Comentarii la: (English) Bradley Manning Support Network accepts responsibility for all expenses to defend accused Wikileaks whistle-blower

De către: Zeke Krahlin

Zeke Krahlin — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:31:56 +0000

Rivera spewed: “The US was loved so much under Bush.”

Surely you jest, else you are very arrogant, and ignorant. You remind me of the “good” Germans who praised Hitler, or the “good” Russians who live today, yearning for the times of Stalin. It was under the evil watch of GW Bush, that this nation was ruined, and struck terror in the heart of all other nations. Obama’s wrong-doing doesn’t even come /close/ to Dubya’s unforgivable wickedness and destruction of our civil rights. You, Rivera, are like so many right-wing arseholes who scapegoat all your sins on progressives and other decent souls. You are foul, to put it politely.

De către: Rivera

Rivera — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 03:37:29 +0000

With the persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning and Wikileaks, the Obama regime using the Pentagon and the Department of State are starting the largest anti-American campaign in US history. If this goes on, the US will soon be the most hated country in the world.

The US was loved so much under Bush. Now the world will hate America thanks to Obama, Hillary and the American left. Thanks Democrats!

De către: DonQuijote

DonQuijote — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:26:03 +0000

With the persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning and Wikileaks, the Pentagon and the Department of State are starting the largest anti-American campaign in US history. If this goes on, the US will soon be the most hated country in the world.

De către: Bob Canape

Bob Canape — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:32:40 +0000

It’s time to remember some wise words, “War is Hell.” Mr Manning knew this intellectually, before joining the service. Now it’s more than a quote . Manning should not be in prison, he should also not be surprised. None of us should be. All of us should be aware we are the one’s paying for and making possible War and the imprisonment of those who resist. We pay,making us the customers .You can’t have a wart without innocents becoming casualties. IfEvery discussion in every forum or news show and every sportscast using war metaphors would remember this, war may no longer be so acceptable. Could be your brother, sister son, daughter, father, mother.

De către: Jeff McCarthy

Jeff McCarthy — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:39:30 +0000

Lefty – I can but agree with you that it is a shame. Thanks you for a civil conversation about it – getting harder to have as the pressure on all concerned ratchets up as the stakes get higher. I’ll try and keep across information as it comes out and will cross-post here.
Jeff

De către: lefty

lefty — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:12:03 +0000

Jeff, all I’ve really done is lay out the facts as I understand them. I’ve drawn my own conclusions, and you’re free to draw your own. FYI, the Wau Holland Foundation is based in Germany, and named after a now-deceased German hacker. They have a small endowment, and—up until becoming associated with Wikileaks—gave out funds for various projects amounting to a grand total of under $5000 annually.

Suddenly—at least for a while—they became a conduit for much larger amounts of money destined for Wikileaks. Datacell, one of the merchant account providers, said that at the time they were effectively cut off by Visa and MasterCard, they were handing “seven figures a week” on behalf of Wau Holland and Wikileaks.

I simply want to know where all the money’s gone. A web site like Wikileaks can’t be costing them millions to keep up. That their apparently questionable money-handling is affecting Bradley Manning’s defense is a shame, no question. I’m trying to understand where the shame lies, and I’m not finding evidence of government conspiracies to keep Wikileaks’ money away from them. Both Post Finance, which closed Wikileaks’ account (for fraudulent information on the original application) and PayPal, which closed Wikileaks’ account on grounds of terms of service violations, have stated that they would forward the funds in question wherever Wikileaks wanted, as soon as someone contacted them. It seems reasonable to assume that Wikileaks took care of that…

Anyway, this has gotten somewhat off-topic for here. It’s too bad that a promise got broken, repeatedly. And it’s too bad that a lot of people contributed money in the belief that it was going to be used for a specific purpose, and that their belief in that was apparently unfounded.

De către: Jeff McCarthy

Jeff McCarthy — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:26:07 +0000

Lefty,
I agree that WAU is being anything but transparent – I have no idea who they are and what their relationship is to Wikileaks, who clearly stuffed up stuffed up by depending on them.

The governments strategy is to coerce Bradley Manning into testifying aginst Assange. Don’t you think it might behoove us all to wait till we find out exactly what has happened before rushing to judgement that Wikileaks is responsible for all this.

The article re the Amnesty International stuff is just more character assassination from an obvious right wing jerk. Unfortunately your twitter link doesn’t link anymore but I’ll take your word for it.

As for what happens to anyone collborating with the occupation forces – why would anyone give a stuff what happens to them.

De către: lefty

lefty — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:53:06 +0000

(I’m not at all sure of the propriety of a foundation which is reporting handling sums in the millions on behalf of Wikileaks being “chaotic”. The people who made contributions—especially those who made a contribution to Wikileaks in the anticipation that it would be helping Bradley Manning—clearly deserve much better transparency into what’s happened to their donations. As noted, not a shred of information about what’s come in, and where it’s gone, has been forthcoming the the Wau Holland Foundation, in spite of repeated requests. At what point does it pass from “Gee, they’re disorganized!” to “What the heck are they trying to pull?”…? I’m personally past that point, myself. There’ve just been too many oddities around the money. An organization dedicated to truth and transparency need to be truthful and transparent itself. The history I related—to which no one has yet offered corrections—seems to throw that into pretty questionable territory…)

De către: lefty

lefty — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:47:45 +0000

By “Afghan sympathizers” I mean Afghanis sympathetic to the US cause in Afghanistan.

De către: lefty

lefty — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:46:31 +0000

Jeff:

Here’s the background: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/nutball-wikileaks-founder-tries-to-blackmail-amnesty-international/9280

Here’s the actual tweet from Wikileaks, demanding $700K: http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/20663752636