Revealed: US plans to charge Assange

[Swagman]

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 [please] protect'' and ''Not for pub[lication]''.

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

[xchrom]

1. this pisses me off. nt

[Hissyspit]

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)

[xchrom]

50. +1

[Amonester]

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

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

[geek tragedy]

92. Burton sounds like a serial liar.

Access to the bin Laden files? Ummm hmmm.

[thesquanderer]

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

[The Wizard]

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."

[CanonRay]

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.

[BigDemVoter]

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!)

[randome]

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'.

[EFerrari]

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.

[randome]

15. My bad, then.

[EFerrari]

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

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. The SEC can only charge civil violations.

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

[truedelphi]

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.

[bahrbearian]

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

[Matariki]

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

[cstanleytech]

49. Different case so no

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

[24601]

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.

[The Doctor.]

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.

[randome]

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.

[EFerrari]

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

because publishing news is a crime.

[hack89]

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

stolen secret government files are certainly in that category.

[starroute]

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;[3] 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.[16] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[3]

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 [and Russo] 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.

[hack89]

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.

[EFerrari]

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

[hack89]

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

[The Doctor.]

62. You do realize that your function here

is pretty transparent, right?

Am I on a 'special list' now?

[hack89]

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

[LanternWaste]

101. No doubt, your little list will be given all the credibility it indeed, warrants.

No doubt, your little list will be given all the credibility it indeed, warrants.

[hack89]

102. Took you four years to come up with that gem? Nt

[valerief]

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

To quote Stephanie Miller.

[hack89]

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.

[bvar22]

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.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[msanthrope]

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....

[bvar22]

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.

[bahrbearian]

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

[Occulus]

67. Apt username is apt.

[EFerrari]

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.

[hack89]

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.

[msanthrope]

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.

[EFerrari]

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

[msanthrope]

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.

[truedelphi]

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.

[hack89]

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

this is no different.

[truedelphi]

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.)

[hack89]

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.

[truedelphi]

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!

[hack89]

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.

[truedelphi]

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.

[hack89]

96. But we are? Really.

what utter BS.

[truedelphi]

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 [of] 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

[truedelphi]

98. I responded to you in response 97.

But my answer didn't "tree itself" properly

[JDPriestly]

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.

[randome]

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.

[JDPriestly]

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.

[randome]

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

It's more embarrassing than actually compromising our security.

[JDPriestly]

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.

[hack89]

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."

[aggiesal]

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.

[truedelphi]

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.

[aggiesal]

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!

[BigDemVoter]

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. . .

[The Doctor.]

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

I rofl'd over that for a day.

[msanthrope]

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.

[Robb]

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

[msanthrope]

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.

[Matariki]

19. And you got the info where?

[msanthrope]

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

Last edited Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:58 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

[Matariki]

40. Thanks

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

[msanthrope]

47. done see prior post

[truedelphi]

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.

[msanthrope]

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.

[truedelphi]

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.

[truedelphi]

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."

[JDPriestly]

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.

[randome]

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.

[JDPriestly]

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)?

[msanthrope]

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.

[JDPriestly]

37. What is the MWPA?

[msanthrope]

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.

[druidity33]

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.

[msanthrope]

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.

[Matariki]

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

[cstanleytech]

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.

[bvar22]

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.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[progressoid]

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

[EFerrari]

44. Yep.

[geek tragedy]

91. Susan Lindauer is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic

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

[JJW]

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?

[kickysnana]

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."

[Cleita]

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.

[Trillo]

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?

[Matilda]

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.

[Amonester]

65. + 1000 n/T

[Faryn Balyncd]

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

[truedelphi]

84. + My household. n/t

[fasttense]

72. Obama is a disappointment. n/t

[wildbilln864]

85. k & friggin r!

[geek tragedy]

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.