WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

You don't see the point Bill. The heat is on the system which led to America's friends being unaware that it was insecure and thus they were at risk without knowing. Had Brad not done what he did they would still be in that position. Sitting ducks in other words.

From a legal standpoint, it seems that you're in a no-win situation. If you lose your appeal on February 1st, you will be extradited to Sweden to face questioning, and the United States can ask to extradite you from there. But even if you win your appeal, there's the possibility that the U.S. could just come in and extradite you from England.
Yeah. And the ability to resist extradition here in England is not good.

The conventional wisdom – both in Sweden and the U.S. – is that you won't be extradited. Why are you convinced you will?
Extradition is a political matter. The extradition treaties – those from the U.K. to the U.S. and from Sweden to the U.S. – are both very dangerous for me. Every day that I remain in England, it is dangerous, and if I am in Sweden, it will be at least as dangerous as it is here, and very probably more so. The Swedish foreign minister responsible for extradition, Carl Bildt, became a U.S. Embassy informant in 1973 when he was 24 years old. He shipped his personal effects to Washington, to lead a conservative leadership program, where he met Karl Rove. They became old friends and would go to conferences together and so on.

Karl Rove? How do you know this?
Cables. Although I have not been charged with anything, there is an active allegation against me of rape and sexual molestation against Swedish women. So the political environment in Sweden to defend me against extradition to the United States is quite adverse. Some people have said, "Look, both the United Kingdom and Sweden and many countries say that there is not to be extradition for political offenses." But the United States government is not trying to indict me for a "political" offense – it is trying to indict me for espionage, or conspiracy to commit espionage, and computer hacking. The U.S. grand jury is looking at indicting us for charges which are not, on their face, political. But of course, the reasons are political, and that is a different matter.

So you think the government is going to try to lay the groundwork by saying you're a spy, claiming you're putting soldiers at risk, and then nabbing you after the Swedish allegations are resolved?
These are people used to laying the political ground and laying the media ground. I imagine what they would do is say that this material we published had adversely affected the United Kingdom or adversely affected Sweden. Perhaps they could introduce or leak to the press, under the surface, false speculations that we had killed Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan, or that we had sold information to the Iranians.

it is trying to indict me for espionage, or conspiracy to commit espionage, and computer hacking. The U.S. grand jury is looking at indicting us for charges which are not, on their face, political. But of course, the reasons are political, and that is a different matter.

claiming you're putting soldiers at risk,

According to the United States Federal Criminal Code, Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18, terrorism is defined as

“activities that involve violent ... or life-threatening acts ... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ... ."

Bradley Manning: second officer recommends court martial
(Matt Williams, The Guardian, January 19, 2012)

The US soldier accused of feeding a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks looks almost certain to face trial following a second recommendation that he be court-martialled.

Bradley Manning has been indicted on 22 counts relating to the largest ever leak of confidential data in American history.

If found guilty of charges – which include aiding the enemy – he could be sentenced to death, although prosecutors have indicated that they will not be seeking the ultimate penalty.

Nonetheless, the counts against him carry a maximum jail time of 150 years.

Earlier this month, the army judge presiding over the case recommended to a court-martial convening authority that Manning be tried.

Thursday's decision to pass that ruling further up the chain of command means that Manning is just one decision away from knowing if he is to face a court martial over the alleged crimes.

That decision is now in the hands of major general Michael Linnington, commander of the military district of Washington.

Manning, a 24-year-old low-ranking intelligence officer, is accused of passing on more than 700,000 US Department of State documents and sensitive army records to the whistle-blowing website.

In a preliminary hearing in December, a military court heard that the suspect "indiscriminately and systematically" harvested sensitive data after being deployed to Iraq in 2009.

"Manning gave the enemy of the United States unfettered access to classified documents," army prosecutor Ashden Fein claimed.

But his defence team countered that the unit in which the young soldier served was "lawless" when it came to security.

Manning's civilian lawyer David Coombs also drew attention to his client's fragile state of mind.

The young soldier suffered from gender identity disorder and felt alienated in the army due to his sexuality, the court heard.

Coombs also suggested that prosecutors were trying to "strong-arm" his client into a confession, so that they could use him to "go after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks."

The civilian lawyer also hit out at the military proceedings for not allowing him to call a string of witnesses, including psychologist and psychiatrists.

On Monday on his website, Coombs criticised a decision to refuse his request for oral submissions from nine other witnesses.

These experts would have testified on whether the data leaked was indeed classified and if "there was any harm to national security" from the documents being made public.

Coombs accused the government of "improperly" in blocking his access to what the lawyer described as "essential" witnesses.

War on the internet: it's all about power
(By Stilgherrian, ZDNet.com.au, January 23, 2012)

"There really is a war on the internet and, like all wars, this war is about power," said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a recorded message on Saturday to the War on the Internet forum held in Melbourne on the weekend.

When we last discussed the war on the internet in November 2011, it was in the context of the US Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and of course that's dominated the news for the last week. But it's really about more than that.

It's about more fundamental issues. Who gets to communicate with whom? In what context? With what technology? How private is that conversation? Who gets to listen in, and why?

The forum was organised by Electronic Frontiers Australia and The Greens, and featured Suelette Dreyfus, co-author with Assange of "Underground"; Greens' Senator Scott Ludlam; Crikey's Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane; and headline speaker Jacob Appelbaum, internet security researcher, software hacker and activist.