WikiLeaks Begins Release of 2.5m Syrian Emails

judgecorp writes "WikiLeaks has started publishing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures and other bodies. The material will embarrass Syria, as well as other governments according to Julian Assange (still hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London). As well as revealing the behaviour of the Syrian regime, the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies, Assange has said."

Comments

And this is why

[Phrogman]

We need Wikileaks. Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting on the Bank of America one... did people forget about that already?

Re:And this is why

[plover]

Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

And bananas will likely prove to taste very much like bananas, and books will likely prove to contain words.

I think you were trying to make a point, but it really got lost in your posting.

Re:And this is why

[gambino21]

The Bank of America data (along with some other interesting stuff) was deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people even wonder anymore? The first thing any right thinking person should be doing is removing their business from BofA. Right after that they should be renoucing both the Democrat and Republican political parties.

Re:And this is why

[SuricouRaven]

Future events like these will affect you in the future, my friend.

Re:And this is why

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The only problem is that is Assange is throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez, who kill their journalist opponents or, if they're lucky, just get railroaded into jail. Chavez just completed the dictator trifecta -- hassled opponents and journalists, silencing them. Got the "emergency" power to pass law by decree (the "dictator" part of "dictatorship"), and, just recently, outlawed sales of guns and ammunition.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a good chance it's going to turn out to be too much, too soon. There's a reason that "truth and reconciliation" type things are handled gently, and only after the gunplay has died down. See South Africa, East Germany, etc. Now is not the time, and this is not the method. A rash of revenge killings isn't going to help Syria move forward as a country.

Re:And this is why

[LordMund]

I think you made the same mistake as Phrogman...Oh wait a minute. I see what you did there!

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

We need Wikileaks. Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

...unless it's information about the USA, in which case Julian Assange is a filthy traitor who should be hunted down and executed.

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

Chavez, who kill their journalist opponents or, if they're lucky, just get railroaded into jail. Chavez just completed the dictator trifecta -- hassled opponents and journalists, silencing them.

I frequently hear people badmouthing Chavez on slashdot, but when I ask for citations they come up with nothing or with some op-ed from a fox news anchorperson. Please be the exception to the rule or I will have to spend the rest of my life in with the obviously wrongheaded belief that he is actually an ok guy as leaders go and is only demonized in the US media because he refused to toe the line and be ousted by the cia for privatising big industry.

tl:dr
Citation needed

Re:And this is why

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There's a good chance it's going to turn out to be too much, too soon. There's a reason that "truth and reconciliation" type things are handled gently, and only after the gunplay has died down. See South Africa, East Germany, etc. Now is not the time, and this is not the method. A rash of revenge killings isn't going to help Syria move forward as a country.

The reason that "truth and reconciliation" is 'handled gently' is that it tends to occur in places where the necessary political will isn't available to manage actual justice. It's a feel-good way of letting your criminals off the hook because you are too weak, or too compromised by them, or too sympathetic toward them, to do anything else.

An actual justice system is, of course, preferable; but revenge killings are sometimes the only sort of judgement to which one's malefactors can ever be expected to be exposed and if there is anything uglier than vengeance, it is impunity...

Re:And this is why

[Eggbloke]

Wow, did they not have backups?

Re:And this is why

[Sponge Bath]

No matter where you go, there you are.

Re:And this is why

[GameboyRMH]

I still don't know how that fucker sleeps at night.

Re:And this is why

[daem0n1x]

Oh, you Americans! You have supported all kinds of terrible dictators in Latin America. It takes a lot of nerve to be calling Chavez a dictator!

The only reason you hate him is because he was one of the first Latin American leaders that showed you the finger and you couldn't eliminate! A few others have followed the example, which revolves your guts. Latin America is no longer your backyard, get used to it. If you want oil, pay for it big time, instead of bribing a few officers, like usual.

If Venezuelans don't want Chavez in power, it's not like they don't have options. Just vote for someone else. It's called democracy, you Americans hypocritically blabber about it ad nauseam. But guess what, he greatly reduced poverty, gave education and healthcare to those who never had anything, he's trying to reduce violence, etc. The majority of Venezuelans are very poor and are living a lot better since he's in power. Maybe they simply... well... like him!

Re:And this is why

[tmosley]

Twelve seconds in google produced these: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12006421
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-18/world/venezuela.radio_1_venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-venezuelan-law-press-freedom?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/02/venezuela_prohibits_sales_of_guns_ammunition/

Of those twelve seconds, I spent three picking out sources from the "liberal media". Just for you.

Re:And this is why

[Phrogman]

Sure, I should have said more evidently. I thought I was being obvious, but obviously I was not :P

Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing. Releasing the emails from the Syrian government might prove to be very important and have a useful bearing on what is and has been going on there. Without some organization like WL we wouldn't see this stuff at all as members of the public. Moreover, the legion of journalists that will descend on this stuff wouldn't have the ability to root through it and summarize the key information they come across, and then disseminate to us in a more readable format.

Assange may be an egotistical ass, but the legion of the same posters above who are willing to see him tried and convicted of rape, without charges, without a court deliberation after a trial etc is getting rather annoying to me at least. If he's guilty then let him be charged and tried etc. Until then, he's innocent, just as anyone else who hasn't been charged is innocent. Stating otherwise is just ad hominem attacks that serve no purpose other than to show the poster's personal bias/agenda. What he is doing is a remarkable job of staying in the news, and thus advertising Wikileaks though. He's a figurehead that garners a lot of attention - or an attention whore in other words, and he's doing that very effectively. I have a feeling his greatest crime in the eyes of most US posters though is that he dared to do something that might reflect badly on the US, and "my country tis of thee" etc, they don't want to see a foreigner criticize the US, I guess only US citizens can do that without rancor it seems.

I think the world needs to do something about the situation in Syria. This information might give us a chance to be better informed on what has happened there and what is happening there, how can that be a bad thing in the long run? Unless of course it turns out that US Government agencies and US Corporations are implicated in the massacre of civilians there - then those same people I mentioned above will only have more ammunition for their arguments as to why Assange should be tried, convicted of treason (against a country he is not a citizen of) and then executed.

Re:And this is why

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

if there is anything uglier than vengeance, it is impunity...
No, because eventually all persons die, whereas the cycle of vengeance can continue unabated, ergo impunity is not uglier than vengeance.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of people are exactly the reason why we can't have nice things. Such audacious acts of vandalism to gain short-lived media attention on oneself infuriate my inner core.

Re:And this is why

[butalearner]

Probably lying upon piles and piles of money.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange kept promising and promising this information and only held out for the highest bidder, which never bit. The fact it was never released is a testiment to Assange's greed. Word has it from the media outlets, Assange was even allowing BoA to bid on it along side the media outlets.

I have no idea why people forget that Assange's whole business model (yes, Wikileaks was/is a business) is to extort money for information to the highest bidder. This combined with the fact he's a sociopath means you've identified an idiot everytime someone defends him.

Re:And this is why

[tnk1]

The fact that the US Government has supported dictators in the past doesn't change the fact that Chavez is one. In fact, you'd think we'd know a dictator when we see one, given our vast experience.

Also, the fact that the people like him doesn't mean he isn't a dictator. You don't usually get to be a founding dictator in a country by being unpopular. In fact, the real problem with him is not that he's popular or unpopular, but that he's squelching opposition and changing the laws to favor himself. That means that as time goes on, even if the people got sick of him, he's making it harder and harder to set up an effective, legal opposition to his policies or even simply his tenure in office. Eventually, that democratic change that you think is all that is needed will become no more than theoretical.

Re:And this is why

[Evtim]

He sleeps very well, I guess. On a pillow made of money...

Disclaimer: I have no idea what actually transpired but such "unfortunate events" exactly in the right time always make my skin crawl....I smell a rat

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

If Venezuelans don't want Chavez in power, it's not like they don't have options. Just vote for someone else.

We don't have any options anymore except to wait for the motherfucker to die and God help us whoever we get that replaces him. Vote? You're joking, right?

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

An actual justice system is, of course, preferable; but revenge killings are sometimes the only sort of judgement to which one's malefactors can ever be expected to be exposed and if there is anything uglier than vengeance, it is impunity...

Wow. It's almost like a French politician from the interwar period somehow managed to find a computer and send posts to the future.

Re:And this is why

[butalearner]

Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing.

I may be misremembering, but I was under the impression that the people here generally support the actions of Wikileaks, even if they're not the biggest fans of Assange himself. On most other US news sites it's exactly how you say.

Re:And this is why

[daem0n1x]

Bullshit. They can vote for someone else or even call for a mid-term referendum. Chavez has survived one of these before, I wonder why the opposition doesn't pull that one again? Maybe because they know they'll lose?

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

Maybe you should have spent a few more seconds reading my post, specifically the part quoted from its parent.

You articles show that he asked for emergency powers after a disaster, that he implemented gun control laws and that he closed some private media corporations (since when is CNN liberal?!). The first two are opinions about possible future dictatoryness. Note the words 'critics warn' and 'said[...]a U.S. government office'. This is not evidence, it is opinion. The last one is the only one that even relates to my question. It is also contextless and only the headline and an opinion by the journalist actually offer any 'evidence' that it is repression and not simply normal governance. Chavez accuses them of supporting the coup against him, if true this gives him 'some' justification for closing them, especially as the junta were some pretty dodgy people. But I don't want to get too bogged down in the details of that event, as it is still only peripheral to my question. The parent of my post claimed that he was killing journalists and/or sending them to prison. This is a VERY serious allegation and I don't think I am out of line to ask for substantiation. Do you have any links for that?

tl:dr Citation still needed for killing/imprisoning journalists

PS. Seriously? Gun control = dictatorship? I am sorry but I grew up in New Zealand where we have had very strong gun control laws for a long time, that shit is not going to fly with me.

Re:And this is why

[tnk1]

Forgiveness isn't weakness. Revenge is due to the weakness of having to obtain an emotional vindication against someone else who may have wronged you or your family, but without any way of restoring the dead to life or removing the pain of torture, rape, etc. All that is required for civilization to maintain peace and security is to ensure that those who may have committed those crimes are unable to do so in the future. It doesn't matter if they are living in a comfortable exile except for those who feel the need for revenge.

Insofar as it may also be necessary to prevent future crimes, consider that if a dictator thinks he can surrender without losing his head, he will be more likely to bow to pressure before it becomes violent. This saves a lot more innocent lives in the long run. It may not satisfy our sense of blind justice, but it does satisfy our desire for peace in the future.

To be very clear, it is the people who allow dictators to come to power and it is their acceptance, no matter how grudging, that allows it to continue. If they choose not to act in defense of their liberties now, they choose to have to deal with a dictator and his policies which they have empowered. And it is unlikely that anyone in Syria was not well aware of who and what their government was. The only question is how they went about rationalizing it's acceptance.

Re:And this is why

[MikeBabcock]

A police officer recently explained to me "we can only be where we are" as I complained that they had speed traps in thoroughfares with no residential instead of near schools where safety would matter.

Then he wrote me the ticket ;-)

Re:And this is why

[crazyjj]

ow that fucker sleeps at night

On the pile of cash the CIA paid him as a plant and agent provocateur.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

And they say that the Titanic was sunk by someone named Iceberg! Clearly the world zionist conspiracy is afoot!

Re:And this is why

[medv4380]

Convenient. So all they have to do is make claim X, and when it comes time to reviling it all they have to do is claim Disgruntled employee Y deleted the data to claim X. If they had just released it rather than sit on it and try to build hype then they wouldn't have lost it because all the drones who mindlessly copy their data for them.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

If he's guilty then let him be charged and tried etc

Glad to see we're in agreement on this one. Step one, in accordance with Swedish law, he needs to stop running and hand himself over for extradition to the country so that he can be charged on Swedish soil.

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

I read a bit further on the emergency powers issue. One one hand Chavez voluntarily reduced the term of his emergency powers from 18 months to 6, to disprove the criticism that he is a dictator, on the other hand he did quickly sign a whole bunch of laws on the last days of those powers. The news media didn't see fit to furnish me with details of those laws though, so it is difficult to judge the level of oppressiveness. There is a reason I said 'as leaders go', I don't think he is a saint or anything, I personally think he has been in power far too long and power corrupts. The Venezuelan people seriously need to vote for someone else in the next election. I was just saying that the demonizing 'oppressive fascist dictator' FUD is more garbage propaganda from right wing US news organisation and anyone who takes it seriously should seriously consider critical thinking, education and/or being silent. I think he was a good leader and did a lot of good for his country and its people, but he has passed his use-by date and needs to go now.

Re:And this is why

[FingerDemon]

I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I like when gov't wrong doing that has been covered up is revealed. But on the other, Assange has the view that countries should always say the same things in public as in private (He said so in 60 minutes inteview). I think this is just not a standard that any nation can live up to. Most decent people don't live that way and neither would I expect well run nations to do so. Even allies will make public statements while having more private views and back channel communications. I really don't see that as wrong. It is only if it is used to propagate hurtful lies or hide important truths that make it wrong.
As for his criminal accusations, I don't know what to think. I am skeptical of the accusations and the way they were made. But I am equally skeptical of the defense of him I have heard. I don't know what the truth is. I can only hope if he committed a crime, he gets a fair trial. And if he didn't, that all accusations and allegations would be dropped.
If the U.S. is involved in the massacre of civilians in Syria, I would want to know about it. And I would want those responsible to answer for it. However, I do think that scenario unlikely in the case of Syria, from what I have read.

Re:And this is why

[Nadaka]

How exactly is Assange "throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez"? I have literally seen no indication he is, and releasing information damaging to Syria is explicitly taking a stand against something that Putin is supporting.

Re:And this is why

[Nadaka]

There was evidence of vote tampering and fraud in that election.

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.

In fact, you'd think we'd know a dictator when we see one, given our vast experience.

You would hope so, but to be honest I don't have a lot of faith in your judgement. Sorry.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if word has it, it must be so.

Word has it you take pictures of naked children and then threaten to put them on the Internet unless their parents pay up.

This combined with the "fact" you're a sociopath means you've identified an idiot every time someone listens to you.

Re:And this is why

[daem0n1x]

Care to cite any evidence? As far as I know, elections in Venezuela are closely watched by thousands of UN observers, and they never declared any significant fraud since Chavez is in power. Check this.

Which is more than you can say about Baby Bush's first election...

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

cheers!

Re:And this is why

[TFAFalcon]

Isn't 'getting railroaded into jail' exactly what is happening to Assange? He released some information that the US wanted to keep secret (acting like a journalist, except not being completely muzzled by the owners of his newspaper/TV station), so there were immediate demands that he be either locked up or just killed, even from members of the government.

Re:And this is why

[daem0n1x]

It's so cool that anyone can come here as an Anonymous Coward and just outright lie their ass off without any having to present any evidence or suffering any consequences.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is only if it is used to propagate hurtful lies or hide important truths that make it wrong."

Tricky bit is how to sort those from the rest...

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

By what side tho? ;)

Re:And this is why

[SvnLyrBrto]

Look at it from HIS point of view though.

