Yes it is distressing, concerning the fate of Bradley Manning, and no doubt there will be negative effects from the fallout of the information he has supplied the world via Wikileaks.

I applaud him and wish that there was some way that international pressure could be applied to the U.S. regarding his fate or treatment. America allows such barbarism as the death penalty or even execution by drone through Presidential edict if you listen to the American media.

It becomes clear that a type of lunacy exists in the American political psyche and that this now exposed reality should not be allowed to dispense it's type of military justice as we have seen in recent times at Guantanemo Bay. David Hicks and Manduh Habib were lucky enough to be Australian citizens.

Bradley Manning does not have that privilege. My point being that we should not lose site of the fact that the problem is, that it is not clear in this case who the bad guys are?.

U.S. attitudes and philosophy is the problem here and their Empirical view of their place in the world, has been and is being more part of the problem than the solution.

They would most probably consider it their sovereign right to execute Bradley Manning or even Julian Assange if they can get their hands of him by applying one of their jackass laws.

Should the rest of us just stand idol by and let them do what they will, cover their tracks and allow them to sway the public opinion of their short attention spanned population via their controlled media. I don't think we should.

All power to the whistle blower.

Mitchell,

I like your term "facilitator of dissent".
Assange has referred to himself as "a lightning rod" for his cause....which seems to be the case as we witness Western governments falling over themselves to spin accusations that he "may" be acting outside the law. What he does have in common with men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King is that he personifies a movement or philosophy which promotes freedom, openness and fairness.
It's interesting that those who seek to dismiss the released information as so much gossipy twaddle, seem, at the same time, outraged by the prospect that future revelations may disrupt "business as usual" in the world of diplomatic spin-doctoring. It is the fact that the documents are not selectively vetted for sensation value that lends Wikileaks its moral integrity.
(A wave to Squeers)

Hello Poirot:

Here's the second article by Ben Eltham that you may find interesting:

http://newmatilda.com/2010/12/14/whos-afraid-wikileaks

Mitchell:

Thanks, and right back at you! Give Squeers a salute from me, he's one of a kind that's for sure, and you sound like a great friend, I'll drink a toast to you both on Christmas Eve. Cheers!

oug

quote from the site you provided:

"By: Dr Ghayur Ayub  

Tickers on different news channels were running fast at the bottom of the television screen. It was the evening before the next batch of Wikileaks were due for publication. I made sure to buy The Guardian – one of five newspapers publishing the documents. With remote control in hand, I was browsing through Sky News, BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and Press TV. To the best of my recollection, it was Sky News which caught my eye. The breaking news referred to a planned Israeli nuclear attack on two American cities, which were to be linked to Pakistan. America would have had a cause to respond in kind and take out Pakistani nuclear sites.

Thinking details would be published in the Guardian newspaper the following day I did not record it. ... To my surprise, the “ticker news” could not be seen anywhere. ... I opened the Wikileaks’ website and browsed through it carefully; no luck again. Then, I Googled relevant questions pertaining to Israel; still no luck! ... The news had just disappeared from cyberspace. ... So what happened to the news?

The only explanation I can think of is that the news item must have leaked out by mistake and then swiftly been retracted. ... "

This is indeed very frightening ... indeed terrifying. And exactly what I mean. Anyone can state anything and people will believe them. Such 'ticker news' could not be erased leaving no trace. Recording programs is 'commonplace' by tv viewers. The Guardian would certainly have run with it ... This is a prime example of disinformation. Now people can say " xyz was pulled".

cont ...

cont ...

Given the highly sophisticated detection methods used by the US (indeed western countries), it would be impossible to launch a 'false flag' attack. Presumably the launch would be by sea or air. Every craft, worldwide, is identifiable; and especially so those very distinctive ones capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

'False flag' attacks may have been possible in the 19th century, early 20th century. But not since then. The second part of the 20th century had Jayne's ... now there is the most sensitive of methods of detection of any and all vessels/crafts within striking distance (and beyond) of inter/national waters/air space.

This sort of disinformation as cited by oug plays to the most naive ... and also those anti-Israel.

OLO writers mention the US and its machinations, why not British machinations. The British are exceptional where it comes to 'taking out' those deemed extremely dangerous to security.

I doubt that Manning will face execution. Life with hard labour - yes. Assange? Possibly some deranged 'patriot', not associated with US affairs, will eventually murder him. Hopefully not ...

What does emerge is that the public will need to be better informed on a wide range of matters and technologies than it is now.

Lexi,

Thank you for those links...another good read.

Just learned that Australia's main media players have come out in major support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. The country's newspaper editors and television directors have written an open letter to Julia Gillard criticising U.S and Australian government reaction.

http://www.walkleys.com/news/1076/