The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I saw Rep King on Morning Joe this morning talking about the Wikileaks saga(s), and his position was that Wikileaks met the criteria for being a terrorist organization and should be treated like one.  Specifically by going after the groups funding, hunting down the principals extranationally, etc.  Essentially giving them the Al Qaeda treatment.  Link below goes to the him pushing the same idea on a radio show this morning:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/peter-king-declare-wikileaks-a-terrorist-organization.php?ref=fpb 

It's not an angle I'd considered but I don't think he's terribly far off-base.  Wikileaks apparently is going to seriously compromise our national security.

I also think the little peckerneck who was the source of the leaks deserves the full treason treatment.

Wikileaks is just flaunting controversial information for fun and profit. If the U.S. wasn't sending out memos like "If you want to talk to Obama, you have to take a gitmo prisoner off our hands" then we wouldn't have an issue. The second issue is letting someone access and copy hundreds of thousands of confidential files without being noticed.

Wikileaks.com is the least of our problems.

Assange is not American, so he hasn't committed treason.

As I posted elsewhere, I find myself in the odd position of not being against either side here. On the one hand, I can't be mad about the stuff I've seen so far being leaked, but neither can I be mad that my Government tries to keep this stuff secret.

Wikileaks' source(s) have exposed some pretty big lies in the past, like the one about our military not keeping count of civilian casualties in Iraq. Why do I think that's important? Because I think it's important for the public to know that our operations there have directly killed more people who weren't involved in hostilities than were. Maybe that's OK with everyone and maybe it's not. Either way, we have a right to know what's being done in our name.

It's like being mad at the mirror on the wall because we dont like what's in it.

Those most threatened by this sort of whistle-blowing are those that would have likely faced charges.
Some of the "leaks":  http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15327.0

You are correct.

The peckerneck I was referring to was PFC Bradley Manning who horked the info and passed it on to WikiLeaks.  U.S. & British dual citzenship, born in Crescent, Ok.

Apparently, I somehow missed "source" in your post.  :P

Yeah, Manning should get the book thrown at him, although he did do us a great service in showing that the mandate of intelligence sharing was implemented in an incredibly insecure manner. Either the entire idea was stupid or we got ripped off by the contractor who supplied the software that was supposed to look for anomalous use of the systems. (Most likely the latter) If you want to keep something secret, sharing it with 3 million people probably isn't the best idea.

Also, why do SIPRnet-connected computers even have CD burners? Or even a CD drive of any sort. Or unprotected USB ports? And why is all the secret-level data accessible to all secret-cleared personnel without any access control?

Another thing that struck me when reading through the documents so far released is that there's a lot of stuff classified secret for no apparent reason. Sort of like there's a lot of unclassified "sensitive security information" that we don't get to see. Seems to me that if it's sensitive, it should be classified, and if not, it should be subject to FOIA.

So yeah, Manning both deserves everything he gets (as long as he's eventually tried) and deserves some recognition for bringing the security issues and the broken classification system under more scrutiny.

Also, as a result of the crappy security, it's unlikely any of this stuff was secret from most of the world's other governments, unless they have a terrible intelligence apparatus.

Do you have trouble sleeping at night? I mean, it seems you really really have a distrust of government.

I'm having trouble deciding on where I want to stand on this one.  I mean obviously they can't hold wikileaks any more responsible for posting this kind of information then they can an unfriendly government acting on info that it manages to get through whatever source.  If anything, at least Wikileaks let's it be known that there is a leak, and what is being leaked. After all, if they are getting this info, how can anyone believe that others are not?  But, on the flip side, if some info came out that could trully be damaging to the United States (I mean, come on, what has been seriously damaging about what they have leaked to the US itself?)like, say, a NARC list or something, then yeah, I could understand the outrage and the desire to do something about it.  Otherwise, use it to gauge the security of such things and act accordingly inhouse.

Has anyone heard if Manning was paid anything by WikiLeaks?  Seems like if he was trying to highlight an issue with a security system, he'd bring it to the attention of someone within his own government.  Or at least if he was truly disgusted and had already gone that route at least brought it to the media's attention without specifically turning over sensitive information.  I doubt that all of the 250,000 or so documents are "crucial".  It sounds more like the admin and State Dept. are afraid of having egg on their face.

I don't think his intent was to highlight the security problems, but it is nevertheless an important effect of what he did.

So we really have no motive without knowing if he was paid.  If not, then he's simply an altruist willing to pay some severe penalties, I suppose.  Either that or a complete patsy.  If he's held and not charged for this leak much longer the tinfoil hat crowd will make him their new Messiah.

There's no evidence thus far indicating he was paid. From what we know of his chats with Lamo, he did it because he was upset by the various lies promulgated by the military regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and wanted the public record set straight. Whether that's the complete truth or if there was indeed another motive remains to be seen.

This all presumes that Manning was behind both the war log leak and the state department cable leak, of course.

I tried to find the criteria used to declare a terrorist organization, but was unable to find them.  Still, I'd assume that would include advocating or perpetrating acts of violence for a political end.  Further, I'd expect that disseminating information doesn't meet the standard.  Rep. King may be grandstanding, engaging in hyperbole, or utterly unconcerned with reality.  While the release of classified information is a criminal act, it doesn't rise to the level of terrorism.  If Rep. King is mistaken in how that should be applied, well, that can be forgiven.  But if he's advocating that they be branded as terrorists simply because he doesn't like what they've done, that's something that bears watching since his party now controls a majority in the House.

