Re: Assange seeks asylum....in Ecuador Embassy

**lily** Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:54 pm

Who was holding the gun to Manning's head when he did what he did?

I think it's about time someone somewhere took responsibility for their own actions and this is one of those times.

Don't we ask this of Amaral and Co?

With respect, Sabot.

**bb1** Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:59 pm

Just refreshing my memory of the whole thing....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

He sounds like an accident waiting for a place to happen, frankly....

On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room in what witnesses described as a fit of rage, damaging a computer that was sitting on it – and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several of those who witnessed the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless

**Sabot** Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:01 pm

lily wrote:Who was holding the gun to Manning's head when he did what he did?

I think it's about time someone somewhere took responsibility for their own actions and this is one of those times.

Don't we ask this of Amaral and Co?

With respect, Sabot.

I just don't approve of ill treatment of prisoners, Lily. Simple as that. I don't care what they have done or who they are.

**Lamplighter** Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:12 pm

I wonder whether the reason Assange is so terrified about ending up in the US is not what he gives out? Does Manning perhaps know something about Assange and/or Wikileaks that could perhaps open a large can of worms? For instance, as a starter for 10, who contacted who first? LL

**lily** Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:16 pm

Lamplighter wrote:I wonder whether the reason Assange is so terrified about ending up in the US is not what he gives out? Does Manning perhaps know something about Assange and/or Wikileaks that could perhaps open a large can of worms? For instance, as a starter for 10, who contacted who first? LL

That is a very good question, LL.

**bb1** Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:45 pm

That makes sense, LL - I simply do not believe this melodramatic nonsense that is being put out. I would hope that Manning realises Assange will merrily leave him to take the blame for the whole thing, and decides it's in his best interests to tell the military everything.

I don't like Assange, I think he's a real user - I especially don't like him after he had the gall to play the victim card by likening himself to the McCanns.

Incidentally, does his decamping to the Ecuador Embassy mean the luvvies who put up bail for him are now out of pocket by rather a lot of money?

**lily** Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:56 pm

Yes, Bonny. The people who were er..... kind to him, will be out of pocket. I expect that that is collateral damage to Assange?

I have found this in, of all things, a Wikipedia article about Manning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

(12:26:09 PM) bradass87: lets just say *someone* i know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks, mining data like the ones described ... and been transferring that data from the classified networks over the “air gap” onto a commercial network computer ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it to a crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country very long =L [...]

(12:31:43 PM) bradass87: crazy white haired dude = Julian Assange

(12:33:05 PM) bradass87: in other words ... ive made a huge mess :’([44]

**Lamplighter** Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:59 pm

I don't know if any of you have read this, but it paints an interesting picture of Manning's state of mind before he started to leak the info. I did not realise that he was gay and was looking at gender changing and wore female attire. There is also a timeline for the Wikileaks contacts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

As for his breaking his bail conditions, I think Jemima Khan and co can kiss that cash goodbye. LL

**bb1** Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:18 pm

If Wiki is correct, then some in the military did want him removed from his position, about the time he started posting his woes on FB - it's a pity wiser heads didn't prevail, but hindsight is always 20/20.

I personally don't think Assange has ever cared about damage to anyone but himself; if he had done this to the Chinese or Russians, then sex charges in Sweden would be the least of his worries.....

**bb1** Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:36 pm

This sheds a little light on matters:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161754/Julian-Assange-Luvvies-backed-WikiLeaks-founder-set-lose-cash.html

**Lamplighter** Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:40 pm

If the facts on Wikipedia are correct, and I think they probably are at least 90% in this case, then Bradley was a sitting target, easy prey. He is gay with transgender issues in a military where gays are 'tolerated' so long as they don't admit they are deviants. His moans on the internet would soon be picked up and someone would rub their hands in glee - lotsa luvverly info. He was landed like a fish and now he's gonna be gutted and chucked to the sharks by the very people he may well have thought were trustworthy. LL

**bb1** Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:55 pm

I think that that is probably pretty close to what happened, LL. The military aren't blameless, either - they really should have noticed that he was the worst possible person to be handling sensitive information in Iraq.

**bb1** Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:59 pm

I wonder, is it possible Manning's superiors didn't ship him out to someplace where he could do less harm because he was an IT geek, and they told themselves that geeks are always a bit odd? They didn't realise just what he was liable to do?

