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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[_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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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

[the eric conspiracy]

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

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.

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

[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: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.

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.