Think of it this way, when the Nixon administration tried to shut down the publication of the Pentagon papers, they could have made a similar argument - that the release of the information would provide valuable aid to our enemies - and they could have tried to brand the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major newspapers as terrorist organizations.  Nixon successfully gagged the press for a time, but the eventual release of the information produced a wide-spread realization of the extent of our government's lies.  

Wikileaks is not the New York Times, of course, but the same principle stands.  We all have access to the raw, unfiltered information our government would rather keep secret.  While the release of that information is undeniably a crime, now that it's public knowledge it may have unforeseen consequences - good or bad.

I'd say you hit the Holy Trinity of the code of conduct for the U.S. Congress, Ed.

Terrorism would imply causing fear or terror.  Either the term has become considerably over-used or there are more terrorists now at work around the world.  I recall accounts of Palestinian terrorists carrying out kidnappings and car-bombings in Israel, as well as plane and cruise ship hi-jackings.  I also recall the IRA pulling off car bombs and kidnappings in Ireland and England.  That's what I always thought of when I thought of terrorists: They would plan random attacks to cause enough fear and uncertainty to get some prisoners released or get the government to the bargaining table.

Certainly the rebels (insurgents, guerillas) we are fighting in Afghanistan are not all terrorists by that measure, though they apparently share the same ideology as the car bombers and those plotting bombings and kidnappings around the world or may eventually graduate to individual acts of terror.  In a sense, the pirates of the Somali coast actually fit the definition of "terrorist" better than the combatants our military is facing.  We have to be careful to keep from labelling anyone who is against the United States and our policies a terrorist.

If WikiLeaks exists to help aid terrorists by disseminating sensitive information then you can make a logical argument that, by extension, they are terrorist as well.  Though I don't think anyone has come close to making such a claim yet, other than Rep. King. 

I'd like to know what the purpose of WikiLeaks is.  Is it purely profit-motivated, or does it exist soley as a source to try and compromise the government of the U.S. or to try and extort money from governments?  If the answer is the latter, then it starts to take on more of the look of a terrorist organization.

Guido,
Just curious, do you have a trust of the government?


My answer first - no I don't really trust it very much.  Which really means, I probably don't trust most of the people very much, since they (we) are the ones that create that government.

(http://www.respect-authority.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/post_it14.jpg)

Some people handle the effects of pot smoking better than others.  You make it way too easy to guess which side of the paranoid scale you fall on.  

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

Bah!  Who needs a microwave?

Just a small crock pot, box of Velveeta and two cans of Rotel tomatoes.

And chips!

Not particularly, but it seems Patric REALLY doesn't. That's okay though. I was teasing him a bit earlier.

FIFY  ;D

Ahhhhhh, how cute!!!! 

He tried to make a funny!!!  We're all so proud of the baby-steps in the direction of enlightenment and personal self-development!!!


Haven't had a chance to get on the Wiki site to see what it going on.  So far, the anecdotes heard on various radio and TV sources seem to be rather mundane and in some cases, mildly amusing.  Gotta be something more to come up to the level of terrorism.  Anyone found anything really dangerous there yet?

And by the way, yes, I think there should be some criminal prosecutions here.  Terrorism?  How about just plain old criminal activity without beating the "T" word to death even more than it has been?  Remember the old story about the boy who cried "Wolf" just one too many times?

How about rape charges?  Sounds like the CIA is reaching into their old bag of tricks.

"The WikiLeaks founder was accused of rape during a trip to Sweden but he has vehemently denied allegations made by two women. Mark Stephens, his London-based lawyer, has called the allegations "false and without basis", and has said they amounted to a smear campaign following recent high-profile political leaks by Assange's organisation. Assange is currently believed to be in the UK."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/02/julian-assange-arrest-warrant

The interesting thing about the Swedish charges is that the charges were dropped once before and then reinstated, and that they have thus far declined to question Assange, despite (reportedly) several offers being made.

Maybe I've watched too many spook movies, but I find the timing really interesting.  The US Gov likely doesn't have a case against this guy, but they figure they can throw up enough distractions or road blocks and perhaps get him away from his computer.  ;)

I saw an interesting spin on this story.  The thrust was that Wikileaks was performing a public service by providing information that would otherwise never be seen.  It went on to say that US journalists do not have a federal shield law permitting them to keep their sources secret, so stories that involve illegal or embarrassing information from the government are quietly spiked.

Unfortunately for the US Government, Assange is not the only person involved with WikiLeaks. He's just the public face.

It is rumored that some folks in the group are preparing to split off and form another group because they're apparently sitting on a bunch of leaks from other governments that haven't yet been released and these people would like to see less focus on the US leaks.

Personally, I'm interested to see what WikiLeaks' cache of documents from Bank of America has in it.

This was my main question:  to what degree the loss of Assange would actually kill the organization. 

I think it's obvious from the amount of information they've collected and released to date that the idea of an anonymous leak site definitely has a purpose and an audience.  To me that means that regardless of whether Assange or Wikileaks individually stay in the spotlight, that sort of site is here to stay.

Unless all the principals are rooted out and exterminated.

I doubt all the principals are known to Assange. The things I read about them in the early days indicated that it's pretty decentralized. There's no technical need whatsoever for anyone to be known to anyone else in the organization. That said, those who buy hosting and other services for the organization have easily discoverable identities. Anybody working behind the scenes may be impossible to track, however. That's probably best for them, given that Assange is the only one high profile enough to cause a furor if he ends up dead.

Between encryption, Tor, and Freenet, it's not difficult to be anonymous on the Internet if you have the necessary discipline.

