JULIAN ASSANGE TELLS KATIE COURIC (US) PROSECUTORS TARGETING WIKILEAKS ARE "GOING TO LOSE"

[Turborama]

Source: CBS

12.20.2010 *** MEDIA ADVISORY*** WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE TELLS KATIE COURIC PROSECUTORS TARGETING WIKILEAKS ARE "GOING TO LOSE"


Tonight's CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC featured an interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who told Couric, "No doubt, some prosecutors, seeking to gain their bit of fame and reputation by taking us on, but they're going to lose." While U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning faces a possible court martial, Assange asserted that the first time anyone at WikiLeaks heard Manning's name it was in an article in Wired magazine.

Following are excerpts from tonight's broadcast. MANDATORY CREDIT: THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC.

On interacting with Private Bradley Manning:

KATIE COURIC: Mr. Assange, so neither you nor WikiLeaks provided any technical assistance to Private Manning before he exfiltrated this information?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I assume that is correct. Now, remember-- we've never heard the name of Bradley Manning before. But it...it's interesting you're raising that particular question, because it's something that appears to be coming out of attempts to conflate media activities with espionage. That's a serious business. No doubt, some prosecutors-- seeking to gain their bit of fame and reputation-- by taking us on, but they're going to lose.

On secrecy:

COURIC: Are there certain secrets, classified government information that you believe should, in fact, remain secret? Because you do redact some material from what you publish.

ASSANGE: Well, of course. The...we are an organization that attempts to promote-- human rights by revealing abuses that are concealed. So, of course, we never want to be in a position where through our releases we actually are causing harm to individuals. Or at least not more harm than-- than the good we are causing. And...and through our four-year publishing history, there has never been-- an example of any individual-- coming to any sort-- of physical harm of all that has been alleged. And...the U.S. government has made it clear, when it has been asked, that it is not aware of any single...incident.

Read more: http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_network/release?id=27036

---

Apologies for the Caps but that's how it came...

[Demeter]

1. Julian is Arguing Fact Against Emotion

That trick never works, not even when one is in a position of power, even with people trained in logic, like doctors, engineers, etc...he should be arguing Emotion against Emotion, if he wants to win the court of public opinion.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

31. Some viewers actually prefer facts to emotional nonsense. nt

[molly77]

102. I like the way that Julian Assange is handling the press etc.

Because you know the trolls and all those just trying to make him go away are going to say that

He is an ego maniac..just trying to bring attn to himself.

They did that with Michael Moore...the most unassuming public figure in existence. Even progressives used to do it.

[valerief]

131. Yep, Moore and Assange are both class acts. nt

[timtom]

244. They did similar things

to Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Grayson, just to name a few others demonized and marginalized by the non-thinkers in America.

[Demeter]

115. Not Enough, Comrade, Not Enough

[valerief]

132. Can't argue with you there. It's amazing how stupid people can be. nt

[sabrina 1]

39. He has already won the court of public opinion.

Around the globe he has consistently been supported by an overwhelming number of people who are so aware of just how censored their own news organizations are. To a majority of people around the world, he is a hero. And, btw, he was well known and highly respected outside the U.S. until he posted leaked material from this country.


You would think he just appeared on the scene living here. But that is far from the case. And he was in plenty of danger from other governments, long before the U.S. decided to join in the witch hunting.

I'm not sure what you mean by using emotion. I prefer logic. The U.S. government eg, has disgraced itself by allowing people like Huckabee, Palin, Lieberman to go around calling for illegal acts against a man who is known around the world as an award-winning editor and publisher.

I think actually, he needs to show less emotion, eg, in situations where Tabloid Schmucks like Jim Schiutto (thanks Julian, a perfect description of a compromised 'journalist') and when they veer off into tabloid questions, rather than walk away next time, he should instantly change the subject and start questioning them about the work they DID NOT do, and ask them why they were so afraid to publish the truth because if they had, there would no need for Wikileaks. He has the microphone, he knows they will do this, try to ask sleazy questions, but he can use them to get HIS message out when they do.

He should now have material prepared for those occasions and turn the tables on them, by forcing them to make the interviews about Freedom of the Press and the lack of it which has made him necessary.

[EFerrari]

2. And he's right. They are going to lose

and they're going to make themselves look very bad in the process.

[Demeter]

118. But how many setbacks, how many years, how many dead until that victory?

[chervilant]

171. hmm...

If you haven't read Shock Doctrine, I strongly recommend you do so asap. Once you have, you should know the answer to your questions.

We here in the US are not immune to the threat of being 'disappeared' or just rendered moot by the propaganda arm of the Corporate Megalomaniacs who are clearly demonstrating that their continued, unfettered primacy is the ultimate goal, despite what the hoi polloi wants or needs.

We must change the rules of this game, and we must do so quickly. Mr. Assange and Mr. Moore are two of our best warriors, but they should not be standing alone in this fight.

[Lucky 13]

3. I know that Assange has some detractors here, but...

... I am thankful that this is happening now. As our freedoms shrink by the day, at least this is putting the spotlight on it.

[tomm2thumbs]

4. glad folks like Peter Tatchell, Bianca Jaggar, Michael Moore are offering support -

the list is longer, but glad that folks in the spotlight are willing to share it with his press organization, WikiLeaks.

[Uncle Joe]

5. It will be interesting to see what kind of editing job takes place this evening.

Thanks for the thread, Turborama.

[bemildred]

6. I guess Katie learned how to behave from the Tabloid Schmuck's experience. nt

[KurtNYC]

192. or from the faxes from Dick Cheney's office that she used to get at TODAY

Michael Moore said in 2004:

You know. I was on a, one of those morning talk shows and after we went to commercial, the person who was interviewing me said you know, you are right, I mean when the war started, it was very difficult here to book the people we wanted to book, ask the questions we wanted to ask. In fact, I got a memo about my tone of voice. And apparently the brass had received a call from the Dick Cheney's office is what – and said that he didn't like my tone of voice. And I got a memo on it to watch my tone of voice. Well you've got to tell that story! You've got to tell that story. I can't. Well why? They can't fire you....

http://www.alternet.org/story/19385/michael_moore%27s_speech_in_cambridge,_mass./?page=4

[bemildred]

199. Same deal, yeah, but Assange is not the VP.

Isn't it interesting that it's still an effective threat?

[truth2power]

7. I hope he's correct. As far as that goes, I wouldn't believe

a US prosecutor if s/he said the sun would rise tomorrow.

The US govt. has shown itself, in so many ways, to be irredeemably corrupt.

[saigon68]

189. And the present occupant and his lackey Holder are right there

to look very stoopid and ultimately clueless when the corporate Mafia is exposed

Its just " MORE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"

[truth2power]

200. Yes, of course. But I wouldn't want to annoy anyone

by pointing out inconvenient facts about the present occupant.

Where does the buck stop?

[saigon68]

213. Not with the Present Occupant He's about to jet off to Hawaii

for a little fun in the sun

P.S. for you seniors on SS in the UP--- Enjoy your cat food for X-mas

[glinda]

Don't think for one second that he would get a fair trial here. Just because it is a challenge does

not guarantee that the outcome will be fair. Even if Assange is on the right side of the law. Our Government does what it wants regardless of public opinion. They can even subject him to abuse if they even hold him and they can wait forever to prosecute. I see no good coming from him being extradited here. It would be a mistake.

[EFerrari]

9. The Vice President has called him a terrorist.

How is he going to get a fair trail?

I hope Joe keeps talking. Every time he opens his mouth on this topic, he's making extradition more impossible.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

54. Joe Biden = to or greater than Sarah Palin?

Its debatable.

[gateley]

100. Really? Biden did NOT want to build up in Afghanistan. What do

you think Palin would have done?

[Grinchie]

183. Well, she did kick uncle Joe's butt in the debates..

I never could understand that dog and pony show, but that's the way it played out.

[glinda]

13. Anyone who even thinks he would get a fair trial is not thinking. It is obvious all the

way through this from the rape charges, the US interference and pressures, the looking to make new laws, Manning's incarceration without trial or charges. It is going to be a travesty if he is brought here. I mean... he has a leg monitor for what appears to be contradictory and crazy charges from Sweden. lol! The whole thing is bizarre.

