Julian Assange speaking live NOW {VIDEO}

reply to post by colin42


Right.. Again I have no issues with legitimate whistleblowing.

The problem with the comparison you are trying to make is the information released. The people you are referenceing did not disclose hundreds of thousands of documents that showed absolutely no criminal activity / wrongdoing.

Manning / Assange were not whistleblowing when they released documnents that showed no criminal activity.


List of charges for Pvt. B. Manning

Listed by alleged code violation

The charges can be broken down as follows:
UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy): 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.
UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts. Mostly related to computers.[2][3] Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes.
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms
Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information

UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code: 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute.
18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case.[4][5]
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.[6]


Total number of counts: 34

The reason it states second set of charges is because they amended the charges and added to it during the investigation.

Breakdown of the charges and the action they are based on -

Second set of charges (2011)

The second set of charges came on March 1, 2011, and are as follows:[11]

[edit] Additional Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 104 (Aiding the enemy)
Spec. 1: Knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy through indirect means

[edit] Additional Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)
Spec. 1: (statute not given): Causing intelligence to be published, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy
Spec. 2: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): A file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi"
Spec. 3: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): Memorandi from a US intelligence agency
Spec. 4: 18 U.S.C. § 641: 380,000 records from the CIDNEI database
Spec. 5: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEI database
Spec. 6: 18 U.S.C. § 641: >90,000 records from the CIDNEA database
Spec. 7: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEA database
Spec. 8: 18 U.S.C. § 641: >700 records from a US Southern Command database
Spec. 9: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >3 records from a US Southern Command database
Spec. 10: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >5 records relating to an operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan
Spec. 11: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): The files "BE22 PAX.zip" and "BE22 PAX.wmv"
Spec. 12: 18 U.S.C. § 641: 250,000 records from the State Dept Net-Centric Diplomacy database
Spec. 13: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): >75 US State Dept cables
Spec. 14: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): The State Dept cable named "Reykjavik-13"
Spec. 15: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): A record of a US Army Intelligence organization
Spec. 16: 18 U.S.C. § 641: The US Forces - Iraq Microsoft Outlook / SharePoint Exchange Server global address list

[edit] Additional Charge 3: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)
Spec. 1: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Bypassing security mechanisms
Spec. 2: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Adding unauthorized software to a SIPRNet computer
Spec. 3: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Adding unauthorized software to a SIPRNet computer
Spec. 4: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Using an information system for other than its intended purpose
Spec. 5: Army Reg. 380-5, para. 7-4: Wrongfully storing classified information

Pvt. Manning's website - Charge Sheet List

In general -
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL

One last observation regarding the Apache incident that started this whole thing.

Reporters who are imbeded with military units are not magically protected by their media status. There is a risk associated with following military units in times of war who are engaged in combat. This is not the first time there has been an issue with reporters being in a war zone. Its no different than medical personnel in war zones. The Red Cross on their uniforms / helicopters is suppose to protect them from being attacked as they are a non combat unit yet they are targeted. Its a risk they take fully knowing what can happen.

Media is the same...

During the initial attacks into baghdad members of the media were killed when they took up a position just below the floor that was being used to engage US forces. A US tank responded resulting in the deaths of the enemy units and sadly the media who were one floor down.

Media has been targeted by the enemy as well, as we saw with David Pearl and we can move on from there. The argument some people make (this is not directed at anyone in particular) is based on an intentional bias and selective morality depending who is to "blame" for the incident.

I have not seen these peoples going after the other entites (not the US) who have killed reporters / media. People remain quiet simoly because they cant use it to go after the US.

If you are going into a war zone and you are going to be travelling with people who are armed then there is an increased chance of death from fire.

We have now had 2 incidents in Syria where western journalists / media have been intentionally targeted by Syrian government forces yet people seem to ignore those actions.

To use incidents as a wedge when you dont have all the facts, when people dismiss evidence because it doesnt support their agenda of blame, when people argue the law should apply differently based on who violated the law....

Its hypocritical and just sad...

reply to post by Xcathdra

I have stated a few times now that I support people who legitimately whistleblow. In the case of Assange and Manning they went beyond that...

My understanding of whistle blowing is that it is almost never legitimate. Most on that list broke the law to expose the wrong doing, many of which were covered by the secrets acts

Using the list you provided please show me where those people released hundreds of thousands of documents that showed no criminal activity.

Stealing a £1 or £1000,000 the crime is the same. Out of those hundreds of thousands of documents there are definitely crimes but they are committed by the very people that decide to peruse the criminals. Don’t see them arresting themselves anytime soon.

Let me ask you this. Despite all those dirty little secrets JA and Manning exposed what kills more of our citizens. Their actions or our government’s secrets, those little secrets they decide are not criminal.

As for the comment about where they can interview Assange again you are ignoring the court ruling in Sweden that says no to that type of action.

And you ignore they could but have decided not to for reasons they will not make public and not because their law prevents it. Secrets again. Again secrets that need not be kept in a true democracy. If their actions are true then why do they need to hide behind the veil of secrecy?

Secondly the laws of Sweden were violated, not the UK and because of that they have every right to investigate the allegations in Sweden.

My understanding is that no charges have been made; until they are no law has been broken. This has been stated here many times here and on other threads

You have still not answered why Sweden has not interviewed JA at the embassy. It is not uncommon so why not?

Sweden has not explained why they won’t interview him at the embassy. Why?

If they did and he had real charges to face I would join you in saying he must go back and face them till then I smell a rat.

Again what is the difference between interviewing JA in the embassy with the UK police outside to interviewing JA in a Swedish police station with the CIA outside because the questions will be the same and so will the answers.

What is different to me is if it is found JA has nothing to answer to in the embassy he books his ticket to Ecuador if he has nothing to answer to in Sweden he books his ticket to the USA and goes directly to jail and a very uncertain future.

If on the other hand it is found after the interview in the embassy that he indeed has charges to answer Ecuador would find it hard to justify protecting him and the problem is solved.

Originally posted by planefixer
I don't understand all the different comments ?!?!
People have already pointed out the facts. The real fact, the only reason Sweden wants him is because the US is pushing them. It wasn't rape.... they want to get him out of that embassy and put him somewhere where he will never see daylight again.
Why??? The reason I would think most of you are on a CONSPIRACY website...LOL
Seriously.. this site is always about the cover ups, the secrets, "TPTB"....on and on.
Yet when someone has the balls to give you the info on a silver platter half of this site is now against him?? He hasn't put anyone in danger. This crazy country has and will continue to do it, as long as the people keep putting up with it. To me, he has given proof that half the shi* on here that is talked about is true.

The idea that the US is leaning on Sweden to extradite Assange so that he can be sent on to them makes absolutely no sense.

Assange is currently, and has been for more than two years, in the country most likely in the world to agree to a US extradition request for him.

Why on earth initiate a plot involving Swedish women quite unecessarily ,where 101 things could go wrong ?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Right.. Again I have no issues with legitimate whistleblowing.

Again I don’t recall ever seeing any whistle blowing that did not break the law even within a private business.

The problem with the comparison you are trying to make is the information released. The people you are referenceing did not disclose hundreds of thousands of documents that showed absolutely no criminal activity / wrongdoing.

I disagree and also the ability to disclose such information in such vast numbers has only recently been possible but even you are showing by your above statement this is not about charges of rape, this is about exposure of the secrets of the power brokers.

Your list of charges against Manning shows he is in a very bad position but here is a list of charges against Nelson Mandela

Was he wrong to fight against the oppression of the apartheid system?

We now have a new oppressive regime, the secret society and we have those prepared to fight against it. Mandela chose the only thing at hand to fight, weapons. JA fights with information yet both are classed as terrorists by TPTB and they are determined to remain in control of the information he released

I have seen too many times how the governments of this world abuse their power and control what information we are allowed to see. Evil works in the dark, JA and manning briefly showed them in the light and now TPTB are determined to have their revenge.

