US steps up efforts to charge Assange with conspiracy

[CptStern]

I think they meant "trumped up charges"

US authorities have stepped up their efforts to prosecute Julian Assange by offering Bradley Manning, the American soldier allegedly responsible for leaking hundreds of thousands of government documents, the possibility of a plea bargain if he names the Wiki-Leaks founder as a fellow conspirator.

keeping him in solitary confinement for 23h/day will ensure Manning is of sound mind when offered the plea bargain

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...o-charge-assange-with-conspiracy-2162639.html

 

[The Monkey]

How is his testimony against Assange gonna be credible under these circumstances? What sort of a judge would buy that bullshit?

 

[Stigmata]

I dunno, applying torture techniques to modulate a prisoner's responses sounds like business as usual.

 

[Warped]

I dunno, applying torture techniques to modulate a prisoner's responses sounds like business as usual.

you mean Bullshit as usual. this is going to make the whole predicament sound even worse tbh

 

[StarBob]

Thanks to the fragile mental state of humans, I'm sure virtually any level of discomfort could be considered enough to dismiss an individual's testimony.

The real challenge is that Manning is US military personnel and Assange is a foreign citizen. I'm not sure how they could even get them in the same trial or use anything one says against the other. Besides didn't Manning give the information to a third party before it reached Assange?

 

[comradesean]

Thanks to the fragile mental state of humans, I'm sure virtually any level of discomfort could be considered enough to dismiss an individual's testimony.

The real challenge is that Manning is US military personnel and Assange is a foreign citizen. I'm not sure how they could even get them in the same trial or use anything one says against the other. Besides didn't Manning give the information to a third party before it reached Assange?

That's why testimonies are flawed. Everyone lies.

Shouldn't believe anything without proper evidence.

 

[Solaris]

Thanks to the fragile mental state of humans, I'm sure virtually any level of discomfort could be considered enough to dismiss an individual's testimony.

The real challenge is that Manning is US military personnel and Assange is a foreign citizen. I'm not sure how they could even get them in the same trial or use anything one says against the other. Besides didn't Manning give the information to a third party before it reached Assange?

You really ****ing annoy me, solitary confinement is torture, it causes serious long term brain damage and you're ****ing equating that with 'virtually any of discomfort'.

You're country is ****ing torturing a man who leaked information that showed your country was up to all kinds of illegal and evil shit, **** you. The worst thing about you is you don't even have the balls to say what you believe, instead you say 'The law is the law' 'all jail is uncomfertable' 'if he didn't want to go to prison he shouldn't have leaked it'.

 

[CptStern]

You really ****ing annoy me, solitary confinement is torture, it causes serious long term brain damage and you're ****ing equating that with 'virtually any of discomfort'..

oh come on Star Bob is overly qualified to dismiss research carried out by hundreds of organisations world wide

 

[Kaptain H]

You really ****ing annoy me, solitary confinement is torture, it causes serious long term brain damage and you're ****ing equating that with 'virtually any of discomfort'.

You're country is ****ing torturing a man who leaked information that showed your country was up to all kinds of illegal and evil shit, **** you. The worst thing about you is you don't even have the balls to say what you believe, instead you say 'The law is the law' 'all jail is uncomfertable' 'if he didn't want to go to prison he shouldn't have leaked it'.

I don't understand. He did commit a highly illegal act, and now he is being held in detention because of it, in accordance with military law. This makes sense.

 

[comradesean]

I don't understand. He did commit a highly illegal act, and now he is being held in detention because of it, in accordance with military law. This makes sense.

He hasn't had a trial yet. As far as justice is concerned, he isn't guilty yet.

But that's not the real point here. It's that he's being bribed to offer a testimony that may or may not be true.

 

[VirusType2]

The US has its own laws n shit.

How do you plead/set court date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arraignment

I can see you are already familiar with a plea deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_deal

Any waiting in jail before the arraignment is considered 'time served' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_served

Check out these numbers, son. Ranked #5 in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

 

[Kaptain H]

He hasn't had a trial yet. As far as justice is concerned, he isn't guilty yet.

But that's not the real point here. It's that he's being bribed to offer a testimony that may or may not be true.

I know he hasn't been found guilty yet. I don't think the conditions under which he is being held have anything to do with some plan to destroy his mind and accept a plea bargain, even if he does give up Assange. I acknowledge that it seems a stretch to say that Assange is a co-conspirator in Manning's leak (though he obviously provided an easy means for it), unless there is something that Manning knows that the rest of the public does not.

Whether or not this is it, Assange is guilty of something. I just hope he's convicted of the right crimes.

 

[comradesean]

I know he hasn't been found guilty yet. I don't think the conditions under which he is being held have anything to do with some plan to destroy his mind and accept a plea bargain, even if he does give up Assange. I acknowledge that it seems a stretch to say that Assange is a co-conspirator in Manning's leak (though he obviously provided an easy means for it), unless there is something that Manning knows that the rest of the public does not.

