WikiLeaks: Julian Assange, Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilén

188 posts in this topic

 

I mean for all the posturing about we want the truth and transparency, such an approach as used by gaber above seems to be about the same as eg the one used by Blair and Co against David Kelly before the Iraq war i.e. If you don't like the message, try and discredit the messenger. Basically everyone is as bad/good as each other - use the facts you want to prove what you want - politicians aren't much different to the posters here in that respect

 

 

Sweden prides itself with being “the most equal” country in the world, but it´s all a big scam.

 

BR, it is the fairness of the Swedish justice system which is questioned.To use a trumped up charge for whatever reason/opinion to get at an individual is questioned here as it was from the Swedes I always thought of as fair and neutral.That article above questioned it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bit over the top to call it an article to be honest. More of a post (vent) on a forum. With an intro about a written contract for sex and then going on to say it is worse than Iran it doesn't give a great impression of reliability to be honest.

 

Not actually a trumped up charge though is it? I mean it hasn't been invented from nothing

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To refresh the wikiLeaks and manning story.

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bradley_manning_and_the_fog_of_war_20111220/?ln

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have the Yahoo article where I read this a couple of days ago, but apparently Manning's attorney is claiming that Manning should have had his security clearance revoked, which seems to me to be an odd defense to the charges.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning's attorney attempted to have they case returned and handled by a civilian court.The story was nonconclusional as to whether the trial goes back to civilian court or not.In any case Manning will serve as a sample of "don't do" and he will be ground down into misery and he will be a footnote in the history of the American military.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can understand that Manning's lawyer would rather take his chances in a civilian court because he might get a jury with a more favorable composition, it's clear that the charges of which Manning is accused fall under military law since he was on active duty in Iraq. Coombs argued that Manning should have had his security clearance revoked prior to him downloading the cables (just to clarify my previous post) because he was having emotional problems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning's lawyer wanted the presiding officer in the preliminary hearing, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, to recuse himself over conflict of interest and witness handling. He works for the Justice Department.

 

 

Almanza’s role in the Justice Department is also a potential issue, as they have a separate series of investigations into the WikiLeaks case as well and have a vested interest in the case returning a guilty verdict, with an eye toward bargaining down Manning’s prison time for testimony against Julian Assange.

I have not read that Manning's attorney, David Coombs, was requesting a civilian trial.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but notice a certain degree of hypocrisy when it comes to support for JA and WL. At its very basic level, he published stolen - hacked - information. He manipulates said stolen information at his discretion, publishes, and then recieves praise for it. Instant piety.

 

On the other hand, a certain British news organisation also steals information, manipulates, and then also uses that information at their own discretion. Instant demonification.

 

Stolen information. Two different responses. And in the WL case, most of it was just a bunch opinionated shite shared between state officials.

 

I don't condone to either. I'm just saying how this jumps out at me.

 

In the end, I don't believe that the effect has come to meet Mr. Assange's expectation, other than serving his ego perhaps. I don't believe people have died because in the wake of the releases to the degree that was claimed. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, then please correct me.

 

What I do think is that the release of those documents by WL has only further complicated and politicised and already overtly complicated and political set of wars. I dare suggest that the only real cost of the leaks is to the tax payers because millions of dollars/pounds/euros were undoubtedly spent in the diplomatic fallout that ensued.

 

Mr. Assange, whether or not the allegations against you are true, matters to me not. You've made this bed for yourself, now sleep in it. Too late now, but if you would have really wanted to do some good with your "information", then you would've chosen to release any and all information pertaining to the corruption of those big financial institutions that you so liberally gloated about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.