-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Wikileaks strikes again!
- Thread starter jcfd2201
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
So most of you guys buy/bought into this smoke and mirrors show, the media has been spouting? My money says there's a back story to all of this,...
Is the real power of the US Government using the chosen ones gang, to run a game of their own? Was this a way to tell Iran an North Korea openly how others felt about them? Could be back channels were not working and the front doors were kicked open.
So most of you guys buy/bought into this smoke and mirrors show, the media has been spouting? My money says there's a back story to all of this,...
Is the real power of the US Government using the chosen ones gang, to run a game of their own? Was this a way to tell Iran an North Korea openly how others felt about them? Could be back channels were not working and the front doors were kicked open.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So most of you guys buy/bought into this smoke and mirrors show, the media has been spouting? My money says there's a back story to all of this,...
Is the real power of the US Government using the chosen ones gang, to run a game of their own? Was this a way to tell Iran an North Korea openly how others felt about them? Could be back channels were not working and the front doors were kicked open.
</div></div>
This, most certainly.
I've noticed that all the "damming allegations" that have been coming out serve to make the U.S. look more earnest in its attempts to moderate the pathological desires of the world's madmen. I'd suspect this whole mess was arranged to make President What-Comes-After-Trillions? look like he was competent instead of what we really know him to be.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So most of you guys buy/bought into this smoke and mirrors show, the media has been spouting? My money says there's a back story to all of this,...
Is the real power of the US Government using the chosen ones gang, to run a game of their own? Was this a way to tell Iran an North Korea openly how others felt about them? Could be back channels were not working and the front doors were kicked open.
</div></div>
This, most certainly.
I've noticed that all the "damming allegations" that have been coming out serve to make the U.S. look more earnest in its attempts to moderate the pathological desires of the world's madmen. I'd suspect this whole mess was arranged to make President What-Comes-After-Trillions? look like he was competent instead of what we really know him to be.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
I'd like to be in the room each time, the Public Gov., faces the real Gov. folks. Then again most believe what they see or read from the media as the whole story. I will give the media one thing they are real good at following a smell, even if it's their own ass's. I get a kick out of watching the tail chasers, all you have to do is throw bait and it's game on.
I also enjoy listening to those that think policy is made at 1600 Penn ave.
I'd like to be in the room each time, the Public Gov., faces the real Gov. folks. Then again most believe what they see or read from the media as the whole story. I will give the media one thing they are real good at following a smell, even if it's their own ass's. I get a kick out of watching the tail chasers, all you have to do is throw bait and it's game on.
I also enjoy listening to those that think policy is made at 1600 Penn ave.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
Last time I checked...
The former USSR left the world in a very nice mess with Radioactive, Biological, and Chemical dump sites all over Europe and Asia.
There is government sponsored genocide going over almost all the world at any given time.
The UN is almost corrupt as certain parts of the Afghan government. Oil for Food...
China and Russia have made friends on first name basis with Iran and Venezula. Arms Sales, training, and supplies.
Iran's Pashadaran has already been proven to be crapping on our operations as well as rogue elements of Pakistan's ISI
So why isn't anyone complaining about why WikiLeaks won't release any 'secret' documents from those countries?
Or will someone wake up before your '1st Amendment' rights get switched to 'State Sponsored Propaganda'?
Or will you just stare like a dumbass at a couple of guys wearing wool trenchcoats taking down Old Glory for a flag with more Red and Yellow...
More Hammer and Sickle?
Last time I checked...
The former USSR left the world in a very nice mess with Radioactive, Biological, and Chemical dump sites all over Europe and Asia.
There is government sponsored genocide going over almost all the world at any given time.
The UN is almost corrupt as certain parts of the Afghan government. Oil for Food...
China and Russia have made friends on first name basis with Iran and Venezula. Arms Sales, training, and supplies.
Iran's Pashadaran has already been proven to be crapping on our operations as well as rogue elements of Pakistan's ISI
So why isn't anyone complaining about why WikiLeaks won't release any 'secret' documents from those countries?
Or will someone wake up before your '1st Amendment' rights get switched to 'State Sponsored Propaganda'?
Or will you just stare like a dumbass at a couple of guys wearing wool trenchcoats taking down Old Glory for a flag with more Red and Yellow...
More Hammer and Sickle?
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
Dammit!! What happened to the good old days of fake heartattacks, car crashes in tunnels and suicides by stabbings(37 times in the back) or even better yet execute the bastards on primetime T.V. and send the message LOUD and CLEAR
ON'T FUCK WITH THE U.S.A.!! and for the ones that don't like it GET THE FUCK OUT!! You think the Israelis would tolerate this shit for one minute? Can you say slip and fall in the shower with a blowdryer.
Dammit!! What happened to the good old days of fake heartattacks, car crashes in tunnels and suicides by stabbings(37 times in the back) or even better yet execute the bastards on primetime T.V. and send the message LOUD and CLEAR
ON'T FUCK WITH THE U.S.A.!! and for the ones that don't like it GET THE FUCK OUT!! You think the Israelis would tolerate this shit for one minute? Can you say slip and fall in the shower with a blowdryer.Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
Some of those that are calling for Assange's head while wrapping yourself in the flag probably ought to review the history of a very similar incident - The Pentagon Papers.
(I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source, but it is fast - accuracy on the little details of these events? I dunno):
Pentagon Papers
Ellsberg Trial and Mistrial
NY Times Sheehan
Supreme Court - NY Times v US Gov
We are being led by a select group of fools and crooks, as is the rest of world. While Manning isn't a good thing, on balance - the leaks themselves are.
Just another example of the corruption that has been exposed: WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
Good luck
Some of those that are calling for Assange's head while wrapping yourself in the flag probably ought to review the history of a very similar incident - The Pentagon Papers.
(I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source, but it is fast - accuracy on the little details of these events? I dunno):
Pentagon Papers
Ellsberg Trial and Mistrial
NY Times Sheehan
Supreme Court - NY Times v US Gov
We are being led by a select group of fools and crooks, as is the rest of world. While Manning isn't a good thing, on balance - the leaks themselves are.
Just another example of the corruption that has been exposed: WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
Good luck
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of those that are calling for Assange's head while wrapping yourself in the flag probably ought to review the history of a very similar incident - The Pentagon Papers.
(I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source, but it is fast - accuracy on the little details of these events? I dunno):
Pentagon Papers
Ellsberg Trial and Mistrial
NY Times Sheehan
Supreme Court - NY Times v US Gov
We are being led by a select group of fools and crooks, as is the rest of world. While Manning isn't a good thing, on balance - the leaks themselves are.
Just another example of the corruption that has been exposed: WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
Good luck </div></div>
Yes , all Governments are a pack of lying arse wipes and will abuse your civil rights at will if they think they can get away with it and then try to lie their way out of -diplomacy -what a crock of shit -only for people that drink better wine than me . Thanks for posting Mo_Zam_beek as it helps those that are beating their plow shears into shape for war with Assange to have some perspective !
hERE IS SOMETHING FOR sHARPSHOOTER to really give you the shits -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of those that are calling for Assange's head while wrapping yourself in the flag probably ought to review the history of a very similar incident - The Pentagon Papers.
(I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source, but it is fast - accuracy on the little details of these events? I dunno):
Pentagon Papers
Ellsberg Trial and Mistrial
NY Times Sheehan
Supreme Court - NY Times v US Gov
We are being led by a select group of fools and crooks, as is the rest of world. While Manning isn't a good thing, on balance - the leaks themselves are.
Just another example of the corruption that has been exposed: WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
Good luck </div></div>
Yes , all Governments are a pack of lying arse wipes and will abuse your civil rights at will if they think they can get away with it and then try to lie their way out of -diplomacy -what a crock of shit -only for people that drink better wine than me . Thanks for posting Mo_Zam_beek as it helps those that are beating their plow shears into shape for war with Assange to have some perspective !
hERE IS SOMETHING FOR sHARPSHOOTER to really give you the shits -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
If the First Amendment means anything with respect to freedom of speech, it certainly applies to Assange and Wikileaks.
One's outrage might properly be reserved for the source of what Wikileaks published.
And, as a practical matter, how do you deal in a legal system with a citizen of a foreign country outside the jurisdiction of the United States?
If there is a justification for going after Assange, then certainly the U.S. should be going after those calling for jihad against the United States.
If the First Amendment means anything with respect to freedom of speech, it certainly applies to Assange and Wikileaks.
One's outrage might properly be reserved for the source of what Wikileaks published.
And, as a practical matter, how do you deal in a legal system with a citizen of a foreign country outside the jurisdiction of the United States?
If there is a justification for going after Assange, then certainly the U.S. should be going after those calling for jihad against the United States.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional protections afforded to american citizens could not be afforded to enemies of the state or non-citizens. I'm thinking specifically of the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. If they were not allowed immunity, how can Assange or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be afforded constitutional rights and immunities?
This post really tests the rules of the forum, so I'll leave it at that. We are treading on eggshells at this point.
I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional protections afforded to american citizens could not be afforded to enemies of the state or non-citizens. I'm thinking specifically of the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. If they were not allowed immunity, how can Assange or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be afforded constitutional rights and immunities?
This post really tests the rules of the forum, so I'll leave it at that. We are treading on eggshells at this point.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
You miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is a document which places limitations on the government of the United States.
The effect that it has on people who are not in the United States is an entirely separate matter.
Are people in and of other countries afforded protections outlined in the Constitution of the United States? No. Are they subject to the jurisdictional power of the United States?
No.
You miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is a document which places limitations on the government of the United States.
The effect that it has on people who are not in the United States is an entirely separate matter.
Are people in and of other countries afforded protections outlined in the Constitution of the United States? No. Are they subject to the jurisdictional power of the United States?
No.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
One could ask the question if forigners are not afforded these protections that a US citizen has why are they not ? are they not so that the Government can be immoral in the way they treat other countries citizens and not be answerable for these possible injustices and possible crimes ? Western countries like ours should lead the way in equal justice for all but in truth we fail misserably and our own legal systems tread into corruption and stupidity for someones ends.
Come and kill someone in my country and you,d be lucky to get 20years and probably out in 10-15, where is the justice in that .
I like to see members here on the forum speaking out against your own governments wrongs and not just following their rehetoric like sheep to the slaughter waving the flag blindly
One could ask the question if forigners are not afforded these protections that a US citizen has why are they not ? are they not so that the Government can be immoral in the way they treat other countries citizens and not be answerable for these possible injustices and possible crimes ? Western countries like ours should lead the way in equal justice for all but in truth we fail misserably and our own legal systems tread into corruption and stupidity for someones ends.
Come and kill someone in my country and you,d be lucky to get 20years and probably out in 10-15, where is the justice in that .
I like to see members here on the forum speaking out against your own governments wrongs and not just following their rehetoric like sheep to the slaughter waving the flag blindly
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is a document which places limitations on the government of the United States.
The effect that it has on people who are not in the United States is an entirely separate matter.
Are people in and of other countries afforded protections outlined in the Constitution of the United States? No. Are they subject to the jurisdictional power of the United States?
No.
</div></div>
People who are not in the United States =/= Citizens of the United States. The Constitution constrains the government's power. In some cases, it constrains it equally against citizens and non-citizens, within our borders.
"Are people in and of other countries afforded protections outlined in the Constitution of the United States?"
It depends. The answer is not no in every case.
"Are they subject to the jurisdictional power of the United States?"
This is also not "no." The Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that Gitmo--land that we LEASED from Cuba, over which Cuba is still sovereign, is within the jurisdiction of the US courts. Do I agree with this ruling? No. But is a fact that there are cases in which people of and in other countries, who are within the control of the US government, are subject to the the jurisdiction of our courts.
Additionally, it's not a requirement to be a citizen to serve in our military. Are persons of and in other countries, who wear our uniform, subject to UCMJ? You bet!
Answers to legal questions aren't always as clear as it might seem...especially in issues where laws conflict, federalism applies, treaties, etc. I'm not an expert on the law of <span style="text-decoration: underline">anywhere</span>, but I'm aware of enough possible scenarios to negate your well intentioned, but false statements regarding US law.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One could ask the question if forigners are not afforded these protections that a US citizen has why are they not ? are they not so that the Government can be immoral in the way they treat other countries citizens and not be answerable for these possible injustices and possible crimes ? Western countries like ours should lead the way in equal justice for all but in truth we fail misserably and our own legal systems tread into corruption and stupidity for someones ends.
</div></div>
1. Foreigners who are not afforded the same legal protections as Americans should complain to their governments. If you're talking about foreigners who are, for whatever reason, in the custody of the United States government, that's a different topic entirely and requires more discussions.
2. The suggestion that countries "should" stand for some norm is not one that everyone will agree with you on; I certainly don't. I don't believe in equal justice for war criminals. In fact I don't even believe that "equal justice" is even possible, but I admire your idealism.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is a document which places limitations on the government of the United States.
The effect that it has on people who are not in the United States is an entirely separate matter.
Are people in and of other countries afforded protections outlined in the Constitution of the United States? No. Are they subject to the jurisdictional power of the United States?
No.
</div></div>
People who are not in the United States =/= Citizens of the United States. The Constitution constrains the government's power. In some cases, it constrains it equally against citizens and non-citizens, within our borders.
"Are people in and of other countries afforded protections outlined in the Constitution of the United States?"
It depends. The answer is not no in every case.
"Are they subject to the jurisdictional power of the United States?"
This is also not "no." The Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that Gitmo--land that we LEASED from Cuba, over which Cuba is still sovereign, is within the jurisdiction of the US courts. Do I agree with this ruling? No. But is a fact that there are cases in which people of and in other countries, who are within the control of the US government, are subject to the the jurisdiction of our courts.
Additionally, it's not a requirement to be a citizen to serve in our military. Are persons of and in other countries, who wear our uniform, subject to UCMJ? You bet!
Answers to legal questions aren't always as clear as it might seem...especially in issues where laws conflict, federalism applies, treaties, etc. I'm not an expert on the law of <span style="text-decoration: underline">anywhere</span>, but I'm aware of enough possible scenarios to negate your well intentioned, but false statements regarding US law.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One could ask the question if forigners are not afforded these protections that a US citizen has why are they not ? are they not so that the Government can be immoral in the way they treat other countries citizens and not be answerable for these possible injustices and possible crimes ? Western countries like ours should lead the way in equal justice for all but in truth we fail misserably and our own legal systems tread into corruption and stupidity for someones ends.
</div></div>
1. Foreigners who are not afforded the same legal protections as Americans should complain to their governments. If you're talking about foreigners who are, for whatever reason, in the custody of the United States government, that's a different topic entirely and requires more discussions.
2. The suggestion that countries "should" stand for some norm is not one that everyone will agree with you on; I certainly don't. I don't believe in equal justice for war criminals. In fact I don't even believe that "equal justice" is even possible, but I admire your idealism.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You don’t think races should mix, I guess out there in the bean field it be a strange place?
You are not painting a very nice picture of your world and your politics Mr. Sharpshooter .I suggest maybe a few holidays abroad to experience the world of diverse culture would be just what your therapist would recommend.
</div></div>
sharpshooter said nothing about race... you assumed, and you know how that makes you look, dont you ch'e??? don't be bashin on beanfields, or are you assuming (once again) he is a racist redneck??? it seems to me you are the one who is painting yourself as a one world rule type, with universal order talk, your previous attempt of satire about the U.S. constitution, let one easily know where your comming from. The world of diverse culture??? why is America the only country that is called the "melting pot of the world" there are more culture's, races, ethnicities here, giving them all EQUAL opportunities HERE, the hell with us giving other countries equal opp. how did we become so great, yrs ahead of every other country??? maybe you should expand your holiday travel to the U.S.A and experience the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You don’t think races should mix, I guess out there in the bean field it be a strange place?
You are not painting a very nice picture of your world and your politics Mr. Sharpshooter .I suggest maybe a few holidays abroad to experience the world of diverse culture would be just what your therapist would recommend.
</div></div>
sharpshooter said nothing about race... you assumed, and you know how that makes you look, dont you ch'e??? don't be bashin on beanfields, or are you assuming (once again) he is a racist redneck??? it seems to me you are the one who is painting yourself as a one world rule type, with universal order talk, your previous attempt of satire about the U.S. constitution, let one easily know where your comming from. The world of diverse culture??? why is America the only country that is called the "melting pot of the world" there are more culture's, races, ethnicities here, giving them all EQUAL opportunities HERE, the hell with us giving other countries equal opp. how did we become so great, yrs ahead of every other country??? maybe you should expand your holiday travel to the U.S.A and experience the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!!!
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skinney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You don’t think races should mix, I guess out there in the bean field it be a strange place?
You are not painting a very nice picture of your world and your politics Mr. Sharpshooter .I suggest maybe a few holidays abroad to experience the world of diverse culture would be just what your therapist would recommend.
</div></div>
<span style="color: #CC0000">Sharpshooter said nothing about race... you assumed, and you know how that makes you look, dont you ch'e??? don't be bashin on beanfields, or are you assuming (once again) he is a racist redneck???</span>
Sharpshooter said I quote "I could care less about the rest of the world BTW I do not believe in the one world bs or multi culti " well Skinney if sharpshooter doesnt believe in as he says "Multi Culti" he sure aint talking about spittin backky he is talikng about not mixing the different races that come from different cultures because they different to him -that is where the different races come from isnt it -different cultures.And to boot I never called him a racist or a red neck those are your sentiments of your recognition system of the situation that he and I have discussed
<span style="color: #FF0000">it seems to me you are the one who is painting yourself as a one world rule type, with universal order talk,</span>
Wouldnt be such a bad thing if it could ever be run properly -lets face it never could
<span style="color: #FF0000">your previous attempt of satire about the U.S. constitution</span>,
to what do you refer
<span style="color: #FF0000"> let one easily know where your comming from. The world of diverse culture??? why is America the only country that is called the "melting pot of the world" </span>
Its not the only country called the melting pot of the world -come down to little ol NZ and see the lot aswell just on a smaller scale .
<span style="color: #CC0000">there are more culture's, races, ethnicities here, giving them all EQUAL opportunities HERE, the hell with us giving other countries equal opp.</span>
?????
<span style="color: #FF0000">how did we become so great, yrs ahead of every other country??? maybe you should expand your holiday travel to the U.S.A and experience the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!!! </div></div></span>How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth plus a motivation to win and being very organized -but hell whats new everone does it .
Holiday in the States -been there done that and love the States and have plenty of mates from my years travelling the earth and would love to go back and travel -other than returning to northern Spain"Mundaka" where I once lived making surfboards the States is my next adventure -go and visit my south american illegal alien brother in law.LOL
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skinney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You don’t think races should mix, I guess out there in the bean field it be a strange place?
You are not painting a very nice picture of your world and your politics Mr. Sharpshooter .I suggest maybe a few holidays abroad to experience the world of diverse culture would be just what your therapist would recommend.
</div></div>
<span style="color: #CC0000">Sharpshooter said nothing about race... you assumed, and you know how that makes you look, dont you ch'e??? don't be bashin on beanfields, or are you assuming (once again) he is a racist redneck???</span>
Sharpshooter said I quote "I could care less about the rest of the world BTW I do not believe in the one world bs or multi culti " well Skinney if sharpshooter doesnt believe in as he says "Multi Culti" he sure aint talking about spittin backky he is talikng about not mixing the different races that come from different cultures because they different to him -that is where the different races come from isnt it -different cultures.And to boot I never called him a racist or a red neck those are your sentiments of your recognition system of the situation that he and I have discussed
<span style="color: #FF0000">it seems to me you are the one who is painting yourself as a one world rule type, with universal order talk,</span>
Wouldnt be such a bad thing if it could ever be run properly -lets face it never could
<span style="color: #FF0000">your previous attempt of satire about the U.S. constitution</span>,
to what do you refer
<span style="color: #FF0000"> let one easily know where your comming from. The world of diverse culture??? why is America the only country that is called the "melting pot of the world" </span>
Its not the only country called the melting pot of the world -come down to little ol NZ and see the lot aswell just on a smaller scale .
<span style="color: #CC0000">there are more culture's, races, ethnicities here, giving them all EQUAL opportunities HERE, the hell with us giving other countries equal opp.</span>
?????
<span style="color: #FF0000">how did we become so great, yrs ahead of every other country??? maybe you should expand your holiday travel to the U.S.A and experience the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!!! </div></div></span>How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth plus a motivation to win and being very organized -but hell whats new everone does it .
