Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks Founder 'Free To Leave Sweden'

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the totally-generous dept.

The Courts 410

An anonymous reader writes "AFP reports that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is free to leave Sweden, after prosecutors said there was no arrest warrant against him for an alleged case of rape. Assange said the charges against him were part of 'a clear set-up,' and that he had 'two reliable intelligence sources that state that Swedish intelligence was approached last month by the United States and told that Sweden must not be a safe haven for WikiLeaks.' The news comes just one day before the Swedish national election."

cancel ×

410 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What? (5, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627550)

I'm an American but why the fuck is our govt telling Sweden "what they're allowed to do."

Listen up US Military: you're the ones who fucked up, you're supposed to keep this shit secret and you failed it.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627610)

I'm an American but why the fuck is our govt telling Sweden "what they're allowed to do."

Its what they do.

At least its actually your government doing it not some corporation telling your government to tell
someone what to do.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627628)

keep looking. follow the money.

the reason the US keeps having 'big wars' is because of co's like halliburton and the rest that profit EXTENSIVELY from war and foreign aggression.

the government does not directly profit from war; but certain companies surely do.

a little lesson for you about how things work in the real world.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

radio4fan (304271) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627968)

keep looking. follow the money.

the reason the US keeps having 'big wars' is because of co's like halliburton and the rest that profit EXTENSIVELY from war and foreign aggression.

Absolutely. I look back with fondness at how naive I was when the Iraq war started -- I thought the real motive was to steal money from Iraq!

What a fool I was. It's now evident that the plan was -- and always was -- to steal money from the United States.

7 Thousand Billion for the Iraq war so far...

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628004)

the government does not directly profit from war; but certain companies surely do.

Those in power do. They profit from awarding big contracts and subsidies to those companies.
Subverting the political system of a country like the US isn't cheap.

Re:What? (1, Troll)

wampus (1932) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627620)

This assumes that you trust this self promoting douche to not be completely full of shit.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627648)

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

Re:What? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627672)

Don't trust some asswipe on slashdot? Smartest.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627886)

Don't trust some asswipe on slashdot? Smartest.

Don't trust Anonymous Coward? There's a monk outside with a ladder...

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627710)

As much as I support Wikileaks, Assange has been a little dickish lately, acting as though he "doesn't need" to prove anything with regards to Wikileaks' or his own credibility. Regardless of what he has done or is doing, he is a human being and not some deity. Whether Assange is being set up in some kind of smear campaign by the U.S. government, or he did something wrong and is using the reputation and history of the U.S. government to his advantage is open to debate, but honestly, questioning whether Assange himself can be trusted is not trolling in my opinion. Questioning Wikileaks or the credibility itself only after the U.S. government got egg on its face is another matter entirely.

Re:What? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627816)

Whether Assange is being set up in some kind of smear campaign by the U.S. government,

"Whether Assange has set himself up in some kind of smear campaign directed at the U.S. government,"

There, fixed that conspiracy theory for you.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628256)

Bullshit.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627904)

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

Re:What? (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628072)

You know what the more I think about it the less it makes sense. Yes the leak was large and yes it did make a fool of the government. But if you think about it if it wasn't for the government making such a huge public deal out of the leak it would have hardly been a minor story on the evening news. I'm starting to think it was a planned leak. Take out the real stuff you don't want people to know about and release the rest. The government might not be good at a lot of things but its damn well at two things, disinformation and keeping the real important secrets, secrets. I mean if you really think about it all the secrets that do come out are always decades after the fact with no one to punish (ok a few like Watergate but still) hell even things like what really goes on at Area51. Plus whats a better excuse to pump up security of the information you want kept secret than a leak.

Re:What? (4, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628172)

I very much disagree with his use of "murder" regarding that dead reporter and associates.

What do you call it when people are unlawfully slaughtered, and then there's a cover up to hide the circumstances of those killings to make it appear that they were justified?

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,'' [nytimes.com] said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

There were no insurgents, no American troops were hit by small arms fire, there was no hostile force engaging that helicopter. It's lies through and through, with a pile of dead and mangled bodies underneath, and the guilty walking free.

