file charges. Even the extremist attorney who inserted himself into the case, 'all men are responsible for rape therefore there should be a man tax', THAT attorney, admitted in the beginning that it was unlikely they could win if the case ever went to court. Which is why it has not. They get what they wanted by stalling. If they file charges they have to publicize that fact that they have no case.

And remember, Wikileaks got their hands on a CIA memo months before these allegations, talking about how to 'get' him. They settled on 'getting him involved in a sexual assault case'. Wikileaks published that memo. It came after he mentioned the info he had on 'a major bank'.

You can't mess with the Big Banks, and Wikileaks had already exposed the corruption in Iceland's banks leading to arrests of both bankers and politicians. So they had to be stopped.

At what point were they ordered to shoot noncombatants?

It is clear they were not "ordered" to do that. They asked for clearance to fire, not the other way around.

But it kinda sounds like you are.

You said a crime was exposed, and I am asking you who were the criminals.

You suggested a crime was ordered, and that is not consistent with the video.

By the leaking of this video?

In a democracy, do I really need to go into the right for the public to know what is being done in their name and with their dollar and with their blood?

Is that a bad thing?

is some kind of indictment of Wikileaks...?

Maybe you weren't following the news, but the fact that the Reuters photographer and others had been killed was a known fact long prior to release of the video.

Let's assume that yes, I didn't know about the "acts" as you call them before the video came out...

In that case, my learning of it (along with millions others) as a result of the video is justification enough.

Now my question:

What is YOUR beef with the video being made public?

I just don't understand what that accomplished.

Well I hope I have helped you understand what was accomplished.

Per usual, you are much more interested in others' motivations because someone dare ask a question, specifically "who were the criminals identified in all of this?"

Well, that's on you, pal.

Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq were killed and displaced by the action there, which had no basis in fact. This video shows a handful of them, and people act like it is the sum total of anything that went wrong there.

You don't see why the US has the right to see the terrible things that were being done.

But don't try to confuse the issue by saying that it is not important because it was only a small part of the big picture --I think you're intelligent enough to realize that is extremely flawed logic.

And surprised they hadn't been identified with all the hoopla over the video.

I can understand your being curious about that, but really, they were just two soldiers and I am quite sure that there are 20,000 or even 200,000 that would have done the same thing.

Let's not pretend that that was some kind of extreme aberration.

I'm not. Quite the opposite.

Returning to the OP, the thesis is that the sexual misconduct allegations are a diversion to draw attention away from a video showing a handful of deaths in a war which cost tens of thousands of lives. I had not realized that his personal circumstances were so compelling that they had overshadowed an entire war.

and not for the role he played in bringing this to light.

It sounds as if we agree.

Your point is meandering to the point where I no longer am clear what it is.

Yes, I know Assange's name. It's the first word in your OP about how the charges against him have overshadowed the exposure of the video.

I had a question about the video, the answer to which I haven't found yet.

Rather I think your intention was to make the point that nothing was accomplished because the two individuals names were not released and they were not charged.

Call me suspicious, but you and I have had a history and I think I know as much about you as you say you do about me.

"And the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is a bit more important than a film."

I would add to that "or the character of Mr. Assange."

What is the subject of the OP? My guess, which is only a guess, is that the subject of Mr. Assange's character has eclipsed the importance of the release of this film, which is where the focus ought to be. In relation to this film, I agree.

My question was about the film.

.

WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/31/122789/wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-us.html#storylink=cpy

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.

The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.

But Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.

~snip~

Alston said he could provide no further information on the incident. "The tragedy," he said, "is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (U.N.) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them."

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

But, but, but, Julian Assange may have raped, or had some sort of "surprise sex," of his condom broke or something, with two women, one or both of whom may have worked for the CIA, and, uh,

JULIAN ASSANGE'S PEE PEE WAS SOMEWHERE!!!

but he was still a rapist who fled from justice.

Sid

It still remains to be seen whether Assange was.

And the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is a bit more important than a film.