General Discussion

randome

(34,845 posts)

56. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely.

Sat May 18, 2013, 01:05 PM

May 2013

Agree with you. I don't mind leniency with Manning and I find the CT about the government trying to 'get' Assange over the course of several years is absurd.

But your characterization of them both is right on, IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

78 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What if the AP had been communicating with Julian Assange? [View all] BainsBane May 2013 OP

don't expect party-liners to make sense. HiPointDem May 2013 #1

You'll probably find that many DUers already agree with you CJCRANE May 2013 #2

Then there is the fact BainsBane May 2013 #5

AFAIK they didn't "record" anything (as in voice content). CJCRANE May 2013 #6

It's not all or nothing BainsBane May 2013 #7

+1!!!!! Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #12

No it isn't, but a reporter shield law would fix Progressive dog May 2013 #54

It is the Government's job to protect information if leaking of that information would sabrina 1 May 2013 #25

Wikileaks turned over it's info to three large newspapers and those newspapers KoKo May 2013 #39

Neither the newspapers nor Wikileaks reviewed the millions of documents that were released. randome May 2013 #41

assange and Manning rso May 2013 #45

The simplest explanation is usually the most likely. randome May 2013 #56

"And the ones who don't agree with you, see all of them as criminals." Chan790 May 2013 #40

Indeed, someone who pleads guilty to 22 crimes is a mass criminal. Not a good person graham4anything May 2013 #51

"leaking is wrong 100% of the time." Bonobo May 2013 #72

The AP 100% wrong. graham4anything May 2013 #73

YOU said "leaking" is 100% wrong. Those are your words. Bonobo May 2013 #74

I answered you already in the 1st post. The AP is 100% wrong. graham4anything May 2013 #75

80% have 7% of the financial wealth in the USA, 20% have 93%. nt Bonobo May 2013 #76

I feel without the FREE press we loose more freedom and rights newfie11 May 2013 #3

So anyone working for the government should be able to leak any information to the press? CJCRANE May 2013 #4

Well that's your opinion newfie11 May 2013 #8

The AP published the story. No one stopped them. CJCRANE May 2013 #9

Look, if you use the press to get them... Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #11

Right newfie11 May 2013 #13

Well where is the leaker? Who is facing those consequences? Or did their fishing produce Bluenorthwest May 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author emulatorloo May 2013 #16

How long did it take to get to the bottom of the Plame leak? CJCRANE May 2013 #21

+1 emulatorloo May 2013 #22

So are you equating the way Bushco handled that leak (they leaked it) to this? Bluenorthwest May 2013 #24

If Government officials, Congress etc know that we have a healthy free press who will not fear sabrina 1 May 2013 #28

But the AP leaker is probably someone in the government! CJCRANE May 2013 #31

You mean he is a whistle blower. I do not have it backwards. The press needs sources sabrina 1 May 2013 #46

'Whistle blower'? What crime was alleged? None that I know of. randome May 2013 #53

"None that I know of" LiberalLovinLug May 2013 #59

As I understand the leak was a "scoop" of a sensational story, not really an expose. CJCRANE May 2013 #71

+1! Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #10

The story was published. Therefore it wasn't "censored." emulatorloo May 2013 #19

What if the AP had been communicating with Mike Rogers? GeorgeGist May 2013 #14

"DOJ's surveillance" is rather hyperbolic emulatorloo May 2013 #17

I'd say the word 'Justice' in DOJ is hyperbolic. Bluenorthwest May 2013 #23

Q: Do you have evidence AP was surveilled (wiretaps, email monitored)? A: No emulatorloo May 2013 #26

You are making up the definition of surveillance Bluenorthwest May 2013 #29

The subpoenas didn't come until after the surveillance. But that's the world Bush created and this sabrina 1 May 2013 #47

The subpoena wasn't necessary if the case merited certain exceptions. randome May 2013 #49

So you have fully accepted Bush's anti-Constitutional 'terror' laws. sabrina 1 May 2013 #66

Unless Bush said the sky was blue, I don't think I'd agree with anything he did or said. randome May 2013 #67

Grand juries are one of the most abused and misused part of our judicial system as everyone knows. sabrina 1 May 2013 #69

and Bradley is facing the consequences zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #18

There won't really be any consequences for the AP. As the investigation is all about the leaker. emulatorloo May 2013 #20

20 phone lines out of thousands and only for a 2 month period. randome May 2013 #27

Just a little government spying on reporters. Is that now a good thing? I remember sabrina 1 May 2013 #48

A subpoena, not a warrant. Legally issued. randome May 2013 #68

an administrative subpoena BainsBane May 2013 #70

Awful lot of hypotheticals and hairsplitting lately. The fact is, the AP leak led to no compromise leveymg May 2013 #30

'Compromise' is not the point. Someone betrayed their oath and their country by leaking the info. randome May 2013 #32

Nobody's complains when DOJ bugs agency phones to look for a leaker. But, there is still an leveymg May 2013 #36

I do want them to conduct secret operations in secret. randome May 2013 #38

After 9/11, they lost the presumption of competence to conduct such "controlled" operations. leveymg May 2013 #42

Agree with that, too. randome May 2013 #43

Assange is not a member of the the US Government burnodo May 2013 #33

Burning an asset isn't even relevant. randome May 2013 #35

Assange and Manning rso May 2013 #34

Assange and Wikileaks didn't just dump the data. It's been filtered through 4 or 5 major news- leveymg May 2013 #37

Irrelevant question. Julian would never leak this type of information to AP. Zorra May 2013 #44

I don't see a disconnect treestar May 2013 #50

The issue is not AP's publication of documents BainsBane May 2013 #61

If law enforcement has to be perfect such that it only investigates the actually guilty treestar May 2013 #62

Investigation is different from accessing private information BainsBane May 2013 #63

The administrative subpoena is legal treestar May 2013 #64

The Patriot Act is legal too BainsBane May 2013 #65

The Father Knows Best wing of our party would be verrry upset. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #52

Seems to me that most defending also are wanting to get Assange TheKentuckian May 2013 #55

There are procedures in place for whistle blowers. Leaking secrets to the press is not one of them. randome May 2013 #58

exactly. there is a group on here who wants to go after any or all whistleblowers or anyone that boilerbabe May 2013 #77

Strawman emulatorloo May 2013 #78

�News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.� Lord Northcliffe Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #57

I don't defend the DOJ in either case. MNBrewer May 2013 #60