[Pavulon]

15. Manning is indicted, he has charges

and will be convicted on them. If assange is indicted he will be extradited, its a treaty process, not subjective. His popularity has no bearing on the process.

[JDPriestly]

86. Let's assume that

Mr. Squeaky Clean was the originator of the leaks of at least some of the information. Receiving and publishing information that is classified under American law is against American law but newspapers do it, and thanks to our First Amendment, there usually aren't any reprisals. Publishing material the US government has classified is not against the laws of other countries.

So, if Assange received the material and published it overseas, he was not breaking any American laws and probably not any laws in any of the countries in which he published them.

As for his transmission of the material to the NY Times and other newspapers in this country, if he did not take the material in the first place, it will be hard to punish him for passing it on from a foreign country. And the government is certainly not going to prosecute the NY Times for publishing, not beyond a fine anyway, because the NY Times is protected by the 1st Amendment to which there are no exceptions.

The government will have to prove that Assange did something to encourage Mr. Squeaky Clean to leak the material, because, receiving that information and publishing it is probably not going to go very far in court. And I doubt that they have any evidence that is not terribly tainted and inadmissible in court to support the idea that Assange did anything beyond publishing the material. They might, but I doubt it. If they did, we probably would have seen that story in the news.

[Pavulon]

96. expect more..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html

[glinda]

124. Check the info in this thread..... watch the BBC video. Heroin addict I am guessing....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/19/174826/85

[CoffeeCat]

147. His eyes are crossed and partially rolled up...

...into his head.

What in the world is going on?

Why would our government pay a drug addict to spy on Americans?

This is just crazy. Crazy also that they even allowed this person to do an interview
and reveal that he is a messed-up person.

Bradley Mannining is a hero and he is currently being held in torturous conditions.
And our government doesn't mind spotlighting the fact that the person who turned
Manning in--is a strung out drug addict?

So over the top bizarre.

[glinda]

172. I know! Did you read the stuff leading into that though? How it supposedly came down? Wire?

This guy is sooooooo messed up. I had a hard time watching him. His eyes are so black also like he hasn't slept for ages. What I think is odd is his pauses and his head movement. He reminded me of a robot.

[glinda]

173. I don't know if he is a drug addict but sure looks to be strung out.

[JDPriestly]

176. glinda, slurred speech, tiny pupils, a sleepy appearance.

It does look like he takes some sort of drug, possibly a prescription drug but then it looks like he is taking too much of whatever it is.

I read that he claims to be autistic. It may be that he takes a medication for something related to that. I do not have enough experience with autism to judge, but his behavior, his manner is not what I would expect of what I have heard about autism.

It could be heroin, but I don't know enough to say for sure what it is. The slurred speech is notable as are his strange eyes.

[glinda]

202. I am a huge advocate for handicapped but something is not right here.

Either he was used or there should be the question posed about how some of this came down.

[JDPriestly]

219. Yes. I do not want to judge a person for having a disability,

but there is something wrong here.

[glinda]

221. definitely. I think it should be noted his repeating talking points from the media and Government.

He does not strike me as having the ability to perceive independently.

[JDPriestly]

228. He is a tool and a rather naive one.

I say he is naive because he does not seem aware of how other people perceive him.

They say that autistic people cannot lie. But that only means that they tell you what they experience as the truth. It does not make them experts on the truth. It does not mean that what they actually reflects reality. They don't consciously lie, but they can be completely wrong in interpreting what people say to them. So, assuming as I have read that Lamo is autistic, he could be totally incorrect about his interpretation of what Manning said to him, -- that is what the meaning of Manning's statements was.

[Pavulon]

231. Chat logs are great things. As is witness testimony from manning

pretty much seals up a conspiracy case.

[glinda]

236. oh it's you again......

[Pavulon]

238. The handicapped guy to mentally incapable to testify has recorded logs

maybe even tape. That will be very interesting, I mean if it is needed. No need if manning takes a guilty plea and testifies against assange.

[JDPriestly]

241. Have you read the chat logs?

The excerpts I have seen were quite ambiguous and did not prove much, but again, I haven't seen but a few lines.

[glinda]

237. Very good points.

[ronnie624]

240. Thanks for the link.

The Glen Greenwald post on Project Vigilant is quite interesting.

[Pavulon]

14. you guys are aware that extradition is a treaty based process

and that the UK and Australia have requirements to honor US indictments. No matter how many groupies the man has.

[Peace Patriot]

179. Nazi Germany used the Law like that, all legal and proper, to punish, torture and kill.

Some things are just wrong--and this would be one of them--no matter how many statutes or treaties can be invoked to commit the wrong.

You may be correct that the U.S. government is going to commit this egregious wrong, with the UK toadying along as they have done with U.S. torture and mass murder. It would still be wrong--very, VERY wrong.

The Patriot Act permitted government agents to snoop on library patrons' reading habits, with a gag order on librarians, who were not permitted to speak about it to ANYONE, not their spouses, not even their lawyers. A total, absolute, no-exceptions gag order, for even SPEAKING TO THEIR LAWYER. This--and prosecuting Assange--would, in fact, NOT be legal if we still had a Supreme Court that gave a fuck about the Constitution of the United States. The Patriot Act clearly violated the Constitution. Prosecuting Assange would clearly violate the Constitution. The Constitution is a a higher law than the Patriot Act or any other act of Congress. It is the law of the land. And it protects free speech in the very first right of the Bill of Rights, made first by our Founders because of its overriding importance to democracy. Furthermore, as an Australian, and as a civilian, Assange has no obligation whatsoever to protect the U.S. government from embarrassment or from curtailment of its power to lie to the public (which the cables reveal that it has done on many occasions--one major one being the legality of the Honduran coup).

But all of this aside--all of the legalities aside--it would be simply, unforgivable WRONG for the UK to extradite and the US to prosecute Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

I say again, on the legal issues that you raised, that is how Nazi Germany used the Law. That is how bad governments of other kinds have used the Law. The Law was used in England to "enclose" the common lands, making tens of thousands of poor rural people homeless, unable to feed their families, and then the Law was used to make "vagrancy" illegal--in fact, a hanging offense--with which thousands were then "transported" to slavery in the Americas, or to "impressed" servitude on navy ships, to make British nobles super-rich. The British African slave trade soon followed. All perfectly "legal."

Was it right for tens of thousands to be forced into servitude--because they were poor or because they were black? It was LEGAL. But what is RIGHT?

Assange was held in solitary confinement for ten days with NO charges against him. There are NO charges against him NOW, though he is shackled with an electronic anklet and his movements restricted. The Interpol warrant contained NO charges from Sweden. On what basis was he arrested at all? His donation revenues, bank accounts and web sites have all been attacked under intense U.S. pressure and threats against various business entities. NONE of this--none of it!--was legal. And none of it was right. It is ALL WRONG. To carry it further is to compound the wrong.

NOW they're going to get all legal, and cite extradition treaties and other bullshit? It's WRONG. It's wrong like slavery was wrong. It's wrong like the Patriot Act was wrong. It's wrong like U.S. bullying and torture and mass slaughter around the world are wrong. It's wrong the way government LYING is wrong.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld go free--but Julian Assange gets dragged over here and prosecuted? That's WRONG!

[mdmc]

223. 1

[Turborama]

180. You clearly don't know that extradition from Europe to the US is conditional

You seem like you're smart enough to know how to use Google, go and look it up.

[Turborama]

181. .

[Pavulon]

207. Yes, no death penalty will be sought

i am aware of that. A nice man from Australia will be spending most of (if not all of) his life in prison here very shortly.

Extradition is treaty based, not dependent on your groupie status.

[Turborama]

215. Recent case study

Which, in light of Vice President Biden calling him a terrorist, Assange's attorney will be able to use as precedence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Extradition_to_US

[Pavulon]

217. He did not call him a terrorist, he was given the choice of pentagon papers or

cyber terrorist (something that does not exist) and he responded with "more like". He did not make any comment on his innocence or guilt.

