Calvin Freiburger poses this question today with regard to Julian Assange (a.k.a. the Wicked Wizard of Wiki), in a piece at News Real Blog:
The charges seem pretty flimsy, I doubt his guilt. I seriously believe that it is a witch hunt or a man who did nothing outside the first amendment and I’d go as far as to say he struck a blow for our waning democracy. not only do these false allegations by big brother reek of oppression, they also utterly degrade real sex crime charges.
I call high bull ****
The charges are real, but if you go around poking wacked out Lib women you must expect blow back from that sort. Remember to them sex with a man is rape, so they better enjoy it
However, the Governments are after him so it has elevated the crimes.
Assange seems to me to be an opponent of war and a supporter of peace. yet what he did in leaking these documents, if the leaking did anything at all, is make diplomacy more difficult. It is not that it will lead to war by any means; it is simply that one cannot advocate negotiations and then demand that negotiators be denied confidentiality in which to conduct their negotiations. no business could do that, nor could any other institution. Note how vigorously WikiLeaks hides the inner workings of its own organization, from how it is funded, to the people it employs.
Assange’s claims are made even more interesting in terms of his “thermonuclear” threat. Apparently there are massive files that will be revealed if any harm comes to him. Implicit is the idea that they will not be revealed if he is unharmed — otherwise the threat makes no sense. so, Assange’s position is that he has secrets and will keep them secret if he is not harmed. one of the best uses for secrets is to control what the other side does to you. so Assange is absolutely committed to revealing the truth unless it serves his interests not to, in which case then the public has no need to know the truth.
Governments are still after him so there seems little worry over his Thermonuclear threat.
His first releases on the Iraq and Afghanistan war, what was found was amazingly how few potential war crimes were committed by US forces. The famous case cited by WikiLeaks with much fanfare did not clearly show criminal actions on the part of American troops as much as it did the consequences of the insurgents violating the Geneva Conventions. It did show, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, insurgents did not go into combat wearing armbands or other distinctive clothing to distinguish themselves from non-combatants. The Geneva Conventions have always been adamant on this requirement because they regarded combatants operating under the cover of civilians as being responsible for putting those civilians in harm’s way, not the uniformed troops who are then forced to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when the combatants deliberately chose to act in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
In a war in which combatants blend with non-combatants, civilian casualties will occur, and so will criminal actions by uniformed troops. Hundreds of thousands of troops have fought in Iraq, and the idea that criminal acts would be absent is absurd. What is most startling is not the presence of potentially criminal actions but their glaring scarcity. anyone who has been close to combat or who has read histories of World War II would be struck not by the presence of war crimes but by the fact that in all the WikiLeaks files so few potential cases are found.
The released documents and reports show there were extraordinarily few cases of potential US war crimes contained in the leaks.
Only those who were not paying attention to the fact that there was a war going on, or who had no understanding of war, or who wanted to pretend to be shocked for political reasons, missed that very important point.