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), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    1) Feel free to supply citation for how many prisoners are kept in prison solitary confinement awaiting trial for 5 months. And I mean that as kept in solitary for 5 months... I know many people wait in prison longer than that awaiting trial.

    And let me add one more caveat to keep us looking at apples here: Only prisoner's awaiting initial trial... not those found guilty but are in the processes of appealing.

    2) we're on the same page as this, and really, it's not a big deal to the conversation at hand... we can drop this one.

    3) I really don't see it as "losing the forest for the trees". Nice dodge though. You didn’t' address the fact that the cable I mentioned speaks very loudly for how this war is being conducted. Does stuff like this happen in war? Sure. But why hide it when we've been called out on similar instances?

    " While accidental civilian deaths are bad, and nobody supports them, reporting of them openly could end up changing public opinion, because it is what the media would focus on."
    Would you prefer such blatant propaganda to truth and full-disclosure?

    4) your statement was still an ad-hominim attack. You said, basically, "you don't agree with the 'assassination programs'? Oh, you must support terrorists". In my opinion: bad form.

    5) No we don't have to accept the fact that the person who got us into these wars "had reason". If his reasons were wrong, evil and monetary, why the hell would we 'accept' them? That's the attitude that will keep us in this war long after it should be done (“Oh it’s okay… President XYZ has a reason to keep us there”). Constantly doubting and hating the leader we had is pointless... you're right... but questioning our government's actions is (and let me emphasize this)~ahem~ EXACTLY WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT

    And I'd really like to see some kind of backup on this 'conspiracy'. Again, as I stated before, if the government knew it was a conspiracy and have proof thereof, why are they having to offer plea deals w/ Manning to get a 'confession'?

    And saying that without Assange Manning would not have released those documents is not only fallacious logic, it's also foolish. He could have released it to news stations all over the world; he could have created a blog and posted them there; he could have sold them to our enemies. Wikileaks is NOT the only source out there. And, speaking of which, even if Assange himself wasn't there, Wikileaks would still be.

    And Assange is a willing anarchist? Funny how this 'anarchist' has been given awards for blowing the whistle on some pretty damned despicable acts on other countries. So why is it so evil when it's our actions under the microscope?

    And your last statement:
    "I would even go as far as to say without Assange, Manning likely would not have copied / replicated / downloads the documents in question, because he would have had no use for them."
    I'm glad you'd go that far, but it's the wrong direction regardless how far you go. As I mentioned, Wikileaks is not Assange and would continue operating without him and Wikileaks is/was not Manning's only option. Sorry.

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
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
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.