Don't fuck with the US - particularly by letting people know the truth.
The US Army has filed 22 additional charges against accused WikiLeaks source Pfc. Bradley Manning, including one that carries a potential death sentence. The aiding the enemy offense filed against the Army intelligence analyst is the military equivalent of treason, but prosecutors said on Wednesday that they planned to seek …
Don't fuck with the US - particularly by letting people know the truth.
Unless of course Assange coerced him to do it and only Assange and Manning know and neither have talked openly about it.
As to knowing the truth, what truth exactly?
No offense but what exactly did Manning expose? No war crimes.
Did he let the world know that War is a dirty business? <MockSarcasm>SHOCKING!</MockSarcasm>
No real secret there.
Now thanks to Assange, Wikileaks published *UNREDACTED* material. (Other real ethical news services did redact and restrict what they printed.) Even the recent books quoted Assange as pretty much saying those who collaborated with the US get what they deserved.
With respect to Manning getting the death penalty, while its possible, its a stretch. I'm not up on Military law, but I suspect that in order to get the death penalty, Mens rea has to be a factor. Meaning that he had to know that Assange would act with total disregard and ethics that real journalists are bound by.
So now lets watch the followers of St. Julian of ASSange cry foul.
"The military mentality is a bandit and raider mentality. Thus, all military represents a form of organized banditry where the conventional mores do not prevail. The military is a way of rationalizing murder, rape, looting, and other forms of theft which are always accepted as part of warfare. When denied an outside target, the military mentality always turns against its own civilian population, using identical rationalizations for bandit behavior."
- BuSab Manual, Chapter Five: "The Warlord Syndrome"
""The military mentality is a bandit and raider mentality. Thus, all military represents a form of organized banditry where the conventional mores do not prevail. The military is a way of rationalizing murder, rape, looting, and other forms of theft which are always accepted as part of warfare. When denied an outside target, the military mentality always turns against its own civilian population, using identical rationalizations for bandit behavior."
- BuSab Manual, Chapter Five: "The Warlord Syndrome"
If I say to you that 6-OHDA destroys, in particular, DA neurones, or that 5-HT1a receptors can be stimulated to compensate for a shortage of 5-HT, you'd ask me for evidence. I'd produce reams of experimental data to demonstrate the validity of my claims.
Now you show me some kind of experimental evidence to justify this claim. Were there sub categories in the research? Specify the number of independent conditions, tell me what the IVs and the DVs were, how they were statistically analysed, whether or not the theory fits into the prevailing paradigm (if you know what that is), how the hypothesis was generated from the theory, how the conditions match this hypothesis and how you overcame the sampling problem. Cite literature in the field. Explain why there were instances that did not match these claims, and why they did not. Given that there is an absolutist claim in the passage ("When denied an outside target, the military mentality always turns against its own civilian population, using identical rationalizations for bandit behavior") do explain why there are so many instances where this claim - like Marx's claim that the first revolution would occur in the first country to industrialise, the UK, whereas it patently did not - does not match reality, both now and in the past and why, in instances where it does, only a small percentage of any armed force behaves like this, except where coercion is applied by a powerful minority. Similarly, include in your response an analysis of differences between, say, the FARC and the Red Army.
It's a lot of work to do, but the onus is on those who make the claim, so you'd best get to it if you want your claim to be accepted.
Of course he exposed war crimes. Every single incident of an Iraqi being killed or injured in any of the material he leaked is a war crime. This comes about as a result of the war itself being illegal, ergo all actions carried out as a result of prosecuting that war crime also become war crimes in and of themselves. The simple truth of the Nurenburg principles.
Just because nobody in power has yet been prosecuted for their involvement in the greater crime doesn't mean it wasn't (isn't) a crime. It just means they truly are above the laws they proscribe for the lower party members and proles.
Our hope is, and has always been, with the proles.
He read it in a book somewhere.
That concept comes from Frank Herbert. I like his idea of a BuSab to shake up and clear the garbage that bureaucracies accumulate, but only if a bureaucracy is an inevitable form that government evolves towards. As usual with Herbert, it's food for thought, but as you imply, just because someone *says* it is so doesn't mean that it *is* so.
The fact that Herbert wrote science fiction only increases the need for empirical evidence before assuming that the passage is useful to anyone anywhere. Most people, including the op, miss out on the irony of the concept of formally establishing a bureau to keep bureaucracy in check.
Welcome mat for the dosadi.
Now I know why you posted that as an AC. Basically you're ashamed of your views.
You clearly don't know what is and is not a war crime. Concepts of collateral damage or civilian casualties are beyond your grasp.
You also clearly don't know what it means to have a congressional vote to go to war.
Right or wrong, based on the evidence presented to them, it was a lopsided vote in favor of going after Saddam.
Clearly you don't understand the threat WMD ie biologicals and nukes present to the rest of the world.
Saddam hinted that he had WMDs and before his fellow countrymen hung him by a rope, he admitted that he created that myth to keep the Iranians at bay. He was surprised that it was the Americans who fell for it.
But don't let facts get in the way of your posts.
are unambiguously defined by international, NOT national law. AC is right and you are wrong. The Nuremberg trials established that invading another country without the go-ahead from the security council is the *supreme* war crime. Issues of collateral damage and civilian casualties are precisely covered by the definition of supreme war crime. Look it up.
USA is bound by this law, which trumps national law, like it or not. Only the US politicians and mass media conspire to hide or gloss over this fact from those who swallow their propaganda unchewed. The typical defense is that such laws undermine US sovereignty, and are therefore worthless, or that the UN is ineffectual (a self-fulfilling prophecy because the USA regularly undermines its authority, and then criticises them for having no authority).
But the fact remains that the USA *is* a signatory of the international law on war crimes, and is therefore bound by it. A congressional vote is irrelevant - or rather, it somehow could make congress accessories to the supreme war crimes of invading Iraq (and Afghanistan). Ask a lawyer.
And it is the USA which has the largest stockpiles of biological weapons. They also have plenty of other WMDs. Does this mean that any other country has the right to invade them? Are you really saying it's legally and/or morally 'right' to invade a country which has WMDs simply because WMD's are dangerous? What about China, or France, or Israel? I believe AC understands the threat very well indeed, and I imagine that he/she correctly estimated the danger from Saddam's WMDs at zero. You, however, are not prepared to hold the USA and other coalition countries to the same standards you wish to impose on other countries. This is pure hypocrisy.
We now know that Saddam had no WMDs, exactly as the UN weapons inspectors told us at the time. Clearly, they know their business, but the US media exposed Hans Brix and others to ridicule and character assasination. But the weapons inspectors were *right*. They did their job properly and reported the truth in their findings repeatedly before the war began. Many of us suspected it back then, and we went on the streets to demonstrate about it. Even the CIA knew it, and were forced to provide hokey 'evidence' for Colin Powell's shameful and dishonest speech to the security council. Dozens of CIA employees have since resigned over this heinous travesty of their skilled and difficult work.
And the idea that the Americans 'fell for it' is disingenuous in the extreme:
The *American* CIA spooks and the *American* military knew Saddam had no WMDs, but Bush/Cheney insisted on evidence. The CIA were obliged to turn over whatever junk evidence they had - evidence that they *knew* to be pure fabrication. The CIA repeatedly told the Bush administration that there was nothing but junk evidence about WMDs or any connection between Saddam and Al Qaida, so Bush/Cheney stepped up the waterboarding until they got some 'operationally useful' confessions - i.e. junk evidence from the mouths of enemy combatants, rather than the fictions of CIA spooks.
It is not difficult to find the statements of ex-CIA employees or ex US-military personnel who have gone on record with their grievances about this, but I suspect you are not interested in looking for data which undermines your views, and would rather echo the mountains of propaganda which supports them.
It was junk evidence, commissioned by the Bush/Cheney administration which ordinary Americans were 'taken in' by, Bush/Cheney's own propaganda, cynically and intensively peddled by Murdoch and others.
I find it quite extraordinary that you, or anyone else, attempts to play the WMD card, as a post facto justification for the Iraq war, as it has been so thoroughly and extensively debunked, so often, that surely only the most gullible and naive still believe in it. Even Tony Blair has stopped using it as an excuse. It makes you, Mr Gumby, come across as a gullible fool which can't be entirely true. Of course there are still people that still believe the sun goes around the earth, which I also find extraordinary. I am sure they are not complete fools either.
You wrote something sarcastic about letting the facts get in the way.
I ask without sarcasm: How do *you* rationalise ignoring these facts?
Wikileaks is now the enemy. Will Uncle Sam push Cameron to proscribe wikileaks?
If Wikileaks had any oil you could guarantee they'd have imagined some weapons of mass destruction invaded them by now.
""DC. He has been alternately been held under suicide watch and prevention of injury designations, which among other things require him to be confined to a 6-by-12-foot cell with a bed, a drinking fountain and a toilet for about 23 hours a day and heavily restrict him from reading or exercising.""
Sounds more likely to induce suicide to me.
But that's exactly the sort of mental torture they need to break his will. They need him nice and compliant for his drum head trial.
And if that's the sort of regime he'll be held under for life if convicted then I would certainly be hoping for the death penalty if it were me.
If he has a drinking fountain he can drink himself to death. Suicide by water intoxication.
the court day will be a show trial, justice will be looking to the other side when the sentence is pronounced. Pathetic show of a declining society.
truly pathetic works of bullies.
What exactly is executing/imprisioning him going to do? It's like they're motivated more out of a lust for revenge rather than actual justice.
"The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy— everything."
Had he merely confessed his crimes and sold out everyone he ever interacted with then he wouldn't be facing the current charges. He continues to spurn the United States of America - that is his true crime. Had he merely complied he'd likely land up in jail for the rest of his life or a significant chunk of it, but he'd have capitulated and given the US government exactly what they want.
Since he hasn't and apparently won't, retribution is the only answer. They're not only going to kill him, they're going to utterly destroy him as a warning to *everyone*. If this case goes through unbridled then whatever last vestiges of false freedom and false liberty this country even cared to project have long since been gone.
The United States, as we know it, is either fucking done for or has been long fucking done.
That has _always_ been their idea of Justice ! Which more than the long touted freedom that is actually anything but (though still more so than ours), is why it became the natural home to the various organised crime syndicates and families of the world. Like 'it takes one to tolerate one' sort of thing.
Whereas what we have is a modern look to an old medieval 'show respect for the royals, you parliamentarian oik you!' monarchy.
He broke a solemn oath, and they want to make an example of him to deter anyone else from doing the same thing. If they let him off with a smack on the wrist, the next leaker might actually release some information that does put people's lives at risk.
Anyone who joins the army thinking it's playschool needs their head examined. You join up, and they own you. Fuck with them, and you'll get fucked much worse than anything you can imagine. It's a life that suits many people who don't want to, or can't, take responsibility for their own actions, but when you delegate that power to someone else you have to accept it. Looks like Manning wanted to have his cake, and eat it. Dumb, naive kid.
That's a very interesting quote at the top of your post - where's it from?
It's an excellent quote. It's from 1984; that book that was once a warning and now is a template for Western government.
""The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy— everything.""
Oh really? Perhaps the rejoinder, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" is the most apposite here. You might like to pay some attention to what makes humans the way they are, and similarly to consider Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, or perhaps 'Equilibrium', which has a similar premiss at the root.
As to the rest, hmm. No evidence. No supporting logic. Nada.
If they decided that they didn't have any conclusive evidence linking Bradley to Wikileaks, isn't that going to make it hard to convict him on the various transmitting and publishing counts? I mean, if they can't prove that someone received the material from him, then how can they make those charges stick? The defense could simply argue that someone else could have published them, perhaps by stealing them from Bradley. Or did they manage to connect him to some other publishing source that I missed hearing about?
I hate to break it to you but Manning is in deep shite.
They have more than enough forensic evidence to nail him to the proverbial cross.
(Its easier to back track and find evidence against Manning once they knew it was Manning.)
The defense would have an easier time claiming temporary insanity than what you suggest.
Hint. Bradley takes them off the system for what reason again? And then they get stolen? Hint: By admission he's just as guilty of the charges. Doh!
Life lesson learned. Fan meet shit.
I realise there may be other evidence but nothing remotely as incriminating as a full written confession. Here is an intelligent guy, working in intelligence, who steals an entire database worth of diplomatic chitchat, effectively disseminates that information en masse, covering his tracks with tor and other tools. So what does he do afterwards? Blab his full life story to some random other hacker who logs the entire conversation and shops him in.
Manning will likely get life in prison not death. The prosecution has linked him directly to Wikileaks but not directly to Assange personally. Endangering or getting operatives killed is a very serious crime and Manning is being held accountable for his actions.
The article is incorrect in saying that the military judge gives the sentence. Courts Martial have the panel - essentially the jury - pronounce the sentence. The military judge serves the same purpose as they do in civilian courts, they keep things organized and according to the law. In this case, it is the Uniform Code of Military Justice that prevails. The Court of Military Appeals reviews many UCMJ convictions and I believe ALL convictions by General Court Martial, which is where Manning will be tried.
The previous comments automatically say that Manning is to be punished unjustly. That is unadulterated lying bullshit. If he is guilty, he should be punished. If he is not guilty, he will be set free. A court martial is not an automatic conviction - I can give you chapter and verse on that, having been the defense counsel on two, both of which panels found the defendants not guilty. Anyone who says different is a liar.
The deliberate ignorance exhibited by the commentators is disgusting.
Such a pity that the American government and military don't actually live up to their own standards then.
How many people have been killed due to the war on terror and the illegal war in Iraq? How many have been murdered? How many tortured and ritually humiliated?
If America wanted to save lives then they wouldn't be committing atrocities like the machine-gunning of innocent reporters and vans containing children.
How many terrorists have been directly created because of these actions. How many people will die because of these terrorists?
All Manning did was expose the facts that these terrorists already know, they live with the consequences after all.
But never let the facts get in the way of a good vendetta, eh.
Also, about warping the context within which statements are made?
No one here is saying that he has been automatically convicted. No one here is saying that he will automatically be punished unjustly. We're saying that he hasn't a chance in hell of walking away from this having been tried or punished fairly.
Life is not as simple as "if he is FOUND guilty he will be punished, if he is FOUND not guilty he will be set free." Especially in a case like this which is far more subtle than YOU let on. He OBVIOUSLY committed a crime - multiple ones, in fact. I have YET to see anyone here dispute that he obviously broke various laws. What I HAVE seen people here dispute is the severity of his crimes, whether what he is being charged with is just and whether or not a mockery of justice is in the making all to please a scorned military and government.
You are willfully naive if you insinuate that you have served in our military and are willing to attest to never having seen a breach of justice or protocol within the military. You are acting as if the military is a wholly honorable entity that acts without political motivation - either internal or external - and that has never once violated its own codes and practices to secure whatever the fucking hell it wants to. In your very first post ever on the Register you even claim that in minutes the average GI could find a way to cheat around a firearm's "black box" designed to create and assign accountability to said GI. Doesn't seem as if you have much faith in the honesty or integrity of your average GI, yet here you're more than willing to decry our outrage at his mishandling which, framed within your obvious reverence for the military judicial system, makes you disingenuous at best and a fucking liar at worst. Within your capacity as an expert [whereas we are just commentators, you see, aren't we?] you have both summarily passed judgment on a case you aren't assigned to and a defendant you haven't read the file of while attempting to strawman every single person in this thread. Bravo. You take bullshit to new and astounding levels.
The deliberate ignorance and wanton manipulation of both the content contained with and the framing context of people's posts you exhibit is disgusting.
To wit, you and your agenda can fuck right off.
Really? Then why isn't G W Bush facing similar charges for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson?
This pathetic kind of 'justice' is only for the small & weak. The rich & powerful are never held to account.
And I suppose he is not being tortured either? Its all for his own good?
Of course being relative anyway.
How about giving him the Medal Of Honor instead for conspicuous gallantry in protecting the United States from it's actual enemies?
"Endangering or getting operatives killed is a very serious crime and Manning is being held accountable for his actions."
So why did some members of a previous US administration not face similar charges? A Pfc is easier to bully than a member of the administration?
In the case I refer to the name of an operative was maliciously leaked. The "revelations" so far in Wikileaks seem humdrum (though they may do damage).
"The deliberate ignorance exhibited by the commentators is disgusting."
What you see is a corollary of the music and literature piracy movements. People have got it into their heads that they know what is best for the majority of voters in their countries, and that they can arrange these things using the very technology they've used to download pirate material:
Note Bill Thompson's remarks to the effect that this will result in a curtailment of our online freedoms. I've been online for a very long time. I occasionally do things that I know will become illegal. I dread the back lash from a personal perspective, but I will be very happy when these people, the LoIC and related groups are rounded up and made to pay for their acts. Meanwhile don't think that the idiots you've read in this thread are representative of anything but a thoughtless extreme, educated in very little of relevance or even beyond how to point and click. At best one or two of them seem to have genuine skills.
"Manning will likely get life in prison not death. The prosecution has linked him directly to Wikileaks but not directly to Assange personally. Endangering or getting operatives killed is a very serious crime and Manning is being held accountable for his actions."
People used to take spying seriously once, particularly when they could see the connection between espionage and danger to their own country. Nowadays it's evident that they do not, but I have a feeling that will change. For the while, yes, I think that you are correct:
In a case this high profile would the military personel on the panel dare say not guilty? How powerful are they to stick two fingers up at their bosses?
It's like a manager being told by a business owner to give somebody a warning - from that point on the whole process is a sham, the decision is already made.
What's your take on the collateral murder videos?
That told'um no one on the internet will make that mistake again.
Of course people might join the military with a firm belief that they are doing so to assist mankind and then, when confronted with a reality that does not match their high expectations. Feel it is necessary to expose the things they are told to cover up in order to fix the military so it maintains the ideals that they joined to uphold.
Best to discourage these people, then the military will be made up of the kind of person who just does what they are told. After all the biggest patriot is the man who can gas Jews without questioning the morality of what he is doing. The most ardent believer will sacrifice his son to prove his faith to God.
A healthy society requires protection for people who are prepared to speak out against abuses of power and position. Otherwise the only people who are willing to do so will be true hero's a very rare find rather then just and honest men who are at least a little bit more common.
"Such a pity that the American government and military don't actually live up to their own standards then."
Clearly you need to extract your head from your rectum. You're actually one of the few documented cases of self inflicted 'brown neck'.
I'm sorry, but do you realize that there was no illegal war in Iraq?
Yes, the US government actually voted and went to war. (It was legal)
Was the intelligence faulty? Yes. Yet what you don't seem to recall is that Saddam admitted to creating that facade in part to keep the Iranians at bay. You do remember the long and deadly Iran/Iraq war? (Or was that before your time?) You remember where both sides committed war crimes and use children to clear land mines ahead of their forces? So please don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.
As to war crimes, the US has an excellent record of bringing to trial any war crimes that their troops may have committed. But that's not Manning nor Wikileaks. No offense but Assange's first video was edited to hide the fact that there was no deviation from the RoE and that the soldiers acted in accordance to the RoE. (Helicopters have been shot down by RPGs and the troops were being harassed by RPG fire in the area. So when a guy toting an RPG was spotted, he's fair game.)
Like I said, don't let the facts get in the way of your beautiful ignorant statements.
What your ignorance shows is that you don't understand that only the US and its allies which are professional soldiers are following RoEs. Insurgents, terrorists, etc? They have no rules.
Why don't you comment on the fact that these terrorists are bombing innocent civilians where there are no military personnel? (They are so common in Iraq, the hardly make the news, at least not the front page which it appears is all that you read.) Why don't you talk about the fact that insurgents are bombing Iraqi civilians who are attempting to join their own police force so that there is stability in their country? Nah. You'd probably agree with Assange is that they got what they deserved for trying to rebuild their own country.
Like you say, never let the facts get in the way of a good vendetta.
"The previous comments automatically say that Manning is to be punished unjustly. That is unadulterated lying bullshit. If he is guilty, he should be punished. If he is not guilty, he will be set free. "
The above comment starts with the assumption that Manning is guilty. In terms of the post, its to discuss the fact that Manning, if found guilty would get the death penalty.
Even the military takes the death penalty seriously and the prosecution would have to show evidence that Manning knew and didn't care about the potential consequences of the 'enemy' getting their hands on operational data. (The after action reports.)
Manning's defense could argue that Manning had a reasonable expectation of Wikileaks acting as if they were journalists. While they are not, Assange had publicly claimed that Wikileaks is part of 'the press'. Normal journalists , check, vet , and redact what information they publish. Manning had no knowledge that Wikileaks would act with such recklessness or absence for concern of their actions.
While I'm not Jim, nor am I trying to answer for him...
"But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.” (See the edited and non-edited videos here.)"
So much for 'journalistic integrity' shown by Assange.
If you watch the unedited version and understand what's meant by RoE (Rules of Engagement)
The US military were acting within their RoE. No war crimes and yes, you run around in a 'war zone' with someone carrying an RPG and firing on US forces, you can bet you will receive return fire from the US and their allies.
>> Yes, the US government actually voted and went to war. (It was legal)
OK, me and my mates have had a vote, and we've decided it's just and proper to rob your house and redistribute your wealth to the poor. Because we've had a vote, it's all legal.
What complete male bovine manure !
The US voting unilaterally to do it doesn't make it legal under international law. Oh I see the problem with my logic now, the USoA thinks it *IS* the law.
Just from memory, I don't recall any body of competent jurisdiction (that would be the UN I believe) actually voting to allow the invasion. Thus it was an invasion of a sovereign state by other states with a stated intent to overthrow it's current ruler/regime. Without a clear mandate from the UN that is an illegal invasion under international law.
Yes, Saddam was a nasty person, yes I do believe removing him was the right thing to do. But I do not believe it was done legally. Two wrongs do not make a right - taking down a bully by being an even bigger bully does not represent justice in anyone's eye, it just makes you the bully. In some ways, that is precisely what's happened, and by being the bigger bully, the USoA (and it's allies - ie the UK) has made it easy to be seen as a bully and therefore a reasonable target for those open to radicalisation.
When Libyans stand up to Gaddafi they are seen as freedom fighters, when radicalised Muslims stand up to the west then they are seen as terrorists.
"...and none of the charges filed against Manning make any reference to WikiLeaks."
If it wasn't Wikileaks, then what is the name of this "enemy" he was supposedly "aiding"? Because if it's not Wikileaks - an inanimate [although human run, of course] publishing entity of journalistic merit that has worked with some of the largest names in the press - then surely Manning must have directly passed (a) these cables or (b) other "classified" information of a nature that is "sensitive" to such an esoteric concept as national security on to either (1) a first party that is directly related to a terrorist organization or sovereign nations that have violated either convention law or have been hit with UN resolutions or sanctions (or otherwise been labeled as "baddies" by the US) or (2) a third party that supports said terrorists/sovereign nations either (I) monetarily or (II) logistically.
Sorry for that run-on, but unless Manning has done any of the above then sticking him with an "aiding the enemy" charge is a distraction, unlikely to hold up in court, a gross misuse/willful misinterpretation of case law and legislation, an attack on the free press (that the old media/institutionalized press will likely ignore or even outright not understand) or all of the above.
You can say whatever you want about the United States, and some of it might be right. We might have entered a pre-fascist era (or have strolled willingly into a fully fascist one, albeit in its infancy). We might be an Imperialist nation that have grossly overreached and overestimated the world's tolerance to a lone superpower. Insert platitudes at your leisure. You can also say whatever you want about Wikileaks. Overstate or dismiss its affect on the Middle East all you would like. Again, platitudes, your leisure, etc. Do it again for the Middle East and its maybe/maybe-not populist uprisings against truly malevolent dictators. Say what you will about how Wikileaks announced American imperialism and the propping up of said dictators to the world and how that led to the Middle Eastern revolts; declare it to either be coincidence or unrelated altogether.
Then take all of that garbage and throw it out. You need not look any further than Manning's interaction with and treatment at the hands of the Obama administration to realize that we've all been had and that there now exists no difference between the two parties once you get past the social issues they use to keep us all subdued, sedated and distracted. Abortion, gay rights, the legalization of marijuana and the [so-called] entitlement programs don't matter when any real protest against the real issues is met with the ever-increasing, alarmingly so, judicially-authorized and legislatively-retroacted police encroachment onto and curtailing of our rights.
Britain, in many ways you're far ahead of us in regards to the police and nanny state. You're also far ahead of us in realizing where you're going and attempting to do something about it - eg the student protests and police-incited riots. Take a lesson from us before it's too late and you wind up a one-party state that progressively punishes its citizenry by de-educating, propagandizing, disentitling [of rights hard fought for and earned over nearly a hundred and fifty years and nearly all undone in less than sixty] and disenfranchising everyone under a certain income level or lacking a certain supra-political affiliation.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Calendars and 'hours' were indeed changed in France by 'revolutionaries' who were acting in the best interests of the people, or so they thought:
Beware of self appointed guardians of truth and morality. They are probably most mendacious. Or do I mean Mendax..........
and shoot the guy already. That way people will know you don't fuck with the military. Hell, why not take out his family too, so people know you're serious. Nobody snitches on the mob^H^H^HUS Military and gets away with it.
"and shoot the guy already."
I was under the impression that Manning has been clearly and unequivocally linked to the leaks. It's against the oath which he swore, as all soldiers do. Go back a few centuries and he would have been summarily shot, perhaps after a drumhead courts martial. That notwithstanding, the comments of people who think that - like e-Books, mp3s and other digital copies of music the information should be free are speaking for their own eccentric selves.
...liberty and oppression.
Assange got where he is today by shagging the wrong people.
It's like some DC alternative reality story, only, we have no hero to right the wrongs. Any day now I'm expecting to hear that the Jews are gassing the Palestinians with america's blessing.
Not gassing yet, but everything else has been done, including a re-enactment of warsaw's ghetto.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017