But the powers at be are right to fear it for the wrong reasons. They fear any substantial element of power not in their control, and if used properly or inproperly anon could do some serious damage.

On the other hand, how can the security of a democratic society be threatened by the free flow of information? To have proper representation, the people must be able to make informed decisions about their votes. The fact that the US government is now more about restricting information to its own citizens than disseminating information is a sea-change.

Pretty soon all ideas will be considered enemies of the state.

I kind of think they already are now. Ideas are only legal for the 1% of the richest Americans.. all others harboring ideas shall have them confiscated.

your honor, the persecution has no further questions or thumbscrews at this time, but we reserve the right to re-flay the witness at a later date.

You may not realize it but you are attempting a classic politician’s hairsplit. You are selectively ignoring the main idea of the paragraph (That he is simply a suspect) while you push your own counter-narrative, which you have found support for by ignoring that word “suspect” and used the rest of the words behind it. And this selective ignorance is designed so you will emotionally engage people to your side. This is what you want NATO to say, even if that’s not what was said.

I still think you could use a few grammar lessons. If only so you could learn how imperfect a system it is.

You are incorrectly reading the subordinate clause of the sentence, “who had downloaded the information from a computer in Kuwait“. This clause modifies both material and PVT Manning it is not the main idea. If you read the main part of the sentence you will discover that PVT Manning is simply suspected, and we can infer that this subordinate clause is part of that accusation entailed by the word suspect.

it is not the gruesome spectacle of their own bloodlust that keeps them awake at night, no, it is that Wikileaks might shine at light on them.

Shine a light on roaches and they scurry.

Anonymous isn’t a group it’s an idea.

We have been at war with an idea for the last ten years. Pretty soon all ideas will be considered enemies of the state.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS ANON!

The PSN hack they hacked into the credit card database, not for money, but to distrust Sony. And they succeeded. Any Credit Card theft has been proven false. They have no interest in material things. it’s a shame that it hurt the consumer though and the developer though, that I disagree with them. What most people don’t know is that the reason was not just because they removed the ‘Other OS’ feature, there were many reasons.

I hope the group continues as long as their motivation stays selfless. Stay strong Anonymous.

Stand your ground Anonymous.
And don’t back down.

This danger must be bigger than NATO thinks!

I think this is still about privately-held transnational banks. I’m still waiting on those leaks.

(You both agree)

More after this commercial break about the wonders of Hypnoxiprin.

Dear rulers of the world, your need for secrecy has outstripped your ability to keep it.

If you embroidered that on throw pillows, you could make a killing on Etsy.

In November 2010, WikiLeaks published about 250,000 confidential US diplomatic cables, which provided US diplomats’ candid assessments of terrorist threats and the behaviour of world leaders.[10] Currently, the US authorities suspect that the material was leaked by Private Bradley Manning stationed in the Persian Gulf, who had downloaded the information from a computer in Kuwait. He then passed these files on to the “whistleblower” organization, which made them public.
[...]
[10] Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy. By Scott Shane and Andrew W.Lehren. The New York Times. 28 November 2010.

Paragraph 21 states that General Rapporteur Lord Jopling (UK), believes that states and corporations have the same right to privacy that individuals do:

That said, the Rapporteur believes that even if one is in favour of transparency, military and intelligence operations simply cannot be planned and consulted with the public. Transparency cannot exist without control. The government, and especially its security agencies, must have the right to limit access to information in order to govern and to protect. This is based on the premise that states and corporations have the right to privacy as much as individuals do and that secrecy is required for efficient management of the state institutions and organizations. In addition, transparency can be misused on several levels – by providing unprofessional or poor-quality interpretation of information or documents, by conducting superficial or biased analysis, by lack of experience on the topic or by pursuing a political agenda. Thus, not everything carried out under the “transparency label” is necessarily good for the government and its people. Moreover, the very ideal of transparency can also force public figures to become more secretive.