If he is acquitted, he is not suspected any more. He is vindicated
The details may differ in Sweden, but typically in the West, "not proven guilty" is not the same as "proven innocent". Justice systems that do this are based on the idea that it is better to err and let some guilty people go free in order to decrease the number of innocent people who are wrongly convicted.
He may well be proven innocent, as you rightly point out, but there is a middle ground where suspicion might well remain.
Killing fewer people than someone else doesn't always make you good.
Correct, but trying (and succeeding) to kill fewer innocent people does make you better than someone who's trying (and succeeding) to kill more innocent people.
I haven't shuffled through all of them, or seen a believable analysis of the whole enchilada. But according to one Guardian article, your simple assertion is probably bullshit.
I heard it on that jingoistic, neocon broadcast network NPR. Specifically, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Monday July 26, with guests Mark Mazzetti (NYT), Nick Davies (Guardian), Richard Haass (some NGO). Mr. Davies and Mr. Mazzetti were among the reporters who reviewed the wikileaks documents before they were published so they have a multi-week head start on the rest of us. link to this episode
Note that the story you link to does not disprove my assertion. Incompetence and bumbling, and even deceit, while indefensible, are not even close to as bad as intentionally killing civilians (at a rate in excess of ten to one) in terror attacks. The Taliban and their supporters are clearly the bad guys in this conflict.
Exactly who are the innocent people that have died as a result of this leak?
According to the wikileaks documents, the U.S. Military is the good guy in Afghanistan: the Taliban has killed more than 10 times as many civilians, on purpose, while the U.S. Military has bent over backwards to avoid that.
You do believe the wikileaks documents, don't you?
Except the report did not claim anywhere that it was intentional.
The report didn't have to, because nobody disputes that it was intentional; the authors themselves admitted to writing those emails. The question was whether "hiding the decline" was legitimate or misleading. The report concluded that it was misleading.
On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.
Intentionally supplying misleading figures is scientific misconduct. It may be commonplace, but that's no excuse.
Personally, that doesn't bother me much; science has always been politicized between factions who behave unethically in order to further their own theories. What does bother me is the attempt to pass off the results of incompetent software engineering as valid science.
Yes, they could wage a DoS attack to stifle the economy and communications, maybe slow some business down, but people will not die. Alleging that type of attack is even remotely similar to what happened on 9/11 is grossly irresponsible.
It is easy (though not pleasant) to imagine how a prolonged disruption of computer-controlled utilities (power, water, heat, transportation) could cause suffering far in excess of 9/11, especially if current trends are extrapolated into the future. Read RISKS.
WTF does "cyber 9/11" mean?
It means "an attack carried out using the Internet that is as devastating to the US as the attacks on 9/11," duh.
Are terrorists going to fly a plane into internet tubes and clog them?!
Denial of service attacks exist, yes.
[liberals] don't think they should legislate what medical procedures women should have
Ask them about clitoridectomy and you'll get a different answer.
Funny how the right wing love to talk about leftists being for overbearing government that controls everything you do, but it's the conservative strongholds that have laws like that.
It's almost as if "right-wing" and "left-wing" are completely meaningless terms.
What Lomborg does is nothing like a rigorous analysis of abatement policies. If it were, it wouldn't be a book with disingenuous footnotes
How do you know that it's a book with disingenuous footnotes? Lomborg's rebuttal to Friel's book seems quite convincing.
You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford