Poor fella....


http://www.news.com.au/features/wiki...-1225974366476

Poor fella....

WikiLeaks: Julian Assange fears death in a US jail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...a-US-jail.html

From the Washington Post of 31 Dec 2010
The system had no means of monitoring who was reading those materials. Why they were reading. Reading was ongoing all over the world. Wikileaks documents are rumored to be from CDs burned in Kuwait.

No problem, they said in 2005 when they were installing this system. We can always trust our half million readers to be honest. Attitude of a government that also so feared terrorists hiding under every bed. Who kidnap people all over the world due to mythical fears. Why trust even Army privates with this nation's military and political secrets while inventing mythical WMDs? Does the word intelligence have relevance?

No wonder White House lawyers had to rewrite science papers. No wonder the politically chosen were so busy rewriting the Baghdad traffic codes while the city angered due to no nation building. They feared mythical Al Qaeda’s hiding everywhere. And had no idea what the word security meant. No wonder every light was flashing read, and they did nothing to avert 11 September. At what point is Wikileaks just another trophy of a wacko extremism government? Imagine what it will be like with Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell?

The common word is intelligence - as in brain matter for those who also contributed a record campaign fund to Christine O’Donnell. Who then used that money to pay rent on her apartment.

But those who love her also blame Wikileaks for what our government was doing in 2006. Every one of 500,000 people can be trusted becaue they were not Clinton's people.

Assange is the mouse that scares all elephants

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/bu...ines&emc=tha25
Facing Threat From WikiLeaks, Bank Plays Defense
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: January 2, 2011

Just goes to show that a clear conscience goes a long way.

Live so that you never mind having the corners of your existence illuminated.

So you don't support a right to privacy?

This confirms they are an internet terrorist organization...

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...for-us-embargo

And so were the people who released the Pentagon papers.

.

More terrorism from those Wikileaks. Leaks told Tunisia how corrupt their leaders were. So the country rose up to drive out a dictator. More terrorism sponsored by those Wikileaks – according to TheMercenary.

More on Tunisia.... Time will tell.

Tunisia Grows Up
Here's hoping the Jasmine Revolution improves upon the legacy of Habib Bourguiba, the nation's first president.

http://www.slate.com/id/2281450/?from=rss

An elected government? No. Personal privacy, yes. Even then, I don't lie, cheat, steal, manipulate or kill just because no one will find out about it. I live in an honorable manner, one which I am proud of, and would be, even if the details were exposed to the world and my enemies. I fully expect my country and my leaders to do the same.

And yet, they continually fail to do so.

Get use to it, it's not going to change anytime soon.

Yeah, get some use out of it.












:confused:

Some good inside info on how this guy ticks....

Dealing With Assange and the Secrets He Spilled

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/ma...t.html?_r=1&hp

wow, what a huge article. I liked reading it.

All I was missing was my bucket of popcorn. Good find merc.

That is a fascinating article... I highly recommend reading.

It was remindful to me of the NY Times Office scenes in the movie "All The President's Men",
and I'll bet there will eventually be a movie about it all.

I felt the title was a bit misleading as there really is not much about Assange, himself.

The descriptions of his appearance or demeanor were what I would
expect of anyone put into such high tension situations.
Certainly the skipping ahead of and then returning to a group simply walking down the street doesn't say much of anything.
And of course anyone in those situations would be nervous and concerned
about how their material was being handled, maybe even paranoid.

In any case, I enjoyed the read and send thanks to Merc for posting the link.

I was actually pretty surprised at the evenhandedness the NYT presented the subject after initially being one of the actual news organizations that was considered a conduit to his activities.

Can I quietly point out that Manning has been in jail for about 8 months in solitary confinement and as yet, hasn't even gone to trial?

Can I also point out (again) that Assange is not an American citizen and therefore cannot be held accountable to American law, especially when he's not in America?

Also, I'd like to add that all of the people that are screaming for his assassination (which is illegal) should be investigated and possibly even charged with a crime? Isn't it illegal to actively, publically seek the murder of another person? At the worst, isn't that a hate crime?

Link to interview with Assange, where *I* think he makes some damn good points, whether you think he's a turd or not.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Not yet, but I have faith they will come up with something.

Hate crime? Are you kidding? How did you come up with that? Hate crime against someone who exposed stolen classified documents?

Stating you think someone should be killed, and actually plotting such a thing, are two very different things. Stating it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Not a hate crime. See Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Or the KKK. Sorry. Hate is ugly, but it's the other side of the free speech coin.

Is the fatwa requiring Salman Rushdie's execution protected?

That was recinded long ago. Even Iran understands that kind of hate does not achieve good things.

I could not get on Khomeni's hate list either. I did try. Even among extremists, a hate list remains an elite list.

Obama Winning Friends and Influencing Nations Overseas......

Good Job! not....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-secrets.html#

Hey mercy...

do you think the arms control treaty signed with Russia was a good idea?

I general terms I think it was long over due but not sure that it really does that much to really reduce the risk. A better idea might be to have closer relations with the Russkies but with Putin in charge I doubt that will happen.

Is truth a bad thing?

source


Merc, how can you see nothing wrong with leaving Manning in Solitary Confinement without a trial since MAY? HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

eta: linky

Guantanamo. Secret Prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Patriot Act. Suspending Habeas Corpus. Abu Ghriad. Do any of these extremist approved actions form a pattern?

800 imprisoned in Guantanamo. Well over 600 were innocent. Sorry? Nope. They did not even get an apology. Extremism says that was (and is) acceptable. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either. Which continued into the 20th Century. No problem. We made the world safe for god – and his Patriots.

[quote=OnyxCougar;711364 What happened to innocent until proven guilty?[/QUOTE]

That's not how it works in the military. He knew what he signed up for when he signed his paperwork to gain the security clearance. The documents are clear and the punishments are spelled out on paper. He would not be there if they did not have a rock solid case. Whistle Blower Acts do not apply.

Sorry Onyx - thats more or less just a myth created to keep the sheep in line...
This is totally different though, This is a military issue. They play by another set of rules than the rest of the population.

Oh and your linky - http://www.commondreams.org/about-us ...
We publish breaking news from a progressive perspective.

Yeh not that I don't think its wrong that he is in solitary, because I do, but me thinks that site it spinning things a bit as well.

So no trial for Manning? He is just to rot in the cell forever?

Oh no. He will get a military trial called a General Court-Martial. When they have concluded their investigation.

The real criminals are the fools who decided to put all these secrets available to the most trusted one half million people. Without any way to monitor who was accessing what and why. Well, this was the George Jr administration. The same administration that decided White House lawyers must rewrite all science papers.

Anyone of one half million people could access anything they wanted on that database. In responsible organizations, a person accessing secrets without good reason was investigated. But those half million were clearly right wing conservatives - therefore could be trusted.

Therein lies the person(s) who should be prosecuted for exercising power without sufficient intelligence. But that means again, the battle of moderates verses extremists. The problem will be ignored. Extremists line up to defend their people rather than advance the nation.

Stupidity apparently is not limited there. Consistent rumors suggest that in the 2000, the Chinese obtained plans for all of America's nuclear weapons. While hyping myths of an invented Al Qaeda under everyone's bed, they ignored basic cyber security. Even drove out of office Richard Clark who was warning of that problem.

The real criminals simply said one half million people can be trusted with those secrets. No questions asked.

Charges come to the surface. Manning may not see the light of day. Thank God.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030205207.html

Yeah. A pattern of winning a war with people who will never negotiate a settlement. If we're not practicing a war of extermination of this mindset, we are altogether stupid.

Just who apologizes for taking POW's, that being de facto who's in Gitmo. Those who demand an apology for this want humanity to lose to violent, inhuman extremists. Tw, that is you, and that is why you out-suck a black hole, you non-musical pig who cannot sing.
Irrelevancy piled upon fascist sympathy. No wonder you are still single.

WikiLeaks has no Osama Been Leaded pictures? FAIL

From:http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

(There is a greater discussion of these issues at the link.

Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections include the following:

Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words | Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity
(1) Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another person.
(1) Our right to freedom of expression is restricted when our expressions (whether a spoken slander or written libel) cause harm to the reputation of another person. The courts recognize that words can hurt us, for example, by harming our ability to earn a living (economic harm).

This exception to freedom of expression can be difficult to apply in practice. Defamation requires an allegation of a fact which is in fact false. In contrast, the expression of an opinion is not considered defamation.


(2) Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. (2) This is narrowly limited to situations in which a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her speech would really cause harm to others. We can imagine works of art which might cause real panic among the audience, perhaps a contemporary version of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, which caused considerable panic when it first aired on the radio, and in turn was based on H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds.

(3) Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 [1942]) This famous exception is much discussed in recent decades, but rarely the basis for a decision upholding an abridgement of free speech.

This exception warrants scrutiny. Note that the harm involved is physical harm caused by someone else who was provoked by the speaker whose speech is being suppressed. The fact that someone else flies into a rage and causes physical harm results in justifying suppression of speech by another person!


(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

If a budding rap group proposes to perform a work which includes the exhortation to "kill whitie" or "kill the cops" or "rape the babe," could that be incitement to a crime? Such records have been sold by commercial organizations, of course, yet there are no reported arrests of those artists or record companies for incitement to a crime. Should such rap lyrics be considered incitement to crime or is the causal relationship to any actual murders or rapes too tenuous?