I was going to say it can't be that hard for spooks to track geeks, but then I remembered the geeks wrote all the software and designed the systems for the spooks in the first place.  ;)

I think that approach might have been true if the format were a newspaper, a magazine, a book, etc. But as nathan mentioned, the web's a fundamentally different sort of petri dish.  There's nothing to stop a kid in Outer Mongolia from hacking into a server farm, setting aside some storage and putting up a storefront to hold the secrets.

Anyone remember Sneakers?

(http://www.joblo.com/images_movie_reviews/sneakers-cover.jpg)

Love that movie..have it on DVD but need to see if it's out on Blu-Ray yet.

If they cannot render him ineffective, he will probably just be disposed of.

(http://sneakers.pair.com/l/bb4600-6.jpg)

I've been around for a while and don't have a whole lot of illusions left but when I learned from Wikileaks that Iraqi insurgents had attempted to surrender but were not allowed to surrender while being fired upon by our side I have to wonder if we still get to wear the white hat.   

I can see how our troops would not believe the "surrender" as anything more than an attempt to get closer with a suicide bomb.  It's tough to fight a war when only one side tries to play by the rules.

I remember Keds and PF Flyers. Run faster and jump higher in PF Flyers. (Didn't help me any.)  I remember sneakers as being canvass rather than leather though. I'm pretty sure there was another major brand I am forgetting.

Edit: spelling

Those look to be about '88 vintage 3/4 high tops.  I wore them..not because they were Reebok necessarily, but I put a hurtin' on Nike (blow out the seams in about 6 months).  I had a pair of these last me two years.  And the 'cool kids' wore 'em with the laces loosened.

I was thinking more along the lines of late 60s and early 70s. 

I remember Keds as a kid in the 70s.  PF Flyers?  Not so much.

As difficult as this situation is I have to say that as soon as I am told that I am not supposed to know about something I get a strong feeling that that something is exactly what I should know about.  There is just something basicly American about expecting to know the truth.  The curtailment on press coverage that began with Desert Storm is a mistake.  No one ever said that Freedom would be easy.

Curtailment? 

If anything it was more pervasive and 24/7 with reporters on the front lines.  It seemed like we had too much coverage of that war and the early days of Iraq II and Afghanistan.  I can still vaguely remember coverage of Viet Nam on the evening news, but that was it.  You maybe got a two minute snippet on the current major battle or efforts at peace talks.  You couldn't sit and watch shellings on live TV.  I also think we've been given as much info as needed to know.  The problem with too much dissemination of information, like CIA torture, is a lot of people react without understanding the true nature of warfare, nor do they appreciate that our enemies aren't exactly humanitarians.

The reports filed by political and military analysts (who have actually read the memos) say it's less like Pentagon Papers expose than it is being outed on TMZ.

If calling someone fat or paranoid is treason or terrorism, then they are more suited for reality TV than public office.

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think there's been a lot
of hype about all of this. If you think about 92,000 so-called secret documents in which there's
almost no new information, I think that, you know, do the thought experiment, Larry, where these
are all unclassified documents. It's merely because the word "secret" has been put around them
that there's all this excitement.

The news is turning disturbing on this subject, what with Amazon giving them the boot under pressure from Joe Lieberman and now Paypal freezing their account.

Amazon gave the excuse that Wikileaks doesn't have rights to the material they were hosting. That argument doesn't fly, given that as a product of the federal government, the material by definition can't be covered under copyright. They went on to claim that they were also violating the provision that states that the content hosted may not "injure" others and explained that it wasn't credible that WikiLeaks could have vetted 250,000 documents. WikiLeaks has not released 250,000 documents. Only a few hundred have been released up to this point.

Remind me not to use AWS for anything critical.

Folks might be interested to know that, while we were (probably) sleeping, Assange turned himself in in the UK, after a couple of hours of speculation that the police there had called him and let him know they were coming for him. It looks like he's going to make bail, but that remains to be seen. He's having a hearing as I type.

Apparently he's being charged with one case of Wiki-leakage and another of failure to wrap his Wicki. 
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Wow, no bail, despite an offer for 100,000 pounds from assange himself and 20,000 pounds each as surety from three others.

What confuses me is if he's charged with "having sex with woman without condom whilst she was asleep according to court evidence" and "holding a womans arms and forcing sex upon her without a condom," why were the charges dropped and then reinstated? That's what's so weird. That's not borderline anything. Forcing sex upon someone is straight up rape.

The more severe accusation than I expected actually makes me more inclined to think there's something off about the whole thing.

Edited to add: I also failed to mention that Visa and MasterCard have now decided they won't process payments for Wikileaks anymore. (MC a few hours ago, Visa just now) One person observed that we're better at cutting off funding for Wikileaks than we are at cutting off funding for actual terrorists.

It seems that the private sector has taken upon itself the task of fighting terrorism like this.

This guy made an outright terrorist threat against the U.S. and pushing Interpol for a honeypot sex crime is all we can get him on?  The administration it self has called him a "threat to national security."  Why are we not demanding extradition?  Is threatening the national security of the United States no longer a crime in our eyes?

How flaccid we are.

What was this terrorist threat he made? I believe the only threat he made was that more documents would be released were he killed. If we expand the definition of "terrorist" to include nonviolent actions, I dare say we're rendering the term completely meaningless.

Also, Feinstein has just recently called for his prosecution under the Espionage Act.

I would presume that once Assange is extradited to Sweden, the US will attempt to get its hands on him.

It's interesting that Assange/Wikileaks has gone with the "Limewire" strategy to protect itself:  essentially share its core document collections through a peer-to-peer network of likeminded hackers.  You can take Wikileaks down now and the secrets live on.  At this point, I think certain power players in the world community are gearing up to make an example of Assange/Wikileaks; you can't put the genie back in the bottle but you can scare the smile out of future genie bottle-breakers.

Another thing:  if Wikileaks has dirt on Bank of America, the gov of Russia, and/or other international players, it's become a much bigger thing that just Bradley Manning's personal dropbox account.  That would mean that it's a legit home for whistleblowers/leakers from around the world and in multiple disciplines.  That tells me that the Wikileaks function (an online repository for institutional secrets) still has a reason to exist.  There's essentially a demand for its service.

CIA dirty tricks, from last August's WikiLeaks dump:


Wikileaks founder says Australian intelligence warned him on August 11 to expect personal attacks.

Julian Assange, founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, has said the now-dropped charge of rape levelled against him in Sweden was "a smear campaign".

Assange said that the accusations were completely untrue and expected all charges to be dropped on Monday, adding that his lawyers were in the process of arranging a meeting with the prosecutors.

He also said that this was just one of many attempts to discredit him.

"This is the first sexual related we've had, but we have seen 14 fabricated documents, for example, that have appeared in various places about this organisation which have been shown to be clear fakes," he said.

"So there are significant forces pushing to perceive things in a particular way".

Swedish authorities had initially issued a warrant for Assange's arrest on Friday night, but dropped the warrant and the rape charge the next day.

Eva Finne, the country's chief prosecutor, reviewed the evidence and withdrew the warrant for his arrest,deciding there was "no longer reason to believe" Assange had committed rape, Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for Finne, said.

Assange's organisation caused controversy in July when it released 75,000 classified US military reports containing information about the Nato war effort in Afghanistan.

The US government condemned the release of the documents, saying the website had "blood on its hands" for naming people who had helped its military against groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and ordered Wikileaks to return the files.

"The Pentagon so far says it not aware of any incident of people coming to harm by what we have released. At the time of the release we took aside 15,000 documents that we believed needed extra careful review and those are the documents we are reviewing and will be released."

Two women in their twenties made the allegations against Assange, according to Al Jazeera's Paul Brennan, reporting from London.

One woman claimed Assange raped her last weekend in Stockholm, while another alleged he molested her on Tuesday in a separate town in Sweden, Brennan said.

Apparently, rape in Sweden is defined as consensual sex with "groupies" that have actively worked to get connected to Assange, then bragged about how wonderful it was on their tweets and blogs after the fact, and how great a guy he was.  One was apparently connected to the Swedish foreign service somehow - working for an ambassador??  or something.

Very strange definition of rape.

Guess we will just have to wait and see what kind of "terrorist threat" he has made to the US.  So far, nothing has come out that is more than embarrassing "snarky" comments made by our diplomats. 

The State Department got a black eye.
That seems to be all that matters.

WikiLeaks is bad news if your company is named DynCorp (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys) (I don't know how I didn't see this until now!)

At least that explains why Karzai decided there should be no more security contractors in Afghanistan.

Wikileaks is what happens when the entire US government is forced to go through a full-body scanner.



http://gizmodo.com/5709194/the-reaction-of-governments-to-wikileaks-should-scare-the-hell-out-of-you

I'll just leave this here:

(http://i.imgur.com/V7ZzV.jpg)

That is freeking hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This punk/hypocrite Assange wanted to keep his bail address secret. Judge says "no".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338832/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-asked-judge-bail-address-secret.html

I love this:

"Assange's lawyers argued that the location - a 10-bedroom stately home - should not be disclosed on grounds of privacy during yesterday's hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.

But the move was dismissed by District Judge Howard Riddle, who ruled not to reveal the address would conflict with Assange's commitment to open justice."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338832/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-asked-judge-bail-address-secret.html#ixzz18DEFYTBE

I hope Assange is getting donkey punched on a regular basis while in custody.  (Hey it's your fault I even know what that is Guido)

Assange is not anti-privacy, he's against governments keeping secrets from their people. Either way, it was closing the barn door after the horse already escaped, as the location he will be staying at was publicized yesterday.

Then why was he asking the government, in this case the British courts, to keep his address secret from the people?

And by the way, I too have a problem with government secrecy, but no one appointed me Grand Arbiter of what should be made public.

You really can't see the difference between government keeping its own actions secret and keeping individual personal information secret?

Think medical records vs. court proceedings. It's perfectly reasonable for the state to refuse to release an individual's medical records or other PII. It's not reasonable for them to keep an entire trial secret. Just as an example..

And here's more from the irony world:
http://dougpowers.com/2010/12/19/wikileaks-founders-attorney-leaked-documents-are-perfectly-legal-unless-they-contain-information-about-wikileaks-founder/

Live by it, die by it.

"Julian Assange and Michael Moore should just move to Ironyclown Island and live happily ever after together."

Give that blogger a Pulitzer.

They have a fiction category.  8)

Since the previous round of leaks last summer, has there been a documented case where Americans were harmed as a result (other than facing criminal charges)?

Assange and Moore. . .I like "pipers" of this caliber.

They offer causes instead of goals and help us to identify those among us who would rather be followers.  They bring some people back to reality while others are willing to march right off the edge.

 

They're televangelists?

Stay at Holiday Inn Express last night?

Faithful only to themselves, so you are on the right track.

Two cans of aquanet and Assange's hair would rock the televangelist.

He just needs to pinch out a tear every now and then.

I think that requires some semblance of a soul.  IOW- don't hold your breath.

Maybe he could call Beck and Boehner for tips?

This might well qualify for the stupidest thing I've seen on the internet this year sofar.

I'm no fan of Julian Assange/Wikileaks, but this guy sounds like he might be certifiable.