Re:What? (1, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628276)

Insurgents. Yes, insurgents. You may ignore the colonel, you may call him a liar, you may brand the military a bunch of diabolical murderers - but that doesn't make you right. Try googling "reuters" "insurgent" and "embedded" - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=reuters+embedded+insurgent [lmgtfy.com] I especially like this one, http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php [mypetjawa.mu.nu] But, like religion, people won't believe anything that they haven't already decided on.

Different power levels (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627846)

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

I would fix that for you as:

"Don't trust an organization with $400 billion/year military budget? Smart. Don't trust some guy who's antagonizing the most powerful military organization on earth? Troll."

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627688)

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

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

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627722)

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

Nope. I didn't pay too much attention to wikileaks before, but given the reaction of the US government, the Afghanistan dox were authentic.

That doesn't mean the things he says to the press are true or complete.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627730)

He was asked a question and he answered. He is asked to do an interview on TED, and he did one. Newspapers report on something of his private life. How is this *self* promotion, exactly?

Only douchebags attack the messenger.

I notice you posted with your name flying high, Mr Wampus. If you use your own logic, don't post your self-promoting garbage, or if you do, post AC.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627744)

A self-promoting douche who is telling the truth about military cover-ups get much higher marks than any amount of seeminly, nice, personable people who are hiding atrocities.
It's past tiime that we looked past charm, respectability and authority as indicators of truthfulness - that has almost never been the case in gov'ts and organisations, especially when the stakes are as high as these.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627866)

>>>This assumes that you trust this self promoting douche to not be completely full of shit.

I don't trust him. Good thing he provides video, such as the soldiers killing journalists/children, plus laughing about it ("Look a dead kid. Shouldn't have come into the middle of a warzone brat."). I trust video. Hard to refute video evidence, although I've seen a few nutcases try.

What I wonder is why our government wants to cover it up. How many thousands of similar videos exist? We probably won't find out until most of us are dead.

Re:What? (1, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628030)

Weren't no dead kids, and no one laughed. They properly blamed the INJURED children on the people who had dragged the kids along to rescue their compatriots. As for refuting video evidence - few people seem to understand the evidence presented in the video. Or how to use supporting efidence to figure out what was going on. Reuters had reporters EMBEDDED with opposition units. Those armed men in the video had fired on American troops, only minutes earlier. The Apache was called in to deal with people firing on American troops. The biggest "mistake" made during the video, was when the Apache crew thought the camera was a weapon. But, the basic facts remain - the Apache took out a unit that had fired on American troops. BTW - both kids were taken to hospital and treated. I never did hear how badly they were hurt, or how well they are doing now - funny that the media doesn't cover stuff like that, huh? Stories about rescued children recovering in a US military hospital aren't very sensational.

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628118)

But, the basic facts remain - the Apache took out a unit that had fired on American troops.

So where's the evidence that the journalists - or even the people accompanying them - have fired on American troops? (Video evidence, preferably. DoD officials have been known to invent "facts".)

BTW - both kids were taken to hospital and treated. I never did hear how badly they were hurt, or how well they are doing now - funny that the media doesn't cover stuff like that, huh? Stories about rescued children recovering in a US military hospital aren't very sensational.

You seem to assume that the US DoD would hide away pictures of children they helped recover and that they would publicise the murder of children by American troops. Hint: War propaganda does not work the way you think.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627906)

I still trust him a hell of a lot more than: politicians, lawyers, most corporate executives, RIAA/MPAA/ASCAP people, bankers, certain media figureheads, and used car salesmen. If there's any ranking to self promoting douches heaping full of shit, Assange is fairly close to the bottom of the list, don't you think?

Re:What? (0, Troll)

CaptainMongles (1869042) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627666)

why do you care so much about random other countries?

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627748)

why do you care so much about random other countries?

This is an exceptionally 'American' statement that reinforces a rather negative stereotype about ignorance and moral detachment towards the rest of the world. To 95.5 percent of the worlds population, the USA is just another 'random country'.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628130)

Yes, because to 95.5 percent of the world's population, there's really no difference between the UK and Ethiopia.

