Slashdot Mirror

No one is calling Assange a terrorist or a combatant of any form

No one? I thought a number of people had, including the US vice president.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assange-a-high-tech-terrorist-biden/story-e6frg6so-1225973696881

And didn't Sarah Palin say "He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/palin_hunt_down_assange

Okay, she doesn't represent the US government like Biden does but she's still "someone" and has a definite following amongst the US populace.

LTMGTFY. Here are the top five items for a google query "Bradley Manning Torture"
http://news.change.org/stories/un-investigating-bradley-manning-torture-claims
http://news.change.org/stories/the-obama-administration-is-torturing-bradley-manning
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/09551812291/us-is-apparently-torturing-bradley-manning-despite-no-trial-no-conviction.shtml
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/accused_wikileaker_bradley_mannings_torture_by_isolation_20101215/

Andrew Leonard says it's pretty much a waste of time.

I'm sure that committee members would have liked to assign blame; it's just that they didn't have the votes.

Don't forget retroactive immunity for telecoms (AT&T and Verizon) complicit in warrantless wiretapping: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/02/12/amnesty_day

Palin has on multiple occasions demonstrated that she has a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment. I can respect someone I disagree with, but I can't respect someone who would swear to uphold the Constitution (had she been elected Vice President) yet gets such a critical part of it so fundamentally wrong.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html

If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/05/14/palin-backs-miss-calif-blasts-liberal-onslaught/

I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights,

https://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa/status/21534515854

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

The lesson I'm getting is, if you want to change the World, act like a conservative right winger and then slowly poison them from the inside.

I saw that cartoon too. ISTM both parties are trying to destroy themselves from within. Either that or they are both working for the corporations that pay for their campaigns. Nah, that couldn't be it because that's blatant bribery.

read some glenn greenwald

here's today's news regarding a us citizen who (it would seem) has done nothing wrong but who has been tortured by Kuwaitis and put on the US no-fly list so he can't get home to the US.

for basic recent history i'm afraid the burden of citation is not on the poster reminding us of it, but rather that the lazy like yourself can use this thing called a search engine to find news stories about it.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/17/mohamed/index.html

The trouble with that compass is that it doesn't really represent well-round worldviews, and certainly not the ones that animate the American populace. It charts, well, how you feel about the presence of government in a couple of axes.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/lind_five_worldviews is a much better description - past the crude "right/left" axis which has meant different things at different times.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/lind_five_worldviews

The Democrats and the Republicans, when they govern, all generally govern as neoliberal globalists. Some Democrats campaign as social democratic liberals; somewhat more Republicans, lately, campaign as nationalist populists. Nonetheless, the consensus of power itself is pretty stable, and has been since the mid-90s.

Neoliberal globalism is essentially "center-right" ideology. It's very close to core neoconservatism, with the difference being that neo-conservatives give a bit more authority to the idea of the nation-state in carrying out its policing function.

That's standard practice, and it's for his own good. Just because he's being held pre-trial doesn't mean that the other inmates aren't going to stab him to death before the trial.

Read up on the conditions under which Manning is being held; it's not for his safety, it's psychological torture. Whether the goal is to break him so he'll say whatever they want, or just to leave him a ruined shell as a warning to the next person who might try to embarrass the U.S. government, there is nothing "standard" about prolonged solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, or denial of exercise. Convicted murderers and rapists are not dealt with this harshly; there's no way that an accused whistle-blower should be.

Also, speedy trial, doesn't preclude a thorough investigation, the provision was there to ensure that the government didn't endlessly delay a trial while doing a superficial investigation.

The requirement for a speedy trail is exactly in part so that the state can't implement the "sentence first, we'll have the trial later and figure out what he's guilty of then" strategy they are employing. Manning has been held for seven months; courts have generally held that delays longer that six to eight months are unconstututional. If the feds have a case, put it to the jury; if they don't, let Manning go.

Probably solitary is for his own protection, and keeping him alive is the responsibility of the justice system, so if he's on suicide watch, that means being deprived of things he can use to KILL HIMSELF WITH.

That would be fine, except he's not on suicide watch. He hasn't been since the first 2 weeks or so of his confinement. The officers in charge of his detention said that he was a model prisoner.

The only thing troubling here is that this guy's so upset with his circumstances that he's trying to kill himself. Anything else stems from that fact.

I find the fact that he is not allowed to exercise in his cell "troubling". How does that help keep him alive? He also must respond every five minutes that he is ok. Have you ever tried reading a book or watching tv with someone asking you every 5 minutes if you are ok?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/23/manning/index.html

Due Process? How, pray tell, has he been deprived of due process? He's in pre-trial confinement, awaiting his GCM.

From: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

How, pray tell, has he been deprived of due process?

Maybe you haven't heard the reports of the condition of his detention. It was written about quite extensively in December. Here's an article with a number of links.

Bagram was handed over to the Afghans in Jan 2010

Maybe if you're one of those Obama fans that counts announced intentions as accomplished accomplishments. That was signing an agreement to hand over control of the prison, not an actual handover of control. Much like Obama's promise to close Gitmo and starting to withdraw from Afghanistan this year, don't hold your breath on this one.

Detainees are now being held in the Parwan facility which is being described as much more humane, where the prisoners are assigned counsel and can challenge their incarceration

Yes, "described". When an American citizen is being subjected to psycological torture on American soil, I don't know why anyone would put much stock in how a foreign gulag is "described".

I am not a constitutional lawyer

Who needs a law degree when basic remedial reading is more than sufficient? The 5th Amendment is perfectly clear:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

By the way, two counter links:
http://open.salon.com/blog/rahul_k_parikh/2009/09/06/huffington_post_health_watch_mark_hymans_faux_autism_cure
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/dr_mark_hyman_mangles_autism_science_on-.php

But, while I agree with the dangers of chelation (I think appropriate iodine supplementation might be safer and as effective), in general, I feel Mark Hyman is right about the big picture.

The problem is that in the USA, dermatologists and cosmetics companies have scared everyone about being in the sun, which along with and indoors lifestyle have led to vitamin D deficiency (which is involved in dealing with heavy metals). And with the way the meat, dairy, and processed/refined food industries have captured the US FDA, we have a crazy food pyramid that contributes to most people in the USA getting about half their calories from animal products and about the other half from refined and processed foods, with less than 10% percent of calories from fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, and seeds. We need to turn that around so less than 10% of calories comes from animal product and refined/processed foods, and 90% of calories comes from whole plant foods.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

Unfortunately, because of the "Pleasure Trap", people have a hard time breaking out of that bondage to deadly foods and thus come up with endless rationalizations for why they are not harming us:
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm

And we've been told for so long by so many people to avoid the sun (whether for health or energy), it's hard to think it is important. A little story about that is at the end of this:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-october.shtml
"Then, new priests of science and medicine, told the people the Sun God was only a star, one of trillions, nothing special. Great temples called hospitals and research institutes arose, which admitted only filtered sunlight and where the people offered sacrifices to the gods of science and medicine, sacrifices that enriched the new priests. Then, thirty years ago, the new priests of dermatology told the people to shun the Sun God. "Banish her from your lives", they said, "She is evil." The people listened to the new priests and kept their pregnant women out of the Sun God's warmth, and told their children she was wicked. The people stayed inside, their children with them and traveled behind glass in their cars and wore sunblock and sunhats to keep the Sun God away. The Sun God grew vengeful...."

Look, we've been told for decades that type 2 diabetes in incurable, when it is in most cases cured within a week of a better diet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU
http://www.rawfor30days.com/
Above is a link on how to get past the "pleasure trap" keeping people from changing their diet for the better and readjusting their tastes to healthy food.

We've been told heart disease and cancer are just inheritable and "genetic", when most of that is

@KingSkippus, I totally agree. The Fourth Amendment died along with any real privacy years ago.

Although reading some of the posts on here I'm amazed some people still don't get that simple fact. Where have some of these /. readers been? ... I'm amazed anyone would need to ask if the US also spies on what is these days simply called open source Intelligence. Its the norm these days to spy on us all. (What was once considered just paranoia by a few freaks in society, has for the past few years become reality to the point where its just normal for them to spy on all open source Intelligence. We have no privacy. Privacy died at least 5 years ago!. Where have some people been?!

For example:
"FBI brass ask Google, Facebook to expand wiretaps"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/17/google_facebook_wiretapping/

Overview of the whole subject of open source intelligence gathering from many sources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_intelligence

Project Vigilant - "monitors the traffic of 12 regional Internet service providers" and "hands much of that information to federal agencies."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/02/privacy/index.html

Facebook even has a government API used for datamining its users. Here's some more info on Facebook data mining connections with government. http://www.examiner.com/canada-internet-in-canada/facebook-conspiracy-data-mining-for-the-cia

Some people really need to wake up.

@KingSkippus"I know it, the government knows it, and apparently you didn't get the memo."... yes exactly, the government must be laughing that some people still don't get it. Yet /. readers are usually much more technically minded people than the general public, so its no wonder that many of the non-technical general public (who never read /.) don't have a clue how Orwellian its all becoming. Plus this is the levels of spying we have now, as nothing here is even attempting to discuss where research is taking these capabilities!.

Here's a glimpse of just one area of research. Google for, pre-emption precrime, no not as in Minority Report, this is real Pre-crime as in data mining and predicting who *may do something wrong*, not who is doing something wrong, its who could do something wrong.

If that's not freaked you out enough, try adding in the whole social influence research area, for example, just google for, Social influence detection research.

Probably an education he could afford? In fact at the start of an audio interview (bottom of post) with him, he stated his parents said Somalia is too dangerous, so he moved to Kuwait...

The list is:

customer or subscriber account information for each account registered to or associated with Wikileaks; rop_g; ioerror; birgittaj; Julian Assange; Bradley Manning; Rop Gongrijp; Birgitta Jonsdottir.

I don't see any "Black Parrot" there, although I do see two ass hats on the list.

It looks like you're probably safe.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application and this Order are sealed until otherwise ordered by the Court, and that Twitter shall not disclose the existence of the application or this Order of the Court, or the existence of the investigation, to the listed subscriber or to any other person, unless and until authorized to do so by the Court" _ and within a couple of hours you can find the copy all over the Net, as usual. Another bright action from the U.S. Department of Justice? Hey guys, it is a joke, isn't it?

From the article on Salon:

It was issued on December 14 and ordered sealed -- i.e., kept secret from the targets of the Order. It gave Twitter three days to respond and barred the company from notifying anyone, including the users, of the existence of the Order. On January 5, the same judge directed that the Order be unsealed at Twitter's request in order to inform the users and give them 10 days to object; had Twitter not so requested, it would have been compelled to turn over this information without the knowledge of its users.

Kudos to Twitter.

Think back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_(computer_hacker)
He was offered community service (we caught you) and not seem to get a clandestine service offer (we need your skills?).
Australia has its own banking network to watch all large cash flows and is part of the NSA 'network'. Every packet is mirrored ie room 641A for all.
Australia had massive state and clandestine service efforts to track and discredit anyone of interest in the community well into the 1970's.
The idea that that all stopped int he 1980's and 1990 with law reform is ... cute.
So enjoy the outed Australian politician who likes to chat to the US embassy, the Russia/Intel offer but be aware of the geographic 'filtering' and other meetings.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/26/times_wikileaks_white_house_meeting
Enjoy the gems, but have a feel for the larger picture of useful leaks and new cyber laws.

I would have liked to see more detail as well, however I think it's not hard to find serious faults with what the US Congress does and what it tacitly agrees with by not objecting. I don't see most "congress-critters" doing anything to stop some of the most heinous behavior the US government engages in. A few recent examples include:

• killing foreigners in illegal, immoral (and increasingly unpopular and costly) wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen
• stopping the US president from making death threats against Americans without due process or charges of any kind
• keeping such threats secret (to the point where Obama's DOJ doesn't want judges ruling on the legality of such action)
• and inventing new forms of government immunity aimed at allowing the US government permission to intercept all your calls (and emails and so on)

This all happened under President's Obama's watch. This all happened with overwhelmingly silent complicity of his Democratic Party Congress. Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional law and civil rights litigator, calls this wiretapping "at least as pernicious as any power asserted during the Bush/Cheney years".

That's hardly the behavior I'd expect from "fine, upstanding people".

I would have liked to see more detail as well, however I think it's not hard to find serious faults with what the US Congress does and what it tacitly agrees with by not objecting. I don't see most "congress-critters" doing anything to stop some of the most heinous behavior the US government engages in. A few recent examples include:

• killing foreigners in illegal, immoral (and increasingly unpopular and costly) wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen
• stopping the US president from making death threats against Americans without due process or charges of any kind
• keeping such threats secret (to the point where Obama's DOJ doesn't want judges ruling on the legality of such action)
• and inventing new forms of government immunity aimed at allowing the US government permission to intercept all your calls (and emails and so on)

This all happened under President's Obama's watch. This all happened with overwhelmingly silent complicity of his Democratic Party Congress. Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional law and civil rights litigator, calls this wiretapping "at least as pernicious as any power asserted during the Bush/Cheney years".

That's hardly the behavior I'd expect from "fine, upstanding people".

This may prevent a more deserving republican candidate, like Gary Johnson, from getting on the ballot.

edit: searched 'Gary Johnson' on slashdot and found nothing. Disappointed.

Robust? Hardly.

Greenwald has directly rebutted it already. In addition, for anyone that is confused about why Wireds behaviour here is so objectionable, he has posted a follow-up that is quite clear and informative.

Robust? Hardly.

Greenwald has directly rebutted it already. In addition, for anyone that is confused about why Wireds behaviour here is so objectionable, he has posted a follow-up that is quite clear and informative.

So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity -- and I include the misleadingly edited "Collateral Murder" video in my consideration

Maybe it wasn't shocking to you, but I consider things like lying about military action (Yemen, Pakistan), coercion to prevent prosecution (Spain, Germany) pretty big deals. I can't say that I'm shocked, but you can't say there aren't huge huge stories included in just the first 2000 (1% of the total volume) documents that have been released. A small list of those here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks

and more exhaustive list here:

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

Just take 5 minutes and read through those lists and come back and tell me nothing shocking, surprising, or unlawful behavior is included.

"The notion that the Marines posted at Quantico's brig are anything but professional is absurd. Not only are they responsible and accountable for the detainee's security, they are also responsible and accountable for the detainee's safety. ANYONE attempting to harm a detainee in their charge would find themselves in a very difficult situation." Quantico Information
I assume that that would include Manning harming Manning as well as anyone else. That letter to the editor goes into considerable detail about what Manning is and isn't allowed.

"Due to a potential of either high probability of escape, those likely to be dangerous or violent, and those whose escape would cause concern of a threat to life, property, or national security; maximum custody detainees are under constant supervision and have regular interaction with authorized supervisory personnel assigned to the facility to include physicians. Quantico Information"

"A maximum custody detainee also receives daily television, hygiene call, reading and outside physical activity without restraint. He receives the same approved daily meals from the base food service master menu as any other service member would receive." Quantico Information
Also how can someone be cruelly and unusually punished when the aren't being punish only in pre-trial confinement?

Glenn Greenwald eviscerates this latest Wired tripe here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1/index.html

I suggest everyone reading this write to Wired and express your disgust with their shoddy journalism with regards to the Bradley Manning case.

Ok, if you read headlines, here are some

IMO, if the case with Khalid El-Masri is pretty darn criminal. Let's see, a guy is kidnapped, kept in prison for months, tortured, then dumped somewhere in Albania when they figure out he's not the one they want. Which part of kidnapping and torture isn't criminal enough for you?

To top it off, the US requests to Germany to "weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S." if they were thinking of issuing international arrest warrants against the kidnappers. That, if it isn't illegal, definitely should be.

Do you allege such a conspiracy, or at the least gross incompetence by the major news companies?

Well I don't know what the press publishes where you are, but IMO it's generally tending towards incompetence these days.

A1) Pfc. Manning, as well as every other maximum custody detainee, is allotted approximately one hour of television per day. ...
A2) Pfc. Manning, as well as all other maximum custody detainees, is allowed to correspond and visit with only those HE has personally identified as whom he would like to correspond and visit with.
A3) Pfc. Manning is allowed to converse with other detainees as long as the conversation does not interfere with good order and discipline.
A4) Pfc. Manning is allotted one hour of recreation time per day, as is every other maximum custody detainee. Depending on the weather, his recreation time may be spend indoors or outdoors. Activities may include calisthenics, running, basketball, etc.
A5) No detainees are allowed to exercise in their cell. As a matter of safety, all exercise must be supervised.
A6) Pfc. Manning, as well as all other detainees, is issued adequate bedding.
A maximum custody detainee also receives daily television, hygiene call, reading and outside physical activity without restraint. He receives the same approved daily meals from the base food service master menu as any other service member would receive. Quantico Information

I know these conditions may seem a bit harsh to people who have never been in jail or prison, but they really aren't outrageous. I'd guess that the no sheets or pillow thing is a suicide prevention measure.

Greenwalds reply to that section:

Hansen again wildly distorted what I wrote by taking a Twitter comment and tearing it out of context. I most certainly never "agreed" that "journalists were violating [Assange's] privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden," That's a total fabrication. I don't believe that and never said that. Hansen made that up.

Assange was asked in a BBC interview questions such as "how many women have you slept with?" When Assange refused to answer, many WikiLeaks critics pointed to this as hypocrisy -- oh, see, he doesn't believe in transparency for himself -- and my tweet pointed out the obvious fallacy of that claim: there is nothing inconsistent about demanding transparency for government while insisting upon personal privacy.

Moreover, the question Assange refused to answer -- "how many women have you slept with?" -- is relevant to absolutely nothing of public interest, including the rape accusation. By stark contrast, the information Wired is concealing -- whether Lamo is telling the truth about his various claims -- goes to the heart of one of the most significant political controversies in the world.

Don't forget the US conducting military strikes in Yemen while saying we weren't. Or that we killed more Iraqi civilians than the government was admitting to. Or that the US knew about Iraqis being tortured and raped but didn't do anything to stop it. The list is huge.

Glenn Greenwald compiled a list of important issues from Wikileaks. One of the main issues is that the press wants to talk more about Julian Assange getting arrested than about world governments' illicit activities.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks/index.html

Seriously? People are still using the "nothing new here" argument against Wikileaks? If you do even a minimal amount of research you can see that there was quite a bit of new information revealed by Wikileaks including unlawful activity.

Would you mind uploading your email archive to a web server for the rest of us to look over? If you wouldn't do that, why would you want the US government to do the same thing?

Actually, much of my professional email involves working on open source projects and is already available on public web servers. I wouldn't want my personal email available to the public, but I also wouldn't expect that of a government employee. However, I consider the US government to be my employees, and I should be able to review most of what they are doing without any problem, and I would especially want to know if my employees were breaking the law.

Anyway, here are some links for you: one, two, three.

I can see why you are against Wikileaks. You don't even follow normal news, so why would anybody need more?

Note how few points Greenwald raised that Wired addressed.

That is really the point of all this isn't it. The attitude in the Wired article should tell you everything. It's a bunch of bluster that makes Wired look petty and guilty at the same time. That to me should be the most telling part. They're dodging. Big time.

One of my favorite aspects to Greenwalds recent high-profile writings is that the targets of his questions keep shooting themselves in the foot with their responses. Michael Lind did this last week and I'm sure anyone who cares enough time to read through it all will find that Wired went straight down Lind's already face-palming path.

It's really a wonder to behold.

both are somehow linked to Project Vigilant - a group that tracks internet users and hands the data over to the Federal Government ("what they essentially are is some sort of vigilante group that collects vast amount of private data about the Internet activities of millions of citizens, processes that data into usable form, and then literally turns it over to the U.S. Government, claiming its motive is to help the Government detect Terrorists and other criminals..")

You correctly quoted from the link. Not your fault that information is incorrect, all though I have to ask myself why Mr Greenwald investigator and journalist is so quick to swallow and endorse their press release as an accurate description. A separate and larger "patriots" group does "collect" data, but mainly it "profiles" and "assesses" individuals and groups, Vigilant(e) is a smaller "active" group. I'd encourage people to form their own conclusions.

Warning:- these are muddied waters, the larger activities represented by this group are far from passive and reactive. At best their targets are the "perceived" enemies of a "stable" US economy, which rightly or wrongly involves the recruitment of players within government (cough DOJ cough) and private industry (cough ISPs cough) - often "coercively".

A couple of links to start:-

• Cryptome
• LaRouche

Now I'm worried that a tin-foil hat *might* be a sensible precaution... ;-p

"How the White House secretly hooked network TV on its anti-drug message: A Salon special report."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs
"President Clinton's drug czar, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, some of America's most popular shows -- including "ER," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Chicago Hope," "The Drew Carey Show" and "7th Heaven" -- have filled their episodes with anti-drug pitches to cash in on a complex government advertising subsidy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?_r=1
Pentagon's New Goal: Put Science Into Scripts
From drugs to science to a positive view of military life, its all been emotional blended in for generations.
If your movie gets too "historical", funding and support can stop.
... kid to read up on science and scientific issues .. and drugs and soda ... and wars ... and diet and .. [you got funding?]

The remaining chat logs can contain details deemed to be national secrets. Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.

The problem is that Lamo has spent the last few months revealing information from the chat logs. Journalists are repeating what he says as fact without being able to check them against the chat logs. Lamo has been making contradictory statements and changing his statements to apparently support the needs of the DOJ - he said that there was no explicit evidence of anyone helping Manning in the logs, the DOJ said it needed evidence of Assange directly helping Manning, and suddenly Lamo claims the logs contain explicit statements that Assange instructed Manning in how to upload files to Wikileaks. Convenient!

Lamo was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital three weeks before Manning's arrest. Now he is talking to the press about these supposed confidential chat logs that they are unwilling to release. They are unwilling to release even the portion of chat statements that would directly confirm or deny Lamo's public statements. There are rumours that Poulsen and Lamo are both informants, and that both are somehow linked to Project Vigilant - a group that tracks internet users and hands the data over to the Federal Government ("what they essentially are is some sort of vigilante group that collects vast amount of private data about the Internet activities of millions of citizens, processes that data into usable form, and then literally turns it over to the U.S. Government, claiming its motive is to help the Government detect Terrorists and other criminals..")

The article has been updated saying that Wired has promised a response, and Greenwald says "What they ought to do, at the absolute minimum, is post the portions of the chat logs about which Lamo had made public statements or make clear that they do not exist." Is that so unreasonable? Or is the world expected to believe verbatim the contradictory statements of a mentally ill man who refuses to show anyone the evidence behind those statements?

And until then, they are free to torture him to their hearts content in an effort to force compliance out out of him?

According to Manning's lawyer he isn't being tortured and the guards at the facility where he is being held are treating him professionally.
Greenwald doesn't really say much about how Manning is being held and gets some of that wrong. Some of the stuff he complains about, like not being allowed to exercise in his cell, are standard rules in military prisons. Sure, I wouldn't want to be put in Manning's position, but Greenwald overstates the isolation Manning is subjected to and selectively quotes a couple of articles dealing with real isolation to prove how this is damaging to Manning.

And until then, they are free to torture him to their hearts content in an effort to force compliance out of him? I think not.

When did acting like the villains out of a WWII or Cold War spy flick become publicly acceptable for the country that prides itself on being the leader of the free world?

According to Glen Greenwald in this statement, Poulsen chose to voluntarily withhold the full logs. Nowhere is any mention of national security or other sources mentioned by Poulsen or Greenwald. We should not have to guess at Poulsen's reasons for not disclosing the full logs when he could state right out why.

Here and again here.

Here and again here.

Yeah, like Patrick Smith (aka 'Ask the Pilot), a professional pilot and writer who has been complaining, and writing, about these exact things for years.

Maybe he will get a lump of coal in his stocking tomorrow.

Manning's detention: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

I fully agree with you, but don't forget that even all (as far as we know) European governments collaborated with the US abductions to secret torture camps.

It doesn't matter what is 'considered' the leak.

The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.

Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.

No one else did, certainly no one at Wikileaks, and hence the government cannot do anything^W^W^W will instead torture Manning until he claims Assange 'incited' Manning to or something so they can extradite Assange from the country where they've got him held on a bogus rape charge now. (Whereupon the charge will magically go away.)

The game is really obvious, people. Really REALLY fucking obvious.

I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime. (Since when does the CIA investigate crime? When they need to invent a crime, that's when. The FBI and whatnot have moral objections to framing people, the CIA does it all the time.)

How the fuck is what you described illegal?

Receiving classified information is not illegal, even knowingly. Neither is informing someone where they can leave classified information where you'd see it better.

And anything Manning's says is suspect. He's being tortured until he makes up some bogus way for them to arrest Assange.

Right now, they have that guy locked up in solitary confinement (without actually having had a trial yet, mind you.)

The suspicion is that they're doing it so he'll testify (aka, make up something) against Assange.

Basically, the US government has decided to go after Wikileaks, despite them not doing anything that is the slightest bit illegal, and something that is literally indistinguishable from journalism. (And wouldn't have been illegal even if they did it in the US. The fact they aren't in the US makes that even less likely they are in violation of any US law.)

This is the CIA's team to invent some charges against Wikileaks.

Everyone needs to read this. It's before the CIA's announcement, but it's pretty easy to figure out what's going on with that.