**greenink211** Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:22 pm

Perhaps I have been in contact with conspiracy "nutters" too long on Twitter, but I don't believe anything on Wikipedia without other corroborative evidence. It is far too easy to post "facts" there with either no sources or "faked" sources.

Nor do I readily believe what I am told by any media source without other evidence. Both positive and negative stories can be pushed for a variety of reasons.

I don't do either of these in the McCann case and I don't do it in this Manning case either. Just as in the McCann case, I don't know the people involved and I really don't think judging people as good, bad or anything else based on the press, wikipedia and a bit of TV is justified.

It would be so easy for a character assasination to be done on the man while he is locked up and unable to defend himself.

Manning has been incarcerated (in my opinion) without good reason. He should have been brought to trial, public trial, either military or civil. But this effective torture is a disgrace on US justice.

**bb1** Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:40 pm

That's a very good point, Greenink, and I confess to overlooking it in the hoopla over Assange. I doubt very much if Manning is hiding any great secrets, so maybe the delay in bringing his case to court is because some in the military are liable to end up with red faces?

Assange seems to have a pattern of using people, however, and dropping them if they are of no further use.

**lily** Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:50 am

bb1 wrote:This sheds a little light on matters:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161754/Julian-Assange-Luvvies-backed-WikiLeaks-founder-set-lose-cash.html

The second comment down is one I agree with.

A lot of paranoid conspiracy theorists on here today sighting the USA as The Great Satan, as usual. Personally I don't think the USA could give a toss about him. Come back down to earth folks. Assange is just a petty thief who stole confidential data and sold it for money, and who is wanted in Sweden for the suspected rape of two women. And now he's on the run from justice. Some hero !!

The US was still at war with Iraq and Afghanistan when this Wikileaks business happened. Therefore, whether we like war or not - and I don't - this was an act of treason, as far as I am aware?

I want to know what happened to the informants and their families, who were supplying information to the US and allies, because of these leaks. What about their rights?

**bb1** Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:57 am

I find Assange deeply unpleasant, Lily, and will make no bones about it. The last straw for me was his likening himself to the McCanns, conveniently overlooking his own part in making things ten times worse for the family.

To me, Manning is maybe not so cut and dry, oddly. I don't read the wiki entry about him and see it as a smear, I do see it as maybe explaining events. His behaviour, if those reports are accurate, wouldn't raise eyebrows on reality TV, but Iraq is a different matter.

If, on top of feeling alienated from everything/everyone around him, people were whispering poison in his ears on the internet every night, it is, IMO, a recipe for disaster.

He was no Cambridge Spy, but maybe one or two senior people should have kept their Cold War heads on. Also, Manning might have fallen into that 'bubble' thinking we've seen elsewhere, where he doesn't grasp that the internet has real-life consequences?

I'm not making excuses for him, far from it, but I am interested in the 'Why'? Anyway, what I think doesn't count for anything, and niether should it.

Assange should hear later today about his asylum bid:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16250665

Quote:

Ecuador's government says it will announce a decision on the fate of Julian Assange later today.

The WikiLeaks founder remains in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he is seeking asylum to avoid being sent to Sweden to answer accusations of sexual assault.
Mr Assange also faces arrest for breaching bail conditions.
The 40-year-old Australian has been inside the building, near Harrods in Knightsbridge, since Tuesday afternoon, when he requested political asylum under the United Nations Human Rights Declaration.

**bb1** Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:32 am

The useful idiots who lionised the amoral and cowardly Mr Assange have ended up looking utter twits

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2162383/Julian-Assange-The-useful-idiots-lionised-amoral-cowardly-Mr-Assange-ended-looking-utter-twits.html#ixzz1yQGLuiCl

That is rather the way I see Assange.

ETA:

Indeed, one can’t escape the irony of The Guardian’s behaviour. Without registering any moral inconsistency, the paper has rightly taken a stern line over the News of the World phone-hacking scandal while also publishing top-secret emails that arguably undermined the security of the West.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2162383/Julian-Assange-The-useful-idiots-lionised-amoral-cowardly-Mr-Assange-ended-looking-utter-twits.html#ixzz1yQGprUG4

Quite.

**Lamplighter** Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:54 am

Further insights into his true character have been provided by his response to an international arrest warrant issued by the Swedish authorities over allegations of sexual assault. He is accused of raping one woman and sexually molesting and coercing another in August 2010.

Of course, we can have no idea whether or not he is guilty. It is his attempts to resist extradition to Sweden that should raise doubts. The precepts of justice are upheld in that country as much as almost anywhere one can think of. What does he fear from a fair trial in a properly constituted court?

Without producing any evidence, he has argued in British courts that the Swedes might spirit him away to the United States to face trial for treason. It was the recent decision by the Supreme Court that he should be extradited to Sweden to face charges that precipitated his risible flight to the Ecuadorean embassy in Knightsbridge.

That really says it all, doesn't it? LL

**Sabot** Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:11 pm

There is one thing with which I have no argument. If you stand bail for someone and they skip then you should lose your money. This is the point of Bail. And I for one will be outraged if they don't. Even if The Police now manage to arrest Julian Assange and extradite him, the deed has been done and the consequences should follow.

**Lamplighter** Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:20 pm

Ecuador has already said it is seeking the views of the UK, Swedish and US governments before deciding on the asylum application.

If they decide not to hand Mr Assange back there will be a messy diplomatic spat, with Britain and Washington putting pressure on the Ecuador government and stressing there is no humanitarian or legal reason for keeping him inside the embassy.

Would you really wish to seek asylum in a country with such poor human rights:

ECUADOR'S HUMAN RIGHTS SHAME
÷ Corruption, inefficiency and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years.
÷ In a referendum held in 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a mandate for constitutional reforms that would significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.
÷ Ecuador's laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated 'terrorism' charges.
÷ Police often attribute murders to a 'settling of accounts' between criminal gangs, with prosecutions and convictions rare.
÷ in April 2010 a gang of hitmen composed of active-duty police was exposed. It was claimed that the officers involved were part of a 'social cleansing group' that killed delinquents in Quevedo, Los Rios Province.
÷ The majority of child workers in the banana industry quit school before the age of 15 and are often forced to work gruelling hours for little pay. Some children work 12-hour shifts in hazardous conditions, experience sexual harassment and little in the way of sanitation.
÷ The country's security forces have been accused of using excessive force, sometimes with impunity amid claims of isolated unlawful killings.
÷ Social problems include aggression against journalists; violence against women; discrimination against ethnic and gay groups; people trafficking; sexual exploitation of minors and child labour.
÷ Vigilante justice remains a problem. Such violence occurs particularly in indigenous communities and poor neighborhoods of major cities.
÷ While the constitution and laws prohibit torture and similar forms of intimidation, some police officers have reportedly tortured and abused suspects and prisoners.
÷ From 2007 through to August 2010, the National Police held 503 disciplinary tribunals for abuses committed by police. As a result, 367 police officers were dismissed, 171 were arrested and 68 were sanctioned.
÷ Prisons and detention centres are overcrowded by 93 per cent. As a result a number of prisons experienced serious outbreaks of disease.

**bb1** Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:25 pm

You know, instead of sending Manning to Gitmo for the next 200 years, perhaps he should redeem himself by spending the rest of his life giving lectures on the folly of listening to white-haired megalomaniacs telling you that no, you aren't committing treason and endangering countless lives, you are helping spread Love, Peace and generally making the world a better place.

He's just about the embodiment of the Useful Idiot.

**bb1** Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:43 pm

I wonder if Ecuador will actually want him, LL? And how is he planning to get to Ecuador, anyway?

**Lamplighter** Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:51 pm

bb1 wrote:I wonder if Ecuador will actually want him, LL? And how is he planning to get to Ecuador, anyway?

A lot will depend on Ecuador 'talking' to the UK, USA and Sweden, I think; Ecuador cannot really afford to upset the USA - though, as the US has not actually said anywhere they want Assange, it may come down to a threesome, with the UK explaining how he has flouted the bail law, and Sweden that he is wanted for questioning on the allegations, and that a trial or otherwise will depend on his answering those accusations. And, as you say, how is he going to get out of the Embassy? You can bet there are cops all around the building, plus there will be law enforcement watching the airports and seaports very closely. When push comes to shove, I cannot really see Ecuador risking much for a moron like Assange. LL

**Sabot** Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:13 pm

It would be possible to get him out using submarines and or private boats, but a huge amount of trouble.

Sponsored content