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

>**well, if Asange did ask Manning for more data, it is not trumped. <
 
Again we're talking about Assange.  Having a conversation that doesn't involve 
threats or blackmail, ("if you don't' get me more data I'll kill you"), 
shouldn't be a crime.  So if Assange communicated with Manning and said "I'll 
take whatever you can give me." or "Do you have any info on x?" he hasn't done 
anything wrong.  
 
FWIW, I think a far more just legal argument could be made for receiving and 
concealing stolen property - but conspiracy is a charge that is so misused by 
prosecutors it should outlawed.  Its bs to begin with and prosecutors take it 
and go even further with it.    

 
 
>We hold people responsible for “what if”?  He didn’t release that so we 
>shouldn’t be acting like he did.
> **by the way, yes we do.  There are plenty of laws against things that were 
>planned but never happened.<
 
Name one, please, (man I'm getting soft - I added the please in while proof 
reading because it sounded to assholish without it) .  Attempts of many crimes 
are crimes in and of themselves, but that isn't what we are talking about.  

 
 
>**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 info was classified, so your point seems amiss.  It *was* secret.  Of is 
>confidential not secret enough?<
 
I understand that.  My point is that none of what he got seems particulary 
sensitive.  IOW the punishment ought to fit the crime and there is a lot of talk 
that leads me to believe that they are going far beyond that with Manning and 
making him a scapegoat to distract from the embarrasing stuff that got out and 
of course to deter other lowly grunts from doing the same thing.  

 
I don't think the guy is a hero but I get the sense he ain't all that bright and 
he thought he was doing the right thing.  I mean, they know what he did so court 
martial the guy and get it over with.  A couple years in the brig and a 
dishonorable discharge and be done with it.  The way they are dragging it out 
makes me think they doth protest too much.  

 
 
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.  

 **Oh I think there is harm, but they are in damage control.
 
I think that is the second time you've said that, (unless I'm misreading the 
reply), and my answer is still the same.  Put up or shut up, (not you personally 
but the pentagon and/or state department or govt.)
 
 
> **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.    
**there were confidential sources, native Afghans, whose identities were 
revealed.  I would say that Al Qaeda would take a dim view of that.
 
Do we know this for sure?  Or is that the from the same pentagon that is talking 
out of both sides of its mouth on this.  

 
 
>**well the two are not necessarily exclusive.  The release of Classified info is 
>a crime even if there was no actual harm.<
 
I understand that but I think we have gone way to far in allowing information to 
be classified by our government.  There is legitiamtely classified stuff and I 
tend to think most of the stuff during the cold war fits that bill.  But now it 
seems like so much of it is more about self preservation of careers, projects, 
etc as opposed to genuine national security interests.  If the veil is pulled 
back on nothing but that I think Wikileaks has done us a great service.
 
 
Manning has all the makings of a classic fall guy.   
**yep.  He was a dupe.    But he knew better.
 
I don't disagree.  But was he a real enemy of the state or did he think he was 
doing the right thing?  I know that sound a bit wishy washy but it makes a 
difference.  The guys i mentioned before Hansen/Ames were real heartless, evil 
bastards knowingly giving up informants and serious information.  I don't think 
Manning is in their class.
 
 
**and if the information damages the bank severely, who knows what impact that 
could have…really the BofA leaks are potentially the most harmful.
 
And that is what bothers me about this thing.  I'm scaring myself, (no offense 
Lance), but I think Lance's observation was correct that no one was making a big 
deal out of Wikileaks until talk of the the release of financial info started 
circulating.  And it occurs to me that the way they can delegitmaize 
Assange/wikileaks is to make him out to be an enemy of the state.  That's what a 
lot of this looks like to me.  
 
Wikileaks has been around for months, remember the "leak" of alleged civilian 
casualties from helicopter gunship strikes in Iraq?  Those kind of turned out to 
be b.s. and Assange was dismissed as being just another anti-war kook.  Why the 
change?
 
Mike F.    

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