Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"
From vjmedia
(Not in at the moment <a href=" http://eboss.co.uk/buy-eriacta-online/ ">sildenafil citrate 50mg</a> Its just that businesses went deaf and got busy past two decades taking in consumers money but not) |
(Three years <a href=" http://vizslaclubfrance.com/buy-artane-online/ ">buy trihexyphenidyl online</a> MPML and the local council worked hard to try and reach a compromise, but in 2012 it ended with t) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Three years <a href=" http://vizslaclubfrance.com/buy-artane-online/ ">buy trihexyphenidyl online</a> MPML and the local council worked hard to try and reach a compromise, but in 2012 it ended with the council deciding to prosecute MPML on five charges of the Notice. The court hearing took place in August 2013 and ruled that MPML were guilty on all five occasions, but was given the right to take the establishment rights of the 1985 Notice to a higher court. | |
| − | <a href=" http:// | + | <a href=" http://ecolemetierscinema.com/buy-vasotec-online/ ">buy vasotec online</a> It makes the point that to prove the aiding the enemy charge the government has to show that Manning had ACTUAL knowledge that by transmitting documents to WikiLeaks he was passing them to al-Qaida and other enemy groups. Yet in his training as an intelligence analyst the name WikiLeaks was never mentioned, and one of those involved in the training had never even heard of WikiLeaks. The prosecution cites the report of a counter-intelligence investigation into WikiLeaks as evidence that Manning knew the organisation was dangerous. Manning transmitted the report to the anti-secrecy website and WikiLeaks cheekily published it - ie published the government's investigation into its own activities. Yet significantly the report was titled with a question: "Wikileaks.org - An Online reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?" That question mark could be crucial as it showed that even the US gov didn't have a firm idea of what WikiLeaks was, let alone Manning himself |
Revision as of 11:56, 28 August 2014
Three years <a href=" http://vizslaclubfrance.com/buy-artane-online/ ">buy trihexyphenidyl online</a> MPML and the local council worked hard to try and reach a compromise, but in 2012 it ended with the council deciding to prosecute MPML on five charges of the Notice. The court hearing took place in August 2013 and ruled that MPML were guilty on all five occasions, but was given the right to take the establishment rights of the 1985 Notice to a higher court.
<a href=" http://ecolemetierscinema.com/buy-vasotec-online/ ">buy vasotec online</a> It makes the point that to prove the aiding the enemy charge the government has to show that Manning had ACTUAL knowledge that by transmitting documents to WikiLeaks he was passing them to al-Qaida and other enemy groups. Yet in his training as an intelligence analyst the name WikiLeaks was never mentioned, and one of those involved in the training had never even heard of WikiLeaks. The prosecution cites the report of a counter-intelligence investigation into WikiLeaks as evidence that Manning knew the organisation was dangerous. Manning transmitted the report to the anti-secrecy website and WikiLeaks cheekily published it - ie published the government's investigation into its own activities. Yet significantly the report was titled with a question: "Wikileaks.org - An Online reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?" That question mark could be crucial as it showed that even the US gov didn't have a firm idea of what WikiLeaks was, let alone Manning himself