Re: U.S. Tries to Build Case Against WikiLeaks Founder

>>I ask that finding myself having a very hard time getting worked up about the 
>>Wikileaks thing.  If they are trying to build a conspiracy case against Assange 
>>that tells me that have no legitimate case against him.  <
 
>**they know that an espionage case will be tough.  Conspiracy is a no brainer.
 
>Conspiracy is a bullshit charge. I know it exists but on a moral level talking 
>about doing something without taking action should be covered by the 1st 
>amendment.  
>
 
>>**except for the part where he did it.  Granted, that assumes that Assange 
>>actually spoke to him before hand and encouraged him to get the docs, or in the 
>>second round, to get more.  The government has to prove it naturally, and it may 
>>be they cannot.  In which case Manning will fry on his own. <<
 
We were talking about Assange.  They don't need trumped up conspiracy charges to 
go after Manning 

 
 
 
>**he was the source, wasn’t he?  And what if he had released something really 
>dangerous?  Design of a nuke?  Locations of places Al Qaeda wants to infiltrate.
  
>We hold people responsible for “what if”?  He didn’t release that so we shoudn’t 
>be acting like he did.
 
>**no, but the point is that classified data always has potential to do harm.  We 
>watched a film on this in the military where a number of unsecret random facts 
>can be gathered together and become revealing.   You cannot look at a single 
>aspect of this in isolation, there are too many ways it can interconnect. <
 
Yes, deductive reasoning can be applied to all sorts of facts secret or 
not.  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made quite a name for himself writing about it.  
But non secret is non secret.  The case you are making is way too speculative.  

 
The only information that should be classified is infor that is legitmatel 
related to national security.  So far we haven't seen any evidence of that, (and 
yes I know about the self serving claim that they can't tell us because it is 
classified).  All have is that it had the potential to harm national security 
but no evidence that it did.  

 
 
>**The first set about Afghanistan revelaed confidential informants in 
>afghanistan and we are still not sure if any of them were endangered.  If even 
>one of them has been harmed, does that change anything?  The state department 
>stuff, I agree it is a different matter, but even then, the potential for harm 
>to us is there.
 
>Maybe I’m funny this way but I think we probably ought to be sure.  
 
> **About?  Why should he be allowed to capriciously put people’s lives at risk?  
>And that release may make it harder to get cooperation from afghan civilians.  I 
>don’t believe the meme by the pentagon that there was no harm, that is damage 
>control. <
 
You keep conflating the possible with the actual.  Were lives put at risk or was 
it just that they could have been put at risk or is even a bigger leap?  If 
Manning actually revealed names, locations or other identifying information of 
allies, agents etc ala Robert Hansen or Aldrich Ames then by all means he should 
be proscuted and held to account.  But I haven't seen the evidence that he did 
anything close to those two and it sure seems to me like a bigger deal is being 
made of him.    
 
And are we to take the pentagon at its word or not?  They are being truthful 
when they say Manning should be prosecuted because he released classified 
information but untruthful when they say no harm was done?  And was there 
no harm done because of luck or fortuitous circumstances or was the info 
released really not that big a deal?
 
Manning has all the makings of a classic fall guy.   
 
 
>And I’m really hoping Assange gets around to releasing all the BoA stuff he 
>has.  That said Assange does seem like a real douchebag but that doesn’t mean he 
>can’t be serving a useful purpose. 
>
 
>**better hoe he expunges your bank account number.<
 
>?  I don’t bank with those aholes .
 
>**and for the people who do?  <
 
I shouldn't have picked up that red herring in the first place.
 
On one hand my reaction is that if you dance with the devil you're going to get 
burned.  On the other who says he has private account info and if he does, who 
says he's going to release that?  My understanding was that he was talking about 
releasing info about the inner workings and dealings between bank executives, 
wall street and federal agencies.  
 
Mike F.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot