DescentBB

He leaked classified information to an orginazation that was known to publish that information to the Internet for everyone to see.
bin Laden had at least a few of those documents downloaded and on hard drives in his possession when he was killed.

An argument is being made that Manning shouldn't be charged with aiding the enemy primarily because it would make whistle blowers reluctant to expose wrong doings of government out of fear of prosecution.

Manning is accused of "aiding the enemy", in violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. By indirectly unleashing a torrent of secrets onto the internet, the prosecution alleges, he in effect made it available to Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, for them to inflict injury on the US.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law in the US and who taught the subject to President Barack Obama, told the Guardian that the charge could set a worrying precedent. He said: "Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground."

First of all, I reject the argument that giving the data to WikiLeaks is an 'indirect act' of publishing data to the Internet....unless he can prove he didn't know what WikiLeaks does with data they receive...
It seems Laurence Tribe is implying that Manning has no responsibility for what happens as a result of his actions.

My take is there is a difference between leaking data on a specific illegal event to a reporter so they can investigate and expose the crime...and leaking volumes of classified information that is harmfully to government and government employees and native personnel who are cooperative with our government but that information does not contain evidence of a crime.

If I was prosecuting the case I'd have defendant establish his overall reason for leaking data. Presumably he would say it was to expose criminality or corruption etc. then I would produce multiple examples of data he leaked that did not expose that which he claims to have attempted to expose but his leak did cause people to be at risk from the enemy or instances where the government had to abandon operations due to the exposure etc, and ask Manning why he leaked those portions of the data...

In my 'perfect world' a whistleblower would have to know the difference between those two scenarios and Manning would stand trial as charged.


link

In my mind it's simple. You can't charge him with anything relating to a specific enemy unless you can prove intent/collusion. Regarding every other aspect of it, I would tend to agree with what you're saying.

If Mannings expose caused the death of any US agent or source, then Manning should and will be charged with espionage and as such should and will be put to death. Blanket dumping of vast amounts of intelligence just because you can is not a whistleblower. Manning is no better than Julius and Ethel Rosenberg...both of whom were put to death.

Yeah, but if we didn't have whistle blowers, we'd never know what nefarious things our secretive, big, bad government was up to now, would we?

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, but if we didn't have whistle blowers, we'd never know what nefarious things our secretive, big, bad government was up to now, would we?

Here's where I think the rub is: I think there are ways to whistle blow without divulging classified information.

snoopy wrote:Here's where I think the rub is: I think there are ways to whistle blow without divulging classified information.

Yeah, I know that. I was just teasing woody. I know how he hates that big, bad, unconstitutional Obama government.

If you have evidence that someone is breaking the law, just take it to the proper authority…o yea, I forgot…that is the media.

tunnelcat wrote:

snoopy wrote:Here's where I think the rub is: I think there are ways to whistle blow without divulging classified information.

Yeah, I know that. I was just teasing woody. I know how he hates that big, bad, unconstitutional Obama government.

And did Bush turn the Dogs of the DOJ loose on the reporters when leaks were published during his turn? Remember the leak reporting on how the Govt was tracking bank transactions to find terrorists? Were any reporters phones tapped? Emails read? Obama should be the Govt that all you libs hate but oooh nooo...

Manning is a hero.

vision wrote:Manning is a hero.

And what about reporter James Rosen, and the man who released the information about the cell phone snooping that the administration now wants to prosecute, are they hero's too?

vision wrote:Manning is a hero.

So was bin Laden. But not to me.
The scope of Manning's leak best serves anarchy, not any particular sense of justice, morality, ethics or even nationality.

He is tool. A homemade variety, not very sharp or useful, tool.

You guys take bait, way to easy.

Spidey wrote:You guys take bait, way to easy.

I figure, based on recent election results as proof, there are a lot of stupid people who might read the 'bait' and let it validate their desire to follow the herd of liberal loudmouths without thinking things through. So I offer some perspective regardless of how it might satisfy the 'fisherman' with hopes that at least some potential followers will grow a pair and man up intellectually. If vision gets off sitting at his computer in his mothers basement because he successfully stirred a pot so be it...it isn't my room he's littering with spent tissues...

vision wrote:Manning is a hero.

So is David Koresh

I look at it this way. if the Guy that blew the whistle on the Government spying on its citizens is being charged when he released information with little specific details, and just exposed the government for conducting illegal activities. then Manning should definitely be charged when he released Military details that put our troops lives in danger.

IMHO one is a slime ball the other a patriot. you choose which

CUDA wrote:IMHO one is a slime ball the other a patriot. you choose which

I'm undecided on Snowden, he at least seems to have the safety of the people high on his priority list but I'm not sure I'm against some of what they were doing and if it was legal then what is the difference between Snowden and an activist judge or a president sneaking around the intent of the law via unconstitutional legislation or executive order?

Will Robinson wrote:

CUDA wrote:IMHO one is a slime ball the other a patriot. you choose which

I'm undecided on Snowden, he at least seems to have the safety of the people high on his priority list but I'm not sure I'm against some of what they were doing and if it was legal then what is the difference between Snowden and an activist judge or a president sneaking around the intent of the law via unconstitutional legislation or executive order?

I'm quite sure that Will and I would disagree on aspects of the above, but it is commendable that he sees the subtleties.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

CUDA wrote:IMHO one is a slime ball the other a patriot. you choose which

I'm undecided on Snowden, he at least seems to have the safety of the people high on his priority list but I'm not sure I'm against some of what they were doing and if it was legal then what is the difference between Snowden and an activist judge or a president sneaking around the intent of the law via unconstitutional legislation or executive order?

I'm quite sure that Will and I would disagree on aspects of the above, but it is commendable that he sees the subtleties.

And do you see the subtleties of nothing happening to leakers when Bush was in office?

CUDA wrote:...are they hero's too?

I want a fully transparent government. There is no reason anything the government does should be secret, even when it concerns our enemies. Of course this sounds crazy to you and I won't even bother to justify my reasoning because you won't be able to grasp it. So, anything that brings secrecy out into the open is just fantastic in my book. Manning saw something he felt was wrong and acted on it knowing full well his life would change forever, negatively, and possibly violently too. That's the stuff heroes are made of. That's the stuff soldiers are made of. Amazing courage. I hope I can do the same if given the opportunity.

And while we are at it, I'm officially fraking tied of Obama. He can be impeached for all I care. I've always been on the fence about him, but just now fell off.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:...are they hero's too?

I want a fully transparent government. There is no reason anything the government does should be secret, even when it concerns our enemies. Of course this sounds crazy to you and I won't even bother to justify my reasoning because you won't be able to grasp it.

There is no need to grasp the finer points your reasoning when I know it is fundamentally flawed due to the catastrophic results that would quickly follow its implementation! Unless of course you are trying to go for more wars and lots of chaos! In which case you are correct in your preference for 100% transparency.

vision wrote:Manning saw something he felt was wrong and acted on it knowing full well his life would change forever, negatively, and possibly violently too.

That's exactly the way you can describe James Earl Ray, Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, etc. etc. etc.
So unless you like that company you should raise the bar for your Hero threshold!

I fault Obama for his blatant lies about creating the most transparent administration all the while hiding everything he does making Nixon look like a noob by comparison. But I wouldn't dream of saying he shouldn't keep some things from me and the rest of don't-need-to-know crowd.

Will Robinson wrote:But I wouldn't dream of saying he shouldn't keep some things from me and the rest of don't-need-to-know crowd.

Ah, so you choose to be ignorant. Nice. Well, this is the right country for you then.

Oh, he may not care about our government spying on all our communications 24/7, or even the taxes that pay for it, but those other nasty taxes that pay for those evil entitlement programs will enslave us all for sure.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But I wouldn't dream of saying he shouldn't keep some things from me and the rest of don't-need-to-know crowd.

Ah, so you choose to be ignorant. Nice. Well, this is the right country for you then.

There just isn't a need to understand the nuance of every really dumb thing someone might do.

