The problem is that he admitted to having unprotected sex with several of these women. Which, under Sweden's laws, could very well constitute rape, even if it was consensual.

U.S hypocrizy at its finest!   Freedom of Speech is encouraged BUT, when it goes against the government....oooh no.

Funny, I didn't know the Wikileaks servers were hosted in my country

The problem is that he admitted to having unprotected sex with several of these women. Which, under Sweden's laws, could very well constitute rape, even if it was consensual.

 

I'm Swedish and I've NEVER heard of that. It would be news to me if that was true. It would also mean that me and a chick I met two years ago are rapists 

The closest law to what you're saying is if you got HIV. If you got HIV then you MUST inform your partner before doing it.

Edit: I thought I edited my first post....and I can't delete this one and fix my mistake!

Hehe are you saying that US citizens aren't allowed to say bad things about the government? Have you ever watched our tv?

Revealing illegally obtained classified documents is something that I don't believe would be covered by free speech in any country.

To be precise, said illegally obtained classified documents means the offender is prosecuted under the Espionage Act (in the US anyways).

It also means that Assange is an information terrorist, as it's quite possible that the information he's leaked on his site has caused the deaths of American military members or Afghan civilians.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there and the media isn't exactly doing a great job of covering that part. But from what I can tell the real issue is that he is accused of having sex without a condom without informing his partner about it. Supposedly it broke with one woman and he took it off with the second or something like that, and that is illegal in Sweden and considered rape. From what little I can tell, the evidence does seem a little fuzzy, but then he also hasn't been convicted of anything yet either.

It ceased to mean "brutally enforcing yourself on someone in a sexually abusive manner" several years ago. The media constantly "warns" about "homerapes" and that that type of "rape" is so and so much more common. So whenever I read "rape" in a newspaper I read the entire article to see if they're using the true meaning of the word or not.

States too engage in terrorist acts, like uhmm, illegally invading a nation bypassing all international treates.  That ring a bell?

Not really no. But then again, if I was running the US, I'd be flipping the bird at every major international treatise around, thereabouts.

Oh, yeah, and all those pesky arms-limitations conventions. I'll take my nukes with a side of chemical warheads plz.

Well no. That's an act of war, and depending on your perspective it may be viewed as immoral (I certainly did not support it). But it is not an act of terrorism.

The words you're looking for are "invasion" and "conquest". Far, far more people were killed in those actions then have ever been killed by terrorists, largely because the millitary has much bigger guns.

Calling wikileaks "terrorists" is pretty amusing for people from a country where politicians are actively promoting assassination as a way to deal with the problem. Last time I checked, that was drastically more illegal (and immoral) then causing embarrassment to the government is.

Except, of course, that that's almost certainly what the Russians will do to him. It won't look like it, but hey, when you mess with countries like Russia, China, Israel, and what-have-you, you're really asking to get shot in the face.

America is a plutocratic Police state feigning as a democracy. So terrorism is defined loosely as anything that harms  those in power. Or anything that provides a pretext to increase the weath and power of the ruling Class.

The literal definition of terrorism was thrown out long ago in favor of a the new definition that tries to ignore that indeed many acts of the U.S. government itself is literal terrorism.

As far as wikileaks goes.. it cannot be considered terrorism in the literal sense.. but its a perfect example of how the word terrorism itself has become convoluted in U.S. society.

@OP

 I lol'd

No the word I'm looking for is war, although there was an invasion as part of the war. And yes wars kill more people then terrorists but I'm not sure how that's relevent. Wars kill more people then murderers too, but we still try to stop murder.

We have a LOT of politicans, so there will always be people who say stupid things. I'm not sure how that's relevent. Whether he is a terrorist or not has no bearing on what some grandstanding politicians are saying we should do about him.