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/1/12/julian-assange-charged-us-treason/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw[/youtube]

Pentagon Papers leaker: 'I was Bradley Manning'

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/19/wikileaks.ellsberg.manning/index.html?hpt=T2

A USA political prisoner from Crescent, Ok. That's the place Kerr McGee poisoned Karen Silkwood by planting plutonium on her. Manning is being tortured by Obomba. Shameful Mista Prez.

Thats your boy.....

“With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference. “They assure me that they are.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us/12manning.html

Well, there you are.
Even though the top state department spokesman was forced to resign for bringing it up...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzMN2c24Y1s&feature=player_embedded#at=40[/youtube]

Brilliant!

Courts say that companies can give unlimited money to politicians because it is a first amendment right.  But the same companies who took government money are blocking the ability of their customers money to give to wikileaks.

Forcing companies to facilitate the little guy giving money to someone is an illegal taking, apparently.  ::)

Besides, Wikileaks is a threat to both big government and big business. Neither of them is interested in more of their secrets getting spilled, no matter how mundane the vast majority are.

What America needs is more free speech!!

So, guess which former Tulsan was just nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/145977/bradley-manning-and-julian-assange-both-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize

I thought Manning was from Crescent.

At any rate, the Nobel organization just reinforced my earlier opinion that a Nobel prize has little more relevance than a star on Hollywood Boulevard.

Anyone can be nominated.

Manning has "gender" issues:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16232455

Backgrounder:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101212_12_A1_CUTLIN691725&allcom=1

So what? You should be more concerned how Obama already proclaimed America's number one political prisoner guilty.... ;)

According to the first major Journalistic effort by THIS LAND, Manning is from Crescent. You are correct, this time :).

Bradley Manning is today's Daniel Ellsberg : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks

"It's no coincidence that it's someone from the state department who has gone off-message to speak out about this. When a branch of the US government makes a mockery of our pretensions to honour the rule of law, specifically our obligation not to use torture, the state department bears the brunt of that, as it affects our standing in the world.

The fact that Manning's abusive mistreatment is going on at Quantico – where I spent nine months as a Marine officer in basic school – and that Marines are lying about it, makes me feel ashamed for the Corps. Just three years as an infantry officer was more than enough time for me to know that what is going on there is illegal behaviour that must be stopped and disciplined."

I could care less what Obama said about this idiot. And as for "so what", his defense team thought it an important enough issue to raise it.

That's because Manning has been tortured and this has been some of the background evidence for proof.

Still not caring.

It took a lot of the wind out of the prosecutor's sails when military analysts reported Wikileaks as a whole hasn't put any troops in harms way.  ...at least those troops that aren't a part of any war crimes or corruption probes.

The same can not be said about the civillians:
WikiLeaks: U.S. Troops Executed Iraqi Children In 2006 Raid, According To U.N. Sources (VIDEO)
Alston's memo noted that the bodies of the dead civilians, who had all been shot in the head, were handcuffed.

I wish someone would nominate me!  That would be fun.

WikiLeaks is under attack again, and many Internet users speculate it may be related to information the site has recently published about a wide-spanning American surveillance system called TrapWire.

"TrapWire has access to virtually all CCTV's that have IP/internet connectivity," the press release said.
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/trapwire-surveillance-really-spying-americans-939948

Gosh I wish I had a life that was interesting enough to make that worth while to be worried about.

Or Obama?

(http://yfrog.com/scaled/landing/339/yft6.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/C3D6/production/_93643105_5e13b50a-b630-4204-b808-bbe58021ee3d.jpg)


Wikileaks: Chelsea Manning confirms her release from prison next week (http://Wikileaks: Chelsea Manning confirms her release from prison next week)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-data-guru-i-tried-to-team-up-with-julian-assange

Anyone else think it's strange that Wikileaks hasn't had documents critical of anyone associated with Trump?  Election won, poof!  No more leaks making US leaders look bad.

Strange how documents damaging to Democrats kept popping up for years up to and during the election, then the flood just stopped... almost like whoever was supplying the information got what they wanted and stopped supplying information.  Whomever that may be.  

Devil's advocate:

Or just that the Dems were really crooked or just not that good at covering it up.

Perhaps.  But most of what was leaked wasn't anything to do with Democrats in particular - US military leadership, spy programs, rules of engagement, etc.  It was damaging  to the people in charge at the time and would have been regardless of which party it was.  The rest that was leaked wasn't criminal or corrupt either, embarrassing and inconvenient for sure (DNC preferred the Democrat to the Independent), but nothing rising to a significant level of corruption.

All of those things are surely still in play.  The US military/spy agencies continue to do things We the People don't know about.  Politicians, parties, and businessmen associated with them continue to do things that would be embarrassing or inconvenient of it were made public.  Suddenly Wikileaks is no longer in the business of releasing that information, or is no longer getting that information.

Nah, Democrats have always been better than Republicans at covering stuff up.
 
 ;D

They are also MUCH better at coming up with catchy slogans to help cover things up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsey_Wright

Like that "Make America Great Again..." thing...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs


After overwhelming Repube control for the last 35 years or so...

By overwhelming you mean slightly over half right of the time right? As opposed to the literal overwhelming control Democrats have had for the last 200 years.

And look what happened in those two eras.   In that first part, we became the United States of America - and it was a long, hard road -  since the changeover, even Trump has to admit we need to "make America great again."   That's what his slogan IS all about.  He is too stupid to understand what he is saying.   

In those last 35 years we have slid to a noticeably inferior position at home and on the world stage.   Watch the video again... explains it all so anyone can understand.