[Turborama]

222. Assange has a whole list of high profile commentators & politicians calling WikiLeaks like Al Qaeda

and calling Assange a terrorist, some calling for him to be executed. That's enough for the EU to not sanction his rendition. There are also doubts whether he would be treated humanely in the US compared to how he would be treated in Europe, another argument against extraditing him from the EU.

[Pavulon]

224. You have the terms mixed up. Extradition is the legal

process that will be used to legally transfer assange to the US to stand trial under treaty arrangements. Rendition would be stuffing him in a trunk and bringing him here. There are standing treaties with the EU that cover extradition of criminals, those with and without groupies.

I am sure you know the things you are discussing are not new to the world and assange is not the first person extradited to the us and vice versa.

He will not the the death penalty if charged with a crime that could carry it, thats it for the process.

[Turborama]

229. The EU will not sanction his rendition OR his extradition, no matter how much you ignore the facts

I'll just refer you to this instead of posting it all again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4667172&mesg_id=4668872

[Pavulon]

230. Refer all you want he is not in the EU, he is in the UK

and there is a list of prisons that are not listed as supermax that would be more than adequate to serve time in. Marion comes to mind. Terre Haute Indiana.

You really thing if he is indicted he will not be extradited, really.

[Turborama]

233. Now I'm sure you must be just joking around!

EU Member States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_State_of_the_European_Union

You really do need to read those articles I posted!

[Pavulon]

235. You really dont get it, he can be bounced to AU

and he can be sent here with stipulations that prevent him from serving in Florence ADX. Once he is here there are dozens of prisons that meet the criteria required to secure him.

you have your side, i have mine. If they want him he is got, one way or another.

you think I am joking around? Assange is far past the common criminal rules, well into the free space where intelligence agencies work.

http://www.estatevaults.com/lm/_Litvinenko,_before_and_after_poisoning.jpg

[Turborama]

243. You didn't know the UK is part of the EU & think that the US gives the EU billions maybe trillions..

...of dollars in aid.

I think those two facts alone prove who doesn't "get it".

[Pavulon]

245. See the recent finincial mess

money from the US went directly into the EU banking system.

[Turborama]

246. Give some specific details of the billions (maybe trillions) the US has given to the EU

Thanks in advance...

[Pavulon]

247. Here ya go. Now lets stay focused. Assange will be extradicted

here if he is indicted.

http://www.europeaninstitute.org/August-2010/us-bailout-funds-saved-european-banks-without-much-transatlantic-reciprocity.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40454469/US_Ready_to_Back_Bigger_EU_Stability_Fund_Official

[Turborama]

250. Yes, let's. It seems your dark fantasies are not going to come true, and here's why -------->

But in the Hamza case this has been extended to refusing extradition to a country where he might be jailed for life in a country where the prison regime is judged to be too harsh.

Abu Hamza’s lawyer said: “The issue the court wants to decide is whether the conditions in the US prison are so draconian it amounts to inhumane conditions.”

But such a ruling must apply to any extradition to the US unless American authorities can guarantee in advance that the suspect will not be incarcerated in a so-called supermax prison. The court said there should be further legal argument on whether life without parole would breach the suspects’ human rights. This could equally apply in Britain where there are two dozen prisoners on so-called whole life tariffs without the prospect of release.

=snip=

But the likelihood he will be extradited is slim. There are three suspected terrorists still in prison in this country awaiting extradition to America in connection with the bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998. They have been held for 12 years. If there is no prospect of their ever being extradited they will soon have to be released.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/100046585/abu-hamza-extradition-to-us-blocked-on-human-rights-grounds/

[social_critic]

16. Mr Biden has a lousy record

We should remember he was one of the parties responsible for dragging us into the Iraq quagmire.

[Pavulon]

19. The one Obama just concluded? That one?

yep, I'll keep that in mind.

[Javaman]

21. concluded? How? We still have 50K in Iraq and the date for Afghanistan keeps

being pushed back.

Conclued? exactly how?

On top of that, there was a report released today, that shows that Obama now uses more mercs than georg w. moron* ever did.

So how is that concluded?

[Pavulon]

22. Casualties in Iraq this month... 1 person.

while a tragedy the war there is over. That is how it is concluded. We have 30,000 people in korea as well, no war going on.

War is over there.

[Tempest]

26. Wrong

There were three reported casualties this month.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-01/world/iraq.us.deaths_1_combat-related-deaths-iraqi-police-iraqi-civilians?_s=PM:WORLD

And since non-military casualties (mercenaries) are not reported, we don't know how many of those there were.


But then again your post was a straw man since casualties have nothing to do with the post you responded to.

[Pavulon]

27. And the lousy record post does not address the core issue. Assange conspiracy

not the war in Iraq. My number is fatality. Like I said, that war is quite over. Mr Assange's war is not.

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx

[Javaman]

29. I think you are confusing over with the word occupation. nt

[Tempest]

30. You're moving the goal posts

"My number is fatality"

That's not what you originally said.

"Casualties in Iraq this month... 1 person"

You were wrong.

[Pavulon]

45. Bout the OP part or the hijacked part of the thread covering the war, which I sourced

or both, I am correct on both points.

[JDPriestly]

88. Pavulon, what law did Assange violate, and of what country?

I'm seriously asking because I don't see how the US can indict him. What evidence would they need to show a conspiracy? Do you think it exists? Do you think that a court would admit it?

[Pavulon]

94. Lets start with conspiracy, because it is easier to explain...

If Assange just "found" the entire 250,000 cables in one shot on his system he has no problem with conspiracy laws.

If he assisted manning in committing a stack of felonies by providing technical knowledge, code, or access to resources he can be charged with conspiracy in the criminal act. Just like if a member of the press participates in prostitution while covering a story. Press (granting assange press status) is not a promise of immunity.

What will happen is data will be recovered from manning's systems by the FBI or by manning. If manning cooperates, to avoid the death penalty, he will testify in court to what he did and what assange did. Holding up the conspiracy from his end.

They will ask him if he took a deal, he will say yes, i am going to serve life in florence adx vs being executed. Not all that great huh?

Electronic logs, legally obtained forensic data, and personal testimony have been used in US criminal proceedings to convict people before. They did not have as many groupies as assange.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

114. No I'll stay here and piss on a guy who wants to POTUS to resign. Egomaniac asshat..

here is a kitty gif for being hatey..

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

110. The resources question depends.

He couldn't provide Manning with code or anything like that, because it'd be a special case thing, if he had Manning give him a pipe with which to perform hacking duties, then yeah, conspiracy is certainly there.

However, the evidence so far suggests that at most Assange gave manning access to Wikileaks servers, so that he might transfer any data that he had. This by itself is not a criminal act. It is no different than a whistle blower getting access to an FTP to upload data. No big deal.

I don't see an indictment happening. Yeah, I see them trying to make up an indictment, but they'll fall short.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

120. IMO they're being too quiet, usually someone talks by now...

...and tells the journalists, as an unnamed source, "The AG has something here."

Those sources aren't talking.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

122. I agree on this.

If he assisted manning in committing a stack of felonies by providing technical knowledge, code, or access to resources he can be charged with conspiracy in the criminal act.

But what if he didn't? So far, there is no evidence that he did.

And what about Judy Miller. She provided the means for Scooter Libby to communicate with her -- they certainly fixed their rendez-vous over the telephone. I use that as an example of the many, many unnamed sources who leak information not that different from the Wikileaks documents.

If what you are describing is sufficient to create a conspiracy, then isn't providing your e-mail address to someone enough? We do that all the time. We give our e-mail addresses to people who send us political stuff all the time.

Seems to me they will have to prove that Assange did something more than simply provide a means for Manning to communicate the leaked material to him. That is because providing a means for people to communicate leaks to you is so common in journalism that it really has to be protected by the First Amendment in our day and age. It is certainly more likely to support subpoenas and maybe even an indictment, but I don't think, in and of itself, it will get an indictment before a jury. Remember you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[joshcryer]

126. He couldn't provide code that would have any use, but he could have asked for access...

...and then did whatever. However, I don't think he's that stupid. Knowing what level he was working with I believe the evidence so far has shown he only, at most, gave Manning access to Wikileaks servers to do the dump.

(Rather than dumping the files from his computer to Wikileaks he may have dumped them from a military server to Wikileaks, would've gone much quicker.)

[JDPriestly]

178. But Assange ,may just routinely give access to the Wikileaks servers

for people to put stuff on. I bet he gets a lot of garbage, especially since Wikileaks.

[Pavulon]

211. All it will take is one conversation..

assange, "can you find cables on X?" That is a slam dunk. Any more is free lunch for the DOJ.

[JDPriestly]

218. I think you are mistaken.

You could probably ask the reporters at the New York Times the same question, "can you find cables on X?" and they would be even better able to answer than Assange.

Once the cables are out of the government system, they are just speech. I could be wrong, but I think that is how it will work.

Otherwise, the NY Times would be in big trouble every time they get a scoop based on classified information they are not supposed to have such as the fact that the government was wiretapping in violation of FISA some years ago.

The number of scoops of this type are just too many to count. Think Watergate. That makes Assange look like an amateur. The reporters on Watergate actually talked to their source on the phone and had pick-up sites. The conduct of those reporters was much more like traditional espionage than that of Assange.

[Pavulon]

220. Tell me how cocaine is distributed

and can you get me an 8 ball are very different. Assange is really subject to that rule. This is not watergate, this is based on criminal espionage and will have an impact on assange if he was in on the theft.

Would be like watergate if the break in data was being requested by assange then delivered for lulz and click trough revenue.

[JDPriestly]

227. The Nixon administration considered the Watergate snooping

to be top secret and even used CIA assets to do it. There is no difference. The information that Woodward and Bernstein acquired was precisely as classified as the information that Assange got. I think that there has been some claim that the Watergate info was leaked by someone in the FBI. I'm not sure that is true, but I believe that is now the story. That is no different. And the Watergate information is just one example of news reporting that equaled what Assange has done.

I don't favor the leaking of secrets, and would not leak secrets myself. But I understand the social and personal forces that lead to and motivate leaks of this kind.

Our government is characterizing all kinds of things that are merely embarrassing as secret. That piques the curiosity of the public and frustrates a certain portion of it. This is especially true when a segment of society recognizes patterns or are told of events that are kept secret. People become curious.

If you go back to the time of Kaiser Franz Josef and his son Kron Prinz Rudolf, you will remember that the Kaiser was able to keep the circumstances of his son's death at Mayerling secret for a long time. People became incredibly curious, but total news control was possible back then. It no longer is.

And there is a feeling among people who are better educated in subjects like history and social science, especially among those of us who are older and have witnessed a lot of very strange "coincidences" that we must look beneath the surface of the propaganda we get from our government and from the 24-hour news.

So there is an audience for the Watergate story and for Wikileaks. I will never forget when I was very young, seeing Nixon on TV talking about the Watergate break-in not that long after it happened. I said to my husband, "He (Nixon) is lying." Anyone who could read a face, anyone with a bit of social intelligence could see that Nixon was lying.
Of course, someone who had the means to discover the truth did so. Wikileaks is kind of an inevitable result of all the lying and covering up that is going on in our society at high levels today.

I would prefer a world in which our leaders were more honest and trustworthy. But they aren't. If I lied to my husband the way that our government and economic leaders (including the Fed and the bankers) lie to the American people, our marriage would have ended long ago. It's the lying that causes the leaks. The leaker just plays out a function. Fewer lies, fewer leaks.

[Pavulon]

234. Problem is sifting lies from stuff like

process to weaponize smallpox , because that is secured somewhere. So far there is one person, who is facing a death penalty or life in isolation responsible for the leaks. Not quote a groundswell.

[JDPriestly]

242. You are right about the problem being sifting lies from

things that should not be made public. That is exactly the real problem. It is troubling when one person takes it upon himself to decide what could be dangerous to the public and what not.

That is where I agree with you. I would add that our government tries to keep too many secrets. They would probably be more successful in keeping secrets if they were more discerning, if they carefully sifted the secrets from things that are just history, conjecture, etc.

[msanthrope]

201. I find that specification 4 of count 1 of the Manning indictment to indicate a conspiracy charge

will be forthcoming.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/33963920/Charge-Sheet-Redacted-Manning

[OnyxCollie]

128. How many contractors died?

This Year, Contractor Deaths Exceed Military Ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
http://www.propublica.org/article/this-year-contractor-deaths-exceed-military-ones-in-iraq-and-afgh-100923

More private contractors than soldiers were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent months, the first time in history that corporate casualties have outweighed military losses on America’s battlefields.

More than 250 civilians working under U.S. contracts died in the war zones between January and June 2010, according to a ProPublica analysis of the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Labor, which tracks contractor deaths. In the same period, 235 soldiers died, according to Pentagon figures.

~snip~

Steven Schooner, a professor of government contracting at George Washington University Law School, said that the contractor deaths show how the risks of war have increasingly been absorbed by the private sector. Private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan provide fuel, food and protective services to U.S. outposts — jobs once performed by soldiers.

“It’s extremely likely that a generation ago, each one of these contractors deaths would have been a military death,” Schooner said. “As troop deaths have fallen, contractor deaths have risen. It's not a pretty picture.”

Contractor Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan Outnumber Service Member Deaths
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/contractor-deaths-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-outnumber-service-member-deaths/

There were 207,600 private contractors employed by the Department of Defense, 19 percent more than the 175,000 uniformed personnel members employed by the department, according to a July report by the Congressional Research Service. In Iraq and Afghanistan, contractors make up 54 percent of the Defense Department’s workforce, according to the report.

As of June, contractor deaths represented over 25 percent of all United States fatalities since the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, according to a report by Steven L. Schooner and Collin D. Swan at the George Washington University Law School.

War is over. More bullshit from Pavulon.

[eilen]

163. How many Iraqi's killed this month? nt

[Pavulon]

165. by the us, probably not to many..

feel free to link something not commondreams or pravda like.

[eilen]

195. If I relied on the MSM, I wouldn't know about the

antiwar veterans arrested in Washington.

There is a media blackout on Iraqi casualties. They were never counted. That does not mean that they do not exist. Wikileaks showed the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians and Reuters personnel from an Apache helicopter-- have you seen this footage? I have no reason to suspect this type of activity does not continue.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

[Pavulon]

208. You know the history and status of this event with the US and Reuters?

seen it and plenty more like in on liveleak.

[mdmc]

225. mission accomplished!

new gov formed - all things dandy - we won in just a couple years - that neo-con policy was GOLD!

[valerief]

32. Concluded??? Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!! The endless war? Bwhahahahahaha!!!!

:rofl:

[Pavulon]

47. Yes american combat troops are fighting in Baghdad right.. aww fuck

we actually are not fighting there so war over..

[valerief]

130. Men (and women) with guns are there. When they're there without guns, I'll believe

there's no fighting.

[gateley]

99. Initially he said the leaks were embarrassing, but not harmful.

Next day he's saying 'terrorist'. Joe always tells it like it is, it's when he gets reined in that he has to amend his statements.

[EFerrari]

101. Yes. And he actually said, Assange is more like a hi tech terrorist

than like the Pentagon Papers.

But I'm actually happy he said that, lol, because it adds to the perception Assange can't get justice here -- which is true enough.

[molly77]

105. And proving that Julian could not get a fair trial in the US.

When our leaders are calling for assassination and calling him a terrorist.

[Pavulon]

140. Anyone with black robes say that?? no , well there you have it(nt)

[Wednesdays]

170. Only people with black robes can prejudice a trial?

:shrug:

[Pavulon]

204. There has been nothing said to prejudice his trial

he has been on national news defending himself already.

[joshcryer]

40. EFF would own any indictment proceedings. It wouldn't pass unless they have very hard evidence.

While I don't trust our judicial system to any significant extent, high profile cases, except those that are mired in bullshit racial identity politics, tend to be treated justly.

[Pavulon]

48. Indictment is not open to EFF. They would be welcome to

jump in with assange at a trial. If assange conspired with manning he will be brought here.

[joshcryer]

50. As soon as there was an indictment EFF would have thrown a dozen different dismissals at the courts.

Assange would not have turned himself in if he wasn't certain of his evidentiary position.

[Pavulon]

52. Remember that case with the guy who wanted to dump that NSA bom, over a job review

eff backed him too. long story short, you cant see that bill of materials.

If he is indicted it will be with charges that will make it to a jury. Bet on it.

[joshcryer]

55. Agreed. Which is why I don't see him being indicted over Mannings testimony alone.

It'll have to be Mannings testimony plus logs of conspiracy between Manning and Assange, which Assange would not allow to exist. I don't see them indicting on Lamo's logs of Manning bragging.

[Pavulon]

59. No it will be intercepts or mannings testimony

under oath. Thats my bet.

[joshcryer]

65. There are no intercepts, they would have stopped it from happening when it was happening...

...if there were. Manning would've been arrested in his barracks and Wikileaks would've been shut down.

[Pavulon]

75. They may have missed them, like they missed 250,000 cables in a bulk copy.

I bet HDS and EMC sell lots of disk and there is plenty of LTO laying around up there.

[joshcryer]

78. Heh. That' just tells you that they weren't actually looking.

[Pavulon]

83. They failed to take very basic

steps to prevent manning. Hopefully someone is out of a job over that debacle.

[joshcryer]

85. Doubt it, the data he had access too wasn't even classified.

[Pavulon]

87. 11,000 were and they are still marked

classified nofrn. those will be a problem.

[TorchTheWitch]

184. just scrubbing info off his own servers wouldn't work

And frankly, it makes him look guilty if he did/does. That info will also be on whatever Manning used in his half of the communication. What could Assange do to "not allow to exist" that information without access to whatever Manning would have used for the communication?

[treestar]

58. Why not? Our system is fair.

Julian needs to stop being such a damn victim! He took this on. He does not seem man enough to deal with it, though.

[molly77]

103. glinda

I agree. The US no longer has a justice system. It is like a third world country where the oligarchs can do anything they want.

[glinda]

137. See post 124 and look at the BBC video. That should really scare you.

[glinda]

8. Dupe deleted

[Pavulon]

12. Manning may be telling a different story..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html

[Arctic Dave]

17. I believe they are using the same logical steps

used in this judicial planning.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon

[Pavulon]

18. Well if manning has logs of conspiracy

he may be using them to avoid catching the needle at USP terre haute.

[shawn703]

23. I'd be suspicious of any "logs" that may be used as evidence

If I used a computer to do something like leak sensitive documents, the last thing I would do is save the evidence in a tidy little file to make the case against me easier to prove.

[Pavulon]

24. But the computer owner may. If he was on a secure net or a machine that

he did not own he may not control that. Also he may have kept it in the event he "needed it" like now, to have something to prevent his execution. What you or I would do and what he DID are probably very different.

His case will be proven by his ID's activity on siprnet and a host of communications.

The case against Assange will be interesting and will be based on logs and probably testimony from bradley.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

41. What part of that simple post was hatey..

for real?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

82. Its an interesting topic and the bulk of the post you responded to

had nothing about punishment. Just a negotiation pre-trial for evidence.

[joshcryer]

38. Manning isn't that smart, his security layer was about as good as your or mine is right now.

He went directly from his home IP to freaking Lamo. He talked about all sorts of shit to Lamo, bragged about what he did. This is one reason I don't feel too sorry for him for getting caught, he knew what shit he was involved in and decided to trust a snitch. Rule number one should be that everyone you talk to is a snitch, ergo, talk to no one. The whole point of Wikileaks is to dump files to them, and to do it via anonymous means (stolen wifi access point, whatever).

In any event, it's likely Manning will lie about Assange's involvement, in order to get a lesser penalty, but in the end it'll be his word against Assange's.

[Eric J in MN]

135. Adrian Lamo says that he told Bradley Manning

...that he could keep what he wrote secret, protecting him as a jouralist and as a clergyman.

Lamo claims Manning said he didn't want to be protected in either way.

I believe that Lamo offered that protection, but not that Manning refused it.

[joshcryer]

175. Lamo offered it in the logs which is why they're inadmissable afaik.

Manning could actually get out if he had good enough lawyers.

[Pavulon]

205. Manning's ID on siprnet is the nail in his coffin

forensic reconstruction alone will support a death penalty charge.

[joshcryer]

37. It's highly likely that they spoke in non-complicit manner in any logs.

I know these types of people from when I was involved with hacking / cracking. Basically you can't trust anyone.

Manning got owned by Lamo, not Wikileaks. Lamo released everything he had, presumably. What's unfortunate is that any of Mannings Wikileaks contacts apparently didn't tell him to keep his mouth shut and to use BNCs and proxies and whatnot.

[Pavulon]

43. If Assange built a fast lane for manning or contacted him

he has a problem. If he actually did what he said he did, he may be ok. This article hints at difficulties for assange.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html

[joshcryer]

46. Assange isn't a moron. There will be no hard evidence of what is claimed.

He said she said is not proof in a court of law, especially a high profile case.

[Pavulon]

49. Sure it is. People have been sentenced to death on testimony

of just that nature. If manning implicates him and any evidence supports that claim, well that is bad for assange. Lots of people who thought they weren't morons turned out to be bad criminals.

Hannsen and Kevin Mitnick come to mind.

[joshcryer]

53. We'll see then, won't we? Discovery and actual indictment are two different things.

I don't see the US DA indicting Assange just on Mannings testimony.

[Pavulon]

56. Discovery is the one thing espionage crims have had in their favor in the past

the death penalty would come off the table because the feds did not want the evidence in the clear. Pollard and hannsen show this. With manning there everything in discovery is sitting at the NYT. so the needle is on the table for him. I bet he pleas to avoid that.

Any digital record and testimony from manning on assange (or his people) would go a long way.

[joshcryer]

61. Which leads us back to whether or not Manning was that smart.

He went to Lamo, a known snitch for the FBI, and told him everything he did. :(

I don't think Manning has his own insurance file, it makes little sense, he comes off as a naive child who just wanted to be a "hacker" and to be "respected" and to be "remembered."

[Pavulon]

62. he may be so dumb he has the file and does not know it.

unless he shredded that hard drive, its contents can be recovered by this level of technical capability. Short of having to admit they can walk through aes256 under oath, whatever he encrypted will be recovered.

[joshcryer]

64. Heh, the CIA can't walk through AES 256.

NIST wouldn't recommend it for top secret (highly classified) material if they could or even if they thought that anyone could.

[Pavulon]

68. No I am sure the NSA can not, in public,

break a common cipher, the DES of its day.

[joshcryer]

71. I am sure the NSA can not, in private, crack AES.

I am sure that they would not use it internally in the US government if it they did not consider it secure.

[Pavulon]

74. I am glad you are sure.

and there have many ciphers that were unbreakable you can squash with rental time on farms.

[joshcryer]

77. Yes, but even the cyphers that have been "broken" are considered secure until 2030.

AES is approved by the NSA and indeed, recommended.

[Pavulon]

81. I would doubt the GRU is using it(nt)

[JDPriestly]

104. Pavulon, there may be other ways to obtain the records of Manning's

transmissions. He was in the military. I don't know where he was, but there may be a sort of record like a phone record of his transmissions. I don't know how far they would reach, that is whether they would record transmissions to the ultimate and final destination.

It's quite a puzzle. We really can't be sure how it will end. But the only way that Assange can be implicated is if he somehow encouraged the leaking of the material. If I remember correctly, some sort of agreement has to be shown, but it does not have to be verbal, in order to prove a conspiracy. I could be wrong about that.

If Assange just opened servers up for people who claimed to have material they wanted him to have, I'm not sure whether that would be enough to show an agreement or not. That's sort of like the editor of a newspaper placing a slot on their door to receive tips from the public. That's probably part of reporting and protected by the First Amendment, I would guess. After all, if you watch old movies about reporters, they always get anonymous tips that some police investigator has to trace down. The reporters, traditionally, don't get in trouble just for opening up the means to get the tips and publishing the information they receive through that means.

