WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

When last heard from Adrian Lamo was in a mental hospital where he had been involuntarily committed - and not for the first time.

Did you also obtain a copy of the mental hospital's conditions for Lamo's release? Medical records are supposed to be confidential but this particular document - not, to my knowledge, covered by the FOIA - has been plastered up and down the internet by appalled hackers, Lamo's former "colleagues".

One of the conditions was that he's being released to his parents, who made themselves legally liable for his behavior, online and off; another was house arrest for 2 months, enforced by GPS; yet another concerned regular visits to a psychiatrist, to be certified in each instance by said doctor; and so on.

You're on extremely thin ice if you choose to ignore facts - undeniable facts, not rumors - that may link his hospitalization etc to his former alleged homosexual lover, Bradley Manning. What does any of this have to do with Assange, not involved in either homosexual affairs or with WIRED magazine?

High Seas wrote:

When last heard from Adrian Lamo was in a mental hospital where he had been involuntarily committed - and not for the first time.

Lamo was involuntarily hospitalized for 72 hours in May 2010 and was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I have not heard of any hospitalizations for Lamo since then.

I still do not see where Lamo has been hospitalized since May 2010.

.....In June, Uber said he learned from Lamo’s father that the young researcher had identified Manning as the video’s source, and pressured him to meet with federal agencies to name Manning as Wikileaks’ whistleblower. He then arranged a meeting with employees of “three letter” agencies and Lamo........“I’m the one who called the U.S. government,” Uber said. “All the people who say that Adrian is a narc, he did a patriotic thing. He sees all kinds of hacks, and he was seriously worried about people dying.”

Uber says that Lamo later called him from the meeting, regretting his decision to inform on Manning. “I’m in a meeting with five guys and I don’t want to do this,” Uber says Lamo told him at the time. Uber says he responded, “You don’t have any choice, you’ve got to do this.”

“I said, ‘They’re not going to throw you in jail,’” Uber said. “‘Give them everything you have.’”[/b]

Question: Why don't the US authorities just take Manning to court & actually try him for stealing for stealing classified US documents?
Why lock him up and treat him in this way?

wandeljw wrote:

High Seas wrote:

When last heard from Adrian Lamo was in a mental hospital where he had been involuntarily committed - and not for the first time.

Lamo was involuntarily hospitalized for 72 hours in May 2010 and was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I have not heard of any hospitalizations for Lamo since then.

It is you, not I, who comes up with allegations. See what you yourself quoted, right here, and please read it a few times until it sinks in. Repeating it doesn't seem worth it - look up his appearances on NBC, for starters, and see if he has been heard from concerning Assange - subject of the present thread.

Now if you would get to Assange, and the alleged WikiLeaks data farm "pictured" in the WIRED magazine issue I posted, I would appreciate it.

The US government's legal hunt for Julian Assange will begin in a magistrates court in Virginia today when its Attorney General seeks a disclosure order on Twitter to obtain the names, dates and locations of anyone using its services to communicate with WikiLeaks.

Asked about WikiLeaks, Breyer gives away little
(Associated Press, February 17, 2011)

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer tantalized a Florida audience with his comments yesterday about the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but gave away little about his legal stance.

Appearing at a joint gathering of the Forum Club of the Palm Beaches and the Palm Beach County Bar Association, Breyer took a question from a high school student who asked about the legality of whistleblowing as seen on WikiLeaks.

"Usually what's at stake is the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects expression, it doesn't protect all expression," Breyer said. "The cases are all over the place."

The justice said disclosing the specifics of a secret weapon would not be permissible, just as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't. But he gave no inkling to his stance on Assange's publishing of a massive cache of confidential U.S. military and diplomatic documents and whether that was legal.

"The best thing I can say is, 'It depends,'" Breyer said. "What a terrible answer."

While the leaks have not come up in court, Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden on sex-crimes allegations. Some of his supporters have suggested that case arose as part of a U.S.-led plot to prosecute him or blacken his reputation in retaliation for his leaks.

On other subjects, Breyer spoke briefly about the 2000 presidential recount.

The justice, who was appointed to the high court by President Bill Clinton, said the Bush v. Gore ruling "was totally wrong" and that the case should have never been heard. He drew wide applause and laughter for his position.

"I did what I normally do when I am in dissent: I try to reveal in a very calm, clear argument that the other side is totally out to lunch," he said.

And employing some more humor, Breyer gave a bit of advice to President Barack Obama, should he have the opportunity to pick a third member of the high court.

"Any president who thinks he's going to appoint a judge who will always decide the way the president thinks really should have his head examined," he said.

The addiction to oil. I hardly think that's obfuscation when the words were used in a State of the Union speech.

Securing the liberties of US citizens addicted to oil might very well involve invading foreign countries.

I'm sorry to say that if you participate in the addiction to oil you are implicated in whatever is required to maintain supplies. The invasion of foreign countries has been, according to those you elect and the highly paid members of the vast bureaucracies they control, a necessary condition. It is not a causeless cause.

No tears, sweat and blood for Americans.

Outside the court Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the ruling had not come as a surprise and reaffirmed the Assange team's concerns that adhering to the European arrest warrant (EAW) amounted to "tick box justice".

"We are still hopeful that the matter can be resolved in this country," he said. "We remain optimistic of our chances on appeal." Source