spy vs. spy

an eventfull year, i will write a bit still, my last post i mentioned what an ordeal it is if there is a despise, a contempt for justice in the system we live in. it is still a depressing thought.

it can be reflected on almost anything that is happening, well happening, relevant and in the media. egypt and "tahrir!" basically a dispute about class justice and the violence of the uniformed side.

egypt post tahrir, pretty much the same dispute. a blogger in prison for years already and that is only the most outspoken tip of an iceberg of injustice.

syria? what other thing then a contempt for justice in the sense of 'human riots' is held against assad?

ow i am concerned. the situation became terribly muddy by now. the traditional thing the camel does to it's followers is happening, the closed doors, muslims only understand repression reasoning.

well it is not really the camel perhaps, but it is terrible. and what is happening?

the reaction of the west, including aljazeera is to shamelessly portray even pro assad rallys as demonstration, what should you still believe is riot here?

the reaction of the arab world, to send 'monitors' is in itself a quite phantasmagoral idea, generals, used to pacify warzones .. in luxurious cars talk to spokespeople of the interior ministry, ok it need to be done, so far so good, opposition jumps high and low. but the point is,

do i really believe something in the sense of "true justice" will be done by them? i don't even think they have the faintest to start an attempt. it need not be a lack of will. (1)

just a lack of justice.

so do i have that against anyone else in particular? the states, not just any states, also the usian states , that trademarker of liberty.

because obviously the proceedings against manning are finally(?) taking place after months of abuse of the person of bradley manning, reportedly to turn him against assange that is still and almost openly manipulated against by usian and other states representatives.

hardly dare to say it, but it is encouraging the english courts take the story serious, where will it end, i allways see the ship of justice strand on those cliffs of money and influence.

so, why not talk a bit more than i already have about this trial of the century that is going on, what is perhaps the most important trial so far of this century.

it is not i have no gossip..

the trial of bradley manning.

ok i know this, it has been documented that the department at what the preceding 'judge' (perhaps military person is way more appropriate) is working , (doj) , is bussy with proceedings against assange. all confidentially probably and 'way secret',

so the judge considered himself .. unbiased, now that would still be tested, in the longer term for an appeals hearing, and perhaps i should not be so pessimistic as to be opportune about that, what more is known is that this doj, department of justice, has been working at the case against bradley manning in person..

reportedly in the 'actual shaping of a plea bargain to be used against assange'.
and it means he is a hero, that despite solitary confinement and brutal treatment, that is officially regarded torture under human rights criteria including expressions of those united states in (the) americas in international diplomacy, including such as referred to the security counsil, ie. cases of war and peace, life and death on a scale and measure of international justice, he is the one person that did not turn into a traitor of anyone.

i saw a very fatty senator, he thought i(we?) would like him, for his smile. over manning i think, not a bad smile, but if you think that is where reliability is..

he said he didn't 'like' bradley manning, that he had only defended his rights to still be humanely treated, he didn't follow that up, wich would be a juridical common sense, with that it invalidated the proceedings, no he followed it up with talk about treason or so.

yeah, get in the picture for someone's rights, and when it matters be gladly chatting about in the world 'you don't like him' or whatever counts as his reason for being guilty. no that was a setup.

what i do love is to see daniel(?) elsberg struggle for him. elsberg, and it is actually the one glimmer of light in the whole case, is referred to as the "most comparable case in usian history".

his weaker statement is: ofcourse the material i relayed was more topical in a way. i think that is a bit weak. his release was about the vietnam war, and more to the point about decissions concerning in effect really millions of lives were made under circumstances that were almost criminal.

the difference is not that great, the 'secrecy' and 'millions of casualties' of these days centre around irak and the crusade against muslim lands, called 'war for terror'.

much more then, almost contrary to, the vietnam war it is an event that many nations share intimate ties and informations about. so it is not that eventfull that a wide scope of topics would be the kind of arrangement against all that confidential poking around and controlling other peoples lifes really.

people, the media for one, say: it changed the world, it is getting done with dictatorships', it finally emancipates many of the muslim nations a bit, perhaps that is only me;).

people in egypt, the occupants, the tahriri, expressed that, libyans did oftentimes and tunesians share all that intention. ok it is not done, but it started.

ellsberg was freed from prosecution, before the court martial, wich is what these hearings are referring to, so not all hope is lost.

i do not see the problem of the united states (ia), they say they want to raise the humanitarian standard of the operational realitys of this planet, manning gives the great hint that we really should and have a way to go. he is the personification of the real 'usian dream' the inspirational freedom and justice.

and personally, i think that is why he suffered in that service, even the guardian does not tell, (and it is wrong in a few cases, the reasoning of that judge eg. being what we are doing at the department is secret, so there exists no 'reasonable person knowing all circumstances' and as such he considers himself more reasonable than someone that would disagree to it.
i do not think it is reasonable, i very much assume he is part and parcel in the coming strategy around bradley manning's proceedings. just on instruction or from a selfassuredness based on vanity.)

even the guardian does not tell bradley manning tried to "whisttle blow" through the official channels about his findings, and btw. did you know the documents on his computer are not the same as those on wikileaks? it is a point the defence got on the table, so i suppose it is supposed to mean that thing it is supposed to mean.

in the public discourse the aformentioned official people state 'he just randomly with no reading passed them on', hmm but also that one of the evidences on his computer is a spreadsheet with the sipdis dbase. that pretty much means he had a specific look for each of them and may have served exaactly the reason he looked at them.

wich.. btw. was his job, and i think it was completely acceptable to hav it all on that pc.

neway, a lot of the hearing is behind closed doors, however not when that request is from the defence, who would not think he would become the victim of bias when he collects books about eg. reconstructional facial surgery on women and has a record troubled amongst things with him being gay.

so alltho the guardian suggests we should not look behind, i suggest bias is necessarilly superficial and not something worth that reference.

one more glitch of the guardian is when they seriously report some uniformed army 'jurist' instruction as 'explanation, and at that.. the whole proceedings are heavily covered with military attendees, infiltrated with them so to say. making that impression , purposedly ofcourse 'something is seriously going on'.

and not in the way they have with it, having less rights than even those from guatanamo, it is. they show off infiltration in public;)

the point is, when overhere, yet it is not the only instance for me that i had peeks into that kind of regulations, when you do that kind of work, 'intelligence' work, wich is basically spy's work etc. there are elaborate rules deciding , for the superiors or officers , and people responsible, if people are suited for the job, even if they are 'still' suited for the job.

the kind of work can be very stressfull and bearing. as a direct result of your researches life and death can be decided, perhaps has to be decided, you are in other cases a direct witness of not a few, but endless incidents that hardly credibly pass the 'rules of engagement' criteria.

lives of children, women, livelyhoods, animals, even meaningfull consequences in a far future, everything can be in the balance. that is why the regulations are rather strict.

and according to the spirit of those, in wich for example his taking a foetal stance, certainly also his whisttle blowing attempt that failed (and obviously not for only the best reasons), his being a loner in his teams, his bearing great repsonsibilitys, attacking a superior, and being adviced against beforehand should have been enough to ring the warning bells.

that the psychological symptoms of stress and dissociation, problems with loyalty etc. are so precisely known is there for a reason.

to protect that doubtfull priviliges of secrecy and undercover reality, and to protect the individual armyperson against the natural consequences of a great struggle of conscience.

here's the gossip, the mainstreaming dutch media repeat me, "(the great question is rather if they ever release him early (because would not that tell if the world has changed)".

yet without raising even a question about his conviction (let alone guilt(?)).

no unpleasant surprises for the sheeple? the general negative trending in tv comments, that is in so far i seen any, but i think the listening post on aljazeera has some..) bodes a similar preparation, and a specific spin, to do indeed that what the dutch media so casually assume.

i said it before, if it was not about people it would be rather funny. funny in the sense that arguments against so much what they hold against him in that mediacircus, are all to often easily found.

tried it a bit here.


(1) i do not think they have the theoretical underground to conceive a functional action model, i would almost hope ban ki moon provides some. not that it would suddenly help all the lack of justice , more that it might help peace prevail in syria without a bloody repression and the forthcoming prolongation of differences and pains.

ps. like i posed in the first weeks wikileaks became the hottest topic of 'news' in the sense of things people did not realise or know, it need not be true, this story.

it is not infeasible assange and bradley eg. are some sort of hoax. somehow i can't get away from the idea all those cables, and what is actually this stash of a 4 million customer confidential hobby magazine, call it for usian armed forces, pentagon, perhaps even nato secret service, what you like, ambassadorial peptalks, gossips and indeed reports, that however trended to be known from public releases in the context. admittedly not the kind of source to allow the oversight you want,
releases in these many contexts.

nevertheless if they are supposed to encourage the army servants of the corporations, they would be supposed to encourage a lot of it's clients. i never heard wikileaks released major detail about say turkey, syria even, egypt , libya or any other nation i know has recently been attempting to release confidential documents, yet it is plausible many have been send.

that would give the pentagon a lot of everything: confidential informations on plenty foreign gov's corporations etc. and the opportunity to donn every kind of scare about whisttle blowing.

plus a heap of what is basically a sales talk under the attention of people that consider themselves critical and often spend a lot of effort to find informations on plenty of the topics , in wich so many nations and people outside the united states stand stereotyped and in not to positive light.

that, i already told you, however should not be a surprise as it was already confirmed in the media when the topic was running in diplomacy, and actually ofcourse sometimes shortly thereafter.

one reason for that is that the probable briefers of the corporate media, are connected to those sipdis releases. in cases that is sure as

ps2: that roommate that did not want to talk to him i suppose also counts, it shows there was little appreciation for him, and raises the question if he asked and was denied (..) a change in that.