Colonel Denise Lind ruled that general issues of motive were not relevant to the trial stage of the court martial. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP
Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of being behind the largest leak of state secrets in America's history, has been denied the chance to make a whistleblower defence in his upcoming court martial in which he faces possible life in military custody with no chance of parole.
The judge presiding over Manning's prosecution by the US government for allegedly transmitting confidential material to WikiLeaks ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Manning will largely be barred from presenting evidence about his motives in leaking the documents and videos. In an earlier hearing, Manning's lead defence lawyer, David Coombs, had argued that his motive was key to proving that he had no intention to harm US interests or to pass information to the enemy.
The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, ruled that general issues of motive were not relevant to the trial stage of the court martial, and must be held back until Manning either entered a plea or was found guilty, at which point it could be used in mitigation to lessen the sentence. The ruling is a blow to the defence as it will make it harder for the soldier's legal team to argue he was acting as a whistleblower and not as someone who knowingly damaged US interests at a time of war.
"This is another effort to attack the whistleblower defence," said Nathan Fuller, a spokesman for the Bradley Manning support network, after the hearing.
The judge also blocked the defence from presenting evidence designed to show that WikiLeaks caused little or no damage to US national security. Coombs has devoted considerable time and energy trying to extract from US government agencies their official assessments of the impact of WikiLeaks around the world, only to find that he is now prevented from using any of the information he has obtained.
On the home page, #6 under most read. I'd post a link but hotlinking to RP doesn't work thru our firewall. I'd post a screenshot but they changed MS Paint in Windoze 7 and I can't figure out how to make the goddam thing resize and crop.
Oh, I see it now. It was up to number 3 - for a two-year-old story...?
I have Windows 7 at home, but I haven't used Paint there yet - I have other graphics software on that computer. At work I still have an XP box. with the older Paint.
It's not on their now. Maybe some disgruntled hireling was messing around with the site.
On the home page, #6 under most read. I'd post a link but hotlinking to RP doesn't work thru our firewall. I'd post a screenshot but they changed MS Paint in Windoze 7 and I can't figure out how to make the goddam thing resize and crop.
Sweden has cancelled an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.
The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape but did not give any further explanation.
Sweden has cancelled an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.
The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape but did not give any further explanation.
Sweden has cancelled an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.
The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape but did not give any further explanation.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But international treaties among most of the world's nations have a different opinion, and it's that opinion that's the rule of law in this case. Espionage has always been a dirty, immoral business. But as long as one single nation (or in this case, a mercenary person) practices espionage, then every nation has to in order to keep an even playing field. In that respect it's more destructive than nuclear weapons.
I'm not a party to figuring whether or not what is posted on WikiLeaks is true or not, so I'm not going to leap to any conclusions about alleged "murder, execution and the nastiest human rights violations going" because I have no authority in the matter. Are you an official investigating WikiLeaks? Is this a vetted, official finding, or just your opinion? Because if the allegations are still unproven, that leaves only Assange and his cronies as the bad guys. Spies don't get trials; they can be killed on sight per the Geneva Convention. Those are the rules.
Lord knows there's enough scandal within US secret agencies. And there's plenty of scandal that has actionable evidence behind it, like the Valerie Plame outing. There's no valid reason to ignore bona fide evidence in favor of the say-so of a crooked man who isn't willing to make his claims in court under oath.
if you're interested, you really should spend a little time and look into what wikileaks has exposed, there's a lot of documentation and even video (which isn't opinion)
human rights shouldn't be compromised, they aren't negotiable, even in senseless wars
and they certainly supercede any made up political rules dealing with nebulous secrecy
court? trial? under oath? assange is very familiar with "the kill list" and how whistleblowers are treated
just look at bradley manning, a guy who sees innocent people being slaughtered and tries to stop it?
Suppose that Assange had leaked Russian, rather than American, documents, and the circumstances were otherwise the same. Then Sweden would not hesitate for a moment to question Assange in the United Kingdom and to guarantee that he would not be extradited to Russia. Those who think that this analogy is unfair have something to learn about contemporary history. They can, for example, look at the brutal and criminal treatment of Bradley Manning, to take one of many examples.
It is worth adding that Sweden is quite willing to follow Washington's orders in even worse circumstances than this - for example, when the United States wanted Sweden to send someone to Mubarak's Egypt to be tortured.
exposing murder, execution and the nastiest human rights violations going supersedes any made up rules about national security
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But international treaties among most of the world's nations have a different opinion, and it's that opinion that's the rule of law in this case. Espionage has always been a dirty, immoral business. But as long as one single nation (or in this case, a mercenary person) practices espionage, then every nation has to in order to keep an even playing field. In that respect it's more destructive than nuclear weapons.
I'm not a party to figuring whether or not what is posted on WikiLeaks is true or not, so I'm not going to leap to any conclusions about alleged "murder, execution and the nastiest human rights violations going" because I have no authority in the matter. Are you an official investigating WikiLeaks? Is this a vetted, official finding, or just your opinion? Because if the allegations are still unproven, that leaves only Assange and his cronies as the bad guys. Spies don't get trials; they can be killed on sight per the Geneva Convention. Those are the rules.