So which is it man? Were we great then or were we a bunch of racist land grabbers. Or let's just say were we better then or now. I refuse to believe that our society is regressing (regardless of our leadership). You can't prove me wrong, it's just feelings. But we had our issues back then. You say we are sliding down...from what...from backward to more backward. Was America "great". It's always had it's issues. I honestly just feel so sorry for you. It must be incredibly depressing to have such a negative view of the world.

And Jeff Daniel's (writer's) memory is rather poor...and contradictory.


"We were able to do all these things...and be all these things because we were informed." More like they were dis informed. No way you can convince me that the generation 50-100 years ago is better informed than the current generation. The reason so much "smile" is hitting the fan nowadays is because people are getting informed. And it's infuriating what has been going on for hundreds of years is only now being understood.

I cannot speak to how informed people were "back in the day" (I bet data exists for 50 years ago, someone find it!).  But please have a conversation with someone, read facebook, look at memes, read the comments to the Tulsa World.  People in general are not informed.  But don't just rely on anecdotes...

Poll after poll. Study after study.  The majority of Americans are ignorant of the basics of how our government works, economics, history, geography. This is so well known that Presidential candidates now gives speeches at a 7th Grade level, assuming Americans comprehension and knowledge base is on par with an 11 year old.

- Only 34% can name the three branches of government.  Only a portion of those can name what they do.

- Only 25% can name more than 1 freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment (1/1000 can name all 5).  

- Only 20% can name the number of US Senators, but they're sure every one of them sucks but their own.

- Nearly 50% think the US President can suspend the Constitution. 35% knows Congress declares war or that the Senate can override a Presidential Veto.  60% think the President appoints judges without senate approval.  

- Less than 50% of Americans can name the country that dropped the atomic bomb.  

- 25% know the terms serve by Congressman and Senators

- 45% believe "revolutionary speech against the government" is punishable under the US Constitution

- Don't bother asking about history - 30% don't know what the Holocaust was, what dates things took place, or basics about global conflicts

- Most don't understand basic political terms or definitions (left, right, fascist, Nazi, communist, socialist, etc.)

- World politics?  Most Americans can't find countries we are currently bombing when presented with a map

- Science knowledge is abysmal

- Basic economics is even worse.

- The number of Americans who follow politics has dropped (26%), while the number of  Americans who try to convince others of their political views has risen (40%).  

Don't confuse willingness to engage with being informed.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/06/27/american-voters-are-ignorant-but-not-stupid/#3de391257ff1
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/millions-americans-are-embarrassingly-ill-informed-and-they-do-not-care-0
https://wysu.org/content/commentary/are-american-voters-stupid
http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/public-knowledge/

Reminds me of the comparison of George Orwell (1984), and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World).   

General Thesis:  Orwell was worried a totalitarian government keeping information from the people, and using that to manipulate.  Huxley feared we would have so much information that we would tune out and become passive.

There is a pretty good argument that Huxley's vision is what we are living in right now.

https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webcomic-2/ (https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webcomic-2/)

It would help if those countries would stop changing their names all the time.....
 
 ;D

People (and characters) like Will McAvoy can in one breath say that things were better, maybe even great, back then and in the same breath say Trump is invoking racism by using the phrase "Make America Great Again". "Coincidentally" mental illness has been on the rise over the last 50 years.

You haven't been paying attention.  We have regressed a great deal - again, watch the video.  He covers it all perfectly.

As for racist land grabbers - no, not just that - those times were genocide and extermination.  As I have said repeatedly, and you apparently refuse to understand - or more likely just want to be obtuse.

I have also said several times - and it is as true today as it has been for our history - and I will repeat, typing slowly so you can understand; 

No country has done as much good as the United States in the history of the world.  And no country has done as much evil as the United States of America.

Slow enough for ya ??

People are not informed today - you are a prime example of getting nothing outside of Fake Fox News.  The opposite of informed.  And of course no one can convince you, since you refuse to step beyond the FFN.

Go back and read some of the old McGuffey's readers and math.  They were taught at a higher level much earlier.

No, that isn't what says Trump is racist - his actions for his entire life are what say he is racist...and criminal - all his business dealings since he was a young kid say that.  As you would know if you looked beyond Fake Fox News.  

Excellent job. You have done a fantastic job of refuting a point that I didn't make (again).

I understand, I'm not that dense, but tell me honestly you haven't heard the argument that the phrase MAGA is racist.

And again... I DON'T bucking WATCH FOX NEWS!!!!!!!!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-suh/the-racist-nostalgia-behind-make-america-trump_b_8145962.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439912/bill-clinton-donald-trumps-make-america-great-again-slogan-racist
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-kkk/473190/
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a55305/make-america-great-again-donald-trump/
http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/the-problem-with-the-make-america-great-again-slogan/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/22/white_people_want_to_make_america_great_again.html

and the topper, the one news organization that apparently has a memory longer than a nano-second:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/9/bill-clinton-vowed-to-make-america-great-again-in-/

Conspicuously missing from the bibliography above...you guessed it...Fox News. I must have just got it through osmossis through watching all that conservative media that I don't actually watch.

Interesting how many people I talk to that never listen or watch Fake Fox News, but follow the script to the letter.  Drudge fan??

RCP to be honest. Pretty even split of coverage. It's why I'm so cynical when it comes to both parties. I've seen what 24 hours a day Fox News does to people (family members...not immediate thankfully).

Julian Assange Is Secretly Charged in U.S., Prosecutors Mistakenly Reveal

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has secretly filed criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, a person familiar with the case said, a drastic escalation of the government’s yearslong battle with him and his anti-secrecy group.

