General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

14. Yes-- of particular concern is names and details of people

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:43 AM

Jun 2013

who worked with NATO forces against the Taliban..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8166084/Taliban-prepare-to-punish-WikiLeaks-Afghan-informers.html

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

Julian Assange simply didn't give a shit---

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

142 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes [View all] marmar Jun 2013 OP

K&R idwiyo Jun 2013 #1

K&R midnight Jun 2013 #2

I wish Obama would pardon him. tblue Jun 2013 #3

Why should he be pardoned? He had the option of whistleblowing under the law, and he chose a msanthrope Jun 2013 #7

Good answer!! He could have exposed the few bad things 7962 Jun 2013 #18

I think he had personal motivations related to his interpersonal conflicts. Nothing msanthrope Jun 2013 #24

Maybe because the MSM was complicit in the coverup and ignored him? think Jun 2013 #31

Bullshit, premium Jun 2013 #33

Then why isn't Ellsberg in prison? MattBaggins Jun 2013 #108

he was a civilian Recursion Jun 2013 #112

And... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #137

It wasn't any more legal for Manning to go to the NY Times than Assange... msanthrope Jun 2013 #52

"MSM" had nothing to do with the options he had to report the few items of wrongdoing. stevenleser Jun 2013 #121

maybe because he essentially pardoned Darth Cheney? G_j Jun 2013 #45

Name a crime Cheney was culpable of... brooklynite Jun 2013 #51

? Aerows Jun 2013 #56

WTF? G_j Jun 2013 #58

I have... brooklynite Jun 2013 #106

Of course investigations are reserved for others G_j Jun 2013 #113

In other words, every single Democrat is complicit in a cover up... brooklynite Jun 2013 #114

you lost me G_j Jun 2013 #117

"It will never happen. We all know that! " brooklynite Jun 2013 #118

if you put it that way, I guess they are G_j Jun 2013 #119

Really? His buddy Libby covered for him in the Valerie Plame affair and took the fall by sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #81

Point me to a law against lying... brooklynite Jun 2013 #105

An elected official is always under oath, or didn't you know that? When one of them sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #125

They are under oath "to protect the Constitution"... brooklynite Jun 2013 #134

^^^THIS AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #135

You're seriously defending Cheney now? The Constitution is the Statute, the law of the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #139

Fraud on the people of the United States - nt CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #122

We don't have enough time! tblue Jun 2013 #126

What crime should Cheney have been charged with? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #55

Ordering torture perhaps ? G_j Jun 2013 #60

Well, the 'perhaps' part is the problem....while I would love to see Cheney behind msanthrope Jun 2013 #66

facepalm., G_j Jun 2013 #70

Okay---take the report, and tell me what you would charge Cheney with. I don't disagree msanthrope Jun 2013 #72

--- G_j Jun 2013 #76

Yes....that's great. Can you name a charge, though? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #84

didn't you mean "quaint"? G_j Jun 2013 #85

No...I mean, pontification aside, what would you have charged msanthrope Jun 2013 #88

Not a Law...Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations... brooklynite Jun 2013 #115

He was VP. He had no authority to order torture. jeff47 Jun 2013 #93

he isn't a whistleblower TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #74

I ask the Manning defenders how 74k email addresses and personal info of msanthrope Jun 2013 #86

Isn't the NY Times a commercial enterprise? MattBaggins Jun 2013 #107

Yes. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #109

Because Obama said he stood with whistleblowers. tblue Jun 2013 #123

So do I. Nt newfie11 Jun 2013 #8

He indiscriminately dumped every State Department cable for the last 50 yrs jmowreader Jun 2013 #63

We should have had that material made available to us right here in the US for the past 60 sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #87

Allow me to introduce a diplomatic term here... jmowreader Jun 2013 #92

Since the foundation of this nation and every one before that... Pelican Jun 2013 #128

I don't believe anyone said that diplomats shouldn't be able to speak to each in confidence sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #138

Just to clarify... Pelican Jun 2013 #140

Well how about FDR and the Manhattan Project AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #129

Every criminal torturer in the CIA, DOJ's OLC and war criminals Bush & Cheney Dragonfli Jun 2013 #120

He should have utilized the Army IG or written to his Congressman. He did neither. His SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #4

Any Congressperson would have sufficed, under the law. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #6

That's true, I just presumed he would use his local representative to do that. SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #11

No--any Congressperson will do. That way, if Ted Cruz is your Senator, you can still msanthrope Jun 2013 #12

I agreed with you. I just presumed he would have written to his local representative, SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #35

There's also a thrill-seeking aspect to espionage jmowreader Jun 2013 #68

One of the stupider articles published at Truthout--and that's really saying a lot. msanthrope Jun 2013 #5

+1 nt Chan790 Jun 2013 #13

Ouch! 7962 Jun 2013 #19

Are they secrets or are they embarassments? kentuck Jun 2013 #9

Yes-- of particular concern is names and details of people msanthrope Jun 2013 #14

