WikiLeaks Founder 'Free To Leave Sweden'

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."

Comments

What?

[binarylarry]

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.

Re:What?

[TheGratefulNet]

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?

[wampus]

Yup. Trolling. Don't trust the government? Smart. Don't trust some guy with a website? Troll.

Re:What?

[kestasjk]

You think Assange could actually falsify the stuff WikiLeaks has put out?

That's giving a "self promoting douche" quite a bit of credit..

Re:What?

[wampus]

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:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[haruchai]

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:What?

[rainmouse]

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:What?

[commodore64_love]

>>>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?

[Runaway1956]

Dickish? Well - if people started a smear campaign against me, I'd probably be a little "dickish" as well. Of course, I might handle things somewhat differently than Julian. I dunno - I'd have to wait til I were in his position to decide what to do. I do think Julian is wrong with his interpretation of the intel he has leaked so far. I very much disagree with his use of "murder" regarding that dead reporter and associates. But, whether I agree with him or not, he's taken on the role of a reporter, and it's his job to report. Not so much his job to editorialize, but reporting, yes. People need to get off Julian's ass, and start working on damage control at home. That little freak of a private never should have had access to all the material he leaked, and he CERTAINLY shouldn't have been able to carry that data out of a secure area. Where the fuck are the marines? When I was a sailor, we had a full Captain try to bluster his way into a secure area. The private on duty put that captain in the mud, with the muzzle of his M-16 poked right into the captain's ear. The private promptly was promoted to corporal, and the captain got an informal request to leave the island - and not to come back. So - WTF is some private doing walking out of a secure facility with disk loaded with data? The army doesn't understand security, or what?

Re:What?

[radio4fan]

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:What?

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:What?

[hackus]

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 current trend, right now 1 in 4 children live on food stamps. If the current trend continues 2 of 4 children will be food stamps by the end of 2012.

3) There are plans it would seem to destroy the currency, which is probably part of the globalist agenda to replace the dollar with something else. This might not work, because many people like myself, have a handle on the situation and the criminal activities of our government in the US. We have taken steps against the government to protect our assets which is why you see Gold prices breaking record highs week after week.

You won't see that on the T.V. because they do not WANT you too know that. Just keep buying that worthless paper and shut up.

4) War is coming. If they cannot confiscate your wealth like they tried to do in the 1930's, they will take you to war to get it buy inflating the currency or making it worthless. President Obama has approved record numbers of executive orders giving him new powers that George Bush would be envious of.

Record numbers of drone attacks have been authorized in Packistan, Iraq and now the war has expanded into Yemen. As the middle east war expands, it will provide the globalists which are pulling Obamas puppet strings, to do the bidding of the bankers and initiate an attack that will start WWIII.

I do not even consider Obama a president. He is more like a King or an Emporer.

This attack might even be on an American city because after the depression fully slams the world in 2012, nothing short of a Nuclear attack or false flag operation will be enough for Americans to give up their Gold, guns and even more constitutional rights to follow some idiot.

That is where the fun begins because either you follow him to your doom, or you declare that the government has become unconstitutional and you are now a terrorist.

Choose your side wisely.

-Hack

Re:What?

[Scrameustache]

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,'' 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:What?

[rhizome]

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:What?

[sjames]

And note well that this is the same government that routinely pleads poverty when the suggestion of national health care comes up.

Re:What?

[FriendlyLurker]

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 stated the need for some journalistic work by WikiLeaks:

When the material is more complexespecially military material which has lots of acronymsit’s not even enough to do a summary . Unlike other organizations, we always release the full source material at the same time. The summary, some sort of introduction or articles we do are based on the source material. So, everything we do is like science. It is checkable, independently checkable because the information which has informed our conclusions is there, just like scientific papers which are based on experimental data and must make that experimental data available to other scientists and the public if they want their papers to be published. (Assange, April 18, 2010)" From Wikileaks the global 4th estate.

If only the vast majority of US Media could be so honest and accountable to the general public, instead of hiding behind half truth's, hidden agendas, omissions of facts, spin and rhetoric.

