HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Revealed: US plans to cha...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 08:54 AM

Revealed: US plans to charge Assange

Revealed: US plans to charge Assange
Philip Dorling
February 29, 2012

UNITED STATES prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a confidential email obtained from the private US intelligence company Stratfor.

In an internal email to Stratfor analysts on January 26 last year, the vice-president of intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks with the comment: ''We have a sealed indictment on Assange.''

He underlined the sensitivity of the information - apparently obtained from a US government source - with warnings to ''Pls protect'' and ''Not for pub''.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html

100 replies, 13748 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 100 replies Author Time Post
Reply Revealed: US plans to charge Assange (Original post)
Swagman Feb 2012 OP
xchrom Feb 2012 #1
Hissyspit Feb 2012 #48
xchrom Feb 2012 #50
Amonester Feb 2012 #64
geek tragedy Mar 2012 #92
thesquanderer Feb 2012 #2
The Wizard Feb 2012 #3
CanonRay Feb 2012 #4
BigDemVoter Feb 2012 #5
randome Feb 2012 #8
EFerrari Feb 2012 #10
randome Feb 2012 #15
EFerrari Feb 2012 #31
dixiegrrrrl Feb 2012 #35
truedelphi Feb 2012 #69
bahrbearian Feb 2012 #6
Matariki Feb 2012 #20
cstanleytech Feb 2012 #49
24601 Feb 2012 #54
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #7
randome Feb 2012 #9
EFerrari Feb 2012 #11
hack89 Feb 2012 #13
starroute Feb 2012 #17
hack89 Feb 2012 #21
EFerrari Feb 2012 #43
hack89 Feb 2012 #45
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #62
hack89 Feb 2012 #77
valerief Feb 2012 #70
hack89 Feb 2012 #76
bvar22 Feb 2012 #29
msanthrope Feb 2012 #39
bvar22 Feb 2012 #51
bahrbearian Feb 2012 #55
Occulus Feb 2012 #67
EFerrari Feb 2012 #42
hack89 Feb 2012 #46
girl gone mad Feb 2012 #68
msanthrope Feb 2012 #75
EFerrari Feb 2012 #80
msanthrope Feb 2012 #81
truedelphi Feb 2012 #71
hack89 Feb 2012 #78
truedelphi Feb 2012 #82
hack89 Feb 2012 #87
truedelphi Mar 2012 #88
hack89 Mar 2012 #93
truedelphi Mar 2012 #95
hack89 Mar 2012 #96
truedelphi Mar 2012 #97
truedelphi Mar 2012 #98
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #23
randome Feb 2012 #26
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #34
randome Feb 2012 #41
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #61
hack89 Feb 2012 #79
aggiesal Feb 2012 #58
truedelphi Feb 2012 #83
aggiesal Feb 2012 #86
BigDemVoter Feb 2012 #12
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #63
msanthrope Feb 2012 #14
Robb Feb 2012 #16
msanthrope Feb 2012 #22
Matariki Feb 2012 #19
msanthrope Feb 2012 #27
Matariki Feb 2012 #40
msanthrope Feb 2012 #47
truedelphi Mar 2012 #89
msanthrope Mar 2012 #94
truedelphi Mar 2012 #99
truedelphi Mar 2012 #100
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #25
randome Feb 2012 #28
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #33
msanthrope Feb 2012 #36
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #37
msanthrope Feb 2012 #38
druidity33 Feb 2012 #73
msanthrope Feb 2012 #74
Matariki Feb 2012 #18
cstanleytech Feb 2012 #52
bvar22 Feb 2012 #24
progressoid Feb 2012 #32
EFerrari Feb 2012 #44
geek tragedy Mar 2012 #91
JJW Feb 2012 #30
kickysnana Feb 2012 #53
Cleita Feb 2012 #56
dsfgerher Feb 2012 #57
Trillo Feb 2012 #59
Matilda Feb 2012 #60
Amonester Feb 2012 #65
Faryn Balyncd Feb 2012 #66
truedelphi Feb 2012 #84
fasttense Feb 2012 #72
wildbilln864 Feb 2012 #85
geek tragedy Mar 2012 #90

Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 08:57 AM

1. this pisses me off. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 05:27 PM

48. "liberal terrorist arse"

http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html

PRESS RELEASE - STRATFOR EMAILS: US HAS ISSUED SEALED INDICTMENT AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE

Tuesday 28th February 2012 18:30 GMT

Confidential emails obtained from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor show that the United States Government has had a secret indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for more than 12 months.

Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s (DoS) counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).

In early 2011, Burton revealed in internal Stratfor correspondence that a secret Grand Jury had already issued a sealed indictment for Assange: "Not for Pub — We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect." (375123) According to Burton: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever." (1056988) A few weeks earlier, following Julian Assange’s release from a London jail, where he had been remanded as a result of a Swedish prosecutor’s arrest warrant, Fred Burton told SkyNews: "extradition (to the US is) more and more likely". (373862).

Emails from Fred Burton reveal that the US Government employs the same counterterrorism strategy against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as against Al Qaeda: "Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ (Al Qaeda). Thank Cheney & 43(former US President George W. Bush). Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist arse." (1067796)

Ten days after the CIA reportedly assassinated Osama bin Laden, Burton writes in an email sent to Stratfor’s "Secure" mailing list that he "can get access to the materials seized from the OBL (Osama bin Laden)safe house." (1660854)

Burton states: "Ferreting out (Julian Assange’s) confederates is also key. Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside (sic). Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki." (1056763)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 05:33 PM

50. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:47 PM

64. That buRton aR$e would make a peRfect dicktatoR.

He's Got All The ($ecret) Laws on his side...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #48)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 12:49 AM

92. Burton sounds like a serial liar.

Access to the bin Laden files? Ummm hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 09:15 AM

2. Hey Julian, watch out for the drones. (N/T)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 09:15 AM

3. The prevaricating, deceptive

treasonous Bush cartel that looted the Treasury and bankrupted the economy and killed an untold number of innocent people around the globe gets to enjoy the fruit of their ill gotten fortunes while the federal government uses Assange as a scapegoat. That's just one reason why we're headed down the crapper. Lying begets lying and causes a moral breakdown at the core. We are doomed. "The center cannot hold."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 09:44 AM

4. Now we know what the DOJ has been busy doing

while the banksters get away with the world's biggest theft, and Murdoch is bugging half the phones on the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 09:53 AM

5. Yeah

The DOJ has been more concerned about bringing charges against Julian Assange and California Marijuana Dispensaries than it has been in doing something about the people who committed mass murder and brought this country to its knees both literally and figuratively.

Seriously, we have a real problem. I'm voting for Obama, but I am SICK of his DOJ.

At the very least, we should have a truth and reconciliation commission like they had in south Africa after Aprtheid ended. This way, the guilty would be forced to at least concede what they did. I'm not holding my breath.

GWB, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and Rumsfeld should ALL be in prison (I've definitely left out a good number of other guilty persons!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigDemVoter (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:44 AM

8. I don't think the DOJ has much jurisdiction over war crimes.

And probably the SEC is the department that should be watching the financial sector more closely.

Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:58 AM

10. The DoJ is the agency that monitors the enforcement of laws such as

the War Crimes Act. It was their job to investigate BushCo for torture when they were notified that a global torture program was in effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 11:42 AM

15. My bad, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 02:09 PM

31. That's okay. It's been so long since they did, no wonder nobody remembers. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:03 PM

35. The SEC can only charge civil violations.

DOJ can and should charge rampant criminal fraud that has been going on at all levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigDemVoter (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 04:43 AM

69. Totally agreeing with your statements.

And the fact that the Powers that Be have set it up so I have to vote for a supposed Democrat, a man to the right of Nixon, and to the right of Reagan, because the alternative is so much scarier, galls me no end.

This is not the nation I grew up in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:11 AM

6. Are Chimpy and Cheney going to be co-defendants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:07 PM

20. +1 and weep for Justice we will never see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 05:29 PM

49. Different case so no

though they should certainly be charged for what they did do while in office imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 06:35 PM

54. Cheney? Veeps aren't in any chain of command save their WH and Senate personal

staffs.

Yeah, he's unlikable, but he also was legally unable to issue any orders to DoD, CIA, etc. All he could do was offer his opinion - just like the DoJ.

Same goes for VP Biden vis a vis Hellfire missile strikes on US citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:18 AM

7. Charge him with what?

 


This is unfuckingbelievable.

There are many of us that are not buffaloed by the corporate media and can see through all the bullshit to know that what's happening has nothing to do with justice.

It's a vendetta, pure and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:48 AM

9. Shouldn't be a surprise.

Regardless of what any of us think about Assange, it shouldn't be a surprise that 'knowingly publishing national intelligence' or something of that nature would be a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 11:01 AM

11. What you are suggesting means we have to shut down the media

because publishing news is a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 11:14 AM

13. No. It is a crime to knowingly publish information from certain sources.

stolen secret government files are certainly in that category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 11:58 AM

17. It absolutely is not -- the Pentagon Papers case determined that

There are specific laws against things like revealing the identify of CIA officers, but there is nothing in the law involving where information came from or how it was originally obtained. This is why the government is attempting to show that Assange was in direct personal contact with Manning and incited him to leak the files, as opposed to WikiLeaks merely providing an anonymous welcome mat for whistleblowers in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Legal_case

Prior to publication, the New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication, but house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy. . . .

On June 18, 1971, the Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers; Ellsberg gave portions to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the paper to cease publication. After it refused, Rehnquist unsuccessfully sought an injunction at a U.S. district court. The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with the New York Times case. Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.

On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. . . .

Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston and admitted that he had given the papers to the press. He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles. Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government's case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:14 PM

21. If, as alleged, Assange conspired with Manning to obtain those documents

then he has no protection. Conspiracy to steal classified information is a crime.

In just over an hour of closing arguments at a pretrial hearing, the prosecutors disclosed three new excerpts of chat logs taken from Manning’s personal Macintosh laptop. In one, he allegedly asks Assange for help in figuring out a password. In another, he allegedly tells Assange “i’m throwing everything i’ve got on’’ Guantanamo detainee reports “at you now” and estimates the “upload is about 36 pct” complete.

To which Assange replied, according to the prosecutors’ PowerPoint presentation, “OK . . . great.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html

If the government can prove this then Assange is fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:18 PM

43. If I had a horn, I'd be a unicorn. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:45 PM

45. But unlike Assange, you won't be in jail. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:30 PM

62. You do realize that your function here

 

is pretty transparent, right?

Am I on a 'special list' now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #62)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 08:10 AM

77. You have been on it for a couple of years. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 04:47 AM

70. If my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.

To quote Stephanie Miller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #70)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 08:08 AM

76. I suspect putting Assange in jail will be a lot easier then you think.

Manning was an idiot - conspiring with idiots is never a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:36 PM

29. Ellsberg, on the targeting of Assange, Manning, and WikiLeaks.

Ellsberg:
"The only Looking Back (in the Obama Administration) is on WhistleBlowers"






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:37 PM

39. I hate to bring history and facts into this...but Ellsberg was charged wth espionage,

Would have been convicted of it, but for the bugging activities of the FBI.

The NYT would have been charged, too, had they done what Assange did.

FYI-prior restraint is not precedential for espionage....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 05:34 PM

51. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

And IF a frog had wings,
it wouldn't bump its ass every time it jumped.

Thank gawd for Whistle Blowers, especially Ellsberg, Assange, and Manning.
They are TRUE Patriots,
risking it ALL to protect our democracy.

"An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."-- Thomas Jefferson

How are we to have an "informed citizenry" if our Public Officials are able to cover up all their embarrassments, failures, venality, and incompetence by declaring them "State Secrets"?
We have a RIGHT to know what our government is doing In Our Name.
The Iraqis already knew that our helicopters had blown away civilians and first responders in that incident that Bradley Manning revealed.

REPEAT: The Iraqis ALREADY Knew!
The only ones this "state secret" was being kept from was the uninformed citizenry in the USA.
NOBODY was "put at risk" through Manning's disclosure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 06:36 PM

55. But But But ,Assange is attacking our freedoms. Freedom to be ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 01:25 AM

67. Apt username is apt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:17 PM

42. So, the New York Times should have not published the story about

illegal wiretapping?

No, Wikileaks is being persecuted for First Amendment activity and the government counts on people who reflexively side with it as you are doing to succeed in suppressing the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:49 PM

46. Did the NY Times conspire to steal government secrets?

If Assange was an active participant and helped Manning steal those documents then the 1st Amendment is irrelevant. It would be a criminal act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #46)


Response to EFerrari (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 07:10 AM

75. No. The NYTimes did not conspire to steal documents, nor did they direct Manning's actions.

Here, the prosecutor is charging that what Wikileaks did goes beyond protected 1st amendment actvity--

You do not have a first amendment right to insert software on a DoD computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #75)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 01:51 PM

80. You have zero evidence that Assange did any of that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #80)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 02:59 PM

81. But Ashden Fein didn't have 0 evidence, did he?

I've provided the links to the article 32 testimony elsewhere on this thread. I can't make you read them.

But I suggest to you that Mr Manning's failure to delete certain items does not bode well for him.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 04:49 AM

71. Can I point out that fifteen years ago, the charge that would be brought against

Assange would be that of treason. And that once it was pointed out that Assange was not an American citizen, that charge would be dropped.

But now, under the US Doctrine of Endless Wars and Endless Ability of the Almighty USA to do as it wants regarding people of "interest" outside, as well as inside our boundaries, Assange's arse is toast.

And if you think it ain't going to be bad for people inside our nation's boundaries, I advise you read up on HR 357, passed yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 08:12 AM

78. America has always extradicted and procesuted foreigners who break US laws

this is no different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #78)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 05:30 PM

82. I see it as being totally different.

Much of the world sees us as being a totalitarian nation.

People in Europe grieve for those of us who are living inside this massive police state. Especially people in Europe who suffered under the Third Reich.

Assange is not an American citizen. He has broken no laws while being inside the USA. Anything he has done that is against our set of laws and protocols, he has done from outside the borders of this nation state. So how and why should he be arrested?

Should those working on Enigma during WWII while in England be deemed under the jurisdicition of German Treason laws? because germany says so?

How is this situation any different?

We are fighting a war against the world. We want our Monsanto-crap famine food legislated into existence in every nation on earth. We want our style of "democracy" enacted, and we "bravely" go into other nations and destroy their nations when it suits us.

An American citizen can now serve time in jail just for being "sassy" with the friggin' TSA at the airport.

I am far more for Assange than I am for any elected official can even think of. (Kucinich, for whatever reason, didn't show up to vote against tte HR 347 yesterday, which strips Americans of the right to protest.)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #82)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 07:08 PM

87. Fuck the rest of the world

if Assange conspired with Manning to steal US secrets then he broke US laws and America has every legal right to seek his extradition. Extradition is based on binding international law and implemented through legally binding treaties between countries.

If the rest of the world wants to ignore international laws and treaties, more power to them. Do you think it will make the world a better place?

International law applies to all or it applies to none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #87)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 12:25 AM

88. International law? How can someone invoke international law, when it is the

Good Ol USA who ignores it continually?!?

Do you think the Depleted Uranium we use against the Iraqis and the Afghanstanis is allowed under international law?

Where do you come up with the notion of invoking international law when that law is a set of legal concepts that this nation repeatedly ignores!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #88)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 08:38 AM

93. So are we better off if Europe starts ignoring international law?

If Europe wants to maintain the moral high ground then they have no choice. If they want to act like a America then they need to stop complaining about our behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #93)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 04:27 PM

95. Europe is not yet a totalitarian state.

And since they aren't, they will indeed continue to lambast this nation for the many ills that it commits against the peoples of the world.

And they will do that in concert with the people of the Southern hemisphere, as well. Over the past five to9 ten years, it is interesting to note how the many nations in South America and Central America are banding together to oppose this nation's fascism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #95)

Sun Mar 4, 2012, 12:44 PM

96. But we are? Really.

what utter BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #96)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 03:16 PM

97. Follow the money.

We now have a politburo that allows us "free Citizens" to choose from a ledger of candidates who all will support the continuing Billionaire Corporate rule. (The notion that government and Corporations once they are tied together like Siamese twins is the essential definition of fascism.)

But if you won't believe me, then I invite you to buy a book or two by Naomi Klein, or else watch the documentary she in part inspired -- "Shock Doctrine."

And here are some thoughts on the matter by writers of the past:

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say ‘Heil’ to him, nor will they call him ‘Fuhrer’ or ‘Duce’. But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of ‘O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!’”


-- Dorothy Thompson, 1935


“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.…”

-- They Thought They Were Free,
Milton Mayer, 1955


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #96)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 03:49 PM

98. I responded to you in response 97.

But my answer didn't "tree itself" properly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:28 PM

23. And what is/was Stratfor doing?

It is obvious from some of its reports that it got information from US intelligence sources. It mentions, for example, in the report on the mid-level Pakistani army officers' knowledge of Bin Laden's whereabouts that Stratfor believed that American intelligence knew of the breadth of knowledge about Bin Laden within the Pakistani army sometime before the attack on Bin Laden. (Sorry about the long sentence.) And elsewhere it appears that Stratfor obtained information from various intelligence sources and SOLD them to clients.

Wikileaks was doing the same thing except Wikileaks did not pay its sources and did not know who they were.

If Assange is to be indicted, then what about Stratfor.

And, by the say, Assange, unlike Stratfor, need not be investigated for violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act an investigation that would be appropriate for Stratfor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:33 PM

26. If I was Assange, I would push that theme of selective enforcement.

Maybe he could get some traction with that, at least in the court of public opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 02:58 PM

34. Yes. Prosecutors have the discretion as to what targets they investigate and try to indict, but

still, I think the question must be asked about the protection of secrets. First, is the information really secret? Who decides? What are the criteria for deciding?

I like working puzzles, so I'm always interested in research and spy stories. Right now I am reading a book on Gehlen, the German spy who, after WWII, began spying for the West.

When I read about the real espionage of the WWII, and the Cold War period, the kinds of undercover things they did, the kinds of information they found out, I think the Wikileaks are pretty superficial. And apparently Stratfor was selling a lot of publicly available information mixed in with less accessible material.

I don't quite understand why some of the information is considered confidential or secret in the first place. If we were really interested in this, say, if we worked for a large corporation with offices in various countries, we could probably find a lot of this stuff out for ourselves. Our employees would probably be smart enough to figure it out -- if we hired intelligent employees.

I wonder whether the real point in all of this is to discourage people from asking questions and talking about certain subjects. If so, it probably won't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:59 PM

41. Yeah, much of 'top secret' stuff is not so secret.

It's more embarrassing than actually compromising our security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:24 PM

61. Precisely, Randome.

That is why I question whether the harsh sentences that are possible under, for example, the Espionage Act are appropriate in certain instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #61)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 08:15 AM

79. They are appropriate as a deterrent

you don't want the next guy thinking "if I release this but not that, I will get off lightly."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 08:49 PM

58. Not true unless ...

you have a clearance from the country who's secrets you've published.

Assange is not an American citizen and does not have a clearance of any sort.

If what you say is correct, then everyone at Jane's All the Worlds "Military
Equipment" (i.e. Aircraft, Ships, ...) would be in jail for publishing known
military capability (i.e SECRET capability).
Everyone at Jane's have declined getting a clearance for this exact reason.

Same thing applies to Tom Clancy, who published fictional books based on
true classified capabilities.

Therefore, because Assange published confidential info that he received,
without himself having any restrictions on clearances, did nothing illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #58)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 05:32 PM

83. You are making far far

Too much sense. Please be careful.
In the very near future, trying to make sense could well be a jailable offense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #83)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 06:47 PM

86. I hear ya, loud and clear ...

They'll throw the yellow flag and penalize you, for making too much sense,
then they'll take you to court, convict, & throw away the key for getting
them to actually believe it.

Just ask Bradley Manning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 11:02 AM

12. A lot of Right Wing

people think Assange should be tried for TREASON!!

Too stupid to understand that one must be an American citizen to be guilty of treason. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigDemVoter (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:44 PM

63. Well, Palin DID say he was 'unAmerican'.

 

I rofl'd over that for a day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 11:21 AM

14. Espionage. It looks like it stems from possibly two specific actions of Manning.


1--In Jan of 2010 Manning traveled to Boston and accepted software that was later put on DoD computers.

2--Specific searches of the DoD computers were performed at the behest of Assange, and he apparently helped Manning engage in a bit of codebreaking.

So even if you claim Assange was merely getting leaked info, those two actions indicate that he took a more active role---these are actions of someone who directed leaking as opposed to passively getting it.


















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 11:48 AM

16. If either of those are provable events, you're absolutely right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:17 PM

22. Evidence of both was presented at the article 32.

This was unrefuted by the defense.

See, it won't matter what was leaked. These actions alone get both Manning and Assange into espionage territory because they caused something to be introduced into the system.

Further, it's pretty clear that manning was being directed by Assange....apparently manning was told to search for info on certain persons in the siprnet database. Im on a mobile phone but i'll try to update w links later.


















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:06 PM

19. And you got the info where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:34 PM

27. The article 32 coverage EDITED WITH LINKS>>>

Last edited Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

1) Mr Manning inserted software from wikileaks onto DoD database--


Prosecutors charge Manning put software on secure computers to allow him to download classified material and burn it to a compact disc. Manning was assigned as an intelligence analyst in Iraq and had a top-secret clearance. He worked in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, known as SCIF.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/#more-35191?tw_p=twt

After February 11: Unauthorized software on SIPRNET; the Collateral Murder, Rejkjavik-13 cable, and Defense Intelligence documents

Then, remember, Manning came to the US in January to February 2010. Adrian Lamo has long alleged that Manning got help from some folks in Boston. The timeline shows Manning returned to Iraq on February 11, which also happens to be the first date Manning is alleged to have put the first of two unauthorized pieces of software onto SIPRNET.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-narrative-chronology-of-bradley-mannings-alleged-leaks/




2a-- Mr. Manning performed searches on behalf of Assange--

During the course of the government’s direct examination of Fulton, prosecuting attorney Capt. Ashden Fein asked Fulton if, in the course of his work, Manning had a need to conduct searches on SIPRnet for certain keywords – “GITMO SOP,” “Julian Assange,” “WikiLeaks” — or whether he had reason to visit a specific part of the CENTCOM web site. Fulton replied “no” in all cases.

Another witness, fellow intelligence analyst Sgt. Chad Madaras, was later asked similar questions. Madaras and Manning shared computers at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, where they were deployed together. Madaras worked the day shift, and Manning mostly served on the night shift.

The government asked if Madaras had ever used their computers to search for some of the same terms, as well as the term “JTF GITMO” or the name “Birgitta Jonsdottir,” or if he had ever used the Net Centric Diplomacy Database. Madaras replied “no” in each case.