If he did not rape those women, then he's got a corrupt government and police force on a witch hunt, trying to frame him far a crime he didn't commit. Presumably, this is being done by Sweden at the behest of the US government, which wants his head served up on a platter. Why anyone surrender himself to that situation. It's not like he'd get anything resembling a fair trial, in Sweden, or here after the inevitable rendition.Â

If he DID rape those women, then he really is a scumbag of scumbags, every bit as bad... worse... as the republicans here make him out to be. Why would you expect that a lowlife like that would have even a sliver of honor? And every second he dodges extradition is another second he dodges justice and if free to rape again.Â

Innocent *or* guilty, his circumstances don't exactly favor surrender.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect it is based on the lack of releases from that "side", tho the Syrian one may balance the scales a bit.

Still, it may well be that there is nothing to release. Either because there is no foul play (unlikely) or no documentation of such (i suspect at least Putin, given his background in the KGB, knows how to make sure he can't be officially purged).

Re:And this is why

[Phrogman]

Well I can't argue that myself. However, he seems to think that the whole purpose of them wanting him to go to Sweden is so that he can then be extradited directly to the US, and he apparently feels that the US Gov't is somewhat irritated with him for some reason.
Since the Swedes have allowed the US to use extraordinary rendition against at least one individual in Sweden in the past, and since they have already questioned him, determined that there was no case, and given him permission to leave, I don't think his suspicions are entirely unreasonable. I don't pretend to know all the details, understand Swedish law or understand the finer nuances of how Swedish law defines sexual misconducts (its much more defined there than it would be in Canada (where I am from) or the US (where most of you are). I can understand someone deciding that having already been examined, and given permission to leave because no charges were going to be laid after answering all the questions put to him, he might decide he doesn't see why he should have to go through that whole process again.
Then we have the various questions about why the 2 women raised the whole issue in the first place and their (to me at least) somewhat suspicious behavior, plus the fact that one of them has had some connection to the CIA in the past (if that is true). Assange has to be fairly paranoid and I am sure this all feeds that - whether or not there is any justification to his fears.
I am not defending him mind you, just saying I can understand why he doesn't want to go to Sweden.

Personally, I am now of the mind that the US does want him, but mostly so they can use him in the trial of Bradley Manning. Assange has had so much publicity that if the US does extradite him they will have to watch what they do with him under the world's eyes (although that often doesn't seem to matter to the US Gov't I admit). Manning on the other hand is clearly someone they want to try and punish. Its two ends of the same problem. If the US shows they will locate, try and punish harshly anyone who reveals stuff to Wikileaks, then they achieve the same goal: preventing something similar from happening in the future.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Daniel probably sleeps quite well at night. In contrast to Assange he is taking the protection of source seriously. It is Assange who look a bit pale around the nose lately.

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

It says he was imprisoned on charges that include firearms charges and property damage, so no not really. You would have been better off going for this article which is about journalists being charged for something they actually printed. The actual tabloid article they were arrested for showed pictures of female members of the judiciary as prostitutes (using their faces on a stock photo). If anyone can find the text of this article I would be interested. So I have found your citation for you, proving that I am in fact impartial and genuinely want to be informed. I disagree with the charges and believe that journalists should be able to say what they want, I think the Chavez administration has overstepped its authority in this case. Now should I spend hours on the internet searching for documents proving that Chavez also kills journalists or do you want to admit you are full of shit?

Oh wait, I have found some totally unsubstantiated allegations of extra-judicial killing of journalists in Venezuela too. Some journalists were killed but no one knows exactly who killed them and speculate that it may have been politically motivated. It is not proof but it is still a cause for concern.

So now I am actually concerned about state repression of the media in Venezuela. Thanks to... oh wait. No thanks to some people who couldn't find a reliable source for their own backside. I hope you are embarrassed. I was asking a reasonable question, when I state something I find citations for it on request. I resent being called an asshole for not swallowing your opinion whole without thinking for myself. I also resent having my internet search skills insulted by someone who fails basic reading comprehension. Don't make me search for your citations next time, that is your job.

Re:And this is why

[afeeney]

Slate.com is generally considered quite liberal and here recounts thuggish repressions of student protests of his referendum .

Here, there's an AP story on Chavez recalling a governor for speaking against his policies.

Reporters Without Borders, also considered a liberal organization, reports several instances of censorship, including blocking entire topics from discussion. It lists Venezuela as 117 out of 179 in overall press freedom.

For me, Chavez is one of the less harmful dictators, but a populist dictator remains a dictator, and anybody who blocks freedom of speech and requires media to carry his opinions is a dictator.

Re:And this is why

[Nadaka]

I seem to recall a suggestion that releasing evidence of government malfeasance in Russia isn't as effective as it is in the west because everyone assumes the government is a bit shady, but they think it is a bit shady in their interests.

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

Apparently by the Chavez side. According to statistical analysis.

Re:And this is why

[TheoMurpse]

I think you're trying to make some vaguely anti-Semitic remark, but "berg" is a generic German surname suffix. It is not even close to being a strictly Jewish surname suffix.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the fact that he just disarmed his entire civilian population has something to do with why the people "like" him so much. It's easy to say that you like the government when the are threatening you with a gun.

Re:And this is why

[mrex]

The only problem is that is Assange is throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez

Errr, how is he doing that?

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

I am genuinely looking for information, but I know about protests and dodgy looking election results. I wanted information on the killing and imprisonment of journalists. Like I said above, read the part I quoted. Also read above where I found the links I was asking for myself, after getting tired of rude/ignorant people telling me I should not think for myself. With respect to your articles, thanks for the links but all of those things happen in the US as well(47th in press freedom) and are therefore poor examples. Student protests are brutalised, people are kicked out of both the dems and the reps(? whats the short form) for publicly going against party policy. Censorship is a bit different in the US, far more subtle and mostly achieved by money rather than violence (which is better, but still not good). Chavez is a politician. He is not better or worse than bush or blair or merkel, he may be cruder, poorer and less sophisticated but I nothing but contempt for all of them. I also have nothing but contempt for people that post wild allegations without offering supporting documentation.

Re:And this is why

[oxdas]

He is not being accused of rape as it is popularly defined in the U.S. He is being accused of not using a condom after he told two women he would. Both women willingly had sex with him (one women woke up during the night to Assange having sex with her without a condom). Not using a condom when you are asked to is a crime in Sweden. The women only wanted to force Assange to get an STD test (they were both Assange supporters). I don't like the guy, but something is not right here.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

Look at it from HIS point of view though

I don't think there's any question *why* he's hiding. I think his logic train is running down a track that ends right after the next tunnel, but there's no question that the train is there. But we shouldn't be cheering him on for doing so. We need to support the rule of law.

Re:And this is why

[fustakrakich]

Much more informative will be the response. Oh, and I hope we're getting mail from both sides. Otherwise it's just the same ol' same ol'

Re:And this is why

[rossdee]

"Information like this will likely prove to be very informative."

Everyome seems to be loling at the obviousness of that statement, however I'll take it as how it was meant.
ie the amount of actual information in some of my email accounts would be zero as it is all spam.

While there are likely to be more interesting stuff in the Syrian gov emails, of course it would not be informative to most of us since it is very likely to be in Arabic.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

(since when is CNN liberal?!)

Since forever. Fox is batshit-crazy conservative, CNN is moderately liberal, NPR is batshit-crazy liberal. BBC (at least the Americas edition) seems to mostly report facts, so I use that as a barometer to measure the other three, which generally display more opinion than fact.

Re:And this is why

[sjames]

Even in your post, the smear campaign's effect can be seen. The crime he is accused of in Sweden isn't what MOST countries would call rape. A better translation would be "general douchbaggery with sex involved".

IF proven true, it would hardly make him a paragon of virtue, but it wouldn't even be considered to rise to the level of a crime in most countries.

Re:And this is why

[fredprado]

Yes, we should. But when the governments do not follow the law and behave as Authoritarian regimens, as it happens more often each day, we end having to defend ourselves in the best way we can, even if it is by breaking the law. The accusations against Assange are ridiculous and obviously manufactured and blown out of proportion for political reasons. He has no real choice but to run. Anybody else with half a brain would do the same.

Re:And this is why

[sjames]

Perhaps every country has a Florida and a Diebold?

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

I think your debate is skewed to the right. You didn't leave room on your spectrum for organisations like WSW. They are way left of NPR. I am also including extremists, there are those that are much more extreme than WSW. There are also plenty of right wingers that are far to the right of fox. My point is that from another perspective CNN are fairly right wing and NPR is centrist or slighly left. Fox is still batshit-crazy conservative though. I don't even claim that conservatives are wrong, fox isn't wrong because they are too far right, they are wrong because they are incoherent and idiotic.

Re:And this is why

[sjames]

That sounds a lot like the sort of shenanigans we have seen from the last few U.S. presidents.

Re:And this is why

[daem0n1x]

Firearm possession is illegal in my country, dumb fuck. And in the rest of Europe, by the way. I suppose we live under terrible dictatorships, according to fanatic fucks like you.

The levels of gun related violence in Venezuela are appalling. What the fuck should the government do? Sit on their asses? Then they'd be criticised for that, too. Stop judging other countries according to your own warped values. The crazy gun ownership laws in the US are the exception among civilised countries. Not the rule. There are far more important things to think about that owning guns. I guess the Venezuelans value more to have a job and food on their table that owning a revolver. Crazy people.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

...you couldn't eliminate!

Oh please! He'd be gone yesterday if he served no useful purpose, in this case as fodder to distract mass media away from such things as our pillaged pensions, withholding/destruction of evidence, civil liberties thrown out the window... you know... little things that have us all taking it in the ass

Re:And this is why

[del_diablo]

Or we should support "good behavior". If he is indeed a witness, why can't the Swedish goverment agree with using Skype for long distance communcation for him merely being a witness?

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

The really sad thing here is, this post isn't a troll and is all factually accurate. Wikileaks is a business. They made money selling their leaks to media and other bidders.

Repeating a rumor as to a specific transaction does not undermine the rest of the post. The troll moderation and troll comment below wonderfully shows just how stupid and ignorant of operational details the population in general really are.

Its really sad just how stupid really really are...especially on slashdot. Its like you have to prove you're fucking retarded and know absolutely nothing about the subject matter before they allow you moderate these days. Hell, even worse, if you do know what the fuck you're talking about, its a 90% chance the stupidity of the masses will ensure you are troll moderated while the morons pat themselves on the back for encouraging the stupidity which is group-think of slashdot.

Damn slashdot has fallen.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

Since the Swedes have allowed the US to use extraordinary rendition against at least one individual in Sweden in the past

So have the British, and have even led joint extraordinary rendition efforts. The British are far more of a US lapdog than Sweden. Even Google recognizes this - start typing anything about "Britain" and "lapdog" and you get suggested searches about Britain being America's lapdog.

Beyond that, this is being done through the European Arrest Warrant system. To reextradite Assange would require both Swedish *and* British consent, in contrast to just British consent as it stands now. Unless you think one of the most high profile accused persons on Earth right now is just going to disappear.

I can understand someone deciding that having already been examined, and given permission to leave because no charges were going to be laid after answering all the questions put to him, he might decide he doesn't see why he should have to go through that whole process again.

First off, people suspected of crimes don't get to pick and choose what cooperation they want to have with the police without repercussions. Multiple questionings are not only not unusual, but they're pretty much standard. And there's nothing at all unusual about one investigator deciding that there's not enough evidence to push charges at a particular moment in time and a different investigator deciding, at that some different moment in time, that there is. The reports are that he had promised to come back, and even if he hadn't, Sweden had every reason in the world to suspect that he planned to come back because he had just applied for permanent residency there. To reiterate, he had applied for permanent residency somewhere, but as soon as there were criminal accusations against him, he hightailed it out of town to avoid them.

Then we have the various questions about why the 2 women raised the whole issue in the first place and their (to me at least) somewhat suspicious behavior

Ah, yes, the obligatory victim smearing. Please elaborate after reading the actual accusations,

plus the fact that one of them has had some connection to the CIA in the past (if that is true).

This one is the most absurd of them all. The source is a Counterpunch article, which begins with casting Assange as Neo, hero of The Matrix, that... now try to follow this...

1) She published anti-Castro articles...
2) In a magazine...
3) Run by a group in Sweden...
4) Which according to some professor in Oslo...
5) Is funded by another group in Sweden...
6) Which is connected with a Cuban organization...
7) Which is led by a guy...
8) Who a Wordpress blog post says is a CIA agent.

And then this:

1) She has "interacted"...
2) (No source)...
3) With a cuban feminist organization...
4) ... of women, repeatedly praised and defended by Amnesty International, who protest the jailing of their husbands by going to church dressed in white...
5a) Because it "gets money" from the US government...
5b) (No source)...
6b) And because someone who bombed a plane...
7) Walked next to Gloria Estefan when she supported the group in Miami.

I wish I was kidding - check out the article yourself, that's where this tripe started.

I am not defending him mind you,

Yes you are. That's precisely what you're doing, without hardly even looking into the situation. Take a look at your post. You even accused someone who is charging someone with raping them of being a CIA plant witho

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, even according to the alleged victims, they were engaged in consentual sex with Assange. He is being charged under some crazy swedish law that defines whatever it was he did (something with the condom breaking, if I recall) as rape.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

What an idiot. "Word has it" comes from media outlets who closely worked with Assange. Given I can only parrot what the media outlets have repeatedly stated, saying it as such is a completely accurate statement.

The only thing we learned from your post is that you're both a troll and completely fucking ignorant of the subject matter. Which isn't really surprising given slashdot has become home of the retarded troll who rarely knows anything about anything and yet is generally wildly moderated up for sharing the same ignorance as the other retarded trolls. Its a sad day when the "troll" is presentative of the majority - but it doesn't make you right. It just means you're dumb and ignorant like the majority here.

Fuck, the link to the video in question has been provided endless fucking times here. Its a like to a YouTube video. Except rather than being intelligent and understanding or even bothering to watch, the retards, like you, censor and hide the truth. Factually speaking, Assange is a sociopath. Factually speaking, he made his money by selling to the highest bidder. Factually speaking, the reason the banking information wasn't released yet is because Assange was never happy with the offers made for the information. Factually speaking, the same media outlets who were bidding on it, said third parties had been invited to the bidding, which made them want to back out and bid no more.

So, what we know so far is that you're a fucking idiot. And since the topic of your post is what you accuse others of, its likely in the forefront of your mind. So statistically speaking, chances are far higher you're a sociopathic pedophile moreso than I. Again, this all wonderfully shows just how stupid - and factually ignorant - the majority is on slashdot these days.

Re:And this is why

[Forty Two Tenfold]

this is just not a standard that any nation can live up to

Yes they can. They just don't want to, because it's inconvenient to be limited in actions by the requirement of truthfulness. In the meantime the governments tell the people that they don't have to worry if they have nothing to hide. Hypocrisy much?

If the U.S. is involved in the massacre of civilians in Syria

Yes, they are, as are the Russkies.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you really know much about Chavez, and X isn't wrong because you did X, is not a justification for anything.

Re:And this is why

[pastafazou]

citation 1
citation 2
citation 3
citation 4
citation 5
citation 6
citation 7
citation 8
citation 9
citation 10
Okay, there's 10 citations for you. Begin your spin, denouncements, deflections, justifications, and outright lies.....

Re:And this is why

[pastafazou]

No, you idiot! Venezuela used to be a democratic country. Chavez is making himself a permanent leader. He's shutting down any news organizations that are critical of him. His opponents are being silenced, bullied, jailed, or worse. Venezuelans aren't doing better because he's doing a good job. Only some of them are doing better because he's seized billions of dollars in assets and money and redistributed them to his loyal supporters. He's following the same path as hundreds of other dictators before him. Why do people refuse to see this?

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how quickly and easily he got those powers in the first place--given to him by a legislature packed with pro-Chavez supporters--he loses nothing by reducing their term from 18 months to 6 months, since he can almost certainly get the legislature to re-authorize them whenever he wants.

Re:And this is why

[pastafazou]

how about this? From the conclusion:
"The alternate hypothesis that there was fraud is consistent with our results, which is why we are unable to reject it." I read the summary of the link you provided. It seems that they were merely observing the implementation of the electronic voting system to ensure it was fair, as opposed to looking for voter suppression, intimidation, multiple voting, etc. All your document says is the electronic system implemented didn't present an inherent bias when the voter showed up to vote.

Re:And this is why

[Feyshtey]

By your rationale it is understandable for every innocent person accused of any crime to refuse being taken into custody and tried because they might be falsely found guilty. And of course, only the innocent people would make this refusal...

Re:And this is why

[tmosley]

You asked for specific citations for those specific issues (hassling journalists, "emergency" dictatorial powers, and the oulaw of gun ownership). You were given those citations, then you moved the goalposts. The other crap you are talking about is spread between Putin and Chavez.

Funny how you talk about bias, but you are about as pro-Chavez biased as I have ever seen in my life. I personally don't give a fuck either way, nor do I own a TV, or read from places like CNN except for getting stories for situations like this.

Re:And this is why

[tmosley]

You resent not being given things. No wonder you love Chavez so much.

Re:And this is why

[guises]

(since when is CNN liberal?!)

Obviously the BBC isn't liberal either (I don't know anything about Salon), but to a Fox News aficionado anything that isn't Murdoch owned is "the liberal media." The GP wasn't claiming that those sources were genuinely liberal, he was just pointing out that misbehavior by Chavez isn't solely a fabrication of right-wing propaganda.

Re:And this is why

[thelexx]

"Firearm possession is illegal in my country, dumb fuck. And in the rest of Europe, by the way."

No, they aren't.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Protecting sources by deleting their submissions? Really?

I don't think that's what the people intended when they submitted stuff to Wikileaks.

Assange is taking the heat. Daniel is happy because he saved BoA and looks like a good guy to the establishment.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Even allies will make public statements while having more private views and back channel communications.

      So how about the US openly criticizing the Syrian regime but privately backing them? This would be in line with a public statements and private back-channel communications contradicting each other, and apparently you would like to know about these:

If the U.S. is involved in the massacre of civilians in Syria, I would want to know about it.

    Nice example for a contradiction.

    So you want transparence but when it arranges for you.

ps: I don't believe the US is involved

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA! He said himself that he did it and why.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

The Swedish legal system wants to charge him. Swedish law requires him to be on Swedish soil to be charged. What's confusing about this?

And furthermore, since when is a "skype chat" the same as a police interrogation, and since when do suspects get to dictate the terms of their interrogation?

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

They absolutely are not "ridiculous and obviously manufactured" unless you have some sort of psychic powers I'm unaware of. And *even if* a government is out to get someone, that's *still* not an excuse to be handing "get out of jail free" cards for rape.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

You are greatly distorting the accusations.

You know, half this debate would disappear from Slashdot if people would just take the time to read the actual accusations instead of parroting the echobox and Assange's lawyers.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

Julian, calm down, it's going to be all right.

Re:And this is why

[Troed]

My last name ends in 'berg' as well. It means 'mountain' in my native language. You'll find that to be quite common in northern Europe.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=berg

(On the other hand, I'm not sure what you were getting at at all)

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

(I'm Swedish)

No, his description was pretty much spot on. You however I've seen posting distortions in numerous threads on the subject.

Why?

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you have not understood the charges?

Here in Sweden there is a "sexual endangement" paragraph, which he is being charged under. Basically having sex without a condom is a crime if the girl report it afterwards, even if she consented or even invited to sex without a condom, he can be charged, but most are aquitted because the burden of evidence is on the girl. The paragraph is mainly used if the one party have an STD, then that part must prove that it was known to all parties involved before.

The paragraph does not exist in most other countries and any sex crime is simply referred as "rape" which is what we hear on CNN all the time. (CNN being the only US news channel must of us got access to) which is bad enough in itself. Normally this crime is not an arresting matter, and definitely not an extradition matter, which is why we believe there is something other kept under the rugs. Basically because Sweden is allowed to extradite anyone to the US we are pretty sure that is what all this is for, he will never see a Swedish courtroom, he will be tranferred in Arlanda going straight to the US.

Re:And this is why

[modecx]

Autocrats will often seek to retain their power once they have it. The Roman Dictator position was supposed to be held only for 6 months at a maximum, and while some dictators gave up the position when business was done, it didn't always work, did it? How many modern dictators were elected by the people, or supported by the people during a coup where they promise a new democracy, only to shit on these promises shortly thereafter? Enough that the people of Venezuela, and the people of the world have every justification to be concerned!

Also, I'm not from NZ but even I know that NZ laws are a very far cry from a complete ban like ol' Hugo recently passed (basically by edict, that's what makes one a dictator), and excepting the U.S. NZ is one of the world's most liberalized states when it comes to guns--especially shotguns and bolt action rifles. Firearms are registered, one must take a safety class and pass a test, and if I remember right you also have to have endorsements from two people to certify you're not a lunatic; semiautomatic center-fire rifles of 10 rounds and less are also legal under the default license unless they have evil features such as a telescoping buttstock (so scary). You also have no regulation of sound suppressors whatsoever, which is relatively unique in the world.

The funny thing is that Venezuela new gun law won't do a thing to stop the criminals who are murdering people anonymously, and with impunity... Murder was already illegal after all. However, the government knows exactly where every law abiding shop owner and sportsman lives due to registration; they won't hesitate to make an example of a few of them! Yeah, that's not so funny for the good people of Venezuela after all. There's sure to be a lesson coming down the pipeline in all of this, but I'm sure plenty of people like you will be there to backup the jackbooted thugs and justify the things they'll do.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

When your own buddies drive a rat into your body, you will say that, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka

"The Cheka is reported to have practiced torture. Depending on Cheka committees in various cities, the methods included:[2] being skinned alive, scalped, "crowned" with barbed wire, impaled, crucified, hanged, stoned to death, tied to planks and pushed slowly into furnaces or tanks of boiling water,[2] or rolled around naked in internally nail-studded barrels. Chekists reportedly poured water on naked prisoners in the winter-bound streets until they became living ice statues. Others reportedly beheaded their victims by twisting their necks until their heads could be torn off. The Chinese Cheka detachments stationed in Kiev reportedly would attach an iron tube to the torso of a bound victim and insert a rat in the tube closed off with wire netting, while the tube was held over a flame until the rat began gnawing through the victim's guts in an effort to escape.[2] Anton Denikin's investigation discovered corpses whose lungs, throats, and mouths had been packed with earth.[2][30][31]"

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

It says he was imprisoned on charges that include firearms charges and property damage, so no not really.

Trumped up charges being used to suppress criticism and detain critics indefinitely? Yeah, no government would ever do that.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF man. You really lack reading comprehension or you're letting some irrational anger cloud your judgment.

Which bits of of

" he has passed his use-by date and needs to go now."

and

", I don't think he is a saint or anything, I personally think he has been in power far too long and power corrupts. The Venezuelan people seriously need to vote for someone else in the next election"

gave you the impression that this guy 'loves Chavez'?

It looks more like you resent having someone actually do some critical thinking for himself instead of swallowing someone else's spoonfed information.

Apart from that. How is Chavez worse than most other leaders in the world. At least it doesn't appear he has sold out his citizens to another foreign power, like the nigerian government and seems to have lifted the general welfare of Venezualan citizens.

The US government does appear to have a stance that if you're not 'for' the US, you're 'against' them. Instead, most people just want to live their lives without any interference and wouldn't bother the US unless they bother them first. Unfortunately the US government does feel like it needs to be the world police and bothers people who just want to be left alone, usually when it involves resources.

In my personal opinion this is the main reason why Chavez is being demonised. He's given the finger to the US government and doesn't want a foreign entity to control his country's resources.
Poetin is doing much worse, but is not demonised, because it's politically not a good move for the US to upset Russia at this point in time.

Personally I don't care about 'us' or 'them'; there is only 'us' (I mean people, regardless of nationality) and we have to share this planet in a way in which we do not harm others of our group 'us' for personal gain.

Installing puppet governments, bribing govenment officials and (attempting) to bring down democratically chosen governments for the (seemingly) sole purpose of acquiring resources for very little at the expense of a population that's not yours to support your own standard of living, seems very egotistical and destructive for the human species as a whole.

Yes, I know this is 'the way of the world' and "everybody does it", but the thing is, not "everybody does it", it's just that the people who don't, get trodden on by people who do.

Re:And this is why

[AmiMoJo]

I'd also point out that Sweden has been America's bitch in the past so there is president. The original Pirate Bay raid was due to the US requesting it.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I so can relate to what you're talking about..we get that here in Fiji...Australia and New Zealand..calling our leader Bainimarama a dictator cause he was the first PM in the South Pacific, to give them the finger and to tell them to Fuck off..(and you have the Samoan PM running B. down - to kiss arse to the Aussies and kiwi's so that the funding keeps coming )..we'll do things here the way we want to..and what they do "label him a dictator and get us suspended from the common wealth...anyway we're doing well without them..He's government has made a lot of positive changes - something which past governments failed to do even with the help of Australia and New Zealand...

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

then he's got a corrupt government and police force on a witch hunt, trying to frame him far a crime he didn't commit.

Were he to think like this he really don't know Sweden and it's neighbors at all. Of course, we all have had our share of spreading our legs in front of the nearest "superpower" during the cold war, so I'm not blaming the Swedish very strongly if that's the case.

Re:And this is why

[fredprado]

I've read the article, and these are ridiculous claims. Come on, girl goes and fucks with guy, which she herself admits doing willingly for a week and then suddenly gets worried about DSTs, many years later and decides to sue him for supposedly "torning his condom on purpose". Public attorney decides to make a name and blows this out of proportion.

But it gets better, Another girl (a friend of the first one) then brings him to her home, and turns him down, because he didn't want to use a condom. He accepts but she still invites him to sleep with her. In the morning he advances over her, and she relutanctly agrees to have unprotected sex with him, after he assures her he didn't have HIV.

There is absolutely nothing even remotely related to rape here. Only a feminazy would see it otherwise. It is obviously a honey trap to send him to US as soon as he lands in Sweden. If the government is out for someone it can accuse him of basically anything and running from an abusive government is many times the only alternative a person has, as it is his case here. Especially in his case where the most powerful people in the World want him dead or at the very least arrested and discredited.

Re:And this is why

[ZigiSamblak]

Well that explains why his name in Dutch means "Daniel Stupidshit-Mountain" and also why he changed it.

Re:And this is why

[drwho]

Now we're all sons of bitches.

Re:And this is why

[freedom_india]

Anyone the Republicans hate must be a good guy.

Re:And this is why

[freedom_india]

Which is the business of law making should not be left to government. We end up having laws that are detrimental to people.

Re:And this is why

[freedom_india]

So was iran in 1950s. So was panama in 1980s. That didn't prevent USA from replacing the regimes with dictators. Somehow a USA supported dictator is manna, while others Are bad.

Re:And this is why

[freedom_india]

How I miss Stalin and Beria. They would not have bothered with these niceties. A quick short jab, or a taxi running crazy, or even a hero of soviet union medal to entice him back and then arrest him... I miss the good old days when governmens used to run the show without having to play nice with people like Assange.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason you hate him is because he was one of the first Latin American leaders that showed you the finger and you couldn't eliminate!

Do you really think we couldn't eliminate Hugo Chavez if we wanted to? All sorts of things we could do... things like sending down a Hollywood star to suck his dick and give him cancer of the naughty bits.

Re:And this is why

[dbIII]

Unless of course it turns out that US Government agencies and US Corporations are implicated in the massacre of civilians there

Even if they are not, the co-operation between US agencies and Syria with the "extreme rendition" incidents (ie. torture of US prisoners subcontracted out to Syria) is probably enough for some to argue that releasing stuff about Syria that could implicate people from the USA is "unpatriotic".
It's an odd situation where joint operations were carried out with a nation that the general public see as an enemy (refer also to Algeria for even more involvement in a regime far worse than Zimbabwe), so currently people in US politics are busy ignoring the problems in Syria and hoping they will just vanish until everyone forgets that links made during the Iraq war.

Re:And this is why

[DinDaddy]

Why does he need to stop running around and be extradited for them to charge him? Surely extradition would be easier if there were charges already in place?

Re:And this is why

[dbIII]

The accusations sadly matter very little one way or another. He's being extradited without even being charged - that's a new thing and bound to provoke feelings of paranoia.

Re:And this is why

[dbIII]

The only problem is that is Assange is throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez

Is he? Where's the connection? Is it Kevin Bacon?
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with guilt by implied association where the only link is they all belong to the set of people you don't like. Why haven't you grown out of such behaviour yet?

Re:And this is why

[neoshroom]

Police officer and Buddhist master, clearly.

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

Okay, there's 10 citations for you. Begin your spin, denouncements, deflections, justifications, and outright lies.....

No, those are good. Thankyou.

How did I become the bad guy for asking for citations?

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

You asked for specific citations for those specific issues (hassling journalists, "emergency" dictatorial powers, and the oulaw of gun ownership). You were given those citations, then you moved the goalposts. The other crap you are talking about is spread between Putin and Chavez. Funny how you talk about bias, but you are about as pro-Chavez biased as I have ever seen in my life. I personally don't give a fuck either way, nor do I own a TV, or read from places like CNN except for getting stories for situations like this.

No I didn't, read it again. No I wasn't read it again. I am the most pro Chavez person you have ever seen? Wow. Let me just repeat the words of praise I have lavished on him:

I disagree with the charges and believe that journalists should be able to say what they want, I think the Chavez administration has overstepped its authority in this case.

I am actually concerned about state repression of the media in Venezuela.

Chavez is a politician. He is not better or worse than bush or blair or merkel, he may be cruder, poorer and less sophisticated but I nothing but contempt for all of them.

Re:And this is why

[Internetuser1248]

I resent being called an asshole for not swallowing your opinion whole without thinking for myself.

I also resent having my internet search skills insulted by someone who fails basic reading comprehension.

I am now offering reading lessons to everyone one slashdot, only 10USD/hour. Seriously who the fuck modded this funny?

Re:And this is why

[sa1lnr]

"The British are far more of a US lapdog"

Excuse me, we call that "The Special Relationship" :)

Re:And this is why

[sa1lnr]

A decree is an Executive Order by a different name. ;)

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

Which are...? I provided an article detailing the accusations, care to provide anything other than "I'm Swedish"?

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

which she herself admits doing willingly for a week ... many years later ... she relutanctly agrees to have unprotected sex with him, after he assures her he didn't have HIV.

How on Earth can you claim to have read the article? That's like reading an article on the JFK assassination and coming to the conclusion that JFK shot himself from the book depository.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

"Firearm possession is illegal in my country, dumb fuck. And in the rest of Europe, by the way."

No, they aren't.

Im not aware of any European country with a total firearm ban.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Freedooom!!!

Re:And this is why

[crazyjj]

In contrast to Assange he is taking the protection of source seriously.

Is that what he's saying about his honeypot? Any source dumb enough to hand documents over to that CIA piece of shit deserves the prison cell it's going to get them.

Re:And this is why

[daem0n1x]

Well, the people in Venezuela have chosen democratically to be ruled by Chavez. And he's doing a better job than all the previous corrupt pro-USA leaders that made them live in the most abject poverty in a country full of oil.

Re:And this is why

[pastafazou]

I find the majority of posters on slashdot that request citations do so not because they have an open mind on the subject, but because they're trying to silence someone they disagree with. If citations aren't provided, they declare the original claim to be false (which makes no sense logically, they should be providing citations themselves that prove the original claim to be false). If citations are provided, they will try to discount them, such as declaring the source of the citation to be biased. So when someone requests citations, I tend to assume they're the bad guy. If I disagree with someone's post, I'll go out and find my own citations that disprove it, rather than requesting them to provide citations to support it.

Re:And this is why

[fredprado]

That is because I know how to read. You on the other hand seems to mix the text you read with things from your imagination, apparently. The statements you quote can be easily verified by reading the text. You need some read and comprehension skills badly.

Let me put it in a way even you can understand. These are the facts:

- Woman A invites him to have sex.
- Woman A asks him to use a condom.
- He accepts even if it annoys him.
- Condom ends ripping.
- He stays one week in Woman A house and she never asks him to leave.
- Woman A asks him for an HIV test.
- He refuses, which is within his right to do.
- Later, woman A accuses him of ripping the condom on purpose.

- Woman B invites him to her house.
- Woman B refuses to have sex without condom.
- Woman B invites him to sleep in her bed.
- He advances over her in the morning.
- After some insistence she asks him if he has no HIV.
- He says he does not.
- She concedes.
- They have sex.
- He goes away.
- Later woman B accuses him of "forcing" her into unsafe sex.

And these are the obvious conclusions:

- Woman A and Woman B see him in the news and decide to get rich by publishing their stories.
- Prosecutor C decides to get famous by taking the case.
- Politicians D, E and F, see it as an opportunity to make an example of him and discredit his efforts.

It is really simple. If you can't understand it is because you don't know how to read.

Re:And this is why

[knigitz]

I'm betting one country they won't be releasing any embarrassing information on will be Ecuador.

Re:And this is why

[fredprado]

By your rationale there is not such thing as political refugees. Because it is really easy to accuse someone of something and them, when he is under your power arrest him for anything else, as political dissent, for example.

By your rationale You should, for example, go to China to be tried for a murder you didn't commit, even though you know they are after you because you made anti-communist propaganda.

That is idiocy on its best.

Re:And this is why

[Palamos]

As governments are voted in by the electorate, at least in some countries, doesn't the electorate have the right to know the truth about them? Surely if government agencies were allowed to (or continue to be allowed to) cover up the truth it is tantamount to vote rigging. Wiki leaks has done something very significant, it has shown governments that they are visible, that they can't ride roughshod over the electorate and they will be measured by what they've done, not what they've said they've done. Wiki leaks is a a small step for man but a giant leap for mankind.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

:: snort ::

Sorry, let me clean that off for you...

Re:And this is why

[uninformedLuddite]

a platinum blonde rat

Re:And this is why

[fredprado]

Even if I do not like Chavez I have to point that you have ZERO evidence to support your claims and stills insist on defending them. Chavez does not need to tamper with elections, he is a demagogue and has the people, who unfortunately do not know better, on his side. That is, at least until he manages to screw his country's economy majorly, which you can bet he will, sooner or later.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it possible Assuage had nothing to do with the Syrian paper release or that the release is part of plea bargain.
Maybe the same people posting Assad and the entire current Syrian government is bad are behind the publication, maybe the Assad Government is behind the release? I have not read them. What ever is the case, the fact-less official 9/11 story taught me how public officials are puppeted to conform official documents, public publication, and public statements to media echoed corporate agendas.
     

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

I am no longer a believer in the idea that the state needs to keep me in the dark in order to keep me safe. Bull Sh*t. Secrets, all of them, that have been revealed over the last several years have proven that the secrets and the keepers of secrets had only their own interests in mind and MY safety, MY security and MY freedoms were directly threatened by those persons and institutions keeping the secrets!

If the people and institutions who are supposedly acting in my best interests cannot or will not keep me fully informed of the progress and means and results of their efforts to that effect, truthfully and compleatly, then they are not really utilizing their power or position on my behalf. They are manipulating.

The WHOLE TRUTH will set you FREE!

Re:And this is why

[pastafazou]

Maybe you need to stop getting your news from the liberal media in America, as they seem to love Chavez and won't report anything bad about him. There are two camps in Venezuela; those that support Chavez, and those that don't. Supporters of Chavez are rewarded with plenty of perks, while those that oppose him are arrested, attacked, bullied, and worse. Chavez isn't hugely popular among the people, he's only popular among his supporters. The only ones who will speak up are those that support him, as it's dangerous to speak badly about him. There were some good underground bloggers operating out of Caracas back around the recall election, and some of the stuff they reported on made it sound like Soviet Union style politics.

Re:And this is why

[Rei]

That is because I know how to read.

And apparently you learned to do so in Wayside School.

- Woman A invites him to have sex.

Not what the accusation states. Accusation says he starts ripping off her clothes, she tries to put them back on, he rips them off again, then pins her down and tries to force sex without a condom, and she consents under duress only if he'll use one. The fact that you claim to have read the article and believe what you wrote is incredible.

- He stays one week in Woman A house and she never asks him to leave.

Flatly contradicted by the accusations, which state that *he* says she never asked him, but *she* says she asked him to leave and wouldn't, told her friends he wouldn't leave, started sleeping on her couch to get away from him, and ultimately moved out of her own apartment until he left to get away with him. Undoubtedly these claims have been investigated by the police as they're verifiable.

- He advances over her in the morning.

Otherwise known as "he starts fucking her while she's asleep". In violation of the terms she had set out the previous night, but it'd be rape even if he was using one.

- After some insistence she asks him if he has no HIV.
- He says he does not.
- She concedes.

Probably the most extreme example of your imagination going wild when "reading" the accusations. He is *inside of her* while she was asleep, without a condom when she wakes up and then says "you better not have HIV".

What part of, "She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. " was tricky for you to understand? The fact that it's made of words?

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean this guy? http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Iceburg

Re:And this is why

[fredprado]

Maybe you should start getting your news in another place too. I live next door in Brazil and I have several friends living there. Chavez is a demagogue, a populist, and generally speaking incompetent. But he do have the majority of the population on his side. Many many times the majority is that stupid and indulge in immediate benefits without thinking about the future. It was like so with Hitler, it was like so in the Russian revolution and it was like so in Cuba too. Even if in time all these countries' populations finally realized that they had done a very big mistake when they put these guys in power that does not change the fact that the majority did put them in power willingly .

Re:And this is why

[fredprado]

It is clear he only advanced over her, then she woke up, he forced his hand she conceded. They had have already sex over the night, she was not drugged and she certainly wouldn't have slept through the act in the morning. He never used his strength to hurt any of the girls, which they clearly admitted. The second girl could have yelled "get away from me" when she woke up, but noooo, she said: "you'd better not have HIV." There was no such thing as "consenting under duress" here. That is bullshit. They consented and then regretted their decisions. It is their problem not his. It is past time for women like this to start to be accounted for their decisions.

You are an idiot. A feminazi imbecile. The only good part about your thinking is that in time your kind will end extinct when your dystopia where it is required to fill seventy forms and hire a lawyer team in order to have sex comes to be.

Re:And this is why

[electrons_are_brave]

It's not a crazy law. The problem isn't the law, and the problem for Assange isn't facing the charges - even if he is guilty it won't be a big deal. The problem is that there is still some chance that Sweden will extradite him to to the US. And Assange's fellow Australian's will miss out on a chance to vote him into the Senate.

But don't blame the Swedish law; it's just a more advanced country in regards to the human rights of women in this area.

Re:And this is why

[electrons_are_brave]

Thanks you for explaining that. Just to point out, though, that in Australia you can still sue someone who knows they have an STD but does not disclose it to you.

pics?

[netwarerip]

I guess as long as there are no pics of the prophet then no one will mind.
Oh, who am I kidding? No one will care much outside Syria anyway, at least not for more than 5 minutes and a tweet or 2.

Re:pics?

[tqk]

No one will care much outside Syria anyway, at least not for more than 5 minutes and a tweet or 2.

Are you joking? That regime has been a seeping wound on the face of mankind for a long time now. They had hit squads roaming the world assassinating their opponents during the Cold War. Assad & Co. have done far worse things than Gaddafi even dreamed of.

I will dance when that bunch gets hung up on meathooks.

How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[PerlPunk]

Wikileaks is a project waiting for just one of those less politically correct countries like Syria but that has enough time on their hands to send a hit squad to wipe them out permanently--as in personnel and extended family if necessary.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[i kan reed]

Yep, because a military strike into a first world country would do so much for Assad's position.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

...one of those less politically correct countries...

...enough time on their hands to send a hit squad...

I was wondering what things would be like when Romney won.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[hey_popey]

You mean, like any of the biggest military powers which were concerned by the diplomatic cables?

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

If wikileak's falls, by whatever mechanism, it is as a result of vanity. Their service of data dissemination, can be replicated without a figurehead. That's not to say that this Wikileaks 2.0 couldn't/shouldn't have outspoken proponents, nor should it be a wild-west style data-dumping ground without independent oversight; only that the whole process does not need centralization.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[daem0n1x]

Like Syria had any capability to do anything like that!

And everybody knows he has nothing to fear from the civilised western countries, does he? When have they ever done anything like that?

Stop watching NCIS. It's fiction, you know? And bad one.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[gl4ss]

well, they tried but they tried buying the service from columbian cartels.

but seriously, basically you're suggesting that journalists should be scared of offending some fucking douchebag dictators who have their hands full with their own very, very pissed off rebels, activists and dictator-to-be wanabes. hell, you're suggesting that we should just stop talking shit about every regime because otherwise they'll come and kill everyone of us! like in their shitty propaganda! What the fuck??

fuck that, of course they know that's something that might happen - that's why it's been tried to setup so that the information they have gets released regardless. so it would make only sense to take them out if you knew they were about to receive information about your regime.

wtf do they care about a proxy publisher anways? assad&gang is more interested in wiping the leakers, they could have leaked the information through a dozen other ways as well, for example in exchange for money to mossad.

besides, if syria had an uber hitsquad capable of wiping out extended families, you'd think they would us those on people dealing weapons to their rebels, no?

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

For sure. I bet he would be the first president to authorize the killing of an american citizen by drone.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon to avoid undoing previous mods.

What planet do you live on that you could possibly think that a dictator using artillery to bomb the majority of his population into submission would care about sending a squad or two of hitmen out? Even if Assange was publicly murdered walking out of the embassy in london by a Syrian agent, Russa & China would continue to protect him in the UN.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[dbIII]

Yep, because a military strike into a first world country would do so much for Assad's position.

Chile did that (car bomb in Washington D.C.) without it changing anything diplomaticly.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[Dabido]

Doesn't nec. have to be a country either. Could just be an organisation (crime syndicate/drug cartel etc).

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never read much about modern assassination. The average murder is a brutish act of rage, and are relatively easy to prove.

Professional assassins, though, take great care to make a hit indistinguishable from an accident. It's not too hard to make a hit look like an auto collision or a hit and run. Governments and organized crime have elevated it to an art over millennia.

If somebody wants Assange dead, he will be. It'll either look like an accident, or will involve poisoning by someone who will never be discovered. Either way, you can't prove anything.

Re:Droning on and on

[Issarlk]

Why? Has your country something embarasing to hide?

Finally...

[olau]

...some real, possibly world-changing leaks stories instead of all the crap about Assange and his whereabouts.

There was a news report on Danish television about the Syrian regime and how it's treating dissidents. That was not pleasant to watch.

Re:Finally...

[L4t3r4lu5]

I keep hearing about what is happening in Syria, and wonder exactly the UN is for if not stopping exactly that kind of shit.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the UN wanted to, but sadly Russia and China have interest in Syria and also a shitload of clout. Any proposed action would have been quashed.

I mean its blatantly obvious that the situation in Syria has been as bad or worse than the previous situation in Libya for quite some time. If you want to get angry, be angry with the fact that the rest of the UN, including the United States, the UK, Canada, etc, were all too much of a pack of wusses to call China and Russia out for being such dicks.

Re:Finally...

[GameboyRMH]

The UN has sent many strongly-worded letters to the Assad regime and has sent observers to take note of what's happening.

Re:Finally...

[Coisiche]

Ideally, it would. But it's set up such that certain countries get to veto any action.

With regard to the UN vote on Syria it was China and Russia that vetoed action.

Russia has had long ties with Syria and perhaps more pertinently has a Mediterranean naval base from that association, so I can see why they would rather stay on-side with a regime murdering it's own people than run the risk of a replacement government not letting them have their base.

I'm not sure what the Chinese angle is.

Re:Finally...

[Hatta]

Indeed. This is Syria's business.

Re:Finally...

[Rei]

And if that doesn't work, they're going to tattle to Syria's mom.

Re:Finally...

[tbannist]

The U.N. exists to prevent the U.S., China, England, France and Russia from going to war with each other. That is its primary purpose, that's why each of those nations have permanent security council seats and vetos. China and Russia and have been using their vetos to allow the Syrian bloodshed to play out. The implicit threat is that they would consider going to war over the issue if the rest of the world intervenes.

Re:Finally...

[del_diablo]

Its actually a lot more simple that what the current issue is. The current vote is for "military intervention", which is basically raiding the place, drop a few bombs, ruin a bit of infastructure, replace the top of the power structure, pay a few warlords, and don't uphold the law. China don't want such a uncivilized action to be taken, and some of the Russian top likes the Syrian top. So there goes the veto.
Now... what could have happened? Don't go for military intervention, just send in "Law Enforcement Tropers". Don't squash, just do what their local police is not doing, take over the courts, uphold the law, and do nothing more. Once the peace as settled for a bit, the only things left to deal with is corruption.

Re:Finally...

[tbannist]

I think there's also a wider issue here, which is the right of governments to act with impunity when dealing with internal dissent. Both Russia and China are going to be facing similar protests in the foreseeable future. China's leadership is skating by on many issues because of the economic growth and prosperity being generated right now, however, when the Chinese economy finally hits the wall they're probably planning similar actions. Russia already has similar problems. They'd like to see Assad win because it would discourage their own dissidents.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that China and Russia even veto'd the concept of the UN just officially asking the Assad regime to stand down.

That is a far cry from military intervention and they still wouldn't have it. This has nothing to do with China not wanting to take "uncivilized action", and more than just Russia having friends within the regime.

Re:Finally...

[fustakrakich]

You got it all wrong. It's just business, like the whole Qaddafi thing.

Re:Finally...

[Darinbob]

No, now your'e being silly. They'll instead send an even more strongly worded letter, this time with exclamation marks.

