I have not been able to find reference to this latest story on anything but far-left blogs which makes me more than a little suspicious about its accuracy.

I have not been able to find reference to this latest story on anything but far-left blogs which makes me more than a little suspicious about its accuracy.

I don't know to which far-left blogs you refer to but do you consider the writer of the NBC article* (where the Guardian referred to), Mr. Jim Miklaszewski, Chief Pentagon Correspondent for NBC News, as far-left and thus not accurate ?

If he is far-left, is the content of the NBC article than to be considered as untrue and incorrect, meaning that Bradley Manning DOES KNOW Assange or at least had contact with him?

If that would be the case or in the case it is true, don't you think that the Pentagon wouldn't be too happy with Mr. Miklaszewski and consider him as an outlaw and not welcome anymore when he is requesting information, writing about Pentagon matters ?

Curious...since I wonder why you are more than a little suspicious about the accuracy of Mr. Miklaszewski's article ?

Do you have proof that the content is not accurate or are you just doubting the content because YOU think it is leftish ?

* http://www.msnbc.msn...ks_in_security/

LaoPo

NBC News reports no collusion between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, according to military sources

Actually, I could not find the original article as a million lefty blogs with a lot of wishful-thinking instead of facts popped up when I tried to Google the story.

In reality, all that was said is that they have not established a connection yet, not that it has been ruled out.

That is why I wanted to read the original article, instead of the biased blog that you provided a link to.

By the way, this description of Mannings actual conditions, shows how full of cr*p the folks who insisted that he was being abused are.

U.S. Marine and Army officials say Manning is being treated like any other maximum security prisoner at Quantico, Va. He is confined to his single-person cell 23-hours per day, permitted one hour to exercise, permitted reading material and given one hour per day to watch television.

Manning spends much of his day reading while sitting cross-legged on the bunk in his cell. His hour of television is spent watching the news, military officials told NBC News.

http://www.msnbc.msn...ks_in_security/

NBC News reports no collusion between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, according to military sources

Actually, I could not find the original article as a million lefty blogs with a lot of wishful-thinking instead of facts popped up when I tried to Google the story.

In reality, all that was said is that they have not established a connection yet, not that it has been ruled out.

That is why I wanted to read the original article, instead of the biased blog that you provided a link to.

By the way, this description of Mannings actual conditions, shows how full of cr*p the folks who insisted that he was being abused are.

U.S. Marine and Army officials say Manning is being treated like any other maximum security prisoner at Quantico, Va. He is confined to his single-person cell 23-hours per day, permitted one hour to exercise, permitted reading material and given one hour per day to watch television.

Manning spends much of his day reading while sitting cross-legged on the bunk in his cell. His hour of television is spent watching the news, military officials told NBC News.

http://www.msnbc.msn...ks_in_security/

1. a Biased blog? Is the writer* biased ? Why do you think so...?...because he doesn't write what YOU wish to read or do you have proof he is biased?

* Richard Adams blogs on US politics and culture from the Guardian's Washington DC bureau

And, for the record, the Guardian is not a tabloid but a -very- well respected British newspaper.

2. The NBC link was clearly pointed out in the article link, I provided at first, but maybe you didn't click the link to?

3. If the military has not estabished a connection -yet- they sure need a lot of time finding one, since many months now, dont they?

4. I don't think any outsiders, but the military themselves, KNOW what happened and is happening to Manning, whatever the circumstances are, but of course only a few within the military know since he can't see any visitors nor lawyers, can he?

The only thing we officially know/learnt so far is that Manning is not even charged yet...

So, we just have to believe the military "officials" , don't we?

LaoPo

A. I did miss the NBC link and only saw the blog, otherwise I would have pointed out the inconsistencies right away.

B. I would say that the writer of the blog is biased because IMHO he was not honest about about the intent of the military sources. They were saying that a link has not been found yet, not that it never would be.

C. It sometimes takes years to make a strong criminal case. It has not been very long since Assange started disseminating these documents and there is no need to rush the investigation.

D. Bradley has had a childhood friend visit him regularly as he seems to be on TV giving his opinions every couple of days. Saying that no one knows what is going on is very much untrue.

A. I did miss the NBC link and only saw the blog, otherwise I would have pointed out the inconsistencies right away.

B. I would say that the writer of the blog is biased because IMHO he was not honest about about the intent of the military sources. They were saying that a link has not been found yet, not that it never would be.

C. It sometimes takes years to make a strong criminal case. It has not been very long since Assange started disseminating these documents and there is no need to rush the investigation.

D. Bradley has had a childhood friend visit him regularly as he seems to be on TV giving his opinions every couple of days. Saying that no one knows what is going on is very much untrue.

A: can happen to everybody, missing a link; please point out the inconsistencies,; I can't find them.

B: maybe read better? The writer is perfectly clear and honest. I didn't read the "yet".

C: sure, but with nowadays -CIA/FBI and Military- specialists on the Internet it should have been a case now; it more looks like another Guantanamo case, meaning another case, holding a "suspect" without being charged. Jailed for 8 months now without being charged....

D: ..a childhood friend visits him regurarly ? That's new to me; any link ?

