On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical
Piece
Of Evidence

Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25

Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a
chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite
the
blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian
Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia
where
prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove
that
he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over
hundreds
of
thousands of classified documents.

To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they
revealed
in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on
espionage
charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the
classified
documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange:
conspiracy
to hack a government computer.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png
Assange

If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in
prison.

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning
had
already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks,
Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence
analyst
crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of
thousands of documents.

However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least
not
as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was
conspire
with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in
stealing,
while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more
documents when she expressed reluctance.

To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from
March
2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who
alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The
government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting
hundreds
of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee
assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of
secret
documents had run dry.

"After this upload, that's all I really have got left."

To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in
my
experience."

The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her
court
martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo
detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.



This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with
Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at
Manning
related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force
testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they
go....


Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet
Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It
wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is
not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they
can always charge more.

Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited.

All they agreed to is no death penalty.

You don't know what they have agreed to yet because
they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet.

That was the terms the Brits are reported to have.

'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA
hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone
agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions.

Other than the death penalty, they don't care.

That is just plain wrong.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can
bring a limited number of factors into consideration
when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of
the death penalty or whether the requesting state might
try to add additional charges it has not specified.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325

And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist.

You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going
to do in this particular case. I think the Brits are ready to get rid
of this asshole as fast as they can. The ironic thing is, I seriously
wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Our journalist shield
law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world.
Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely
sentence here. Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com...
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical
Piece
Of Evidence

Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25

Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is
a
chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite
the
blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian
Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia
where
prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to
prove
that
he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over
hundreds
of
thousands of classified documents.

To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they
revealed
in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on
espionage
charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the
classified
documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange:
conspiracy
to hack a government computer.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png
Assange

If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in
prison.

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning
had
already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to
Wikileaks,
Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence
analyst
crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of
thousands of documents.

However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at
least
not
as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was
conspire
with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in
stealing,
while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more
documents when she expressed reluctance.

To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from
March
2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual
who
alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The
government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting
hundreds
of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee
assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of
secret
documents had run dry.

"After this upload, that's all I really have got left."

To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry
in
my
experience."

The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her
court
martial statement that she had discussed the value of the
Guantanamo
detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.



This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring
with
Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at
Manning
related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force
testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail
they
go....


Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet
Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know.
It
wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that
is
not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here
they
can always charge more.

Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited.

All they agreed to is no death penalty.

You don't know what they have agreed to yet because
they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet.

That was the terms the Brits are reported to have.

'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA
hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone
agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions.

Other than the death penalty, they don't care.

That is just plain wrong.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can
bring a limited number of factors into consideration
when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of
the death penalty or whether the requesting state might
try to add additional charges it has not specified.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325

And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist.

You are confusing what they can do and what they
said they are going to do in this particular case

No I'm not.

I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they
can.

We'll see...

The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge
stick.

Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech.
The main contra is that its possible that they may be able to shaft him
for trying to encourage Manning to hack into the databases he had
access to after communicating with wikileaks on his own initiative.
But it isnt going to be easy to force Manning to prove that given
your other constitutional guaranteed on the right to not admit
to having done a crime.

Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the
world.

Yes, but that isnt the only thing they can try to convict him of doing.

Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer
than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years

But its less clear whether the US legal system can shaft
Assange much more comprehensively for doing wikileaks,
not just for 'publishing' what Manning gave him.

and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

From Wikipedia
She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges
in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act.

Argue with them. There are other sources.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two driveling idiots' endless bull**** unread again

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

From Wikipedia
She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges
in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act.

Just because someone claims something in wikipedia...

And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun
charges with no evidence of any espionage at all.

Argue with them.

No thanks, I'm not talking to them.

There are other sources.

Then cite them.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:14:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Just because someone claims something in wikipedia...

And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun
charges with no evidence of any espionage at all.

Argue with them.

No thanks, I'm not talking to them.

There are other sources.

Then cite them.

Does that Yankietard STILL not realize what's the matter with you, senile
Rot? You were lucky that you came across that one, eh? LOL

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:37:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical
Piece
Of Evidence

Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25

Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a
chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite
the
blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian
Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia
where
prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove
that
he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over
hundreds
of
thousands of classified documents.

To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they
revealed
in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on
espionage
charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the
classified
documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange:
conspiracy
to hack a government computer.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png
Assange

If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in
prison.

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning
had
already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks,
Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence
analyst
crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of
thousands of documents.

However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least
not
as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was
conspire
with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in
stealing,
while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more
documents when she expressed reluctance.

To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from
March
2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who
alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The
government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting
hundreds
of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee
assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of
secret
documents had run dry.

"After this upload, that's all I really have got left."

To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in
my
experience."

The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her
court
martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo
detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.



This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with
Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at
Manning
related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force
testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they
go....


Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet
Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It
wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is
not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they
can always charge more.

Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited.

All they agreed to is no death penalty.

You don't know what they have agreed to yet because
they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet.

That was the terms the Brits are reported to have.

'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA
hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone
agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions.

Other than the death penalty, they don't care.

That is just plain wrong.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can
bring a limited number of factors into consideration
when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of
the death penalty or whether the requesting state might
try to add additional charges it has not specified.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325

And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist.

You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going
to do in this particular case. I think the Brits are ready to get rid
of this asshole as fast as they can.

+1


The ironic thing is, I seriously
wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Our journalist shield
law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world.
Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely
sentence here. Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

She/he only did a short sentence because Obummer commuted it.

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com...
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical
Piece
Of Evidence

Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25

Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is
a
chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite
the
blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian
Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia
where
prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to
prove
that
he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over
hundreds
of
thousands of classified documents.

To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they
revealed
in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on
espionage
charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the
classified
documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange:
conspiracy
to hack a government computer.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png
Assange

If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in
prison.

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning
had
already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to
Wikileaks,
Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence
analyst
crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of
thousands of documents.

However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at
least
not
as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was
conspire
with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in
stealing,
while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more
documents when she expressed reluctance.

To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from
March
2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual
who
alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The
government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting
hundreds
of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee
assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of
secret
documents had run dry.

"After this upload, that's all I really have got left."

To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry
in
my
experience."

The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her
court
martial statement that she had discussed the value of the
Guantanamo
detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.



This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring
with
Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at
Manning
related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force
testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail
they
go....


Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet
Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know.
It
wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that
is
not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here
they
can always charge more.

Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited.

All they agreed to is no death penalty.

You don't know what they have agreed to yet because
they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet.

That was the terms the Brits are reported to have.

'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA
hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone
agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions.

Other than the death penalty, they don't care.

That is just plain wrong.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can
bring a limited number of factors into consideration
when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of
the death penalty or whether the requesting state might
try to add additional charges it has not specified.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325

And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist.

You are confusing what they can do and what they
said they are going to do in this particular case

No I'm not.

I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they
can.

We'll see...

The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge
stick.

Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech.

It's not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of freedom of the press.
If someone illegally obtains secret information and gives it to just Joe
Blabbermouth and he hand it out, that's not the same as the
Washington Post publishing it.



The main contra is that its possible that they may be able to shaft him
for trying to encourage Manning to hack into the databases he had
access to after communicating with wikileaks on his own initiative.
But it isnt going to be easy to force Manning to prove that given
your other constitutional guaranteed on the right to not admit
to having done a crime.

They may have a compelling evidence trail without Manning.



Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the
world.

Yes, but that isnt the only thing they can try to convict him of doing.

Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer
than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years

But its less clear whether the US legal system can shaft
Assange much more comprehensively for doing wikileaks,
not just for 'publishing' what Manning gave him.

and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

Not yet, anyway.

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:48:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

From Wikipedia
She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges
in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act.

Argue with them. There are other sources.

+1

Not clear what he was taking about. I thought he meant no espionage
charges against Assange, which so far is true. If he means Manning
then you're right.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com...
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One
Critical
Piece
Of Evidence

Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25

Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there
is
a
chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition,
despite
the
blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges),
Julian
Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia
where
prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to
prove
that
he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over
hundreds
of
thousands of classified documents.

To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they
revealed
in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on
espionage
charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the
classified
documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange:
conspiracy
to hack a government computer.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png
Assange

If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years
in
prison.

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after
Manning
had
already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to
Wikileaks,
Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence
analyst
crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds
of
thousands of documents.

However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at
least
not
as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was
conspire
with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in
stealing,
while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more
documents when she expressed reluctance.

To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from
March
2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual
who
alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation".
The
government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting
hundreds
of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee
assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash
of
secret
documents had run dry.

"After this upload, that's all I really have got left."

To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run
dry
in
my
experience."

The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during
her
court
martial statement that she had discussed the value of the
Guantanamo
detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.



This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring
with
Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at
Manning
related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or
force
testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail
they
go....


Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet
Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't
know.
It
wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but
that
is
not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here
they
can always charge more.

Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited.

All they agreed to is no death penalty.

You don't know what they have agreed to yet because
they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet.

That was the terms the Brits are reported to have.

'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA
hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone
agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions.

Other than the death penalty, they don't care.

That is just plain wrong.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can
bring a limited number of factors into consideration
when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of
the death penalty or whether the requesting state might
try to add additional charges it has not specified.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325

And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist.

You are confusing what they can do and what they
said they are going to do in this particular case

No I'm not.

I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they
can.

We'll see...

The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any
charge
stick.

Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech.

It's not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of freedom of the press.

We'll see...

If someone illegally obtains secret information and gives
it to just Joe Blabbermouth and he hand it out, that's not
the same as the Washington Post publishing it.

And we'll see what if anything he gets convicted of doing if the
poms are actually stupid enough to hand him over to the USA
for his kangaroo court appearance. Very fitting in his case.

The main contra is that its possible that they may be able to
shaft him for trying to encourage Manning to hack into the
databases he had access to after communicating with wikileaks
on his own initiative. But it isnt going to be easy to force
Manning to prove that given your other constitutional
guaranteed on the right to not admit to having done a crime.

They may have a compelling evidence trail without Manning.

They wouldnt be ****ing over Manning if they did.

Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in
the
world.

Yes, but that isnt the only thing they can try to convict him of doing.

Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer
than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years

But its less clear whether the US legal system can shaft
Assange much more comprehensively for doing wikileaks,
not just for 'publishing' what Manning gave him.

and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

Not yet, anyway.

Nothing he has done is anything even remotely like espionage.

Some gutless drug crazed drunken ****wit desperately cowering behind
trader_4 spewed just the **** that you'd expect
from a desperately cowering drunken drug crazed gutless ****wit.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:14:33 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

From Wikipedia
She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges
in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act.

Just because someone claims something in wikipedia...

And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun
charges with no evidence of any espionage at all.

Argue with them.

No thanks, I'm not talking to them.

There are other sources.

Then cite them.

https://www.wired.com/2010/07/manning-charges/

according to the charge sheet, Manning downloaded a classified video
of a military operation in Iraq and transmitted it to a third party,
in violation of a section of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e),
which involves passing classified information to an uncleared party,
but not a foreign government.

The remaining criminal charges are for allegedly abusing access to the
Secret-level SIPR network to obtain more than 150,000 U.S. State
Department cables, as well as an unspecified classified PowerPoint
presentation.


What part of "Espionage Act" confuses you?
You can read for days if you like,m including the court transcripts
the indictments various court papers about appeals or whatever your
search engine turns up.

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:29:42 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com...
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical
Piece
Of Evidence

Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25

Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is
a
chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite
the
blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian
Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia
where
prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to
prove
that
he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over
hundreds
of
thousands of classified documents.

To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they
revealed
in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on
espionage
charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the
classified
documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange:
conspiracy
to hack a government computer.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png
Assange

If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in
prison.

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning
had
already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to
Wikileaks,
Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence
analyst
crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of
thousands of documents.

However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at
least
not
as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was
conspire
with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in
stealing,
while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more
documents when she expressed reluctance.

To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from
March
2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual
who
alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The
government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting
hundreds
of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee
assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of
secret
documents had run dry.

"After this upload, that's all I really have got left."

To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry
in
my
experience."

The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her
court
martial statement that she had discussed the value of the
Guantanamo
detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.



This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring
with
Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at
Manning
related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force
testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail
they
go....


Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet
Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know.
It
wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that
is
not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here
they
can always charge more.

Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited.

All they agreed to is no death penalty.

You don't know what they have agreed to yet because
they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet.

That was the terms the Brits are reported to have.

'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA
hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone
agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions.

Other than the death penalty, they don't care.

That is just plain wrong.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can
bring a limited number of factors into consideration
when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of
the death penalty or whether the requesting state might
try to add additional charges it has not specified.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325

And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist.

You are confusing what they can do and what they
said they are going to do in this particular case

No I'm not.

I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they
can.

We'll see...

The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge
stick.

Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech.

It's not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of freedom of the press.
If someone illegally obtains secret information and gives it to just Joe
Blabbermouth and he hand it out, that's not the same as the
Washington Post publishing it.

This will get down to whether Wikileaks is a journalistic operation.
In this day when any asshole with a blog is a journalist, the
difference between Assange and Katy Graham gets pretty fuzzy. -

and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

Not yet, anyway.

Manning was charged and plead on several charges of the espionage act.
It is unlikely they could make that stick on Assange tho.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:31:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:48:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

From Wikipedia
She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges
in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act.

Argue with them. There are other sources.

+1

Not clear what he was taking about. I thought he meant no espionage
charges against Assange, which so far is true. If he means Manning
then you're right.

I think all of the gender confused pronouns makes it clear I was
talking about Manning.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Buried in a
big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the
field or operations that are still active.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:14:33 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing
squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

From Wikipedia
She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges
in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act.

Just because someone claims something in wikipedia...

And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun
charges with no evidence of any espionage at all.

Argue with them.

No thanks, I'm not talking to them.

There are other sources.

Then cite them.

https://www.wired.com/2010/07/manning-charges/

Again, that's just some journo. Show us the charge sheet.

according to the charge sheet, Manning downloaded a classified
video of a military operation in Iraq and transmitted it to a third
party, in violation of a section of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e),

Doesn't mean that doing that is actually espionage, stupid.

which involves passing classified information to
an uncleared party, but not a foreign government.

That's not espionage, whatever that stupid legislation claims, stupid.

The remaining criminal charges are for allegedly abusing
access to the Secret-level SIPR network to obtain more
than 150,000 U.S. State Department cables, as well as
an unspecified classified PowerPoint presentation.

Not espionage either.

What part of "Espionage Act" confuses you?

It no news that much of your stupid legislation has
nothing to do with the title of a particular act, stupid.

You can read for days if you like,m including the court
transcripts the indictments various court papers about
appeals or whatever your search engine turns up.

None of which shows that anything Manning did is actually espionage.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Even less so about what you think.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets
released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of
information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means
and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover
and get him killed.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Even less so about what you think.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets
released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of
information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means
and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover
and get him killed.

Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation
about that possibility, it didn't actually happen.

And Elsberg got a very decent result doing what he did.

Bet lots are much more circumspect about what they do with yanks
outside the USA post the Snowden revelations too. Quite rightly too.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:56:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Some gutless drug crazed drunken ****wit desperately cowering behind
trader_4 spewed just the **** that you'd expect
from a desperately cowering drunken drug crazed gutless ****wit.

LOL Lost yet another argument, you retarded obnoxious senile pest?

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:23:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the clinically insane auto-contradicting senile asshole's latest
troll****

....and nothing's left!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:53:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH 238 !!! lines of sick troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Your entire pathetic existence doesn't matter, you clinically insane
85-year-old trolling piece of senile ****! And you KNOW it! BG

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:49:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Even less so about what you think.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets
released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of
information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means
and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover
and get him killed.

Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation

Now THAT's exactly what all your trolling here is, you forsaken senile pest
who OBVIOUSLY got NOBODY in real life to talk to! G

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and
the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the
US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any
identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc.
The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no reason to ever put that
kind of information in it. Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times
and WAPO, responsible news organizations that would further try to keep
from publishing anything like that. Manning just gave over unfiltered
data to Assange who put it out to the world.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:49:21 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Even less so about what you think.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets
released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of
information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means
and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover
and get him killed.

Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation
about that possibility, it didn't actually happen.

Actually there have been a number of agents and assets that
disappeared after these releases. For obvious reasons the CIA is not
going to admit they were agents.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and
the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the
US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any
identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc.

Thats bull**** on the methods.

The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no
reason to ever put that kind of information in it.

Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless
to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ?

Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times and
WAPO, responsible news organizations that would
further try to keep from publishing anything like that.

Just as true of wikileaks.

Manning just gave over unfiltered data
to Assange who put it out to the world.

In fact much of it was published by the
NY Times and WAPO etc deliberately.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:49:21 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Even less so about what you think.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets
released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of
information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means
and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover
and get him killed.

Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation
about that possibility, it didn't actually happen.

Actually there have been a number of agents
and assets that disappeared after these releases.

Not because they were killed by someone reading what wikileaks exposed.

For obvious reasons the CIA is not going to admit they were agents.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:31:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Actually there have been a number of agents
and assets that disappeared after these releases.

Not because they were killed by someone reading what wikileaks exposed.

Source (other than your psychopathic "mind"), you endlessly bull****ting
senile cretin?

For obvious reasons the CIA is not going to admit they were agents.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

An even sillier troll from you than you usually manage, senile Rot, and
that's saying something!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:26:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and
the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the
US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any
identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc.

That¢s bull**** on the methods.

Sounds more like you are a bull****ter on meth, senile Ozzietard! BG

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 1:26:18 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and
the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the
US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any
identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc..

Thats bull**** on the methods.

The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no
reason to ever put that kind of information in it.

Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless
to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ?

That's stupid even for you. The Pentagon Paper were classified because
it was a review of how the US got into the war, how it got escalated,
it's status, what the reality was, etc. That doesn't mean that names
of agents, intel methods, etc were needed to be in there. It had been
written and reviewed with the intention of it being distributed within
the govt, anything that could disclose agents, methods, etc, would have
been taken out. And further, it went to NY Times and WAPO, who would
try not to print anything they thought would endanger anyone or methods.
That's very different than a Snowden or Manning just dumping raw files.







Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times and
WAPO, responsible news organizations that would
further try to keep from publishing anything like that.

Just as true of wikileaks.

BS. Assange doesn't give a rat's ass what he puts out.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 1:26:18 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier
time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when
you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth
than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your
ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and
the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the
US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any
identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods,
etc.

Thats bull**** on the methods.

The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no
reason to ever put that kind of information in it.

Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless
to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ?

That's stupid even for you.

We'll see...

The Pentagon Paper were classified because it was
a review of how the US got into the war, how it got
escalated, it's status, what the reality was, etc.

And that includes METHODS, ****wit.

That doesn't mean that names of agents, intel methods, etc
were needed to be in there. It had been written and reviewed
with the intention of it being distributed within the govt, anything
that could disclose agents, methods, etc, would have been taken
out. And further, it went to NY Times and WAPO, who would try
not to print anything they thought would endanger anyone or methods.

Not even possible with the METHODS in the pentagon papers.

That's very different than a Snowden or Manning just dumping raw files.

No it is not. The same attempt to not endangering individuals was done.

Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times and
WAPO, responsible news organizations that would
further try to keep from publishing anything like that.

Just as true of wikileaks.

BS. Assange doesn't give a rat's ass what he puts out.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Have fun listing the individuals he exposed deliberately.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 3:06:20 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 1:26:18 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy
wrote:

While needlessly full-quoting, wrote:

Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier
time
that should have been the firing squad.

For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to
death?

Do you know how sickening that is?

And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries
when
you
think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there.

There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth
than
americans.

Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about?

Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your
ass
and kill those that expose your country's war crimes?

Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country?

I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to
decide
which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not.

Doesn't matter what you want.

Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information
about agents in the field or operations that are still active.

Just as true of what Elsberg exposed.

BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and
the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the
US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have
any
identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods,
etc.

Thats bull**** on the methods.

The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no
reason to ever put that kind of information in it.

Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless
to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ?

That's stupid even for you.

We'll see...

The Pentagon Paper were classified because it was
a review of how the US got into the war, how it got
escalated, it's status, what the reality was, etc.

And that includes METHODS, ****wit.

So then provide us with some examples of the classified
intel methods that were disclosed in the PP. You can't.

It wasnt just INTEL methods, ****wit.

That doesn't mean that names of agents, intel methods, etc
were needed to be in there. It had been written and reviewed
with the intention of it being distributed within the govt, anything
that could disclose agents, methods, etc, would have been taken
out. And further, it went to NY Times and WAPO, who would try
not to print anything they thought would endanger anyone or methods.

Not even possible with the METHODS in the pentagon papers.

That's very different than a Snowden or Manning just dumping raw files.

No it is not. The same attempt to not endangering individuals was done.

So, cite for us the individuals endangered by the PP.

Never said there were any. I clearly said METHODS, ****wit.

Noted that you couldnt cite even a single individual
endangered by what Manning or Snowden exposed.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 05:03:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

That's stupid even for you.

We'll see...

We'll see you trolling like there was no tomorrow, you 85-year-old trolling
senile pest!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 05:32:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Never said there were any. I clearly said METHODS, ****wit.

Noted that you couldn¢t cite even a single individual
endangered by what Manning or Snowden exposed.

Noted that you ARE a trolling ****wit, senile Rot!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: