Okay folks... This thread is NOT a rehash or to break open a can of 'he did, he didn't' or 'he is, no no he isn't'. There are literally a half
dozen or more threads in various states of that discussion and most passionate with heated debate.
I'm posting this thread for one specific question and one specific issue.
WHY have this trial for Manning?
We know he has entered guilty pleas on all but the top counts which carry Life for him. He even offered to plea to lesser charges on those
some technical issues like dates
were stipulated to. I've never quite understood this.
His guilty pleas already bag him for 20 years. That's a good day by anyone's measure. WHY the pile on with the expense, not to mention further
public airing of the evidence they really didn't want headlined to the public the first time??
I believe I found an answer in an Associated Press story just a few minutes ago. I think NOW WE KNOW why this is SO important
to TPTB and why,
as I suspected, Manning is NOT the point of this. He's secondary to the purpose of getting a conviction here. Yes..... I said secondary to his
This is how:
First Amendment lawyer James Goodale, author or "Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles," said a
Manning conviction on any one of eight espionage counts or a federal computer fraud charge would enable the government to charge civilians, including
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
"In Assange's case relative to Manning, they can treat each of them as co-conspirators and prosecute them," Goodale said in an
The path through Manning to Julian Assange has never been a clear one. They've never charged Assange with anything out of the United States because
they have never been ABLE TO. The evidence wasn't there which could withstand challenge in open Court to an extradition request.
*IF* they can convict Manning on the pile-on charges, then THOSE open the door to clearly charging Assange and his Wikileaks crew. Maybe others?
Wikileaks wasn't the ONLY one who got this stuff, please remember. There were other media outlets who, at the same time, got parts of the same
HOW far do they intend to take this
for chasing Media and self identified Journalists like Julian Assange? How far into MSM
some London organizations who got intelligence out of this at the same time, do they intend to push?
I'd never had cause to think they may be looking to expand well beyond both Manning AND
Assange to jump to bigger fish through one or both of
them. I figured Assange was the prize. However, I now find myself pausing for a moment, given the interview quoted above with someone who lives and
works in this area of law and theory.
What does everyone think about intentions to dramatically expand the scope of the chase, if they get what they want here? THAT would explain why
something seamingly petty and vindictive in nature....really isn't.