Re:Finally...

[Darinbob]

In some sense I suspect Russian and China are worried about the concept of military action against repressive regimes as it sets a bad precedent. They may have many friends and trading partners who are repressive regimes, and of course China and Russia are accused all the time of being repressive regimes themselves.

Ie, if this is just "internal dissent" then these countries wish it to remain internal. Russia and China both have internal dissent and dissidents and breakaway movements that they consider internal problems. They do not want the UN to butt in to private matters in other words (ie, they do not want you to think that just because you can hear your neighbor beating his wife behind closed doors that you can call the police).

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, in Syria there appears to be no "good guys". Closer examination reveals that as bad as Assad is (and he's a sadistic butcher), he's not really any worse than his opposition - which is appalling. Assad also has the support of most of his people - if only by a slim margin.

So what is the UN to do? Send in an invasion that is unwelcome to any of the parties (including the invasion force?) The opposition doesn't show any signs of being more friendly to NATO or the UN than Assad's regime. If the body count is appalling now, try a three-sided full scale war.

Assange is not hiding.

[SpzToid]

Assange has requested asylum from Equador. We all know where he is. Last I heard, he was also on the ballot in Australia and has a TV show on hulu.com, so he's not exactly low-profile either.

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[bsane]

'hiding' is exactly what he is doing, it has more than one meaning:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hiding

v.intr.
2. To seek refuge.

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

Uh if hes not "hiding" he fucking should be. Basically he has leaked confidential U.S. documents, that makes him a high priority target, and if he is extradited, 1 of two things will happen, one: he will be executed (not likely) two: he will be prosecuted for some crime and put in a hole for the rest of eternity (most likely). is this instance hiding is not a cowardly thing, is a survival tactic.

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Uh if hes not "hiding" he fucking should be. Basically he has leaked confidential U.S. documents, that makes him a high priority target, and if he is extradited, 1 of two things will happen, one: he will be executed (not likely) two: he will be prosecuted for some crime and put in a hole for the rest of eternity (most likely).

Precedent from Watergate says that Assange has nothing to fear from a US Court for the leaked documents.

Unless, of course, it can be proved that he either paid or encouraged Manning to do the deed. That would probably come under espionage laws.

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[Hatta]

What makes you think he would ever get a day in court in the US?

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[Apuleius]

"What makes you think he would ever get a day in court in the US?"

Ellsberg did. Ghods, your type has the memory of a goldfish.

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[Hatta]

Ellsberg was a citizen, and that was pre-9/11. For a non-citizen accused of espionage post-9/11, he can reasonably be expected to be rendered to another country for torture.

Of course, since he's a white european and not an arab or persian he may not actually be rendered. But that doesn't speak highly for our justice system either. Justice should be blind.

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[tbannist]

That was then, recently a U.S. military hearing tried to sentence a Canadian citizen to 40 years of prison (on top of the already 10 years spent in custody) for killing a U.S. medic during a fire fight in Afghanistan despite the fact that the defendant was 15 and injured at the time (he was shot three times in the back during the fire fight). The sentence was longer than the one requested by the prosecution and the evidence to support the conviction was a confession extracted under torture which was allowed as evidence by the "judge".

I have zero confidence that the U.S. system believes in justice any more, especially for people who are not U.S. citizens and I'm not alone in that view. Compounded with the fact that multiple American politicians have called for Assange's execution for "treason" against the U.S. and there is significant reason to doubt that he'd ever see a fair trial. That the real problem with all this torture for hire, special prisons, black ops, CIA stuff. It tarnishes your reputation, and soon people expect your country to murder innocent people because it's convenient. Maybe he would get one after all, however, no one who might have to face the consequences would ever want to take that risk.

Re:Assange is not hiding.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean his show was on RT. The Hulu feed came from them.

The final episode of his show was last Tuesday (7/3).

The leaks with a twist...

[jellomizer]

"the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"

In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...

If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.

Re:The leaks with a twist...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

I think you accidentally a word.

Re:The leaks with a twist...

[daem0n1x]

"the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"

In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

So, when he filters you accuse him of cherry-picking. When he publishes everything you accuse him of publishing shitloads of irrelevant and mundane data. If you want to bash the man, at least get your hatred bullshit straight! It the US and Western Europe are so pure and clean they should have nothing to fear, should they?

My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...

If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.

One thing is people gossiping about that. It's only one more conspiracy theory to add to the lot. But this is evidence. It's quite different. You're just trying to spin it to your liking. If there weren't embarrassing details for the West you'd be screaming and shouting about how monstrous the Assad regime is, and how this is the definitive evidence to justify an invasion!

Re:The leaks with a twist...

[RivenAleem]

It was filtered out.

Re:The leaks with a twist...

[Xelios]

There's an important difference between "knowing" these things while being labeled paranoid or a conspiracy nut and "knowing" these things in relation to hard evidence that you can show people.

Re:Droning on and on

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, people who tend to think like him but wish to present themselves pubicly as otherwise.

2.5m?

[hobarrera]

They're releasing 2.5metres of emails? Or maybe it's miles!

Re:2.5m?

[Quakeulf]

They're using standard-issue A4 office printer paper, which is quite thin. Besides, I don't think the governments communicated enough.

Re:2.5m?

[Kinthelt]

The length of a standard DDR3 DIMM is 82mm. So assuming each DIMM is 1GB that comes out to approximately 30.5 GB of emails.

Re:2.5m?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, no... you read it wrong. They are releasing 2.5 Me (mega-emails)

Re:2.5m?

[GameboyRMH]

2.5 metres of emails is a decent amount of data on a modern data tape.

Re:2.5m?

[Anonymous Coward]

The pages are laid end to end, it's approximately 16 pages of documents.

Re:2.5m?

[Anonymous Coward]

With standard SI notation, it's obviously 2.5 milli-emails. You can tell because the m is lowercase. That 0.0025 emails can still embarrass several nations at once is really quite impressive.

Re:2.5m?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a counting unit, so they're releasing 2.5 milli-emails. Or, approximately one letter.

I predict it will be "e."

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

So when BBC or New York Times publish articles that are not deemed Correct by these entities, then they need to worry that themselves and their families will be assassinated??

Assange did not leak *anything*. All he does it put leaks sent to him up on a website and acts all important about it. He's not the important part of the equation. There are 1,000,000 Assange-like people waiting in the wings hoping he fails so they can step in.

You're talking to the wrong crowd

[daveschroeder]

Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

Like in Syria.

It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," instead of becoming an anti-US pulpit for a self-righteous egomaniac who has openly said if he was asked to choose between "advocate"/"activist" and "journalist", he would choose "advocate", and who answered "I'm too busy ending two wars," in response to a reporter asking for clarity on an issue.

(And no, this doesn't mean the US and West are all-perfect or all-wise — what it means is that people need to get out of their bizarro world and get some perspective on things. A clue wouldn't hurt, either.)

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[darkstar019]

How come wikileaks is anti-US ? All it did was to leak the documents provided by its collaborators. If people in other countries also leak information, it would be available on a public use. The US dossier was very big and it came after the chilling video of civilians being killed, so it generated such a bang.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[SuricouRaven]

Perhaps they are all evil, but differ in degree?

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[daveschroeder]

Assange made no bones about his interests and intents — there has been ample discussion and news coverage from a variety of viewpoints which recognized that Wikileaks under Asssange for a time became almost exclusively focused on targeting the US.

The video was not "chilling" unless you expect war to be a happy affair — unless you mean the version which Wikileaks carefully and intentionally edited for maximum impact, with the specific purpose of attention-whoring, and labeling things that no ordinary person viewing the video would otherwise have even been able to discern (e.g., freezing a frame and pointing out what was thought by everyone involved at the time to be a weapon as actually being a camera, after the fact, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight).

The video showed no malicious intent, though Assange took went to great lengths to remove as much context as possible to make it appears so, and even many State Department insiders viewed "Cablegate" as nothing more than proof that the United States has a thoughtful, experienced, and dedicated foreign service that actually does its job.

Assange has not even tried to hide his disdain for the US, long before any "smear campaign" could even be alleged. Other Wikileaks collaborators even left the project because of Assange's single-minded anti-US agenda. Now that Assange is more or less sidelined, we're seeing Wikileaks return to its initially-stated mission and purpose.

The rich irony, of course, is that Assange is seeking asylum from one of the least free nations — in terms of speech, press, and liberty — in the hemisphere. Of course, all of Assange's supporters love people like Chavez, Castro, and Correa, and the Kremlin's Russia Today "news" outlet aired a conversation between Assange and Correa on the heels of Ecuador giving the lease on an air base long held by the United States to China.

See the problem, here?

There are interests in the world opposed to the ideals of freedom and liberal democracy that actually need to be countered. And that's what the US has endeavored to do since WWII, and from which Europe and the West has enjoyed the fruits for over a half-century.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As The Good Guys(tm), we have a right to an unsullied public image. Even holding the theory that our goodness state is some kind of empirical question, to be decided by looking at our actions, is downright anti-American.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[copponex]

Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

Like in Syria.

You are absolutely right, and absolutely wrong.

In December of 2001, U.S. agents arranged to have a German citizen flown to a Syrian jail called the Palestine Branch, renowned for its use of torture, and later offered to pass written questions to Syrian interrogators to pose to the prisoner, according to a secret German intelligence report shown to TIME on Wednesday. The report is described in the new book Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program by British investigative journalist Stephen Grey. The complex arrangement was part of the CIA's sprawling practice of extraordinary renditions, the secret transfer of terror suspects to hidden prisons across the world -- which has involved the aid of numerous foreign governments and the knowledge of key Western European allies, according to the book, which was shown to TIME by the author. After U.S. officials long refused to confirm the CIA's secret detention of terror suspects abroad, President Bush last month admitted that terror suspects had been transferred abroad to secret CIA facilities, but U.S. officials continue to deny that such prisoners have been tortured, saying that foreign governments assured them that they would be treated fairly.

Inside the CIA's Secret Prisons Program, Time Magazine, 2006

And before you backpedal on what happened to Maher Arar:

This week the Supreme Court denied, without comment, the appeal of Maher Arar, a dual citizen of Canada and Syria who was arrested in transit through JFK airport in 2002, then shipped off to Syria and tortured for 10 months. Arar's abuse allegedly included repeated beatings with electrical cables and confinement in a cell the size of a grave. When they realized they had the wrong guy -- the really, totally, and utterly innocent guy -- Arar was released without charges. He was then completely exonerated of any link to terror by the Canadian government, which impaneled a commission to investigate the incident, issued a 1,000-plus-page report on the matter, held its own intelligence forces responsible for their role in the screw-up, then apologized and paid Arar $9.8 million. Whereas the U.S. government -- as Glenn Greenwald observes -- has never apologized, never acknowledged any wrongdoing, never held anyone responsible, and, on President Barack Obama's watch, has only redoubled its efforts to prevent Arar from having even a single day in court.

So, we took an innocent man, illegally shipped him off to Syria (probably in exchange for easing off pressure on the Assad regime), tortured him, and now we're denying him his day in court to hold our government to account. Stop pretending that you, or the American government, has any principled position on matters of human rights. Syrian torture facilities are just dandy when we want to use them. The fact is that we have put more bodies in the ground this decade than the Assad regime has in it's entire family history.

That's why you focus on Assange, instead of dealing with what his organization has revealed. The truth isn't important to you. Protecting American state power is. Oddly enough, the American government keeps telling me that they're free to subpoena everything about me and my life, and that I should have nothing to fear if I have nothing to hide, and now we're saying the same thing. Why is the American government so afraid of the truth?

As a huge world power, they've got lots of little people like you, desperately clinging at the teat of the empire, ready to kill eno

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

The video showed no malicious intent

Quite right. Machine gun fire from a helicopter gunship is passive to the point of being pedestrian.

In fact, I trust the the recipients felt all warm and fuzzy inside.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[BForrester]

Countries with the greatest capacity to do harm, and the likely propensity to exercise that power should be under the greatest scrutiny.

Deaths in Syrian uprising: nearly 18,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_uprising_(2011%E2%80%93present)#Deaths

Deaths in US-Afghanistan War: nearly 18,000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics

Deaths in US-Iraq war: approximately 110,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

So, while Syria certainly needs to be on the watch list, and it is very advantageous for the supporters of that regime to be unmasked and exposed, the Western governments do not get a free pass just because some people have concluded that they are not oppressive or dangerous to their own people.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[LordLucless]

It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission [archive.org] of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East,"

What, like releasing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures? I just love how you brainless "patriots" will praise people as long as they only criticize the people your leaders have decided are "bad guys", but as soon as they reveal how close the "good guys" come to being bad, you decry them for being anti-American. You're not looking for information, you're looking for useful propaganda. A true patriot would be backing what America stands for, not what America does just because it's America doing it.

All it takes is to read your second reply to the OP to see how incapable you are of ever believing your country could do any wrong. Your attitude is blinkered, and foolish, and only leads to you being exploited by those gaming the political system to maintain power. I don't care so much about that - you deserve it. But unfortunately, people like you take the rest of the country down with you.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[daveschroeder]

*Sigh*

Now we're getting into semantics, but it's not necessarily malicious, nor murder, nor "illegal" to kill in war. It is possible for a killing, even in wartime, to be all of those things. This wasn't one of those times. It's also possible to kill civilians accidentally and still not have it be malicious or a crime. Yes, someone is still dead — but intent matters, even in war. This is not a new construct.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[daveschroeder]

I hope the amount of incorrect, ranting assumptions you've made about me and what you think I stand for made you feel better.

I don't discount any of the facts about individual incidents in your comment, nor would I ever be foolish or arrogant enough to say the US has never made a mistake — we have made plenty and will make plenty more — but let me ask you something:

Do you believe that the world and humanity would be better off if the US hadn't existed after, say, WWII? Not just from a geopolitical perspective, but from perspectives of technology, medicine, and similar?

Do you believe that someone like, say, China, or an amalgamation of warring mideast states, or perhaps even an old Soviet superstate would be a better global steward than the United States and the West?

If you can answer "Yes", or even "Perhaps", to either of those questions, we share no common ground from which to even have a discussion.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Hatta]

The video was not "chilling" unless you expect war to be a happy affair

Most people don't think about the costs of war. Presenting them with actual footage really does chill the general public. If it didn't, they wouldn't bother hiding it from us.

Yes, war is hell and sometimes people choose to do it anyway. But if they do, they should be presented with the consequences of their choices as directly and as often as possible. This is the service that Wikileaks provided with its release of Collateral Murder.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, he states on his homepage he's an Information Warfare Officer for the Navy.

He's always rabidly defending the US whilst simultaneously trying to defame the rest. I think he just used Slashdot as his own personal little information warfare training ground and judging by the upmods.

He's doing what he's paid to do, don't let it bother you. People who have been on Slashdot long enough know he isn't worth listening to because his viewpoint is so politically slanted and unobjective. Still, at least he has the courtesy to post his own homepage so that those willing to understand the motivations of his post can. A nice dislaimer in his sig would go further, but that would defeat the object of the political game he likes to play here.

The only problem for him is that he doesn't seem to realise that the only people he's actually persuading are the people who are already of the same opinion as him to start with. The rest of us just see him for what he is - a political shill, a self-confessed information warfare officer for the US military industrial complex.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Neligence matters too, and that's where the US troops in the video fell foul.