Holiday in the States -been there done that and love the States and have plenty of mates from my years travelling the earth and would love to go back and travel -other than returning to northern Spain"Mundaka" where I once lived making surfboards the States is my next adventure -go and visit my south american illegal alien brother in law.LOL
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth</div></div> spoken like a true vilifier of the U.S. this tells us all EXACTLY your mindset no need to go into depth, sounds to me like you should edit your profile and enter guevara after che.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> plus a motivation to win and being very organized </div></div>
ch'e... its called the AMERICAN DREAM buddy, the FREE MARKET, the CONSTITUTION our way of life and liberty, i feel sorry for those (like you) who do not conceive what they never did know. done here, I don't need to get a ban hammer, for an dense confused uninformed "type".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth</div></div> spoken like a true vilifier of the U.S. this tells us all EXACTLY your mindset no need to go into depth, sounds to me like you should edit your profile and enter guevara after che.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> plus a motivation to win and being very organized </div></div>
ch'e... its called the AMERICAN DREAM buddy, the FREE MARKET, the CONSTITUTION our way of life and liberty, i feel sorry for those (like you) who do not conceive what they never did know. done here, I don't need to get a ban hammer, for an dense confused uninformed "type".
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shot In The Dark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I'm glad wikilinks exists. We need exposure to illuminate the corruption we all know exists. Have you guys actually looked at what was leaked? I'm guessing not because it's leaks of corruption a the highest levels and "secrets" that everyone knew was taking pace anyway, i.e. China/Iran/Russia all working to back-door us, we already knew that. </div></div>
This.
Either you believe in government being accountable to its people or you don't, and the only way to hold governments and their actors accountable is to have ALL of the information.
We need more like Assange willing to stick his neck out so that we the people can have what we need in order to vote responsibly.
Otherwise we're choosing our candidates based on bad TV ads and poor excuses for news organizations like Fox News/MSNBC.
It's one thing to "know" that our government is corrupt; it's completely another to have proof to substantiate our fears and hold them accountable.
Knowledge is power, and if governments willingly hide knowledge from us, they are limiting our power as citizens with free wills.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shot In The Dark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I'm glad wikilinks exists. We need exposure to illuminate the corruption we all know exists. Have you guys actually looked at what was leaked? I'm guessing not because it's leaks of corruption a the highest levels and "secrets" that everyone knew was taking pace anyway, i.e. China/Iran/Russia all working to back-door us, we already knew that. </div></div>
This.
Either you believe in government being accountable to its people or you don't, and the only way to hold governments and their actors accountable is to have ALL of the information.
We need more like Assange willing to stick his neck out so that we the people can have what we need in order to vote responsibly.
Otherwise we're choosing our candidates based on bad TV ads and poor excuses for news organizations like Fox News/MSNBC.
It's one thing to "know" that our government is corrupt; it's completely another to have proof to substantiate our fears and hold them accountable.
Knowledge is power, and if governments willingly hide knowledge from us, they are limiting our power as citizens with free wills.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shot In The Dark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I'm glad wikilinks exists. We need exposure to illuminate the corruption we all know exists. Have you guys actually looked at what was leaked? I'm guessing not because it's leaks of corruption a the highest levels and "secrets" that everyone knew was taking pace anyway, i.e. China/Iran/Russia all working to back-door us, we already knew that. </div></div>
This.
Either you believe in government being accountable to its people or you don't, and the only way to hold governments and their actors accountable is to have ALL of the information.
We need more like Assange willing to stick his neck out so that we the people can have what we need in order to vote responsibly.
Otherwise we're choosing our candidates based on bad TV ads and poor excuses for news organizations like Fox News/MSNBC.
It's one thing to "know" that our government is corrupt; it's completely another to have proof to substantiate our fears and hold them accountable.
Knowledge is power, and if governments willingly hide knowledge from us, they are limiting our power as citizens with free wills.</div></div>
+1 for these posts...
I might add that the government is blaming these leaks on two (a PFC and a SPC) intel soldiers (from everything I've read, correct me if I'm wrong)...that is some secure system we've got in place...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shot In The Dark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I'm glad wikilinks exists. We need exposure to illuminate the corruption we all know exists. Have you guys actually looked at what was leaked? I'm guessing not because it's leaks of corruption a the highest levels and "secrets" that everyone knew was taking pace anyway, i.e. China/Iran/Russia all working to back-door us, we already knew that. </div></div>
This.
Either you believe in government being accountable to its people or you don't, and the only way to hold governments and their actors accountable is to have ALL of the information.
We need more like Assange willing to stick his neck out so that we the people can have what we need in order to vote responsibly.
Otherwise we're choosing our candidates based on bad TV ads and poor excuses for news organizations like Fox News/MSNBC.
It's one thing to "know" that our government is corrupt; it's completely another to have proof to substantiate our fears and hold them accountable.
Knowledge is power, and if governments willingly hide knowledge from us, they are limiting our power as citizens with free wills.</div></div>
+1 for these posts...
I might add that the government is blaming these leaks on two (a PFC and a SPC) intel soldiers (from everything I've read, correct me if I'm wrong)...that is some secure system we've got in place...
