>> ^longde:


The fact that this may have indirectly led to the Arab Spring is irrelevant.


If the positive consequences of something are irrelevant than so are the negative consequences.

It's an awful long time to wait for a trial, especially when his crime is essentially revealing truths to the American public about the war they were paying for.

Treason would be withholding that evidence.>> ^Morganth:

If the trial is coming up, then it's not indefinite detainment.

I am not a grammar nazi. I think the english language is and should be fluid. Informally, I speak and write to be understood. I have enough education and academic degrees to have the intellectual freedom to ignore a mere spellchecker when I see fit.

Now, irregardless of that, would you care to comment on the issue at hand?>> ^Fade:

Using the word "irregardless" without even the slightest hint of irony should be a capital offence. Your spell checker tells you it's wrong fer christs sake.

I don't think he was talking about lack of whistleblowers in general...but whistleblowers from within the Murdoch organization.

BTW...this just in "Sean Hoare, the former News of the World showbiz reporter who was the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead, the Guardian has learned.">> ^radx:

How ironic that Olbermann is complaining, indirectly, about a lack of whistleblowers.
The entire Murdoch/NotW scandal is based almost solely on the relentless work of the Guardian's Nick Davies, who kept digging and digging until they couldn't bury it anymore. The very same Nick Davies who brought the Guardian and Julian Assange together, the same Nick Davies who is very outspoken with regards to the mistreatment of, allegedly, the most prominent whistleblower of our days -- Bradley Manning.

How ironic that Olbermann is complaining, indirectly, about a lack of whistleblowers.

The entire Murdoch/NotW scandal is based almost solely on the relentless work of the Guardian's Nick Davies, who kept digging and digging until they couldn't bury it anymore. The very same Nick Davies who brought the Guardian and Julian Assange together, the same Nick Davies who is very outspoken with regards to the mistreatment of, allegedly, the most prominent whistleblower of our days -- Bradley Manning.

@marbles

Thanks for sharing your sources with us, I have not followed details of Syria's events, but I can respond to the articles about Iran.

Re: US trains activists to evade security forces
Offering tools that circumvent government censorship firewalls, is not instigation. Iran's government has strict rules for ISPs to share information with the government, much like the warrantless wiretapping in US. If HTTPS circumvents the wiretapping, then is IETF instigating revolution in US?

Re: 'US trains Jundullah members'
Jundullah is a terrorist group, has nothing to do with peaceful protests and civil movements in Iran.

Re: 'has intelligence agents working in Iran'
Duh, of course and Iran has intelligence working in US. Is the Wisconsin labour movement instigated by Iran? http://www.presstv.com/detail/168937.html

Re: Kissinger threatens regime change in Iran if coup fails
Kissinger said that if the government is NOT democratic, then US would work for regime change. US is doing that right now with the global sanctions on Iran. You can't take his words and say that the millions that protested after the election were all tricked by US propaganda and spies!

Re: Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter #IranElection
Online activities such as twitter and facebook are reports of what's going on, not the actual events. People went to the streets and protested, they were shot, killed and prisoned. You need to look at the number of people that risked their lives to measure their force and influence, not twittes!

Re: Iranian Unrest: Evidence Of Western Intelligence Meddling
"CIA/Mossad flooding Iranians with contradicting SMS messages"
I never hear of any broadcast SMS messages in support of the protestors. Government did send threatening SMS messages to discourage people from going to protests. People SMSed each other, but that way you know the person that SMSed you. If I get a SMS from a number I don't recognize, I would just ignore it, but if my friend tells me something, then I would listen!

This is exactly how it happen (eye witness report), after they announced that Ahmadinejad won the election, it was late in the evening, people were in disbelieve, they walked out of their houses and talked with neighbors, once they saw that all around them were Mousavi supporters and no one that was cheering Ahmadinejad's victory. If Ahmadinejad has majority support in their riding, as the polling stations had reported, then where are those supporters? After that evening people knew that they has cheated, from talking to neighbors face to face, and NOT from a twitter fed for god's sake. The west learned about it from twitter, not people inside Iran!

Re: Iran busts another CIA network
Iran's government labels any dissenters as US backed agents or drug dealers. Are the people working to free Bradley Manning agents of foreign governments? Now the hard liners in Iran are accusing Ahmadinejad of initiating negotiations with US and are calling for his impeachment. US is the boogyman used to justify any action that the regime wants to take. Like the "terrorist" threat in america, used to take away people's freedoms, its not REAL!

Re: Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran
This article is a rehash of the previous ones, no new points here.

Just because governments are spreading propaganda against each other, it doesn't mean that the civil movements inside those countries are made up of manipulated and instigated people!
US caught off-guard by Iran sanctions
Iran to sue US over human rights abuse

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

Your video, Guardian: The madness of Bradley Manning?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^marbles:

Classic Psyops. They put the information there to bait Manning into releasing it. Lamo is an FBI informant. Wikileaks is a CIA/Mossad mouthpiece. Assange is MK Ultra.


And you must have lost your Username... *ba dum tsh*

Frontline story The inside story of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and the largest intelligence breach in U.S. history

>> ^kceaton1:

This could very well be true. I just want to hear i from his mouth. The fact that it's been an issue for months with nothing said or done is the ridiculous part. No stance can change that part.
Yes, the activists do not follow the logic well. I'll agree with that. But, I also don't like my government hiding as much information as it does. I understand militarily it may be needed, but almost everywhere else it's fear of repercussions in politics and people trying to manipulate others.


Agreed on all points. I'd like Obama to hold a press conference on Manning, and really take the bull by the horns. I also wish the press corps would hammer him about this constantly (though preferably in the fair "what's the hold up on giving him a trial" sense, not the straw man "why are you pronouncing his guilt prematurely" sense).

I think too much gets classified, but I think in the case of the state department e-mail, I think there's a lot of grey area there. In one sense, I don't think government leaders should be in the habit of having wildly divergent public & private conceptions of their policy. But given that such things are probably unavoidable, I'd like for diplomacy to be able to happen in both kinds of forums to maximize the ability for it to work.

For the most part, I think Wikileaks reminds us of what the value of a real press is -- it's to dig up the dirt the people in power are keeping secret to avoid accountability. I think without some sort of adversarial press, it's impossible for us to ever hold anyone in power accountable. It seems like in America, we don't really have a real investigative, journalistic press anymore.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^kceaton1:
Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.

Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…
He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"
That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.


This could very well be true. I just want to hear i from his mouth. The fact that it's been an issue for months with nothing said or done is the ridiculous part. No stance can change that part.

Yes, the activists do not follow the logic well. I'll agree with that. But, I also don't like my government hiding as much information as it does. I understand militarily it may be needed, but almost everywhere else it's fear of repercussions in politics and people trying to manipulate others.

>> ^kceaton1:

Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.


Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…

He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"

That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Obamateur's thoughtless comments could cause a future mistrial.


I don't normally agree with this guy. I can't hardly see how Manning could receive fair trail after the Commander and Chief, seemingly, has already given his verdict.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.