Edit: I found it but this guy, House, is no longer allowed to visit him, according to this report:

"The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has also announced that the UN will be starting an investigation and Manning’s attorney has filed an article 138 complaint citing inhumane and overly harsh conditions on part of the Brig. Now House, Manning’s primary visitor outside of his attorney, who has provided public testimony about Manning’s deteriorating conditions as a result to his solitary confinement, has effectively been denied access to Manning.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/01/23/statement-of-events-bradley-mannings-primary-visitor-detained-at-quantico/

But, that article might be biased....since they are friends of Manning

LaoPo

B. is the inconsistencies.

Stop the taunts and insults. That is not allowed in Outside the Box any more

There is no reason that the case should be solidified yet - other than that you say so - and no one has to say "yet" as they also do not say that they have come to any conclusion either.

How can you go on and on about Bradley Manning and not even realize that his friend visits him fairly regularly?

B. is the inconsistencies.

Stop the taunts and insults. That is not allowed in Outside the Box any more

There is no reason that the case should be solidified yet - other than that you say so - and no one has to say "yet" as they also do not say that they have come to any conclusion either.

How can you go on and on about Bradley Manning and not even realize that his friend visits him fairly regularly?

Are my legitimate questions now considered to be taunts and insults?

I did NOT insult you nor anyone else one way or another and my legitimate questions were in NO WAY meant to insult you but merely trying to discuss the Manning case.

It is YOU who consider articles by respected journalists as far-leftish when they do not write a content not suiting you.

LaoPo

Telling someone to "read better" because they do not agree with your spin is insulting and since you always start whining when someone points out all the grammatical mistakes that you make, it is even more out of line.

You have a habit of accusing other posters of insulting you personally, while doing it yourself on a regular basis.

Telling someone to "read better" because they do not agree with your spin is insulting and since you always start whining when someone points out all the grammatical mistakes that you make, it is even more out of line.

You have a habit of accusing other posters of insulting you personally, while doing it yourself on a regular basis.

I didn't tell you anything....I wrote exactly like this, asking: "B: maybe read better?" and that was meant as a legitimate question and certainly not an insult.

I'm not spinning nor whining either and if I write any grammatical mistakes I herewith sincerely apologise for my errors, coming out of my non-native born English brain.

I can't speak, write nor read all 5 languages I master as perfect as native born people and that includes English and I also never said that I am perfect in English; far from it and learning more every single day.

But, apart from that, pointing others to their grammatical mistakes is considered poor behavior, according to the TV rules, but personally I don't mind since I welcome everybody, pointing at my errors, since if you don't know you made a mistake you never learn.

So, please be my guest and improve my language skills; you're more than welcome.

Again, I didn't insult you nor had the intention to do so; period.

You have problems with people, disagreeing with your views and opinions; that's fine with me but don't bring up insults which aren't there; you are deliberately twisting my words since I didn't write what you wrote, above.

Don't see the ghosts which aren't around and I invite you to debate, not accuse me since your words that I accuse others is also incorrect.

Debating and asking has nothing to do with accusing or insulting.

LaoPo

I didn't tell you anything....I wrote exactly like this, asking: "B: maybe read better?" and that was meant as a legitimate question and certainly not an insult.

Horse doeey. You always claim that your insults are not insults and then say that others are insulting you when they are not as a "debating" tactic. Maybe we should consult geriatrickid on this matter as you have done it to him repeatedly.

I didn't tell you anything....I wrote exactly like this, asking: "B: maybe read better?" and that was meant as a legitimate question and certainly not an insult.

Horse doeey. You always claim that your insults are not insults and then say that others are insulting you when they are not as a "debating" tactic. Maybe we should consult geriatrickid on this matter as you have done it to him repeatedly.

I have no further comment.

LaoPo

(Reuters) - Anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian politician behind the proposal said on Wednesday, a day after the deadline for nominations expired.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/02/us-nobel-wikileaks-idUSTRE7115QP20110202?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

(Reuters) - Anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian politician behind the proposal said on Wednesday, a day after the deadline for nominations expired.

http://www.reuters.c...%2F+Top+News%29

I'm not a fan of Assange as everyone knows, but how has WL advanced the cause of Peace? By forcing governments to even more secretive?

Watching the BBC Doha Debate on "This house believes that the World is a better place with Wikileaks" had two Brits on the Pro bench, versus two Yanks on the Con bench.

Don't know if that is significant, but reading here in TV, it seems that most of the 'anti' lobby is US based. Is this just a different culture, where Europeans are more keen to find out the truth, or is there something in the American upbringing that accepts that their politicians are entitled to conceal much of their doings from the electorate?

The vote was 74% Pro, 26% Con.

Could it possibly have anything to do with the little detail that they are American documents?

Watching the BBC Doha Debate on "This house believes that the World is a better place with Wikileaks" had two Brits on the Pro bench, versus two Yanks on the Con bench.

Don't know if that is significant, but reading here in TV, it seems that most of the 'anti' lobby is US based. Is this just a different culture, where Europeans are more keen to find out the truth, or is there something in the American upbringing that accepts that their politicians are entitled to conceal much of their doings from the electorate?