Re:What?

[cetitau]

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 typical thinking, maybe he thought he could rape this woman with impunity as well. The US can (and should) swing a big stick but don't be to quick to assume that the US caused this to happen. WE may have done this, and if WE did, WE were well within OUR rights (given our big stick and all) but I would lay even money that Julian exercises the same poor judgement with his personal life as he does with his professional life.\n And, after all, life (the successful execution thereof) is about his big stick and OUR big stick, right. Regards, Another, more mature and experienced Larry. Oh, and a vet and a proud AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If WE did it, MORE POWER TO US! It's about time we started playing tit for tat.

Re:What?

[FriendlyLurker]

In other news today: 1 out of 7 Americans living below the poverty line (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 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:What?

[Scrameustache]

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:What?

[Trepidity]

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:What?

[_Sprocket_]

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:What?

[Scrameustache]

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?

[Trepidity]

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?

[WNight]

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?

[Securityemo]

Not true. I'm Swedish, and the U.S. is "the center of the world."

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 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?

What -I- got from this,was that an action had happened, and an adjacent patrol was queued into the matter, the video feed seen being from that adjacent patrol, which happened upon this group of individuals. Proximity to the hostile action was likely fairly close by,it was a war zone, after all, these things happen. My thinking was a case of mistaken identity, a support patrol took retaliatory action against a perceived threatening target, and got the WRONG DAMN TARGET. Well, shit happens in a war zone. Duh. The callousness and laughter in the background was real enough, again, shit happens in a war zone. Stupid reactions, but utterly comprehensible, given the circumstances.

So far, none of this is exactly an atrocity, just a routine wartime FUBAR. What happened following the initial was where the line got crossed. After being gunned down, it should have been fairly plain by that point, that the targets were NOT in a condition to offer further resistance (not that they offered any to begin with, no time). A vehicle stopped to render aid to the injured, stupid, but civvies don't usually do sensible things. No weapons were evident, none were raised. Were there any warning shots? Were there any calls to vacate from a loudspeaker? No, but in a war zone, expecting that is less than reasonable. An initial strike was made to disable the vehicle, again, SOP. After a pause, more shots fired to guarantee casualties, without bothering to determine hostile capabilities. THAT'S where the line was crossed, but even then,only a little. Another FUBAR, well, okay.

The atrocity is what happened once the recon team arrived to inspect casualties. The radio chatter bears this out plainly, the team requested to take two child casualties to the nearest medical facility, which happened to be a military med unit. Their superiors REFUSED, instead, after a cursory debate, decided to send them to an Iraqi med facility further away. The expectation of killing two witnesses, kids, no less, via refusal of medical services to treat injuries inflicted by OUR servicemen, is painfully apparent. THIS is why this was covered up. Not the combat actions against civvies, not the fact of callous disregard by the gunners towards a member of the press, no. The administrative decision to cover up a simple FUBAR by allowing two kids to die in less than adequate facilities, to cover their asses from freaking paperwork issues, THAT'S the atrocity here.

But this is hardly the kind of atrocity that gets headlines or merits much scrutiny. It doesn't usually show on the field, it is, in fact, the domain of bean counters and logistics staff, generally. Too easy for it to be swallowed up in jargon and clerical reassignment. This kind of atrocity is easy to hide, easy to deny, and makes the higher ups all squeaky-clean.....until they screw up and get caught, that is.

Again, sorry, but this IS an atrocity, not commited by the boots on the ground, but by the brass further up, which makes it a far worse thing than if the soldiers themselves had committed it. Why? because it's an INSTITUTIONAL atrocity resulting from command policy, that's why. Open YOUR eyes, sir, and don't be content to follow orders blindly, I'm willing to guess you are far better than that.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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:What?

[tomhudson]

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

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

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 - 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 - 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?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I wish I didn't have to say this, but it's a fucking WAR

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:What?

[TYH.DataAngel]

"At the current trend, right now 1 in 4 children live on food stamps. If the current trend continues 2 of 4 children will be food stamps by the end of 2012."



This is clearly an alarming trend! We have to act before more children turn into food stamps!

Re:What?

[shutdown -p now]

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!

Re:What?

[_Sprocket_]

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:What?

[_Sprocket_]

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 takes some labels on blurry spots and zooming to frame the view properly so that the eye isn't distracted by everything else going on.

This is not a neutral or completely honest account of what's going on. It has been edited for emotional and political impact.

Don't get me wrong here - the US military screwed up. They killed people that shouldn't have been killed. And while there were apparently weapons at the scene, there are times that they are identifying camera equipment as weapons.

Even if one can dismiss this as mis-identification (and I've experienced how perception bias can make a cameraman look like a gunman), what can't be dismissed is the final report. It does have the over-tones of white-washing. And, ignoring the loss of human life, that's the mistake the military has made in this case.

But like I noted - that gets overshadowed by Wikileaks' own actions. Instead of shedding light on the situation, they generate this additional cloud of anti-war propaganda that will distract from the very reasonable demand for accountability.

Re:What?

[_Sprocket_]

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 telephoto lens is interested in. The gunship isn't there to make war fair. It's there to find threats and take them out well before those threats can act on ground forces. So once they think there's a threat, they open up.

It's very likely this group had nothing to do with the hostilities that were going on around this time (though if that was a RPG, does a neighborhood watch really carry that kind of gear?). Most likely they were in the wrong place looking like a possible threat - partly due to their actions but mostly due to bad identification by the gunship crew.

The atrocity is what happened once the recon team arrived to inspect casualties. The radio chatter bears this out plainly, the team requested to take two child casualties to the nearest medical facility, which happened to be a military med unit. Their superiors REFUSED, instead, after a cursory debate, decided to send them to an Iraqi med facility further away. The expectation of killing two witnesses, kids, no less, via refusal of medical services to treat injuries inflicted by OUR servicemen, is painfully apparent. THIS is why this was covered up.

Wikileaks' treatment of the video pointed this out as well. I'm curious as to why this was done. I doubt it was with the intent to kill children (who tend to make bad witnesses). I'd expect that it was either a military issue (endangering or tying up emergency medical resources) or a turf war over jurisdiction. I'd be skeptical that command thought the best care was available at a local civilian facility.

Re:What?

[hackus]

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?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

There are major differences and they are the reason why this is not going to happen.

• Germany and Japan were the aggressors and their citizenry knew and accepted it. Subsequently their defeat came to be seen by most of their populace as in some ways justified. This is certainly not the case with the current wars, particularly Iraq which was started based on blatant lies, and with Muslims (Arabs in particular) who have a very long history of being victims of various Western aggressors, culminating in establishment of the state Israel without any consent of the locals and with massive US backing. Add to it constant US meddling in affairs of all nations in the region, complete with CIA backed coups etc.
• All of the major participants in WWII were on similar technological, industrial and societal level. This resulted in the aid offered by the US to be of acceptable kind to their populace. Also the Marshall plan was accomplished mostly by hiring locals in direct contrast to the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan where most of the "aid" is making its way into pockets of pan-national corporations who bring in foreign workers/mercenaries and what not to accomplish the woefully mismanaged, corrupt and totally ineffective "reconstruction" (the amount of clean water and electricity available to an average citizen actually deteriorated in Iraq as compared with the Saddam regime). The only projects that are a "success" in Iraq are those directly serving the US military and other Imperial institutions in establishment of permanent presence (such as permanent bases for the 50,000 permanent occupation troops and the massive multi-thousand-people "embassies" in fortified zones). This is of course not lost on the locals.
• There is a long history of religious hatred between the locals and the supposed "liberators".
• Due to all the copious lies and duplicity of the supposed "liberators" there is serious doubt amongst the locals as to the true intent of the invasions.
• The various religious wackos who fulfill the role of "insurgents" come from a background culturally far closer to the locals than the invaders, they speak the local languages, respect local customs etc.
• Many other similar reasons.