The implication of the questioning seemed to be that the government had found forensic evidence that Manning’s workstation computers had been used to search these terms, though there was no testimony that stated this directly.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/manning-apache-video/


Understand that this search of Jonsdottir happened AFTER she was editing the Collateral Murder video, and BEFORE this was known to the public...in other words, Bradley Manning didn't pull these search terms out of his ass.

2b--And asked Assange for help in cracking military codes.....

In another chat, dated March 8, 2010, Manning asked “Nathaniel Frank,” believed to be Assange, about help in cracking the main password on his classified SIPRnet computer so that he could log on to it anonymously. He asked “Frank” if he had experience cracking IM NT hashes (presumably it’s a mistype and he meant NTLM for the Microsoft NT LAN Manager). “Frank” replied yes, that they had “rainbow tables” for doing that. Manning then sent him what looked like a hash. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/#more-35191?tw_p=twt









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:40 PM

40. Thanks

when you get the time to post some links, I'd love to read them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:55 PM

47. done see prior post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 12:29 AM

89. Governmental prosecuters can charge that such and such happened,

And a court can say it happened, but as someone who is familiar with all the lies our government has told since that first broken treaty with the Indians in the 1840's, i reserve my right to remain suspicious.

Our agencies lie to us all the time, our government's highest officials lie to us all the time, and that puts me in the situation where i am just as suspicious of governmental prosecutors as I am of thieves and whores.

Except that whores have been known to have a heart of gold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #89)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 08:44 AM

94. Yeah--but have you noted that the defense isn't denying this? The defense is arguing that

1. What was leaked was no big deal.

2. His gender identity disorder diminishes his culpability.

These are not affirmative defenses to guilt. These are mitigating factors in sentencing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #94)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 04:31 PM

99. As someone who is following not only the Manning and Assange case,

I should point out I have also followed Ellsberg's case from back in the seventies.

You might try and rent the documentary - "The Most Dangerous Man In America."

One striking difference between the early seventies and now, is that right now the NYT is owned by the Corporate Elite. While in the seventies, it was still a news organization.

And as someone who is following whistle blower Tom Drake, it was interesting to see him applaud Manning.

If we don't applaud those who are attempting to warn us American citizens of our "democratic" government's "usual activity" we will be more easily led down the same path that the German People were led down in the thirties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #94)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 04:34 PM

100. Oh and the fact that bad arguments are made in terms of

Bradley Manning and Assange's defense doesn't mean that good arguments aren't out there.

The best argument for both these men is that since our news organizations have sold us out, the public must rely more and more on Whistleblowers. And that once that is the case, then the Whistleblowers need to be offered the same relief that a news media is offered under our guarantee of a "free press."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:31 PM

25. So, if Manning is to be prosecuted, what about Stratfor?

That is the point that the Stratfor releases make. There are all these private companies acquiring intelligence about everything including the knowledge of people with top secret clearances around the world -- but only Assange is prosecuted.

And Assange did not even violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He got his information without bribing people.

But they are picking on Assange. Why? Because he informs everybody, not just those in the 1% and their lackies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:36 PM

28. Everything isn't related to the 1%.

The DOJ's job is to enforce the laws. Say what you will about whether Assange should be prosecuted, I sincerely doubt there is anything more sinister than that afoot.

If anything 'sinister' is going on, it's because this is an election year and Democrats can't be seen as being soft on national intelligence matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 02:50 PM

33. And do you think that Startfor will be investigated and possibly prosecuted?

It is alleged that Stratfor paid informants for information and then published that information to a subscriber list. Assuming that to be true, could that also either espionage or bribery (if foreigners were paid for divulging the information that was confidential or secret)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:09 PM

36. If Stratfor inserted software into the DoD database, let

them be prosecuted. If Stratfor in any way, shape or form directed searches of govt data or helped break codes, prosecute them.

In the meantime, shame on mr manning for failing to use the MWPA of 1988.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:10 PM

37. What is the MWPA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:20 PM

38. military whistleblowers protection act of 1988

Had he choosen to follow that he would have been immune from prosecution.

Instead he chose to give the information to a commercial enterprise.


















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 07:03 AM

73. What if they bribed

public officials to get this information?

Sorry to say, though i agree that Manning should have tried to use it, the MWPA is like covering your ass with one square of TP... one of those see through, 100% recycled post consumer waste types.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 07:06 AM

74. Absolutely. If they bribed any government official, they. and the official should be prosecuted.

As for the MWPA, I think that had Manning had the courage to go to Kucinich, or Sanders, it would have been better than going to a commercial enterprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:05 PM

18. Yeah, destroy the whistle-blowers. Evil. Just evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 06:06 PM

52. This isnt about that as they have legal protection in place that

is setup to allow them to report crimes I believe to congress and to the inspector general, Manning (assuming hes guilty for a moment because there hasnt been a trial yet) didnt follow the law apparently which would have shielded him if he had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:30 PM

24. It is WORSE than we know.

Whistle Blowers AND Media Outlets that tell their story ARE being targeted.
"The Obama Administration has already prosecuted MORE Whistle Blowers than ALL previous administrations combined."




Susan Lindauer, a former CIA operative/asset states unequivocally,
"If I had had WikiLeaks BEFORE the Iraq War,
I could have stopped it."




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 02:19 PM

32. "Obama Administration has already prosecuted MORE Whistle Blowers than ALL previous administrations"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:19 PM

44. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 12:44 AM

91. Susan Lindauer is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic

who worked on Capitol Hill, not the CIA. Her writings are classic delusions of grandeur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:47 PM

30. They hate us for our freedom

 

SOoo what happened to freedom of the press? And are there indictments against NYT, Washington Post, and The Guardian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 06:31 PM

53. xpost LiveScience: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101616906

"...The most incompetent among us serve as canaries in the coal mine signifying a larger quandary in the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 08:32 PM

56. Something new to protest and a question.

Why isn't the USA charging George Bush and Dick Cheney with whatever they are charging Assange with and that would probably be treason? George and Dick really did commit treason and other criminal acts threatening our national security. Assange isn't even an American citizen. How could he commit treason? Our Justice Department needs to review its priorities and maybe read up on why they are really there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 09:11 PM

59. As long as governments are willing to do this to journalists and reporters,

we will not be able to trust what we read.

If we cannot trust what we read because it either contains explicit lies and-or strategic omissions, then is belief the primary reason so many of us have been trained to read, or only a synergistic reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 09:48 PM

60. (Australian) Greens call for details on secret Assange charges

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam wants Prime Minister Julia Gillard to say whether the Government will defend the 40-year old Australian against possible extradition to the US.

"The Australian Government needs to take a very straight line on this with the Obama administration that we will not permit and we will not tolerate his transfer to the United States to face charges that could potentially land him in prison or in a hole like Guantanamo Bay, as David Hicks did, potentially for decades," he said.

"What we need to know is whether the Australian Government was tipped off, or whether the Prime Minister read about this in The Sydney Morning Herald this morning."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-29/greens-call-for-details-on-assange-indictment/3859792


Whatever he's done or hasn't done, Assange is entitled to the full support and protection of the Australian Government, and this is something he hasn't had to date.

Unfortunately, both major parties are more likely to fall into line with whatever the U.S. decrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matilda (Reply #60)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 10:57 PM

65. + 1000 n/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 12:50 AM

66. Time to honor him with the Nobel Peace prize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Reply #66)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 05:33 PM

84. + My household. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 05:20 AM

72. Obama is a disappointment. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Wed Feb 29, 2012, 06:12 PM

85. k & friggin r!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Original post)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 12:41 AM

90. VERY unreliable, discredited source

Burton also claimed that he had proof Obama was getting money from Russian criminals, and that "black Dems" committed massive voter fraud in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread