Judge in Bradley Manning trial just tweeted: "All of you need to know the truth" (unconfirmed)

reply to post by ugie1028


If someone did mod it to display the check mark then who took it away? The faker or Twitter?

Is that check mark - technically - just some gif overlay though?

Remember the Benghazi fiasco with twitter?
When a lot of users avatars from multiple accounts started showing conspiracy type benghazi stuff?

Interesting.

reply to post by Swills


I have no idea. I'm thinking twitter did that so people aren't fooled (like I/we were for a few minutes there.) I've been using twitter for about 2 years now and I never knew you could click on the verified check-mark to see if they're real or not. I got back in time to check it out and it was an image and not a link. im guessing someone reported the account and twitter mods took action.

If Twitter did remove it for being fake, surely they would have suspended the account.....in fact, given the nature of this and how much attention it has received, surely they would have terminated it anyhow? I don't use Twitter, so I don't know how they handle it, does anyone else know?

reply to post by woogleuk


I see bots on twitter get banned 15 minutes after the account is created.

I've also seen accounts get banned after a number of users report the account.

For twitter to remove the image and not block the account is suspect, however the user his/herself could of removed the image to prevent the account from being banned.

Originally posted by ugie1028

I'm being pressured by the Government and Military to prosecute an innocent young man.

There you have it. It's fake. Right there.

I'm suprised nobody picked up on that.

Judges don't prosecute people. They convict them. He's already been prosecuted.

1. Law. a. to institute legal proceedings against (a person).

dictionary.reference.com...

Besides the analysis above, wikileaks confirmed that this account was and is fake (as most of us suspected.) DAMN! Had hopes, but knew it was too good to be true.

A fake Twitter account for Denise Lind, the judge presiding over Bradley Manning's case, has been created. The account has been praising PFC Manning's actions.

Source

There's no way a judge posted those, they would be thrown off the case and possibly dis barred. I think it's someone trying to stir up attention for Manning.

reply to post by DAVID64


So why isn't the account banned yet people?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


it most likely will, just give it some time. there isn't a twitter gnome at the ready to use its ban hammer at a moments notice. I think it should've been removed by now though. this is starting to stink a bit.

reply to post by ugie1028


I think it stinks too; someone mentioned that Twitter bots are banned within minutes, yet this person has gone on for a day or so, and despite obviously being reported; has not been banned or deactivated...

Suppose this was real and this lady really did post those comments, what would we expect to see happen??

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


that was me who made that point. I've seen bots and regular members get banned/suspended... but not this account.

why twitter why? why must you fuel the flames of this conspiracy!

Interesting how when referring to leaked classified documents, there's always the statement "People could've been killed or put in danger." Well yes, what about all the people that were killed, ruthlessly, & without any real reason? That's exactly the sort of thing whistle-blowers may seek to expose. I'm not denying what Manning did was a crime; but let's not forget that in doing so he also brought light to many horrific crimes that would've never been disclosed to the public in the first place.

Compassion, empathy & the conscience is being disgraced; the essence of humanity is being stripped bare. These psychopaths & profiteers who run the show want nothing more than a blind, apathetic populace.

reply to post by seeker1963

How do you question the current administration, in one breath, and then defend them in the next is beyond me!

Well, the same way that I can say I have a great deal of respect for the release of the Pentagon Papers. I also respect what Assange did. In fact, there but for the grace go I and what other % of us here at ATS could have been Assange if the opportunity to run such a site and get it supported had been available?

Those two people have two very important differences about them from Manning, IMO. They both made no bones to the world about who they were, what they were and what they did for a living or were doing in conscience. They didn't lie and deceive to avoid detection and hide. Rats hide. People of strong conscience don't. That's just how I feel about it.

Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers is also the direct comparison as being the source and leak combined where Assange was just the reporter and one of many in the end. Ellsberg knew WHAT he was and wasn't releasing. He didn't try and smuggle out everything he could carry from RAND Corp. Although I'm sure there was more of interest. That's a whole different thread with those people.

The point tho is, he released specific things because his conscience called him to. After reading them and understanding the core issues of Vietnam as he did, I also would have done what he did.

Manning? Well, good lord. He just data dumped the WHOLE databases for Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. State Department he could physically gain access to and get out the digital back door without getting busted. It took media organizations months to completely analyze and digest it all.

Rumor would have it... some of that State Department "NOFORN" level stuff was really really damaging to the subtle points of good relations between leaders. Personal level things that did no one absolutely any good to know, never should have been in databases or reports to begin with, IMO but did a whole lot of HARM by just purging to the public domain blindly.

The enemy of my Enemy IS NOT necessarily my friend, to the degree that fits. As seems to be the thoughts of some who supporting Manning. Trust and loyalty to those immediately around him and who depend on him has to mean something. He broke all that and ongoing for time, at that. It's not academic with shooting wars ongoing, IMO.

This is better than an tv show, perhaps the intention?

Either way, the message is clear.

reply to post by ugie1028


This is the type of story I want to believe. It is difficult to believe that a judge would speak out via twitter - that part is difficult to believe. The fact Bradley Manning is innocent is not difficult to believe. He let the public know what was really happening and that will never be a crime.

When a person steps through invisible barriers - such as this supposed reality that we live in - where lies are around the world in record time and the truth is fighting to be heard let alone travel - then it stands to reason that Bradley Manning is only guilty of one thing - having a conscience. He is a man among men - surrounded by psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists he stepped out from among them - he did what many others have probably thought about but did not have the strength to do.

A judge on twitter telling the world about his current trial - hard to take seriously let alone believe but it is the type of news article we need to hear. Let's hope it is true and maybe we can make it true!!!! Maybe the judge has spoken to family and friends and it is via one of them that as seen this twitter appear.

Much Peace...

Of course it's real. Ever read Ayn Rand? Dagney understands Art and the subconscious better than anyone.

The Supreme Court set up that account to release the truth. To hide things in plain sight, so that
you believe it's fake.

Truly, you must understand.

reply to post by ugie1028


There is a difference between a "whistle blower" and a member of the military that has earned a Top Secret Classification. This was a young man that worked as an S-2 Intelligence Anyalyst and came across information that he felt should be made public, in violation of the trust placed in him by his command and the Army.

My own feelings are that a majority of the information, the part I read anyway, had already made it before the public, the rest of it was low levvel gossip between the State Department and attache's assigned to dig for that sort of gossipp.

The big concern was other tidbits of infor that was not censored that revaled the names of those who gace information and those who cooperated to have people accused of terroism arrested. Those people did not deserve to have thier names revealed so the same organizations could retaliate against the...that was wrong.

Does this young man deserve to be in jail well yes he broke the law. Does he need to be locked for the rest of his life, no not in my opinion and he is not a hero, hero do not get other people killed which by releasing the information he did he very well may be responsiable for someone elses death.

As for the tweet, no militay Judge would rish their career especially in such a high profile cases and resort to a twitter account to say anything about a procedding they are currently in charge of...just would not happen.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by DAVID64

 

So why isn't the account banned yet people?

wow glad I took the time to read a few posts here otherwise I would've said the exact same thing. I mean wtf is up with the mods around here? I would swear they do this selective moderating for clicks. there's another topic that has been "closed until further review", yet it is still at the top of the headlines in bold caps and you are still able to read it. what the heck are they reviewing? the agenda driven plebiscite censorship around here is annoying