June 07, 2010
— DrewM Back in April, Wikileaks released a highly edited video showing a US helicopter attack on terrorists that killed 2 Reuters reporters who were embedded with the terrorists.
Now federal authorities have arrested an Army soldier in the case.
If it's true, this dirt bag should be breaking rocks in Leavenworth for a long, long time.
SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged....He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”
“Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning wrote.
If Manning is guilty, it's disappointing that an American solider would take it upon himself to defame and endanger his fellow servicemen in such away. The incident involving the helicopter attack had already been investigated and there was no criminal culpability. All Manning was doing by leaking the video was helping terror enablers to create a propaganda tool. Some might call that giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I'm not sure they are wrong.
As for the rest of the material he is alleged to have leaked, I don't doubt there are a lot of interesting things in them and that the government abuses it's power to classify things but that's simply not a decision for a 22 year old a Army Specialist to take upon himself.
Added: It appears Manning got caught because he couldn't keep his mouth shut about the diplomatic cables. This apprently crossed some code of honor for one hacker who then reported him.
Posted by: DrewM at
09:00 AM
| Comments (166)
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: EC at June 07, 2010 09:04 AM (mAhn3)
Posted by: Barack The Wise, First Emperor of Multicultura at June 07, 2010 09:06 AM (2PTT7)
How in god's name did he have access to all of that stuff?
Posted by: Y-not at June 07, 2010 09:06 AM (Kn9r7)
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 07, 2010 09:06 AM (ZJ/un)
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
Wikileaks is not technically the enemy we're fighting (although they aid and abet them), but the word "indirectly" there seems to have that covered.
Posted by: Slublog at June 07, 2010 09:07 AM (qjKko)
Posted by: Parent of an Army soldier at June 07, 2010 01:06 PM (DYJjQ)
I'm with you. I'm sure we could find a few volunteers somewhere...
Posted by: Hedgehog at June 07, 2010 09:08 AM (oQIfB)
Posted by: huerfano at June 07, 2010 09:09 AM (Updet)
Posted by: CDR M at June 07, 2010 09:11 AM (BuYeH)
Posted by: 0bama at June 07, 2010 09:11 AM (XGYAc)
There should be a simple rule: anyone who reads Daily Kos or DD should be automatically and permanently barred from any type of military service.
They are all traitors in the making.
Posted by: TomServo at June 07, 2010 09:11 AM (T1boi)
Check Espionage, under article 106. Only punnishable by death under extenuating circumstances. As far as Treason, you could make an arguement for it, but you would lose.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 09:13 AM (0q2P7)
How in god's name did he have access to all of that stuff?
I'm guessing his specialized field was something in IT and had access to the military's databases to do a dump of all this stuff.
If a business or agency is using certain kinds of e-mail packages, such as Outlook, it's possible for someone with sysadmin access to do a dump of all traffic to an archive file to be perused at your leisure.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 07, 2010 09:13 AM (WMLsd)
Plus, I'd be happy if more Reuters "reporters" turn suddenly dead when embedded with terrorists or when photoshopping stuff for Hamas and Al Qaeda.
Posted by: Juicer at June 07, 2010 09:14 AM (FujCE)
If it's true, this dirt bag should be breaking rocks in Leavenworth...
Drew, why are you jumping to conclusions? You'd think you'd learn your lesson after you were dead wrong about James O'Keefe.
Posted by: fishdicks, do you like them? at June 07, 2010 09:14 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Something Wicked This Way Comes... at June 07, 2010 09:14 AM (uFdnM)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 07, 2010 09:16 AM (l1KFP)
I sympathize: But his motives appear to be political, which kind of eliminates treason. Unless evidence bears out that he put lives at grave risk, or the security of the US in grave risk, this would normally not be a death penalty crime.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 09:16 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: fluffy has to pack at June 07, 2010 09:17 AM (4Kl5M)
You apparently don't understand the meaning of "if".
Why don't you go back and do some remedial grammar school work and then come back and talk with the adults.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2010 09:17 AM (X/Lqh)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 07, 2010 01:16 PM (l1KFP)
--Ahnuhld and Maria used to lie there as well.
Posted by: logprof at June 07, 2010 09:17 AM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 09:18 AM (vb5IK)
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean, Freedom Fighter at June 07, 2010 09:19 AM (uFdnM)
You all suck and I hope you get cancer and die.
Posted by: Nadz X at June 07, 2010 09:19 AM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: fluffy has to read closer at June 07, 2010 09:20 AM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean, Freedom Fighter at June 07, 2010 01:19 PM
(uFdnM)
Cut . . . jib . . . etc.
Posted by: Eric Holder at June 07, 2010 09:20 AM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: CDR M at June 07, 2010 01:11 PM (BuYeH)
The Navy has already banned that stuff long ago. No removable data storage devices allowed.
Posted by: Johnnyreb at June 07, 2010 09:21 AM (y67bA)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 09:21 AM (JaO+v)
MikeTheMoose
Huh?
Are you saying there are never politically motivated cases of treason? That doesn't make much sense. Sure a lot of people commit treason for the money but there can be true believers.
Think of that bastard Adam Gadahn. He's been charged with treason. Clearly his actions have political motives.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2010 09:22 AM (X/Lqh)
Posted by: maddogg at June 07, 2010 09:23 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at June 07, 2010 09:23 AM (1kwr2)
Posted by: Dick Cheney at June 07, 2010 09:23 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at June 07, 2010 09:23 AM (HGBhW)
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2010 09:24 AM (fwSHf)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at June 07, 2010 09:24 AM (nxUYP)
Posted by: SPC Bradley Manning at June 07, 2010 09:24 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: chemjeff at June 07, 2010 09:24 AM (Gk/wA)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 09:24 AM (JaO+v)
I blame Lady Gaga. And Bush.
Posted by: chemjeff at June 07, 2010 09:26 AM (Gk/wA)
Sorry, no. Read the Constitution's definition of treason -- giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. It says nothing about it being OK if you're doing it for domestic political motives.
And, for my part, I find the idea of someone providing propaganda to our enemies in order to achieve domestic political advantage to be WORSE than someone who simply aligns themselves with our enemies. Excusing crimes for being politically motivated is a dangerous road.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 07, 2010 09:26 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: GarandFan at June 07, 2010 09:27 AM (6mwMs)
It is like they place the computer in Schrödinger's box, while we debate whether it is still useful.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 09:27 AM (0q2P7)
If this were a just world, he'd at least be sharing a bunk with Helen Thomas.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 07, 2010 09:28 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2010 09:28 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 07, 2010 09:29 AM (w1UmQ)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2010 09:29 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Paul McCartney at June 07, 2010 09:30 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 09:30 AM (3WbbL)
it's disappointing that an American solider would take it upon himself to defame and endanger his fellow servicemen in such away
Just remember, that turd kos was allegedly a 'soldier' also.
They're the ones that never should make it out of basic.
Posted by: Dang Straights at June 07, 2010 09:30 AM (biBNm)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at June 07, 2010 09:31 AM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 01:24 PM (JaO+v)
--Dr. Spank's DADT theory gains traction. . . .
Posted by: logprof at June 07, 2010 09:31 AM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at June 07, 2010 09:31 AM (HGBhW)
Posted by: maddogg at June 07, 2010 09:32 AM (OlN4e)
Bury him aline, then hang what's left and feed it to hungry pigs if he's guilty of doing this.
Then they should investigate the living f&ck out of his parents, too.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at June 07, 2010 09:33 AM (/PzFn)
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2010 09:33 AM (fwSHf)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 07, 2010 09:33 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Lady Gaga at June 07, 2010 09:34 AM (AZGON)
his motives appear to be political, which kind of eliminates treason.
Haw whuu? WTF is "motivation" for treason other than politics?
Posted by: Dang Straights at June 07, 2010 09:34 AM (biBNm)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2010 09:35 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: B. H. Obama at June 07, 2010 09:37 AM (AZGON)
Ummmm.... I choose death.
Posted by: SPC Bradley Manning - Traitorous scumbg at June 07, 2010 09:37 AM (EW49d)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 01:32 PM (3WbbL)
Do I like to bang hot women?
Posted by: Larry Marchant at June 07, 2010 09:38 AM (Mmw0q)
I think I missed that part when it came out.
Posted by: MunchkinRadish at June 07, 2010 09:38 AM (mR7mk)
Ummmm.... I choose death.
Death...by snoo-snoo!
Posted by: Helen Thomas at June 07, 2010 09:38 AM (mR7mk)
________________
I once considered making a COBOL program that rhymes. And then I came to my senses.
Posted by: Anachronda at June 07, 2010 09:38 AM (3K4hn)
The Navy has already banned that stuff long ago. No removable data storage devices allowed.
Posted by: Johnnyreb at June 07, 2010 01:21 PM (y67bA)
Actually, you can still use CDR and DVDR's (for now).
Posted by: CDR M at June 07, 2010 09:38 AM (y67bA)
No worries. We're already on it.
We've also sent this SPC Manning a job application. We feel he would fit in perfectly here.
Posted by: New York Times at June 07, 2010 09:39 AM (EW49d)
I have noticed a real propensity for this administration to single people out and fuck em. Throw em under the bus. Always find culprits and lay blame. Ala Jeremiah Wright. Or that Inspector General guy. Or the CEO of GM. Or the BP idiot. I don't trust this administration one iota. So I am going to hope the system works correctly here and wait for the evidence and thus the conviction- and hope that everyone one of us would get the same shake.
Posted by: Something Wicked This Way Comes... at June 07, 2010 09:39 AM (uFdnM)
Really? I still think she harbors a penis.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at June 07, 2010 01:39 PM (nxUYP)
She does! Trust me IYKWIMAITYD.
Posted by: Androo Sullyvin at June 07, 2010 09:40 AM (YVZlY)
I have noticed a real propensity for this administration to single people out and fuck em.
Really, noticed that all by yourself, did you? I admire your grasp of the screamingly obvious, wicked.
Posted by: Dang Straights at June 07, 2010 09:40 AM (biBNm)
Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at June 07, 2010 09:41 AM (erIg9)
Posted by: Uncle Obama at June 07, 2010 09:42 AM (fLHQe)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2010 09:43 AM (0GFWk)
Sorry yes.
Treason requires intent to commit. You cannot accidentally commit treason. Unless you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he actually aided the enemy which means demonstrating exactly how the enemy benefited from the information, and he knew or should have known that he was doing so at the time he leaked the information, you have no legal argument for Treason. Like I said before you could make an argument for it but you would lose.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 09:44 AM (0q2P7)
In a time of war there is NO difference. If you are military and you disagree then get the hell out. Do not be a pussy and leak shit that can get people compromised or killed. I don't give a shit if he leaked a chocolate chip cookie recipe, if it's classified that's enough for me.
Have fun in Leavenworth scumbag.
Posted by: mpfs at June 07, 2010 09:45 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Something Wicked This Way Comes... at June 07, 2010 09:45 AM (uFdnM)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at June 07, 2010 09:46 AM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 09:47 AM (OlnxK)
anyone who reads Daily Kos or DD should be automatically and permanently barred from any type of military service. They are all traitors in the making.
So how do you know what's in Kos or DD?
Posted by: FireHorse at June 07, 2010 09:48 AM (cQyWA)
You're arguing he didn't intend to commit treason? By releasing classified information to a hostile propaganda channel?
What a load of crap. He did what he intended to do -- harm the United States and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 07, 2010 09:51 AM (ZJ/un)
Allegiance to a foriegn power that is more substantial than loyalty to the United States.
e.g.
I want the war to stop because fighting this war is the wrong decision = Politics.
I want the other side to win because I like them more than the US and I am doing something to help make that end happen = Treason.
It is a fine line, and the Supreme Court has some cases with critical decisions. Probably the most crucial of these would be the Pentagon Papers.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 09:52 AM (0q2P7)
There's two factors to consider here with information-sharing as treason.
First, there's the delivery of "secret" material to the enemy; and then there's whether your own side knows that this material has been delivered.
If douchebag tells a bunch of jihadis that the troops are going down Muhammad Street, then our troops will go down that street and the jihadis will lay an ambush. But if douchebag tells everyone, then our troops will either go elsewhere or else will have a surprise of their own.
The first case is clearly treason. The second case, I'm less sure of. I'd need a military lawyer to help me with that.
Posted by: Zimriel at June 07, 2010 09:52 AM (9Sbz+)
America sucks and we hope that 150 million Americans die now so that our Progressive agenda can rule dammit. America can survive with 30 million people
Posted by: The 22 people who read Kos or DD. at June 07, 2010 09:53 AM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 01:43 PM (tTdaQ)
--My condolences
Posted by: logprof at June 07, 2010 09:53 AM (Mmw0q)
"Apparently, he is 2nd gen Army Intel. His father did 30 years service. Said his son was very tight lipped when he got out of AIT. "
Yeah, the John Walker family was like that, too. Worthless mf's.
Posted by: Todd Bridges, Survivor. Outwit, outlast and outplay. at June 07, 2010 09:56 AM (qL20/)
America sucks and ...
Quick question, OT: Now that America is just another country, no better or no worse than every other country in the world, which other country would you like to see provide peacekeeping troops to the U.S., in case of rioting or something?
Posted by: FireHorse at June 07, 2010 09:58 AM (cQyWA)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 09:59 AM (6Njk9)
I don't think that personal motivation should have anything to do with it. Otherwise we're saying that it's treason to frag your officer on behalf of Saddam, but it's just naughty to do it on behalf of Islam.
But I do not have any military-justice training, so that's just me talking.
Posted by: Zimriel at June 07, 2010 10:00 AM (9Sbz+)
Israel!
Unless I'm one of the rioters, then, France!
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 07, 2010 10:01 AM (5/Fc9)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at June 07, 2010 10:01 AM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 10:02 AM (JaO+v)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 10:03 AM (JaO+v)
I want the war to stop because fighting this war is the wrong decision = Politics.
I want the other side to win because I like them more than the US and I am doing something to help make that end happen = Treason.
Except that his means of bringing about "I want the war to stop" included "I want the other side to win" and "I am doing something to help make that end happen".
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 07, 2010 10:06 AM (ZJ/un)
What a load of crap. He did what he intended to do -- harm the United States and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
Like I said you could argue that but you would lose. Your standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt; Whatever you believe to be true has to survive the scrutiny of jurors any one of which, not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt about his intent would end your case.
let's re-read the part no one quotes. It says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Everyone gets the whole aid and comfort thing right. No one seems to remember that it has to be part of "adhering to their enemies" section, which requires intent.
Is there some other motivation, other than wanting the bad guys to win, that could have led to what he did? Could you reasonably say it might have been that, however lefty moonbat misguided, it might have been that?
You want to claim his intent was clear by his actions: to adhere to the enemies of the US. I am saying there is room for doubt, and that doubt would invalidate a charge of Treason.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 10:08 AM (0q2P7)
Perhaps he proposes a diplomatic talk it out lefty type UN toothless sanction un-solution to the terrorist problem.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 10:11 AM (0q2P7)
And what you're saying is bullshit; there is no other possible outcome to his actions but to provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
I bet we find out more about his motives, and they're more than just "because I could". I bet we find a Code Pink or jihadi link.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 07, 2010 10:11 AM (ZJ/un)
Would you care to guess what I heard on NPR at 7:45 this morning?
Posted by: John Galt at June 07, 2010 10:14 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 07, 2010 10:15 AM (7EDH5)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 02:08 PM (0q2P7)
Where is there room for any doubt? His intention to give aid and comfort to our enemies is as clear as can be.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 07, 2010 10:16 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2010 10:22 AM (mXHTU)
Sure, he might have committed an act of treason; but if he did, he meant well. So it doesn't count.
Posted by: Mikey Mouse at June 07, 2010 10:24 AM (9Sbz+)
If he thought "diplomatic" solutions were a surer way to defeat the threat rather than militarily, and was simply trying to urge public policy and sentiment in that direction. Or he was simply trying to bring what he thought were abuses and corruption to light...Trust me the defense will have a plausible alternative of motive if he is charged with Treason.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 10:26 AM (0q2P7)
Every spy could make the same argument. The difference is that such bullshit used to be laughed out of consideration. Of course, that was back before we had people argue in court that "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" and others treated that as anything other than contempt of court. One cannot find any doubt as to the intention of this worm to give aid and comfort to our enemies unless one finds doubt in the declaration that the sky is blue.
-->Or he was simply trying to bring what he thought were abuses and corruption to light...Trust me the defense will have a plausible alternative of motive if he is charged with Treason.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 02:26 PM (0q2P7)
Again, this could be the argument of any spy, which would mean that we could never find anyone guilty of espionage and might as well just let everyone have access to every bit of classified information, since someone might think it's better to have the information public (and giving aid and comfort to our enemies only as a side-effect).
You can find doubt in ANYTHING, if you want. Common sense tells most people that this was treason, writ large. But, we have suspended common sense in all legal proceedings ... so this is the state we are now in, where a clear case of espionage and treason has some talking about how there is doubt in the intention of the traitor.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 07, 2010 10:32 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Left Douche-nozzle during Bush years at June 07, 2010 10:33 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: yeah yeah, its the obvious joke at June 07, 2010 10:35 AM (4WbTI)
Not for hang from the gallows type punishments. However, other crimes involving espionage were committed, and while perhaps not amounting to Treason, could land him a very long career as a manufacturer of aggregate. Keep in mind the most notable case of espionage in the recent past John Walker, did a plea deal and got the opportunity for parole after 30 years.
Espionage if it is bad enough can carry the death penalty in the military.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 10:37 AM (0q2P7)
Espionage does not have the same burdens treason. That is why the crime of Espionage is separate from that of Treason, and as such gets used much more often. (Coincidentally includes 'indirect' communication with the enemy)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 10:40 AM (0q2P7)
The limitations of Treason as defined by the Constitution, being a big reason the broader crime of espionage was created. (Espionage act of 1917)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 10:43 AM (0q2P7)
Espionage if it is bad enough can carry the death penalty in the military.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 02:37 PM (0q2P7)
The Bush administration was awful in terms of pursuing treason charges against many who deserved them. Any American citizen who spies for our enemies is a traitor. Period. There is NO DOUBT about that, at all.
Of course, the Bush adminstration couldn't even see its way clear to press treason charges against John Walker Lindh, who was actively fighting with the enemy against Americans, or with any of the other jihadists holding American citizenship. Part of that, no doubt, was due to Bush's own problems with the concept of the nation-state, as we all saw in his idiotic push for open borders and to let everyone and his brother stroll into the US without any consent on America's part.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 07, 2010 10:44 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Glen at June 07, 2010 10:49 AM (+aTJ0)
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
He can't claim freedom of the press either. The controlling case is the Pentagon Papers BS ruling which only stopped Nixon from placing a hold on the NYT publishing their article.
That case ruled that the government could not place a hold on a story UNLESS they could prove clear and present harm to the national security. The government must show "harm" after the fact in order to go after the press.
The government CAN go after the "leaker" for divulging classified data. However even that case was tainted by unauthorized wiretaps so the gov dropped everything.
Even AFTER it was shown that release of the PP did in fact reveal sources and methods that resulted in the Russians rolling up numerous agents and killing them as a result.
Posted by: Vic at June 07, 2010 10:51 AM (6taRI)
...you have no legal argument for Treason. Like I said before you could make an argument for it but you would lose...
Argument? No need for all that. Just shoot the bastard.
K?
Posted by: Musket Man at June 07, 2010 11:01 AM (BFOTs)
So says you. All I have maintained from the beginning, is that you lose with that argument. Simply stated, you can't randomly or even semi-selectively get 12 people and not get a bleeding heart who doesn't believe someone is, like in this case, a good hearted person with bad method.
FTR I was refering to John Anthony Walker above, not John Walker Lindh: He was arrested in 1985 under President Reagan. Neither he, his son, or co-conspirator Jerry Whitworth were convicted nor I believe even charged with Treason. They were selling us cryptography to the Soviets.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 11:03 AM (0q2P7)
Oh, clear. I have never maintained he isn't guilty of, or can't be convicted of either Article 106a UCMJ or the civil crime Espionage, only that the current situation lacked sufficient evidence to convict Treason.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 11:06 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: SpecKane at June 07, 2010 11:08 AM (EXmrR)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 03:03 PM (0q2P7)
I was aware of who you were referring to. I brought up John Walker Lindh because his treason was so unbelievably obvious and because the Bush administration was so awful in pursuing treason charges.
BTW, the difference between espionage and treason is not merely due to the difficulty of getting a verdict for treason, but because one can spy for non-enemies, thereby making them guilty of espionage but not treason - as with Jonathan Pollard.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 07, 2010 11:09 AM (Qp4DT)
"Give him Viagra, lock him in a room with Helen Thomas for a week, then shoot him."
Were you by any chance one of Henry VIII's torturers in a past life?
Posted by: RM at June 07, 2010 11:09 AM (GkYyh)
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at June 07, 2010 11:12 AM (1kwr2)
Sounds like he's got a decent family, too, that raised him to be a decent person. But our society has some fundamental problems these days.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at June 07, 2010 11:23 AM (dUOK+)
They do exist, depending on community.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 07, 2010 11:24 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: haavamaal at June 07, 2010 11:26 AM (xwEHT)
Posted by: Jenny Huffbottem at June 07, 2010 11:27 AM (SZy+Y)
Posted by: CDR M at June 07, 2010 01:11 PM (BuYeH)
The Navy has already banned that stuff long ago. No removable data storage devices allowed.
-----
CDs and DVDs are not considered removable data storage to DOD. Removable data storage is considered flash drives, thumb drives, and the like. Because CDs and DVDs can be written on and the writing process closed preventing them from being rewritten (CDR vs CDRW) they are used heavily throughout the armed services. They can also be controlled and the introduction of a flash drive can be detected by the network upon which it's used and the sysadmin notified. The user's account then can be locked out within minutes.
I can't speak directly for the Navy but I don't think that CDs and DVDs are considered removable data storage. I work for the air force and they use them all the time, although it is controlled by specifically trained sysadmin personnel.
Posted by: Dan M at June 07, 2010 11:28 AM (iwg7u)
Internal spies are the worst kind of traitors. A man who simply leaves to fight with the enemy is at least honest. He leaves, takes up arms, and may even kill a few Americans. That is bad enough, but spies leak information that can be used to kill thousands, or millions. They should suffer death so long, painful, and drawn out that NO ONE would even consider it for the briefest moment. There is no punishment too cruel for this kind of thing.
Much like that bastard Clinton, who essentially sold secret rocket tech to the Chinese, enabling them to have much more effective long range missles. He is no less a traitor, even if not in the legal sense, than this guy is.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 07, 2010 11:38 AM (xUM1Q)
Your over the top rhetoric is as bad as any lefty.
Posted by: polynikes at June 07, 2010 03:43 PM (m2CN7)
It's my fault that Bush is a globalist?
How would you describe his push to consult the UN on just about everything and to try and print up US citizenships and hand them out to every slimeball who is able to sneak onto American territory? As a great supporter of the nation-state and US sovereignty?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 07, 2010 11:52 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: polynikes at June 07, 2010 03:58 PM (m2CN7)
LOL. The truth is crazy, huh?
Meh ... Go stick your head back in the sand. Life is easier for you that way, evidently.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 07, 2010 12:06 PM (Qp4DT)
Intelligence analyst can't claim ignorance of the law and that the enemy researches Wikileaks.
Anyone who aides the enemy with other things, knowingly communicates with the enemy indirectly, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."
One reason public leftist outrage used to fan the "Close Gitmo" threat was because someone released pictures of enemy combatants forced to wear girls underwear on their heads as "torture". Those US servicemen/woman participants were court martialed to serve time in prison.
So the responses from Obama, Hillary and Gates will be interesting to follow and compare.
Posted by: maverick muse at June 07, 2010 12:07 PM (H+LJc)
I think Bush, for all his flaws, truly loves the USA and wants it to persist. He made a lot of political calculations, but generally was willing to spend every cent of his political capital and reputation if he thought it would protect this country.
He was willing to employ extraordinary means to protect American lives, and owns up to what he did. I think he avoided treason charges against Johnny for more pragmatic concerns. Our country is divided and has a lot of strange twists a leader has to cope with in fighting the GWOT.
In sum, I just don't think Bush was soft on our enemies as some kind of NWO conspiracist. And as imperfect as he was, I think he was a great president. I'd carve his head into a big rock if I could.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at June 07, 2010 12:14 PM (dUOK+)
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange tweeted early Monday that 'If Brad Manning, 22, is the 'Collateral Murder' & Garani massacre whistleblower then, without doubt, he's a national hero.' He also referred to Lamo and Wired reporter Kevin Poulsen, who broke the story, as 'notorious felons, informers and manipulators.'
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at June 07, 2010 12:16 PM (snlsw)
I have no idea why Bush refused to pursue treason charges against John Walker Lindh and other jihadis with American citizenship (though their citizenship caused them to be treated differently from the non-American jihadis, as it should). The only way I can make sense of that sort of policy is his disdain for the concept of the nation-state. Maybe Bush had other reasons, but none that I can see.
-->I think Bush, for all his flaws, truly loves the USA and wants it to persist. He made a lot of political calculations, but generally was willing to spend every cent of his political capital and reputation if he thought it would protect this country.
