Obama smacked in the mouth

[Scooter]

More gibberish.

[loCAtek]

Wait. for. the. investigation.


¿Hablas inglés?

[Scooter]

Take. your. own. advice. before. trying. to. come. off. as. if. you. had. a. doctorate. in. criminology.

[loCAtek]

You. asked. me.

[Scooter]

You. made. the. unsubstantiated. assertion.

[loCAtek]

Based. on. LJ's. speculation, of course. it's. unsubstantiated. we're. all. speculating. here. until. the. investigation. is. done. Best. I. can. do. is. Deductive. Criminal. Profiling.


You. got. better. or. just. gonna. snip. all. day?

[Scooter]

We're not all "just speculating". Some of us are basing our posts on, you know, the actual charges. Others are making ridiculous claims based on their need for vindictiveness.

[loCAtek]

Hmmm, well I was the one speculating on ALL of the specific charges, which was why I posted them.


Others were leaving a few details out.

[Scooter]

None of which was a charge for espionage, much as you kept flopping around like a fish on a dock trying to sidestep in an attempt to pin that label on Manning.

[loCAtek]

No of course not, which was why I added the disclaimer that that would apply only if Lord Jim's conjecture was supported by the investigation.

[Scooter]

Which was just more gibberish and speculation.

[Econoline]

Just because it's speculation doesn't make it gibberish. I've been having no problem understanding what LoCa's been saying.

[Scooter]

Of course not. Trying to justify accusing Manning of espionage by reference to an article under which he had not been charged was the pinnacle of logic.

Facts are facts. If the military believed Manning guilty of espionage they would have charged him accordingly. That they have not, says as clear as day that not even they believe his actions rise to that level.

[Gob]

'The Iraqi's have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam is supporting Al Quaeda, Bradley Manning is guilty of espionage, Assange is guilty of treason, and I promise I won't cum in your mouth."

[Lord Jim]

Bradley Manning is guilty of espionage, Assange is guilty of treason, and I promise I won't cum in your mouth."

Well, you've got those two backwards, (Manning is the traitor, Asswipeange is the one guilty of espionage) and except for that last bit (I suppose everyone has their personal preferences... ) you're spot on.

[Gob]

LOL!!

[loCAtek]

Scooter, I never accused Manning of espionage. I agreed with the speculation that IF he were to have been influenced by Assange in any way; then he could be charged with that. He obviously had the intent to injure national security.
His case hasn't gone to court-martial yet, due to the fact the investigation is still incomplete.

If he did it for himself; it's treason. If he did it for Assange, in any fashion, it's espionage.

Either way, he's going to a military prison for decades, if not life.

IMNSHO - he's screwed.

[Scooter]

Hell, why not pin him with the murders of JFK and Jimmy Hoffa while we're at it.

Reviewing the record, you are quite right, you never out and out accused him of espionage, which makes your decision to parrot that article from the UCMJ even more bizarre.

He obviously had the intent to injure national security.

So now we can add "mind reader" to the long list of your ersatz qualifications.

And the same applies to your accusations of treasons as did to those of espionage - the military doesn't believe it, otherwise they would have charged him accordingly.

But it's encouraging to see that your thinking isn't in perfect lockstep with the military. I had come to believe that you weren't capable of any thought that hadn't been planted in your brain by a superior officer.

Either way, he's going to a military prison for decades, if not life.

So both "innocent until proven guilty" and the right of an accused to provide an answer to the charges against him/her just get tossed on the garbage heap. Why am I not surprised?

[loCAtek]

No, my link to UCMJ supported my position, whereas your position is... to be pedant? With no supporting data? Is that correct?

Some supporting evidence would be nice in correcting this.

[Scooter]

No, my link to UCMJ supported my position

Linkiing to an article about espionage supported your position even though he wasn't charged with espionage. Thanks for clearing that up.

whereas your position is...

It isn't my position. The military's position is that he is guilty of neither treason nor espionage; otherwise they would have charged him with same. If you disagree, take it up with the JAG.