WikiLeaks Accusations - Part Deux

Machiavelli, and the very successful proponents of the Shock Doctrine (as critiqued and subject to Naomi Klein's excellent analysis) would disagree. Inflict all your injuries at once, they would say, and you'll be more successful.

Oh no -- there are two threads? I can't do that. Too much disinformation in too many places. Gah.

Oh, for pity's sake. They're not pussyfooting. WL are putting up on their site pretty much what their msm partners are publishing, and at that pace, for legal reasons that should be blindingly obvious, given the attacks on them coming from the U.S. It is a legal defence for the time being: if WL are somehow breaking some law that Eric Holder has yet to figure out how to twist, then so is the Guardian, so may be the NYT (although their production has dropped off under intimidation) and all the others.

N.Beltov wrote:

ah, yes. multiple, simultaneous targets are harder to attack. Good point.

What we're usually hearing/reading in the msm, especially from the Americans, is that WL irresponsibly dumped the whole lot at once online -- the reverse of the pussyfooting charge here. That's an obvious lie, but it has more popular traction than the pussyfooting lie.

[URL=http://wikileaks.ch/cablegate.html]On the site currently accesible,[/URL] you can see in the left-hand column that WL are keeping careful count of how many cables have been released so far. They are doing that for legal reasons, ignored by the msm, of course, sometimes including their media partners.

Another reason for the slow release I have heard is that if all the documents were published at once, we would be overwhelmed by it. Secondary sources would have to go through all the material to inform the public what was in them and this (most likely) would corrupt the original meaning of the material - by putting secondary source biases on them.

Publishing all the material at once would lose the public's interest as most people wouldn't have the time or energy to go through all this material in a short period of time and thus minimize the impact of this new, unique and paradigm changing technology/social technique.

Cueball wrote:

Buddy Kat wrote:

I think if they have 400,000 docs to leak..Leak them!

It seems the longer they pussy foot around the more they open themselves and a lot of innocent people who are willing to fight for freedom of speech to US and CIA threat...and the smearing etc.

Are they pussy footing because they want to keep it in the news for an extended period of time or for leverage when the US makes a move and arrests Assange....hence using the leaks as a bargaining chip....in which case accusations of lies will result, which will negate many of the leaks as revenge and that's all.

 

It is death by a thousand cuts... and it's a great strategy.

I agree..I just hope they don’t have all there leaks in one basket ..so to speak..

However by now they are probably getting a good taste on how the US is reacting to it all and if push comes to shove they have to keep in mind the US wrote the book on assassination and will stop at nothing to get it’s way. Maybe they can get flanagen to fly the drone.

Actually the whole mess is very telling on how the US handles truth and freedom of speech... Smear, smear and more smearing..oh how I hope they have some real “ rub the US nose in it, till they bleed”  leaks coming. Pick that up US servers.     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

A recently released cable from the US Oslo Embassy, outlining secret "informal" intelligence sharing and policing information not to be formalized and exposed to the Swedish public because such arrangements will likely conflict with the Swedish constitution.

cable 08STOCKHOLM748,

Quote:

Comment: While MOJ was expected to raise concerns about the need for EU coordination on this issue, they did not. Moreover, they were clearly in no hurry in the present political climate to move towards a formal agreement, or to risk jeopardizing existing informal data sharing arrangements with the U.S. In that respect, the MOJ does not appear to view the proposed non-binding arrangement as a net gain. The MOJ's notion of a one-sided, informal data exchange arrangement reflects Swedish constitutional restrictions on the use of intelligence, combined with a willingness to continue feeding information to the U.S. through existing informal channels. In the longer term, while a changed political environment in Sweden might be more conducive to a formal agreement with the U.S., there is a very clear GOS belief that Sweden is not likely to be a direct target for terrorists and therefore has little to gain from an HSPD-6 agreement. WOOD

PraetorianFour wrote:

I hope people realise though that secret released doccuments doesn't = truth.

Well of course they realize that - these are just bullshit reports by low-level U.S. agents trying to justify their jobs and bonuses. Like the foolish report about Michael Moore's movie being banned in Cuba.

Quote:

Everyone is so hot for everything to be released, what if some of the leaked doccuments have the identities and living locations of witness protection programs?

I trust Wikileaks' discretion more than I trust the MSM, the police, and the rest:

Quote:

As the media organisation has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been developing and improving a harm minimisation procedure. We do not censor our news, but from time to time we may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents to protect life and limb of innocent people.

[url=http://wikileaks.ch/About.html]Source.[/url]

When I hear that some innocent person's life has been put in danger by the release of such a document, I will first question why that information was the subject of some ordinary diplomatic cable in the first place. But I haven't heard that - have you?

Julian Assange like a hi-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden

Quote:

The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to a "high-tech terrorist", the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration.

Biden claimed that Assange has put lives at risk and made it more difficult for the US to conduct its business around the world.

His description of Assange shows a level of irritation that contrasts with more sanguine comments from other senior figures in the White House, who said the leak of diplomatic cables has not done serious damage.

Interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden was asked if the administration could prevent further leaks, as Assange warned last week. "We are looking at that right now. The justice department is taking a look at that," Biden said, without elaborating.

You know there are only a couple million people with access to those cables. Of course the secrets would have been safe expect for him.  I am also sure that no foreign government or terrorist organization could ever break such tight security so if any American gets killed anywhere in the world it is on his head.

Who's Who at Wikileaks?  by Julie Levesque

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22437

"Who is Julian Assange?"

WikiLeaks: Play the Ball, Not the Man  by Julie Webb-Pullman

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22467

"According to his ex-deputy, Assange is the only one to have the key, or password, to the Tel Aviv embassy cables relating to the 2006 Lebanon assault and the 2008-9 Gaza invasion...Which is the only country to come of of Wikileaks smelling like roses? Yes, Israel"

additional, vague distaff, info on Assange and WikiLeaks from GR

That is worth something. What I have noted consistently that the likelyhood of these charges being pursued, were Assange not a high profile dissident are pretty much close to nil, from what I can tell.

I think it would be great if it all went to court, quite frankly, but my fear is that the charges are just a pretext for keeping Assange under guard until the US can put together a case against him, and extradite him their.

I've missed your honest upfront offerings, BDC.  Best of the New Year to you and yours.

Merowe wrote:

These are two very different 'leaks'.

I'll give you that. And their end result is the same: we all now know stuff we wouldn't have known otherwise. You can't put the jinni back in the bottle.  

You know, slim chance as it may be, someone might have done this just to spite him for his celebrity and aurora elitist attitude he seems to project to some people.

"Hey look everybody; the leak guy got leaked on"

Once you're a celebrity you become fair game for some no matter what you're agenda is. But yeah, I think your right... not to say it's fair or right but it looks like he's being fucked over by those he fucked over.  

As you said; career paths may have been changed; his included. I'm glad I'm not him.

Wait till he gets ahold of some good Russian or Chinese state secrets; that will be really interesting.

2010-12-23 United Nations to look into complaints about treatment of Bradley Manning

After an article in the NY Times announced that the United Nations' top anti-torture envoy is looking into a complaint that Bradley Manning has been mistreated in custody, Fox News wrote that the U.S. military told the United Nations on Wednesday that it had nothing to worry about. "It's not the Shangri-La," Villiard said, "but other prisoners in the wing receive the same treatment." The potential United Nations investigation should therefore provide a gleam of hope to all of the other political prisoners in the US being held without trial and in solitary confinement. Please keep writing.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I suspect for some here swearing to an oath.....

Your lesson is what?

If you're swear an oath to a murderous crime family you get what you deserve if you spill the beans?

And if you think the anna nicole smith cable represents "the beans", forgetaboutit.

Two points:

Pfc. Bradley Manning hasn't been charged with anything yet.

There are only allegations that he is a "WikiLeaker."

There is also no justification for the criminal treatment (torture) he is receiving at the hands of the state.

What is at stake is the First Amendment (freedom of the press and freedom of speech) to the Constitution of the United States in the 21st Century.

In the 20th Century, Daniel Ellsberg posed the same challenge. As a member of the Pentagon, he too had signed an oath of secrecy.

In Ellsberg's case, freedom of the press and speech won.

Let's hope it does so again.

http://original.antiwar.com/john-jay-myers/2010/12/22/it-is-treason-to-c...

Frmrsldr wrote:

Pfc. Bradley Manning hasn't been charged with anything yet.

Hummm strange, it seems the NYTs thinks otherwise in the article posted above....

Quote:

Manning was charged in July with leaking classified material, including video posted by WikiLeaks of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a Reuters news photographer and his driver. He is suspected of leaking troves of other material to the government secret-spilling site, which is in the process of posting more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables.

quick UPDATE: You're incorrect Frmrsldr, he's had his Article 92 hearing and he's been charged, I just fond his charge sheet...

Here's a link to it. Please read it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33963588/Charge-Sheet-Pvt-Bradley-Manning

If he's charged he can be held in confinement; it's up to the commanding officer. This is UCMJ we're dealing with here not civil law like the others.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Pfc. Bradley Manning hasn't been charged with anything yet.

 

If he's charged he can be held in confinement; it's up to the commanding officer. This is UCMJ we're dealing with here not civil law like the others.

Don't get too wrapped around the axle over other peoples' (especially the military's) definition of "charged."

In the case of the military, "charges" have been brought against him. However, at any time prior to or during the Court Martial, all or some of the charges can be dropped, all or some of the charges can be reduced and new charges can be brought in. At a Court Martial, the "defendant" can still plead guilty or not guilty and the JAG determines what (if any) punishments and their degree are levied.

My guess is the reason for the severe "close" confinement is due to the severity of the allegations brought against him and that he is perceived as a high risk to bolt and attempt to escape military justice.

His extreme treatment while in (military) custody is accompanied by the stench of the U.S. government involvement and thereby tainting of the case.

Well informed sources monitoring the case have offered the possibility that Manning's mistreatment is an attempt by the government to soften Mr. Manning up to make him amenable to a plea bargain that will attempt to establish Julian Assange's legal culpability in this case.

In the long run, this will actually help Manning's case rather than harm it.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

None the less, you were telling everyone here Manning wasn't charged with committing any crimes by the military. That was not correct. He has been charged, he can be legally held in pre trial confinement (which he is) according to the rules of UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) of which he is subject to because he's in the military and not a civilian. You and I along with a few others here have served in the military; most here haven't and might have a hard time understanding the difference between the two systems and think something illegal, secret or out of the ordinary is going on with him.

For the sake of clarity, the situation Bradley Manning is in is equivalent to being held in custody as a suspect with allegations against him. Neither in the civil nor military circumstances, has Mr. Manning yet been brought to trial and found guilty of anything.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

It looks like Manning on the other hand is pretty much toast: they found secret documents on his private computer and on disks in his quarters. That right there alone can send you to prison if the government wants to; never mind sending it to Wikileaks. And it dosn't matter what the government did to people in past cases; its what they want and can do to Manning in this case that matters (to Manning). 

Where you write "government", it should read as "military."

With regard to Bradley Manning, the military and the government have two very different and unrelated interests.

The military's concern is that Manning acted in a manner 'pejudiced to the good order and conduct and tarnished the military's standing or repute' (esteem/reputation.)

In the military, he will be tried under the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.)

The government's concern is that he may have compromized national security.

In the civil courts (if it ever comes to that) he will (most likely) be tried under the 1917 Espionage Act. Good luck with that, as no one was ever been found guilty by a court under the Espionage Act.

voice of the damned wrote:

Oh, and according to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917]Wikipedia[/url], a filmmaker was convicted during World War I for producing a film which villified British soldiers in the American Revolution[!], thus supposedly undermining the alliance.

HaHaHaHaHaHa, hilarious!

Oops! Thanks for that and the above information.

At least Eugene Debs' sentence was commuted to time served by President Warren Harding.

In light of this, the odds in this case still seem to be very much in Bradley Manning's favor.

voice of the damned wrote:

Oh, and according to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917]Wikipedia[/url], a filmmaker was convicted during World War I for producing a film which villified British soldiers in the American Revolution[!], thus supposedly undermining the alliance.

So Mel Gibson could have been charged with Espionage

Frmrsldr wrote:

For the sake of clarity, the situation Bradley Manning is in is equivalent to being held in custody as a suspect with allegations against him.

Exactly; I don't know how the Civil Canadian legal system works but what happened to Pvt Manning is equivalent to him appearing in court before a judge after being arrested and the charges against him are read to him. He then enters a plea of not guilty and the judge orders a trial while denying Manning bail.  Under UCMJ it's a bit different; Pvt Manning appears before his commanding officer and is read the charges against him (an Article 92 hearing). In an Article 92 hearing the accused is automatically assumed to be innocent until proven guilty so the next step is to decide to go to a court marital hearing or to administer non judicial punishment to determine if Manning is guilty as charged. Because of the seriousness of the changes here Manning's commander has decided to go for a court martial hearing. Manning's commander can also order him to be held in military confinement until the court marital hearing (the same as denying bail).

That's were Manning is at right now in the system. He's in jail (bail denied) awaiting trial.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Where you write "government", it should read as "military."

With regard to Bradley Manning, the military and the government have two very different and unrelated interests.

Good point, I wrote that late last night, I guess I got lazy... still the military is part of the government and I'm sure they are working togeather. I doubt Manning will see a civil trial; at least not while he'e in the military. The military has enough on him right now to put him away for a long time if he's found guilty of any of those charges.

Quote:

In the military, he will be tried under the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.)

It's Uniform Code of Military Justice in the US military. Canadian armed forces UCMJ is probably a bit different for its US counter part.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47.html

For the brave at heart the above link has information on how the UCMJ system works.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

In the military, he will be tried under the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.)

It's Uniform Code of Military Justice in the US military. Canadian armed forces UCMJ is probably a bit different for its US counter part.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47.html

 

Now it is my turn to offer apologies. I meant to say "Uniform" Code of Military Justice. I too was tired at the time and got sloppy.