Whether or not this is it, Assange is guilty of something. I just hope he's convicted of the right crimes.

With all of the information available, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume he's guilty of anything yet. Almost everything has some kind of stink attached to it.

 

[Krynn72]

I don't think the conditions under which he is being held have anything to do with some plan to destroy his mind and accept a plea bargain

Two questions:
1) Do you think the conditions under which he is being held are unjust, given that he has been convicted of no crime?
2) Regardless of whether or not it was planned, do you think that being in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day with conditions that prevent him from things like exercising, and without any comforts as simple as a pillow, for the last seven months, would have an effect on his decision to alleviate his situation by implicating Assange?

Whether or not this is it, Assange is guilty of something. I just hope he's convicted of the right crimes.

Two further questions:
3) What makes you believe he is guilty of "something?"
4) Of all the potential crimes in the world, which ones fall under the blanket of the "something" in your statement?

 

[VirusType2]

Except for the solitary confinement, it is not unusual per US standards. It's punishment, it's not a gym membership. He can do push-ups and jumping jacks and things like the rest of us. You sometimes do not get things like pillows and sheets. It's often really hot, or really cold there. You don't get luxuries like shampoo and blankets and stuff like that. Most prisons have hot water (which is more than I can say for the military).

I personally liked solitary confinement, compared to sharing with some weirdo criminal, living just a couple feet from you all the time. But 23 hours a day in there for months on end does not sound proper for someone who hasn't been convicted, and hasn't attacked or killed guards and other inmates.

 

[StarBob]

You really ****ing annoy me, solitary confinement is torture, it causes serious long term brain damage and you're ****ing equating that with 'virtually any of discomfort'.

You're country is ****ing torturing a man who leaked information that showed your country was up to all kinds of illegal and evil shit, **** you. The worst thing about you is you don't even have the balls to say what you believe, instead you say 'The law is the law' 'all jail is uncomfertable' 'if he didn't want to go to prison he shouldn't have leaked it'.

Wow you really amaze me. You manage to pull shit out of basically nowhere. I at no point said solitary confinement has no bearing on mental state. I said specifically that the nature the human mind is so fragile that any levle of discomfort could be considered enough to dismiss an individual's testimony (in court). This is a VERY simple statement on humanity in general and the human mind's inability to function as it should given even the slightest distracting sitmulus. Here is yet another case where you read what you wanted instead of what was written. You took the OP, my comment, put it through the 'Crazy Factory' in your head and put words in my mouth. If it's so ****ing annoying for me to say something about how fragile the human mind is, then I think you're kind of proving my original point.

 

[Kaptain H]

1. Unjust, no. Inhumane, yes. Necessary, not my call.
2. Yes.
3. The ease and anonymity of using his website served (serves?) as a means of encouragement for people (many, who unfortunately need little coercion) to upload classified content to the public without authorization. The site publishes this content without authorization.
4. He may have committed a crime, and he may be operating under a loophole. Can irresponsibility be considered a crime? I don't know. If he can't be convicted, then it will suffice for charges to be brought against those who are guilty of leaking classified documents in the future.

 

[comradesean]

It's punishment, it's not a gym membership. He can do push-ups and jumping jacks and things like the rest of us. You sometimes do not get things like pillows and sheets.

One of the earlier stories posted mentioned that he wasn't allowed to do anything. That they would personally open the door and restrain him if he tried anything like exercise. Also it's downright evil to not give the man a pillow.



edit:

3. The ease and anonymity of using his website served (serves?) as a means of encouragement for people (many, who unfortunately need little coercion) to upload classified content to the public without authorization. The site publishes this content without authorization.
4. He may have committed a crime, and he may be operating under a loophole. Can irresponsibility be considered a crime? I don't know. If he can't be convicted, then it will suffice for charges to be brought against those who are guilty of leaking classified documents in the future.

If you seriously think that because he provoked this material being leaked and then the fact that he supplied the material is enough of a crime for him to be persecuted then you just ****ed over every journalist in the world. This is their job and there are laws to protect them from people like you who actually have the power to silence them.

 

[Krynn72]

1. Unjust, no. Inhumane, yes. Necessary, not my call.
2. Yes.
3. The ease and anonymity of using his website served (serves?) as a means of encouragement for people (many, who unfortunately need little coercion) to upload classified content to the public without authorization. The site publishes this content without authorization.
4. He may have committed a crime, and he may be operating under a loophole. Can irresponsibility be considered a crime? I don't know. If he can't be convicted, then it will suffice for charges to be brought against those who are guilty of leaking classified documents in the future.

My responses:

1. Damn. You just blew my mind by saying an inhumane act can be just. Thats... its... just... I mean god damn.
2. Good.
3. I don't understand how that is a crime. Thats like saying people who own file hosting sites are criminals because their users use them for illegal purposes. Or that bank managers are criminals because their customers might put drug money in accounts they have with the bank. That makes no sense to me.
4. Irresponsibility itself cannot be a crime. Results of irresponsibility can be. However the results of Wikileaks publishing documents given to them, while irresponsible, still isn't a crime. Charges brought against the people who leaked the documents to Wikileaks makes far more sense, as it is illegal to do so. However, then the question of whether the law is just must be asked, which I think fails to hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Kaptain H]

One of the earlier stories posted mentioned that he wasn't allowed to do anything. That they would personally open the door and restrain him if he tried anything like exercise. Also it's downright evil to not give the man a pillow.

He could strangle himself with a pillow. I've seen people put on suicide watch for far less, and considering the stress he is under, it's for his own good. What I don't understand is not permitting exercise.

 

[comradesean]

He could strangle himself with a pillow. I've seen people put on suicide watch for far less, and considering the stress he is under, it's for his own good. What I don't understand is not permitting exercise.

The thing is that he WASN'T under suicide watch until after so many months of this inhumane treatment (and probably still isn't). Did you even read the story in the OP?

edit: I'm sorry, it was the story in the other thread that was more specifically about this guy and not assange.

 

[StarBob]

My responses:

1. Damn. You just blew my mind by saying an inhumane act can be just. Thats... its... god damn.

Killing a man - inhumane.

Killing a man who is raping and killing your child - just.

Happens all the time really... like... I dunno... every war ever?

 

[Escaep]

All these posts sound vaguely familiar... Almost like theres a near exact same thread going at the very moment all arguing the exact same points. Oh well, I must be going crazy.

 

[comradesean]

Killing a man - inhumane.

Killing a man who is raping and killing your child - just.

Happens all the time really... like... I dunno... every war ever?

Who the **** is killing and raping my god damn child? What the ****.

 

[StarBob]

Who the **** is killing and raping my god damn child? What the ****.

CHILD RAPIST! THEY RAPIN EVERBODY UP IN HERE!

 

[Krynn72]

Your example presents two different situations. My question posed only one situation.

Also your example is completely irrelevant anyways.

 

[StarBob]

Your example presents two different situations. My question posed only one situation.

Also your example is completely irrelevant anyways.

Well if the question is "Is killing a man humane act?" Then the answer is "Yes or no, depending on the situation"

You only said "You just blew my mind by saying an inhumane act can be just." I merely gave you an example of an act that that can be inhumane and just.

 

[comradesean]

Asking if killing a man is a humane act is similar to asking, "Can this computer play games?". It's just too vague and not even that it's not even remotely close to the subject.

 

[VirusType2]

One of the earlier stories posted mentioned that he wasn't allowed to do anything. That they would personally open the door and restrain him if he tried anything like exercise. Also it's downright evil to not give the man a pillow.

That's cruel and unusual. I don't believe it without a credible source. To imagine them doing this routinely would surely be considered torture, even in US law.

I laughed about it being downright evil. But you get used to sleeping without a pillow. Generally, you can use the disgusting mattress lumps, or -- until they catch you -- rolls of toilet paper.

All these posts sound vaguely familiar... Almost like theres a near exact same thread going at the very moment all arguing the exact same points. Oh well, I must be going crazy.

I accidentally posted in the wrong thread because it was so similar. I thought about moving it.

 

[Krynn72]

Well if the question is "Is killing a man humane act?" Then the answer is "Yes or no, depending on the situation"

You only said "You just blew my mind by saying an inhumane act can be just." I merely gave you an example of an act that that can be inhumane and just.

But it isn't. I'd argue that killing someone in the process of raping someone, is indeed a humane act. It is also just. The response to the question "Is killing a man a humane act?" should always be "no." You can't just lump all context in with a broad generic question. So the only way to interpret such a question is to assume there is no other context. The situation needs to be described, as it was in my question. The question isn't "Is keeping a man in solitary confinement a humane and just act?" It was "Is keeping Manning in solitary confinement under the conditions described unjust." A justified action results in better wellbeing for everyone, which makes it a humane action. To be a humane act, it must be just. To be just, it must be humane.

Either way you cut it, the situation doesn't fulfill the criteria of both, and therefore doesn't fulfill the criteria for either, as you cannot separate them.

 

[StarBob]

Asking if killing a man is a humane act is similar to asking, "Can this computer play games?". It's just too vague and not even that it's not even remotely close to the subject.

The subject I was referencing is whether an action can be inhumane (not humane; lacking humanity, kindness, compassion) can be just or justifiable (capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible). The answer is yes. It's slightly off topic, but it's true. Lots of things can be inhumane but justified.