I mean, they're both just 'another random country', right?

Re:What? (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628060)

Same reason anyone cares about the US, because you keep meddling.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627742)

I love how the problem you're pointing out is that the military lost grip on their secrets.. why not the fact they had such unforgivable secrets in the first place?

Public perception can only be as good as the apologism the public deems to be valid.

Re:What? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627928)

Again - I disagree that some of those secrets were terrible, unforgiveable, or whatever. That reporter who was killed was embedded in an insurgent unit. That unit had fired on our troops. The fact that the reporter was a reporter, and his camera was mistaken for some kind of a potential weapon doesn't change the fact that the Apache was justified in firing on that unit. The rest of the stuff that was leaked? I'll be honest - I've only looked at a very small sample of it. Some looks kind of bad, some looks kind of stupid, some looks like just routine things that I would EXPECT to be happening. Unforgiveable? I don't see it. Sensitive data? Most certainly.

Re:What? (0, Flamebait)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627848)

I'm an American but why the fuck is our govt telling Sweden "what they're allowed to do."

Why the fuck are you believing unfounded rumors posted on Slashdot by a self-promoting jerk?

How about maybe we look for this thing... what's it called... oh yeah, evidence! How about we find some of that evidence stuff *before* we start burning effigies, eh? What do you think of that?

God you make me ashamed to be an American. Considering the track record of this site, why would you believe *anything* posted on Slashdot? Even the sourced stuff is usually bullshit.

Re:What? (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627980)

Good, you agree! Now go out and get that evidence. Oh wait, they don't want you poking around in their secrets? Too bad. I guess we'll never know. Long live ignorance!

When the government wants evidence, they (usually) get a warrent. When the public wants evidence? Much harder.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628066)

When the government wants evidence, they (usually) get a warrent. When the public wants evidence? Much harder.

Yes. But that doesn't change a single thing I said.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628052)

You're ashamed to be American because of what one person says on Slashdot. That's just stupid.

Re:What? (2, Funny)

rhizome (115711) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628250)

Even the sourced stuff is usually bullshit.

It's not bullshit that Assange is free to leave Sweden now, but do continue quibbling about minor details.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627864)

US military secrets were being leaked. I'm sure CIA got an order somewhere to destroy the credibility of wikileaks owner.

USA is a nice country otherwise except the FBI/NSA/government branch which are on a mission to make the rest of the world good consumers for US goods and accept their way of living. It is interesting how after the cold war FBI and NSA didn't weaken (as they should have been) but instead became stronger and just found new enemies.

One motive - the Swedish artillery system 'Archer' (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628018)

Here is one of many motives - the Swedish artillery system 'Archer'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbrEBMVEDU4 [youtube.com]

.

Re:What? (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628058)

I'm an American but why the fuck is our govt telling Sweden "what they're allowed to do."

Listen up US Military: you're the ones who fucked up, you're supposed to keep this shit secret and you failed it.

It's rather common for the American government to do so (or for any sufficiently large country that can get away with it). United Fruit for example; the US government violently removed the democratic regime from Guatemala because they were forced to pay tax. [wikipedia.org] Something that baffles and scares me. China, Russia and Japan all do it as well, of course, and I'm sure my country would too if it was really big.

Re:What? (2, Funny)

hackus (159037) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628076)

You are kidding right?

Have you been living under a rock lately? I mean you do live in the US right?

Stop watching CNN, Foxnews and all the other crap that is on T.V. and start investigating these things yourself.

It isn't that hard.

In a nutshell to bring you up to date:

1) The US has plans to expand the war through the middle east through a variety of groups to use the Military we have to enforce globalist policies.

2) The middle class has nearly been destroyed. Within 5 years it will be gone. At the current trend, right now 1 in 4 children live on food stamps. If the current trend continues 2 of 4 children will be food stamps by the end of 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choose your side wisely.

-Hack

Re:What? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628224)

Wouw, just... wouw.

Seek help.

Re:What? (1)

gregrah (1605707) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628246)

Ummm... citation needed?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628226)

> I'm an American but why the fuck is our govt telling Sweden "what they're allowed to do."