The vote was 74% Pro, 26% Con.

Ordinarily I would not be amongst the "pro" supporters of Wikileaks. I recognize there are many things in a nations interest that should be kept private, just as there are for corporations and individuals. However, what was once a robust reporting media complete with "muckrakers" , "devils advovcates" and "investigative journalists" has become a head nodding, press release printing, never questioning anything lapdog of the government ( any government) in it's own interests of securing ratings and market share and corporate profits and stock options to reporting staff. In this environment Wikileaks is a godsend, though I recognize they will probably overstep and/or over self-edit along the way.

I have a feeling that if it's your gov't that is the target of the leaks, your attitude would change. I think when they start leaking bank records and yours are among them, your attitude will change.

It really depends on whose ox is being gored.

I have a feeling that if it's your gov't that is the target of the leaks, your attitude would change. I think when they start leaking bank records and yours are among them, your attitude will change.

It really depends on whose ox is being gored.

I have a feeling

If they leak bank records it will not be personal account info. Instead it will most likely be records that show why we the people had to bail select banks ...aka: To Big To Fail to the tune of trillions.

In which case the end result may be the people will be more than a little upset

But not the upset you imply instead attitudes may be enlightened.

Watching the BBC Doha Debate on "This house believes that the World is a better place with Wikileaks" had two Brits on the Pro bench, versus two Yanks on the Con bench.

Don't know if that is significant, but reading here in TV, it seems that most of the 'anti' lobby is US based. Is this just a different culture, where Europeans are more keen to find out the truth, or is there something in the American upbringing that accepts that their politicians are entitled to conceal much of their doings from the electorate?

The vote was 74% Pro, 26% Con.

Ted Kennedy

Watergate

Iran Contra

Spiro Agnew

Bill Clinton and Monica.

Bill Clinton's hero Wilber Mills

John Edwards

Gary hart

Clarence Thomas

Try googling American political scandals.

You are so far wrong as to be laughable.

It is like me saying the Queen of England has a harelip. It has the same amount of truth as Europeans are more keen to find the truth. What is true is there is no truth in your post and only more anti US blithering. Try just a bit of simple research before saying things that are so obviously silly.

I have a feeling that if it's your gov't that is the target of the leaks, your attitude would change. I think when they start leaking bank records and yours are among them, your attitude will change.

It really depends on whose ox is being gored.

If they started leaking about the UK government I'd say 'bring it on'. Anything that helps keep the dodgy bastards on the leash is good.

I have a feeling that if it's your gov't that is the target of the leaks, your attitude would change. I think when they start leaking bank records and yours are among them, your attitude will change.

It really depends on whose ox is being gored.

If they started leaking about the UK government I'd say 'bring it on'. Anything that helps keep the dodgy bastards on the leash is good.

bingo! the same applies to my home country.

I have a feeling that if it's your gov't that is the target of the leaks, your attitude would change. I think when they start leaking bank records and yours are among them, your attitude will change.

It really depends on whose ox is being gored.

If they started leaking about the UK government I'd say 'bring it on'. Anything that helps keep the dodgy bastards on the leash is good.

bingo! the same applies to my home country.

..and mine!

LaoPo

Weren't there quite a few Australian "leaks"?

The right seemed to support them because they were about the Rudd Labour government.

I have a feeling that if it's your gov't that is the target of the leaks, your attitude would change. I think when they start leaking bank records and yours are among them, your attitude will change.

It really depends on whose ox is being gored.

If they started leaking about the UK government I'd say 'bring it on'. Anything that helps keep the dodgy bastards on the leash is good.

bingo! the same applies to my home country.

..and mine!

LaoPo

I will 4th that motion...especially since I come from a country founded on supposed government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth Why would we not want to know if crimes are being committed in our names?

Also as an aside wiki also recently released something on Al Qaeda building dirty bombs...so it is not like the leaks are all one sided....

Well good, I am glad they have reported on Al Qaeda. I want to wish them the best of luck when those folks go after them. By the way, who does Al Qaeda send classified documents too?

By the way, who does Al Qaeda send classified documents to?

If they started leaking about the UK government I'd say 'bring it on'. Anything that helps keep the dodgy bastards on the leash is good.

bingo! the same applies to my home country.

..and mine!

LaoPo

I will 4th that motion...especially since I come from a country founded on supposed government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth Why would we not want to know if crimes are being committed in our names?

Also as an aside wiki also recently released something on Al Qaeda building dirty bombs...so it is not like the leaks are all one sided....

US 250,000 diplomatic cables Al Qaeda, how many? Not one sided of course not!

Well good, I am glad they have reported on Al Qaeda. I want to wish them the best of luck when those folks go after them. By the way, who does Al Qaeda send classified documents too?

Beats me but probably the same type of guy who sent the documents for the other governments....also leaked this info about AQ

ie: someone with a conscious that has not been brainwashed leaked it to wiki

Just a quick reminder that Wikileaks didn't release anything pertaining to a specific scandal. They just released a big batch of 250,000 documents hoping there was something juicy in there.