Most militaries in the world are trained to confirm their targets before firing, America fails miserably at this which is precisely why it's everything from the butt of countless friendly fire jokes, to being see as a hated occupying army by the Iraqis and Afghans.

The fact is the people in question, and most certainly the vehicle that tried to help were not an immediate threat to anyone. Any other military force with a care for human rights (i.e. Canadian, European, Australian, New Zealand) would've at least waited until there was an actual clear risk before pulling the trigger. These forces recognise that even if that means waiting until an RPG is actually fired, that even if it led to the death of one of their own, then that's a far safer action in the grand scheme of things than riling up a civilian population to fight against you by killing children which will inevitably mean 10s, possibly hundreds of your soldiers dying as an indirect effect of that. The math is simple, but US forces aren't trained to think about the bigger picture, only the excitement of pulling a trigger, and this is why the troops in the video were criminally negligent and should at very least have been held up on manslaughter charges if nothing else.

Still, it's America's choice, they're the ones who are throwing thousands of their sons into graves for no reason because they consistently end up having to run from said wars with their tales between their legs. It's just a shame other nation's civilians have to die because of their military incompetence. The only saving grace is that even the American public eventually get sick of seeing their own kids come home in body bags because they have no clue that fighting a war is about far more than simply pulling the trigger.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your clarificatation, I feel wholesomely enlightend.

I rest assured that the next time I get drunk, that I can drive home. Should anyone die, I'm in the clear as my intent is simply to go home. After all, drunk drivers don't intend to kill do they?

I think your *construct* has a number of holes, possibly as a consequence of trying to justify a military career. I trust you have had, and will continue to see first hand the consequences of these foreign adventures, but lets hope you do not come into contact with an IED, my intent is for you to *witness* the consequeces, not *experience*.

Lets work on this driver\intent thingy a bit more.

Drivers rarely intend to kill right? About 30,000 people die on the roads on the US each year. So between 9-11-2001 & 9-11-2011, we have approx 300,000 confirmed American kills.

Global (thats worldwide), in the same period 25,000, of which 238 were Americans.

If your intent was to save american lives what would you do?

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[daveschroeder]

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not paid to do anything. By your logic — especially since you're posting as AC and thus hiding your identity! — you must be shilling for some agenda, no? Please also explain how Syria's actions can be defended.

I do find it amusing that anyone you disagree with must be "playing political games", and that you think I should have a "disclaimer" in my sig. That says what? "Warning — you may find ideas which run counter to yours difficult to swallow"?

Give me a break.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing scum isn't a "cost" oif war. It's a BENEFIT of war.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the amount of incorrect, ranting assumptions you've made about me and what you think I stand for made you feel better.

I don't discount any of the facts about individual incidents in your comment, nor would I ever be foolish or arrogant enough to say the US has never made a mistake — we have made plenty and will make plenty more — but let me ask you something:

Do you believe that the world and humanity would be better off if the US hadn't existed after, say, WWII? Not just from a geopolitical perspective, but from perspectives of technology, medicine, and similar?

Do you believe that someone like, say, China, or an amalgamation of warring mideast states, or perhaps even an old Soviet superstate would be a better global steward than the United States and the West?

If you can answer "Yes", or even "Perhaps", to either of those questions, we share no common ground from which to even have a discussion.

Possibly your common ground is in trouble because you sound like an apologist. Sometimes people are too angry to have a discussion. That doesn't mean they can't or won't discuss. They're just too sick of discussing killing and torturing, as if it's all just a nice intellectual exercise. I think you need to accept that copponex just doesn't trust you, and I'm not sure I would, either. Which crowd ARE you in?

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not paid to do anything."

Lies.

"By your logic â" especially since you're posting as AC and thus hiding your identity! â" you must be shilling for some agenda, no?"

Trying to turn the argument back.

"Please also explain how Syria's actions can be defended."

Misdirection.

"I do find it amusing that anyone you disagree with must be "playing political games""

False generalisations.

"That says what? "Warning â" you may find ideas which run counter to yours difficult to swallow"?"

Misleading twist on what was said.

When you make an entire post that is literally entirely devoid of facts and full of logical fallacies in defence of yourself it doesn't really do much to make your point that you're not merely here acting in your role as a self-confessed information warfare officer for the Navy.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Nadaka]

You would be wrong. The entire video does not show the crime, it shows the context for the crime that takes place in one specific part of the video.

When the van pulls onto the scene in the video, you can hear the gunner begging for permission to open fire. And then lying to his CO over the radio, claiming that the people were collecting guns and bodies, when they were very very clearly only retrieving the 1 wounded survivor. Wither or not there was some mistaken identity earlier is debatable. but that specific instance with the van? That is most definitely a crime.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Rei]

Iraq Body Count is one of the lowest estimates out there. There are three peer-reviewed studies on it (IBC is not among them): the Iraq Family Health Survey, the Lancet survey, and the Opinion Research Business survey. The Lancet's value of 655k dead by June 2006 (601k from violence, and of those, 181k from the coalition and 276k where the killer was unknown) is the middle one of the three. They also have had the most feedback on the paper and the best sampling, so if anyone is going to cite just one work on the subject, it should probably be them.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Nadaka]

Then why are they releasing information on Syria, a decidedly anti-western country?

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[daveschroeder]

(Successful troll is successful.)

So let me get this straight:

You believe that I'm posting on slashdot as part of official duties, and that I am being paid to do this — AND that I make no effort to hide who I am — wait, wait, let me guess: so that I have some Princess-Bride-poison-scene plausible deniability or some other nonsense, instead of, oh, I don't know, just hiding my identity or even posting as AC?

Wow. Just...wow. Thanks for putting a smile on my face! :-)

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Hatta]

Then why didn't the military release the collateral murder video itself? If this is the kind of thing we want to achieve, then they should be proud of their successes.

No, the actual reason is that most people are horrified by unnecessary killing, and you are just a sick fuck.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[dkleinsc]

So if the US were demonstrably closely allied with oppressive regimes in the Middle East, would you want Wikileaks to expose information about those regimes and their relationships with the US?

There's even a good argument that the US acts as an oppressive regime in the Middle East, specifically in the countries it's currently occupying.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[PerlPunk]

daveschroeder wrote: "Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression."

Agreed. And there is usually some political objective behind it: unseat the incumbent political party if it's not yours, or remain (somewhat) silent if it is the party you identify with.

But if fundamental values are to be subordinated to the interests of group identity--whether that identity be political, or social, or national, or racial, or some combination of them--then there is really no important moral difference between the crowd that supports a project like Wikileaks (because supporting such a project somehow advances their own group identity) and the various "corrupt" regimes around the world that Wikileaks supposedly seeks to "out."

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[GigaBurglar]

"how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression." - Yes very good. That's like saying people don't kill people - guns do; that's ridiculous. The US, and many other countries including my own, the UK, financially and economically pull the trigger. If you honestly think that economic policy is not built around foreign enterprise then you are completely mistaken. Countries that cannot even afford the interest placed on their shoulders by the IMF obligate to pay their dues through enterprise - think of all the US and European firms that operate in poor countries in exchange for cheap goods and services - oil is a commodity that springs to mind. Do remember who are the major player in foreign policy - we (especially the US) live in a system of governance that actually permits lobby-ism. The entire western economic model revolves around the exploitation of cheap labour and goods - this is why we can regularly afford to commercially give away gifts (that we take for granted) that are derived from one of the most precious commodities on the planet - oil; plastic. If your AOL CDs were wrapped on gold plated packaging you might ask questions but it's plastic and we take it for granted - people pay for that with their lives. Poverty may be a side effect of tyranny - but remember that countries who give the middle finger to the west are not playing ball in our eyes - Chavez springs to mind - like him or not that is exactly what he done. A tyrant who conforms is more economically viable than a democratically elected official who shrugs their shoulders at us. So stop talking pish.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[daveschroeder]

Because Assange has effectively been sidelined, and Wikileaks is getting back to its original mission statement.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[oxdas]

Of course, it is impossible to say what the world would be like today without the U.S., WWII is an interesting choice. The United States entrance into WWI turned a likely, but limited, German victory into a massive Allied route. This is turn allowed France to exact revenge on Germany, both for WWI and for the German victory in the Franco-Prussian War, less than 50 years earlier. It could be argued that the harsh terms of the peace led to extreme nationalism in German, giving rise to Hitler and eventually WWII. So, in this case, the United States could be seen as having caused WWII in the first place.

Personally, I cannot understand anyone who could not answer "Perhaps" on a question with so many variables and unknowns.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Darinbob]

Wikileaks is not the same as Assange. Yes he has indeed taken it upon himself to try to convince the world that he is in charge of Wikileaks and invented it. With him being the international man of mystery continually on the run from SMERSH I doubt he has had any time to deal with the Syrian emails at all except to make an announcement about them.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly your common ground is in trouble because you sound more like an apologist than someone interested in a discussion.

Nice straw man argument, by the way ("Do you believe...an old Soviet superstate would be a better global steward than the United States and the West?".
Yeah, I saw what you did there, and we're all for global stewards here, as you know, the more the merrier! Hell, let's all be global stewards, if one global steward is good, then more should be better, right? Just like guns, eh?

You know, sometimes people are too angry to have a discussion. That doesn't mean they can't or won't discuss. They're just too sick of discussing killing and torturing as if it's all just a nice intellectual exercise, and they're probably OK, anyway because we live in a global steward, kind of like microbes in its gut. I think you need to accept that copponex just doesn't trust you, and I'm not sure I do, either. Which crowd ARE you in?

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[IamTheRealMike]

That's kind of silly.

Firstly, the post-war USA is not much like the current USA. America has shifted radically towards the right over the past decades. Its foreign policy pre-WW2 and post-WW2 are very different. It's quite possible to comment on the USA of today without the implications being back-propagated through history.

Secondly, you seem to assume that the alternative to the USA being the big dog is some other country being the big dog. It could just as easily have been that there was no big dog. You might assume the whole world would have become communist without the USA, but that's a titanically huge assumption more worthy of being explored through fiction than debate.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[khallow]

I think you're in the crowd without a sense of perspective. It's ridiculous to have to remind people repeatedly that the US isn't like Syria. For example, Copponex conflates the recent murders of hundreds of protestors in Syria with a single kidnapping/torture case. Sure, the latter indicates something is deeply wrong with the US, but what does the former say about Syria?

Perhaps daveschroeder and myself are apologists for the US. Even so, that appears to me to be a lot more seemly than whatever role you and Copponex are playing for Syria. I might add, I can't be bothered to try to be "trusted" by the likes of you.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

A lesser of two evils doesn't mean that one is good.

Has the world been better off in the last few decades with the US present as a world power, perhaps.

Is the US now rapidly becoming one of the things that people died for to prevent from coming into power in the second world war, quite probably to almost certainly.

I don't think most people have anything against the US, it's what it's become (becoming?). Or maybe it has always been like that, but the veil has been removed from our eyes.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I don't remember asking you to remind me that the US isn't like Syria. Anyway, I was already aware it doesn't have a president from Kenya, so it's probably different enough for argument's sake. And don't mind us, we're always conflating things. I just do it because I like how when you conflate them enough, they make a noise like "BANG!" followed by "whhheeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssshhhhhhhzzzzzzzzzzzssssssppllppllplplplplpl!!" as they fly around the room.

God, though, I have to admit you saw through our roles in The Big Dumb Syrius Improv Show right away. I didn't think anybody would catch on. The cat's out of the bag now, for sure. But you have to understand, we're only responding to audience suggestions, and we didn't know they were all Assyrians. See, they write down random ideas on little note cards or Tweet them, and then we kind of work with it. But I am crushed, crushed I tell you, that you can't be bothered to be "trusted" by "the likes of me". It just shows how little "faith" you have in your "fellow" thespians. But I'll "forgive" you, I'll even "buy you a beer" at the cast party to show there are no hard "feelings".

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[copponex]

I hope the amount of incorrect, ranting assumptions you've made about me and what you think I stand for made you feel better.

Perhaps you shouldn't be blamed, but your role in the institution is clear: you help rationalize death and violence for those in pursuit of power. There are lower callings, but not many.

Do you believe that the world and humanity would be better off if the US hadn't existed after, say, WWII? Not just from a geopolitical perspective, but from perspectives of technology, medicine, and similar? Do you believe that someone like, say, China, or an amalgamation of warring mideast states, or perhaps even an old Soviet superstate would be a better global steward than the United States and the West?

The mid-east states started warring after we and our allies divided them up after WWI and purposefully separated tribal groups by state lines, and then started stealing all of their resources. China has not stepped outside of its borders in quite some time, but I understand if you're afraid of the Asiatics. 19th Century ignorance is about where I'd place your philosophical aspirations.

As for Russia, I find that simply ironic. Who was it who was invading Afghanistan to impose secular values on a fundamentalist culture, but couldn't get things done because weapons and arms were being smuggled in through Pakistan? Do I prefer the massacres in the eastern bloc to the death squads in Central America? Do I prefer the assassinations of civil rights leaders with the FBI or the KGB? How is Estonia doing vs Haiti? Latvia vs Ecuador? Poland vs Nicaragua? Was Saddam a great ally in the 1980s when we sponsored a million deaths after Iran threw out our puppet government, or was Mubarak a better investment (until recently, at least)?

Did our investment in China go up or down after they rolled over students in Tiananmen Square? What made us turn on Gaddafi after showering him with diplomatic gifts in 2008?

Do women have more rights in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and if the answer is Iran, why are we allies with Saudi Arabia?

Only a fool can see the American empire as anything than what it is: a run-of-the-mill, self-interested machine of conquest and violence. Not better or worse than any other empire, but like all empires, interested in a single question: do you obey?

If you want to defend that mentality, there's no difference between yourself an any other parasite of any other empire. You wave the stars and stripes because of your coincidental birthplace, not because it represents a value system. You're a self-righteous parasite. There's nothing special about you or about America. Not anymore.

PS: I didn't even touch the slaughter in Southeast Asia. That would have made the argument too easy.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard the phrase, "The brighter the picture, the darker the negative"? It means basically that the better something/someone looks, it usually means the more they are hiding......

Maybe they have been bashing the US so much for the simple fact that they are just as corrupt as many other countries if not worse and has been hiding the fact which gives them that much more information they can bring to light.

Lets say you have 2 people who are equally fucked up. But one of them is an expert at hiding it while the other is pretty much out in the open about it. Who do you think you can dig up more dirt on and expose to the world to show them for what they really are? The guy hiding stuff will be talked about non-stop while the guy who is already open about just won't care and neither will no one else cause they already know what he did. Think about that when you discuss how much he targets the US. If anything, his actions are more American than most of America's actions. We were founded on an open government and his actions is forcing it to open up more than it is.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

How low are you willing to go? Can we do anything we want, then, so long as we are not yet quite as bad, not yet quite so evil as say, China, or an amalgamation of warring mideast states, or perhaps even an old Soviet superstate?

If not, then why do you feel the need to deflect attention from these things that we really are, and really shouldn't be doing with this argument? To go so far as to suggest that those who do wish to discuss it lack perspective, are clueless, are bizarro?

If one continues to do evil things, does one not eventually become evil? Indeed, perhaps the desire to not examine your consequences is the very beginning of evil. Is shooting the messenger the threshold?