The USA are doing this with every other country since just after WWII.
If that country complains they sanction the hell out of it until it knees to them, or invade if it fits their needs for territory/resources/tactical advantage.

SOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627564)

I fully expect this guy to have an 'accident' of some sort in the near future...

Re:SOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627602)

^ +1 prophetic

Where are the parents? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627588)

This would never have happened with good parental guidance.

US Government (5, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627590)

I thought we used our military intelligence on the enemy. I don't remember voting for our president and current government to use its powers to harm those who value liberty over secrecy. It would be interesting to hear more details about Julian's tipsters' info.

Re:US Government (2, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627694)

Well, you failed to write in who the enemy was on your ballet, so they are just making up new enemies as they go along.

Re:US Government (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627818)

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

Re:US Government (2, Funny)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627870)

But it seems the libertarians think it should be so.

Re:US Government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628294)

Which particular brand of ignorant buffoon are you? The left leaning buffoon who doesn't understand libertarians or the right leaning buffoon who doesn't understand libertarians?

Re:US Government (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627990)

It would be interesting to hear more details about Julian's tipsters' info.

Julian's tipsters? I believe I can identify them.

They are:
Julian's ego.
Julian's imagination.

U thinought wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628094)

Your government uses your military intelligence

    ON YOU

Free to leave (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627600)

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

two reliable intelligence sources? (2, Insightful)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627652)

Is the documentation for this claim posted on wikileaks yet?

Or is he just asking us to trust him, at the same time he's telling us to not trust anyone else?

Re:two reliable intelligence sources? (2, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627714)

Is the documentation for this claim posted on wikileaks yet?

Or is he just asking us to trust him, at the same time he's telling us to not trust anyone else?

I didn't think he was asking us to do anything..

Re:two reliable intelligence sources? (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627724)

Is the documentation for this claim posted on wikileaks yet?

Or is he just asking us to trust him, at the same time he's telling us to not trust anyone else?

Well, Mr Pedantic:

It's "Wikileaks" with a capital 'W' not "wikileaks".

Starting a sentence with a conjunction really is not proper English grammar; although, it is acceptable in regards to contemporary English in some cases.

Nowhere does he ask us to trust him. He is merely stating facts.

Re:two reliable intelligence sources? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627890)

http://www.suite101.com/content/grammar-starting-a-sentence-with-or-and-or-but-a74404

Also, I think people are foolish for talking about "proper" grammar. Languages are constantly evolving. Old English became Middle English became Modern English. Suddenly we take a snapshot of a living thing and declare "this is proper". It's not proper. It's popular.

Here's an example: I walk, you walk, they walk, we walk, he walks

Where did the "s" come from? If language were logical and artificial, it wouldn't be there. Instead, it just sounds wrong to our ears. Language is just as much based on aesthetics, which is based on culture, than anything else. Did you understand what the author meant? Yes? Then get on with your life and stop being a douche.

Re:two reliable intelligence sources? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628202)

They style it as WikiLeaks, but that is as beside the point as your first two churlish sentences.

The point your parent post was trying to make was that this presumption of a United States smear campaign is being fed by Assange's claims. WikiLeaks is founded on the idea of bringing truth to light by presenting verifiable documentation of things other people would rather keep hidden. Assange is making some inflammatory claims, and if there is anyone versed in how to prepare and present such information, it is Assange. Thus, it seems somewhat odd that this information has not been documented on WikiLeaks.

Personally, I am left with four ways of looking at this:

1. The United States is engaging in a campaign to discredit this man.
2. The man actually committed a crime and is using anti-US sentiment to cover his ass.
3. The man is innocent, but using the situation to whip up anti-US sentiment.
4. The man has some sort of messiah or persecution complex.

Truthfully, it is most likely a mixture of parts of the four, but to automatically jump to the first conclusion seems to lack intellectual rigor.

Re:two reliable intelligence sources? (0, Offtopic)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627754)

In other news, Newton went off on some rather dubious treatises about religion. Also, Hawking manipulated his ex-wife (or was that his wife abusing him?), and Einstein had an interesting relationship with his niece. Mind you, so did Hitler. So many rumours! which should we use to distract from the relevant and documented work by this cross-section of significant men?

Re:two reliable intelligence sources? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627942)

I also heard that a 3 million year old whale had exposed himself in San Diego recently. What I have not heard is, whether any children have been traumatized as a result.

Re:two reliable intelligence sources? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627954)

I think the term is "character assassination".

Hacking means responsibility (-1, Troll)

hessian (467078) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627726)

As a hacker, you learn this quickly: you'll have access to data with which you can do very bad things.

The archetypal example is hacking into a hospital. You can change patient records; do you? There are real-world consequences for editing or releasing certain types of information.

Assange leaked information that caused real-world consequences. Big consequences, like death and torture, not small consequences like Microsoft missing out on seven bucks because you pirated Windows 2000.

If our government idly tolerated Assange leaking information that could endanger American servicepeople worldwide, I'd never work with our government on anything ever again.

Others feel this way, also. As a result, Assange and Bradley Manning will need to face some punishment severe enough that it warns others from leaking privileged information.

I don't have a problem with this. If you decide to walk on the grey hat side of life, you need to be responsible with what you find. And if you don't and end up in a ditch, or an Australian jail (most likely Assange's next destination), them's the breaks.

Re:Hacking means responsibility (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627840)

Well, I would consider the hospital analogy incorrect.

IMO, WikiLeaks is doing something more on the lines of "releasing evidence that your father died of side effects caused by some medicine than by the heart attack you were told".

Re:Hacking means responsibility (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628020)

IMO, WikiLeaks is doing something more on the lines of "releasing evidence that your father died of side effects caused by some medicine than by the heart attack you were told".

No, it's more along the lines of releasing thousands of people's medical histories and letting everyone sort through the data to try and find something wrong.

-John

Re:Hacking means responsibility (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627842)

Actually there's no way to gauge consequences. Those seven bucks (yes, let's pretend Windows is that cheap) that Microsoft missed times one million customers might make them want to raise their prices to compensate, which in turn may cause a company to lose money and be "forced" to raise their prices. And if that company happens to be a food distributor (I can't imagine why they'd use enough copies of Windows as to come to that, but bear with me) in a country where people are poor, then by allowing people to pirate software, you may have put hundreds of even thousands through suffering, and maybe killed a few people. So if you're going to think about how everything you do might affect everyone, good luck. I think it's valid to release information that the military was trying to keep from the public, yes. Accoutability is very important for governmental organizations and even more so for the guys with guns.

Re:Hacking means responsibility (5, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627852)

"Assange leaked information that caused real-world consequences. Big consequences, like death and torture"

Citation needed. Even the Pentagon had to attach a "might possibly" to that claim. If you can actually back up that assertion, you'll be doing better than them.

Assange didn't leak anything (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627914)

Assange leaked information that caused real-world consequences. Big consequences, like death and torture,

That information was leaked by the US military, not by Assange. He merely published the leaked information. If Assange got that information, it could just as easily have been obtained by the Taliban or any other organization.

When you have information that could cause death and torture, it's your sacred duty to make sure no one will be able to get that information.

Demonizing the guy who got the information you shouldn't have let escape is like killing the messenger.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627998)

The information wasn't leaked "by the military" (which makes it sounds like some sort of official, counter-intelligence op). It was leaked by one guy -- a SPEC4, not even a non-com, who had a history of being not that stable. He chose to leak it to people who had a reputation for, and a history of, publishing documents whether they really should or not.

WikiLeaks is culpable in that, had they not been in existence, chances are the information never would have been stolen in the first place. Most reputable news agencies wouldn't touch it, allied governments probably already had most of it, and i doubt that other than operational specifics, much of it would have been news to the Russians or the Chinese, for example.

Why bother stealing something you can't fence? Wikileaks provided the culprit with a willing recipient and the ability to pretend like he was doing something morally justified, as opposed to pulling a John Walker and selling it to foreign intelligence (in which case, I doubt anyone here would have any qualms over his being hung for treason, 'cause that's what the theft of classified documents basically boils down to).

