Julian Assange - Right or Wrong?

[smutwerx]

A few notes. Sweden has extremely liberal sexual misconduct laws. What Assange is accused of wouldn't be crimes in the UK or US. That's fine with me. Good for Sweden. But because of this, because it took very little actual evidence to trigger the inquiry, Swedish authorities cannot gain anything from talking to him in Sweden that they can't by talking to him in England. If they had any actual evidence, he would be charged. It's as simple as that. Ergo, it is his presence that matters, not the actual facts of the investigation. That's pretty clear, don't you think?

So, if the U.S. were not lurking, the questioning would have happened already. But major U.S. politicians and media figures came out an suggested Assange should be put to death, or at least tried for treason, even though he isn't even American and cant be tried for treason. In America's political environment, as it exists today, you have to take these kinds threats seriously. Easy to say they are just politicians shooting their mouths off, but think about it. If an American media figure called for you to be put to death, you'd probably be concerned. Under the circumstances, not so surprising that he is trying to get to Ecuador.

Second thing. He didn't have the staff or ability to read and publish the massive tranche of documents by himself. He partnered with Guardian, The New York Times, and another couple of papers. Stern in Germany was one of them, I think. This is for the Bradley Manning stuff, I mean, the dox that got him into trouble. Those newspapers all published the same leaks Assange did, all coordinated to appear the same day by prior agreement. Most people would never visit Wikileaks. The embarrassment for the U.S. came from the truth appearing in the Times and Guardian, respectable outlets. Yet no editors of those papers face any consequences. That would tend to make one think he's the focus of a vendetta.

Third. An international arrest warrant from Interpol for someone wanted for mere questioning? Interpol? The same agency that is supposed to chasing after loose nuclear material and international drug smugglers? And now they are intervening in a case where a woman and man have differing accounts over what happened when one partner wanted to use a condom and the other refused. That's unprecedented. And it suggests that the case is being manipulated at the highest levels of power.

In the end, I think Assange was right to publish the dox. All he did was what newspaper editors have done for a century, which was publish insider accounts provided by people inside industries where abuses have occurred. Once upon a time in the U.S., that was celebrated. The press was admired as a check on executive power. Times have changed so much. Now there is no check on White House power. There wasn't under Bush, and there certainly isn't under Obama. If it's not legal, you get your Attorney General to crank a legal brief that explains why it is legal. It isn't pleasant to look inside the machinery of power, but I want to know. I'd rather know exactly what is being done in my name and the name of my country.

[Puhbear69]

Such things would have never been published:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

Remember:

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube


It is in the interest of mankind, what he has published !

[Estreeter]

What Assange did, That can be debated if it's right or wrong forever.

It does seem morally right leaking information on what a government or country did...most times people have a right to know, after all it is their elected government.

Sometimes, some things are best left secret. It's been like that throughout the centuries and will be like that for a long time to come.

It's one of those cases where you want to know, but maybe better off not knowing.

I'm indifferent too what to think of the whole thing. Would we have a better or worse world for governments doing things secretly is always open to debate, But...................For those that don't know, I watched a documentary a few months back on the wikileaks fiasco.......I think this is Assanges motivation for it all

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents

Bradley Manning, the prime suspect in the leaking of the Afghan war files, raged against his US Army employers and "society at large" on his Facebook page in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret memos, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn't "have anything left" and was "beyond frustrated".

In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment," and quoted a joke about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron.

Mr Manning, 22, who is currently awaiting court martial, is suspected of leaking more than 90,000 secret military documents to the Wikileaks website in a security breach which US officials claim has endangered the lives of serving soldiers and Afghan informers.

Supporters claim the war logs leak exposed civilian deaths in Afghanistan which had been covered up by the military, and Mr Manning's family, who live in Pembrokeshire, said he had "done the right thing".

The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: "Bradley Manning didn't want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast."

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: "Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn't have anything left."

Five days later he said he was "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend", then later the same day said he was "not a piece of equipment" and was "beyond frustrated with people and society at large".

His tagline on his personal page reads: "Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!"

Mr Manning was arrested at the end of May on suspicion of leaking a video of a US helicopter attack, and quickly became the main suspect when the Afghan war documents were leaked earlier this week.

His uncle, Kevin Fox, said the soldier’s arrest and imprisonment in a military jail had taken its toll on his mother Susan, who lives in Haverfordwest.

