- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Manning gave classified material to Wikileaks knowing that it would then be disseminated over the internet. Manning knew that the USA's enemies have access to the internet; therefore, Manning knowingly provided classified material to USA's enemies. That's treason. :shrug:
So you're arguing that any public dissemination of classified information, because Al Qaeda can read it, is treason. Keeping secrets from Al Qaeda is more important, in your opinion, than the government being honest with the American people. Manning did not give any information to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. He gave information to journalists to publish it to the American people.
Tell me, how do we define enemies, in this instance? We're not officially at war with anyone. Shouldn't the criteria for a criminal charge require legally defined terms? If this goes through than any publication of any information that any possible terrorist could obtain is potentially giving aid to the enemy. Our domestic journalism, any publication over the internet, is suddenly subject to criminal penalty, possibly death, if deemed to be be "aiding" any potential enemy. Doesn't that idea scare the crap out of you?
So you say. I, on the other hand, say you're wrong. No jury in their right minds is going to buy that argument. They will buy the argument that a reasonable man would foresee Wiki publishing the information; and, for that reason, he will be found guilty. You're splitting hairs.
Then intent doesn't matter and publicly informing on the government to the American people is treason.
The technicalities you disagree with are THE LAW. Who the hell are Manning, Asange and Snowden to determine what the US should and should not keep secret- who the F made them the adjudicators of information security?!
The answer: NO ONE
You're freedom of speech stops at the "Classified" stamp!!
They're American citizens. Well, Manning and Snowden are. They're the ones that the government is supposed to be by, for, and of. The government is supposed to sacrifice for their benefit. Not the other way around.
Hey, listen - I don't think Manning should get a tough sentence but are you saying that he didn't realize WikiLeaks was going to release the information to the world - which I'll remind you - includes enemies of the US?
There is no practical way to release information to just loyal Americans. If Manning is a traitor than anyone who uncovers any dirty government secret and tells the American people about it is also a traitor. This means that loyalty to the people is criminal when it conflicts with loyalty to the government. How can ANYONE advocate that position?
Wikilieaks is not a journalist organization- thats an insult to journalists. WL is an anti-secrecy cult.
And cable news, our "mainstream media" is a beacon of journalistic integrity.
They're global publications. Which pretty much ensures that they would have. Unless of course NK, Iran etc, don't have internet. Which then, all cool. I guess.
So then, like the others in this thread, you're saying that keeping secrets from potential enemies (which North Korea and Iran would be, since we're not at war with them) trumps any efforts to inform the American people of the illegal or improper actions of the government.
How are liberals okay with this? How are conservatives okay with this? How is anyone okay with the precedent that telling the American people what our government is doing is treason!?!?