The disclosure came as the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is investigating links between President Trump’s associates and Russia’s 2016 election interference. WikiLeaks published thousands of emails that year from Democrats during the presidential race that were stolen by Russian intelligence officers. The hackings were a major part of Moscow’s campaign of disruption.

Though the legal move against Mr. Assange remained a mystery on Thursday, charges centering on the publication of information of public interest — even if it was obtained from Russian government hackers — would create a precedent with profound implications for press freedoms.

Barry Pollack, an American lawyer representing Mr. Assange, denounced the apparent development.

“The news that criminal charges have apparently been filed against Mr. Assange is even more troubling than the haphazard manner in which that information has been revealed,” Mr. Pollack wrote in an email. “The government bringing criminal charges against someone for publishing truthful information is a dangerous path for a democracy to take.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to say on Thursday what led to the inadvertent disclosure...suggesting that prosecutors had inadvertently pasted text from a similar court filing into the wrong document and then filed it.

But even as the Obama administration brought criminal charges in an unprecedented number of leak-related cases, it apparently held back from charging Mr. Assange. Members of the Obama legal policy team from that era have said that they did not want to establish a precedent that could chill investigative reporting about national security matters by treating it as a crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assange-indictment-wikileaks.html

And who still thinks we are not moving away from democracy ?

I will respectfully disagree, particularly in this case.  There is a lot of true information that is important to our Nation that it be kept secret.   I do not doubt that the information Wikileaks posted it true, but it has also been (in various ways) harmful the Nation.  A blanket statement that all true information should be public is simply not a viable position.

Im mostly in agreement, but historically a lot of things that have been sheltered under the wing of necessary secrecy has been plain-old CYA.

How?  Examples...  Fake Fox News is about the only place saying something bad may come of it yet...!   After all these years.   Like maybe a Republican may not get elected sometime??

This is not GOP or DEM.  Obama also prosecuted govt leakers.    I was responding to the blanket statement: "The government bringing criminal charges against someone for publishing truthful information is a dangerous path for a democracy to take.”  This is simply not a viable position.   The US govt has data that is true, but should be kept secret.  Every country does.  (and, every state, every city, every business, etc...)  All information is not public, regardless of validity.   It is not up to Assange, or any other private individual, to decide to make public what is held secret by the govt.  

Patrick does have a good point, in that a lot of "secret" stuff should not really be secret, but again, there are processes for addressing that.   I am not questioning the rightness or wrongness of what Assange did, as it definitely depends on a point of view. But legally, he should expect to have charges filed.

True - there should be secrets.  And at exactly the same time, what America (US) needs is more free speech!

As for the process of addressing that - it is so horribly broken that yes, it is one or two or a very few making that decision.  And it ain't Assange....

WikiLeaks-founder Julian Assange will be punished for embarrassing the DC establishment

“He is our property.” Those celebratory words of Sen. Joe Manchin (D, W.V.) came on CNN soon after the news of the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It was a sentiment shared by virtually everyone in Washington from Congress to the intelligence services. Assange committed the unpardonable sins of embarrassing the establishment — from members of Congress to intelligence officials to the media. And he will now be punished for our sins. Despite having significant constitutional arguments to be made, it is likely that he will be stripped of those defenses and even barred from raising the overall context of his actions in federal court. What could be the most important free speech and free press case in our history could well be reduced to the scope and substance of an unauthorized computer access case.

For years, the public has debated what Assange is: a journalist? a whistleblower? a foreign agent? a dupe? The problem is that Assange is first and foremost a publisher.

Moreover, he was doing something that is usually heralded in the media. He disclosed a massive and arguably unconstitutional surveillance program by the United States impacting virtually every citizen. He later published emails that showed that the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton lied in various statements to the public, including the rigging of the primary for her nomination. No one has argued that any of these emails were false. They were embarrassing. Of course, there is not crime of embarrassing the establishment but that is merely a technicality.

The criminal charge against Assange filed in Alexandria federal court was crafted to circumvent the obvious constitutional problems in prosecuting him. The charge is revealing. He is charged with a single count for his alleged involvement in the hacking operation of Chelsea Manning in 2010.

By alleging that Assange actively played a role in the hacking operation, the government is seeking to portray him as part of the theft rather than the distribution of the information. The prosecutors say that Assange helped Manning secure a password to gain access to additional information. If true, that would be a step that most media organizations would not take.

It is likely that there will be a superseding indictment once Assange is successfully extradicted to the United States. Moreover, the Justice Department is likely to move aggressively to strip Assange of his core defenses. Through what is called a motion in limine, the government will ask the court to declare that the disclosure of the arguably unconstitutional surveillance program is immaterial.

That would leave Assange with only the ability to challenge whether he helped with passwords and little or no opportunity to present evidence of his motivations or the threat to privacy. For the jury, they could simply be faced with some Australian guy who helped with passwords in hacking national security information. It would be like trying a man for breaking and entering while barring evidence that the house was on fire and he thought he was rescuing people instead.

They will punish Assange for their sins

The key to the prosecution of Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government launched an unprecedented surveillance program that scooped up the emails and communications of citizens without a warrant or probable cause. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program.

A glimpse of that artificial scope was seen within minutes of the arrest. CNN brought on its national security analyst, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. CNN never mentioned that Clapper was accused of perjury in denying the existence of the surveillance program and was personally implicated in the scandal that Wikileaks triggered. He was asked directly before Congress “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” Later, Clapper said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. That would still make it a lie, of course, but this is Washington and people like Clapper are untouchable. In the view of the establishment, Assange is the problem.

