Completely agree. He signed-up to classified data handling rules which he has willfully breached.
Well surely it's a good thing he leaked the helicopter video - what recourse do people have when their army is illegitimately murdering people then covering it up?
I wasn't aware that there was a cover-up relating to the copter video. There was an interesting interview with one of the soldiers on the scene after the attack was finished (he's the one who got the surviving kids medical aid) and he said they definitely recovered weapons from the ground so it wasn't like the people shot initially were just standing around. Given he's been fairly honest about the attack and the aftermath, he sounds quite genuine. He also gives reasons for the gunships opening up on the van as well.
Completely agree. He signed-up to classified data handling rules which he has willfully breached. The punishment is punitive.
Usually there is a trial before you get punished ...
atlaz watch the video it is as clear as clear can be that they are just shooting people
grumm - MemberDid you bother reading the details of the case either? I really struggle to see where the 'assault' part comes into it.
No, I didn't bother reading the details. Maybe he committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. And neither do you. Read all the guardian editorials you like, and you still won't know.
The point of any court case is to understand the full details of whatever happened, to then allow a decision on the basis of information which is as full and complete as possible.
It is a reasonable process. Now let it do its job instead of basing your judgements on propaganda, from whichever side.
glenp - MemberNo doubt because you can't be bothered to read into it (you are a perfect citizen, behaving just as the powers want you to, well done) you seem to have missed quite a lot.
Troop movements? When did that get leaked?
You're right, I haven't bothered to read what's been leaked. Don't care. The information will not change my view of any government, as it's very minor compared to the other, much more fundamental gripes I have with 'the system'. Reading wikileaks would be like reading a negative review of the brakepads on a tesco dual suss. Your assumption that I'm a good citizen is foolish.
Attacking the illustration, glenp, even if incorrect, doesn't invalidate the point. Let me repeat:
In order for any organisation, be it government or business, to function efficiently, some information flows have to be kept confidential. Yet transparency is, without doubt, also instrumental to good decision making. So a balance has to be struck, but it's a very delicate one. I don't know who is qualified to decide where that balance is, but it's certainly not Assange.
Completely agree. He signed-up to classified data handling rules which he has willfully breached. The punishment is punitive.
Punitive or tantamount to inhumane?
The point of any court case is to understand the full details of whatever happened, to then allow a decision on the basis of information which is as full and complete as possible.
It is a reasonable process
the state to be nice and a fair arbiter of truth and justice
Ummm, what?
Sweden isn't a third world country, and nor do I expect them to do a run around justice by convening a military tribunal.
Therefore the state is not an arbiter at all, but rather only one of two sides in an argument before an independent judge and jury.
It's a good system (given competent lawyers which in this case I doubt will be a problem). I anticipate Assange will get a fair trial with a just outcome. Mistakes do happen, but I like to think they happen rarely.
You want transparency but you won’t read the information on this case how odd.
I want transparency so that I can find out things that matter to me. I want transparency so that you can find out things that matter to you.
Gawd, I don't know why I keep arguing on this forum. To argue with you is to imply that I care what you think, which just isn't the case... Just for the sport of it, I guess. Otherwise I might have to do some work...
You want people to agree with you or you dont care what they think How strange.
The state decides to charge hence why they can charge someone and be fair or unfair on this - I am no expert on the Swedish justice system. I think we can agree that even with an impartial judiciary the state still has a great deal of say in setting the rules [law]if not in interpretting them. I am sure you can think of other examples of abuse of power if you try really hard I assume in other non third world countries - do only they have "bad" justice?
As you refuse to read the details of the case indeed there is little point discussing the case as one of us is, intentionally, ignorant.
You want people to agree with you or you dont care what they think How strange.
How strange.
how odd.
As you refuse to read the details of the case indeed there is little point discussing the case as one of us is, intentionally, ignorant.
It's true that a state can be unfair or political in choosing which cases to put before the court. This can be an inconvenience, but if a case is without foundation, it is usually thrown out very quickly.
The point is that the adversarial justice system with an independent judiciary is, overall, an excellent and successful structure, which is not easy to influence unduly. It is better at achieving justice than anything else Man has invented. It is this system's job to establish the facts of this case, and you should let it do its job rather than argue for short circuiting it based on your own opinions of what these facts are.
If the Swedish prosecutors let themselves be bullied into dropping a viable case, it would be a failure of justice, and shame on them.
Well surely it's a good thing he leaked the helicopter video - what recourse do people have when their army is illegitimately murdering people then covering it up?
Sorry, I may have given the impression that I wanted Manning to be toast - I don't at all. But he broke laws and he will be punished. I just hope a fair and strong judge recognises that he did so out of conscience and his punishment is ameliorated. A brave brave guy.
Given US behaviour in what they consider a "war" e.g. Guantanamo, rendition flights, water boarding and who knows what else, I think he will be squashed like bug.
Laws will be bent back on themselves. I reckon one way or another, Assange will end up either in US hands or dead by their hands.
I reckon one way or another, Assange will end up either in US hands or dead by their hands.
If I was going to put money on it, I'd go for one of the former Soviet republics - they'd be a whole lot less concerned about the political fall out, especially if everyone just blames the Americans anyway.
One of the most interesting features of the whole wikileaks brand of slacktivism is that, despite all the column inches in newspapers worldwide, I'm not aware of any politician or diplomat whose resigned or been sacked as a result. During the same period, the Scottish transport minister resigned because people in Scotland couldn't drive in snow.
It's interesting watching a recent programme on Yesterday about the Falklands conflict - it was using pretty much the same level of information about behind the scenes diplomatic activity as wikileaks is distributing now, but because it's 30 odd years old, it's now classified as historical window dressing.
I suspect, at the end of the day, that the only person who will suffer as a result of the wikileaks affair is Manning - I suspect he will be hammered to placate the Palin-esque loonies in the US.
atlaz - Member
"I wasn't aware that there was a cover-up relating to the copter video."
The official version of events was that there was a firefight ongoing which the helicopter fired upon, and stated that they didn't know how the kids were injured or how the journalists were killed, and refused to release their cameras. As it turned out the video contradicted that, and also showed the helicopter crew lied in order to get authorisation to fire. So yeah, cover up.
One of the most interesting features of the whole wikileaks brand of slacktivism is that, despite all the column inches in newspapers worldwide, I'm not aware of any politician or diplomat whose resigned or been sacked as a result
Says more about the degraded morality and sense of responsibility of the political class than anything.
I have to say he comes across well on this interview with David Frost.
The details don't matter, the principles do.
and wrongIf the Swedish prosecutors let themselves be bullied intodroppingprosecuting aviablepointless case, it would be a failure of justice, and shame on them.
Isn't it the case that he can't discuss details of the complaint against him, and it is only a complaint and not criminal charges, because it breaches his bail conditions?
Wikileaks published information that was leaked to them. Much like the Telegraph publishing MPs' expenses details. Whilst you could argue that publication created a security risk, the sheer number of people who had access to it tells us that it can't be all that important. But Wikileaks' most useful function is that of creating limited accountability for globalised government where currently there is none.
As for the Swedish rape case, the whole thing stinks. They've changed prosecutor after the previous one declined to pursue it, and he is yet to be charged.
But what happens when his UK visa runs out next year?
buzz-lightyear - Member
But what happens when his UK visa runs out next year?
Transportation to Australia?
What? The reason for bringing the person to trial is not important....you sure?
The reason is important, but it is also exceedingly simple -- he has been accused of breaking the law. It is up to the court to decide whether than accusation is valid. If it is not valid, that fact will come out very quickly.
Why discuss the mechanism rather than the details of the case?
If the Swedish prosecutors let themselves be bullied intodroppingprosecuting aviablepointless case, it would be a failure of justice, and shame on them.Surely both of these statements are true and the only way to decide whihc is happening is to discuss the reason not just say the system is better than Trial by Ordeal?
It offends me that, given that one of the two main purposes of the justice system is to find the TRUTH about an event, people are against using it on the basis of the mistaken notion that they already know the truth because they read a newspaper. They don't. You don't.
It's dangerous.
Your argument is that Assange has been tried in the court of public opinion, found innocent, so we don't need to go to a real court in this case.
Is next week going to be TheyEye has been tried in the court of public opinion, found guilty, so we don't need to go a real court in this case?
Screw that.
Once again, for the hard of thinking--
You: "let's not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is"
Me: "the hell you do!"
am sure you can think of other examples of abuse of power if you try really hard I assume in other non third world countries - do only they have "bad" justice?
Ermmm, UK anyone
In the words of the (banned) song...
There were six men in Birmingham
In Guildford there's four
That were picked up and tortured
And framed by the law
And the filth got promotion
But they're still doing time
For being Irish in the wrong place
And at the wrong time
In Ireland they'll put you away in the Maze
In England they'll keep you forseventwenty eight long days
God help you if ever you're caught on these shores
The coppers need someone
And they walk through that door
No leaks on US - Israeli relations...
... as said, probably because of higher internal security classification...
.
.
.
.
.
.
but Mossad are likely more effective / less restrained than the CIA????
Words of banned song should read
'We got the wrong people but the murderers still walk free'?
[EDIT] the alleged murderers become politicians [/EDIT]
Once again, for the hard of thinking--
You: "let's not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is"
Me: "the hell you do!"
Not really - it's more like "we already have some cause to doubt that the truth will emerge and be acted upon, so we feel uncomfortable gambling someone's freedom on the chance that we are wrong"
Words of banned song should read'We got the wrong people but the murderers still walk free'?
Quite right - but that is the often overlooked element of mis-carriage of justice, surely?
Apply political pressure - whether it be direct, or just indirect pressure on the Police * to get results, and the whole thing is liable to go tits up.
There were a string of faulty convictions in the UK through the 70s and 80s (and not just terrorist / politcally sensitive ones) - but I well remember the Gov't of the day being arrogant, condescending and patronising regarding those cases - a question of "who on eartth should question or criticise our system of justice..."
Shedding light on the politically murky can only be a good thing
ETA - * or insert "Swedish prosecutor"
JA says he's scared about going to Sweden. Fair enough, but until he faces this complaint, he's not going to be able to clear his name which will hobble his ability to operate Wikileaks.
I guess what he is hoping is that he can undertake the discussion with the Swedes while in the UK. It should become clear, again, then that there is no prosecution because there has been no crime.
I am puzzled by JA's obvious cagyness over the two women - something went on that he is hiding. But what?
Clearly you can wrongly accuse someone of a crime and try them if you dont want to look at the claim to see if it has any merit [whilst deciding to let "justice be seen to be done" then that is your choice.
Your argument is that Assange has been tried in the court of public opinion, found innocent, so we don't need to go to a real court in this case.
Once again, for the hard of thinking--
You: "let's not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is"
Me: "the hell you do!"
rkk01 - agreed. There was some pretty shoddy convictions which ultimately played into the hands of terrorists rather than convicting the right people. So much for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
Assange - surely a video link from London to a Swedish court would be cheaper, more cost effective and better all round; or is that too dangerous a precedent?
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