I cannot do much about that but I will not accept at face value the crap they are feeding us. You appear happy too. The world of full of different people and long may that last.

reply to post by Alfie1

The idea that the US is leaning on Sweden to extradite Assange so that he can be sent on to them makes absolutely no sense.

Assange is currently, and has been for more than two years, in the country most likely in the world to agree to a US extradition request for him.

Why on earth initiate a plot involving Swedish women quite unecessarily ,where 101 things could go wrong ?

A good question and one I thought about and have no answer too but I disagree that the UK is the most likely to give him up to the US.

See Abul Hamzar as just one example out of many.

So all I can go by is what I see in front of me. See my posts above

reply to post by colin42


I dont know about the UK not giving him over to the Americans. What about our `special relationship` do you honestly think that with the state of the economy is in. That Cameron and cleggy would`nt hand him over? My guess is that they would hand him over. They were even talking about storming the embassy for gods sake.
Now George Galloway has entered into the debate. On Assanges side. So its going to be fun watching what happens from here on in.

reply to post by illuminnaughty
Yep but who say's once out of the embassy the US will not claim first dibs on Assange? The one sure thing is they want him out from the embassy so he has no protection.

Cameron and Clegg would find it hard to make a decision on what colour to paint the door of Number 10 Downing street even though the only choice is black.

This man is gonna be done for now the CIA will spy on Him until He dies and they will get Him for something eventually.

Hey Ecuador! What's up with this?

Like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Alexander Barankov has worked to expose government misconduct via the Internet. Both men have received refuge on Ecuadorian territory. But while the South American country made world headlines granting Assange diplomatic asylum on Thursday morning, Barankov faces imminent extradition from Ecuador to its new ally Belarus, described by most observers as “Europe’s last dictatorship.”

The plight of Barankov poses a real test of Ecuador’s commitment to human rights. A former Belarusian army captain, Barankov arrived in Quito in 2008 thanks to the Ecuadorian government’s very liberal immigration laws. He then set up a blog denouncing corruption and other crimes allegedly committed under authoritarian ruler Alexander Lukashenko. Ecuador initially granted him refugee status, but after a state visit by Lukashenko to Quito on June 29, he was arrested and is being held in the capital’s infamous, 19th century prison while the top court hears the case on Belarus’ fresh extradition request. If sent there, according to his partner, Maribel Andrade, he will face charges of treason and could be put to death.
Read more: world.time.com...

Does Ecuador have "a commitment to human rights"? Why are they granting status to him as a political refugee and then jailing him upon the leaders state visit? Perhaps Mr. Assange should have done more to research his choices regarding the actualities of requesting asylum to Ecuador?

Free Sausage! Oh I mean Assange. As a fellow Aussie I think Assange has gotten himself in a bit of a bad situation, what is he going to do live in the embassy forever. Looks like he's screwed.
He's an idiot what did he expect. Some governments aren't going to be too happy with disclosing classified info.
He was in Sweden before and the CIA didn't kidnap him. If the US wanted him why couldn't they get him from the UK, why get him to go to Sweden?

reply to post by illuminnaughty


i, like a lot of casual observers i suspect, didn't actually know what the full accusations against assange were.

thanks to galloway spouting his mouth off i now know that they are a lot more serious than i initially thought and it does cast a lot of doubt into my mind that this is anything to do with a 'set up'.

i genuinely think the swedes want to talk to him for crimes he commited in their country against two women.

the people who keep saying it's just to do with the fact he didn't wear a condom should be ashamed of themselves. the things he has been accused of are far more serious than that.

if he had any respect for himself and his wikileaks work he'd sort this out asap, if he is guilty of the rape and sexual assaults the best thing he could do is distance himself from wikileaks asap.

finally, i genuinely don't get what the usa, or anyone/where else, would get out of it by setting him up.