Yes , of the quarter of a million documents less than 3 dozen related to what you are on about, those include such vital "secrets" as shipping lanes being important to shipping.:doh:

FYI, it was more than a quarter of a million document, which contained information from early 1960.

Being a pedantic bombastic snooty know it all jerk, the correct word when referring to executing a human in this manner is always hanged. It is appropriate for all tenses.

He was hanged yesterday
He is being hanged today
He will be hanged tomorrow

Why do some people insist that unless the information leaked has already harmed someone that the information leak is harmless?

We may never know who has been or may, in the future, be harmed by what Manning did.

It is immaterial. In convicting for unauthorized release of sensitive information, actual harm does not need to be demonstrated.

The crime is not the harm but the actual act.

It has harmed quite a lot of people, but has it endangered troops?

But which act by which person and which crime?
The information from Manning and the information from Assange are two very different issues even though the information is the same, the sex crime allegations are a different matter entirely.

Whatever. The whole story still smells, still looks constructued and suspicious, but - fair or not, right or not, justified or not: Assange is finished.

Which most likely was the intention behind this plot.

His platform is almost done, shreddered by conflicts between too big egos. Or when was it you heared the last time of Wikileaks? Months, I would say.

I am primarily concerned with the crimes committed by Manning. It was Manning that had the legal (and moral if that is important) responsibility to safeguard the information he had access to in accordance with established laws and regulations. It was Manning that signed the NDAs.

Assange, not having signed NDAs, did not have the legal responsibility to safeguard the information.

That's the difference. One had legal responsibility to follow laws and regulations and the other didn't.

That is why demonstrating actual harm is not relevant to proving the crimes that Manning committed. Nor are Manning's intentions relevant.

If the court can demonstrate that Manning willingly broke the applicable laws and regulations that's all that is needed for a conviction of the specific charges.

I don't understand that either. It's like they want what they want, everything else be damned unless smoking gun consequences jump up and smack them across the face like a wet trout.


Nope, and apparently the metaphor of allowing someone pieces of a puzzle to give a clearer picture of what their dealing with flew over heads as well. Though i didn't use that metaphor exactly, i implied the same in context. Again, it comes back to smoking gun consequences smacking them across the face.

Now, politically i sit on the fence. There are times i sound like a left leaning weenie, and there are times i sound like a hardcore neocon. This is a subject where i'll be wearing my neoconservative cap.....

Contrary to what some hippies around here think, you DO NOT have a right to every bit of information on the planet. Particuarly where the US Department of Defense is concerned.

Some documents from Wikileaks are more recent and are very interesting : for example, how Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on UN leaders.

During the Cold War, sovietic diplomats spied with the same manner. It was "regular", USSR with its bad methods was considered as Hell (and USA as Paradise).

USA considered (and still consider) themself as the defenders of freedom. But reality was (and is) more complex. So Wikileaks gives many informations how TODAY the "democratic" USA act like a totalitarian country.

There are more interesting informations in Wikileaks about US behavior with its allies : USA acts inside allied governments and often against them. By example, the US Embassy in Paris directly intervenes in the French interior policy with its "Minority Engagement Strategy". The US Ambassador, Charles H. Rivkin, wants to develop communautarism and a multicultural society in France and helps Muslim people to become political leaders in France (Tactic #5 inside the cable).

Please, imagine another situation : the French Ambasador in Washington meet Indian tribes, in order to help them to detect and to teach their future political leaders. So these choosen people will better defend their communauty and increase its influence in the American society ...

It would be totally inadmissible, considered as a real interference by the White House. And the French Ambassador would be expelled for "anti-Americanism" ...

-------------

PS

1) I forgot an important difference : Indian tribes are living in their country and are not invaders coming from oversea ...

2) Charles H. Rivkin, who wants to develop "communautarism and a multicultural society," could help these Indian tribes. They don't seem to be concerned by the "Affirmative action" ...

3) Fore more informations about Rivkin's project, please see here :

http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10PARIS58.html

Really edifying !!! Here no problem about US security, only American embezzlements against French security ...

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...reign-nations/

4) Thanks to Wikileaks and to Julian Assange, who remove the mask to the "friends".

5) With such Allies, France don't need any enemy !!!

Yes, but the comments which started that little sideline in this topic were directed at the other party....all of which as Vendor pointed out is seperate from the hearing in London

It was the Dept.of State

The US can spy on another country's diplomats however we like. So could the Soviets. That is part of the game as long as they don't lay a hand on them. Difference is that in the US if the CIA tried to stick a tracking device up your rear end you can tell them where they can shove it while you wave the bill of rights in their face (possibly with a shotgun in your other hand). While in the Soviet Union the KGB could shove whatever they like up your butt and all you could say was "thank you and Lenin Lives".

Spying is the 2nd oldest profession in the world. I expect espionage, but when you betray your own :nope:.

@Platapus you mean I have to say 'I am well hanged'? :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Well we all know France is above all forms of political intrigue and never even bothers with foreign policy. And never needs any foreign aid for she is uniquely capable of handling all situations independently. Bon chance!

I wonder what pressure can be applied to Sweden, about that case that certainly has nothing to do with Wikileaks ahem.
Who has the most advantages from Mr Assange being convicted for "rape" ?

Really it's the oldest human strategy to denounce someone socially or anyhow, before he can then rightfully be killed. It is all about justification to the public, always.

OpSec and all that applies to the military and a real war.
Does anyone really feel insecure or threatened because of terrorism ? Sry, not me. In the US ? In Texas ? Really ?
Ok, there IS action needed against planned terroristic acts, right.

But then we cannot tell the truth in democracies in the future, also about atrocities of our own governments, because we are in a forever war against terrorists, and nothing may be openly spoken about because it might betray "something" to "them" ?
In how far are we then different from the terrorists, or the Nazis back then ?

If you keep thinking that just sounds like "1984" only with an imaginary war .. and this again certainly justifies the use of drones killing innocent civilians for the "greater good". I have heard that before .. :hmmm:


"Power does what it wants", and it sure does not like to be presented naked, showing what it does to fool people and make it's own "truth".
There is a very bad tendency in the US, to be "reluctant" to say at least about really investigating about shortcomings, fails or even criminal acitivity of the CIA or the government, this would be just considered as unpatriotic - case closed.

My opinion is that it is unpatriotic to let power do what it wants, with a country that speaks of itself as free.

There are several counts on, Mr. Assange exercises regarding rape and sexual exploitation.