[glinda]

139. Post 124 BBC video and also the discussion about how Lamo's info was tapped....

[JDPriestly]

95. The Rosenbergs were convicted on less evidence, but

that was a long time ago. The prosecutors might be able to trace the communications between Manning and Wikileaks. That is probably their only hope.

Manning's testimony after so much time in solitary might not be very reliable or at least might not be very persuasive to a jury.

I don't know how it works when you have a civilian and a member of the military accused of conspiracy? I don't know how the military and Article III courts interact.

[Pavulon]

97. He can be discharged tomorrow..(nt)

[JDPriestly]

113. By the way, Pavulon, another look at this might help us get our perspective:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

The law that would apply if Assange had purchased this information or sold it is different than the law that applies when he simply publishes it for everyone and anyone to see. Assange is exercising freedom of speech. He is not secretly obtaining information for an enemy. That is a huge difference, I believe.

The government has a huge hurdle to cross to find a claim against Assange on which it can succeed. And that is the undeniable fact that Assange simply publishes information that he receives from whistleblowers. That is and exercise of free speech, not espionage or theft or anything else. It is simply an exercise of free speech. Some have argued about whether he is protected as a member of the press. Looks to me like it really doesn't matter.

And I note that the term "abridging" is particularly limiting on the government's ability to indict someone for exercising free speech rights.

Abridge: a archaic : deprive
b : to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>
2
: to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>
3
: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sens

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

[Pavulon]

146. rosenberg gave it up for free, still burned.

compensation is not the issue. Free speech not the issue. no matter. he conspired or he did not. that all that matters.

[JDPriestly]

177. Rosenberg gave it to people identified as our enemies. They did

not publish it for the public in general.

Take for example, the video of the shooting of the reporters in Iraq. Now, Iraqis probably knew well before that video was released that the journalists had been shot. It's we Americans who did not know.

And of course the video shows the inhumanity and brutality of the shooting -- something which Iraqis are quite familiar with, but again which we Americans or at least many of us do not know.

And so it is with much of the information in Wikileaks. The people in the countries concerned already know that part of the information that is factual -- or at least know enough to suspect the rest. The information provided in Wikileaks is mostly for the edification of the American people. And, guess what, it is our information. We pay to have that information collected, prepared, transmitted, disseminated and stored. It is ours.

If you watch the BBC interview, you hear the argument for publishing this kind of information.

Let's take one example from Wikileaks, the report on the conversation with, I believe, the king of Saudi Arabia. It is interesting that the king of Saudi Arabia spoke about how the US and Saudi Arabia, I think he used the term "we" went into Iraq. And then the king of Saudi Arabia went on to encourage the US to invade or bomb Iran. I bet most of the world, especially our "enemies," let's say Iran, North Korea, Venezuela maybe, maybe even China, know the extent to which the Saudi Arabian monarchy influences our foreign and military policy. They make it their business to watch that sort of pattern.

But most Americans don't know the extent to which Saudi Arabia influences our foreign and military policy. The Wikileaks are mildly interesting to non-Americans. They corroborate what many of them already know. The Wikileaks mostly educate us.

So, there may be some leaks that are really news to our enemies, but probably far fewer than we would like to believe. These documents are secret in order to keep the information away from Americans. It's sad, very sad, really.

Does our government have information that should be kept secret? Yes. But at least what I have read in the Wikileaks is not that kind of information. A lot of fuss over very little, in my opinion.

[Bragi]

164. Thanks for that, good information /nt

[Bragi]

138. When did that last happen? /nt

[Pavulon]

148. mcveigh got put to sleep

on testimony from conspirators. that conspirator lives in florence co.

manning was more than likely informed that he too could aspire to die at USP terre haute, in a quick 3 years, if he decides no to cooperate.

Bet he thought about that a bit.

[Bragi]

154. He wasn't a foreign citizen

McViegh wasn't a foreign citizen in a foreign country who had to be extradited by hyper-political U.S prosecutors on a flaky "conspiracy" charge. American justice was able to have at McVeigh unobstructed by international or foreign laws. So the parallel fails.

[Pavulon]

156. manning is an american.

and he could catch the needle here with minimal effort, and the only thing that would stop a legal execution of a foreign citizen would be extradition terms.

[JDPriestly]

93. Lamo may not be a very reliable witness.

The transcripts of the communications between Lamo and Manning are hearsay and inadmissible for most purposes in a court as the article explains. The prosecutors would have to find more evidence than that such as the evidence on exactly how the material was transmitted to Wikileaks and what verbal communications accompanied it. I'm not computer-savvy enough to know how easy it would be to get that, but I don't think it would be very easy. It might not be very reliable after all this time (assuming it has been some months) either unless the US government was tracking the transmissions the whole time -- which is a definite possibility.

[Pavulon]

98. Manning will be the key witness(nt)

[Eric J in MN]

136. a journalist providing a server-address is like providing a phone number NT

NT

[Pavulon]

142. Lets see how a jury equates that... bet not(nt)

[joshcryer]

44. "He said she said" is not enough to convict someone on, maybe an indictment...

...but it'd be a weak one, at that.

[Pavulon]

51. Will be interesting to see what other

evidence is presented at trial.

[joshcryer]

57. If there is other evidence, which would shock me.

You have Lamo's logs and Manning's testimony. There's nothing beyond that.

[Pavulon]

60. I wonder if the FBI or CIA have anything to add

my bet is yes.

[joshcryer]

63. Assange and the top Wikileaks guys have serious security.

Even if the FBI were to, for instance, confiscate all of the top Wikileaks' peoples computers, those computers are encrypted and the fifth amendment would protect them from releasing their encryption keys, thus keeping any self-incriminating data from every seeing the light of day.

Assange in particular, if you read his essays, is a very paranoid guy, and likely follows this level of security on a compulsive level.

[Pavulon]

66. Why would the NSA need his passwords?

like saying the FBI would need the keys to your home to get in. Hope they are using homegrown crypto, makes that process easier.

[joshcryer]

69. Because AES isn't crackable as yet? Because AES is recommended by NIST for TOP SECRET data?

Because it's likely that NSA is even using it in their own internal security?

[Pavulon]

72. I wonder if they used DES too?

again they will not publicly break that cipher.

[joshcryer]

76. NIST recommends 3TDEA until at most 2030, but the US government is AES.

Note that NIST does not recommend DES except for the three key variety since that one has yet to be busted.

[Pavulon]

80. Given the history and construction of DES

i make similar assumptions about AES. I wonder if the KGB (or whatever they call themselves now) use AES? That may do a better job of underscoring my position.

[joshcryer]

84. Yeah, I had this discussion before, maybe it was with you.

But the whole of AES implementation is open and the initial seed keys are designed, arbitrarily, to produce good values. I had links on this but I don't any longer, they chose them because they'd fill out the hashtables appropriately, not because they allowed for an attack.

A full AES-256 FIPS 140-2 implemention has no known attack. And the US government uses it for its TOP SECRET information.

[Pavulon]

91. I understand you point

and AES is probably used, I use it to secure my work. I would NOT use it if I were the Russians or Chinese, just saying. Based on the history of the its predecessors. Obviously we have a topic here we cant really prove.

I would agree for most things AES256 is quite capable.

[joshcryer]

119. I'd use it if I were Russian or Chinese, I'd just change the seed values if I was paranoid.

Otherwise AES has held up to insurmountable scrutiny, for nearly 20 years. At the bare minimum I'd use my own Rijndael (which is basically AES with seed values and a few other bits up in the air).

[SoapBox]

20. I loves ya Julian!

...you be the man.

And WAY more of a man, than the weasels in various governments.

[The abyss]

25. I don't believe that Assange or wikileaks is going away anytime soon

The US government is just making themselves look even more deranged.

I started out as a major supporter of wikileaks. I wanted to see the shit-hit-the-fan and the mobs take to the street. I wanted (still want) to see the lying politicians hanging from lamp posts and court house flag poles.

I became totally disgusted when there wasn't much beyond what a normally astute adult did not already know. I became very suspicious.

Still am suspicious - to some degree.....

Now - I'm not so sure.

