You don’t get anymore mainstream than Jim Miklaszewski, and here’s what he’s reporting:
U.S. military officials tell NBC News that investigators have been unable to make any direct connection between a jailed army private suspected with leaking secret documents and Julian Assange, founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.
The officials say that while investigators have determined that Manning had allegedly unlawfully downloaded tens of thousands of documents onto his own computer and passed them to an unauthorized person, there is apparently no evidence he passed the files directly to Assange, or had any direct contact with the controversial WikiLeaks figure.
The report goes on to describe the conditions of Manning’s detention, which is essentially solitary confinement, along with an admission that he was improperly placed on suicide watch earlier this week. Manning was not suicidal, so the suicide watch (which deprived him of items like reading glasses) was clearly punitive.
After all the sideshow antics of the past couple of days, we’re forgetting the main point: Manning was arrested in May, 2010. His pre-trial hearing is May, 2011. In the meantime, he’s being held in solitary confinement and being fucked with by his captors, apparently in a vain attempt to get him to name a connection to Assange for which there is no evidence. We have a sixth amendment to avoid just this type of coercion.
The reason I’m disgusted with Jane Hamsher’s clownish performance this weekend is simply because Bradley Manning deserves better advocacy, not because she’s wrong to point out that he’s being treated badly, and the fact that her advocacy falls short doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s being punished before experiencing due process of law.
stuckinred
But she’s so pretty and she’s the only one that tells the truth.
polyorchnid octopunch
For all those hating on the Hamsh: at least she’s doing something, even down to giving the people that visit him rides. I can’t help but point out that she’d clearly given those rides at least two times (based on the content of the tweets) without using it for self-aggrandizement until the Quantico folks decided to mess with them.
So knock off the “self-promoting harridan” bullshit; she’s not the bad guy on this one.
geg6
THIS.
Exactly.
Josie
Thanks for voicing my concern from the beginning of her involvement. What is happening to Manning is wrong on all levels, but she has attempted to make the story about her, taking the spotlight off of him and his story. I really appreciate your ability to cut to the heart of the matter and see that it isn’t an “either or” situation.
Southern Beale
Via Andrew Sullivan, if you haven’t watched this Beagle Habilitation video do so now. It will break your heart and piece it back together again.
SteveinSC
Someone get in touch with Dick “Iron Heart” Cheney and the rest of his gang of Star Chamber. Turn Manning over to the secular arm. If they waterboard Manning enough times he’ll confess to being Assange.
joe from Lowell
I wish you’d stuck with the lede, about the Assange investigation. Now the thread is going to be yet another pie fight.
So, about that lede: it’s looking like the government has accepted the notion that private civilian Julian Assange publishing leaked info – even at such a massive scale – isn’t itself an actionable crime, and could only be criminal if it was carried out as part of a conspiracy involving someone who is breaking the law by smuggling out classified information.
If so, this is a very positive development. It means that the government is legally bound to keep its own secrets, and that we private citizens are not. Remember, unlike England, the U.S. doesn’t have an Official Secrets Act making it a crime to leak secrets. We only have laws making it a crime for agents of the government to violate their promise not to leak secrets. Preventing the extension of this law to private citizens is necessary from the perspectives of free speech, of transparency, and of the rule of law.
joe from Lowell
@stuckinred:
Dude, mistermix is a guy.
eastriver
At least she’s trying. Sure she’s grandstanding. But she’s out there, doing.
You? You’re typing.
SFAW
joe –
I think stuckinred was talking about Hamsher. Or were you just being ironic?
stuckinred
@joe from Lowell: No shit sherlock
stuckinred
@eastriver: So go over there and tell her how fucking wonderful she is.
Gene in Princeton
@polyorchnid octopunch: Agreed. At least she’s doing something.
cleek
less inter-blog bickering please.
stuckinred
Maybe we could merge the two blogs so the cheerleaders won’t have to navigate too much?
Omnes Omnibus
@joe from Lowell: Agreed.
matoko_chan
Clownish advocacy is likely better than none at all.
Perhaps you can give the Assange crotch-sniffing team here (like burns, eemom, and sooner), more support for their positions?
Have EDK make a FP post on Hamsher and why we are all just alike, why don’t you?
matoko_chan
@joe from Lowell:
the US gov is simply going to have to suborn the judiciary to redefine “conspiracy”, like the Bush admin suborned the judiciary to redefine “torture”.
Culture of Truth
This shouldn’t need to be said. Skeptics of the Hamsher fiasco no more want Manning treated badly than Obama critics want McCain president.
Ija
@matoko_chan:
No. But he has a post up about the slave = fetus thing.
stillnotking
… because a post about unconstitutional detention & torture just isn’t complete without a swipe at Jane Hamsher, amirite?
The FP’ers at this blog are so much worse than Hamsher when it comes to making legitimate issues “all about them” and their petty grievances.
mistermix
@matoko_chan: It’s not clear that none at all is the other option. Jane’s essentially said, “relax, I’ve got this,” but she doesn’t. If she hadn’t, perhaps some other, less cudlip-like person would have stepped up.
@Culture of Truth: It shouldn’t, but it does, because the distinction was being blurred.
cybrestrike
@polyorchnid octopunch: This.
matoko_chan
@cleek:
Why dont you write a 3D pie filter? so negative information from all dimensions of Known Blogspace won’t penetrate the Balloonjuice info-cocoon?
Make it 4D, Cleek, so negative information from the past wont get thru either. :)
Jude
Not to get too nitpicky, but Manning isn’t covered by the Sixth (or any other) Amendment. Something they made clear to me (only after I’d signed the papers and sworn the oath–ha ha) is that, once you’re in the service, you’re no longer covered by the document you just swore to preserve and defend. Instead, you’re covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
That said, however:
I’m sure they’re finding a way to weasel around that pretty clear stipulation.
scav
speaking of no evidence or evidence of a certain kind
Climate sceptic ‘misled Congress over funding from oil industry’
hint: it’s the Koch bros
matoko_chan
@mistermix: I specifically ax what are YOU doing, mistermix, other than enabling spinners, liars, and subsapient cudlips to pretend this is Hamsher’s fault instead of the actual responsible parties?
joe from Lowell
@stuckinred: It’s a joke.
Who pissed in your cornflakes, champ?
Look at what you’ve managed to write so far this morning: some brainless snark insulting Hamsher, the grouchiest possible comeback to a joke you didn’t get, an variation on “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?” and some bullshit about “cheerleaders.”
Are you going to be this big an asshole all day, or do you just need some coffee?
joe from Lowell
@matoko_chan:
If they were going to do that, they would have indicted Assange already, and there wouldn’t be all of this drama about Manning.
mistermix
@matoko_chan: Your reading comprehension is really sub-par if you think this post does anything to enable those who say that this is Hamsher’s fault. Instead of indulging your diarrheaic keyboarding tendencies, re-read that last paragraph, lest you show us all who the real subsapien is.
Asteele
I’m not sure exactly what they tell people inside the military, but soldiers are covered, and the UCMJ is constrained by the constitution. Look at about any case between an individual soldier and the military that makes it to the supreme court, it is inevitatbly a bunch of constitutional claims.
stuckinred
@joe from Lowell: I guess I need to clear things with you huh?
Alesis
@joe from Lowell:
Unfortunately we’ve got no indication from the government that this is the case. I think it is safe to say that DOJ would have preferred to charge this as a conspiracy to steal government property case because the 1st amendment implications wouldn’t be quite as obviously detrimental to mainstream investigative journalists.
Prosecution under the Espionage Act, however, requires no proof of conspiracy and has been suggested by Holder, Feinstein and others. Such a prosecution would be even more plainly anti-whistleblower than then conspiracy charge but we have no indication that the government cares, at least not yet…
liberal
“…not because she’s wrong to point out that he’s being treated badly…”
Of course she’s wrong—anything that ultimately could reflect poorly on Obama is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!one!
Anya
If Jane Hamsher has any integrity she will remove herself from the equation. Bradley Manning deserves a better advocate than the showboating Hamsher jumping on his case for the sole purpose of garnering attention for herself.
The crual of unusual punishment manning is receiving is appalling and the focus should be on that and not on Hamsher’s antics.
joe from Lowell
@stuckinred: Oddly enough, most people don’t need any sort of oversight to avoid repeatedly shitting all over a thread without providing the slightest contribution.
I’m still holding out hope that you don’t need to clear things with me.
Fingers crossed!
liberal
@scav:
I pine for the day that people who lie before Congress are actually prosecuted and thrown in jail.
Tim
Those of you that can’t just stick to the topic of the post need to fuck right off.
I’ve completely avoided these idiotic blogwars until now. I decided that I might have something interesting to add to a conversation about Wikileaks and the gov’t attempts to link the leaks to Assange, but instead I’m forced to read 25+ comments about Jane FUCKING Hamisher. Jesus Christ! You people need to grow the fuck up! You’re not going to find much sympathy for her here so please spare the rest of us. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind by coming here and trolling the comments in defense of her.
If you don’t like the way the FPers post, MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING BLOG!
joe from Lowell
@stuckinred: Here is the sum total of what you’re written, just so you can see how much of a flaming, embarrassing asshole you’re being:
“But she’s so pretty and she’s the only one that tells the truth.”
“No shit sherlock”
“So go over there and tell her how fucking wonderful she is.”
“Maybe we could merge the two blogs so the cheerleaders won’t have to navigate too much?”
“I guess I need to clear things with you huh?”
It’s up to you, champ: is this who you want to be?
SFAW
No.
But we fucking get it that you fucking hate Jane fucking Hamsher with the fucking heat of a thousand fucking suns.
In fact we got that by the second comment. You could just keep typing “ditto” or “ibidem” and WE’D STILL FUCKING GET IT.
Now back to our regularly scheduled progtram.
stuckinred
forced?
You too huh?
liberal
@Alesis:
IANAL, but is that true in terms of actual cases in the past? Can you point to situations where secrets were handed (without the two-way communication of conspiracy) to an organization which then released them to the public, and the latter was then successfully prosecuted?
homerhk
Look, Hamsher aside, isn’t this (almost) precisely how we want government and the rule of law to work? Note, this is not a comment on the circumstances of Manning’s confinement (as to which I don’t know enough to make a comment save that the whole solitary confinement = torture seems to be a relatively recent thing) but this is a comment on the fact that it seems the government investigated and tried to look for a link between Manning and Assange that was sufficient for an aiding and abetting prosecution and seemingly concluded that there was not enough evidence. If the circumstances were as nefarious as some people claim surely they wouldn’t have any compunction in manufacturing evidence (or at the very least pursuing a ‘try-on’ prosecution of Assange).
I will say one other thing, that may win me no friends. Even if what Assange has done (or enabled to be done) does not constitue an illegal act, and even if it has caused no damage to any individual, it has almost certainly set back international diplomacy (who’se going to want to speak to US diplomats now, knowing not only that unvarnished reports will be sent back but that the US Government can do little to stop that sensitive material leaking out). I will ask, what good does it do anyone (government and anti-government activists alike) for details of some Eastern European mistresses to be leaked to all the world.
liberal
@Tim:
Such as…?
joe from Lowell
@Alesis:
We’ve got their actions. We’ve got the effort they’ve putting in to try to link Assange to Manning’s release of classified info.
Prosecuting of Assange under the Espionage Act would require a demonstration that Assange violated the Act, and he could have only done so by conspiring with Manning.
scot
Lots of wankers here. It’s my new fun. Reading all pseudo intellectuals trying to out wank everyone else.
liberal
@homerhk:
It’s a cost/benefit thing. One can plausibly argue that the benefits are outweighed by the costs here, but your comment implies that you think there have been _no_ substantial benefits, a position which I think is completely incorrect.
Alesis
@liberal:
Me neither and it’s a good point. Although the law itself doesn’t mention conspiracy, according to the Wiki on the Pentagon papers (the last Espionage Act prosecution I know of) the case was tossed out on a technicality (the government did not meet the burden of proof for an injunction) without the Supremes rendering an opinion of whether the NYT had a right to publish the info.
Under a John Roberts court…
liberal
@mistermix:
Please don’t talk to the generous commenter who’s given us such beautifully laughable, ludicrous neologisms like “basegank” that way!!!
homerhk
liberal – what substantial benefits do you think there have been from these leaks? Not trying to be snarky just trying to understand.
superking
THIS.
scav
@liberal:
wood be nice.
and does anyone really believe that the rest of the world thought ‘mercan diplomats were pious eternally kind straight-shooters in white hats before this?
liberal
@Alesis:
Heh. Though even a thug like Roberts might understand the can of worms he’d be opening.
liberal
@homerhk:
I gotta get to work now…like commenting on BJ but it doesn’t bring home the bacon. All I’ll say is that there’s many interesting revelations.
And if Wikileaks has created a copycat/snowball effect, than the release of “The Palestine Papers” by Al-Jazeera alone makes it worth it.
BTD
@mistermix:
Really? You had to take a shot?
In any event, there certainly has been more written about Manning at Balloon Juice (and elsewhere) because of what happened on the weekend. That’s something.
homerhk
lib, understand the need to work. I am in two minds about the Palestine Papers given the firestorm it has set off.
soonergrunt
@homerhk:
Careful dude. You’re doing those ‘reading comprehension’ and ‘logical thinking’ tricks again. That’s going to confuse quite a few people.
On another note, and I’m surprised that this didn’t make it into the actual post,
liberal
@superking:
While perhaps not exactly fitting, it reminds me of
Kirk Spencer
@homerhk:
Pretty much everyone, actually, who used to speak to US diplomats will still speak to US diplomats. Oh, some of the individuals will be unhappy about some of the things those diplomats said to superiors about the individuals, but they’ll still talk.
See, the “spill everything” isn’t a policy. And it’s quite evident the US is trying to prevent leaks from the same type of situation. And it’s not unique to the US — other nations have faced “embarrassing leaks” in the past and are still in the game.
Perhaps you missed the post from Mistermix which linked the Guardian article – the one that said all the talk about the devastating consequences was mostly hot air.
matoko_chan
@Ija: lawl, not here is it?
because he would get his ass handed to him again.
im banned at the League, membah?
i accused EDK of base pandering and he banned me.
i have the emails– wanna see?
and hes still at it.
translation– “no you ignorant fuckers are not stupidcrazy morons and this is a legit point of view.”
EDK is a useless glibertarian wanker and a greivous waste of spacetime.
Alesis
@joe from Lowell:
Well certainly proof of conspiracy would strengthen the case regardless of the statute in question that doesn’t mean the government isn’t trying to get Assange by any means necessary.
…and unfortunately the Espionage Act is an overbroad monster of a law and conspiracy is not explicitly mentioned.
General Stuck
This is promising to be another delightful thread. Unfortunately, I have some chickens that need phlucking.
liberal
@homerhk:
What’s the downside to the release of the PP? There’s a clear, outstanding upside: it’s the last nail in the coffin for the argument that the Israelis have any other purpose than stealing P land, or that the P’s aren’t willing to make substantial concessions. (Cue eemom’s forthcoming claim that I can’t say that because as a white American who lives on stolen Indian lands…)
And it might spell the end of Fatah, but if the PP are accurate, that’s clearly a good thing.
Loviatar
BTD: THIS
mistermix and others writing on this site,
We know what Jane has done, like it or not its something. She at least took some of her personal time to go down there and assist, what have you done to personally help either Manning or Assange?
I guess it pretty easy to stand on the sidelines and make smartalec remarks, but again
What have you done?
Joe Beese
If Jane Hamsher didn’t exist, Balloon Juice would have had to invent her.
They could have called her “Emmanuel Goldstein”.
matoko_chan
@mistermix:
subsapient != subsapien.
subsapient means
subsapien i guess would mean…less than human?
im unfamiliar with the term.
guess u showed me, lawl.
:)
Lost Left Coaster
I know that we all are called upon to hate Jane Hamsher with a passion, for some reason. But I really don’t get why her advocacy on this issue is objectionable or doesn’t meet the high standards for advocacy by the writer of this post, who surely has a plan in hand to do a better job on behalf of Bradley Manning? The incident with Jane Hamsher over the weekend garnered headlines everywhere and did a tremendous amount to publicize the Manning case and the conditions of his detention. Where, exactly, did Hamsher go wrong here so that she is still worthy of our contempt? I don’t get it.
burnspbesq
@joe from Lowell:
No, it doesn’t look like that at all.
Read carefully. Miklaszewski’s report says only that the military has been unable to establish a link. DOJ is conducting its own investigation, and the report says nothing about the status of the DOJ investigation.
matoko_chan
@joe from Lowell: yeah, they havent done it yet…its the next step since they cant apparently make the link or get Manning to flip on Assange with torture.
hey BJ, the System is WAI.
Assange predicted Wikileaks would make more leakers.
it is happening, the Palestinian Papers are proof, Elmer is proof, Indoleaks is proof.
i <3 empirical data.
:)
SFAW
We passed the two-minute mark a LONG time ago.
Phil Perspective
@superking: And yet plenty of people will call Michael Moore a clown. Why? Just because they don’t like him, or he hurts their fee-fees for some reason. For all the good he did, change wasn’t going to come from Bill Moyers once a week TV show on PBS.
matoko_chan
@liberal: the System is WAI.
Assanges design states that Wikileaks will create more leakers.
its right in his mission statement that Douchebag and Cole were appently unable to interpret.
joe from Lowell
@burnspbesq:
Phil Perspective
@Lost Left Coaster: Because she dared show up in a car whose tags weren’t up to date(at least the sticker wasn’t on the license plate).
Joe Beese
Not for “some” reason. For a very clear reason…
Unlike Mr. Cole and his associates, Hamsher considers progressive principles more important than the political fortunes of Barack Obama.
Of course, she does not do this for the purpose of making them look like the kind of craven bootlickers that supported W. all the way to the end. But that is the unavoidable byproduct.
Naturally, you can not expect them to thank her for this.
homerhk
Liberal, my problem with the release of the Palestinian Papers is twofold. First, I tend to agree with your take – however, the takes I have read more often is that it is now clear that Israel never had a partner for peace, since the Palestinian Authority doesn’t have the support of its people. To me, that’s just pouring fuel on a fire that’s been raging for decades (note, even if that is not the right take, which I do not think it is). That problem is associated with a general problem that the electorate and individuals are generally woefully uninformed. So, most people who get to hear about the Palestinian papers will only get to hear someone’s take on them, rather than the raw material itself (which in themselves are someones take on something) – however, that is a constant problem with any sort of information so I would ordinarily discount it save that the current situation of I/P is ripe for such misinformation/spin.
Second, my problem is that the papers (or at least most people’s take on them) only focusses on concessions that the PA was prepared to make; but clearly did not make since they didn’t get a deal. Without a deal, there is no way that the PA can persuade the palestinians to concede this things as individual concessions. The only way that it can be sold is as a package deal whereby Palestine is recognised as a state etc. When Palestinians hear about the concessions the PA has made of course they are up in arms and outraged – things like right of return, Jerusalem etc are all core convictions and to let them go smacks of betrayal. However, all of this might be easier to sell if there was a deal.
Just a practical point; as a lawyer I often enter into negotiations to settle litigation – all those negotiations are generally made ‘without prejudice’ which means you can make concessions to test the waters, to find common ground etc. If a resolution does not arise, none of those concessions are valid or even admissible in court. It is a simple rule reflecting that when parties who hold oppositve and entrenched views try to reach a settlement, the only chance they have is to be able to negotiate in an atmosphere where they are free to make concessions in an effort to seek common ground without fear of that coming back to bite them. There are hardly any more entrenched parties than I and P in the world and I do feel that they are never going to get anywhere near common ground unless the negotiations do contain such concessions etc. But, the moment those are made public, those people doing the negotiating basically have no power left and no influence over the people they are trying to influence.
So, with apologies for the long rant, that is why I am in two minds re PP. I would also note that the PA itself doesn’t like it very much characterising the PP as “rubbish”.
matoko_chan
apparently! oooo my speeling.
i have linked said mission statement here multiple times, but cudlips will be cudlips.
mooo, mooo!
burnspbesq
@joe from Lowell:
“that they consider the existence of such a link necessary for the prosecution of Assange.”
Which is precisely what I have said in dozens of comments over an extended period of time. Amazingly enough, I actually do know what the law is.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
I remain unconvinced that Manning’s solitary and suicide watch are all a part of trying to get him to roll on Assange as it is wannabe Colonel Jessups code redding him for breaking security over DADT. Fortunately it looks like he has a good lawyer.
That said, I’ll leave the thread to the Firebagger loyal minions to defend the honor of their sainted and infallible leader.
soonergrunt
@Joe Beese:
And this would have a scintilla of value if she were remotely effective at actually getting anything done.
But she isn’t.
Thanks for playing.
mistermix
@matoko_chan: You’re like the Dr. Johnson of B-J, making up your own dictionary as you go. I hope you have a Boswell to chronicle your extraordinary life.
matoko_chan
@homerhk: i think what the palestinian papers show is that the two-state solution is dead.
Dig Rosenberg.
oooo! betcha i get called an anti-semite for that!
homerhk
Joe Beese:
I would put it another way: Unlike [the professional left] (why single out JH), this progressive (i.e. me – can’t speak for anyone else) considers actual progress more important than progressives.
FlipYrWhig
What does this news do to the idea that Manning is being punished excessively due to his involvement with Assange?
Alesis
joe from Lowell, burnspbesq
I suppose my point is considering the Espionage Act does not mention conspiracy, only that it is a crime to:
Might it not be the case that linking Manning to Assange is desirable from the standpoint of DOJ but not necessary for prosecution?
Where in the act is the conspiracy element necessary for conviction and if such assurances cannot be found then why assert it is?
soonergrunt
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: You think he broke security over DADT?
Source, please.
If that’s the case, he must feel like a real asshole now. I hope it isn’t the case.
I think he broke security because he felt like he was smarter and more special than anyone else and he was going to show those stupid people who couldn’t appreciate what a smart and special person he really is. IOW, I think he broke security for the same reason a lot of non-violent crimes from Disrespect to Theft of Government Property to Security violations are committed in the military.
matoko_chan
@mistermix: nope, i have multiple realtime multidimensional dictionaries actually.
you should browse them sometime.
for example.
this site needs moar desu.
you could get moar desu by giving EDK the hook i think.
language is plastic. it is always evolving.
:)
soonergrunt
@Alesis: Linking Manning to Assange isn’t even part of the Government’s case as regards Manning.
The specific charges and specifications do not mention Wikileaks or Julian Assange at all.
The Charge Sheet can be found here.
The US military has no jurisdiction as regards Julian Assange or any other civilian who may be involved with this, unless said civilian was a contractor or government employee accompanying US forces in the field.
Tim
@stuckinred:
Lord, you are a petty little person.
Keith G
@homerhk: It does seem as if a whole lot of nothing has come from the tales of doom and gloom broadcast after the leaks. Gosh, you don’t think that an administration would hype an event in order to manipulate the public’s reaction. Never!
The benefit, fleeting as it is, has been the reminder that the American public is a mis-informed tertiary partner in the business of running this state. Our republic is in peril – and not by the hand of Bradley Manning.
RP
At the risk of being labelled an apologist for torture or something, I have to admit that I’m a little puzzled by many posters’ attitude toward Manning. Maybe i’m misreading the situation, but I get the sense that many on left feel that Manning is a hero and should be released. It’s pretty clear that Manning committed a very serious crime by leaking the documents, regardless of whether it was directly to wikileaks. I think we’re all pretty happy that he did it because we support openness and transparency, but that doesn’t make what he did any less of a crime. He really isn’t all that different from Jonathan Pollard or Scooter Libby — he just happens to be our side (in a sense). This isn’t even a case of someone violating an unfair law, like Rosa Parks. I doubt anyone here would argue that espionage laws by their nature are unfair. Again, I’m glad he did it, but I still think he should be punished for his actions. Excusing Manning’s crime because we’re happy with the results would open a huge can of worms.
Am I way off base in my reading of the situation? I’m not trying to set up a strawman.
Of course, I certainly don’t think he should be kept in solitary or tortured.
Alesis
@soonergrunt:
We (well some of us it’s a varied thread) were discussing possible prosecution of Assange and Wikileaks as hinted at by the original post. Clearly the US government would like everyone to believe they have jurisdiction as Holder, Feinstein, Lieberman, Issa, Scott Brown, etc. have threatened prosecution under the espionage act.
Joe Beese
If you’re glad that people do things for which they get punished, you’re a sadist.
Tim
Who is this other commenter with my name?
Fraud! Cease and desist!
RP
@Joe Beese: [Crocodile Dundee] Now THAT’s a strawman. [/Crocodile Dundee]
soonergrunt
@Alesis:
Whether the DoJ can prove a conspiracy or a collusion is a different issue than whether or not the DoD has any jurisdiction. It doesn’t, with regard to Assange. DoD most certainly does with regard to Manning. Any attempt tie the two together has to (from a legal perspective) come from DoJ. The fact that Manning is still in the custody of DoD would indicate that the Justice Department hasn’t asserted jurisdiction.
@RP: No, you’re pretty much right on target.
Keith G
@Joe Beese: I am glad for Martin Luther King Jr.
Asteele
@RP I think that many people on the left do think that the Espinoge Act is an unjust law. It certainly is true that in practice it was mostly used to put people in jail for giving speeches about our involvement in WWI, or to seize films about the revolutionaly war, or put poets in jail for not hating Germans.
soonergrunt
@Joe Beese: That’s because you think that murderers, rapists, and child molesters should walk free if they are Jane Hamsher supporters. Thank the FSM that your opinion is worth less than anyone here is paying for it.
Wow. Look at all the straw on the floor. [/sarcasm]
SteveinSC
@matoko_chan: Ant-semite, no, how about “Sword of truth strong and pure. Fly now that evil fail and good endure!”
Keith G
@RP:
I am not. Who is?
Hold on. The two above are vastly different from each other. One spying for another country and the other dumping secrets to destroy another’s crediblity as part of a plot within the Executive Branch.
I do hope some day that we can hear from Manning himself the detailed reasons for his misdeeds.
Joe Beese
You mean from your likening the leaking of documentation of government malfeasance to child molestation?
Yeah, that was something else.
Alesis
@soonergrunt:
Ah I see. Joe from Lowell, burnspbesq, and I were talking about the case against Assange from the government writ large, not simply DOD.
polyorchnid octopunch
@RP: You are completely setting up a strawman. Nobody’s complaining about him being in custody. They’re complaining about the conditions of that custody, because 23.5 hours of isolation a day is tortuous.
If you want to play in the civil disobedience arena, you expect to be punished for it to the extent that the law allows. He hasn’t even been convicted, but he’s being punished more harshly than the law allows.
“Sentence first, then verdict!” – Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland.
The US is Wonderland these days. The rest of the world is looking on in bemusement and not a little fear as your country disintegrates. The fear comes from the predictably bad results that will come when the US reaches the stage where it starts swinging wildly at anyone nearby like some powerful but paranoid drunk in the parking lot of a roadhouse that ends up hitting his wife as she tries to calm him down.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
“And it might spell the end of Fatah, but if the PP are accurate, that’s clearly a good thing.”
Err, no. Destroying Fatah has been part of Likudnik Israel’s long game since Ariel Sharon bombed the shit out of Arafat’s HQ in Ramallah. Reducing Fatah’s credibility as an interlocutor for peace and reduces the pressure on Israel to cut a deal with Fatah and Fatah’s ability to deliver.
Meanwhile, the Israelis expand settlements and ratchet down what the achievable peace agreement. Every decade, the possible deal the Palestinians can get gets cut another 20-30%. That Fatah saw the shitty bargaining position they were in reflects well on their realism. If only they’d had that earlier. If only they’d taken the deal at Camp David with Carter. If only they’d taken the deal with Ehud Barak with Clinton, where right of return was a stumbling block.
Let me make an analogy. Back in the 1960s in Northern Ireland, the IRA realised they were not going to defeat the British militarily. So the then leadership started pursuing a more political strategy. This was too commie librul for the more conservative factions in the IRA, which split and became the Provisional IRA (called “the Provies”), with the remainder of the IRA (the Official IRA, also called “the Stickies”) fighting each other with targeted assassinations, with the Provies winning. The rise of the Provies wasn’t the sole factor behind the troubles, but it was a major, maybe the major, factor. Now, the Provisional IRA picked their time right to cut a deal and their political wing ended up the second most influential faction in Northern Ireland. But that wasn’t worth thirty years of violence to make Martin McGuinness Deputy Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, was it? So the joke in Northern Ireland was:
“Q. What’s the difference between a Provie and a Stickie?
A. About thirty years”
I see the Fatah/Hamas situation the same way. Twenty years from now, Hamas are going to realise “We’ve been totally played by the Iranians, and our people have been screwed over by the Israelis in the meantime,” and want to cut a deal, but that deal will be even shittier than the one Fatah sought in 2008, with an even smaller Bantustan being carved out for them.
Time was on the side of Northern Irish Catholics: they were gaining in economic power and influence, and the IRA/Sinn Fein rode that. Time has not on the side of the Palestinians.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt:
WARNING WARNING
Balloonjuice Elite Crotchsniffing Squadron is Naow Operational
Beware of Radar Sexchaff and Heavy Moral Equivalencies
WARNING WARNING
BTD
@soonergrunt:
Roethlisberger is a Hamsher supporter? Who knew?
James K Polk, Esq.
e@Joe Beese: Jane is hated on because of Grover Fucking Norquist. Also. Too.
Alex
I don’t have enough time to read all of the previous comments, but I hope to point out that it is the FIFTH Amendment, not the Sixth, which provides constitutional protections against self-incrimination and custodial coercion. MIstermix should likely provide a correction of some sort, for precision purposes.
soonergrunt
@BTD: LOL.
And that being a possibility, Joe Beese thinks he should be above reproach because Jane is pure.
RP
But that’s the point — do their motives matter from a legal perspective? From a political and moral perspective I think Manning’s actions were far more excusable than Libby’s, but I don’t think that makes any difference w/r/t to the crime at issue.
But you and 104 might be right that I’m misreading the general perception of Manning.
burnspbesq
@ Alesis:
You are correct that proof of a conspiracy is not necessary to make a case under the Espionage Act.
That said, I have never suggested that Assange be prosecuted for violating the Espoinage Act. In my view, there are statutory-interpretation and First Amendment issues in going after a media actor under the Espionage Act.
Going after Assange for either conspiracy or aiding and abetting Manning’s theft of government property is, in my view, the better way to proceed. Needless to say, you can’t get a conviction for conspiracy unless you can prove the existence of an agreement.
matoko_chan
@Herbal Infusion Bagger:
or the Israelis.
When my generation gets power we are gonna kick J-street to the kerb. Blacks and Browns dont give a shit about Israel.
Only the greys do, and they are dying off.
and the demographic timer goes tick, tick, tick.
The holocaust guilt card has expired with us.
we are gonna cut it up.
:)
soonergrunt
@Alesis: What I’m saying is that there is no case against Assange at this time. At least, not one that includes Manning.
Morbo
Thank you.
Fuck U II: The Duckening
<munchkin>
We represent the Holocaust Guild, the Holocaust Guild, the Holocaust Guild . . .
</Munchkin>
matoko_chan
@Fuck U II: The Duckening: lawl.
there is a holocaust guild?
Middleaged White Evangelical pre-trib christians only?
will you be raptured with Palin and Hagee?
Fuck U II: The Duckening
matoko_wordvomit: don’t ask me, it was your typo.
matoko_chan
@Fuck U II: The Duckening: u shud have quoted it before i fixed it then.
naow you just look stooooooooooooopid.
muhahahaha
not hard for cudlips, since stupid is their resting state.
matoko_chan
its sad how easy it is to mock you ppl.
you just don’t get geek culture a’tall do you?
you are so deadly serious.
i could do this EXACT same thing at a conservative site (and i have!), except they ban my fine white muslimah ass as soon as i score a hit.
that is the only meatspace difference between liberals and conservatives.
the ban stick.
Jose Padilla
Article 10 of the UCMJ has a speedy trial requirement that has been interpreted to be even stricter than the Sixth Amendment right. In the past, a 145 day delay has been determined to be a violation of Article 10. Does anybody know why Manning hasn’t been tried yet? Have his lawyers waived the speedy trial requirement (this happens all the time in civilian criminal proceedings)?
matoko_chan
however, the ideological differences are pretty profound.
:)
Tsulagi
@soonergrunt:
I’d go with that. Also guessing being so smart and special he didn’t factor in his current reality check in his earlier cost benefit analysis.
SteveinSC
@matoko_chan:
Fixed?
catpal
@polyorchnid octopunch:
thank you for saying that. Who else is trying to help Manning? and Questioning WHY the US GOVT is treating him like a bomber terrorist, maybe All this solitary treatment is supposed to get Manning to confess to something he didn’t do. This is happening in the USA?
If Jane Hamsher is able to get Manning’s horrible treatment out in the Public and Media to Question what is going on, then Go Jane and anyone else and Thanks for helping him.
matoko_chan
@SteveinSC: nah. liek i SAID, only the greys and leftbehinder pre-trib retards like Palin and Hagee give a shit about Israel and the holocaust anymore. millenials and blacks and browns dont care.
the greys are in the holocaust guild/guilt. not meh.
:)
matoko_chan
@catpal: i approve this message.
at least Hamsher is taking action, rather than sneering about ineffective that action is is….get that mistermix?
soonergrunt
@Jose Padilla:
I AM NOT A LAWYER. The following contains some of my research, as well as statements made about the case by members of the military bar who are not members of Manning’s defense team.
The Article 10 requirements refer almost exclusively to actions by the government that are avoidable.
There are a number of things going on with Manning’s case. Some of them are:
There is an ongoing classification study. Before certain documents can be used by either the Trial Counsel (prosecution) or the Defense Counsel, the documents themselves must be vetted to determine whether or not they can be declassified or have their classification status changed. Additionally, the Trial Counsel and the Defense Counsel have to be vetted for their security clearances. If, for example the civilian Defense Counsel, Jeffrey Coombs,needs to have his clearance increased in order to defend his client, then the background investigation needs to be done for at least a provisional clearance. The same applies to the pool of Army judges available as well as a pool of potential court members (the jury), paralegals, detailed military Defense Counsel, as well as the guard force. The facility itself has be determined as to it’s suitability. Much of the evidence is classified. That’s what the whole case is about, so this is taking a while.
There is also the matter of the fact that someone has requested of the magistrate for there to be an RCM 706 (Sanity) board and hearing. By Coombs’ own website, Manning’s old unit had been maintaining a book on him with records of incidents that his chain of command believed indicative of mental illness, prior to the misconduct of which he currently stands accused.
The government has denied requesting an RCM 706 board, and Mr. Coombs has not answered the question put to him about it.
The Article 32 hearing, generally considered equivalent to a civilian Grand Jury, is scheduled for next month.
A complaint under Article 10, UCMJ would be heard by a military magistrate at a hearing that would include rebuttal by Trial Counsel. The clearance investigation would almost certainly be viewed as unavoidable, as would the RCM 706, especially considering that the Army didn’t request the 706 board.
There are a couple of other machinations at work here. Manning has been in the Quantico brig for about five months now, under maximum security and prevention of injury and occasionally under suicide watch. Only now is his attorney filing a request for redress of grievances under Article 138, UCMJ. I don’t know the reason for this. I am not a lawyer. He could have filed the 138 months ago. Speculation that I’ve seen includes the possibility that Coombs is preparing a Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus after claiming exhaustion of administrative remedies. He may also be negotiating a plea deal and didn’t want to alienate the Trial Counsel. Again, these last two points are speculation, but that speculation is by actual members of the military bar.
Jeffrey Coombs, Manning’s civilian Defense Counsel, is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve, and teaches trial tactics to military lawyers as his Reserve assignment. He is known for having defended Hassan Akbar.
soonergrunt
@soonergrunt: Further to my last, there are several rulings by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces in the last couple of years directly on point of trial and appellate delays. The remedy ordered for unreasonable Pre-Trial Confinement conditions, when the service could not justify the conditions under the regulations was extra credit towards release for a convicted servicemember.
US v. Williams, CAAF 2010.
Also note that while Art 10, UCMJ authorizes pre trial confinement, and places limits on the extent of confinement based upon the level of Court Martial anticipated, it is Article 13, UCMJ that forbids PTC being punitive in nature.
burnspbesq
@catpal:
” All this solitary treatment is supposed to get Manning to confess to something he didn’t do.”
Sorry, but Manning has already admitted stealing government property.
If the circumstances of his confinement are intended to get him to roll over on Assange, it hasn’t worked yet, nor is it likely to.
soonergrunt
@burnspbesq: And since he’s not charged with anything having to do with Wikileaks or with Assange, it doesn’t look like it will.
The charges and specifications are enough, if he’s convicted, to get him about 45 years in USDB, WITH time off for good behavior, I think they have a big enough stick if they want it.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
I agree: there’s one metric being used for Manning and another for Libby. On this very fucking blog there was outrage the Cheney & Libby compromised Plame’s cover and the damage it did to her work on nuclear nonproliferation and her contacts. Manning leaks orders of magnitude more information and he’s a fucking hero ‘cos Greenwald makes him one and everyone falls into line, regardless of the contradiction.
Exactly how sympathetic would folks here be if Libby pleaded Civil Disobedience. Manning was dumping classified like it was Lady Gaga MP3s in a downloaded Bittorrent, regardless of its sensitivity, and without reading the overwhelming majority of it: that’s not whistleblowing, that’s just grabbing shit so you can show you can. If the Vice President of the US doesn’t have the authority to decide what’s classified and unclassified, an Army private certainly doesn’t, and the idea of Civil Disobedience is laughable given the scale and indiscriminate nature of what was leaked.
Does anyone remember the 9/11 reports? Does anyone here remember the Iraq Study Group report? Did you nod your head up and down about the need for better intelligence and gathering of information? Did you nod you head up and down when there were calls for better diplomacy? Or for calls for the DoD and State Department to work better together so we get in fewer conflicts? Now, does Manning leaking shit and Assange posting it make that goal (1) easier or (2) harder.
If you’re a foreign diplomat at a US State Dept function, do you get shitfaced and admit a State Dept representative in confidence that while your government says it has a unbreakable alliance with County XYZ, your government thinks Country XYZ is run by crazy assholes, or do you stay sober so you don’t deviate from the party line because your conservation might end up on a server as part of some photogenic Australian’s vanity project?
Manning’s not on my side, and screw Hamsher and Greenwald for trying to make Manning this year’s Mumia Abu Jamal.
But let me go on record that I’d be absolutely OK with Manning’s solitary confinement being ended by having Scooter Libby as a cellmate.
As noted in the Atul Gawande in a March 2009 New Yorker article, the SCOTUS and state level Supreme Courts have had the opportunity to rule whether solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment and have not done so.
And it’s being used for 50,000 inmates in the US, including Robert Hanssen, who’s also in solitary confinement for 23 hours/day, whose crimes are the most comparable to Manning’s in terms of scale. If it’s not torture for Hanssen or 50,000 other US inmates, it’s not torture for Manning.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
I don’t have your confidence. AIPAC has had a monotonic increase in influence in US politics; I don’t think J-street will be able to displace their influence. And I don’t think China will be seeking to displace the US as the major outside interlocutor in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The collapse of the Labor Party and Meretz in Israel has meant there’s a choice between Likud policies or Likud-lite in Kadima. Labor’s down to 8 seats, FFS: this the party that founded Israel.
The question is whether Kadima or whatever non-crazily-zionist party succeeds it will know whether to cut a deal in a decade or so when the politics/demographics will be best for it. If not, then the conflict will drag on and on and on.
stuckinred
Like I said
soonergrunt
@stuckinred: what did you say?
Keith G
@soonergrunt:
What? He was under observation for mental/emotional issues while he was “on the job” with access to SIPRNet from his workstation and he also had access to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System.
Okay.
300baud
@RP:
Motive matters.
A vet who puts your sick dog down at your request isn’t all that different from a guy who poisons dogs for kicks. Both, after all, kill dogs who have done nothing to them. (One even does it for money!) Except they’re very different.
The US government is of, by, and for the people. Manning felt a terrible wrong was being committed. Right or not, he decided to go over the head of his immediate supervisors to his real bosses, American citizens.
As with most whistleblowers, his immediate supervisors think he betrayed them. Whether or not you think he did depends a lot on your attitude towards the problems he was trying to point out, and whether you are reflexively in favor of authority or suspicious of it.
soonergrunt
@Keith G: Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that Manning’s supervisors were worth half a shit as leaders. If they were worth a damn, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I would’ve revoked his access the moment I had credible reason to question his mental competence. Hell, since he was already pending an administrative separation, that should’ve happened the moment they decided to adsep him.
Keith G
@Herbal Infusion Bagger:
Who is making this argument?
That horse has left the barn.
stuckinred
@soonergrunt: HA! I got hammered this morning because I hate fucking Hamsher and I am going to say it every time I see her name on this blog. And fuck anyone who doesn’t like it. Joe, you hear me?
stuckinred
@300baud: And all those right wing fucks have the same kind of rationale.
Keith G
@Herbal Infusion Bagger:
Manning has been convicted of the same thing you have been and not what Hanssen has.
Nonetheless, not all solitary confinements are equal. What are the conditions of Manning’s confinement and visitation guidelines? How do they compare with other pre-trial inmates? Are the reasons for those guidelines valid?
Those are issues that concern me.
FlipYrWhig
@soonergrunt: Thank you for sharing your perspective on these threads.
I also don’t know why Manning is supposed to be such a hero/martyr. Oliver North said he was standing up for principle too.
The whole thing smacks of a morality play about civil liberties, specifically contrived to flatter the consciences of would-be self-described lefties who get to show off their virtue to each other. By acting OUTRAGED! by Manning, and wheezing about how lamentable it is that other people aren’t as OUTRAGED! as you are, you get to prove that you’re not a mindless O-bot. Just like Obama’s Big Plot To Kill Social Security, there’s always some kind of terrible turn of events that the elect are just barely keeping at bay by stunts and hyperventilation. O tempora O mores O Manning. Why people keep falling for it I can’t explain.
Keith G
@soonergrunt:
Do we know if those folks have “retired” yet?
soonergrunt
@Keith G: The conditions of Manning’s confinement have been described in depth by Manning’s Lawyer, David Coombs, on his blog, as well as a fairly thorough discussion of relevant military law and regulation for various aspects of the case.
I don’t know how long it will take, but I’m guessing that the Article 138 complaint will probably lead to Manning’s status being reviewed and some of his restrictions lifted.
soonergrunt
@Keith G: I’ve looked for stuff, but haven’t seen anything. If disposition has been handled administratively, you wouldn’t know it because, just like a local or state government or other branches of the Federal government, administrative personnel matters are covered under the Privacy Act.
I’m sure that more than a few adverse NCOERs and OERs have come out of this, as well they should.
soonergrunt
@FlipYrWhig: Thank you, Sir. I’ll try to add value wherever I can and to stay in my lane as we used to say in the Army.
I don’t think I’m OUTRAGED ™ by Manning or by the lack of OUTRAGE ™ about others.
I’m irked by people trying to claim torture where none exists. Hell, even Manning’s paid advocate isn’t claiming that. What I’m seeing here is the same kind of behavior by some on the left as I saw by people on the right surrounding LTC Terry Lakin a few months back. A refusal to believe anything other than whatever crazy-assed theory fits their personal sense of victimhood, an almost willful and intentional disregard of inconvenient facts and law, particularly with respect to a military culture they do not understand and have no wish to understand because to do so would conflict with a carefully constructed worldview that does not actually comport to reality. I do honestly wonder if people on this side will abandon Manning as completely as the birthers appear to have abandoned Lakin when his usefulness is exhausted and he settles in for his stay in Leavenworth and post-conviction life.
But I’m irked, and not OUTRAGED ™ because on a certain level, it’s funny as hell to watch people collectively lose their shit and gibber about irrelevancies and actual important stuff, the whole time screeching about how it’s the other guys who are doing it. It’s like watching the birthers in the months and days leading up to Lakin’s Court Martial, and it will end just like that, except with a longer sentence, befitting the worse crime.
It’s like matoko_chan’s disjointed rantings suddenly became the gold standard for Balloon-Juice.
And if the standard for Bradley Manning activism is to do stupid self-aggrandizing shit like Jane Hamsher, that’s pretty fucked up for Bradley Manning. How about Balloon-Juice do a fundraiser for Manning’s defense fund? I’ll bet you that as a PFC in the Army, he doesn’t have the $100,000 the defense will cost, nor the thousands of dollars the appeals process will cost. And there will be an appeal. It’s automatic under the UCMJ for any Court Martial resulting in confinement greater than one year or a punitive discharge.
liberal
@Herbal Infusion Bagger:
I disagree. If the PP are accurate, Fatah is already corrupted beyond redemption, something which was already pretty apparent.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt:
not nearly as funnie as as watching you crotchsniff Assange on the fakerape charges and crotchsniff Manning on DADT. And get spoofed by the brass on the A-stan and Iraq docs.
eventually you’re gonna get the luck and realize chu been had, sooner. its just a question of how many more of your cannonfodder gawd-n-country cohort get turned into MENA halal hamburger before you get there.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt:
Sooner could contribute here, if he can pull his head up out of Julian Assanges crotch long enough to do the right thing.
soonergrunt
@liberal: Those two are not mutually exclusive.
The reason Hezbollah won that election in 2006 was because nobody in Gaza believed that Fatah was willing or able to do the right thing. the Palestinian Authority government was seen as hopelessly corrupt by the Palestinians a long time ago. The fact that Israel worked very hard to destroy Fatah as the leading voice of the Palestinian people is separate, from this. It’s to Israel’s advantage in the world arena to be seen to be struggling against an effective and irredeemably hostile Palestinian government.
Steven Barnes
I read both Balloon Juice and FDL, but now I am reconsidering. What is with the Hamsher Derangement Syndrome on display the last few days? At least Hamsher is helping out, unlike everyone here.
matoko_chan
@liberal: dude…..put Hamas in the equation.
Fatah is not the legitimate rep. The Palestinians VOTED for Hamas in a free DEMOCRATIC election that ol’ fucking WEC retard Bush and his butt buddies in the Israeli cabinet overturned.
Look at Leb post election to see where this is headed.
Turkey and Egypt were Israel’s only speaking terms frenemies in MENA.
The flotilla put an end to cordial relations with Turkey, and lookie lookie wassup in Egypt.
Another one of Americas puppet dictators is going dowwwwwn.
the Muslim Brotherhood will take over, just like Hizb’ took over the Leb parliament after the disastrous Summer War.
another one bites the dust.
ahhhhn another one gone, ahhhn another one gone
another one bites the dust!
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt:
dude……HAMAS won.
Hizb’ is in Lebanon.
you cant even keep the baddies straight..no wonder you are so confused about who the good guys are.
wallah.
Tom65
@matoko_chan:
Ned Lamont would probably disagree with you.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
Which is why I don’t think this was the base commander trying to coerce Manning into shopping Assange, but the base commander being an angry asshole and deciding he’d make an example of him to discourage others. You slap Manning into 23-hour solitary, he comes out later when the lawyers file a complaint, and then what would you use for leverage against him? ‘Cos he’s beaten you, ‘cos he’s taken the worst you can throw against him, and now he has at least 40,000 eejits thinking he’s a Promethean martyr.
It’s in Quantico, for God’s sake. Couldn’t the commander have picked up the phone and asked someone from the FBI Academy to toddle over and give him tips on how to win a witness over? More flies with honey than vinegar and all that.
lawguy
@Anya: You willing to drive House to visit Manning?
soonergrunt
@Herbal Infusion Bagger: Well, the base commander most likely doesn’t have day to day visibility of the brig. The brig’s commanding officer is the subject of the Article 138 complaint, which is addressed to the commander of the Security Battalion, and through him to the General Court Martial Convening Authority, more commonly known as the Commanding General, Quantico Marine Base.
It is extremely doubtful that Manning would be released from Pre Trial Confinement, but probably will have the Prevention Of Injury restrictions removed, and potentially, but less likely, have his status downgraded from maximum security to medium security.
lawguy
@Phil Perspective: Maybe.
lawguy
@Herbal Infusion Bagger: “If its not torture ……” Isn’t that what is called begging the question?
Just because some authoritarian in a black robe says it isn’t torture, does not make it so. Segregation wasn’t discrimination for around a 100 years according to the ansisters of those same black robed authoritarians.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
Hey, other folks were doing amateur lawyer hour telling me that Manning hadn’t been convicted yet (despite his self-admission making acquittal unlikely), so if they’re going to be asshole legalists, so can I.
But on the topic, can you explain to me the absence of concern regarding solitary confinement until now?
I mean, I’ve been reading the Nation and the American Prospect for over a decade and nary a peep. I want to know how we overlooked that 50,000 folks in solitary are actually being tortured for so long, until Greenwald decided it was the talking point for Assange fanboys.
soonergrunt
@Herbal Infusion Bagger:I can answer that. Greenwald saw that there was a large following of Assange fan boys and jumped on the bandwagon.
He has a book to sell, you see.
And the corallary to what ‘lawguy’ says is that confinement isn’t torture just because a some pissant on the internet says it is.