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[dbIII]

It's about time Wikileaks lived up to

Before you Americans had even heard of Wikileaks they had won an international award for releasing a lot of information about the injustices carried out by the Kenyan government.

what it means is that people need to get out of their bizarro world and get some perspective on things

You statement appears to be hypocritical but it I'd say it is merely helplessly ignorant because of failures in presentation of news by the mainstream outlets in your area - which has led to a poor perspective on this issue. If all the news you get about wikileaks is about how it has embarrassed Hillary Clinton etc then that will give you such a skewed perspective with no fault of your own.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[khallow]

Actually, I don't remember asking you to remind me that the US isn't like Syria.

Does someone have to ask for help when they're clearly in need? I'd no more wait to help a choking man than I'd wait to help someone sorely in need of perspective. It's a service I provide free of charge or request.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[dbIII]

Which was written by and adhered to for so long by which person exactly? I'll give you a clue, his surname starts with A. Where do you guys get this shit from?

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[kc_cramer]

Gosh, I'm all choked up now, for sure ;-)

You're a real human being after all, not like what I thought at first.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[dbIII]

The above poster is not going low, merely pointing out that it's a large empire with an amoral outlook instead of the little cosy light of justice on the hill. Pointing out that something is not perfect should not be so difficult and shouldn't provoke the sort of responses seen here. Of course we know the USA is never going to poison Assange with Polonium but there's not just a binary scale of absolute good and absolete evil.
What I see here is people getting angry when their team is being watched by the "eternally vigilant" and do not understand that's how you get to keep your freedom. Wikileaks fills a niche where some of the press used to be back when the US government had less control of the flow of information.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

He responds to a report that we are doing the wrong thing with, essentially, an argument that we shouldn't worry about it because we aren't as bad as some of the other guys. (This is not simply an innocuous observation that things are "not perfect", as you paint it.)

Given that argument, how evil do we have to get, before we *should* start paying attention to what we are doing? And if we're not going to, how would we know if the USA is going to poison Assange with Polonium or not? Are you aware America has assassinated a number of political targets already? Read (almost) any modern history of the CIA. Then, ask yourself why they would stop, when most peoples' reactions are to turn their head and mumble something about imperfections.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, those who criticize the US must be apologists for Syria. Who would possibly deplore the deplorable acts of both of them? Unfortunately, we can only schedule one deploring apparently, so instead of discussing those acts, let's argue over *which one* we ought to deplore.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[dbIII]

how would we know if the USA is going to poison Assange with Polonium or not

For one, they can't get the stuff because it only comes from one type of nuclear reactor in Russia. Polonium poisoning is like deliberately leaving a calling card and a warning to others. The CIA and other US agencies, for all their faults, don't do that sort of thing yet even if they fire drones at people. Since you obviously missed the general knowledge about Polonium (which is in the news again this week) I'm not surprised that you haven't been following this enough to get my point.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point was that polonium wouldn't be our choice? Really? That seems thoroughly irrelevant to any of the previous discussion.. Which of course fits well with my theme that most Americans will do most anything to avoid serious consideration of our consequences.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd

[dbIII]

Look, he's embarassed a pile of people in US intelligence and is not dead. Russia doesn't act the same way and have made it clear that they will assassinate people in a similar situation. Is that simple enough for you?

Wanna bet?

[Anonymous Coward]

... that there will be no mention of Ecuador in any of those postings?

Re:Assange

[Anonymous Coward]

Name says it all. Can't spell Assange without "ass". "Ange" turns out to mean "hole" in some language, I'm sure.

That's a serious argument you got there.

Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[King_TJ]

This concept may be foreign to some people living on this planet, but certainly as a U.S. citizen, I was raised believing in the idea. As an adult, I've learned what a fantasy it really is today ... but that's doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal to keep striving for.

So thanks again, wikileaks -- because a govt. keeping secrets isn't a very accountable one.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Govt. By The People, FOR Their People

Clarified that for you.

Next question please ...

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You also believe that Gasland is a factual documentary and that Micheal Moore is anything other than a dirty capitalist.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you publish all of your work emails, since you have nothing to hide. Assuming you aren't an unemployed basement-dweller, that is.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[KermodeBear]

I do think that governments keep too many secrets. That said, a government should have the capability to keep some secrets.

While it would be interesting, I don't want to know (for example) the list of spies we have planted in the Iranian government. I don't want to know the location of our nuclear warheads. I also don't want to know every detail of the president's schedule for the next six months.

A fully transparent government is a wonderful ideal, but like many ideals it just doesn't work well in practice. In order to protect its people, a government needs to have some expectation of privacy in certain areas.

I think our government works in the opposite way that it should here. By default, all documents / calls / emails / etc. produced by a government office - any government office - should be filed away, made public so that anyone can go get them. It should be the exception to the rule that a document / process / etc. is kept secret - and the necessity to keep such things a secret should be validated by a third party.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why don't you publish all of your work emails, since you have nothing to hide. Assuming you aren't an unemployed basement-dweller, that is.

In the case of a great many civil servants, all their work emails are subject to public records laws. Unless their employer feels like stonewalling for them, or they work largely on classified stuff, the main thing keeping their email unpublished is lack of interest...

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]
I think our government works in the opposite way that it should here. By default, all documents / calls / emails / etc. produced by a government office - any government office - should be filed away, made public so that anyone can go get them. It should be the exception to the rule that a document / process / etc. is kept secret - and the necessity to keep such things a secret should be validated by a third party.
[/quote]

That assumes a perfect world where everything they ever do is above board, and everyone they have to deal with is above board. That also assumes every other country will be lovely, and not go reading all these documents, and using your weaknesses against you.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[Infiniti2000]

So thanks again, wikileaks -- because a govt. keeping secrets isn't a very accountable one.

The problem I have is that the GOVT should still be able to keep secrets from OTHER governments. Let's assume that what you want is for the U.S. GOVT to not keep any secrets from you, theoretically a valid U.S. citizen. But, I argue that we still want to keep those secrets from other governments, including our possible and potential allies. WikiLeaks unfortunately makes no such distinctions. So, explain to me why you think that a particular sovereignty should not keep any information from other nations, whether they're friendly or not.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[Hatta]

I don't want to know (for example) the list of spies we have planted in the Iranian government.

I do. Those spies are almost certainly making our diplomatic relations with Iran worse. I don't feel safer with spies in Iran. If I knew exactly how many spies we had in Iran, I could pressure my representative to hold hearings to justify our espionage.

I don't want to know the location of our nuclear warheads.

I do. Then I could go protest there.

I also don't want to know every detail of the president's schedule for the next six months.

See above.

It should be the exception to the rule that a document / process / etc. is kept secret - and the necessity to keep such things a secret should be validated by a third party.

What third party could be trusted? The courts are already completely on board with total secrecy. Any independent body powerful enough to withstand government pressure would have their own interests to protect with secrecy.

There are things one might legitimately want secret. There are a lot more things where secrecy is used to hide impropriety. The nature of secrecy is that accountability is not possible. On the whole, we stand to gain a lot by abolishing secrecy and enforcing accountability throughout the government. The threat our foreign enemies pose is negligible compared to the threat of corruption shrowded in secrecy.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to know (for example) the list of spies we have planted in the Iranian government.

I do. Those spies are almost certainly making our diplomatic relations with Iran worse. I don't feel safer with spies in Iran.

You would feel safer having Iran developing weapons and planing an attack without our knowledge?

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[tbannist]

Because "keeping it secret from other nations" is exactly the same as "keeping it secret from our own people" and is used for the exact same reason, doing unethical things that neither your own people nor other nation's people would like.

The difference is entirely in what you say to justify hiding your misdeeds, there is no practical difference.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People ....

[dbIII]

the list of spies we have planted in the Iranian government

I doubt there are any since the CIA moved to intelligence by whatever grabs the most headlines, and even cut the number of ordinary analysts that can read Farsi down to almost none. If it's ignored on the civilian side there's nobody getting the skills to do anything else.
If there are any spies there they will be on loan from a foreign power instead of one that does entraption stunts like the UK only "Saddams nuclear trigger" debacle instead of actually putting an agent in the country in question. Remember Iraq? The CIA had little clue what was going on there because they had nobody on the ground. Iran would be a lot harder and require patience that is not present in a promotion seeking bloated agency.

too little, too late?

[darkstar019]

It seems to be this way, as the civil war rages on unabated in Syria.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . or not.

[Dunbal]

I think you have failed to notice that the BBC and NYT don't publish those kinds of article anymore.

Waiting for e-mails from Assange to harassed women

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey babe,

Here is a red dress if you keep your purty mouth shut.

Above the law ?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Why ? Are guys that "stick it to the man" above the law these days ?

Every country and everyone has embarassing things to hide. Furthermore there are many other reasons to hide information. If you disagree with this, please post your credit card number, social security number and internet passwords in a reply message.

While you can maybe make the point that Assange can't legally be arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is true, but he is a fugitive under 3 law systems, all of which are western free democracies with fair justice systems, all of which provide all the protections for a fair trial. He refuses to face his accusers or the justice system for crimes including rape, fraud, spying, conspiracy to commit treason and others. He lies about wikileak's internal structure, as it pertains to money, and has refused payment on contracts he had signed. And of course, hiding from justice is an offence by itself, and a very serious one at that. As to whether he is guilty, frankly given his behaviour, my money's on "yes", including the rape and fraud charges. As to whether those Swedish rape laws are just, that's not a discussion we should be having just because one popular guy has managed to run afoul of it.

Why would any guy currently popular get protection from the law ? I wonder what the reaction would be if a wall street banker stole some money and tried this crap ...

Furthermore, I am not a fool, and as such I find it very hard to believe wikileaks is anything but a broker for industrial espionage data that has decided to try to do that publicly. I find it very, very hard to believe they are anything but a front for something else. If they succeed, the world will be a much worse place.

Re:Above the law ?

[darjen]

Wow, talk about wild eyed assertions. Accusing Wikileaks of being a front for "something else" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Sounds to me like you just don't like what they do, so you will say any damn ridiculous thing you can to try and discredit them.

Re:Above the law ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It is morally imperative to resist immoral laws.

Have you looked at what Wikileaks publishes? It's not some yellow press institution that posts some sad peeping tom bullshit. It's hardcore international politics and all kind of shady deal most of which should never have been classified in the first place.

You really think that the US is a "free democracy with fair justice system"? What rock do you live under?

The world is already a much worse place. http://community.mis.temple.edu/mis3538b2/files/2011/10/assage.jpg

Re:Above the law ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Furthermore there are many other reasons to hide information. If you disagree with this, please post your credit card number, social security number and internet passwords in a reply message."

False analogy, due to the fact that CCNs/SSNs/Passwords are active information keys.

That would equate to Wikileaks posting login details and passwords for government systems, or account numbers for government banking.

If you want to make a real analogy, suggest the person publicly post their call-log, e-mail transcripts, and text messages.

Then you're at least in the same ballpark.

Re:Above the law ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fugitive?

The women wanted him to take an HIV test and asked police for advice. Random attorney jumped and called it rape. Some sane guy read it and said 'what lol' and dropped the case. Said retard attorney dug it back up along with the help of Bodström, with whose help they poisoned his well and made him look like a rapist in the medias (which is all owned by the Bonnier group).

Assange offered to be questioned/interviewed, but the attorney declined. He did so again and warned that he was headed overseas, but she declined. Then when he's at the airport some minutes before takeoff, she issues an arrest warrant for questioning, and later the interpol most wanted call. The ladies involved who asked about what they could/should do about the hiv test are long since out of the picture.

There are lots of precedents where Swedish authorities have interviewed/questioned people over phone, or even by traveling to the country where the person is to do it there. Ny and Bodström don't want to; they want him inside Sweden.

Once here they can ship him off to US in all accordance with Swedish law, without any court proceedings (or if any then behind closed doors as is usually reserved for sexual assault on minors, very hush hush). The temporary surrender agreement that we have with the states just demands that the reason why the US wants the extraditee mustn't be political.

The secret grand jury has had ample time to invent a new interpretation of the espionnage laws by now, so when he lands at JFK they'll be waiting with an orange jumpsuit, a pair of zipties and a tazer. After a ~year of psychological torture (sleep deprivation is very very very effective), Manning could easily be coaxed into saying Assange made him do it, and then he'd get gitmoed.

I don't think they'll suicide him right away lest he become a martyr. Though I guess they could do the burial-at-sea thing again.

Re:Above the law ?

[Anonymous Coward]

but he is a fugitive under 3 law systems, all of which are western free democracies with fair justice systems

Not really sure which countries you're talking about here? The US with the dodgy banana republic like Bush election? Or perhaps Sweden that seems to bend over backwards for the US to 'interview' Assange?
Or maybe you're talking about the british government that just recently was 'too busy' to investigate the slaughter of men women and children on Bloody Sunday in 1972?

Not quite sure if you were referring to any of these.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange did not leak *anything*. All he does it put leaks sent to him up on a website and acts all important about it. He's not the important part of the equation. There are 1,000,000 Assange-like people waiting in the wings hoping he fails so they can step in.

Are you willing to be the one who steps in?
Being the front figure for Wikipedia is pretty much like painting a target on the front of your head. You are going to be the one taking the blame for every leak and will be hated by every person in power who have something to hide. (Basically everyone who does anything shady/evil on a large scale.)
The best thing one can do in a situation like that is to do wahtever it takes to be a public enough person that you can't go missing without anyone noticing.

The problem with moral relativism

[daveschroeder]

They're all SOMETHING, and differ in degree, but the US and the principles for which it stands, however imperfectly throughout history, can definitely not be generalized as "evil". I can't say the same for totalitarian states — throughout history, or now.

Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.

Yes, be vigilant. Yes, identify injustice. Yes, call out abuse. But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[cheekyjohnson]

The problem with moral relativism

What does that have to do with moral relativism?

can definitely not be generalized as "evil".

Apparently it can.

Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.

The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not bad.

But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

What? It looks to me like he was just saying that some can be more evil than others but the less evil ones can still be evil.

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[Hatta]

Yes, call out abuse. But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

I see you're watching this thread. I look forward to your response to BForrester who demonstrates that the US isn't "just as bad" but worse by roughly an order of magnitude in absolute terms.

The fact is, it's you who have lost all perspective on historical reality. The principles you think the US stands for have never been anything except cover for rapacious greed and power lust. If we were talking about China, whose Communism is supposed to benefit the proletariat, I'm sure you'd understand. But in America with "Freedom and Justice for All (TM)", you can't seem to make the leap when its your own country. It's all lies, and that's all it's ever been, just like every other government, in every other country, throughout history.

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[daveschroeder]

Oh, is this the part where we get to play human calculus? Where how many Syrians killed under their own government can somehow be viewed in the exact same light, without any context whatever, as the Iraqi lives lost during the US military action in Iraq?

Do you believe the US indiscriminately slaughters civilians with intend as a matter of policy, and that even in examples where civilians have died, has actually wanted that to occur? When civilians have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has served as a distinct negative for US interests. There is no reason, by any measure, for the US to want to kill Iraqi civilians.

The existence and principles of the West after WWII has saved and preserved FAR more lives than totalitarian ideologies would have if entrusted with the same. We've already seen the misery that Communism (and I use that in the practical, colloquial sense) can visit on the world, lest we forget history.

