I'm wondering if Mr. Manning will reconsider his plea deal stance.

Watch out though, the Military is tracking tweets and comments that mention Manning or who follow his support website to see 'what we are thinking' about all of this. Guess they already know what I am thinking being that I follow Wikileaks, Manning's site and have called him a whistleblower/hero many times.

Demonstrations on his behalf in other countries are taking place.

I'll be impressed with all this pretext of the 'rule of law' when the perps who lied us into war and who engaged in torture, are arrested. All he did was expose some of the resulting crimes, so he's low on my list of people who are a threat to this country and others. Hypocrisy in action is all this is.

+1

Should he take a plea deal, do you think he would be dishonorable enough to lie?

I did not expect him to lie, but it's clear that was the hope of some who so desperately want to prosecute a news editor for doing his job. Apparently those hopes came to nothing, which is not a surprise to me from all I've read about Manning. So now they are throwing the book at him. I doubt he will ever lie, never thought he would, so not sure where you got that.

sworn.

Is Manning such a liar?

If he were to swear to a plea agreement, do you think he would lie?

'Do you think he would lie'. Please see the post your responded to. I thought I said clearly what I meant but maybe not?

Are you suggesting that the plea agreement would be asking him to lie about Assange?

If Bradley Manning testifies against Assange, pursuant to a plea deal, will he be lying?

your question proves my point, that the perception has been created that the government desperately wants to find some way to create a crime to charge Assange with. A pretty universal assumption. I am assuming since they have not yet tried it, that Manning has been no help to them because Assange did not commit a crime. If he were to provide concrete evidence of a crime people would have to consider it. But where is the crime or even the hint of a crime in a News Editor and Publisher working with a source to get an important story out?

Eg, even if it is shown that Assange communicated with Manning, that is not a crime, that is the standard way news is gathered by investigative news media. Do you have a crime in mind? What could Manning possibly say in your opinion, that could be considered a crime committed by Assange?

I could not have been more clear and have no idea what you think you are implying.

Manning, from all that I have read about him, would not lie to save himself.

Your assumption that he might 'implicate' Assange in a plea deal makes no sense. How can you implicate a news publisher and editor for accepting information from a source? If that has become a crime in this country we are far worse off than we knew.

And why would this government want Assange implicated when they already know, as does the rest of the world, that Manning was a source for Wikileaks? That's what Wikileaks does, they invite sources from all the over the world, whistle-blowers, to provide them with news-worthy information in a safe way. They have never yet revealed a source. They were doing this for several years before Manning contacted them. Funny how no one ever suggested in this country that they were doing anything illegal. On the contrary, they received many awards for their work.

Sarah Palin of course thinks Assange is a traitor and should be given the death penalty. Never mind that he is an Australian. But hopefully she is not making policy for this government.

If you don't want to answer the questions, that is your choice.

Manning could honestly implicate Assange if Assange colluded, or even coerced. If he said that Assange colluded or coerced, would he be lying?

I personally think he would be.

But I agree with you that I don't see him taking a plea deal or lying.

requests from Assange, which go far past the 'accepting information' defense that Julian might offer....

I wondered why Assange's lawyers wanted 'full access' to the closed-door sessions of the court-martial. After all, it wasn't because of 'classified documents' that Wikileaks had already published....no, the prosecution was using the 'classified' documents in open court...

"The prosecution flashed three chat logs onscreen that purportedly show correspondence between Manning and Assange discussing uploading so-called JTF-GITMO documents — classified assessment reports about Guantanamo Bay detainees. The chats also refer to two U.S. State Department cables about Reykjavik, Iceland, as well as a request from Manning to help him crack a password so that he could log onto his work SIPRnet computer anonymously."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/category/bradley-manning/

The closed door sessions were about testimony and evidence received from the Grand Jury in Arlington. Which the military authorities can consider. And Assange has no legal access to that testimony.

****************

I found something very interesting---before release of the 'Collateral Murder' video, Manning ran a search for the term 'Birgitta Jonsdottir' in the SIPRnet database. See the reference to the 2 cables from Iceland above.

Did he pull this term out of the air? No..he was told to search for it. And see this curious testimonial exchange--

"The government asked if Madaras had ever used their computers to search for some of the same terms, as well as the term “JTF GITMO” or the name “Birgitta Jonsdottir,” or if he had ever used the Net Centric Diplomacy Database. Madaras replied “no” in each case.

The implication of the questioning seemed to be that the government had found forensic evidence that Manning’s workstation computers had been used to search these terms, though there was no testimony that stated this directly."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/manning-apache-video/

So, someone chatted with Assange, (BM) and then, after chatting with Assange, ran specific queries into the SPIRnet system and forwarded relevant cables.

And then someone tweeted about it. (remember the twitter data case?)

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/12/06/wikileaks-associates-seek-injunction-on-twitter-data/

Looks like twitter is handing over the data....

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/twitter-wikileaks-court-order

Lots of onion layers.

If they have a case perhaps it is in fact in Manning's interest to cave, as he gets nothing from remaining silent, again, assuming they have a case. We shall see. I will not throw him under the bus in any event. What he did was a great thing.

You seem to assume that all Assange did was 'accept information.'

If you have some knowledge the rest of us do not have, then present it.

A news person is not limited to just 'accepting information' btw. Generally they seek it out. Many pursue people relentlessly who can provide them with information that is newsworthy.

In the case of Wikileaks they provided a way for the information to come to them. They received information on governments around the world, on Banks, like the Iceland Bank, all of which they published to the benefit of millions of people. Funny how no one thought what they were doing was a threat, except of course for criminals, until they received info about the US.

A couple of years ago Assange was asked why they had published nothing about the US. Some thought maybe they were working FOR the US. He responded that they had not received anything from the US.

But why is Assange even an issue here? If the government thinks he did something wrong then charge him. Are you saying he did? And if so, please explain.

anything at all.

But more to the point, why are you accusing President Obama's administration of trying to suborn perjury? Is it because you have no faith in either the President or Attorney General Holder? If you have any evidence of it, have you come forward to the FBI?

Do you have any first-hand court martial experience? I'd enjoy reading about your close encounters with the UCMJ. And I'm not injecting sarcasm here, they are serious questions.

I don't expect him to testify at trial, either, except during sentencing, but even then, he's not a client type I would put on the stand.

there is no reason to expect him to behave lawfully. You don't have to have an intimate knowledge of the UCMJ to recognize a show trial when one is conducted right under your nose. You just have to be conscious.

A big, fat, mole. You don't get redacted status like that without being deeply involved. That testimony in itself isn't enough to provide immunity, imho.

I'm not sure who redacted it. If it was a government mole, should prove interesting.

...moles were used effectively in those cases (moles, and rats, I should say). In this case it appears, at least to me, that this information by itself, one eyewitness, isn't enough to merit redaction.

Sad isn't it?

Bush's, Cheney's, Condi's, Sec Powell's, Rumsfeld's, Doug Feith's, John Yoo's, etc.

is a euphemism for a kangaroo court. The prosecution and judge are one in the same. Convictions are a given.
Manning did his duty in accordance with the Geneva Convention. He reported war crimes.
The Nuremberg Accords also address this. Following illegal orders is not acceptable.
If they're smart they'll find a loophole to get the military out of doing something immoral to cover up an immoral act that was exposed by Manning.
Everything changes once the lying starts.

Sorry if you had a bad experience, but that isn't indicative of all C's-M.