So no, the locals are not going to simply roll over and play dead for the US mercenaries and the US "interests" will find continuous, low grade resistance into an indefinite future, thus making the project of turning the locals into obedient pets far less profitable then originally envisioned. This is however not a major concern as the war was already wildly more profitable then even the greediest executives ever imagined in 2001 with original estimates merely of a few billion dollars ballooning into trillions (with much more to come).

Re:What?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

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

Re:What?

[Kvasio]

Having a car is not equal to buying a car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_US_Special#Overview (challenge 5 - selling a car).

Especially is not equal to buying a new car. And $200 you could buy you a working one.
In Europe driving a car would be costly, but with low prices on gasoline in US this is not a real factor.

Re:What?

[drinkypoo]

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.

US Government

[sonicmerlin]

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:US Government

[davester666]

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

[the eric conspiracy]

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

Re:US Government

[hitmark]

But it seems the libertarians think it should be so.

Free to leave

[nurb432]

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

Re:Free to leave

[Frosty Piss]

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, and geeks are well know to covet their porn. Who is to say if things didn't get away from Assange?

Oh, and Hans Reiser didn't murder his wife.

two reliable intelligence sources?

[pedantic bore]

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:two reliable intelligence sources?

[kestasjk]

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..

innocent until proven guilty

[mtrachtenberg]

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:innocent until proven guilty

[Duradin]

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

Re:innocent until proven guilty

[hitmark]

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

[westlake]

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

Different power levels

[mangu]

Don't trust the government? Smart. Don't trust some guy with a website? Troll.

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:Different power levels

[couchslug]

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:Hacking means responsibility

[David Gerard]

"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.

Re:Hacking means responsibility

[Runaway1956]

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. 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. Concentrate on Manning, and any other little freaks like him.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything

[Dunbal]

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

[roman_mir]

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:It's time for us to act.

[wampus]

That's been tried. Turned out to be a great place to get kiddypr0n by all accounts.

Institutions Like Wikileaks Exist

[Greyfox]

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.

Hard to refute video evidence???

[voss]

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

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/ even the website doesnt claim the kid was killed

Re:Hard to refute video evidence???

[Phroggy]

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
Full transcript

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.

Please know your subject

[sgt_doom]

While I don't agree with Julian on everything (as in his opinion on 9/11), I certainly recognize that he exists among the group of the top 10 or 20 hackers in existence --- in other words, I've been (and others in the real hax community) familiar with his background for years. Assange is the real deal, as real /.ers are aware.

No Libertarians don't think that.

[elucido]

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 Republican but what they all have in common is how they view us. They view you and I as either "consumers" or "taxpayers" and neither view us as individuals.

A true libertarian values individual liberty above all other principles, because only individual liberty allows for happiness. The other principles allow for security in the form of a prison without walls. You don't have to make any difficult decisions becomes you don't have to make any decisions at all because you are too stupid. Not making decisions at all combined with technology leads to robotization.

Re:No Libertarians don't think that.

[hitmark]

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 sense of social responsibility?

Re:Hacking means responsibility

[drinkypoo]

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 have any other way? The man is a hero.

we're in a global economic depression.

[tomhudson]

The original poster said 1 in 4 kids was on food stamps. Some lazy retard asked for proof. I provided it. However, let's take up what you now claim/

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 longer are part of that sector of the economy. Job losses continue. People who do find jobs are taking home less money - often a LOT less. Long-term unemployment is UP, not down.

House repossessions are going to more than double - the average wait time between stopping payments and getting foreclosed on is a year and a half.

Look at this joke of a "the recession is almost over" from april

"I think people are coming to the conclusion the worst is pretty close to over in the housing market," said Zandi.

Since then, the housing market tanked.

Or:

And auto sales are also improving, with almost all automakers posting double-digit percentage gains in March.

Now look what happened last month:

DETROIT -- Americans nervous about the drumbeat of bad economic news stayed away from auto showrooms. Automakers nervous about their bottom lines didn't offer deals to lure them in.

As a result, it was the worst August for U.S. auto sales since 1983, when the country was at the end of a double-dip recession. General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Ford all reported declines from the month before and from a year earlier.

The recession is a recession in name only. It's a depression, and we're nowhere near the bottom.