“She hasn’t been well,” he said, adding that if Mr Manning had leaked the documents: “I think the boy did the right thing.”

Another close relative, who asked not to be named, said: “His mum didn't know anything about what he was doing and it's come as a big shock. She's very upset.”

Susan Manning, 56, moved to the US in 1979 after marrying Bradley’s American father Brian Manning, a former serviceman who was based at the Cawdor Barracks in Brawdy, near Haverfordwest.

Bradley Manning was born in Oklahoma but the couple divorced in 2001 and Mrs Manning moved back to Wales with her son, who sat his GCSEs at the Tasker Milward secondary school in Haverfordwest.

Joseph Staples, Mr Manning's uncle by marriage, said: “It's one of those Catch 22 situations, because freedom of speech is great but if you do something that endangers other people's lives then I can understand why you're going to get flattened by the American military.

“Some people are saying that Bradley was a trouble-maker but he was anything but. He was just an introverted kid who loved computers and was fired up politically.”

Scott Lewis, a former classmate, said: "He was a bit hot-headed. If there was something he didn't agree with, he spoke up about it."

Other school contemporaries recalled him as a computer “nerd” who had a difficult relationship with his father.

Jenna Morris, a 23-year-old sales manager who went on holiday to Disney World in Florida with Bradley and his cousins, said: “He was a quiet lad and he’d had a tough upbringing.

“His parents had an acrimonious divorce. He didn’t get on well with his dad; they had quite a volatile relationship. His dad was very strict and shouted at him a lot.

“He had a tough time when he came back here with his mum because moving to another country after a break-up was hard. He was quite a loner and he didn’t really have a lot of friends. He had quite a bit of trouble at school and was picked on, but he didn’t care.”

James Kirkpatrick, who became friendly with him through their shared interest in computers, said: “I last contacted him about six months ago. He didn’t mention anything about what was happening, but at the same time he did seem a bit secretive, he was being a bit paranoid about what we spoke about on the net.

“He wouldn’t mention anything about what he was doing in the army and what he thought of it.”

Pictures on Mr Manning's Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on "the battlefield".

Yesterday Mr Manning, who is reportedly on suicide watch, was transferred from a military jail in Kuwait to a prison in Washington DC, as the Pentagon called in the FBI to assist in the hunt for the source of the leak.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the leakers “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family” because, he said, the leaked documents included the names of Afghan informants.

Just food for thought

[Puhbear69]

Meanwhile, in the case against PFC Bradley Manning, his lawyer has filed details of the appalling regime is client is subject to while in military custody.

Bradley Manning treatment in 'flagrant violation' of military code – lawyer
David Coombs claims in Article 13 motion that WikiLeaks suspect is being punished through 'degradation' and 'humiliation'





Bradley Manning was held in a 6x8 ft cell for 23 to 24 hours a day,

The harsh conditions forced upon Bradley Manning in military detention have been laid out in detail as part of a court filing in which the US army is accused of a "flagrant violation" of his right not to be punished prior to trial.

The Article 13 motion, published Friday by Manning's civilian lawyer David Coombs on his website, claims that Manning, who is accused of leaking state secrets to WikiLeaks, was held in a 6x8 ft cell for 23 to 24 hours a day. In addition, when not sleeping, Manning was banned from lying down, or even using a wall to support him.

The motion also claims that Manning was punished through "degradation and humiliation", notably by forcing him to stand outside his cell naked during a morning inspection. This, his Coombs claims, was "retaliatory punishment" for speaking out over his treatment.

Manning, 24, is accused of being behind the biggest leak of state secrets in US history. Hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables from US embassies around the world, as well as war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, were published by the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

The information was provided by Manning from his military base near Baghdad, army prosecutors have claimed. They have indicted Manning on 22 counts, including charges of aiding the enemy – charges that carry a maximum penalty of death, although prosecutors have indicated that they will not seek capital punishment.

Coombs is attempting to get all charges dismissed on the grounds that he was subjected to illegal pre-trial treatment – in violation of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The claim relates to the nine months that Manning spent after being transferred to the Quantico marine base in Virginia following his arrest in May 2010.

"Manning was awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours," Coombs claims in the motion, adding that he "was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day. Nor was Manning permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support".

The motion further states that Manning was only allowed 20 minutes of "sunshine call" a day. In addition, he was permitted by guards to take no more than five minutes in the shower. On the rare occasions that he was allowed out of his cell, Manning was forced to wear shackles with metal hand and leg restraints. At least two guards accompanied him at all times.

