posted December 29, 2010 12:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quinnie:
I think lowly of the establishment, not of the people. I personally tend to be generally susipicious of ALL polititians, and politics in general.

---

We can at least agree on what is highlighted above. As to the rest, we will just have to disagree and move on.

posted December 29, 2010 06:53 AM            

Manning was charged in July with leaking classified material, including video posted by WikiLeaks of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a Reuters news photographer and his driver. He is suspected of leaking troves of other material to the government secret-spilling site, which is in the process of posting more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables.

Coleen Rowley, a former special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division, told us:

quote:

---

"I've never heard of punishing someone pre-conviction like this in solitary confinement," she said. "It really sounds vindictive and in a way, it seems like some of the harsh interrogation tactics have kind of bled over now into the criminal process, which is just shocking."

---

The next chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announced that he believes Manning should be executed.

The "death penalty clearly should be considered here," Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said in an interview on a Michigan radio program.

"If they won’t charge him with treason, they ought to charge him with murder," he said.

Rogers added that Manning aided US enemies by providing secret documents to WikiLeaks.

"If that is not a capital offense, I don't know what is," he said. "We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed. That's pretty serious."

quote:

---

There is not yet evidence of Americans being harmed as a result of the leaks, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

---

pre-trial.....pre-conviction solitary confinement for 7 months.

Manning is being made an example of. Assange, being a foreigner, is off the hook. Private Manning, on the other hand, is already property of the USA, so they can do with him as they please.

Perhaps If he were not in solitary confinement his life would be in danger... Manning is not protected by U.S. law anymore but subject to the UCMJ.

Currently the UN is looking into the suspect's treatment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then we have Bradley Manning and the Convenient Memories of Adrian Lamo~

By: Jane Hamsher Thursday December 23, 2010 9:48 am

So far every known piece of evidence against Bradley Manning comes from one source, Adrian Lamo, a hacker who was institutionalized by the police three weeks before he alleges Manning contacted him and confessed to turning over materials to Wikileaks. There are many inconsistencies in Lamo’s many stories, as Marcy Wheeler has documented, yet the normally excellent Charlie Savage lets Lamo serve as sole source for a highly dubious story in the pages of the New York Times:

Wired magazine has published excerpts from logs of online chats between Mr. Lamo and Private Manning. But the sections in which Private Manning is said to detail contacts with Mr. Assange are not among them. Mr. Lamo described them from memory in an interview with The Times, but he said he could not provide the full chat transcript because the F.B.I. had taken his hard drive, on which it was saved.

FDL has constructed a timeline of the events surrounding Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Adrian Lamo. To say that Lamo’s story does not hold water would be an understatement:

From the FDL [Fire Dog Lake] Bradley Manning/Wikileaks Timeline:

quote:

---

April 28

•Adrian Lamo involuntarily committed to mental facility by the police

May 7

•Adrian Lamo discharged from mental hospital
May 20

•Wired Magazine reports on Adrian Lamo’s involuntary psychiatric hold
May 26

•Bradley Manning is taken into custody, per Wired Magazine

May 27

•Adrian Lamo turns over his entire chat log with Manning to Wired
May 29

•Bradley Manning actually taken into custody, per his official charge document
June 6

•Wired Magazine reports the arrest of Manning
June 9

•John Cook of Yahoo News asks Lamo to provide a portion of their chats; Lamo says he will have to check with his lawyer

June 10

•Wired posts the heavily redacted version of the chats
•Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima reports Lamo also turned over entire chat log to them, and also publishes excerpts
June 11

•Wired reports that Wikileaks is hiring a lawyer for Manning, and that Julian Assange has asked Lamo for a copy of the chats to assist in his defense. Lamo responds that “Private Manning’s attorney can get them by discovery like everyone else.”
June 13

•Comment appears in Xeni Jardin Boing Boing article, alleging that Wired Magazine reporter and Lamo “worked their target, Bradley Manning, for days — in co-operation with the FBI and US Army CID,” classic “COINTELPRO tactics.”
•Wired tells CJR they did not even find out Manning’s name until May 27, after he had already been arrested on May 26, therefore there could have been no collusion.
June 18