(5) Sedition: Although not without controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld statutes which prohibit the advocacy of unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government. As with prohibitions discussed earlier, the expressions in question are assessed according to the circumstances. Academic discussion of the theories of, say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test, especially in this post-Soviet era. The theoretical consideration and even endorsement of these views could not remotely be considered to be reasonable expectations of the actual overthrow of the government. But it is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States (the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of success by contemporary Marxists.


(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment:

(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Although much debated, this standard remains the law of the land, and elements of this language have been included in both the authorizing legislation for the National Endowment for the Arts (20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) and the Communications Decency Act (4) prohibiting "obscenity" and "indecency" on the Internet. The Communications Decency Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1997. The NEA legislation was been struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts but was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. (NEA v. Finley, No. 97-371, 1998)
One controversy over this exception to free speech is whether obscenity causes real harm sufficient to justify suppression of free speech. Does viewing obscenity make it more likely that a man will later commit rape, or other acts of violence against women, obviously real harm to another person? Does reading about war make it more likely that someone will start a war? Even if there is some evidence of such causal relationships, however tenuous or strong, is it sufficient to justify this exception to free speech? Alternatively, could the prohibition on obscenity be a reflection of moral values and societal standards which should more properly be handled in the private sector through moral education, not government censorship?

Another problem area is determining what counts as "obscenity". In Miller, the court tried to fashion a standard which could be adapted to different communities, so that what counts as obscenity in rural Mississippi might not count as obscenity in Atlanta or New York City. Is this fair? Do the people in those areas themselves agree on community standards? What is the "community" for art that is displayed on-line on the Internet?

Another controversy in the Miller standard is the exception for "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Who decides what counts as "serious"? If some people consider Penthouse or the National Enquirer to be serious literature, is it elitist to deny them this exception from censorship as "obscenity"? Given the controversies in contemporary art (found objects, performance art, and so forth), what counts as artistic value? Has the Court solved the problem of defining "obscenity" or only made it more complicated?

Christian Science Monitor
James Bosworth
8/17/12

Assange asylum case ripples through Latin America

.

It's announced today that Pvt Bradley Manning is...

Guilty of 17 separate charges, Not Guilty of 2, and plead Guilty to 3.

The Biggy... Aiding the Enemy (maximum sentence: Life): NOT GUILTY

An Army judge finds Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of
aiding the enemy by disclosing secret U.S. government documents.

Military prosecutors had argued that the largest leak in U.S. history
had assisted al-Qaeda. But the judge, Col. Denise Lind, found Manning
guilty of most of the other charges.

The Washington Post has posted a breakdown of all the charges and the verdicts HERE.

S,...
I don't think that quote mine, or in the link I posted.
But you've made it look as though it is.

Where does that quote come from ?

That was TW in the Zimmerman Vs Martin Thread:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=29213&page=9

Sexo is being a bit of a dick lately, generally. I hope this partial conviction cheers him up.

*snicker*

OMG Sexobon mistook me for TW ?

... and I wasn't even wearing a hoodie :eek:

Ding Ding Ding! ZenGum wins for guessing the source of the mystery quote. Tw's blanket statement "... In a real world, not guilty does not mean innocent...." seemed apropos. Lamp is kidding himself if he thinks I mistook him for tw; however, it does raise the possibility that they are related. Oh yeah, ZenGum doesn't get even a bit of a dick for winning. Sorry, I know it's been a long time.

Gee thanks, Judge... Twice

Lavabit says heavy handed government regulators are driving it out of business. As posted in the Washington Post of 9 Aug 2013: Lavabit is an encrypted email service used by Snowden.

The Guardian has a more detailed discussion of this shut-down and of Silent Circle...

The Guardian
Spencer Ackerman
8/9/13

Lavabit email service abruptly shut down citing government interference

This could be bigger than Snowden himself, because this is where it goes to courts, where the rubber hits the road.

We know that James Clapper, America's Director of National Intelligence admitted he gave erroneous answers to Congress about the scale of surveillance. We know the George Jr administration literally bypassed even the FISA court because "rubber stamp approval" of overt spying, extraordinary retention, secret prisons, Guantanamo and torture were not enough.

We also learn from history. When the sneakies intentionally tried to subvert Australian Presidential elections, then the super secret Keyhole spy satellite system was leaked. When Nixon literally massacred 50,000 Americans to protect his legacy, then the Pentagon Papers were leaked. When Nixon literally tried to subvert the American government, then Deep Throat stepped forward to save America. When liars in the military covered up often and repeated murder of innocent civilians, Americans, and reporters, then WikiLeaks exposed those lies.

So now we have spying that literally records every phone call and email. That even intentionally bugs diplomatic communications of our closest allies. And we once thought the book 1984 was only a fictional story. It would never happen in America.

And then so many Americans voted twice for a man so dumb as to even blame 11 September on Saddam Hussein. And declare we would unilaterally invade Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. We are living with a legacy that has empowered people who cannot be trusted with unlimited power.

They did not even tell Congress how massive and anti-American their activities had become. And they routinely destroyed so many Americans who tried to warn us.

Like bankers and stock brokers, these guys need massive oversight and regulation. We never knew how bad it really was until Snowden exposed their deceit. Only then did James Clapper admit he blatantly lied to Congress.

The year is 2013. This is the Obama Administration.

Oversite is good, and ok. Massive oversite and regulation will hamstring our ability to do the job. Also, we can't let this get to the point where it is unAmerican to join the Military, Police, or to choose to put your talents to work in an organization like the NSA. All of these professions seek to protect the United States. The guys working in these professions, on the whole, are patriots doing their level best to provide offensive/defensive capabilities for us all.

Yup. Lots of room in the middle ground.

Then learn from history how reality really works. A two or three Trillion (not billion - Trillion) dollars wasted in Mission Accomplished appears on today's spread sheets. The intentional attempt to subvert Australia's government resulted in serious consequences maybe seven years later. Spying without oversight today is directly traceable to Cheney, et al who wanted a dictatorship and more power for his Central Party. His biggest problem - names such as National Socialist and Communist had already been taken.

Historians cite a major reason for WWII. The Versailles Treaty in 1918 resulted in world wide war in the 1940s. How can that be according to your reasoning? Why did mistakes in the Wilson Adminstration cause war in the FDR adminstration? Welcome to how the world really works.

We also know that 30+ years of no innovation in GM products had nothing to do with the resulting bankruptcy? Nonsense.

George Jr's administration intentionally subverts all NSA oversight. We are now just beginning to learn how bad is was. And why some nations are now so adversarial.

We are still undoing the damage created by wacko extremist, anti-American George Jr people. Major enemies of America are Americans who are extremists - not independent, not educated, and not moderate.

We have problems with Iraq, Iran, and North Korea because of Obama? Obviously not. George Jr said we would "Pearl Harbor" them. You read my posts warning of consequences back around 2003 when it was that obvious. Obviously, Obama did not create those problems either.

And yet still some recite a diatribe from Limbaugh, Hannity, Tea Party, and other wackos. Many still refuse to learn of and from history. Others had previously warned of what dumb George Jr was doing. And therefore saw their income and livelyhood destroyed. Finally one blew a whistle loud enough so that most Americans now ignore wacko extremist rhetoric. We now know that unrestricted spying on all Americans was normal. Created by the same people so dumb as to thing unrestricted torture (Nazi style) was also good.

It will take a long time to undo massive damage to American by the dumb George Jr and his administration of wackos extremists. We still have economics problems directly those poeple who were so dumb. Even the American internet has now dropped out of the top ten due to wacko extremists changes created in 2002. How can that be? How do changes a decade ago subvert America's technology today? Welcome to reality. We know consequences can occur four, ten or twenty years later. History does not change because it was ignored.

If anyone should be blamed most, it should be an obvious wacko extremist - Cheney. But then a few people actually saw consequences when liars preached the Axis of Evil. We are now living the legacy of that lie. And the legacy of idiots who then reelected those liars. Being uneducated and brainwashed has consequences even ten plus years later.

5,000 American patriots decided to massacre themselves in a war that had no purpose? Of course not. They (and the NSA people you mistakenly think are being blamed) did not and must not make any such decisions. We massacred 5,000 servicemen in Iraq because ... well ... posts in 2002 and 2003 still exist in the Cellar today. They did not decide to harm America. We did. So many of us so intentionally ignored history as to massacre 5000 American uselessly in Iraq. And then subverted the American constitution by endorsing wacko extremist fears from Cheney et al.

Did you read George Jr's book published before he was president? Why not? That alone showed how uneducated dumb the man was. But so many want to be told how to think rather than protect 5,000 American servicemen from death.

We have the spy problem because so many here (and that does include you) voted for obviously dumb and wacko extremists who promoted fear. They were obviously lying even in 2002/3. We have the consequences of too many Americans educated by Limbaugh, Fox News, Tea party rhetoric, and even a witch from Delaware.

Hopefully enough Americans are finally learning why the government is spying on everyone. George Jr's administration was only doing what Nixon's people also considered acceptable. 30 years later and we only relive mistakes from history. Those mistakes in early 2000s are now apparent in the 2010s.

Many in the Cellar read the warnings. Ignored them. Voted by George Jr. And are personally responsible for massacring 5000 Americans in Iraq and unrestricted spying even on all American allies. They did not decide to massacre themselves or subvert the Constitution. We did. By even voting into office people clearly too dumb and extremist to be trusted with such powers.

Deja Vue Nam. Not everyone wants to remember warnings attached to that expression.