Forum

facebook:

Amelia Gora

7m  · 

Shared with Public

Reference:

Topic: Whistleblower's Haters Documented

  Sarah Palin Former US Vice Presidential Candidate Julian Assange should be targeted like the Taliban http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3251386/sarah-palin-says-target-wikileaks-julian-assange-like-the-taliban/ Thomas Flanagan former advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. (laughs) I think Obama should put out a contract or use a drone or something. I wouldn't feel happy, uh, unhappy, if Assange disappeared. http://freedomradar.com/news/39-world-news/72-tom-flanagan-calls-for-assassination-of-wikileaks-julian-assange.html Bob Beckel FOX News commentator A dead man can't leak stuff...This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html Eric Bolling FOX News commentator [Assange] should be underground -- six feet underground. ... He should be put in jail or worse, hanged in a public forum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEak-3ya90Q#t=02m20s Todd Schnitt Radio Host ASSANGE IS A TERRORIST, AN ENEMY COMBATANT, AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH, SCHNITT HAS SAID REPEATEDLY ON HIS PROGRAM WHICH AIRS WEEKDAYS FROM 3:00pm-6:00pm EST. http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/reward.html Jeffrey Kuhner Washington Times columnist Headline: Assassinate Assange? Body: Julian Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national security ... The administration must take care of the problem - effectively and permanently. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/assassinate-assange/ John Hawkins Far-right blogger Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data? http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/11/30/5_reasons_the_cia_should_have_already_killed_julian_assange/page/2 Ralph Peters U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and author Julian Assange is a cyber terrorist in wartime, he's guilty of sabotage, espionage, crimes against humanity -- he should be killed, but we won't do that. http://rightwingnews.com/2010/07/the-cia-should-kill-julian-assange/ Ralph Peters U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and author I do not believe in leaks. I would execute leakers. They're betraying our country. http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/video-lt-col-ralph-peters-declares-that-julian-assange-should-be-killed Steve Gill Right-wing Nashville radio host Folks like Julian Assange should be targeted as terrorists. They should be captured and kept in Guantanamo Bay, or killed. http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2010/11/30/steve-gill-kill-wikileaks-founder Rush Limbaugh Right-wing radio talk show host Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain. http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2010/11/rush_limbaugh_on_wikileaks_fou.html William Kristol Editor of the Weekly Standard Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whack-wikileaks_520462.html G. Gordon Liddy Former White House Adviser, talk show host This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki - a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen - is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234905 Deroy Murdock Columnist for National Review If convicted, [Bradley Manning] should be placed against a wall and executed by firing squad. (If extradited here, Assange deserves the same sendoff.) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255483/wikileaks-what-ifs-deroy-murdock Johan Goldberg Editor-at-large of National Review Online I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead? ...Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago? It's a serious question. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251393/all-quiet-black-ops-front-jonah-goldberg Donald Douglas Blogger, Right Wing News I won't think twice if Julian Assange meets the cold blade of an assassin, and apparently a significant number of others don't care for the guy. http://rightwingnews.com/author/donald-douglas/ Paul Holmes New Zealand Herald Columnist I suppose they'll kill him, [Assange]. I would if I were them. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10693684 Mike Huckabee Former Governor of Arkansas and FOX News talk show host Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/mike-huckabee-calls-for-execution-of-julian-assange/ The CIA You Know Who They Are "If legal attacks on Assange fail, he'll simply be assassinated by the CIA." -Paul Craig Roberts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuYLHCvM-7s Jason Lancaster President of Spork Marketing Assange is not a political figure... He represents a danger to the USA and he should be killed ASAP. http://jasonlancaster.com/34/usa-assassinate-wikileaks-founder/ *********************** aloha.  …