Whistleblowers and libdude Jun 2013 #10

There's proper procedure to report warcrimes, as well as a proper chain� MrScorpio Jun 2013 #15

How has that been working for us so far? bvar22 Jun 2013 #104

Of course, the system is broken MrScorpio Jun 2013 #110

My post in the Guardian UK's comment section last night. go west young man Jun 2013 #16

Revealing war crimes is the act of a hero. duhneece Jun 2013 #17

Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that Manning's document dump included... randome Jun 2013 #21

What war crime would that be exactly? cstanleytech Jun 2013 #26

We don't have to pretend it was a war crime duhneece Jun 2013 #49

You can keep saying it... Pelican Jun 2013 #71

Actually pretending is as close you are going to get cstanleytech Jun 2013 #111

Before we go tossing out medals, 7962 Jun 2013 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Jun 2013 #132

Good Read....Thanks. KoKo Jun 2013 #40

What 'unlawful orders' was he given? randome Jun 2013 #20

There is no way this is espionage. LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #23

He isn't being charged with espionage. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #25

The article says he's being charged with violation of LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #28

No--he's UCMJ, so he isn't charged under the 'Espionage Act.' He's msanthrope Jun 2013 #34

So the article is wrong. LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #38

The writer of the article is sloppy. I think that's worse than being wrong in the case of msanthrope Jun 2013 #41

He simply dumped a lot of documents treestar Jun 2013 #27

700k records, and people pretend he read them. The more I find out about him, msanthrope Jun 2013 #29

I've already shown in another thread that it would have taken him approximately ten years SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #37

The farthest left, donation cup in hand, have a reason for pushing that meme--it makes msanthrope Jun 2013 #39

Manning is going down bluedeathray Jun 2013 #30

It's a sad day when Manning is the enemy and war crimes are ignored think Jun 2013 #32

Name the war crime. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #36

Any moment now... Pelican Jun 2013 #43

Oh now we have a new meme here? G_j Jun 2013 #46

So all 195,000 troops that invaded Iraq are guilty, then? randome Jun 2013 #59

The point... Pelican Jun 2013 #61

that was not the point of your post G_j Jun 2013 #65

In the context of the conversation and thread... Pelican Jun 2013 #67

Does the killing of civillians & reporters caught on tape count? think Jun 2013 #90

Oh.. you mean this guy with an RPG? Pelican Jun 2013 #91

Quoting from Marjorie Cohn's article on Truthout today: CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #124

Please define *exactly* what the "war crime" was. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #42

Aside from little insignificant things like torture, G_j Jun 2013 #48

Which one of the over 700k documents he released detailed a war crime? The answer is SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #54

This is not proof. Sorry. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #64

It's ok to be fooled... Pelican Jun 2013 #53

In both the edited and unedited video think Jun 2013 #99

Bloody fucking Christ AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #130

I'll respect the opinion of the soldier who rescued the wounded children think Jun 2013 #141

du rec. xchrom Jun 2013 #44

I posted this in Good Reads William769 Jun 2013 #47

I cannot fucking believe G_j Jun 2013 #50

The last five years have proven that some will defend anything...... marmar Jun 2013 #62

I know-It's like an alternate universe duhneece Jun 2013 #82

That article is wrong on basic facts AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #131

No one did that. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #83

Kindly show us one person here premium Jun 2013 #89

More accurately, defending the legality G_j Jun 2013 #94

That's much different from what you initially said. premium Jun 2013 #95

ok, so it was legal? G_j Jun 2013 #96

IMO? premium Jun 2013 #97

sorry G_j Jun 2013 #98

The result of looking forward. It's all fine now that the blue jerseys are the perpetrators. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #101

If only he had exposed some. That would help his case. Recursion Jun 2013 #57

I call bullshit on the OP Recursion Jun 2013 #69

It blames Obama for a "war crime" in the last paragraph and that's all the law it needs: ucrdem Jun 2013 #73

Name me one document Manning released related to torture Recursion Jun 2013 #75

The Kenyan despot isn't torturing Bradley? ucrdem Jun 2013 #77

wow, that mask fell off with a clang... (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #78

and right on my big toe! ucrdem Jun 2013 #79

The guys who murdered the civilians walk free while the guy who exposed them is on trial. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #80

K&R Solly Mack Jun 2013 #100

Three separate wars crimes associated with one attack: wonder if there were others? indepat Jun 2013 #102

What are the three war crimes? AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #133

A war of aggression is a war crime under international law. All that follows in commission of a war indepat Jun 2013 #142

Lying for political reasons is bad. jeff47 Jun 2013 #103

I agree that it's "wrong" brooklynite Jun 2013 #116

NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER railsback Jun 2013 #127

Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to follow the Military Whistleblower Protection Act hack89 Jun 2013 #136