So I'm content, in this case, not wasting my time delving into understanding the deluded rationale behind such an obviously overwhelmingly idiotic idea.

Vision wrote:I want a fully transparent government. There is no reason anything the government does should be secret, even when it concerns our enemies. Of course this sounds crazy to you...

I've got news for you, buddy boy, that sounds crazy to everyone. We delegate need-to-know responsibility to the people we vote into office because it is in our interest to do so. Not to justify EVERY secret our government keeps, but Will is certainly right. Even the company I work for suffers if information is not kept on a need-to-know basis, restricted to parties who are in a responsible position and qualified to deal with that information with the best interest of the company in mind. At the same time there is a time and a place where information needs to be shared with everyone who has a stake in any venture, or there is an imbalance.

Someone is only a hero if they do what's right in the face of personal adversity or loss, otherwise it just makes them a fool.

As far as being tired of Obama, I think you're just channeling the crafted agenda in D.C. I'm pretty sure he's going to be set up and knocked down. That way the stink of all of the ★■◆● that he helped bring in can go with him, in the minds of the ignorant or easily fooled.

Coventry

Just for the record, those of you advocating secrecy can no longer complain about "the uninformed populace" making political decision. Can't have it both ways. Can't have an informed populace and secrecy, not even a little.

vision wrote:Just for the record, those of you advocating secrecy can no longer complain about "the uninformed populace" making political decision. Can't have it both ways. Can't have an informed populace and secrecy, not even a little.

No, not literally, but you can have a much better quality of representatives than we have now. Those representatives in our representative republic form of government are trusted to know the 'secrets' and act accordingly.

It is a neccessary evil having secrets from other governments, and thus not publishing them, because the world is an adversarial environment.

As for the dumb masses not making good decisions politically....they already fail miserably with what information they do have so letting them download the details to all the mechanics of our diplomatic efforts and our covert efforts , etc. etc. isn't going to improve their ability to vote for the benefit of long term prosperity over short term satisfaction.

They are far too willing to line up under the banner of team R or team D and focus on the shiny object the the magicians assistant is holding out to them.

Will Robinson wrote:No, not literally, but you can have a much better quality of representatives than we have now. Those representatives in our representative republic form of government are trusted to know the 'secrets' and act accordingly.

here is a Will R comment that I not only agree with, but enthusiastically endorse! Hell, when your secrets and approval for government snooping goes through such luminaries as Michelle Bachmann(who thought the US Revolution started in New Hampshire) or Mary Landrieu(who apparently thinks that Canada has a border with South Dakota), you have to wonder if this is what was intended by way of Representative Republican governance.

As for the dumb masses not making good decisions politically....they already fail miserably with what information they do have so letting them download the details to all the mechanics of our diplomatic efforts and our covert efforts , etc. etc. isn't going to improve their ability to vote for the benefit of long term prosperity over short term satisfaction.

agreed, again.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:No, not literally, but you can have a much better quality of representatives than we have now. Those representatives in our representative republic form of government are trusted to know the 'secrets' and act accordingly.

here is a Will R comment that I not only agree with, but enthusiastically endorse! Hell, when your secrets and approval for government snooping goes through such luminaries as Michelle Bachmann(who thought the US Revolution started in New Hampshire) or Mary Landrieu(who apparently thinks that Canada has a border with South Dakota), you have to wonder if this is what was intended by way of Representative Republican governance.

Yeah lets throw Diane DeGette (D Colo) who thinks gun magazines are bullets and Nancy Pelosi who thinks passing a bill before reading it is a good idea into the mix. If the voters are as dumb as these people, we deserve the snooping we are getting.

nice of you to notice, Woody that I made a conscious effort to be non-partisan in my examples, and to do likewise..... My point was that, for whatever reason(and I largely blame a disconnected and poorly educated electorate, but there are more complex reasons than that) for the constant re-election of most of these dolts(from BOTH PARTIES), it has left us with a completely incompetent legislative branch. I've long held that a complete, national 'throw the bums out' effort should be mounted in the soonest Congressional election year possible. It never happens, and right now, essentially 90% of the House seats are 'safe'. Now, for the other side of the coin, we have the whole Tea Party movement, which succeeded in canning a few old GOP congressmen and women. One looks at the replacements and wonders whether wholesale change is a good thing, after all.......

another fine example of hard-hitting legislation effectively addressing the nation's core problems, and building a stronger economy.....
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... nancy?lite

yeesh....how much Congressional effort went into this little piece of Political Theater?

How many times have these House GOP morons tried to or passed some abortion bill? I've lost count they've tried so many times. States where the GOP is in charge have also wracked up a record number of draconian and invasive abortion bills or attacked Planned Parenthood. What utter BS. And the GOP wants women to vote for them. Pbffffffffft!

callmeslick wrote:another fine example of hard-hitting legislation effectively addressing the nation's core problems, and building a stronger economy.....
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... nancy?lite

yeesh....how much Congressional effort went into this little piece of Political Theater?

Probably about as much effort as the Immigration bill being worked on in the Senate:

"Senators on Tuesday rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn’t want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built.

The 54-39 vote to reject the fence shows the core of the immigration deal is holding. The vote broke mostly along party lines, though five Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio and the rest of the bill’s authors, voted against the fence, and two Democrats voted for it."

So now we don't even have the fiction that boarder security will be part of the "Comprehensive" Immigration bill. Yeah, make these illegals "legal" and watch how 20 years from now we will be working on another immigration bill to legalize 40 million people.

woodchip wrote:...
So now we don't even have the fiction that boarder security will be part of the "Comprehensive" Immigration bill. Yeah, make these illegals "legal" and watch how 20 years from now we will be working on another immigration bill to legalize 40 million people.

I think their plan is to be able to legalize anyone who steps forward at anytime after the next Bill passes and can say yo tambien!
After all how can you prove they weren't already here? You aren't allowed to require any kind of ID that can't be easily counterfeited in any third world country....

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:another fine example of hard-hitting legislation effectively addressing the nation's core problems, and building a stronger economy.....
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... nancy?lite

yeesh....how much Congressional effort went into this little piece of Political Theater?

Probably about as much effort as the Immigration bill being worked on in the Senate:

I would hope less, but let's look at the matter. The electorate OVERWHELMINGLY wants immigration law changed, and most want more funding for border security. Most do NOT want, nor care much about, further regulation of abortion.

"Senators on Tuesday rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn’t want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built.

how effective, or desired by the locals, is the fencing already in place? And, while we settle that question(very real to some down that way), we wait even longer to accept the fact that a few million people have been working here, contributing to the economy, and ought to be on a path to citizenship?

The 54-39 vote to reject the fence shows the core of the immigration deal is holding. The vote broke mostly along party lines, though five Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio and the rest of the bill’s authors, voted against the fence, and two Democrats voted for it."

So now we don't even have the fiction that boarder security will be part of the "Comprehensive" Immigration bill. Yeah, make these illegals "legal" and watch how 20 years from now we will be working on another immigration bill to legalize 40 million people.

you really care about that trajectory? If so, the fix is simple and has been known for decades: enforce existing law, and toughen it, against ANY employer that knowingly hires illegal residents. Easy as pie. No fencing needed.

callmeslick wrote:you really care about that trajectory? If so, the fix is simple and has been known for decades: enforce existing law, and toughen it, against ANY employer that knowingly hires illegal residents. Easy as pie. No fencing needed.

Dear Mr. President: see above.

Please start doing your job & enforce immigration law.

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you really care about that trajectory? If so, the fix is simple and has been known for decades: enforce existing law, and toughen it, against ANY employer that knowingly hires illegal residents. Easy as pie. No fencing needed.

Dear Mr. President: see above.

Please start doing your job & enforce immigration law.

if you check on the numbers, you will see that enforcement over the past 5 years is WAY up, especially against illegal hiring.

So yea, Obama ups the fines against employers, while at the same time reduces the “detain” orders…what a surprise.

simple question, Spidey.....actually two of them:
1. Are deportation rates up or down over the past 5 years?

2. Are employer prosecutions up or down over those same years?