Lord knows there's enough scandal within US secret agencies. And there's plenty of scandal that has actionable evidence behind it, like the Valerie Plame outing. There's no valid reason to ignore bona fide evidence in favor of the say-so of a crooked man who isn't willing to make his claims in court under oath.
But one has to wonder why? A tattle-tale (or whistleblower) seems to imply that someone is exposing something someone else would rather not see end up in the light of day. In short, someone is having their dirty laundry exposed.
I can't say because I've never been in a position where a whistle-blower came to me. I honestly don't know what I would have done. I can venture a guess that so many people cheat the system in one way or another that literally nobody is "without sin" themselves. Ergo, nobody wants to be the one to pass along the reports of misconduct of a peer out of fear of tit for tat retaliation. Those who whose hands are forced to do their duty tend to resent the ones who forced their hands, and act accordingly.
Any time an organization grows big enough that not everybody knows each other well enough to trust each other, the quality of trust that's at the foundation of the organization's prosperity becomes perverted and twisted. And people keep quiet and let it be because they want the gravy train to keep on rolling. That's the kind of society that many of us live in. Maybe that's how society has always been.
But who is "the bad guy/gal", the one with the dirty laundry or the one exposing it?
Here's where the meat of the matter is, because we're talking about espionage and people who are paid to do things that are unlawful. These people operate outside of, or in defiance of civil laws, so they're by definition not "whistle-blowers". Whistle-blowers are common people who see crime or other wrongdoing and report it. Spies can't be whistle blowers as well as spies because the main job description of a spy is to break laws.
Assange participated in military espionage against the United States of America. That makes him an enemy of the United States of America. The content of what he exposed is secondary to his acts of espionage. He made his bed (or coffin, as the case may be) and now he must lie in it. Those are the rules of espionage, per the Geneva Convention.
If I had my 'druthers, nobody would know the name Assange, and we'd all be debating whether or not PFC Bradley Manning is a patriot or a traitor.
exposing murder, execution and the nastiest human rights violations going supersedes any made up rules about national security
morality and ethics don't change when you put on a costume or have a fancy title
no one has the right to kill innocent people or initiate violence and aggression on them as well
But one has to wonder why? A tattle-tale (or whistleblower) seems to imply that someone is exposing something someone else would rather not see end up in the light of day. In short, someone is having their dirty laundry exposed.
I can't say because I've never been in a position where a whistle-blower came to me. I honestly don't know what I would have done. I can venture a guess that so many people cheat the system in one way or another that literally nobody is "without sin" themselves. Ergo, nobody wants to be the one to pass along the reports of misconduct of a peer out of fear of tit for tat retaliation. Those who whose hands are forced to do their duty tend to resent the ones who forced their hands, and act accordingly.
Any time an organization grows big enough that not everybody knows each other well enough to trust each other, the quality of trust that's at the foundation of the organization's prosperity becomes perverted and twisted. And people keep quiet and let it be because they want the gravy train to keep on rolling. That's the kind of society that many of us live in. Maybe that's how society has always been.
But who is "the bad guy/gal", the one with the dirty laundry or the one exposing it?
Here's where the meat of the matter is, because we're talking about espionage and people who are paid to do things that are unlawful. These people operate outside of, or in defiance of civil laws, so they're by definition not "whistle-blowers". Whistle-blowers are common people who see crime or other wrongdoing and report it. Spies can't be whistle blowers as well as spies because the main job description of a spy is to break laws.
Assange participated in military espionage against the United States of America. That makes him an enemy of the United States of America. The content of what he exposed is secondary to his acts of espionage. He made his bed (or coffin, as the case may be) and now he must lie in it. Those are the rules of espionage, per the Geneva Convention.
If I had my 'druthers, nobody would know the name Assange, and we'd all be debating whether or not PFC Bradley Manning is a patriot or a traitor.
It's a fact of life that people hate tattle-tales more than they hate the people who they tattle on. (...)
But one has to wonder why? A tattle-tale (or whistleblower) seems to imply that someone is exposing something someone else would rather not see end up in the light of day. In short, someone is having their dirty laundry exposed. But who is "the bad guy/gal", the one with the dirty laundry or the one exposing it?
Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of feminism when it comes time to justify the war in Afghanistan, or those who become overnight advocates of gay rights when it comes time to demonize the regime in Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in Ecuadorean press freedoms, these sex assault allegations — as serious and deserving of legal resolution as they are — are being cynically exploited as a political weapon by many who have long despised Assange for reasons entirely independent of this case.
Then there's the ideological cause. As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal.
It's a fact of life that people hate tattle-tales more than they hate the people who they tattle on. It's fscked up thinking and I don't subscribe to it personally, but I'd be lying if I said that's not how it works.
I don't have any sympathy for Assange. He's a spy and a mercenary. He has no excuse for not knowing the risks of his chosen profession. Going to prison or catching a sniper's bullet is part of the job, and he should man up and quit whining about it.
The rape part is a separate matter. If his legitimately criminal activities put him in the hot seat for his espionage activities, that's his problem.
