If I were Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, or anyone else from Wikileaks taken into custody...

[yurbud]

I would think my best defense would be to tell any jailers, interrogators, fellow prisoners, or anyone who is listening the most damning things I read in any of the documents for a couple of reasons:

1. To keep that knowledge alive if the ''insurance'' file is somehow blocked from being opened.

2. To spread doubt and plant the seeds of dissent in those who are carry water (knowingly or not) for the oligarchy. Knowing the truth could make them think twice about following certain orders and even lead to them leaking or throwing a wrench in the machine themselves.

I doubt a guy like Manning joined the army with the intent of risking his life and freedom to smuggle out these documents, but he must have seen material far more damning than what's made it into the press for him to take that risk

[niyad]

1. apparently manning is prevented from talking to anyone, from what I heard today

[snot]

4. He's been in solitary for six months, and that's probably partly why --

although I do think they also hope to torment him into telling them what they want to hear -- that Assange abetted the leak itself, as opposed to just passively receiving the material and then publishing it (I don't think they care whether that's true, they just want to get Manning to say it).

I have to note also, though, that once he's told the worse secrets from the insurance file, it might not work as insurance any more.

[Robb]

7. Manning is a bright kid, but not a hard case.

I thought the same thing earlier, but on reflection I doubt it would take six months of solitary to get him to decide it's in his best interest to flip on Assange. I'm sure his attorney has been advising it since the first week; it's the easiest path to avoiding hard labor.

I'm actually having trouble figuring out why he's in solitary confinement.

It's easy enough to compartmentalize someone in a military prison without using solitary. It's a relatively secure environment, and it's set up to keep prisoners from talking to one another from the get-go. And if they thought he had something else to pass along, they'd stick an MIO in the cell with him. So I don't think they're really worried about that.

I can see the argument for keeping him from other inmates for his own safety -- you know the cliché about child molesters in the GP in civilian prisons? I would think Manning would be none too popular with the general population in a military prison. But even that doesn't seem compelling enough to match the conditions Greenwald describes.

So I can only figure I'm missing something, or Greenwald's got it wrong, or some combination of the two, because frankly I'm stumped.

[yurbud]

9. it might with the person who hears it, not further up the foodchain

there's zero chance it would help further up.

In fact, with them, he's screwed either way. If he talks (about content of docs not process of leaking), they'll want to shut him up. If he doesn't talk, they'll want to keep him from talking.

[JDPriestly]

13. On the other hand,, traditionally reporters have won Pulitzers

for aggressively seeking out sources and leakers on big stories in our country and overseas. So, this is going to be a very interesting fight.

I think that those who view Assange as a terrorist or conspirator are reacting emotionally without thinking about the underlying issues. Interestingly, some in the press, the very people who might, one day, find themselves in Assange's position, are not loudly proclaiming "Watch out. First Amendment applies no matter my personal opinion about leaking this particular information."

Interesting. Interesting, indeed. Emotions have taken over in a lot of quarters.

It's understandable that a lot of people especially in the government are angry. But regardless of what happened between Assange and Manning, Assange has made outing various secrets of various governments and private firms his personal business for quite some time now. Was he a terrorist when he outed the secrets of other countries? If so, why were we next to silent about it.

[Taverner]

2. If I were Julian Assange, I would move to Ecuador

Where they have promised him immunity, and no extraditions.

[Zywiec]

3. Ecuador's President retracts 'offer' of safe haven to Julian Assange made by deputy foreign minister

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/01/2010-12-01_ecuadors_president_retracts_offer_of_safe_haven_to_julian_assange_made_by_deputy.html?r=news

[villager]

5. yow! This was unrecc'd by the "keep it secret and torture 'em" crowd!

n/t

[yurbud]

10. not enough though, ha!

[Occam Bandage]

6. That's exactly why he's in solitary. He's a security risk. nt

[struggle4progress]

8. If Manning is known to have released 90K pages of Iraq documents, and is suspected

of releasing 250K pages of State Department cables, you can bet people are triple-checking everything to see what else he might have released and whether his releases served as a cover for other security breaches by other actors

[Jeffersons Ghost]

11. You failed to seperate Julian Assange from Bradley Manning...

Bradley Manning was in the military and stole Top Secret documents. Julian Assange is a journalist, exercising his right to a free press.

[Forkboy]

12. Trying to play the jailers won't help or they wouldn't be jailers.

[Canuckistanian]

14. That's why they only hire Vogons to be brig prison guards

Dumb brutes who don't give a shit about niceties like "honor" or "legal technicalities". They like the shouting and the hours are good.

Just look at the troglodytes who ran Abu Ghraib or Bagram or Gitmo. We're not seeing any "leaks" from them are we?