If an American military person with security clearances had passed

[pnwmom]

any secret files to US enemies during the Cheney administration (directly, or through a self-proclaimed anarchist), everyone here would have called it treason.

Funny how everything has changed.

[Poll_Blind]

1. Yes, the New York Times is your enemy.

Not mine.

We must differ on that point.

:shrug:

PB

[pnwmom]

22. I'm not referring to the NYTimes. Once this info had been

disseminated to the world, it hardly mattered whether the NYTimes wrote about it.

[Mimosa]

2. Bradley Manning committed treason, Julian Assange did not.

If something similar had occurred when Bush/Cheneyy were in office, I doubt any thinking person would have thought otherwise.

Facts are facts.

[JackRiddler]

9. Question. Would you say Ellsberg committed treason?

[Mimosa]

15. Legally, yes. But it served a positive purpose, didn't it?

Truth is truth.

[leveymg]

21. Legally, it was Unauthorized Disclosure of Classified materials, not Treason.

Treason was what happened on March 20, 2003 when Bush-Cheney knowingly committed U.S. lives to an illegal war on false pretenses.

Get your facts and laws and priorities straight.

[txlibdem]

32. Hear, hear!

Bravo for this post.

[struggle4progress]

60. Actually, the material Ellsberg released wasn't classified

[pnwmom]

23. Ellsberg didn't randomly release 250,000 documents that

someone else put on a thumb drive for no particular purpose other than that he could.

[leveymg]

27. How do you know what Dan Ellsberg's motives were? Or , Assange's for that matter?

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

[pnwmom]

33. Both of them have written and spoken about their motives. n/t

[leveymg]

41. Is that all you have to say for yourself?

If you're going to draw such a distinction, please explain why the motives of one was essentially different from the other.

[JackRiddler]

47. You know nothing about Manning, that's for sure.

[neverforget]

10. Yep +1

[pnwmom]

24. Where did I say anything about Assange? Of course he can't

be guilty of treason here because he's not a US citizen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Just on a technical matter

the threshold for treason in the US is very high. So if they manage to find three witnesses... then they are getting close to proving it.

If they are not... regardless of how you might feel about it... it is not. The Founders were very specific on the meaning of Treason. They even put in the Constitution.

Now did the kid commit a crime? Yes, treason... good luck meeting the LEGAL standard.

[struggle4progress]

61. Treason is defined in the Constitution. It's not clear to me that Manning's

Iraq releases could meet the definition, nor is it clear to me that the more recent 260K release could meet the definition

[arcane1]

I don't think you speak for everyone.

Someone who exposed illegal or unethical behavior on the part of the last administration would've been called a hero by many. Myself included.

[pnwmom]

26. When Cheney exposed US spies, as Manning did, he wasn't

called a hero here.

[leveymg]

59. Name a spy whom Manning exposed.

Who, exactly, are you talking about?

[jpgray]

3. Der Spiegel, the Guardian, Le Monde, NYT--enemies to you, or no?

Is leaking to the press treason? It is certainly against the law.

[Goldstein1984]

16. Lots of things are against the law that aren't morally wrong

And lots of things are morally wrong that are not against the law.

Posterity sorts the patriots from the criminals and the terrorists from the freedom fighters.

The people we're calling terrorists today in Afghanistan we were calling freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation.

I don't think Manning is a traitor. His reason for releasing the information he did was not money or aiding the enemy, it was exposing war crimes and lies.

[pnwmom]

39. He downloaded 250,000 documents, all of which he could not possibly have read.

Therefore he can't claim that he released 250,000 documents to expose war crimes or lies.

But it doesn't matter. If he did what he claims to have done, if he's not, for example, suffering from mental delusions, then -- by law -- he committed treason.

[enlightenment]

42. Not treason.

Legally:

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm
--------------------

How did Manning do any of the above?

[pnwmom]

44. "or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. "

I don't believe in the death penalty, so I don't think that should be an option. But, unless he turns out to have a mental problem, I think he could end up serving life.

I think Cheney should also be serving a life sentence, by the way. Multiple life sentences, if that were possible.

[Goldstein1984]

65. And as I wrote...

lots of things are illegal that are not wrong.

Manning is nothing but an unpopular hero in my book. I've already made my contributions to his defense fund. There's more if he's ever given what has become the luxury of an opportunity to defend himself.

I hope more like him step up. They will have my support, too.

Bush and Cheney are war criminals. Obama had the opportunity to reverse their mistakes, and he chose to perpetuate them, including an ongoing assault on the Constitution. I voted for him, but he's no longer any different from them in my opinion, and he's "my president" only by virtue of the office he holds--he has the authority of position, but he's lost all moral authority.

[pnwmom]

28. Those publications exercised some judgment and restraint --

unlike Wikileaks, who intended to put up all 250,000 documents on a server.

[NightWatcher]

4. Funnier still how we were against our government doing shitty things when Boosh did it

now that Obama's in office, we dont seem to care about some of these things anymore.

War, torture, shooting civilians from an Army chopper......

[laughingliberal]

11. +1 nt

[robinlynne]

13. yes.