•Wired tells Glenn Greenwald that they published all of the chats that Lamo turned over to them, with the exception of “Manning discussing personal matters that aren’t clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information.”
•Greenwald compares Wired’s published chats with the Washington Post’s, and finds there are things that are neither “personal matters” nor “sensitive government information,” which Wired nonetheless withheld.
June 19

•Boing-Boing receives an allegedly more complete version of the alleged Lamo/Manning chats, which were allegedly given from Lamo to Assange when he had a change of heart.
July 6

•Wired reports that Lamo says he turned Manning in because he was concerned over the 260,000 cables. But as Marcy Wheeler points out, the passage they quote–and its context–doesn’t appear in the IM logs Wired originally reproduced.
•The quote conveniently appears in the subsequent Boing Boing chat log
•Bradley Manning charged. Documents say he was taken into custody on May 29 and not May 26 as Wired reported
December 15

•Lamo tells Charlie Savage of references to Julian Assange in his chats with Manning, which don’t appear in the Wired excerpts, either. Lamo says he no longer has access to chats because the FBI seized his hard drive.

•Instead of asking Lamo to go back to Wired or the Washington Post and get copies, Savage prints the allegations without question.

For more on the inconsistencies on Lamo’s stories, see Marcy Wheeler’s posts here and here.

Suffice to say that it is very convenient that at a time when the government is trying desperately to make a case against Julian Assange and prove he induced Bradley Manning to turn over the documents to Wikileaks, Adrian Lamo suddenly “remembers” that his chats with Manning contain details of a physical hand-off of a disk.

And instead of asking Lamo to go back to Wired, or the Washington Post, and get copies of the chat transcripts he gave them, the New York Times says “no problem, we’ll just publish this convenient new information based on the recollections of someone who was in a mental institution two weeks before all this happened.”

Charlie Savage’s article says that Manning is being detained in very difficult conditions which are designed to get him to implicate Julian Assange. Meanwhile, all the known evidence against Manning comes from Lamo’s chat logs, which both Wired AND the Washington Post refuse to publish

---

What does Assange have to say?

Exclusive interview 6 days ago

none of this adds up. Anyone else besides me thinking there is someone behind the curtain pulling the levers? Where is Toto? Assange is the target. Further, watch for new legislation lessening individual rights [think Patriot Act] on the front burner come Jan, along with media moguls drawing a line in the sand.

posted December 29, 2010 11:06 AM            

I don't like the idea of imprisonment without trial by jury at all.

I know he's in the military, however, what's gonna happen when the gov't decides that it can do that to individual citizens?

Oh Wait a minute, I already SAW the movie Brazil!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1QqXAGH19Q

posted December 29, 2010 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AbsintheDragonfly:
Saw that Node.

I don't like the idea of imprisonment without trial by jury at all.

I know he's in the military, however, what's gonna happen when the gov't decides that it can do that to individual citizens?

Oh Wait a minute, I already SAW the movie Brazil!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1QqXAGH19Q

---

Depending on the nature of the crime; pedophilia, murder, certain sexual assault cases and treason, the service member is incarcerated until court martial proceedings.

It is the same in our civilian courts when one is remanded without bail due to the severity of their crime or ability to leave while on bail (fleeing the country). In our little city we have a man that has been in jail for 8 months pending trial for the sexual assault / molestation of 4 children. I don't see anyone demanding his freedom.

Manning is a service member and is subject to the UCMJ, he was also on suicide watch and I can guarantee you he is not living in harsh conditions.

posted December 30, 2010 10:15 AM            

Aren't the military tribunals a little more speedy, than 5 mo?

posted December 30, 2010 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AbsintheDragonfly:
It's not so much the awaiting trial part, without bail...5 mo. seems a little excessive though. That usually doesn't happen in civilian trials, ya know what I'm saying there?

Aren't the military tribunals a little more speedy, than 5 mo?

Thanks as always for your input here Bears. I appreciate it.

---

Tribunals are different than court martials and he can also be tried in civilian court. We had a case in Bear's old unit where an ahole was caught with reams of child porn downrange. He was kept in "custody" but not in jail, for almost a year before his court martial (meaning, he was not allowed to leave his barracks room without an escourt). He was sentenced to 5 years in the Mannheim prison and will then be released to the US authorities to be tried in his home state (home computer also had child porn).

