OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, it looks the same. Why did the US kill a 3 billion Afghans?
dude. in the intel field, thats their job. asking whether or not an intel E3 has access to the secured networks is like asking if an infantry E3 has access to an M16.
Thats not the point. I'm questioning the LEVEL and the VOLUME of information that Manning exposed. If we're supposed to believe that he had the same clearance and acces as the director of CIA, then I call bull****.
Why the hell should they free Manning? Dude is a traitor.
Sure they did. If wikileaks was actually interested in total transparency, they'd reveal their "insurance" documents- those that they've threatened to release if Assange were ever tried. But they're not, because they believe in secrecy to advance their own purposes. Just like the governments they wish to repudiate.
Alot of the material in there actively degraded US efforts to stabilize chaotic regions of the world - to include source names. Oddly, some of the most active downloaders were located in Central Asia, and some of those sources started disappearing shortly thereafter.
Mind you, we found some of them again. A piece here, a piece there....
No he is not a rapist. The women that he supposedly "raped" consented. Even they did not want charges pressed. The prosecutor took it upon herself to press charges.
So, what your sayinh is that there are no controls in place to protect this information and there is no such thing as "need to know"?I can tell your Army service wasn't in Intel. He didnt have the same access as the director of CIA. But he did have access to SIPR and apparently JWICS, as most in Intel, even an E-1, would. I have over a decade with DIA under my belt. cpwill sounds like he has an intel background. We know what we are talking about, man.
I got news for you. I served durng the vietnam/american war period 64-67,, honorable discharge, good conduct, spec 5, so I earned the right to live here and exercise my free speech. I have a better idea. Why don't you leave since you hate free speech.
Who's? And what if it was? What would be the significance of that?
Are you implying that people should prize what's good for journalism over what's good for the federal government? Wouldn't that just be subjectively preferential?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to steal classified documents and publish classified materials that may impact national security. Manning should remain in jail.
Stealing classified military information for the purpose of dissemination is the textbook definition of espionage.
people died because of that a--hole.
Alot of the material in there actively degraded US efforts to stabilize chaotic regions of the world - to include source names. Oddly, some of the most active downloaders were located in Central Asia, and some of those sources started disappearing shortly thereafter.
Mind you, we found some of them again. A piece here, a piece there....
Wikileaks didn't do a "half hearted attempt" at transparency. That's what they've been doing for longer than what they did with the US Docs. They've done the same thing with other countries also.
No he is not a rapist. The women that he supposedly "raped" consented. Even they did not want charges pressed. The prosecutor took it upon herself to press charges.
that;s what whisltes blowers do - they break laws and confidentiality agreements for HIGHER MORAL CAUSES
What do you think should happen to the executioners in the helicopters who gunned down unarmed innocent Civilians?
Did they break any laws?
Who will be prosecuted for the 1.4 million Iraqi civilian deaths that were a direct and indirect result of ILLEGAL military actions by the USA?
But as we all know, fascist rule doesnt recognise morals and laws does it mr OldWordlOrder?
What do we do with the whistle blower Chemist who made authorities and the public aware of what the Tobacco corporations were putting into their cigarettes to accelerate the uptake and addiction to Nicotine?
He had a non-disclosure agreement attached to his employment too.
You seem to value one petty law that protects profits and criminals over higher morals and the general health and safety of the population who are unaware of what is going on.
You do realise what that makes you dont you?
View attachment 67135514
I don't think anyone is implying that. The first amendment says it pretty explicitly. The press is free. Always. (Okay, mostly always. But it's specifically free to do things like this.)
And yet you trust the government to be able to decide what is or is not classified without any oversight? That means you think that government should be able to suppress any information it likes.
Actually, espionage requires that the information be obtained for the benefit of a foreign government. The same is true of treason. And this is why Manning and Assange are not spies. They did not act to benefit any foreign nation. The primary beneficiaries of WikiLeaks are the American people, to whom the American government is held more accountable than before. That's not aid and comfort to the enemy, or spying for a foreign power. That's aid and comfort to Americans, and investigative journalism on behalf of Americans. What Assange and Manning did is no different from Woodward and Bernstein, only without an obvious villain like Richard Nixon.
That's quite a stretch. And certainly not compelling enough proof to convict someone of a crime.
Which I'm sure the US approved of when they were doing it to someone else.
Plus the actual charge wasn't even rape. It's some special category of sexual offense that isn't even a crime in most countries, including this one. Every single American who calls Assange a rapist could go and do what he did here and not be breaking any Americans laws.
Is there a thread in which you don't bring up "the Great Wurlitzer"? Have you ever considered admitting yourself to a mental hospital?
Espionage is not limited to foreign governments. Bradley Manning illegally obtained information, he gave that information to a source, who disseminated the information publicly, which was of benefit to a hostile enemy force during a time of war.Actually, espionage requires that the information be obtained for the benefit of a foreign government.
No it isn't. Treason is the act of of committing crimes against ones own country. espionage can fall under treason, but they are two entirely different crimes.The same is true of treason.
No, they benefited themselves, and by disseminating this information, they benefited our enemy during a time of war.And this is why Manning and Assange are not spies. They did not act to benefit any foreign nation.
The primary beneficiaries of WikiLeaks are the American people, to whom the American government is held more accountable than before. That's not aid and comfort to the enemy, or spying for a foreign power. That's aid and comfort to Americans, and investigative journalism on behalf of Americans. What Assange and Manning did is no different from Woodward and Bernstein, only without an obvious villain like Richard Nixon.
I don't hate free speech. I just hate one sided, political rhetoric - most of it developed by Noam Chomsky - passed off as meanignful political dialogue.
I continue to be amused at the passion with which people defend Assange and Manning. Highly amusing.
That information contained a great deal of information about current and planned operations. That is a huge benefit to the Mujahadeen and the Taliban.
No matter what, it's still a free speech issue.
That's the problem. You find it amusing. I think about it as a serious free speech subject.
Aside from military related stuff, other things hurt the country. For example, the wikileaks from the mabassador from Kenya contained guesses, feelings, suspicions and speculation regarding the Kenyan government. Of course, there is a reason that these things were not made public - they were not facts or even necessarily true. It is obvious that ammbassadors would send this kind of information on through secure channels (for a variety of reasons). Unfortunately, these ambassadorial wikileaks are presented as "fact" because "they were in wikileaks". This caused the US government problems.
That's the problem. You find it amusing. I think about it as a serious free speech subject.
He didn't even do it for money, he did it for some inflated sense of moral superiority. Hope it was worth it.
Assange is done. He's pissed on so many shoes in high places that prison is probably his safest bet. He didn't even do it for money, he did it for some inflated sense of moral superiority. Hope it was worth it.
And if someone released all of your personal conversations, bank and medical records, that's free speech?