[QC]

30. +3

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

6. I suppose it depends on what information he'd passed. Something exposing the lies of the shadow...

government would have been fine with me. Contrast it with the exposure of Plame who worked in the area of monitoring proliferation of WMD's and was brought down for exposing the lie the Cheney administration was perpetuating on behalf of the shadow government.

[JackRiddler]

7. Apparently the entire world is now a US enemy.

Which is more or less the spirit once again confirmed in the State Department cables.

Are you sure you're on the right site?

[pnwmom]

29. No. But putting these documents on a website available to the whole world

clearly made them available to US enemies.

[JackRiddler]

36. So who are the US enemies?

[Catherina]

8. Please. Speak only for yourself. I most certainly would not have.

Treason is what Bush and Cheney did.

Treason is sending, and continuing to send, America's young people to kill and die for lies.

[Vickers]

12. Unrec for broadbrushing and poor logic. n/t

[bemildred]

14. I would have called it business as usual. nt

[sarge43]

17. If a member of the US armed forces has a security clearance,

s/he is under permanent orders to STFU about any information they learned vis-a-vis that clearance. Doing so is a violation of the UCMJ and a court martial offense. Assange is not a US serviceman nor is he a US citizen and to the best of my knowledge he doesn't hold a clearance granted by the US gov't.

He owes us no loyalty and comparing him to a US service man or woman is a straw man.

[pnwmom]

31. I was talking about Manning, the American serviceman who says he passed

the documents to Assange. I can't believe you weren't aware of that -- so why are you pretending I was talking about Assange?

[sarge43]

43. Wasn't pretending. Next time make yourself clear. n/t

[pnwmom]

45. I did. Reread the OP. I was specifically speaking about an American

military person, which clearly means I was talking about Manning, not Assange.

[struggle4progress]

62. I think it might depend on exactly what Assange passed to who:

I agree that he owes the US no loyalty -- but it's imaginable (though by no means certain) that he's distributed some materials that a lot of the world might want kept quiet, for good reason, such as the tracking of certain material or people

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. And if an American military person with security clearances had passed

secret files to the American public, I'd call him a hero then, too.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[pnwmom]

35. You should be very happy then with Cheney, since he passed the

information about Valerie Plame, that he obtained with his security clearances, to the world.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. I wouldn't have

And since I would be part of everyone, there goes your assumption.

[EFerrari]

20. So, you don't know the difference between journalism and treason?

[pnwmom]

37. Bradley Manning isn't a journalist. He's a serviceman with a security clearance

who, if his own claim is correct, violated his oath by passing on secret documents, and thus committed treason.

[EFerrari]

51. Manning didn't pass secrets to any enemy.

He passed them to the media.

[lunatica]

25. You're wrong. And the truth is always good to know

Do you like being manipulated with lies by your government?

[Better Believe It]

34. So what "enemies" are being aided by the disclosures?

Reagan's "evil empire" or Bush's "axis of evil"?

[former9thward]

57. Barack Obama's enemies

"We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated." http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm

[txlibdem]

38. A soldier is trained from day one NOT to OBEY and UNLAWFUL order

Knowing that your government is doing evil things, trying to hide them, and attempting to cover it all up. It becomes your duty as a soldier who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America to act.

This young man is a hero. Period. Remaining silent, becoming a willing part of a cover up of illegal, immoral acts by our leaders and military industrial complex would have been the true crime.

We, as a nation, must stand for SOMETHING. If it is not the rule of law, doing what is right, then what the hell is it?!?

[pnwmom]

40. He downloaded 250,000 documents, all of which he couldn't possibly

have read. So he can't say that his motive in sharing all of them was exposing evil.

[txlibdem]

48. Perhaps he read 10 documents and 8 showed signs of evil

What would you do in his place? Become a part of the cover up? How many documents that show wrongdoing on our part or that of our allies would it take for you to "do the right thing?"

[Better Believe It]

49. He's only released less than 700 of them after reviewing them.

So what's your point?

[pnwmom]

58. He planned to put them all up on his Amazon website

but got stopped. He doesn't get points for that.

[tekisui]

53. I don't care what his motive was, I am just damn glad he had the courage to do it.

[Better Believe It]

50. Let the "swiftboat like" personal attacks and character assasination campaign continue!

[tekisui]

52. Bullshit. We would have cheered for the information.

And, who has passed secret files to enemies? These releases haven't increased any risks.

[Union Scribe]

54. The people are the enemy? Interesting.

Our governments. Our information.

[TexasObserver]

55. No, we wouldn't have.

If you can't understand the difference between the White House lying about the cause of a war and outing a CIA agent because she was the wife of a whistleblower versus Wikileaks exposing rampant classification of ordinary war events, please work on understanding the difference.

You seem to think that by saying the same things over and over, you make them true. There's a reason almost no one here agrees with your point of view on this topic. Your reaction is completely unjustified and not based upon a realistic or logical view of the events.

[MineralMan]

56. He will not be charged with treason. He will be charged with

unauthorized release of classified materials. That's punishable by a long prison term. Treason is not even in the mix of possible charges.

[Greyhound]

63. The DU posting bug strikes again.

[Greyhound]

64. K&U for utter crap. You've made a baseless, blanket accusation and tried to imply

both a equivalency that does not exist, and damage not done.

How very authoritarian of you.:eyes:
:kick: & U