I am starting to believe that Assange/wikileaks IS having a considerable impact on Joe & Suzi american. I am beginning to think that the impact is in the form of language. Language and verbal rationalizations that the controlled MSM is being forced to use in their night-time sleepy mode of "news".

News blurbs & cartoon nonsense comments that appear, at the moment, to be causing Joe & Suzi not only to stir around but actually start talking.

[Pavulon]

28. I have yet to recieve my OJ prize from Wikileaks..

most people dont really care about this shit because they cant spell myanmar, cant find it on a map, and have no idea of any concept of how it fits in global politics.

So you had the stories on the personal stuff, the stories on things that really should not be in public venue, and not much more. Not saying there is no value, just you have a pig and a pocket watch problem.

[The abyss]

35. Wake up! Smell the coffee!

Times they are a-changin'

Stay off political blogs!

Spend some time down at the local "hot-stove" grease joint. Listen to the Ol' guys. They are rather pissed and tired.

Even better yet!

Spend a couple hours listening to any local high school forensics meet or collage forensics event.

That is your future. They own the world and I wish them well.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

70. Yes and to post animated kitty gifs

to further destroy the humanity of all who oppose me.. i only drink rainwater and grain alcohol...why you ask?

[joshcryer]

73. No he's pointing out how the justice system works.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

111. What are you talking about? He said Manning would be pressured and that the US would indict.

And Manning is being pressured (tortured even) and the US is looking to indict.

But they won't get the indictment, that's where I disagree with him.

[EFerrari]

90. It's unlikely that our "justice" system will have the opportunity

to "work" on Assange. The EU can't send him here, we have the death penalty, solitary confinement and other problems. Plus, as I pointed out up thread, our Veep has called him a terrorist and a host of American politicians have chimed in, up to and including calling for assassination. I doubt the EU can send him here without riots breaking out over such a breach of their own law.

[Pavulon]

92. The EU sends criminals here all the time, we agree not to execute

check out the google..

[Bragi]

141. The U.S has not waived the death penalty yet for him, right?

Therefore, no extradition.

[Pavulon]

143. Thay always do, but you have it out of order..

there will be an indictment with at least a conspiracy charge (no dp) then extradition. As we always do for eruo and others who ask we will waive the DP. Because time in supermax is much better.

[Bragi]

149. Chronology noted

Also noted is your glee regarding America's appalling supermax prisons.

Actually, come to think of it, it probably makes sense for European countries to refuse extradition not just if the death penalty is still on the table, but also if sentencing to supermax is a possible outcome.

I'm sure you'd agree that countries that care about human rights have to be careful when handing someone over for U.S-style "justice".

[Pavulon]

151. Cant put him in genpop, some one would smash his skull in with a mop handle

like dahmer. to live in prison he will serve time in isolation.

[Bragi]

157. More reason he can't be extradited

You are a prince to be offering up these examples of things Assange can cite to make his case that he ought not be turned over for politicized prosecution in the U.S, prosecution that could result in cruel and unusual outcomes such as death, torture by supermax, inflicted insanity through long-term solitary confinement, etc. America's prisons are a disgrace, and their very existence as sentencing options justifies denying an extradition request for Assange.

[Pavulon]

160. except for those pesky treaties, you know legally binding thingies nations

sign to deal with trash like assange. if he is indicted, he is extradited, no matter how many groupies he has or how popular he is. Reality is far different than what is going on upstairs..

[Bragi]

167. Treaties have provisions, right?

And extradition treaties have provisions that reflect international law, which provides that a country should not hand people over to the justice system of another country if they have reason to believe that the persons will be treated unjustly.

Believe it our not, many countries consider the death penalty, torture by supermax, and the infliction of mental illness through brutality and solitary confinement, as being unjust outcomes.

[Pavulon]

168. there is no torture by supermax provision in any treaty as that is made up

by posters on the internet. he can not be executed, end story.

[Bragi]

169. No "end story" for you on that

Extradition isn't an automated process, nor is the death penalty the only issue considered in extradition proceedings.

Let me give it to you simply:

Countries with a rule of law typically make extradition subject to review by that country's courts. These courts may impose certain restrictions on extradition, or prevent it altogether, if for instance they deem the accusations to be based on dubious evidence, or evidence obtained from torture, or if they believe that the defendant will not be granted a fair trial on arrival, or will be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment if extradited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

Extradition is a bit more complicated than, say, getting a vendor's permit. And as the legal norms and rights afforded accused persons in the U.S have diverged considerably in recent years from those of other nations, so too has extradition to the U.S become more complicated, and less certain.

[Turborama]

203. Ironically, this case proves your point...

...about extradition from Europe to America not being as easy as Pavulon (aka lethal injection) thinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Extradition_to_US

[Pavulon]

209. he will not get a charge that carries the DP, if he does it will be waived.

however if charged he WILL be extradited. Treaty matter. Just like if someone uses a computer in the UK to crack MI5 or 6 systems or steal from a UK bank their ass will be on a jet quick.

Bet on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

[Turborama]

226. No, you don't know what you're talking about. America is not the police of the world anymore

On 8 July 2010 The European Court of Human Rights said that it would not allow Masri to be extradited to the United States to face terrorism charges until it is satisfied he would not be treated inhumanely. The court relied for its judgement on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which applies to British law. It is an absolute prohibition for a signatory to the ECHR to remove anyone to a place where they would be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment.

In past cases, the ECHR has stopped the UK deporting suspected foreign terrorists to places where they might be executed or tortured. In the Masri case this has been extended to refusing extradition to a country where he might be jailed for life and where the prison regime is judged to be too harsh. The ruling would apply to any extradition to the US unless American authorities can guarantee in advance that the suspect will not be incarcerated in a so-called supermax prison. The court said there should be further legal argument on whether life without parole would breach the suspects’ human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Extradition_to_US

Abu Hamza extradition to US blocked on human rights grounds
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/100046585/abu-hamza-extradition-to-us-blocked-on-human-rights-grounds/

Abu Hamza extradition to US blocked by European court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/08/abu-hamza-human-rights-ruling

[Pavulon]

232. So we can lock him up with swedish girls to rape and free drinks

that sounds plausible. and just how much aid in billions or trillions does the US give to the EU? If he is indicted he will be on a plane here. You think boy hero will ride the coat tail of mass murders and run around a free man?

I'll take that bet.

You think this person Hamza will be a free man on the street? That could set some presidents too.

[Turborama]

239. "how much aid in billions or trillions does the US give to the EU?" None. Wow.

& "he is not in the EU, he is in the UK" :rofl:

Your lack of knowledge is disappointing.

Please try harder next time.

[Pavulon]

248. These links seem to indicate billions..

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40454469/US_Ready_to_Back_Bigger_EU_Stability_Fund_Official
http://www.google.com/search?q=us+bailout+european+banks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Turborama]

249. "just how much aid in billions or trillions does the US give to the EU?" Banks bailouts aren't "aid"

And your tense is wrong. Nice try, though.

[Pavulon]

251. recheck

Out of the 87 banks that saw benefits from the U.S. bailout measures, 43 were foreign banks – many of which are based in Europe. Along with France and Germany, TARP also induced positive results in Denmark, Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands, the report said.

http://www.europeaninstitute.org/August-2010/us-bailout-funds-saved-european-banks-without-much-transatlantic-reciprocity.html

[Turborama]

252. Your attempt to redefine "aid" is a fail

Bailouts for banks in Europe will have no impact whatsoever on Julian Assange's extradition.

[Pavulon]

253. no billions of dollars will not in any way impact

relations with states named in Julian's wide spread dump of documents stolen by bradley manning with our without his assistance.

I bet he will end up just like polanski..

[Turborama]

254. No, they won't impact the extradition of any prisoners

Because, contrary to what you might believe, in Europe the banks don't control the courts.

[TorchTheWitch]

185. that shoots down the theory that Sweden is just making it all up

regarding the sex crimes case just so they can hand him over to the US for the US to hold him or torture him or kill him because of the Manning docs, now doesn't it? And you can also add Britian since it was determined by many here when they arrested Assange that Britian is in on the big sex crime conspiracy, too.

[Bragi]

187. I don't think they're "making it all up"

What's happening is that the Swedish prosecutor is helping out his U.S friends by throwing as many obstacles at Assange as possible, despite the weakness of their legal case.

The U.S will eventually try to do the same by trying to extradite him for whatever trumped up reason they can come up with.

This is just another example of Rovian-style political use of the law to delay and smear an opponent except this time the smear campaign is being run by the Obama White House.

[joshcryer]

112. If there's an indictment, Assange will be deported, and we'll have him.

But that assumes he'll be indicted, which he won't.

[EFerrari]

123. If he's deported, he'll likely go to Australia, not here.

But I hope you're right. This could be a big mess for the administration, above and beyond all other considerations.

[joshcryer]

127. AU is a US puppet by and large, he'd come here.

He won't get indicted because there's no evidence, and if there is I won't feel bad for Assange, because he'd have to have been utterly stupid to leave that kind of evidence behind. His job is being a repository for data, not actually going out and hacking to get that data. The whistle blowers are supposed to come to him (which so far the evidence shows Manning did), that was the beauty of it.

I think it's a stretch to say that Assange committed conspiracy. It's even more of a stretch to suggest that there's evidence as such. If there was the indictment wouldn't be in discovery stage.

It'd be happening. And we'd hear about it through our usual "unnamed sources."

[EFerrari]

129. The PM is a puppet but she's been outed (by wikileaks, lol)

and there is a lot of support in Australia for Assange.

Unless there is evidence that Assange hacked into the system himself, they won't be able to put a case together, afaik. On the other hand, tptb hate Assange with a passion so, that doesn't rule out them floating something and trying to bluff their way through it. That's pretty much how they do everything.

[Bragi]

144. And the death penalty must be waived /nt

[Pavulon]

150. Always is, but he could die in florence without ever picking up a phone

for the rest of his life. If the charge supports it.

[Bragi]

152. Not sure what you're talking about there

Maybe it's just me, but you come off to me a bit ghoulish, as someone who enjoys the suffering of others. Does that describe you?

[Pavulon]

153. Mr assange would not be sentenced to time in any prison

if did not commit a crime to warrant it. Because of his profile and probable charges he will not be spending time in genpop.

[Bragi]

158. What, you making ex cathedra rulings now? /nt

[Pavulon]

159. putting him in with genpop would be bad for his overall health

any time he serves here would be in solitary.

[Bragi]

161. Solitary = Cruel Punishment = No extradition /nt

[Pavulon]

162. oped = nice != truth

not how the world works.

[Nihil]

186. That was a spot on description ...

... of old "Ignored":

> a bit ghoulish, as someone who enjoys the suffering of others.

You can gather this from just about any post or even from his choice
of username ("the second of three drugs administered during most lethal
injections in the United States").

The repeated drooling over possible punishments for people who haven't
even been charged with a crime is one reason why my ignore list isn't
empty. Glad to see that my perception of him matches that of others.

[valerief]

33. I'll bet she doesn't ask him what he reads. nt

[Better Believe It]

36. K & R

[Kingofalldems]

42. Rove wants him hunted down--which makes him okay with me

[AlbertCat]

107. SEX!!! SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES!!!!!! SEX!!!!

Did everyone just forget what was in the interview?



No?


Y'sure?


OK... we'll try again...



SEX!!!! SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES!!!! SWEDEN!!!!! SEX!!!!

[findrskeep]

109. Just watched CBS news and the interview wasn't on there..

Does anyone know what this is about? Talk about editing! They must have edited the interview completely out.

[snappyturtle]

125. I know....glad to hear I'm not the only one. I tuned in four minutes

late and figured Katie led off with the interview (short)....yep, it wasn't in the rest of the program either. Well, CBS must have gotten cold feet.

[myrna minx]

117. K&R n.t

[The abyss]

121. You know what - I think I'll kick back and watch a movie

Perhaps michael mann's version of "Last of the Mohicans"

Nice to think about a story that captures truth and integrity.

[AlbertCat]

134. Perhaps michael mann's version of "Last of the Mohicans"

Are you saying that film captures truth and integrity?

Hey... I worked on that film and it was a nightmare.... because Michael Mann is a loony. There is little to nothing accurate or truthful about that film. He hired every expert in the book, but eventually went over every dept. head if he, oh, didn't like the color of something. Even the "replica" of Ft William Henry was altered to be much bigger than the real fort. Costumes were gotten directly from comic books. Make up (very important to Native American warriors) was altered on whims. It was filmed in NC, not NY... and so forth.

Never depend of a film to give you truth. They are all illusion.



now I'll toot my own horn.

I make costumes. All the characters I made clothes for die horribly.... in the FILM. I made the Cameron's things (yes I hand quilted that "caraco jacket" Mrs Cameron dies in) Cpt. Heyward and Col. Monroe are mine as well as are lots of European extras (all slaughtered)

Good movie though.

[The abyss]

145. Nice to meet someone in the illusion business!

My compliments! Excellent work! I know very well where it was filmed.

I am just paused at the point where Monroe has surrendered the fort.

Illusion and reality are a twisted mirror. Have you ever read the original literary work? Most difficult for some to wade through in this century.

Mann is well known for being a difficult artist, but much better than dealing with Peckinpah, I would think.

I appreciate this film version and the strength of it's characters.

Did you do any work on "Manhunter"?

[pleah]

133. K&R

[DeSwiss]

155. K&R n/t

[kgnu_fan]

166. Wow, Surprise! Katie actually did really good interview! I never expected!

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7161186n

[Turborama]

182. Appreciation post to Pancuronium Bromide for helping keep threads on this topic kicked.

Muchas gracias!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

188. lol

[Pavulon]

206. A handy drug used in E-Med

on a routine basis.

[Turborama]

210. It is the second of three drugs administered during most lethal injections in the United States.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, pancuronium is recommended in the protocol for euthanasia. After administering sodium thiopental to induce coma, pancuronium is delivered in order to stop breathing.

[Pavulon]

212. And my wife gives it to trauma patients

where use of other drugs would risk death. Threatened to use it on me to make me shut up. It paralyzes you, however its not quite a "recreational" event, since you breathing is impacted.

Given a pharmacy of drugs to choose to end my life with it would not make the list..

[Turborama]

214. That wasn't very nice of her

Maybe using chlorpromazine would be kinder?

[Pavulon]

216. That one is less common so they say

seroquel is a more common drug now to knock someone right the fuck out of (or back into) reality. Generally if the police bring you into an ER going truly bonkers benzos of some type and a major tranq will be used to get the person fixed up and on their way to somewhere they will receive less than adequate psyc care.

One of the saddest things in US history is was the shutdown of state psychiatric care facilities and the dumping of residents into prison one homelessness. But hey, one flew over the cukoos nest made everyone feel good about it.

[BlueMTexpat]

190. I had never heard the word "exfiltrate" before Katie C used it here.

For a moment, I thought that she had succumbed to Palin's making-up words routine. But it turns out that "exfiltrate" is "military jargon" that is most commonly used in the context of removing personnel or units from areas under enemy control by stealth, deception, surprise, or clandestine means.
By her very use of the word, Couric implicitly agreed that the information released by Wikileaks was removed "from areas under enemy control."
I can't believe that she intended that, but I personally am enjoying the thought.

[AngryAmish]

191. Your use of allcaps certainly convinced me of the importance of this story

Next time maybe use a larger font for more emphasis. Perhaps bold, also.

[Turborama]

193. I just copied and pasted it from the CBS release

Interesting that it took all caps to convince you of how important it was.

There's only one thing as annoying as criticisms of just the titles of OPs yet no comment on the content on the body of text, complaints about the use of capital letters.

[AngryAmish]

194. No, the complaint is valid.

Looks like it struck home also.

[Turborama]

196. Valid to you. The only whinge about it comes in the 191st reply 20 hours after it was posted

If your intention was to "strike home", you've failed. I'm pedantic about the correct use of grammar, but find complaints about the use of capital letters just pathetic.

[AngryAmish]

197. Valid to all. It has been determined.

[Turborama]

198. Funny.

Thanks for the kicks. :hi: