Extradition of Julian Assange undermines freedom of speech

[truthatallcost]

So in other words you don’t have any evidence that he called for people to engage in corruption or graft.....as I figured.

Keating 5. Graft and corruption well established tiger. McCain was a perfunctory statist.

Meanwhile Scheuer defends QANON and has called for people to commit terrorist attacks against those he politically disagrees with. As I said before.....no wonder you love him.

Review the punishment for treason and insurrection that our founding fathers favored. Scheuer would be considered a moderate among those men Tiger. You on the other hand don't seem to have any personal convictions. You don't endorse Democrats, Republicans, or independents, you only endorse government, Pentagon, mainstream media. In fact, I've never heard you say anything that isn't just some flimsy VOA talking point that no one takes seriously.

 

[Jean-s]

Nope, as shown by the US airpower helping repulse their latest offensive in Helmand.

Besides, the role of the Taliban‘s best buddies is already filled by Julian Assange and his fanboys.

Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar after signing an agreement with the United States during a ceremony in the Qatari capital, Doha, on Feb. 29, 2020. To our boys who died President Trump says, "Thanks, losers!"

 

[Tigerace117]

Keating 5. Graft and corruption well established tiger. McCain was a perfunctory statist.


Review the punishment for treason and insurrection that our founding fathers favored. Scheuer would be considered a moderate among those men Tiger. You on the other hand don't seem to have any personal convictions. You don't endorse Democrats, Republicans, or independents, you only endorse government, Pentagon, mainstream media. In fact, I've never heard you say anything that isn't just some flimsy VOA talking point that no one takes seriously.

Yawn. McCain was cleared of having acted improperly, and that isn’t evidence of him encouraging anyone to engage in corruption anyway.

If anything, supporters of Scheuer should review the penalty for “insurrection“, yes, because advocating for terrorists to murder large numbers of Americans based on political ideology fits that term to a T.

“Breaking news: SS fanboy declares nutjob he supports is more moderate than people who lived over two hundred years ago, somehow thinks that’s a valid argument”.

If you actually think advocating for terrorism is “standing for something” your ideology is even more warped than I figured. You sniveling because I don’t endorse your favorite tyrants or support isolationism is amusing, and not being “taken seriously“ by the resident SS fanboy means nothing.

 

[Tigerace117]

Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar after signing an agreement with the United States during a ceremony in the Qatari capital, Doha, on Feb. 29, 2020. To our boys who died President Trump says, "Thanks, losers!"

Julian Assange, meanwhile, only regrets that he couldn’t help Baradar more

 

[Evilroddy]

Gee, that depends. ...

Tigerace117:

You're quite full of it, aren't you.

The picture that emerges from Goetz is not Assange the reckless cavalier indifferent to human life but of a more considered publisher, working with news organisations to redact the names of informants, insisting on the use of encrypted communications, cognisant of the risk of harm facing them. Goetz noted that WikiLeaks had a “very rigorous redaction process”, evident in its approach to the Afghanistan files; Assange was “very concerned with the technical aspect of trying to find the names in this massive collection of documents.”

Der Spiegel itself had interviewed Assange on the process in 2010, a point remarked upon by Goetz. As Assange said at the time. “We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.” Cases “where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent” were identified. “Those records were identified and edited accordingly.” The practice seemed to have paid off. Goetz noted that the trial of Chelsea Manning, based on her disclosures to WikiLeaks, revealed no cases of harm to any informant.

Mark Summers QC sensed a chance to interrogate another aspect of the prosecution case on Assange’s supposed callousness about the fate of informants, captured by the alleged remark, “They’re informants, they deserve to die.” That now infamous dinner at London’s Moro restaurant is recorded by The Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding in WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy (2011). It supposedly took place in early July 2010 a few weeks prior to the publication of the Afghan War Diaries. Goetz had been in attendance. Leigh, also at the dinner, was mistaken: Assange had never said anything of the sort.

Assange on Trial: Diligent Redactions and Avoiding Harm

Day Seven September 16. Central Criminal Court, London. Proceedings today at the Old Bailey regarding Julian Assange’s extradition returned to

www.counterpunch.org

Your claim are malicious hearsay disproved by testimony in the Manning trial and the Assange extradition trial. No one was killed or physically hurt by the Wikileaks releases and publications by the five newspapers in partnership with Wikileaks. You're just making crap up. Even if said crap were true, which it is not, then why is Julienne Assange on trial alone for these disclosures? Why aren't editors from the five major newspapers who reported based on the Wikileaks released documents and who made those documents available to the public being prosecuted as coconspirators? The answer is that they and Julian Assange committed no crime but Mr. Assange being low-hanging fruit is easier to prosecute than taking on five pillars of the mainstream media.

Mr. Assange had no legal nor moral obligation to protect US sources from harm, but he bent over backwards to do just that, much to the consternation of the five media giants who partnered with him and who wanted faster disclosure. When approached by representatives of Wikileaks and the five partnered newspapers, US authorities refused to help or even to be consulted regarding the vetting process. So Tigerace's claim are fabrications or gross distortions of what actually did happen and what consequences were ramafications for what happened.

Agents of the US-led Coallition committed war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq but they were never prosecuted. Julian Assange and Wikileaks, in partnership with five major newspapers, exposed evidence of those war crimes to the public and the American electorate and for that public service Mr, Assange is facing extradition to a country which has no legal jurisdiction to prosecute him, while his institutional partners in these disclosures are left alone by the US Government because they have the resources to properly defend themselves (as correctly concluded by the Obama Administration) from predatory legal abuse. The country attempting to extradite Mr. Assange has attempted to illegally conspire with private military and security companies to kidnap Mr. Assange and to poison him according to court documents from trials and hearings in three countries.

Continued next post.

 

[Evilroddy]

Bradley/Chelsea Manning stole the documents, not Mr. Assange. Manning was arrested, prosecuted, served her sentence and was released but Assange is still jailed in solitary confinement, having fully served his bail-jumping sentence. This is the weaponising of legal systems to punish journalists and publishers for doing their jobs. Nothing more.

Tigerace's case is based on lies and mischaracterisations of partial truths peppered with snide remarks and innuendo designed to demonise those he wants to see punished by a weaponised and thus illegitimate legal miscarriage of justice. Tigerace117 has produced no evidence to back up his many spurious claims and continues to side-step the factual evidence provided by others to refute his hollow case. His arguments and his tactics fail and his empty case is laid bare as a fabricated tissue of lies, mischaracterisations and innuendo designed to demonise rather then debate. Tigerace117, you are dismissed as a gossip, a fear-monger and as an assassin of character.

Be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Highlanders]

Assange acquisition of documents is not protected


Illegal acquisition of documents, particularly those that are classified, by a foreign national is generally considered to be espionage. What specifically do you think Assange did that is protected by the First Amendment?

He is a reporter, and criminal activity of degenerates in your government deserves to face public opinion in third nations, because you lot would know nothing of the genocide being committed in your name and in your democracy because you have none! What a joke! From torture chambers to basic murder of prisoners, your Nations aspirations ended in a sewer of your own making. Buggering children, rape and sodomy of prisoners, aye.... not much wonder thousand of ex military men are taking there own lives, it's called shame!
Thank god, there are still honourable people willing to fight what America has become!

 

[Jean-s]

Bradley/Chelsea Manning stole the documents, not Mr. Assange. Manning was arrested, prosecuted, served her sentence and was released but Assange is still jailed in solitary confinement, having fully served his bail-jumping sentence. This is the weaponising of legal systems to punish journalists and publishers for doing their jobs. Nothing more.

Tigerace's case is based on lies and mischaracterisations of partial truths peppered with snide remarks and innuendo designed to demonise those he wants to see punished by a weaponised and thus illegitimate legal miscarriage of justice. Tigerace117 has produced no evidence to back up his many spurious claims and continues to side-step the factual evidence provided by others to refute his hollow case. His arguments and his tactics fail and his empty case is laid bare as a fabricated tissue of lies, mischaracterisations and innuendo designed to demonise rather then debate. Tigerace117, you are dismissed as a gossip, a fear-monger and as an assassin of character.

Be well.
Evilroddy.

Thank-you for your diligent post, Evilroddy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tigerace117:

You're quite full of it, aren't you.

Assange on Trial: Diligent Redactions and Avoiding Harm

Day Seven September 16. Central Criminal Court, London. Proceedings today at the Old Bailey regarding Julian Assange’s extradition returned to

www.counterpunch.org

Your claim are malicious hearsay disproved by testimony in the Manning trial and the Assange extradition trial. No one was killed or physically hurt by the Wikileaks releases and publications by the five newspapers in partnership with Wikileaks. You're just making crap up. Even if said crap were true, which it is not, then why is Julienne Assange on trial alone for these disclosures? Why aren't editors from the five major newspapers who reported based on the Wikileaks released documents and who made those documents available to the public being prosecuted as coconspirators? The answer is that they and Julian Assange committed no crime but Mr. Assange being low-hanging fruit is easier to prosecute than taking on five pillars of the mainstream media.

Mr. Assange had no legal nor moral obligation to protect US sources from harm, but he bent over backwards to do just that, much to the consternation of the five media giants who partnered with him and who wanted faster disclosure. When approached by representatives of Wikileaks and the five partnered newspapers, US authorities refused to help or even to be consulted regarding the vetting process. So Tigerace's claim are fabrications or gross distortions of what actually did happen and what consequences were ramafications for what happened.

Agents of the US-led Coallition committed war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq but they were never prosecuted. Julian Assange and Wikileaks, in partnership with five major newspapers, exposed evidence of those war crimes to the public and the American electorate and for that public service Mr, Assange is facing extradition to a country which has no legal jurisdiction to prosecute him, while his institutional partners in these disclosures are left alone by the US Government because they have the resources to properly defend themselves (as correctly concluded by the Obama Administration) from predatory legal abuse. The country attempting to extradite Mr. Assange has attempted to illegally conspire with private military and security companies to kidnap Mr. Assange and to poison him according to court documents from trials and hearings in three countries.

Continued next post.

Oh look, CounterPunch. Another source which published Russian governmet propaganda in the past. One of its latest articles? The claim that the US ”didn’t defeat fascism in World War Two” but instead “discretely internationalized it”. I wonder if the Germans in Normandy felt defeated?

Now, before you start wailing about “relevance”, exposing the kind of crap you and other Assange fanboys push is absolutely relevant, especially given you were dumb enough to try and push the Grey Zone as a reputable source earlier in the thread.

The article lists a variety of former Nazi regime personnel who were “rehabilitated“ after the war(the fact that the Soviet Union did the exact same thing, funnily enough, is not mentioned. Imagine that). It then talks about a Operation Paperclip(and once again, conveniently ignores the Soviet efforts to do the exact same thing) and then Operation GLADIO(which A) was not fascist and B) there was nothing inherently wrong with....it was the exact same premise as the European resistance movements of the Second World War. The article tries to claim that the organization was responsible for “false flag“ terrorist attacks in Italy.....the fact that Italian communist terrorist groups were extremely active during this period is, once again, not mentioned.

So right off the bat we’ve established that your source plays fast and loose with the truth.

Then the source starts talking about Operation Condor, invoking the name of Che Guevara, patron saint of the international left and a psychotic thug, and even manages to bring up Japan’s rather sociopathic former PM Kishi, which, hey, points for originality at least. It then concludes by claiming that it was the communists who “actually” fought and defeated the fascists. In short.....your source, therefore, is a load of crap....again.

Again, if I release the new identities of everyone in the Witness Protection Program, i don’t get to turn around and claim “no harm done” if the Feds manage to successfully protect the witnesses. Assange knew he was putting the Afghans working against the Taliban in danger. He didn’t give a shit.

 

[Tigerace117]

Bradley/Chelsea Manning stole the documents, not Mr. Assange. Manning was arrested, prosecuted, served her sentence and was released but Assange is still jailed in solitary confinement, having fully served his bail-jumping sentence. This is the weaponising of legal systems to punish journalists and publishers for doing their jobs. Nothing more.

Tigerace's case is based on lies and mischaracterisations of partial truths peppered with snide remarks and innuendo designed to demonise those he wants to see punished by a weaponised and thus illegitimate legal miscarriage of justice. Tigerace117 has produced no evidence to back up his many spurious claims and continues to side-step the factual evidence provided by others to refute his hollow case. His arguments and his tactics fail and his empty case is laid bare as a fabricated tissue of lies, mischaracterisations and innuendo designed to demonise rather then debate. Tigerace117, you are dismissed as a gossip, a fear-monger and as an assassin of character.

Be well.
Evilroddy.

Assange jailed himself in the Ecuadorian embassy to hide until the statute of limitations on another crime he committed ran out. Nobody forced him to. And then he turned around and accused them of violating his rights because they asked him to clean up after his cat. In short, boo-****ing hoo.

Coming from the guy who tried to post the Grey Zone as a credible source, it sounds like you should look up the definition of all those terms, because you clearly don’t understand them.

 

[Tigerace117]

He is a reporter, and criminal activity of degenerates in your government deserves to face public opinion in third nations, because you lot would know nothing of the genocide being committed in your name and in your democracy because you have none! What a joke! From torture chambers to basic murder of prisoners, your Nations aspirations ended in a sewer of your own making. Buggering children, rape and sodomy of prisoners, aye.... not much wonder thousand of ex military men are taking there own lives, it's called shame!
Thank god, there are still honourable people willing to fight what America has become!

Oh look, the Holocaust denier is spewing more idiotic lies. What a surprise.....not.

 

[Jean-s]

Oh look, CounterPunch. Another source which published Russian governmet propaganda in the past. One of its latest articles? The claim that the US ”didn’t defeat fascism in World War Two” but instead “discretely internationalized it”. I wonder if the Germans in Normandy felt defeated?

Now, before you start wailing about “relevance”, exposing the kind of crap you and other Assange fanboys push is absolutely relevant, especially given you were dumb enough to try and push the Grey Zone as a reputable source earlier in the thread.

The article lists a variety of former Nazi regime personnel who were “rehabilitated“ after the war(the fact that the Soviet Union did the exact same thing, funnily enough, is not mentioned. Imagine that). It then talks about a Operation Paperclip(and once again, conveniently ignores the Soviet efforts to do the exact same thing) and then Operation GLADIO(which A) was not fascist and B) there was nothing inherently wrong with....it was the exact same premise as the European resistance movements of the Second World War. The article tries to claim that the organization was responsible for “false flag“ terrorist attacks in Italy.....the fact that Italian communist terrorist groups were extremely active during this period is, once again, not mentioned.

So right off the bat we’ve established that your source plays fast and loose with the truth.

Then the source starts talking about Operation Condor, invoking the name of Che Guevara, patron saint of the international left and a psychotic thug, and even manages to bring up Japan’s rather sociopathic former PM Kishi, which, hey, points for originality at least. It then concludes by claiming that it was the communists who “actuslly” fought and defeated the fascists. In short.....your source, therefore, is a load of crap....again.

Again, if I release the new identities of everyone in the Witness Protection Program, i don’t get to turn around and claim “no harm done” if the Feds manage to successfully protect the witnesses. Assange knew he was putting the Afghans working against the Taliban in danger. He didn’t give a shit.

Surely you do not believe fascism was defeated by the Red Army and the Americans in the Second World War?

 

[Tigerace117]

Surely you do not believe fascism was defeated by the Red Army and the Americans in the Second World War?

Hmm.....do I think the fascists of Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Imperial Japan weren’t defeated simply because a fascist dictator who remained neutral throughout the war was not overthrown?

World War Two saw fascism utterly crushed across most of the world. Trying to pretend overwise, as Counterpunch did, is simply laughable.

 

[Jean-s]

Hmm.....do I think the fascists of Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Imperial Japan weren’t defeated simply because a fascist dictator who remained neutral throughout the war was not overthrown?

World War Two saw fascism utterly crushed across most of the world. Trying to pretend overwise, as Counterpunch did, is simply laughable.

You did well to modify your post.

 

[Tigerace117]

You did well to modify your post.

The only “modification” I made was to fix a spelling error, so not quite sure what you mean.

 

[Jean-s]

The only “modification” I made was to fix a spelling error, so not quite sure what you mean.

You were claiming that fascism was defeated and you modified your position to some fascist governments. I can assure you fascism remained in places.

 

[Tigerace117]

You were claiming that fascism was defeated and you modified your position to some fascist governments. I can assure you fascism remained in places.

Fascism was defeated. Overwhelmingly. The fact that a fascist dictator who remained neutral survived the war doesn’t change the fact.

 

[Evilroddy]

Oh look, CounterPunch. Another source which published Russian governmet propaganda in the past. One of its latest articles? The claim that the US ”didn’t defeat fascism in World War Two” but instead “discretely internationalized it”. I wonder if the Germans in Normandy felt defeated?

Now, before you start wailing about “relevance”, exposing the kind of crap you and other Assange fanboys push is absolutely relevant, especially given you were dumb enough to try and push the Grey Zone as a reputable source earlier in the thread.

The article lists a variety of former Nazi regime personnel who were “rehabilitated“ after the war(the fact that the Soviet Union did the exact same thing, funnily enough, is not mentioned. Imagine that). It then talks about a Operation Paperclip(and once again, conveniently ignores the Soviet efforts to do the exact same thing) and then Operation GLADIO(which A) was not fascist and B) there was nothing inherently wrong with....it was the exact same premise as the European resistance movements of the Second World War. The article tries to claim that the organization was responsible for “false flag“ terrorist attacks in Italy.....the fact that Italian communist terrorist groups were extremely active during this period is, once again, not mentioned.

So right off the bat we’ve established that your source plays fast and loose with the truth.

Then the source starts talking about Operation Condor, invoking the name of Che Guevara, patron saint of the international left and a psychotic thug, and even manages to bring up Japan’s rather sociopathic former PM Kishi, which, hey, points for originality at least. It then concludes by claiming that it was the communists who “actuslly” fought and defeated the fascists. In short.....your source, therefore, is a load of crap....again.

Again, if I release the new identities of everyone in the Witness Protection Program, i don’t get to turn around and claim “no harm done” if the Feds manage to successfully protect the witnesses. Assange knew he was putting the Afghans working against the Taliban in danger. He didn’t give a shit.

Tigerace117:

More side-stepping and deflection from the central facts of the Assange case. All the points which I have tried to make in this thread are the results of court testimony and are established legal facts. The fact that you don't approve of the sources I have used is beside the point. Trying to move the debate off topic to new ground where you might feel more comfortably defending your peculiar biases is your standard modus operandi, but does not serve the debate as all it produces is tangents and derailments which carry the debate down rabbit holes which are more comfortable to your way of thinking. Whether you approve or disapprove the reporting of Blumenthal, the Guardian, Counterpunch or any other source is irrelevant when the facts which they are reporting on (not their spin of them) are solid facts established by sober legal tribunals and which are a matter of court record are not addressed in the debate. The fact that more mainstream media have chosen to not report on this Extradition Hearing means that a writer does not have the luxury to find better sources in the deafening media silence. So the Guardian, Blumenthal and Counterpunch plus observer witness blogs is what we're left with. That's why I read them all and find the established facts at the foundation of each article which can be verified from public record.

While I do this, you offer a stream of your own opinions based on false information and seldom if ever back them up with references of your own. You side-step and dodge hard evidence presented and try to move the debate off topic. You attack other debaters with snide remarks and unnecessary sarcasm rather that debating the issue in good faith. That is your prerogative to do, but don't for a minute think that the objective and savvy readers of DP Forum are falling for your manoeuvres, smoke screens and derailment attempts.

As always cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tigerace117:

More side-stepping and deflection from the central facts of the Assange case. All the points which I have tried to make in this thread are the results of court testimony and are established legal facts. The fact that you don't approve of the sources I have used is beside the point. Trying to move the debate off topic to new ground where you might feel more comfortably defending your peculiar biases is your standard modus operandi, but does not serve the debate as all it produces is tangents and derailments which carry the debate down rabbit holes which are more comfortable to your way of thinking. Whether you approve or disapprove the reporting of Blumenthal, the Guardian, Counterpunch or any other source is irrelevant when the facts which they are reporting on (not their spin of them) are solid facts established by sober legal tribunals and which are a matter of court record are not addressed in the debate. The fact that more mainstream media have chosen to not report on this Extradition Hearing means that a writer does not have the luxury to find better sources in the deafening media silence. So the Guardian, Blumenthal and Counterpunch plus observer witness blogs is what we're left with. That's why I read them all and find the established facts at the foundation of each article which can be verified from public record.

While I do this, you offer a stream of your own opinions based on false information and seldom if ever back them up with references of your own. You side-step and dodge hard evidence presented and try to move the debate off topic. You attack other debaters with snide remarks and unnecessary sarcasm rather that debating the issue in good faith. That is your prerogative to do, but don't for a minute think that the objective and savvy readers of DP Forum are falling for your manoeuvres, smoke screens and derailment attempts.

As always cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

You complaining because I pointed out the facts about your “sources” doesn’t change them. It is not a matter of “approval“— the fact is, neither the Grey Zone nor Counterpunch are reliable, objective sources. Assange fanboys may not have a problem with folks who spout crap about how it was the communists who “really did the fighting in WW2” or who defend the Assad regime, but most people do.

The media likely doesn‘t want to give a narcissist who allied himself with Putin yet another stage to cry about how victimized he feels. Or they simply don’t care about Wikileaks anymore now that its throughly proven itself to be nothing more than yet another anti American site which turns a blind eye to oppression and tyranny if it means they can cry about “the Empire”.

Oh look, more wailing because I throughly exposed your sources as the unreliable piles of crap they are, and pointing out your hero‘s willingness to help a vicious terrorist group.

 

[Fishking]

Assange acquisition of documents is not protected

Illegal acquisition of documents, particularly those that are classified, by a foreign national is generally considered to be espionage. What specifically do you think Assange did that is protected by the First Amendment?

So far as I'm tracking, nothing he did was espionage. He didn't attempt himself or coerce/order others to give him intelligence. He merely received it. We have reporters in the U.S. receiving classified and leaked info all the time. Further, he wasn't a U.S. citizen and was not inside U.S. territory, so he wouldn't have even fallen under our jurisdiction.

Imagine if we extradited people to China for speaking out against the communist regime there.

 

[Highlanders]

Assange jailed himself in the Ecuadorian embassy to hide until the statute of limitations on another crime he committed ran out. Nobody forced him to. And then he turned around and accused them of violating his rights because they asked him to clean up after his cat. In short, boo-****ing hoo.

Coming from the guy who tried to post the Grey Zone as a credible source, it sounds like you should look up the definition of all those terms, because you clearly don’t understand them.

The "other" crime was the accusation of rape created to get him out of the embassy as it would be easier to extradite him to America from Sweden!

 

[Fledermaus]

The "other" crime was the accusation of rape created to get him out of the embassy as it would be easier to extradite him to America from Sweden!

Explain how that is a "crime".

 

[NWRatCon]

Tigerace117:

Don't like Blumenthal, how about the Guardian:

US intelligence sources discussed poisoning Julian Assange, court told

Extradition hearing told spying operation at Ecuador embassy included plot to take baby’s nappy

www.theguardian.com

Regarding extraordinary rendition, use deniable contractors and do it in a third party country, just like the Americans do.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I think I read this plot in a Le Carre novel... Only it was better written.

 

[Tigerace117]

The "other" crime was the accusation of rape created to get him out of the embassy as it would be easier to extradite him to America from Sweden!

Oh look, the Holocaust denier is indulging in more conspiracy theories. How surprising.....not.

 

[Highlanders]

Explain how that is a "crime".

Mr Assange committed no crime, apart from telling the truth, highlighting genocide. His allotted task in life! You on the other hand again, make every attempt to deflect from your friends ability to dictate American foreign policy! But they are excellent organiser of setting nation against nation, regime change, torture chambers secret prisons..... WW1-WW2, only bankers benefit, and the extreme rich, in any war! The masses just die! Like sheep set against sheep! Even today, America uses gas against Syrians, previously giving sarin to Saddam, when he was forced as an American puppet, to attack Iran! Only one that comes out smelling of roses, is Israel, because no one can or is allowed to highlight there daily genocide, there ownership of atomic weapons, never signing the non poliferation treaty, hiding Palestinian dead in refrigerated lorries, or there thieving fingers in the American tax payers pockets! Even Assange cannot highlight these crimes, for fear of retribution from American military or Mossad one and the same! If Guantanamo can hold innocent people, to be tortured, murdered, sexually abused, raped, sodomised, even children, what does that say about American democracy, or American justice? That being one of many secret prisons, holding innocents to be tortured or murdered held without trial through out the world........ your American government behaves like a rabid animal from the 12th century! Let me hear you spout out again, how you and your Zionist friends uphold America exceptionalism and democracy, give me a laugh! You can market ice cubes to eskimo's!.