange is no longer a suspect and that the case has been dropped. I find this even more incredible than the initial news. To be exhonerated in less than 24 hours is incredibly dramatic. I couldn't believe what I was hearing once again.

    There's pretty much only one way to read into these events. There must have been a conspiracy to destroy Wikileaks through the character assassination of Assange. There can be only one suspect for who was behind it: the U.S. government.

    If there were anyone left in the world who could reasonably doubt that the U.S. government wasn't corrupt, didn't play dirty, didn't abuse its power, didn't lie as it suited them, and wasn't what Orwell warned us about in 1984 and Animal Farm, if they were within the reach of the mainstream media yesterday, that should have been their wake-up call.

    Amazingly, they fucked up so badly that they couldn't get things to stick for even a day. How did that happen?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Follow this story! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There can be only one suspect for who was behind it: the U.S. government.

      Why do you say that? Assange has pissed off a lot of world governments, and it does not take CIA level resources to have someone file a false report. The fact that the charges were withdrawn on the same day they were filed suggests that the CIA may not be involved after all -- they would do a better job than that.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Follow this story! by Securityemo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Misjudgment on how the case would be handled? Expecting a stronger knee-jerk reaction?

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    3. Re:Follow this story! by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you think CIA has magic powers? It consists of people and it is a government bureaucracy, it is mostly shuffling papers around, it's glamorous as in movies. And yes, the same problems that are found in most government organizations and large corporations are present there - various power struggles, inefficiencies, idiots, everything.

      I wouldn't put it past CIA to make any sort of mistake at all, actually it's a surprise when they do anything right.

    4. Re:Follow this story! by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There can be only one suspect for who was behind it: the U.S. government.

      I know that nonsense supports some peoples' world views, but that doesn't make it accurate.

      Ignoring the possibility that it could reasonably be any number of other people and even a handful of other governments, maybe I'm naive, but I don't see why the US government would play games if they really cared that much. A terrible rape allegation that doesn't even stick for a day? Please. With billions of dollars of resources they could manufacture a significantly better, more serious charge with evidence that was hard to refute.

      Personally, if I were in the government and wanted to put a stop to Wikileaks I wouldn't bother with that though. You'd simply find Assange in an ally with a bullet in the back of his head. Oh, there would be an uproar for a few days, maybe a few weeks, and lots of conspiracy theories (that for a change would actually be true!) but not only would it pretty much immediately slam the breaks on Wikileaks, it would be a chilling example to anybody who might consider stepping in behind him.

      The "problem" with Wikileaks is that it doesn't need credibility, making some attempt to character-assassinate Assange on the worthless side. I don't like Assange, I'm not a huge fan of Wikileaks, and while I supported what they did with the original attack video I have no support whatsoever to give to leaking the Afghanistan documents or the manner in which it was done. Even with all that said I can't find them to lack credibility. They're releasing actual government documents, actual government video. I can have a problem with what they did, I can have a problem with how they did it, I can have a problem with some of the editorializing they do, but I can't claim it's somehow not credible. Other people are roughly the same; they think Wikileaks is scum or providing a public service.

      So why waste the time and effort in some really bad plot? Live with it or end it. Don't play games.

  6. Re:Obama acting like Bush again by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... interfering with EU affairs, as if the EU was a protectorate of the US.

    If this is a black op Obama probably doesn't even know. It's not like they'd tell Obama because Obama wouldn't need to know. It's likely that Obama just signs his name giving them permission to "stop Julian Assange" and then they figure out how to do it and begin the campaign.

  7. Re:Obama acting like Bush again by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>>Obama just signs his name giving them permission

    Interesting argument for why Obama is innocent. Does the same reasoning apply to Bush to forgive his actions from 2002 through 2009? I suspect not..... then neither does it apply to Obama.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  8. Re:On-Call Prosecutor?! by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right. You would prefer that a public accusation on a Friday would circulate in the press until late Monday morning before being reviewed?

    I think the round-the-clock system they have, which allowed them to cut the drama short by having judges working on Saturday, sounds like a good idea.

  9. Re:On-Call Prosecutor?! by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd prefer that over a public accusation on Friday circulating in the press until late Monday and additionally getting arrested Friday evening and spending the weekend in jail, yes.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  10. Re:It's Pretty Obvious What's Going On Here by cptdondo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or... Maybe he did it himself? Now he's more bulletproof. The first charge was baseless; any additional "character assassination" charges will be met with tin-foil skepticism.

    Can you think of a better way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen?

  11. If the US will do anything to silence enemies... by voss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is doing an awfully bad job of it. In the US you can turn on the radio and hear people calling the president a muslim, a fascist or homosexual.
    You can turn on the tv and watch people almost completely fabricate new charges against obama or his underlings. Castro has been in power for 50 years, North
    Korea has been in power for 60 years. The US does a better job when it doesn't try to silence enemies.

  12. Re:Obama acting like Bush again by Cwix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your right...

    Julian Assange isn't an American citizen.

    So exactly what American law did he break, and why should he be tried for an American crime if he didn't break the law here in the US?

    Perhaps if the government did one of two things...
    A) Hid their secrets better
    B) Didn't do something that needed to be kept secret.

    We wouldn't be in this situation.

    The US trying to hold him accountable for breaking our laws, when he didnt commit the crimes here, or break into any computers here is akin to a Muslim country holding your mother responsible for not wearing a burqa.

    If we take outside of the realm of laws into state secrets and back room international politics, Mr. Assange did ask for trouble by toying with our intelligence agencies and military. If we were to give him that trouble, it would make us look even worse in the eyes of the world.

    The cat is out of the bag, we should open discussions with Wikileaks to see if they will allow us to redact names from the documents they havn't released. Its either that or have the documents in their entirety released. Framing people for crimes they havnt committed is wrong.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  13. No Formal False Accusations by andersh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, and they are not "criminals" [the accusers] never claimed rape, they actually asked police for clarification if the alleged "actions" were criminal!

    Under Swedish law false accusations of rape would most likely have lead to one year in prison, these accusations were less clear and the prosecutor would be looking for more information from Assange.

    You see that's the beauty of the charges, they're not likely to lead to punishment for the accusers, the only damage would be to Assange's good name and standing. He could try for damages, but what would that help his name? It's perfect [for the people looking to smear him]!

  14. Donate by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, then, it's time to start donating lots of money to wikileaks. Fight money with money. There is a lot of big talk talk about ideals here so it's time to back that up with action.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    1. Re:Donate by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, then, it's time to start donating lots of money to wikileaks. Fight money with money. There is a lot of big talk talk about ideals here so it's time to back that up with action.

      This valid remark got marked Troll? Really??! I hope the meta moderators are on their toes for this story...

  15. This would be the CIA that by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Helped organise the Bay of Pigs and tried several times to assassinate Castro?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  16. Or someone making shit up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This happens, see the Duke Lacrosse case. People make up allegations. It is worse against people who are well known, the face it MORE often. So it very well could be something that isn't a conspiracy on his part, the government part or anyone. Just someone making shit up.

    Who knows what really happened and frankly, who care? This shouldn't be an issue except for the fact that media, especially places like Slashdot (I didn't see this on CNN or Yahoo or the like) started screaming about it. We don't know what actually happened, and probably never will since there's a real lack of any evidence. That however won't stop conspiracy nuts for taking this as absolute proof that the US government is behind it since the standards for absolute proof in conspiracy land are pretty low.

  17. Giving the Boss Too Much Credit by tobiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Blaming the President for every little thing that happens is being unreasonably optimistic about their ability to be aware of the government's actions. I mean, think for a minute about how many things your boss is clueless about (but is responsible for), then scale that to a million employees. Even if this originated in the US government, it's unlikely Obama will ever know or be able to influence it.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  18. Just a warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just a warning:

    Look at how powerful we are. What we can do with the tip of our fingers. We don't want to but if you continue to mess with us we will feel obligated to...

    Politics as usual

  19. Real Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...Justice is slow but until you are formally sentenced in court you are in the eyes of the justice system and the government assumed to be innocent, that the media completely blows things out of proportions and goes wherever the profit is ...

    Yes, like justice is a front page banner headline accusing you of rape, and a back page 12 point retraction when the case is dropped or you are found innocent.

    Real justice should prevent any mention in the press until one is declared guilty in the court.

  20. Come on folks... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The arrest warrant also mentioned a molestation charge, but molestation -- which is not limited to child victims in Sweden -- is not a crime punishable by jail time. Rosander told TV4 Assange is still under investigation for molestation.

    Remember Hans Reiser? As I recall, many here initially said there was no way he did it. But he did. The Wikileaks dude is ***STILL*** under investigation for "molestation", they just don't need to pick him up for it yet. Just because he has POLITICS that you agree with does not mean he isn't a sex creep.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Come on folks... by poity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because he has POLITICS that you agree with does not mean he isn't a sex creep.

      ooo, that's part is going to get you modded troll when the left-leaning mods get here. I completely agree with your sentiment however, that people are too quick to place themselves on either side of the matter when evidence is severely lacking. The correct stance to take is of course that Assange is innocent with regard to rape/molestation until conclusive evidence to the contrary is provided. Likewise, the USA is innocent with regard to whatever crime is implied by the story tags (currently: flaseflag, blackflag) until conclusive evidence to the contrary is provided. Of course, this being SlashKOS, you and I will have to deal with the frustration of seeing such double standards and take the karma beating for pointing it out.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  21. Re:Obama acting like Bush again by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's the CIA's mission to stop individuals like Julian Assange. The CIA is supposed to be focused on foreign nationals and foreign spies. Julian Assanges organization "Wikileaks" has committed the initial crime which triggered the CIA/NSA/FBI response. (...) Julian Assange isn't an American citizen.

    You can't actually commit a crime, as defined by the US laws if you're not an american citizen and you never set foot in the US or directly accessed resources over there in a criminal way. As far as I know, the CIA isn't supposed to be the KGB, since in a democracy something that embarrasses the government is not in itself a reason for intelligence agencies to be involved.

    Let's assume however as a thought experiment that the person operating wikileaks would have been a member of the US military. Even in that case, the technical violation of the letter of some laws and regulations should be overridden by the right of the citizenry to know relevant information about the war the US military is conducting, the details it seeked to hide from the public and the war crimes it covered up. Indeed, as stated by one of the Supreme Court justices ruling in the Pentagon Papers case:

    . "In absence of governmental checks and balances", per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."

    As for your argument that:

    It's a bit late now to blame Obama as if Obama could have stopped whatever the response is. If it's true that Assange's documents influence or reveal CIA sources this would equate to Assange attacking the CIA itself because if the sources get killed it hurts the mission and the effort.

    This is not good for Julian Assange. What do you expect Obama to do? Tell the CIA to leave Julian Assange alone? On what basis?

    My hope is that the existence and discovery of streamlined whistleblowing (which is what Wikileaks really is) will make it impossible to wage a war without public disclosure of information about it. The information that wikileaks published (as a secondary source) should have been public and released gradually by the US military in the first place, to document and keep the war transparent and thus legal.

    Obama should have absolutely stopped any operations against Wikileaks and instead focused on the revelations contained in the released documents.

    I think it is important to discuss the possible casualties of the war logs release. As far as I know there were no fatalities associated with it yet, however it remains a possibility that such a fatality or fatalities will occur. Without attributing blame as to who would be responsible for such deaths, whether it's wikileaks by placing the public need to know above some lives or the US military for failing to disclose enough information about the war or failing to redact sensitive bits when offered the chance, I'd like to state that if Iraq is any good as a baseline where about a million people died as a direct consequence of the war (not necessarily killed directly by US forces though), then hundreds of thousands of afghani are dead because of this war. Any deaths from the release of the documents would be entirely lost as statistical noise in the changes the US military and political leadership are being forced to make due to the public getting a clearer picture of what's going on in Afghanistan. The release of the war logs potentially saved a lot of lives and at least gave the public information it lacked.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  22. Re:Obama acting like Bush again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually the next genocide is currently going on but in Afghanistan this time.

  23. Re:There was a mistake, but not that one by Torodung · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting. So the police "leaked" sensitive details improperly to the press, which then improperly published/distributed the information before the full story was ready for publication?

    There's a lesson in irony to be learned there.

    --
    Toro