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skinney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth</div></div> spoken like a true vilifier of the U.S. this tells us all EXACTLY your mindset no need to go into depth, sounds to me like you should edit your profile and enter guevara after che.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> plus a motivation to win and being very organized </div></div>
ch'e... its called the AMERICAN DREAM buddy, the FREE MARKET, the CONSTITUTION our way of life and liberty, i feel sorry for those (like you) who do not conceive what they never did know. done here, I don't need to get a ban hammer, for an dense confused uninformed "type". </div></div>
You would be possibly one of the more stupid people I have incountered on this site - stop watching TV as your sounding like a b grade soap -no offence intended
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skinney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth</div></div> spoken like a true vilifier of the U.S. this tells us all EXACTLY your mindset no need to go into depth, sounds to me like you should edit your profile and enter guevara after che.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> plus a motivation to win and being very organized </div></div>
ch'e... its called the AMERICAN DREAM buddy, the FREE MARKET, the CONSTITUTION our way of life and liberty, i feel sorry for those (like you) who do not conceive what they never did know. done here, I don't need to get a ban hammer, for an dense confused uninformed "type". </div></div>
You would be possibly one of the more stupid people I have incountered on this site - stop watching TV as your sounding like a b grade soap -no offence intended
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skinney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth</div></div> spoken like a true vilifier of the U.S. this tells us all EXACTLY your mindset no need to go into depth, sounds to me like you should edit your profile and enter guevara after che.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> plus a motivation to win and being very organized </div></div>
ch'e... its called the AMERICAN DREAM buddy, the FREE MARKET, the CONSTITUTION our way of life and liberty, i feel sorry for those (like you) who do not conceive what they never did know. done here, I don't need to get a ban hammer, for an dense confused uninformed "type". </div></div>
Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that the US has exploited all sorts of unfair advantages over the past 100 years to get where it is. The free market is a myth that you find in a textbook compared to the stunts we've pulled.
Even when we were on the gold standard, we printed money to the point that we didn't have the gold to back it. When other countries threatened to cash in their dollars for gold, what did we do? We went off the gold standard and inflation was completely out of control for ten years after that. This screwed over our allies, who faithfully bought our currency under the assurance that inflation wouldn't destroy its value. Don't think that went unnoticed by the world. Everyone blames Carter for all that inflation, and I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately, that wasn't a political screwup--it was one in the making for decades prior to its occurrence, and not by politicians, but by the fed and other interests who wanted to cheat the gold standard and keep our economy going even when we probably should have had a few, or deeper, recessions.
The US is very competitive, has a very hard working labor force, and does make legitimate attempts to open its markets to the world. That said, there's still plenty of protectionism going around, plenty of "buy American" types, and plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that, in some markets, the US does refuse to compete in a "free market" sense, to the detriment of other countries who want to produce things and expand their economies as well.
It's somewhat unfortunate, to me, that people base everything that they think about the economy from just what they read in the newspaper, what politicians say, and ideology. Looking at the actual data--the hard facts--sometimes leads to a totally different conclusion about our economy, both historically and moving forward, than what these blowhards would say.
The US has a long history of hard working people, long hours, and productivity and growth. It also has plenty of vested interests on all sides of the political spectrum (lobbyists, farmers, organized labor, cartels, monopolistic firms, antitrust lawyers, etc.) that all want to undermine the free market system so they can profit.
It's hard to blame them, too....because I'm sure if you had the chance to make a lot of money, you'd probably do it, too, so long as what you were doing was "legal." And all you have to do, in order to make something, "legal," is convince a bunch of politicians to legalize whatever sort of shady business practices you want to engage in. You don't even have to get away with it forever, either, because if you make enough money fast enough, you're set for life and can sit back and have someone manage your finances and still be good to go.
I hope this post isn't too political for this forum, because it's really not intended to be political. It inevitably implicates political things, because ultimately, anything can be reduced to politics. I just hope that I was able to point out that the actual facts can lead to a contrary opinion to that which is considered common knowledge, like the myth that we actually have a free market economy, which is true if you're talking about selling copper or gold or whatever, and not so true if you're talking about selling corn or sugar.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skinney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the US become so great -probably through exploitation of many other countries wealth</div></div> spoken like a true vilifier of the U.S. this tells us all EXACTLY your mindset no need to go into depth, sounds to me like you should edit your profile and enter guevara after che.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> plus a motivation to win and being very organized </div></div>
ch'e... its called the AMERICAN DREAM buddy, the FREE MARKET, the CONSTITUTION our way of life and liberty, i feel sorry for those (like you) who do not conceive what they never did know. done here, I don't need to get a ban hammer, for an dense confused uninformed "type". </div></div>
Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that the US has exploited all sorts of unfair advantages over the past 100 years to get where it is. The free market is a myth that you find in a textbook compared to the stunts we've pulled.
Even when we were on the gold standard, we printed money to the point that we didn't have the gold to back it. When other countries threatened to cash in their dollars for gold, what did we do? We went off the gold standard and inflation was completely out of control for ten years after that. This screwed over our allies, who faithfully bought our currency under the assurance that inflation wouldn't destroy its value. Don't think that went unnoticed by the world. Everyone blames Carter for all that inflation, and I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately, that wasn't a political screwup--it was one in the making for decades prior to its occurrence, and not by politicians, but by the fed and other interests who wanted to cheat the gold standard and keep our economy going even when we probably should have had a few, or deeper, recessions.
The US is very competitive, has a very hard working labor force, and does make legitimate attempts to open its markets to the world. That said, there's still plenty of protectionism going around, plenty of "buy American" types, and plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that, in some markets, the US does refuse to compete in a "free market" sense, to the detriment of other countries who want to produce things and expand their economies as well.
It's somewhat unfortunate, to me, that people base everything that they think about the economy from just what they read in the newspaper, what politicians say, and ideology. Looking at the actual data--the hard facts--sometimes leads to a totally different conclusion about our economy, both historically and moving forward, than what these blowhards would say.
The US has a long history of hard working people, long hours, and productivity and growth. It also has plenty of vested interests on all sides of the political spectrum (lobbyists, farmers, organized labor, cartels, monopolistic firms, antitrust lawyers, etc.) that all want to undermine the free market system so they can profit.
It's hard to blame them, too....because I'm sure if you had the chance to make a lot of money, you'd probably do it, too, so long as what you were doing was "legal." And all you have to do, in order to make something, "legal," is convince a bunch of politicians to legalize whatever sort of shady business practices you want to engage in. You don't even have to get away with it forever, either, because if you make enough money fast enough, you're set for life and can sit back and have someone manage your finances and still be good to go.
I hope this post isn't too political for this forum, because it's really not intended to be political. It inevitably implicates political things, because ultimately, anything can be reduced to politics. I just hope that I was able to point out that the actual facts can lead to a contrary opinion to that which is considered common knowledge, like the myth that we actually have a free market economy, which is true if you're talking about selling copper or gold or whatever, and not so true if you're talking about selling corn or sugar.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
Downzero , thankyou for putting some reality into the arena that a few of these patriotic fundamentalist cannot bring themselves to fess up to -its just facts!! and the US is far from alone in the way it has exploited for gain .
As far as this relating to the Assange case goes it is intererting as I heard some comments from the English lawyer representing the Liberian leader Charles Taylor .The lawyer commented how if your big Militarily and politically your are more or less removed from having to make excuse for your dodgy deeds on many occasions and will never be called to give account for
He , the lawyer said that Tony Blair and Bush could easily be bought to justice if some one had the power to go them for invading Iraq after all the bullshit was uncovered that they used to invade an independent country that was not going to attack either the US or England -it just wont happen! Assange on the other hand can be bullied politically easily and Governemnts can manipulate other Governments to get what they want .I believe in one justice for all and to me that is justice -except if your a dirty Muslim Terroist -hey nobodys perfect !!
Downzero , thankyou for putting some reality into the arena that a few of these patriotic fundamentalist cannot bring themselves to fess up to -its just facts!! and the US is far from alone in the way it has exploited for gain .
As far as this relating to the Assange case goes it is intererting as I heard some comments from the English lawyer representing the Liberian leader Charles Taylor .The lawyer commented how if your big Militarily and politically your are more or less removed from having to make excuse for your dodgy deeds on many occasions and will never be called to give account for
He , the lawyer said that Tony Blair and Bush could easily be bought to justice if some one had the power to go them for invading Iraq after all the bullshit was uncovered that they used to invade an independent country that was not going to attack either the US or England -it just wont happen! Assange on the other hand can be bullied politically easily and Governemnts can manipulate other Governments to get what they want .I believe in one justice for all and to me that is justice -except if your a dirty Muslim Terroist -hey nobodys perfect !!
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
I don't know what you mean by bringing Bush to justice, but I am personally thankful that the US will never submit itself to the control of some international court. We believe in sovereignty here, and I wouldn't want to have any less of it, for any reason, nor for any ends.
I don't know what you mean by bringing Bush to justice, but I am personally thankful that the US will never submit itself to the control of some international court. We believe in sovereignty here, and I wouldn't want to have any less of it, for any reason, nor for any ends.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
Apart from Assange I hadnt hear much about the thought to be leaker of the cables,makes interesting reading .I dont know how up to date it is .
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday, Dec 15, 2010 02:15 ET
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
By Glenn Greenwald
*
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
Reuters/Jonathon Burch/AP/Salon
(updated below)
Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.
Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.
* Continue reading
From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.
In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.
Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture." By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity. A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."
For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered." Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:
This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .
This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world. In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .
It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.
In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."
When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely. Gawande documents that "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury." Gawande's article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning's who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.
Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here. But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico. He describes palpable changes in Manning's physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he's been visiting him. Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.
This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."
The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well. There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month." From the Journal article referenced above:
International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.
Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric. Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions. At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.
* * * * *
The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts. If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail -- as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial government deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he's quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a "hero":
The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me. He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that -- he’s not a lawyer, but I'll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it's very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo. And that's enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.
And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I haven't met either of them -- is that they are two new heroes of mine.
To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:
Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.
Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":
i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…
i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…
And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:
Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
Lamo: why didn’t you?
Manning: because it's public data
Lamo: i mean, the cables
Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.
That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.
But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.
What all of this achieves is clear. Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing they were innocent, torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear. Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions?
That is plainly what is going on here. Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant. Julian Assange -- despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions." But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight. If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial: just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing to expose it? That's the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.
* * * * *
Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund can do so here. All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.
UPDATE: I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote: specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted from accessing news or current events during the proscribed time he is permitted to watch television. That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things.
Apart from Assange I hadnt hear much about the thought to be leaker of the cables,makes interesting reading .I dont know how up to date it is .
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday, Dec 15, 2010 02:15 ET
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
By Glenn Greenwald
*
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
Reuters/Jonathon Burch/AP/Salon
(updated below)
Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.
Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.
* Continue reading
From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.
In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.
Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture." By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity. A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."
For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered." Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:
This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .
This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world. In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .
It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.
In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."
When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely. Gawande documents that "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury." Gawande's article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning's who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.
Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here. But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico. He describes palpable changes in Manning's physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he's been visiting him. Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.
This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."
The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well. There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month." From the Journal article referenced above:
International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.
Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric. Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions. At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.