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628078)

It was leaked by one guy -- a SPEC4, not even a non-com, who had a history of being not that stable.

I surely hope the US military would try harder to filter what information goes to a "SPEC4", whatever does that mean.

People with "a history of being not that stable" should have no place in the military.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628218)

People with "a history of being not that stable" should have no place in the military.

Good luck getting stable people to pick up a gun and go out killing people.

The military of a stable society should have no place outside their own borders.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628238)

Spec4 is an E-4 (pay grade) Specialist. Corporals are also an E-4 pay grade, but are the lowest rung of non-commissioned officer in the Army.

He probably should have been flagged during background checks for his clearance, but apparently he wasn't. It doesn't sound like he had access to anything that he wasn't really supposed to be able to get at in order to do his job. He was just an unscrupulous jackass with no sense of responsibility who apparently hadn't had it beaten into him effectively enough.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628164)

The US military failed to take proper precautions to protect sensitive information. They are at fault because they had an obligation to do that. Additionally, Wikileaks is under no obligation to follow US law nor serve the best interests of the USA, or its allies. Wikileaks has done nothing wrong.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628254)

That's the same bullshit argument as "its your fault you got robbed because you left your house unlocked while you walked to 7-11 to buy cigarettes and taquitos, but ran into a friend on the way back and got held up for 15 minutes."

Just because you don't lock the door doesn't mean its not the thief's fault you got robbed.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628330)

Just because you don't lock the door doesn't mean its not the thief's fault you got robbed.

It's the thief's fault that you got robbed. It's your fault that you didn't lock up your guns properly.

Responsible people always think about the consequences of anything they do, even if those consequences aren't due to their personal fault.

Car analogy: someone runs a stop sign across your path. Do you brake, or do you push the pedal to the metal to crash him? It's not your fault that he didn't stop at the stop sign.

Re:Assange didn't leak anything (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628174)

What I find more disturbing is what has happened since then: We've seen both Petraeus and also some politicians start telling people how Assange and Wikileaks are "responsible" for the lives of soldiers, and are "endangering" the lives of soldiers. I mean yeah, shift the blame why don't you? Wikileaks is surely more responsible for soldier's lives than the politicians and generals who send them as an occupying force without a viable strategy.

Even better, now Petraeus was making comments about how irresponsible Koran-burning would be. So what has happened, in a few short months, is the FIASCO which is the Afghan "war" has now turned into something to club the civilian population about the head with. Anything you do or say that doesn't represent the official government policy means that you're "endangering the lives of our troops".

I am glad I am not American, but why do you keep voting for these people?

Re:Hacking means responsibility (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627976)

I partially agree with you. Manning violated US law, he violated his oath to protect and defend, he broke a myriad of orders from superior officers - burn him at the stake. Julian? Well - he's not subject to US law. He broke no oath, he disobeyed no orders, he was under no obligation to defend the US from anything at all. Say some harsh words to him, maybe even say a few bad things about him - but let the man go his way. Concentrate on Manning, and any other little freaks like him.

Re:Hacking means responsibility (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628262)

Assange leaked information that caused real-world consequences. Big consequences, like death and torture

[CITATION NEEDED]

But don't spend too long looking, because you're repeating a lie.

an inconvenient bloke (1)

korgitser (1809018) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627746)

might it be that 'safe to leave' means 'go away'?

Bottom Line: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627764)

The Swedes never had anything on him, the entire case was, in fact, a load of crap, pretty much like most people here had said all along. If they had anything, they wouldn't be letting him walk. The fact that they are "permitting" (read: want) Assange to leave the country means they've done the PR damage and want him to be a target somewhere else. Short of an actual leak, I think this is the closest we'll come to proof that the US government really did set him up.

Sell the rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627772)

This is better than most of the rubbish that is on tv. Besides with a tv series most tv viewers will think any wiki leaks will just be a viral marketing stunt or made up for the show.

