So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him

from the dirty-tricks dept

This is hardly a surprise, but after locking up Bradley Manning in solitary confinement for seven months -- a condition that much of the world has deemed to be torture -- and looking for ways to use a computer hacking law to charge Julian Assange, rumors are that officials have offered Bradley Manning a plea deal, in which he would claim that Assange "conspired" with him to get and leak the documents. From all the info that's come out already, there's been little to suggest that there was any actual conspiring, but it appears that our Justice Department has decided (incorrectly) that Julian Assange is the more important target than Bradley Manning, and so it wants to bring Assange down.

Of course, as many have been saying all along, bringing charges against Assange, even with Manning accepting a plea bargain, will do serious harm to the US. It will highlight how the Justice Department twists laws in an attempt to harm the publisher of information, very much against the basic principles of the First Amendment. If this does come to pass, it will represent a massive chilling of free speech rights, from an administration that has put itself forth as a champion of such free speech rights around the globe. However, the one thing it won't do is actually chill such leaks from happening. As more and more competitors to Wikileaks pop up, you can bet that a legal attack on Assange will only increase the resolve of some of the folks behind those other offerings.

Filed Under: bradley manning, conspiracy, julian assange, plea bargain, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..

    You're right... there is a difference between being guilty-in-belief and guilty by law. I was pointing out Darryl's error in assuming that just because he was in custody then that's proof of his guilt. Which is fallacious.

    "The problem lies in the fact that you don't think anyone is guilty of anything until they have had their trial.
    And they're not. You cannot just toss someone in jail even after they've admitted to guilt. There are still processes that have to be followed.


    "The law says a lawyer cannot defend a person whom they believe to be guilty. "
    Another fallacy... A lawyer must recuse themselves if their personal feelings about the accused create a conflict with their ability to give them fair representation. The whole cornerstone of our legal system is that every single person gets the opportunity to have a fair trial where both sides have the chance to make their argument.

    "This isn't reality, just legal bullshit.
    Well, guess which one matters in court... and matters in the legality of the manner of detention of the accused.

    "Example, O.J. did kill his wife, EVERYBODY with a brain knows it. To say he is innocent according to the law is one thing, to say he isn't guilty of having done it is another. "
    Easy one: He was not found innocent, he was found not-guilty. The jury was unable to say beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Because our justice says we must strive to never put an innocent person to death, capital crime requires 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Thus, OJ was found not-guilty even though, as you put it, ‘everyone with a brain knows it’.
    Civil law, on the other hand, is different. Which is why he was found guilty in the civil wrongful-death suit brought by his wife's family.

    "Manning may or may not be guilty of treason but he is a criminal."
    Not yet he's not... not until he's been found guilty by a Court Martial. And he's being treated as though he was.



    "Let him rot, Americans already have lost too many of their real freedoms and liberties because of criminals. "
    And this is why I weep for our legal system and our country. Someone plays a patriotism card (look at all the risk he’s putting his fellow soldiers in!!! Yes, I know you didn’t say that) and all of the sudden everyone's crying for blood. This man found things that showed his government was doing things that are illegal (or at least highly questionable) and made sure that they saw the light of day. Did he follow the established path to do so? No. For that he is charged with crimes. Fine. But I will not condemn him. In the same sense that our founding fathers said that a tyrannical power must be opposed, I say this man is a patriot... much more than those who would say "but those are our secrets!!"

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.