ForumGarden

Irrespective of what one thinks of Julian Assange it has always struck me as very strange if not grossly unfair that a lowly Private (Bradley Manning) winds up being the FALL GUY for security leaks in the WIKI LEAKS FIASCO. First, what kind of idiot would entrust to a private, access to vital security data and information that could be passed on. How many privates have access to NUCLEAR WEAPONS DATA AND INFORMATION? I don't mean to demean privates but c'mon, when did the military start giving that kind of responsibility to lower ranks? No, I think some one way higher up should be responsible if anyone, not Manning. Secondly, if the data that was leaked was truly harmful to the U.S, which I doubt, then whoever set up the overall security for the information should be held accountable. Now we have Assange in Equador asking Pres. Obama to stop the Witch Hunt on Wiki Leaks and to release Pvt. Manning. I agree.

Any thoughts?

There are so many questions, Lon. No one is willing to give honest answers.

I'm just glad you're asking questions.

One of the Fundamental human rights is not to be held indefinitely without being brought to trial. It;'s even in your bill of rights I think.

I gather from this we didn't end up invading the Ecuadorian Embassy and Mr Assange is safely in Ecuador?

I think the US has a policy of making the life of anyone who pisses them off like that an absolute misery. If he's got family they should watch out too, bcause they might start having a go at them to get at him. I think they use this method as an additional security protocol: "We may not be able to get you under existing law, but you do not mess with the US and we WILL get you one way or another."

And yes, I agree it's wrong. It's the same sort of arrogance shown by Britain a century or two ago as our Empire went past its peak and into decline, imo...

Clodhopper;1401480 wrote: I gather from this we didn't end up invading the Ecuadorian Embassy and Mr Assange is safely in Ecuador?

I think the US has a policy of making the life of anyone who pisses them off like that an absolute misery. If he's got family they should watch out too, bcause they might start having a go at them to get at him. I think they use this method as an additional security protocol: "We may not be able to get you under existing law, but you do not mess with the US and we WILL get you one way or another."

And yes, I agree it's wrong. It's the same sort of arrogance shown by Britain a century or two ago as our Empire went past its peak and into decline, imo...


Hubris - trust the greeks to have a word for it. It's ironic is it not, despite ww2 we now seem to have fascist - or corporatist if you prefer - governments all over the place. Mind you the UK always has had in a way. elected dictatorships for the last thirty years or so and i hate the results.

Commons reform. We've played around the edges with Lords reform, but I reckon we need to look at the whole issue of how we govern ourselves in these islands. Agree we need to change the elective dictatorship. Don't actually want to reduce the number of MPs. Would move out of Westminster and into a bigger parliament building built on a semicircular plan as one minor point.

Clodhopper;1401489 wrote: Commons reform. We've played around the edges with Lords reform, but I reckon we need to look at the whole issue of how we govern ourselves in these islands. Agree we need to change the elective dictatorship. Don't actually want to reduce the number of MPs. Would move out of Westminster and into a bigger parliament building built on a semicircular plan as one minor point.


Proportional representation. Clegg threw away the best chance for reform we've ever had he shpu,dhave made it conditional on coalition with either party and gone back to the country if they didn't agree I think that might just have worked. The guys a pillock. PR transformed scottish politics MSP's find themselves having to listen a bit more now the rubber stamping of labour administrations doesn't happen in the way it used to, the tories up here love it as it's the only way they get any seats at all.

Proportional representation. Clegg threw away the best chance for reform we've ever had he shpu,dhave made it conditional on coalition with either party and gone back to the country if they didn't agree I think that might just have worked. The guys a pillock.


Agreed about PR. It's not easy to defend Clegg largely because as deputy pm he's in a notoriously difficult post. But I don't think it would have been right to make it a condition of forming a government because that would have been ramming major constitutional change through without a vote from the public mandating it. In the circumstances of the time I think it would have been better to say that it is an issue they must be elected upon to put into practice and put it beyond this government.

gmc;1401479 wrote: One of the Fundamental human rights is not to be held indefinitely without being brought to trial. It;'s even in your bill of rights I think.


That applies to civilians and not Active Duty Military people.

Lon;1401501 wrote: That applies to civilians and not Active Duty Military people.


Does it not bother you that anyone soldier or not can be held for so long without a trial? Guantanimo is bad enough but this suggests even american citizens are helpless against their government. You either have the right to a fair trial for all or you leave it open for the govt to imprison whoever it likes. When china or syria does it they are an oppressive regime, what does that make america?

WH OKs military detention of terrorism suspects - CBS News

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil - Washington's Blog

Lon;1401503 wrote: WH OKs military detention of terrorism suspects - CBS News

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil - Washington's Blog


You all voted for this -you can unvote it as well. It's not the left that are the threat to your liberties and never has been.

So in "The Land of The Free" that allows it's citizens to be armed in case the Government gets too upperty can now incarcerate anybody indefinitely for 'allegedly' being a suspect terrorist ?

gmc;1401564 wrote: You all voted for this -you can unvote it as well. It's not the left that are the threat to your liberties and never has been.


I've never worried about the left being a threat to my liberty, just my pocket book.

Lon;1401501 wrote: That applies to civilians and not Active Duty Military people.


Article 10 of the UCMJ specifies

Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.

immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.


Exactly how long is "immediate steps"?

It looks as though I could take two steps in an hour or so - say 1) Inform him of the charge and 2) Ask higher authority for further instructions.

Having taken immediate steps, what is to stop me from doing nothing else, including release the suspect? Perhaps I'm being too picky, but it looks as though someone who wanted to abuse it wouldn't find it too hard.

Clodhopper;1401799 wrote: Exactly how long is "immediate steps"?

It looks as though I could take two steps in an hour or so - say 1) Inform him of the charge and 2) Ask higher authority for further instructions.

Having taken immediate steps, what is to stop me from doing nothing else, including release the suspect? Perhaps I'm being too picky, but it looks as though someone who wanted to abuse it wouldn't find it too hard.


That is probably the whole intention. We had the house of lords curtail attempts to introduce similar laws in the UK. I have mixed feeling about the institution but we do need a second house powerful enough and independent enough to set ck back the commons on occasion.