* * * * *
The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts. If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail -- as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial government deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he's quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a "hero":
The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me. He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that -- he’s not a lawyer, but I'll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it's very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo. And that's enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.
And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I haven't met either of them -- is that they are two new heroes of mine.
To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:
Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.
Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":
i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…
i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…
And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:
Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
Lamo: why didn’t you?
Manning: because it's public data
Lamo: i mean, the cables
Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.
That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.
But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.
What all of this achieves is clear. Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing they were innocent, torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear. Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions?
That is plainly what is going on here. Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant. Julian Assange -- despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions." But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight. If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial: just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing to expose it? That's the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.
* * * * *
Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund can do so here. All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.
UPDATE: I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote: specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted from accessing news or current events during the proscribed time he is permitted to watch television. That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For example should the US have gone to war with Iraq given your own laws say unless you are attacked or under iminent attack you cannot start a war- please correct me if I have stated that incorrectly .The statement about bush and Blair was that they fabricated and or built a lie for which they would send English and American soldiers to battle . They will never be bought to account for those actions and with this sort of playing feild a true sense of justice can never be .Assange on the other hand is but 1 man and whose only real power may be some other nasty embarrasing cables that may expose someone some where </div></div>
1. You have definitely stated American law in correctly. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. It's among his powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. It is irrelevant what the reasons are. Our brave servicemembers have a legal and contractual obligation and oath to follow the orders of the officers appointed over them. The President has broad powers to order them to battle in precisely the way you criticize. The same war you criticize was not only ordered by the President, but funded, authorized, and approved by the Congress under their powers in Article I.
2. I highly suggest that you start using some type of spell check. I don't know if English is your first language or not, but your spelling is atrocious considering that spell check is free and available.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For example should the US have gone to war with Iraq given your own laws say unless you are attacked or under iminent attack you cannot start a war- please correct me if I have stated that incorrectly .The statement about bush and Blair was that they fabricated and or built a lie for which they would send English and American soldiers to battle . They will never be bought to account for those actions and with this sort of playing feild a true sense of justice can never be .Assange on the other hand is but 1 man and whose only real power may be some other nasty embarrasing cables that may expose someone some where </div></div>
1. You have definitely stated American law in correctly. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. It's among his powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. It is irrelevant what the reasons are. Our brave servicemembers have a legal and contractual obligation and oath to follow the orders of the officers appointed over them. The President has broad powers to order them to battle in precisely the way you criticize. The same war you criticize was not only ordered by the President, but funded, authorized, and approved by the Congress under their powers in Article I.
2. I highly suggest that you start using some type of spell check. I don't know if English is your first language or not, but your spelling is atrocious considering that spell check is free and available.
Re: Wikileaks strikes again!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For example should the US have gone to war with Iraq given your own laws say unless you are attacked or under iminent attack you cannot start a war- please correct me if I have stated that incorrectly .The statement about bush and Blair was that they fabricated and or built a lie for which they would send English and American soldiers to battle . They will never be bought to account for those actions and with this sort of playing feild a true sense of justice can never be .Assange on the other hand is but 1 man and whose only real power may be some other nasty embarrasing cables that may expose someone some where </div></div>
1. You have definitely stated American law in correctly. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. <span style="color: #990000">[color:#CC0000]It's among his powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. It is irrelevant what the reasons are.</span>[/color] Our brave servicemembers have a legal and contractual obligation and oath to follow the orders of the officers appointed over them. The President has broad powers to order them to battle in precisely the way you criticize. The same war you criticize was not only ordered by the President, but funded, authorized, and approved by the Congress under their powers in Article I.
2. I highly suggest that you start using some type of spell check. I don't know if English is your first language or not, but your spelling is atrocious considering that spell check is free and available. </div></div>
Downzero , thanks for correcting my intial thoughts on how the US does things although not wanting to be at all political I must disagree with you and note you say "I critize" when I mention the words of another -now I could be critized about my spelling although when it gets down to people blasting you about that its a little petty one thinks ! To answer you I would have you consider this speech please
Regards
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/zig078.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For example should the US have gone to war with Iraq given your own laws say unless you are attacked or under iminent attack you cannot start a war- please correct me if I have stated that incorrectly .The statement about bush and Blair was that they fabricated and or built a lie for which they would send English and American soldiers to battle . They will never be bought to account for those actions and with this sort of playing feild a true sense of justice can never be .Assange on the other hand is but 1 man and whose only real power may be some other nasty embarrasing cables that may expose someone some where </div></div>
1. You have definitely stated American law in correctly. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. <span style="color: #990000">[color:#CC0000]It's among his powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. It is irrelevant what the reasons are.</span>[/color] Our brave servicemembers have a legal and contractual obligation and oath to follow the orders of the officers appointed over them. The President has broad powers to order them to battle in precisely the way you criticize. The same war you criticize was not only ordered by the President, but funded, authorized, and approved by the Congress under their powers in Article I.
2. I highly suggest that you start using some type of spell check. I don't know if English is your first language or not, but your spelling is atrocious considering that spell check is free and available. </div></div>
Downzero , thanks for correcting my intial thoughts on how the US does things although not wanting to be at all political I must disagree with you and note you say "I critize" when I mention the words of another -now I could be critized about my spelling although when it gets down to people blasting you about that its a little petty one thinks ! To answer you I would have you consider this speech please
Regards
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/zig078.html
Similar threads