Manning was handed a pair of running shoes without laces for his trips outside, but they would fall off when he attempted to walk. As a result he "elected to wear boots instead", the document alleges.

The conditions were imposed, the US military has claimed, for Manning's own protection under a so-called "prevention of injury" order, or POI. But Manning's lawyer says there is clear evidence showing that the conditions were not imposed because of a risk of self-harm, and were instead used as a form of punishment. "The Brig's arbitrary policy to keep Manning subject to the harshest conditions possible shows an intent to punish Manning," the document says.

Coombs cites an incident in which Manning was forced to strip for an inspection after he remonstrated over his treatment at the detention centre. "It is well established that forced nudity is a classic humiliation technique. The only permissible inference is that the Brig intended to punish Manning by subjecting him to humiliating treatment because Manning correctly pointed out the absurdity of his POI status," it is claimed.

Manning was eventually transferred from Quantico before his pre-trial hearings. His time at Quantico was later condemned by Juan Mendez, the UN's special rapporteur on torture. A 14-month investigation by Mendez concluded that Manning had been subjected to cruel and inhuman conditions.

The defence motion is brought under Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It states that "no person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence."

Under Article 13, if a judge decides that a member of the armed forces has been illegally punished before trial, he can grant the prisoner credit on the amount of time they have already served in custody, or can even dismiss all charges outright.

Source

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

...It does seem morally right leaking information on what a government or country did...most times people have a right to know, after all it is their elected government...

hehe!

The funniest Capitalist argument I heard so far is "Of course we have to know what they're doing - we're paying for it!"

Do you think they really meant it?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by palo5

hehe!

The funniest Capitalist argument I heard so far is "Of course we have to know what they're doing - we're paying for it!"

Sad socialist fact Had Assange been a Soviet citizen and there was an internet, assuming it was freely available too Soviet citizens and Assnage even attempted this say 30 years ago.........Nobody would ever have known Only the worms would know the whereabouts of his remains

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Sad socialist fact Had Assange been a Soviet citizen and there was an internet, assuming it was freely available too Soviet citizens and Assnage even attempted this say 30 years ago.........Nobody would ever have known Only the worms would know the whereabouts of his remains

That would certainly be true for a 'Soviet Manning' 30 years ago

But Assange is different, because he's Australian. People like that are kept in a jar by the door until there's someone you want to exchange him for

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Sad socialist fact Had Assange been a Soviet citizen and there was an internet, assuming it was freely available too Soviet citizens and Assnage even attempted this say 30 years ago.........Nobody would ever have known Only the worms would know the whereabouts of his remains

They had famous dissidents too, and the whole world is knowing them !!

Examples: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by palo5

People like that are kept in a jar by the door until there's someone you want to exchange him for

-------> Click

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by smutwerx

An international arrest warrant from Interpol for someone wanted for mere questioning? Interpol? The same agency that is supposed to chasing after loose nuclear material and international drug smugglers? And now they are intervening in a case where a woman and man have differing accounts over what happened when one partner wanted to use a condom and the other refused. That's unprecedented. And it suggests that the case is being manipulated at the highest levels of power.

The International Arrest Warrant was not from Interpol. It was issued by the Swedish Police through Interpol which is a communication channel between the police forces of different countries. It's like getting a letter in the post. If it was written and posted by Auntie Flo, it's from her ... not from the Post Office.

Just because Interpol is also involved when there's loose nuclear material or international drug smugglers, doesn't mean it shouldn't be involved when the crimes are of a sexual nature ... in the same way that just because the police in this country are involved in chasing murderers and rapists, doesn't mean they shouldn't be involved when someone hasn't insured their car, or shouldn't go after someone who's "only" stolen a mobile phone.

It's a legal process, and if Swedish law requires that when there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that an individual has committed a crime, that individual should be questioned in Sweden, the only complaint against the Swedish authorities can be "We don't like your laws."

Tough! I firmly believe that if you visit a country, you should respect it's laws.

In any case, let's be realistic. If this is a set-up, don't you think that if Assange was questioned by Swedish Police in this country, they would find grounds to have him extradicted? Surely it would be rather naive to imagine that if there's a plot to get him to Sweden, the Swedish Police would come over, question him, and then say "Hey, he's innocent! Let him stay here!"