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.  

 

**and again, yes he has since the act of getting the documents is a crime, he is (in thar example) guilty of conspiracy.  Sorry, that’s what the law says.

 

 

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.    

 

**I do not agree it is a bs charge, but I understand your dislike of its use.

 

 

>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.  

 

**Isnt it?  Solicitation of prostitution shouldn’t be a crime then, nor should solicitation of murder for hire, since neither were an actual action, just a speculative request.

 

 >**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 have no doubt he is going to be a scapegoat.  I just think he deservers much of it.  My military bias is showing.

 

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.  

**again, he was in a position where he fully knew he was breaking laws and releasing data outside the proper circles of whistleblowers.

**I think the problem is that leaks are so common lately and unpunished that people tend to forget the consequences.

 

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.  

 **interesting point.

 

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.)

 **since when do I have to convince you that the government could be lying to save face?  J

 

> **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

**you tell me.  If you were an afghan civilian helping the US and someone released your name, would you be afraid of Al Qaeda retaliation?

 

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.

**he did, that part has been confirmed.

 

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.  

 ** http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

 

 

 

>**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.

**I think someone else already asked who gets to decide what is classified and what not, and it is a good question.

 

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.

 **Ok, that’s fair.  We know Assange had an agenda, but we have no idea what he told manning.

 

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.  

 **nod

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?

**well maybe the scope was larger.  Who says we have seen all he has or has released?

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