Sure there can be corruption, abuse, greed — these are all part of the human condition. But your own sarcastic (and fallacious) view of what the US stands for is illustrative.

I really wish there were a way — and I'm serious, and I'd eat all the words I've ever spoken were I wrong — to just snap my fingers and see what the world would have been like without the US after WWII. Would we even have the transistor? The laser? A trip to the moon? The internet? (And all of the innumerable things those have supported is implied.) And no, I don't just mean in those exact forms, by those exact names — would any of the things that have driven human achievement for the past six decades even have existed? Perhaps some equivalents would, someday, but if we're going to extend the timeline to infinity, nothing will really matter since inevitably the Sun will die and humans will likely become extinct.

So this is all academic, isn't it?

I prefer to do what's best for the largest amount of people — and not JUST Americans — with the tools and knowledge that we have in the present. If you can't see anything positive in the United States or the West, and see their governments as something just as bad/good/indifferent as China by a different name, then we are likely at a philosophical impasse — and judging by your last sentence, I'd say that's where we are, but I thought I'd give you the courtesy of a reply.

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[Hatta]

Do you believe the US indiscriminately slaughters civilians with intend as a matter of policy, and that even in examples where civilians have died, has actually wanted that to occur?

I believe the dead don't care what your intent was. If you choose a course of action where you know people are going to be killed and go ahead with it anyway, I don't see any way to excuse those deaths as unintentional.

And no, I don't just mean in those exact forms, by those exact names â" would any of the things that have driven human achievement for the past six decades even have existed?

Wow, that's some first class chauvinism there. The US got there first, because of the economic advantage it got post WWII. If Germany had won, they'd have the advantage and would have made the advances. They also would have slaughtered many more millions of people, and I'm glad that didn't happen. But science will progress either way. Other people in other countries would find the same questions we did, and they'd find similar answers.

Also, remember that that was over half a century ago. More like Germany pre-1933 than US post-1949. Germany too once enjoyed being the technological and artistic capital of the world. Just as they fell, so are we falling.

prefer to do what's best for the largest amount of people â" and not JUST Americans â" with the tools and knowledge that we have in the present.

I agree with this entirely. I simply have no faith whatsoever in the US to do what is best for most people, instead of what is best for the powerful stakeholders that run our political and economic system. I don't see any evidence that the US has acted in the best interests of anyone other than the top .01% of Americans for decades.

If you can't see anything positive in the United States or the West, and see their governments as something just as bad/good/indifferent as China by a different name, then we are likely at a philosophical impasse

I too value the principles that the US stands for. I just wish they would actually put them into practice. It's not a philosophical impasse. I look at the world and what I see is not consistent with the US being a force for good, or even well intentioned but misguided.

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[dkleinsc]

Like most other entities, the US has done some good things, and some evil things.

Good things include:
- Starting a string of revolutions that freed a lot of Europeans as well as Americans.
- Winning WWII (shared credit to the UK and the Commonwealth, France, the USSR, and quite a few other countries and organizations)
- Winning the Cold War (again, lots of shared credit, including to Mikhail Gorbachev for risking life and limb to stand up against his hardline opponents)
- Lots of fantastic scientific discoveries and inventions, including but not limited to the light bulb, the airplane, the automobile, the personal computer (including lots of components for said computer).
- Landing on the moon. That was awesome.

Evil things include:
- Genocide against the American Indians (estimated at about 10 million people)
- Enslavement of Africans (about 12 million people)
- Installing and supporting oppressive totalitarian dictators who do the bidding of US-based multinationals. Some of the better known cases of this include Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in Iran, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, Manuel Noriega in Nicaragua and Panama, and more recently Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
- The Vietnam War: This goes in the "evil" column for me due to the millions of civilians dead and the war aim of preventing a country from choosing its own leaders.

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[Anonymous Coward]

>Do you believe the US indiscriminately slaughters civilians with intend as a matter of policy

As in Iraq ? Yes as a matter of fact I do, but to people like you that is different innit?

Or as in Laos, 1 million Lao killed by the USA in a war they did not take part in, and not very nice deaths at that, petrol bombs and poison

Has the USA paid any war reparations for that act ?

Or even apologised ......

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government has installed many puppet governments and helped out with coups against democratically elected governments (one that immediately comes to mind is Allende in Chili) to ensure a steady stream of cheap resources. Or in many cases just looked the other way as long as cheap resources keep coming in.

Usually it were these governments that did all the atrocities; but are you going to tell me that the US government is not at least partly responsible for the deaths of the people killed by these puppet governments.

What's worse, the butcher or the organisation that put the butcher there in the first place to get some prime meat at cheaper rates?

Re:The problem with moral relativism

[dbIII]

The cold war pretty well had to be over before somebody like Mikhail Gorbachev had a chance to be in charge of the USSR instead of the hardliners. After that it was a matter of convincing Reagan to stop trying to start it up again. Eventually Thatcher did that, after she'd got Reagan's respect by tearing him a new one over the phone for invading Grenada.
I don't think Carter can take any credit either, since his talks were made possible by a thawing in relations instead of causing them. I've got no idea why Americans revere almost as much as Gods the two idiots that played stupid and pointless nuclear games of brinksmanship with little benefit (Kennedy and Reagan).

Nice line. But Assange isn't "hiding".

[Catbeller]

Assange isn't "hiding". He's seeking asylum from an obvious US plot to drag him in chains to a sham trial on US soil for the crime of embarrassing them.

Re:Nice line. But Assange isn't "hiding".

[Rei]

Right. It's not like he's wanted for rape by the legal system of a first world country with an extradition request approved and the accusations deemed credible by two courts of a second first-world country.

Re:Nice line. But Assange isn't "hiding".

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for spreading more FUD, Assange is not wanted for rape. He is wanted for questioning in a case of "sex by surprise" would be one of the better translations.

He had consensual sex with multiple women without protection. Apparently lying about your previous sexual history when engaged in unprotected sex maybe/is a crime in Sweden.

Calling it rape is pure FUD.

Re:Nice line. But Assange isn't "hiding".

[Rei]

Sorry, but that is 100% false and pure victim smearing. And there is no such charge as "sex by surprise". The charge they want to try him for (well, one of the four) is "mindre grov våldtäkt" ("minor rape" - literally, "less than major rape"), but had it happened in the UK it would simply be prosecuted as "rape". Which isn't speculation; that's what the British lower court determined and what the high court upheld. The total maximum penalty is 4 years jail time.

The term "sex by surprise" comes from Assange's attorney pushing a literal translation of the term "överraskningssex", which is not a charge, just a description (and while "överraskning" means "surprise", "överraskningssex" still means "rape").

Re:Droning on and on

[X0563511]

We try really hard to keep them locked up in basements and such, but occasionally the crazy gets out.

Re:Droning on and on

[miscGeek]

Every country has something embarrassing to hide. Just some more than others.

List of Releases

[mat.power]

Here's the link: http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/releases.html

Was it just me?

[sharkey]

At first glance, I read that as "Sybian Emails", and was wondering what the contents could possibly be.

Up until recently...

[beaverdownunder]

countries didn't 'publicly' intervene in other countries' civil wars.

And that's what's happening in Syria -- you can try to spin it as big-bad-evil-dictator vs. poor helpless (well-armed, well supported) 'freedom fighters' all you like, but in the end, it's a civil war. If Assad started carpet-bombing entire towns (he hasn't) then maybe you could get away with a no-fly zone, but otherwise, WTF?

You _want_ to install an Islamic government in Syria? Really? You do? Interesting. Tell me more...

Re:Up until recently...

[cpghost]

countries didn't 'publicly' intervene in other countries' civil wars.

Well, the Prime Directive wasn't invented yet in this time and age. It is exactly this current kind of overzealous interventionism with all those painful unintended consequences that will eventually lead the world to adopt it sometime in the future.

Re:Up until recently...

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Define recently? Post WWII? What do you think our fighting in Vietnam was except an interference in a civil war? Or post WWI, the Russian Civil War. Now, more often then not, the world decides to wring its hands b/c interventions into civil conflicts tend to escalate into proxy wars and full blown regional conflicts. Too recent? Look into the history of the CSS Alabama.

Wikileaks joins Syria bashing train?

[cpghost]

It looks like Julian Assange is seeking to endear himself with the US government in joining the Western-led anti-Syrian bashing train. But somehow, I doubt this will help him redeem himself in the eyes of the Empire. And no, don't get me started about how evil the Assad regime is, considering that the only realistic alternative could be a lot worse. Quo vadis, Wikileaks?

Re:Wikileaks joins Syria bashing train?

[dkleinsc]

... could be a lot worse.

A lot worse for whom exactly? Certainly not the portions of the Syrian population that are getting killed by their own government.

I mean, how exactly would you react if the US government started dropping bombs on, say, Houston? Would you want the rest of the world to say "Hey, that's better than having a Texan in the White House!"

Re:Wikileaks joins Syria bashing train?

[cpghost]

Well, Huston didn't attack the US, nor were they infiltrated by foreign fighters; or did they? At least use an analogy that is a little bit more accurate. Hmmm... let's say: the world wants to take down the US government, because it dared to attack the loonies in Waco. But even then, that's a poor analogy, because they too weren't a threat to the US, and the US didn't bomb them in the ground.

And a lot worse? Yes, if all those Al Qaeda fighters that infiltrated the opposition got their way and managed to hijack that rebellion. Things could indeed get worse in Syria. The Syrian people are right now caught between a rock and a hard place: both alternatives are bad. Let's at least not intervene there nor support those who do, making things even worse. IMHO. You're free to disagree, of course.

HilBilly and DoS Will Be Pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort the lot with grep and awk to find the e-mails form the Sec-O-State at DoS to Assad about the CIA rendition/torture prisons (and $$$$ from US Treasury) and ops by Syrian Forces to prevent their uncovering by rebel forces.

Also keep in mind that Russia has a substantial ($$$$$) port-operations for their Met-Fleet (which they are rebuilding and expanding) at Tartus. Any NATO incursion will have to avoid that gem or risk a much wider and bloody-er geo-conflagration with the nuclear force structure and DEFCON 2.

LoL

Think again

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I would say Yes, the US is evil.

I live in Canada, we had minority governments for close to 10 years (for the people, this is the BEST government in my opinion - the reason being is that no one party can force any laws, they need the help of another party to get a law through so the laws must be balanced). Then, all of a sudden, Harper (our PM right now with a Majority) gets a lot of wins from the US, we get our Softwood lumber dispute fixed, some stuff with the North, Harper looks like a good "strong" candidate. He gets voted in with a Majority and now all those draconian laws (ACTA, Patriot Act, SOPA, etc) you guys are fighting or have are coming our way and there is NOTHING we can do to stop them since Harper has a Majority (a majority here in Canada basically means he can do whatever he wants as long as he keeps his own party in line -- and that is breed into them here).

So, a year later after the election, Wikileaks reveals how the US threw Harper these bones to get him elected with a Majority.... So, is this not meddling? Is this not evil? What if we did that to you or your country? Would you not consider that wrong? Yes, this is politics, and all countries do some of this to some extent, however, the rest of the world is now realizing just HOW involved the US is in their politics....

If they are manipulating us at this level ( a very close friend and someone who has almost always supported the US ) I hate to really know how far they will go with countries that are not as friendly and/or considered unfriendly. And as for news, well, if you haven't heard of any of this on your local media/news/newspaper/magazines then ask yourself why? You can go to wikileaks and look this up (don't ask me, it's the process of learning that is just as important as the facts you'll find) and confirm it all, yet no news? Something this important is not aired? Anywhere? If your news is this controlled, just how bad is it really then? What else are they not telling you or spinning?

Enjoy your comfy life, but know that the rest of the world knows what you don't want to see, and it's not looking pretty regardless how much Fox tells you it is.
       

Irritating totalitarian governments

[Beeftopia]

Assange better watch himself. The US is/has been involved in a lot of corruption in its politics and its financial sector, and it fields assassination teams around the world. However it's not going to directly kill Assange for embarrassing/inconveniencing it.

The same cannot be said for Russia and a host of other countries.

Re:Droning on and on

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we eavesdrop on all of your private phone conversations and publish transcripts on Wikileaks? Do you have something to hide?

It's actually the same logic. The fact that you don't want everyone to know what you're talking about or what you're doing doesn't mean that you're doing something evil.

Re:Droning on and on

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect these emails will indeed show something embarassing (only 1 r damnit!) for a few people inside several different countries so the OPs post is indeed insightful. Not sure why yours is so insightful. I suspect it has to do with anti-American sentiment by the mods even though nothing was said about America.

Wikileaks Outs Russian Federation. . .

[PerlPunk]

. . . and then something like this happens:

Fearless Leader: Keel Asange

Agent Badenov: But Fearless Leader, we don't know where he is. . .

Fearless Leader: Ask our CIA friends.

CIA Friend: Here is his address, phone number, brothers, sisters, friends, favourite restaurants, etc.

Agent Badenov: Thank you!

Julian Asange, a uniter, not a divider. . .

Nope, you're misremembering

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look at the previous threads about Iceland's MEP talking about any WL defenders being hounded by the USA.

Assange was used as a reason to hate Wikileaks, but the hate was about Wikileaks and what they did to the USA.

MOD parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy provides citations, Internetuser1248 has no response.

Thanks Mr Langley

[Anonymous Coward]

..for your hard work towards Mr Tshershinky's Utopia. An Utopia where people are abducted and held without a judge ever being asked at a remote place FOREVER. An Utopia where suspects are killed from three km height by drone, based on flimsy evidence and on the decision of sherrif, king, defense advocate and judge O'Bumma.

Long Live Felix' America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

It Is Also Interesting To See The Little Tyrants

[Anonymous Coward]

..of America and how they cooperate with Washington, London, Paris and more "free" countries. Also look at how they tried to discredit and smear the revolution in Egypt, because it threatened America's and Israel's tyrant Mubarak. Wikileaks was very, very instructive.

How Much Better Would Be An American Tyrant

[Anonymous Coward]

..like Somoza or Pinochet ! He would suck US Dick, and preserve the interest of American Capitalists like ITT. That is morally much better than anything else !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITT_Corporation#Involvement_in_1973_Pinochet_coup_in_Chile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Re:From a Canadian Perspective...

[Phrogman]

The US is right-wing generally. What you call a "liberal" is what we call middle of the road or possibly a conservative.
I agree that Faux News is batshit crazy right wing, but I see CNN as merely right wing, not liberal by any means, and most of the people who comment on CNN stories are also batshit rightwing it seems.
The extremes are dangerous IMHO, in the very least because they don't think they are dangerous. While I am slightly leftwing politically myself, the extreme leftwing people are often out to lunch IMHO, and the rightwing Conservative types seem only a few steps from Fascist.
I don't think the typical American political range from left to right is lining up with the rest of the world's similar range. You folks tend to be slid towards the rightwing side more. At least thats my perspective on it :P

"Oh, you Americans! "

[Anonymous Coward]

What fucking country are you from zipper-head?

are these the kind of hackers

[KingBenny]

that alleged intellectual would be proposing the death penalty for then? Or only the ones who cost a lot to the corporatiocracy, i was a little confused about it and by the time i got the newsletter the discussion was archived.