I liked Bush. His first term was excellent (relatively speaking). But, Bush did the minimum necessary to protect America. He refused to unleash the military to do its job effectively - though most others would not have even done what Bush did do. He understood how important it was to take Iraq down. It's a shame that he didn't do it correctly (kid gloves and a mistaken concentration on "democracy", when he should have concentrated on the source of all threats from the arab/persian/muslim world - the gulf oil fields) but Bush did more than any Dem would have done and more than most GOPers would have. It was sad that he lost his nerve after Iraq, though it was important that he held strong on Iraq.
-->He was willing to employ extraordinary means to protect American lives, and owns up to what he did. I think he avoided treason charges against Johnny for more pragmatic concerns. Our country is divided and has a lot of strange twists a leader has to cope with in fighting the GWOT.
Maybe. But, I don't see it. Our country would not have been divided by treason charges against an American who went to Afghanistan and was shooting at Americans. I think that most Americans wanted Lindh shot on the spot.
-->In sum, I just don't think Bush was soft on our enemies as some kind of NWO conspiracist. And as imperfect as he was, I think he was a great president. I'd carve his head into a big rock if I could.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at June 07, 2010 04:14 PM
(dUOK+)
I didn't mean to conflate the two. Bush was soft in fighting because he leans left, not because of his globalist tendencies. Bush made a mistake in trying to demonize "terrorism" (though I have no problem calling the war the War on Terror, since we have been calling arab/persian/muslim attackers "terrorists" for a long time and the word became more of a label than a description). I didn't care what tactics were used; the fact that people were attacking the US was all that mattered. But, for Bush to try and make a moral play on the terrorist tactics (and his constant bleating about attacking civilians) painted the US into a corner, since killing civilians is part of war, and is especially important when fighting against a tribalistic enemy. Bush played into the hands of the international language abusers with that, instead of just declaring that the US will fight and kill all who are our enemies, no matter their tactics. Bush's "religion of peace" thing was awfully annoying, too, but at least no one took that seriously.
But, I do think that issues of citizenship and treason hit Bush in the nation-state area more than the security area.
That's just how I saw things. I liked Bush and am glad that he was in the White House on 9/11, but I was very disappointed with the half-hearted way he prosecuted the war (even though it was more than I would have expected from most) and I was severely disappointed with the way he never made American citizenship an issue with those who would join our enemies (of which there were many). Those American citizens got all the benefits of American citizenship, but never had to pay the price for being Americans who were waging war on America. This one-sided view of citizenship is closely related to the open-borders view, which is why I put them together - and for lack of any better explanation for such inaction after an attack of the sort we experienced on 9/11.
Of course, how far we have fallen since then. Just one week after 9/11, the Indonesian Imbecile's spiritual mentor was screaming "g-d damn America" and talking about how evil America is. It's a shame that tape wasn't made known when it happened, since I think Trinity Church would have been long gone, by now, and we would never have had the Indonesian Imbecile even running in any elections. But, America has been so desensitized to traitors (partly I blame Bush for) that such an imbecile could run a campaign and slime into the White House. It's amazing, really. Just amazing.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 07, 2010 12:38 PM (Qp4DT)
Why does Wired call those people "innocent civilians" when that's obviously untrue? That's not just editorializing, that's making an unsupportable assertion of fact.
That's the kind of thing that gives journalists a bad name.
Posted by: What Republicans Should Say at June 07, 2010 01:16 PM (/K0XR)
GWB and Perry have done Texas no favors with security, insisting on the open and greatly expanded highways (same situation in AZ south of Tucson) with no border stops at the US borders for trucking on a huge new international freeway. Remember a week ago, DHS alerted Houston, TX that Somali terrorists were entering the US via the Mexican border. During Bush's watch, you recall, GWB called conservative citizens vigilantes and racists for their legitimate request from government for secure border patrol as they voluntarily observed the OPEN border illegal entries, reporting them real time to border patrol. And Bush was all for McCain's COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform package to grant amnesty for illegal aliens and only make border enforcement that much more difficult, as government employees distance themselves FURTHER from actually performing their job descriptions.
Politically, George W. Bush did everything he could as TX Governor and as POTUS to bind N.America into a single political/economic union, like the EU, while economically allowing this Depression to fester under the surface. Sure, he gave some lip service "warning", CYA talk is cheap; but he never had any intention whatsoever to actually implement federal spending cuts. He began with what Obama has at the moment, a Republican majority Congress.
It isn't as if anyone needs to or should HATE neoconservative RINOs as people. Yes, GWB has a good sense of humor, is well read, is intelligent, and did not allow 9/11 to go without response. but study that response given current perspective on unintended consequences. And also study our own response to Bush, and think again, in retrospect, about the support we gave him when he was abused in office because he was our President and as a nation, we need to support our military once sent to war. We gave Bush the benefit of the doubt then; but have no reason now to still be in doubt given mounting catastrophes from his wake. His "win the hearts and minds of the enemy" wars in the Middle East are unrealistic, to be polite. The new Iraq has obliterated its traditional native Christian population. And contrary to before our invasion, Iraq now has the organization of politically minded people/contacts in place to ally with Iran via same Muslim sect. Where Iraq was a secular nation (though sadistic), it is becoming a democratic theocracy not eschewing torture of its prisoners.
DEMOCRACY is not a holy or respectable form of government if it is not also a REPUBLIC. A democratic republic, as the US Constitutional Government was designed to function, is the ideal.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Bush's neoconservative-socialist well intended Marxist creation of DHS (target vets and conservatives as if terrorists while supporting Islamic Jihadist terrorists) and the executive order bestowing autonomy to the Sec. of Treasury (Goldman Sachs) beholden to NO ONE are his legacy as unprecedented measures of over-extended executive privilege. His Texas accent is all affect. Like father, like son. GWBush is a silver-boot-in-his-mouth blue-blood Ivy League Kennebunkport elitist through and through who sold American citizens down the river on many occasions.
Posted by: maverick muse at June 07, 2010 01:21 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: maverick muse at June 07, 2010 01:25 PM (H+LJc)
What Spec. Manning did was
a) espionage
b) treason
c) stupid but not criminal
d) the highest form of patriotism
Posted by: FireHorse at June 07, 2010 01:34 PM (cQyWA)
Posted by: Schlippy at June 07, 2010 01:59 PM (xm1A1)
If Manning is guilty, it's disappointing that an American solider would take it upon himself to defame and endanger his fellow servicemen in such away
Given that he is only 22 years old, he has not been in the Army very long and must have joined around 2006 or so when GW was facing down the defeatists in Congress, the DNC, and hollywood...He probably joined with "dissent" in mind...
He merely disgraced himself, his family and made life harder for his fellow soldiers trying to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq, which they did thank god.
Enjoy the next couple of decades in Leavenworth scumbag!
Posted by: Nozzle at June 07, 2010 02:47 PM (7qcjL)
It's always amusing when guys like this trip themselves up because they have to prove to everyone just how smart they are. They would have caught him eventually anyway, but this made it quicker.
He's right about one thing, though. Security was a bit lax if they were allowing him to bring CD-RW discs in and out of a secure facility.
Posted by: Ace's liver at June 07, 2010 03:19 PM (XIXhw)
Reuters reporters embedded with terrorists, or terrorists embedded with Reuters reporters?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 07, 2010 03:34 PM (wLffD)
This little mutherfucker is a Beauchamp fabulist clone:
What seemed to excite him most in his chats was his supposed leaking of the embassy cables. He anticipated returning to the states after his early discharge, and watching from the sidelines as his action bared the secret history of U.S. diplomacy around the world.
“Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed,” Manning wrote. “It’s open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It’s Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It’s beautiful, and horrifying.”
With a propensity to be a Beauchamp-type problem child:
He discussed personal issues that got him into trouble with his superiors and left him socially isolated, and said he had been demoted and was headed for an early discharge from the Army.He needs to be put under Leavenworth.
Posted by: SFC MAC at June 07, 2010 03:36 PM (ZGdhe)
Posted by: moi at June 07, 2010 04:29 PM (Ez4Ql)
Was that the guy from The Falcon and the Snowman? They tried to paint him sympathetically in the movie, but failed miserably.
Posted by: Ace's liver at June 07, 2010 05:10 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: Schlippy at June 07, 2010 11:11 PM (PRpsD)
Posted by: GamerFromJump at June 08, 2010 06:33 PM (LYdrC)
Posted by: TrickyDick at June 09, 2010 10:00 AM (bVka+)
Posted by: emconverter at July 10, 2010 08:29 AM (02X3l)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2577 seconds, 294 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: damian at June 07, 2010 09:03 AM (4WbTI)