Take the news with a grain of salt (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627784)

Assange's timing of this announcement is impeccable. Looks like he's learned a thing or two from the people he investigates.

innocent until proven guilty (4, Insightful)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627792)

In the United States, we are supposedly treated as innocent until proven guilty. But the early comments I see here seem to indicate that, despite the government of Sweden saying he is not charged with any sex crime, he should be treated as guilty until (an impossibility) proven innocent.

I hope those of you who feel that way understand that whatever values you claim to support, they are not what were traditionally considered "American".

Re:innocent until proven guilty (3, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627844)

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

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627888)

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

where are my mod points when I need them? MPU

Re:innocent until proven guilty (2, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627894)

Or anywhere else for that matter. Especially if the sex crime involved someone who's age falls withing the local definition of "child".

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33627986)

nah sharia law will stone the girl not the guy, ok sure then they will also look the other way when the girls family (brother father etc) kills the rapist but by then the girl is already dead :S unless the rapist was a prince or other high member of the community that is.

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1)

thetagger (1057066) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627994)

+6 Insightful

Re:innocent until proven guilty (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628316)

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

Historically, I think you would find many women who would disagree with you.

Sexual assault experts dispel date rape myths [stripes.com]

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627872)

He was investigated for... something to do with fucking a groupie without a condom as near as I can tell. Who suggested that he's guilty of anything related to that in this thread?

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627896)

On the other hand, the US Government is treated as being guilty of telling Sweden to kick Wikileaks out of Sweden with absolutely zero evidence other than some jerk's say-so. Yes, there's plenty of idiocy going around in this thread.

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627960)

Yes, but the US Government is less credible to the anti-authority basement dwellers than Assange is, because they apparently like people who have the same distorted view of reality that they do.

Re:innocent until proven guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628192)

Yes, but the US Government is less credible to the anti-authority basement dwellers than Assange is, because they apparently like people who have the same distorted view of reality that they do.

Once again, in English this time.

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628320)

Yes, but the US Government is less credible than Assange is, because they apparently like people who have the same distorted view of reality that they do.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:innocent until proven guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628326)

You're right! If one party lies to you almost daily, and the other hasn't told you any lies to the best of your knowledge, it's best to trust the one that lies all the time.
  After all, if you were to do otherwise you'd be one of those mouth-breathing, smelly, hairy, anti-authority basement-dwelling loooooosers, huh?
  You're so cool.

  (ROFL)

Re:innocent until proven guilty (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628040)

There's a presumption of innocence in the court room. Cops don't pull you over for speeding and presume you're innocent.

Re:innocent until proven guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33628102)

innocent until proven guilty

Innocent unless proven guilty.

Not one, but TWO intelligence sources? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33627946)

Wow. I think I can tell when someone is bullshitting me. Or else the western intelligence community has gotten ridiculously porous lately.

Re:Not one, but TWO intelligence sources? (1)

astar (203020) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628204)

Actually, the usual criteria for something that might be claimed credible is two independent sources. Obviously, in evaluating source material, you are more interested in what is said in private, than what is said to the news media. And if you do like media reporting, how do you evaluate "source unidentified because he is not authorized to comment." ?

One way to evaluate what's his names intelligence sources is to observe that there is a good chance that, given the story told as true, some significant portions of the Swedish intelligence community would be pissy about the US doing ultimatums to the Swedish government. Thus, "porous". So on the front of it, we have a consistency. So maybe you are putting out the bullshit.

It's time for us to act. (1)

FilatovEV (1520307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33628074)

Why does Assange necessarily need to be present physically anywhere? Why wouldn't he adopt a new identity, change his name, face and papillary lines? All what he needs to do is to maintain the work of the online service, and he could do that from any place in the world where ISPs exist. Period.
By the way, what's the big deal about WikiLeaks servers? WikiLeaks could be redesigned as a distributed P2P network, where each usual user would therefore voluntarily take a small part of responsibility by providing HDD space and CPU capacity. Each participant of "Distributed P2P Wikileaks" would act like a gate into the Wikileaks for every interested outside person. There must be some system of distributed information storage, like Read-Solomon codes or open-key cryptography, so the contents of each single PC in that network would prove to be just some random information if taken over by the police, etc.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?