WikiLeaks

[Marlin]

Again, you are projecting "go after" to mean something more than his usage. You choose to take one colloquial sentence and decide that it must trump all official statements.

I understand what you are saying, but he put himself into the spotlight...much the same as anyone in the public arena, gotta watch your Ps and Qs.

I just wonder if good old Julian will step up to the plate and help the guy who is looking at life in a military prison or just use him and toss him aside?

Maybe you are confused but Manning was not caught giving information to wikileaks, he was caught because he trusted Adrian Lamo (best snitch name ever) who promised Manning confidentiality as a journalistic source and then turned around and reported him instead.

Manning claimed (to Lamo) that he gave info to wikileaks but wikileaks has never confirmed that in any way.

Ah the good old, "warranty only applies to the original owner" concept. Manning needs to go to jail anyway.
Wikileaks is all about defending the release of classified/secret info, but only if you go through them. Sounds like the Kirby and Cutco warranties, warrantied for life, as long as you buy through an official dealer, like that somehow makes it a different product?

[Stephen Biko]

Ah the good old, "warranty only applies to the original owner" concept. Manning needs to go to jail anyway.
Wikileaks is all about defending the release of classified/secret info, but only if you go through them. Sounds like the Kirby and Cutco warranties, warrantied for life, as long as you buy through an official dealer, like that somehow makes it a different product?

That analogy is a circmand-level stretch of logic. But Wikileaks has pledged $20K in support for his legal defense - on the other hand the US government is exerting so much soft power to cut off all wikileaks funding that who knows what will happen, not content with leaning on Visa/Mastercard/Paypal it's starting to sound like Germany has been persuaded to "audit" the organization - Wau Holland - that handles most of Wikileaks donations. Want to bet they seize it?

[VXR]

That analogy is a circmand-level stretch of logic

[Marlin]

That analogy is a circmand-level stretch of logic. But Wikileaks has pledged $20K in support for his legal defense - on the other hand the US government is exerting so much soft power to cut off all wikileaks funding that who knows what will happen, not content with leaning on Visa/Mastercard/Paypal it's starting to sound like Germany has been persuaded to "audit" the organization - Wau Holland - that handles most of Wikileaks donations. Want to bet they seize it?

I am not seeing how it is a stretch. They (wikileaks) is preaching about the transparency of all information, but only if you go through them, giving them first dibs for publicity, filtering, use of the info and so on.

20 whole thousand dollars!!! Damn, here I was thinking they were cheap and not willing to help anyone unless you went through them.

"Most large law firms in the United States bill between $200 and $1,000 per hour for their lawyers' time"

So for a case of this high profile, that should get him, oh, say about one day of a good lawyer. Hell, Rangel spent millions, and he didn't even go to trial.

This is like saying I gave a homeless guy a penny yesterday, now I am a hero!!!!!!!!

[Y33TREKker]

...They (wikileaks) is preaching about the transparency of all information, but only if you go through them, giving them first dibs for publicity, filtering, use of the info and so on.

That's not what was being said either.

In the interview, Assange himself suggested that Wikileaks is seen as a "publisher of last resort". I'm sure everyone (you, me, AND Wikileaks) would be very happy if all the news coming from all "official" channels was unfiltered, but a person would have to be very naive indeed to say that is actually the way things work at this time, as alluded to with the talk about gag orders later in the interview.

Spin is all too common, and since you like analogies, here's another one. Even as you are reporting on this site your take on the events surrounding Wikileaks, various parts of the story are going through your filter and coming out skewed to your particular viewpoint. The question as always is why?