This is the view now held by most about Assange, sadly.
On the note of Greenwald, it looks like it's already started:
Gabriel Schoenfeld, a national security expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who is often on the opposite ends of issues from Mr. Greenwald, called him, “a highly professional apologist for any kind of anti-Americanism no matter how extreme.”
They'll be calling him a terrorist within the week.
The U.S. didn't charge him with that.
> On the note of Greenwald, it looks like it's already started:
What's already started? People call their political opponents names all the time.
Nope, they got Sweden to do it for them.
Sure, the victims might be lying. But I would trust a Swedish court to decide on that any day.
Look at who you'd have to have on board for something like this:
Do you need the prosecutor on board? Not if he thinks the allegations are true.
Do you need the Swedish government on board? Not if they believe the allegations might be true.
Do you need the alleged victim on board? Yes. This is the only one you really need on board to do such a thing.
The crux of Greenwald's response:
"Given that I had never written about Sam Harris, I found it odd that I had become the symbol of Harris-bashing for some of his faithful followers. Tweeting a link to an Al Jazeera column about Harris and saying I find one of his quotes revealing does not make me responsible for every claim in that column...That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harr...
edit: by not relevant, I mean that Sam Harris's opinion of Greenwald doesn't mean that Greenwald has indefensible opinions.
I agree that he is by no means perfect and can hold views that can be seen as the parent's point.