The Military owns the service member and is under a different set of rules. Manning signed up voluntarily and signed up to abide by the rules also knowing what the consequences were at the time. He had been disciplined before and knew what the UCMJ held as far as punishment.

Since he is already "owned" by the Military what is the difference between Solitary confinement and being sent to Iraq for a year, working 16-20 hour days, eating crap MRE's and not have much contact with your family? I know a deployment isn't like being incarcerated but whereas a deployment isn't a choice per se, commiting a crime is.

Many people don't realize just how much the Military can control another's life but that is part of the regimented lifestyle until the person has put in so much time and earned so much rank. Still, the Military can and will call them up at any time to do what is expected of them. Manning's defense has also called for extension (which prolongs his time in jail) and he was / is on suicide watch.

posted December 30, 2010 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BearsArcher:
Tribunals are different than court martials and he can also be tried in civilian court. We had a case in Bear's old unit where an ahole was caught with reams of child porn downrange. He was kept in "custody" but not in jail, for almost a year before his court martial (meaning, he was not allowed to leave his barracks room without an escourt). He was sentenced to 5 years in the Mannheim prison and will then be released to the US authorities to be tried in his home state (home computer also had child porn).

The Military owns the service member and is under a different set of rules. Manning signed up voluntarily and signed up to abide by the rules also knowing what the consequences were at the time. He had been disciplined before and knew what the UCMJ held as far as punishment.

Since he is already "owned" by the Military what is the difference between Solitary confinement and being sent to Iraq for a year, working 16-20 hour days, eating crap MRE's and not have much contact with your family? I know a deployment isn't like being incarcerated but whereas a deployment isn't a choice per se, commiting a crime is.

Many people don't realize just how much the Military can control another's life but that is part of the regimented lifestyle until the person has put in so much time and earned so much rank. Still, the Military can and will call them up at any time to do what is expected of them. Manning's defense has also called for extension (which prolongs his time in jail) and he was / is on suicide watch.

I do think that if Manning was not linked to Assange and Assange did not have the supporters that he does from the Wikileaks community, there would be absolutely no outcry for his time in Solitary confinement. He has become a "hero" to some when in fact what he did was beyond treacherous to others in the field. However, I don't believe that the impact of what he did will come out until after the wars but some information may come out during the trial.

---

Ok that clears lots of things up for me. So the tribunal could take as long as it needs to commence, is what I'm hearing you say.

Child porn? so wrong...I don't know what the answer is there, I mean, I don't like the thought of supporting these people for life, however, I don't believe in the death penalty either.

How about a nice island in the middle of an ocean somewhere where we can put people, and by that I mean kick them out over the island on a low flying airplane...and if they make the landing, they're on their own...for all of those people convicted of heineous crimes against humanity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All that being said, thanks for your input. And you and Bear are appreciated by lots of people. I am grateful for your sacrifices for my family and others too.

posted January 08, 2011 11:03 AM            

WikiLeaks: US demanding our Twitter account info

Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press – 22 mins ago
LONDON – U.S. officials have issued a subpoena to demand details about WikiLeaks' Twitter account, according to court documents obtained Saturday. WikiLeaks says other American Internet companies may also have been ordered to hand over information about its activities.

posted January 14, 2011 04:47 PM            

Cookie Dough Truffles
Ingredients:
8 tbsp. unsalted butter, at room temperature
¾ cup light brown sugar, packed
2¼ cup all-purpose flour
1 (14 oz.) can sweetened condensed milk
1 tsp. vanilla extract
½ cup mini semisweet chocolate chips
1½ lb. semisweet (or bittersweet) chocolate, coarsely chopped
Mini chocolate chips (for garnish)

Directions:
Combine the butter and sugar in a mixing bowl and cream on medium-high speed until light and fluffy, about 2 minutes. Beat in the flour, sweetened condensed milk and vanilla until incorporated and smooth. Stir in the chocolate chips. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate until the mixture has firmed up enough to form balls.

Shape the chilled cookie dough mixture into 1-1½ inch balls. Place on a baking sheet lined with wax paper. Cover loosely, transfer the pan to the freezer and chill for 1-2 hours.