Bradley Manning

[Prospero]

Two or things about Assange.

1. The release of some of the Wikileaks material released was utterly irresponsible and had nothing to do with freedom of the media (the names and addresses of Jewish people living in Baghdad for god's sake! An invitation to murder.). 2. There has to be some communications between Government through diplomatic channels which can be held in private. It is not to all our benefits that everything is published. 3. The man is a hypocrite, offering his pious and self important criticism of the west's record on freedom and human rights from the safety of the embassy of Ecuador, a country whose record on theses things is deplorable. 5. He proclaims himself a married man - and sends love to his wife and children from his hiding place - and yet will not face up to the charges levelled at him over his fucking of two different women in Sweden.

I have no respect for him at all.

[Stavros]

Whatever anyone thinks of the subject matter that was released, Manning violated his oath & contract with the US Department of Defense. He knew the consequences of the actions he took & did it anyway. I don't see where he's owed any sympathy.

I agree with what you say, except the last sentence -it has been two years since he was arrested, does it really take so long for the US Military to put someone before a military tribunal? It is the manner in which he is facing justice that seems excessive, but for all I know that is standard procedure in the US military.

I also agree with Prospero on Assange, but what needs to be discussed is what secrets are for and why we are denied access to a lot of government information that is often only concealed to save individuals officials and elected representatives from embarrassment. Yes, governments need to debate the details of policy options without it being leaked to the public -because they are options, not polices being implemented. Yes, names and addresses of individuals ought not to be published -part of the scandal over the behaviour of the Murdoch/Tabloid press concerns them directly or through private detectives paying the police or official bodies like the DVLA for private information on individuals. But if the Palestinian leadership or Fatah is planning to sell-out the people it represents to get any kind of deal with Israel, the Palestininans have a right to know about it, what Wikileaks exposed was a dialogue the Palestinians should have been having with their own people. Freedom of Information is a tricky subject, but its not impossible to draw up guidelines that enable us to know whats going on without compromising 'national security'.

[notdrunk]

I think you exaggerate -in the first place, Manning had easy access to the material he sent to Wikileaks, exposing the sloppy administration of confidential information, an embarrassment that the US Military can't get over. In the second place, I agree that Manning violated his contract with the military but his treatment by 'the West's' standards has been excessive. In the third place, it is hard to believe that the Russians did not know about Operation Eagle Guardian anyway, even if they no longer pose a Military threat to 'the west' -if indeed they ever did; and finally, the Critical foreign Dependencies Intiative is a secret list of many locations that can be found on Google. But even with the knowledge Israel and the US claims to have of Iran's nuclear power sites there seems to be no way of attacking them and guaranteeing a successful mission.

If you want to cause havoc with the movement of crucial products, blockade the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal and the Straits of Hormuz. If you want to disrupt global communications, knock out ISP's, telephone exchanges, power plants. Blow up the railrway connections that take commuters into large cities like London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Chicago,Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney etc.

I mean, what is it that is being kept secret that should be a secret? That, ultimately is the question that is bigger than either Manning or Assange -and why are these secrets being kept from you?

Why would I want to know how to bring down the United States? Or, how NATO is going to defend Eastern Europe from an invasion by Russia? Even WikiLeaks admitted they had to redact some of the information. If I wanted to know those things, I would of enlisted or became a diplomat. I understand there is a reason why certain information is kept secret from the public.

[Stavros]

I think you miss the point -
A) Manning is in clear violation of his contract, its up to the military tribunal to deal with him, but deal with him fairly, I believe that is where the weight of criticism of the military lies.
B) The issue of secrecy as I suggested begs the question -what should remain secret? We were told for decades that the West was under threat from the Communist bloc, be it nuclear strikes or invasion, neither of which was true and most of which many people like me did not believe anyway; and until 9/11 noone believed outsiders would attack the USA at home -it didn't seem possible.

Most of the real stuff that is kept secret that probably should not be is about things like money, and how much the government has spent on Project X whatever that may be. Not sure about the development of a 'secret' policy on a country or region; or the meat of diplomatic messages which are interesting if they show for example that at the same time as feting a foreign government for business reasons the Diplomats think the head of state is a crook. But in a lot of cases, these days, a lot of this stuff is barely secret anyway, which is one reason why Tony Blair held meetings that were not logged and which were not minuted. Important though the topic is, I think there is a lot of hysteria about it, and the campaign around Assange in particular no longer seems to be about Freedom of Information.

[Ben]

Two or things about Assange.

1. The release of some of the Wikileaks material released was utterly irresponsible and had nothing to do with freedom of the media (the names and addresses of Jewish people living in Baghdad for god's sake! An invitation to murder.). 2. There has to be some communications between Government through diplomatic channels which can be held in private. It is not to all our benefits that everything is published. 3. The man is a hypocrite, offering his pious and self important criticism of the west's record on freedom and human rights from the safety of the embassy of Ecuador, a country whose record on theses things is deplorable. 5. He proclaims himself a married man - and sends love to his wife and children from his hiding place - and yet will not face up to the charges levelled at him over his fucking of two different women in Sweden.

I have no respect for him at all.

Julian Assange should indeed face the serious rape allegations in Sweden. And he wants to.
What deeply concerns him is being extradited to the U.S. from Sweden. Where he could face the death penalty. I mean, he'd be treated like Manning. Meaning: be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. (And we must remember Sweden is pretty subservient to U.S. power. I mean, they even collaborated with the Germans during World War II.)
Assange did what the New York Times repeatedly does. And did. I mean, the New York Times collaborated with Assange. Why aren't they subject to prosecution??? I mean, we should analogize here. Manning was like, say, Daniel Ellsberg.... And Assange was and did act like the New York Times. He was merely the publisher.
Assange hasn't been charged with anything. Nor have wikileaks. He's strictly wanted for questioning. And has/had even invited Swedish authorities to question him in London. And had even said that he was willing to go to the Swedish embassy for questioning.
Again, Assange nor Wikileaks have been charged, let alone convicted of anything.
I wanted to straighten that out. Again, Assange has not been charged with anything. But if he committed the alleged rape (it seems the condom broke during sex -- but that is the law in Sweden) then he should be punished and punished severely.
Anyway, I see Assange as a journalist. Has Wikileaks made some mistakes in the past? Yes. But he is the antithesis of, say, the New York Times. The Times and other members of the media class serve power, serve state power. Whereas Assange doesn't. Hence he will be vilified and made an absolute pariah in the circles of power. It's understandable.
I mean, one is rewarded for serving power -- which is the case with: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama, Lloyd Blankfein, etc., etc., etc. -- and in our society one receives praise, status etc., etc. when one serves power, powerful institutions and concentrated power. But if you challenge power, well, you're demonized, scorned and end up in an Embassy somewhere in lugubrious London ---

[fred41]

But if you challenge power, well, you're demonized, scorned and end up in an Embassy somewhere in lugubrious London ---

....and in his case, when you turn out to be an annoying, unlikable individual on top of all that...then most people don't really give a shit.

[Stavros]

Julian Assange should indeed face the serious rape allegations in Sweden. And he wants to.
What deeply concerns him is being extradited to the U.S. from Sweden. Where he could face the death penalty. I mean, he'd be treated like Manning. Meaning: be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. (And we must remember Sweden is pretty subservient to U.S. power. I mean, they even collaborated with the Germans during World War II.)
Assange did what the New York Times repeatedly does. And did. I mean, the New York Times collaborated with Assange. Why aren't they subject to prosecution??? I mean, we should analogize here. Manning was like, say, Daniel Ellsberg.... And Assange was and did act like the New York Times. He was merely the publisher.
Assange hasn't been charged with anything. Nor have wikileaks. He's strictly wanted for questioning. And has/had even invited Swedish authorities to question him in London. And had even said that he was willing to go to the Swedish embassy for questioning.
Again, Assange nor Wikileaks have been charged, let alone convicted of anything.
I wanted to straighten that out. Again, Assange has not been charged with anything. But if he committed the alleged rape (it seems the condom broke during sex -- but that is the law in Sweden) then he should be punished and punished severely.
Anyway, I see Assange as a journalist. Has Wikileaks made some mistakes in the past? Yes. But he is the antithesis of, say, the New York Times. The Times and other members of the media class serve power, serve state power. Whereas Assange doesn't. Hence he will be vilified and made an absolute pariah in the circles of power. It's understandable.
I mean, one is rewarded for serving power -- which is the case with: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama, Lloyd Blankfein, etc., etc., etc. -- and in our society one receives praise, status etc., etc. when one serves power, powerful institutions and concentrated power. But if you challenge power, well, you're demonized, scorned and end up in an Embassy somewhere in lugubrious London ---

1) Sweden was neutral during the Second World War;
2) Sweden does not extradite people committed of crimes to countries where that crime carries the death penalty.

[Ben]

1) Sweden was neutral during the Second World War;
2) Sweden does not extradite people committed of crimes to countries where that crime carries the death penalty.

Not true about Sweden. As this e-article elucidates:

Murky truth of how a neutral Sweden covered up its collaboration with Nazis:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...is-727261.html

[Stavros]

Not true about Sweden. As this e-article elucidates:

Murky truth of how a neutral Sweden covered up its collaboration with Nazis:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...is-727261.html

William Shirer wrote about it in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in 1960. Alan Bullock in his earlier book Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952 second edition 1962) and more recently Ian Kershaw in his two volume study of Hitler (esp vol 2: Nemesis, 2000) both discuss the importance of Sweden's iron ore to the Germans. That Sweden provided the Germans with iron ore, a business that pre-dated the Third Reich is actually proof of their neutrality -to have prevented it would have been a violation of their neutrality and encouraged a German invasion, although the Norwegian campaign sucked in German troops that were needed on the Eastern Front and the Swedes would have fought the Nazis -Sweden was also nervous about the Russian interest in their iron ore/minerals and the strategic benefit of Scandinavia to the security of the USSR, and did not want to change the status quo or compromise their own security by abandoning neutrality and turning the country into a battlefield. And if you think Narvik looks bad for Sweden, you might ask how it was that Churchill got away with another one of his costly blunders.

Sweden also gave refuge to thousands of Jews from Denmark -again because it was neutral and did not take sides. It is not a scandal, it is the price Sweden paid for being neutral. The details of the Swiss record can also be made to look bad, on banking, on the illicit trade in stolen goods, notably paintings looted by the Nazis and so on. And Switzerland also was a refuge for Jews, for escaped prisoners of war, and so on.

Perhaps you need to ask yoursef what neutrality in wartime actually means.

[Ben]

Saving Private Manning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...anning/265801/