UK News



British Queen celebrates

Julian Assange railed against conviction WikiLeaks informant Bradley Manning. The process was unfair and was an example of a national security extremism of the U.S. government. Even Amnesty International and Reporters Network criticized the verdict.

After the guilty verdict for the WikiLeaks informant Bradley Manning by a U.S. military court Julian Assange, the government of President Barack Obama harshly criticized. The short-sighted judgment is an expression of security and extremism creates a dangerous precedent. It must be repealed. Manning, however, is “the most important journalistic source that the world has ever seen,” the founder of the Internet platform unveiling said in London.

On Tuesday, the U.S. military court had convicted 25-year-old Manning in 20 out of 22 counts at Fort Meade. Surprisingly, however, he was acquitted of the most serious point of “aiding the enemy”. Manning was declared partly because of espionage, betrayal of secrets, computer fraud and theft guilty. This Wednesday the sentencing is expected. Manning faces up to 136 years in prison

Assange himself sitting for over a year in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the British capital firm and fears being arrested when leaving the embassy and extradited to the United States. He did not confirm that Manning was actually the supplier of hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables, but consistently spoke of the “alleged” source. WikiLeaks has never revealed his sources, and it is always protected, said Assange.



U.S. President Obama has more espionage cases against whistleblowers causes than any previous incumbent, said the WikiLeaks founder. In his time as a presidential candidate in 2008, he was the whistleblower still hailed as an act of courage and patriotism. He did his own words from time to ridicule, because now is the first time a whistleblower been convicted of espionage. However, Manning’s alleged actions were undoubtedly heroic.

Also, the human rights organization Amnesty International responded with criticism of the judgment. In the fight for the national security, the U.S. government had set the wrong priorities with the trial against Manning. “It seems that he wanted to do the right thing. Uncover illegal conduct of the government with credible evidence”