Washington needs to silence Assange

So, on CNN, Clapper was allowed to explain (without any hint of self-awareness or contradiction) that Assange has “caused us all kinds of grief in the intelligence community.” Indeed, few people seriously believe that the government is aggrieved about password protection. The grief was the disclosure of an abusive surveillance program and a long record of lies to the American people. Assange will be convicted of the felony of causing embarrassment in the first degree.

Notably, no one went to jail or was fired for the surveillance programs. Those in charge of failed Congressional oversight were reelected. Clapper was never charged with perjury. Even figures shown to have lied in the Clinton emails, like former CNN commentator Donna Brazile (who lied about giving Clinton’s campaign questions in advance of the presidential debates), are now back on television. However, Assange could well do time.

With Assange’s extradition, all will be well again in Washington. As Manchin declared, he is their “property” and will be punished for his sins. Once he is hoisted as a wretch, few will again entertain such hubris in the future.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/11/wikileaks-julian-assange-nsa-extradition-hacking-chelsea-manning-nobel-column/3434034002/

Everyone lost their collective sh!t over Valerie Plame being outed as a national scandal and Plame still claims this hurt more than just her.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/04/18/i-was-outed-as-a-cia-covert-ops-officer-why-it-matters-that-trump-pardoned-scooter-libby/?utm_term=.a06ababf4506

How many people has Julian Assange compromised and endangered by stealing and exposing confidential information?  I fail to see how this assclown sexual predator is some sort of international hero.

Compromised who?   By saying they were performing illegal acts.  Yeah, I guess that could, in a alternate universe, rule of law country, hurt the people doing those things, because in that fantasy world, those doing that would be prosecuted, convicted, and punished.   But they really have nothing to worry about here, so exactly where is the harm he did?


He is a "hero" (not really);

In exactly the same way Oliver North is a "great American hero".  According to Fake Fox News.

Or the same way that Pedophile in Chief, Donald Trump is a "great" President.  (As in pretty much one of the worst ever.)  You phrased it perfectly; "assclown sexual predator".

Exactly what equivocation is there about Ollie and Drumpf other than your Fake Faux News usual narrative?

ASSange literally released thousands upon thousands of classified documents into the public domain.

Both committing serial Federal felonies and both being rewarded for it by Minions.


None of which have been shown to have any adverse effect whatsoever to the security of the US.  Except for 'bad publicity' that should have created an uproar against both the security agencies breaking the law AND the Clinton campaign - which didn't actually break any law, but did some seriously crappy stuff to Sanders.

Maybe I missed your indignation, outrage, and condemnation against illegal actions by government agencies detailed in those whistleblower released documents??  Links?


As for Fake Fox News - well, again, all I have to do is copy/paste what Trump and his Minions say.  Make tiny little edits to make them valid and true.  And wait for disparagement - "usual narrative".   Again, indignation, outrage, and condemnation against 'you know' what...?

Trump offered WikiLeaks' Julian Assange a pardon if he covered up Russian hacking of Democrats
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-for-covering-up-russian-hacking.html

Bringing the full force of the government to bear for personal gain.    Again.

"Anybody interested in why the US failed in Iraq should have a look."
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-wikileaks-extradition-prison-trump-chelsea-manning-a9351246.html

CIA officials under Trump discussed assassinating Julian Assange – report
Mike Pompeo and officials requested ‘options’ for killing Assange following WikiLeaks’ publication of CIA hacking tools, report says

Senior CIA officials during the Trump administration discussed abducting and even assassinating WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a US report citing former officials.

The discussions on kidnapping or killing Assange took place in 2017, Yahoo News reported, when the fugitive Australian activist was entering his fifth year sheltering in the Ecuadorian embassy. The then CIA director, Mike Pompeo, and his top officials were furious about WikiLeaks’ publication of “Vault 7”, a set of CIA hacking tools, a breach which the agency deemed to be the biggest data loss in its history.

Pompeo and the CIA leadership “were completely detached from reality because they were so embarrassed about Vault 7”, Yahoo cites a former Trump national security official as saying. “They were seeing blood.”

Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration went as far as to request “sketches” or “options” for killing Assange. “There seemed to be no boundaries,” a former senior counterterrorist official was quoted as saying.

The CIA declined to comment.

The kidnapping or murder of a civilian accused of publishing leaked documents, with no connection to terrorism, would have triggered global outrage.

Pompeo raised eyebrows in 2017 by referring to WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service”. The Yahoo report said that it was a significant designation, as it implied a green light for a more aggressive approach to the pro-transparency group by CIA operatives, who could treat it as an enemy espionage organization.

Barry Pollack, Assange’s US lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment, but told Yahoo News: “As an American citizen, I find it absolutely outrageous that our government would be contemplating kidnapping or assassinating somebody without any judicial process simply because he had published truthful information.

“My hope and expectation is that the UK courts will consider this information and it will further bolster its decision not to extradite to the US,” he added.

Assange had been sheltering in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations. He was arrested in 2019 after being evicted by the Ecuadorian government and is now in prison in London, from where he is fighting extradition to the US.

US prosecutors have accused him under the Espionage Act of seeking to assist Chelsea Manning in hacking a military computer network to obtain classified documents, attempting to help the former US army analyst and conspiring to obtain and publish classified documents in violation of the Espionage Act.

The use of the Espionage Act in the case was heavily criticized by human rights groups who pointed out that it opened the door for its use against investigative journalists in general, much of whose work revolves around obtaining and publishing information that governments would prefer to keep secret.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10030397/CIA-secret-plans-kidnap-assassinate-Julian-Assange-2017-ex-officials-say.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK


Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. “There seemed to be no boundaries.”
https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/12/julian-assange-biden-press-freedom-legacy