Flashermac Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 As you say, Coss, Assange simply published what was given to him. I really don't understand the charges against him (other than the sex thing). At the most, he might be charged with possession of "stolen" material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadfly Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 True. He purloined information provided to him by someone acting in the military purportedly acting without authorization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 He didn't take the info, a member of the US military did, Assange just published it, and rode the wave of fame/notoriety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning I doubt that any US-based media outlet - even those with an axe to grind - would have released the documents Manning passed to Wikileaks. I believe the Pentagon and the Obama administration is severely embarrassed by the fact that a Private soldier, the lowliest of ranks, had access to such potentially damaging material. Anyone who has read the transcripts of the infamous helicopter attack on the white van containing innocent civilians, including children, knows they have every reason to want to discourage anyone else from wanting to emulate Manning. US taxpayers spend billions each year maintaining a massive military-industrial machine that is supposed to keep them 'safe', yet the integrity of that machine can be threatened by someone with barely 3 years service in the Army ? Clearly, this is an especially desperate machine: He went through basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, but six weeks after enlisting was sent to the discharge unit. He was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of another soldier there, he was having a breakdown. The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... He was a runt, so pick on him. He's crazy, pick on him. He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side. He couldn't please anyone." Nicks writes that Manning, who was used to being bullied, fought back – if the drill sergeants screamed at him, he would scream at them – to the point where they started calling him "General Manning."[16] The decision to discharge him was revoked, and he was "recycled," because the army needed his IT skills. He started basic training again in January 2008 and after graduating in April moved to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, where he trained as an intelligence analyst, receiving a TS/SCI security clearance (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). According to Nicks, this security clearance, combined with the digitization of classified information and the government's policy of sharing it widely, gave Manning access to an unprecedented amount of material. Nicks writes that he was reprimanded while at Fort Huachuca for posting three video messages to friends on YouTube, in which he described the inside of the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" (SCIF) that he was working in. Something tells me this guy didn't quite 'get' the whole military intelligence thing. Or maybe he was the only one who could see how idiotic the whole charade has become 21 centuries after Christ tried to convince us to love our enemies. Fat chance of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 I am surprised he was allowed to have such a high security clearance. The guy had no business even being in uniform. << He was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of another soldier there, he was having a breakdown. >> That's what BCT is supposed to be. It is better to have you crack in training than to come unglued in combat. Also, as a non-combat MOS soldier, his training would have been easier than otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 He was hired for his typing prowess - whether the Marines/SEALs/Rangers like it or not, the keyboard will increasingly be where wars are fought. I doubt that we will ever get away from the need for boots on the ground, but imagine facing an enemy you knew could take out your power grid and leave your entire country in darkness without launching a single bomber. Saw a doco on the drone pilots, and to a man they believe they are flying missions just as surely as any fighter jock. If they can bring death from above halfway around the world from their targets in 2012, imagine what will be on the table by 2050. James Cameron's Terminator meets George Orwell's 1984. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panadolsandwich Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 When the US decided to do Iraq - they just openly said "we're going to do Iraq, and if you aren't with us, your against us". Even a simpleton knows what that means. In the pub you might as well smash the living fuck out of someone then look around and ask who among us here wants a taste of this as well? It was simply thuggish, completely outside international law, and just absolutely wrong. You won't ever hear about that these days - for some reason the media won't go there. Hmmmm, I wonder why that is? George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard are all war criminals. Before Assange came along it seemed impossible they would ever face retribution. I believe Assange will go down in history as one of the most courageous men that lived in our lifetimes. The efforts to persecute him are attempts to shut him up (for good if possible). Unless you've got a vested interest in suppressing the truth, you should support Assange. Some of the comments here are merely relaying what the media propoganda want you to believe. Think for yourself. I'd really encourage everyone to do that. It can be scary at first, but please go ahead and put down that media crutch and go ahead and think for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 How is it that when Takky, a convicted Crim, is in Britain, it's of no consequence. But Assange, a suspected crim is also in Britain, he's public enemy #1? Whether all this hyperbole is true or not probably doesn't have much to do with the answer to the original question. Sweden officially requested his extradition for pending charges in Sweden, and made them through proper channels. Is Thailand currently seeking Thaksin's extradition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 As you say, Coss, Assange simply published what was given to him. I really don't understand the charges against him (other than the sex thing). At the most, he might be charged with possession of "stolen" material. From what I read about the case, there was correspondence between Assange and Bradley Manning before, during and after the material was handed over, and Assange may have actively encouraged him to pass it on in order to be published and possibly to even go download more of it. Manning faces charges that include espionage and "aiding the enemy" (treason in other words) against him, so if there is evidence Assange was actively involved in it, then he probably could face fairly serious charges in the US, as a co-conspirator. Honestly I don't think the US would bother to extradite him, especially if he gets convicted of sex charges in Sweden. Side note, the claims that his attorneys are seeking a promise he wouldn't be extradited to the US since the death penalty is in effect there are hyperbolic noise. No one has faced the death penalty for spying since the Rosenbergs (1950s--for giving the bomb to the soviets, no less), and only then with big controversy. They're not seeking the death penalty for Manning, so it would be bizarre if they did for Assange. Just hyperbolic noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 He was hired for his typing prowess - whether the Marines/SEALs/Rangers like it or not, the keyboard will increasingly be where wars are fought. I doubt that we will ever get away from the need for boots on the ground, but imagine facing an enemy you knew could take out your power grid and leave your entire country in darkness without launching a single bomber. Saw a doco on the drone pilots, and to a man they believe they are flying missions just as surely as any fighter jock. If they can bring death from above halfway around the world from their targets in 2012, imagine what will be on the table by 2050. James Cameron's Terminator meets George Orwell's 1984. What was the documentary called? I'd be very curious to see that. Did they show the actual "flying"? I guess it would look a bit like MS Flight Simulator -- and wonder if they do a simple single monitor view, or go large with surrounding visuals as in a high end flight simulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 It was on our 'Sunday Night' program here in Oz- its tabloid journalism but occasionally they have something interesting. They werent able to show closeups of the pilots flying the drones, presumably for security reasons, but I assume they have instrumentation for altitude/pitch etc and that their camera view looks much the same as the black-and-white footage we see from the drone strikes. One way missions - even if they didnt find their target, I doubt that the guys who fuelled them up in Afghanistan want to see a drone turn around and return to base ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.