Added by Amelia Gora at 10:43pm on October 8, 2011

Topic: WikiLeaks is a Hokulea/Star of Gladness for Many In the World Today

d peace. Author of #OzWikiWatch - keeping pressure on politicians http://ozwikiwatch.blogspot.com/  Monday, March 19, 2012 03/19/12 WikiLeaks has been financially blockaded without process for 472 days. Julian Assange has been under house arrest without charge for 468 days.   Bradley Manning has been in jail without trial for 666 days.  WikiLeaks News: Polls show that the majority of Australians still support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. An article in The Nation looks at "A New Age of Enemies" and how the U.S. is villainizing people like Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. WikiLeaks Press has released its coverage of WikiLeaks news from 23-29 February. Julian Assange News: WL Central has created a list of all planned rallies after Julian Assange's Supreme Court verdict is handed down. ABC is holding a poll asking if people would vote for Julian Assange if he ran for Senate in their state. Currently it stands that 65% would vote for him. An article in Crikey looks at the statistics needed for Julian Assange to win a Senate position. A new section at Justice 4 Assange discusses the obstruction of evidence by complainant AA. Julian Assange interviewed Tunisian president Moncef Marzouki for his upcoming television show "The World Tomorrow." The Drum has published a hit-piece against Julian Assange which previously falsely claimed he's been charged, but has been edited to fix the error. A guest on their TV show also described Assange as a "misogynist" and "conspiracy theorist." Bradley Manning News: Alexa O'Brien has posted a transcript of Day 2 of Bradley Manning's motion hearings. The Bradley Manning Support Network has issued news updates for March 18 and 19 which cover Bradley's motion hearings and commentary on them. ********************************   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWkKAQxe2mc&feature=related …

Added by Amelia Gora at 8:52am on March 20, 2012

Topic: WIKILEAKS Latest; and Latest On SWEDEN'S CASE ON JULIAN ASSANGE

ials2012-10-03  Press Statement: In this election, vote with your wallet, Vote WikiLeaks 2012-09-27  Transcript of Julian Assange Address to the UN 2012-09-26  US Military Refers to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as the "enemy" with the "victims" being "society" 2012-09-26  Background for UN Talk - Ongoing Investigation into WikiLeaks 2012-09-11  Inside the secrets and lies behind ’Secrets and Lies’ 2012-09-10  The public relations state: full details of WikiLeaks & Assange Ofcom complaint over "WikiLeaks: Secrets & Lies" 2012-08-23  Statement on U.K. intentions and pressures prior to Ecuadorian embassy siege 2012-08-19  Official Statement by Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy 2012-08-16  Statement on UK threat to storm Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange 2012-07-18  Press Release: WikiLeaks opens path through banking siege. Donations open. 2012-06-29  Press Statement: By Julian Assange Defense Fund Outside the Ecuadorian Embassy 2012-06-28  Press Release – WikiLeaks: Beat the Blockade CD 2012-06-21  Wikileaks has launched a case against Valitor hf. (formerly VISA Iceland) 2012-06-19  Effective Declaration of Abandonment from Australian Government 2012-04-18  Smear and Enjoy 2012-04-17  Press Release - 500 Days of the WikiLeaks Banking Blockade 2012-04-05  Assange Submissions to the Leveson Inquiry 2012-03-06  Kristinn Hrafnsson: The Great WikiLeaks War on Sweden? 2012-03-06  Press release: WikiLeaks on Recent Fabricated Stories in the Swedish Press 2012-02-15  WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO after WikiLeaks banned from UNESCO conference on WikiLeaks 2012-01-23  New Assange TV Series 2011-12-16  Statement on Bradley Manning Case 2011-11-30  Guardian’s "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" Documentary: 2011-10-23  WikiLeaks Press Statement: WikiLeaks vs the Banks 2011-09-22  Julian Assange: Statement on the Unauthorised, Secret Publishing of the Julian Assange “autobiography” by Canongate 2011-09-19  WikiLeaks Launches the First of Four Fundraising Auctions 2011-08-24  US espionage investigation against WikiLeaks: PATRIOT Act order unsealed 2011-06-15  In Conversation with Julian Assange Part II 2011-05-24  "WikiSecrets" Julian Assange Full Interview Footage 2011-05-23  In Conversation with Julian Assange Part I  (on 2012-10-03) Press Statement: In this election, vote with your wallet, Vote WikiLeaks Wednesday 3rd October, 08:00 BST Translations[fr] Communiqué de presse : Dans cette élection, votez avec votre porte-monnaie, Votez WikiLeaks [vi] Bản phát Báo chí: trong cuộc tổng tuyển cử này, hãy bỏ phiếu dùng ví tiền, Bỏ phiếu cho Wikileaks nhé (Vietnamese) [zh] 新闻公报：在此次选举中，用你的钱包投票，支持维基解密。 [pt_br] Declaração à imprensa: Nestas eleições, vote com sua carteira – vote Wikileaks  “Help WikiLeaks run the United States over the next four years” WikiLeaks enters U.S. election campaign. Last Friday, on 28 September, the Pentagon again threatened WikiLeaks. Pentagon spokesman George Little demanded WikiLeaks destroy its publications, including the Iraq War logs which revealed the killings of more than 100,000 civilians. Little said: “continued possession by WikiLeaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law”. The Pentagon also again “warned Mr Assange and WikiLeaks” against “soliciting” material from U.S. military whistleblowers. In response, WikiLeaks has decided to intervene in the U.S. election campaign. The United States government claims Mr Assange and the WikiLeaks organization are within its jurisdiction. In reply, we place the Obama administration within our jurisdiction. All American school children are taught that being subject to laws without representation is an injustice. This is the backbone of the American Revolution. We claim our representation and now initiate a campaign to transform Democratic and Republican votes into economic and political support for WikiLeaks and its First Amendment values. This election day, do not vote for the Republican or Democratic parties. Instead, cast the only vote that matters. Vote with your wallet – vote for WikiLeaks. The Democratic Party promised to open government. But instead it is building a state within a state, placing nearly five million Americans under the national security clearance system. It has classified more documents than any previous administration, classifying even the process used to decide who will live and who will be killed. The U.S. administration hurtles towards dystopia: secret laws, secret processes, secret budgets, secret bailouts, secret killings, secret mass spying, secret drones and secret detention without charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have led to the withdrawal of the U.S. security state, but without moral competition from another system it has grown unchecked to influence almost every American policy. Four more years in the same direction cannot be tolerated. The Obama administration continues to conduct a “whole of government” investigation of “unprecedented scale and nature” into WikiLeaks and its people. It has fuelled the extrajudicial banking blockade against the organization and has held an alleged WikiLeaks source, Bradley Manning, in conditions that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, found had amounted to torture. Mr Assange has been formally found to be a political refugee, but U.S. ambassadors warned countries such as Switzerland not to offer him asylum. President Obama has called Bradley Manning guilty before trial and Vice-President Biden has labelled Julian Assange a "hi-tech terrorist". The Obama-Biden campaign brags of having prosecuted twice as many national security whistleblowers as “all previous administrations combined”.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.... This is not acceptable. Politicians always say your decision, come election-time, will determine the future. But, as has been seen with the Obama administration, deciding on who gets into formal office is not a meaningful choice, because when you vote your party into government you also vote the government, including all its agencies and friends, into your party. Thus, parties taking office are eliminated as the restraining voice of opposition. But there is another option. Government agencies and corporations know that knowledge is power. That is why they spend literally billions to keep their plans and actions secret from all of us. They know that together we can force them to act differently. It was WikiLeaks’ revelations – not the actions of President Obama – that forced the U.S. administration out of the Iraq War. By exposing the killing of Iraqi children, WikiLeaks directly motivated the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of legal immunity, which in turn forced the U.S. withdrawal. http://salon.com/2011/10/23/wikilea... It was WikiLeaks’ revelations and pan-Arab activists, not the Obama administration, that helped to trigger the Arab Spring. While WikiLeaks was exposing dictators from Yemen to Cairo, Vice-President Joseph Biden was calling Hosni Mubarak a democrat, Hillary Clinton was calling his government “stable” and the U.S. administration was colluding with Yemeni dictator Saleh to bomb his own people.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201... http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/... And it was WikiLeaks’ revelations, not the White House, that led to the reform of the largest children’s hospital network in the United States.http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Report_on... Last year, the Pentagon got $662 billion for its 2012 war chest. For WikiLeaks to continue its work to bring transparency to powerful institutions through the mass publication of leaks with the greatest potential to lead to more just forms of governance, we need to build a bigger ’war chest’ too. In early December 2010, WikiLeaks was receiving $120,000 per day in donations from the general public. In response to pressure from Washington, and entirely outside the law, financial institutions including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America and Western Union, erected a banking blockade against WikiLeaks, stripping the organization of 95% of its funding. Although WikiLeaks has won every court case to date against the blockade, these Washington-linked institutions continue to appeal. So, for the next 34 days, beginning on 3 October 2012, we are launching a new fundraising campaign running up to Election Day, 6 November. You can still donate to WikiLeaks using a variety of easy methods, including workarounds for Visa, MasterCard and PayPal. These donations go to fund WikiLeaks’ publishing and infrastructure costs and our legal costs to fight the financial blockade. We are expecting an answer shortly on Visa’s appeal against the Icelandic court’s ruling that declared their blockade illegal, and decision-makers are expected to meet soon on our European anti-trust banking case. If you wish to contribute to Julian Assange’s legal defence costs, you can still use your credit card but you will need to make a separate donation to the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Staff Defence Fund, administered and audited by Derek Rothera & Co. Full details are on our donate page. You can also donate to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund from our site. "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting", Milan Kundera. Julian Assange The URL for this campaign is: http://wikileaks.org/donate2012 Send to Friend Print      ******************************************* torsdagen den 4:e oktober 2012 The Constitutional State of Sweden is threatened by the Case of Assange This article was published in the biggest Newspaper in Sweden, Dagens Nyheter, on the 19th of August 2012.The legal circus surrounding the case of Julian Assange has now attained proportions uprecedented  in legal history. Julian Assange is the only man who has ever been hunted in this fashion across several continents for questioning over the alleged crimes of sexual molestation and rape. We have therefore reported the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, to the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO, because of her handling of the case. The day after Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador, oddly enough, JO Hans Gunnar Axberger dismissed the complaint, citing the ongoing legal proceedings involving Assange. The facts of the matter are quite simple. Julian Assange had sex with two women on separate occasions during his stay in Sweden. The two women went together to a female police inspector, who was acquainted with one of the two, with the stated intent to compel Assange to undergo an HIV test. However,  the police inspector, instead of processing the case according to Swedish law, filed a police report of rape subject to public prosecution. It is unlikely either of the two women had any idea of the magnitude their visit to the police would take. Next, a prosecutor decided to order Assange arrested in absentia, although he was in the country. The next day, yet another prosecutor found that there was no basis for charges and dropped the matter. On August 30, 2010, Assange was interviewed, and he denied the allegations. The next day, lawyer Claes Borgström, who had offered to be plaintiffs’ counsel for the two women, contacted his old friend, the prosecutor Marianne Ny, who in turn decided to reopen the case. Julian Assange remained in Sweden in order to be available for interviews for five entire weeks, until 27 September, when he left the country after receiving permission from the Prosecutor's Office. This is the context in which Marianne Ny issued a European arrest warrant. Thereafter, Assange offered on several occassions to be questioned in London either in person or via video link. Oddly, Prosecutor Ny categorically rejected these offers, even though such interview methods have been used in other cases. We are, like Julian Assange's international lawyer, the famous Baltasar Garzón of Spain, deeply concerned about the lack of guarantee of security and transparency, and on what legal grounds action has been taken against Julian Assange. The harassment he has suffered has wrought havoc on his physical and mental health.The threat against his person is further complicated by the complex behavior of Marianne Ny, representing the Swedish government, towards him. The result is that Julian Assange's basic rights and freedoms under the United Nations, and his human rights under the European Convention, have been declared irrelevant.When people seek political asylum, it usually involves seeking protection from a rogue state and, in this case, it appears that Sweden is just such a rogue. It is enough to refer to the cases of Thomas Quick / Sture Bergwall or Catrine da Costa for devastating comparisons. We two journalists with many decades of experience in press, radio and television both in Sweden and abroad view with increasing horror how uncritical and biased in favor of the political establishment the journalism is in the case Assange.Everything seems to be aimed to getting Assange extradited to Sweden at any cost, rather than critically examining the prosecutor, Marianne Ny’s, actions that are perfectly coordinated with those of her friend, the lawyer Claes Borgström. Prosecutor Ny has for example said in her inner circle "even if I am wrong, I won’t change my mind."In the arrest memo from 2010, available online for all to see and spanning over 100 pages, it is clear that both of the two women themselves sought out contact with Assange.The leaked arrest memo was a legal bomb which has now been mostly forgotten and buried in all the legal twists and turns of the extradition hearings in London, the flight to Ecuador's Embassy and the question of how Assange might be able to get away, away from the once prestigious Swedish machinery of justice.The case of Julian Assange has revealed the State feminism and its propaganda machinery that are at present in power in this country. It is a machinery in which  men-hating radical feminists without historical roots conspire with journalists who do not understand journalism’s critical task and members of the judiciary who pursue a career under the equal rights and opportunities doctrine. This machinery views the ordinary Swedish man as a potential rapist and already condemned Julian Assange of sex crimes before being proven guilty or innocent. This is the fashion in which the man with the status of a rock star became one of the world's most hunted men.Liberation feminism was hijacked in the late 1980s when it was disarmed and renamed 'Jämställdhet' (the equal rights and opportunities doctrine) and co-opted into the power apparatus. “Jämställdhet” became the state norm and an ideology in Sweden. And it became a career ladder, especially in politics, civil service and in the judicial system. Many liberation feminists disappeared into Swedish universities, where they transformed our struggle into 'scientific knowledge', and became elite feminists. They got money from the State, as universities in Sweden are publicly funded. Instead of talking about 'the sexes' they started talking about 'genders', and the struggle no longer focused on transforming the state apparatus: it switched to targeting the male sex and men as sexual creatures. The present totalitarian gender ideology was also promoted by the Swedish media, which does what is required from it by the State. In another turn, and especially in the tabloids, selling sex like never before has turned the concept of cynicism to an "understatement". The Assange case tickles the fancy of journalists who in turn are seducing their readers, listeners and viewers with an exceptionally biased account. In addition, moralistic editorial writers across the country scream for justice for the demeaned women without any reflection on what really happened those days in August 2010, between Julian Assange and the two women.How the case ends may well be decisive to whether Sweden should continue to be called a state governed by law, in which civil rights are not violated and the European Convention on Human Rights is worth more than the ink it was written with. Helene Bergman, journalist Anders Carlgren, journalist Translated  by Traci Birge Upplagd av Helene Bergman kl. 06:50Skicka med e-postBlogThis!Dela på TwitterDela på Facebook 6 kommentarer: Unknown4 oktober 2012 23:58 OK I kind of agree with the above, but did Mr Assange take an HIV test and send its result to the two women concerned? Because it seems obvious to me that their worry and insecurity was the main reason for the whole story. Did he put their worries to rest? Great if he did, but if he did not, why? And this has nothing to do with feminism, law and hacking, just a human dimension.Janus Avivson, Londonavivson@gmail.com Svara Helene Bergman5 oktober 2012 00:49 Hi, Janus! A very good question, who has totally disappeared! I think he said yes to take an HIV-test, but then I don`t know what happen. I think the discussion has gone like this:IF the two women were afraid, they could take their own HIV-test. One of the women did a rape investigation in a hospital. Then of course they also took an HIV-test. And if that have been proved positive I am sure JA have also been accused of that as it is illegal in Sweden to have sex with anyone if you know you are HIV-positive. Svara Humunculus Flannel5 oktober 2012 01:17 I'm an assange supporter but need to point out that you can't reliably have an HIV test straight after the sex you think may have exposed you to the virus:This is from an HIV info site (http://aids.about.com/od/hivpreventionquestions/f/exposure.htm):Most HIV tests diagnose HIV infection by detecting antibodies produced by an individual's immune system when they are exposed to HIV. However, it does take some time for enough of those antibodies to be present to be detected by the antibody HIV test. The time it takes for people to have produced enough antibodies varies; anywhere from 2 to 8 weeks or longer, with the average being about 25 days. But this can vary from person to person so a good rule of thumb to follow is if your negative test was done less than 3 months after your potential exposure, you should get another test after 3 months time. While about 97% of people will develop HIV antibodies after an infection, it may take 6 months to produce antibodies in some cases. In our clinic we recommend HIV testing after a potential exposure at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after exposure. Svara Humunculus Flannel5 oktober 2012 02:01 It appears as though Assange has taken a test which came back as negative:This from Naomi Wolf's article : http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/"Sources close to the investigation confirm that indeed Assange was asked by police to take an HIV test, which came back negative."Also this section corroborates your assertion that the women should get testing done for themselves. (However I still question how soon a reliable test could be done) :"Rape victims usually fear STD’s or AIDS infection, naturally enough, and the normal police and prosecutorial guidance is for them to take their own battery of tests – you don’t need the man’s test results to know if you have contracted a disease. Normal rape kit processing–in Sweden as elsewhere–includes such tests for the alleged victim as a matter of course, partly to help prevent any contact between the victim and the assailant outside legal channels." Svara Helene Bergman5 oktober 2012 02:12 Thank you @Humunculus Flanell Svara Amelia Gora5 oktober 2012 04:00 It appears that the rape charges were set up to be a diversion and yet a maneuver to prosecute Assange, then take the opportunity to prosecute for other charges.Assange needs to pick out a better partner, someone who's truly interested in him, has respect, etc.Funny how the background of the women weren't shown in the news.....they could've been two barmaids/barflies who operate as a team, etc. who knows?.....did they want to get pregnant? if they were insecure about sexually transmitted disease, why didn't they provide the condoms? it just may be that they were there to set Assange up because there are people hired by government(s) to do that kind of work.....heard about it when I worked for the IRS/Internal Revenue Service - training in San Francisco, California. SvaraRadera Lägg till kommentar        Reference:  http://khelenebergman.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-constitutionel-state-of-sweden-is.html …

Added by Amelia Gora at 1:18am on October 5, 2012

Comment on: Topic 'U.S. President WANNABE Huckabee vs. Whistleblower WikiLeaks Assange.........'

n Assange, if a descendant of Royals.... Wikileaks Head Julian Assange would need to utilize his Royal person status, which means immunities......... Alternately, he could request for immediate citizenship with other true democratic nations, who could try to help, including the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kou Hawaii Pae Aina, etc.......... aloha. Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs Amelia Gora P.O. Box 861781 Wahiawa, Oahu, Hawaii 96786 e-mail: hawaiianhistory@gmail.com by Amelia Gora (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:09:29 AM **************************************** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6oAFlPLGA8"/> …

Added by Amelia Gora at 6:18am on December 7, 2010

Comment on: Topic 'WikiLeaks Supporters - including Amelia Gora - Continue to Fight for Bradley Ma…'

g to pressure Manning into implicating Julian Assange so that he too can be charged and extradited to US The Real News needs your support. Make a $10 donation by texting realnews to 85944 from your mobile phone. Works in US only The Real News team is doing a tremendous job with analytical content - Srinivasan R Tell us why you support TRNN Context: As yet there are no context links for this item. → Suggest Context Links Here Bio Michael Ratner is President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York and Chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin. He is currently a legal adviser to Wikileaks and Julian Assange. He and CCR brought the first case challenging the Guantanamo detentions and continue in their efforts to close Guantanamo. He taught at Yale Law School, and Columbia Law School, and was President of the National Lawyers Guild. His current books include "Hell No: Your Right to Dissent in the Twenty-First Century America," and “ Who Killed Che? How the CIA Got Away With Murder.” NOTE: Mr. Ratner speaks on his own behalf and not for any organization with which he is affiliated. Transcript PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. And now joining us from New York City is Michael Ratner. Michael is the president—I should say president emeritus of Center for Constitutional Rights; also a regular contributor and on-the-board member of The Real News Network. Thanks for joining us, Michael. MICHAEL RATNER, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Good to be with you, Paul.JAY: So you represent Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and you were just at the arraignment of Bradley Manning. What happened at the arraignment? And what's going on with that process?RATNER: Well, I'm sure, as most of your listeners—well, viewers know, Bradley Manning is accused of being the source for much of the material that WikiLeaks put out with regard to the "Collateral Murder" video, the video about murders that took place in Iraq from a helicopter; hundreds of thousands of war documents about Afghanistan, as well as Iraq; as well as the so-called quarter million diplomatic cables. And he's accused of doing that as a 22-year-old in the military. He's now 24. He was treated very, very harshly, actually under torture conditions for a long time. And now he's being referred to a court-martial, which is the military trial. He's been given 22 charges, including a most serious charge, which is called aiding the enemy, which carries a death penalty. But at this point, they've only—they're saying, the government's saying, we're not going to charge him with death penalty; we're going to, you know, try and get a conviction for life.So the arraignment is the process in which Manning appears before the judge and is asked to plead guilty or not guilty or defer his plea. And I went down to the hearing. It was a short hearing, about an hour, at Fort Meade, which is, of course, somewhat near where you're broadcasting from these days, Paul, somewhat near Baltimore, an hour or so outside—maybe 40 minutes—at Fort Meade. It's a huge, sprawling military fort. Very hard to get access to it. The car I drove in was inspected. You had to have insurance for the car, all kinds of other things. You then have to get in line.You can't bring any materials into the courtroom at all, other than a pencil and paper. I couldn't do any Blackberry Twitters or anything else. And I'm in this very antiseptic looking courtroom. It's hard to describe how antiseptic. It has cheap industrial carpeting, celotex ceilings with the little holes in them, and it only holds about 20 people. There are about ten of us spectators, ten people from press. And then Bradley Manning, a very short 5'2", thin, slight soldier in a green uniform, walks in with his civilian lawyer—who was formerly a military lawyer—walks in, sits at the table. And you just had this amazing feeling in this antiseptic courtroom.And here's this man, accused of really revealing massive war crimes, alleged war crimes by the United States, I mean, sitting in this place in Fort Meade. And I had this feeling when I'm sitting here: the real people who should be sitting there are all the victims of what the U.S. has been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, of course, that's not who was there. Who's there are the prosecutors with more brass on their chest that you can't even stand up. And of course he's accused, as I said, of these very serious crimes.So the judge is a new judge that's been appointed, and Bradley Manning was asked to plead. His answers were always—the only thing he said in court was, yes, Your Honor, or no, Your Honor. His lawyer spoke for him when it came time to plead, and he said he's deferring the plea. And they set a date for the next hearing, which is going to be in March.The trial date: they're asking for a date in August—at least, the military's asking for a date in August. And that means by the time he's tried—and I don't think it's going to be tried in August—Bradley Manning will have been in pretrial confinement for 800 days. And, of course, while in that confinement, he was subject to what many of us believe was torture, stripped completely, put into solitary confinement a period of nine months, until there was incredible international outcry and he was finally moved to general population at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas in the United States.He also is being, as I said, heavily charged—22 counts. And at the last hearing, his lawyer, a man named David Coombs, said he was being so heavily charged and treated so badly because to the extent the government thinks he might know something about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, because he was the alleged source for WikiLeaks, they're trying to get him to speak out, and to not just confess, but to really implicate Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.JAY: Because the point here is if it's a leak, then Manning's responsible, and he somehow just handed it over; but if Julian somehow assisted, advised, or was involved in the original gathering of the material, then they could charge Julian. That's what's at stake here?RATNER: You know, it's a very important point you're making. That's exactly what's at stake. I mean, I wouldn't characterize it the way you did, but it's roughly that. If—it's roughly what you said. What they're trying to say is that somehow—or the government wants to be able to prove that Julian Assange was in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting Bradley Manning to get these documents. It's as if the two were working together, not that Bradley Manning simply furnished the documents to Julian Assange.And when I say it's not as—not the way I would say it, exactly—. But let's take a case. New York Times reporter James Risen, who's the one who disclosed the warrantless wiretapping that Bush was running, he got those documents from somebody in the national security agency or some agency of the United States government. They didn't—I presumed—I don't know this, but I presume the documents were not just dropped on James Risen's desk at The New York Times or that they simply were mailed to him. I presume there was constant contact. I don't know this. There may have been contact with Risen and the source. There may have been more.So the point is that at some point it perhaps crosses into conspiracy. But if I say to my source, well, meet me at the corner of, you know, Hollywood and Vine and there's a restaurant there and would you drop off the documents, that doesn't make me a conspirator. If I tell him—you know, hide him under a rock, it doesn't make me a conspirator.So the United States is reaching for straws here, because they realize they have a problem. If they can't get Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in a conspiracy where he actually is aiding and abetting Bradley Manning, they have no case, because then what's the difference between Julian Assange and The New York Times or WikiLeaks and The New York Times? Every day you pick up your newspapers, they're filled with classified material that's been leaked. And so the government has to try—as you said, the key point is for them to turn Bradley Manning on the expectation that he—which may not be true at all—that he, Bradley Manning, can somehow implicate Julian Assange.JAY: Right. Now—.RATNER: That's what the lawyer himself for Bradley Manning said. That's why Manning is being treated so badly.