Obama smacked in the mouth

[rubato]

This story is so large and so singular and the effects are still rolling very slowly into view. I think it is impossible to say at this point if the effect is a net positive or a net negative overall or for us as a nation.


Generally, secrecy is harmful, and the belief on the part of government that secrets can be kept forever is profoundly corrupting. The pentagon papers proved that 2 generations of presidents cheerfully lied about Vietnam and needlessly murdered over 50,000 US soldiers and more than a million Vietnamese in doing so. The public exposure of the Hoare-Laval agreement brought down the governments of both France and England.*


When people believe that their acts will never be seen in public are they more or less likely to do the right thing? I think the answer is obvious. Stir into this pot the fact that anyone who can publicly excuse torture will privately enact horror.


yrs,
rubato

*
To their credit, the citizens of both countries were morally shocked when it was revealed that their governments had secretly agreed to allow Mussolini to invade Ethiopia in exchange for the [mistaken] belief that he would be an ally on Hitler's southern border. Laval went on to brief glory with the Vichy Government ordering the deportation of Jews, followed by execution, and Hoare was summarily fired as foreign secretary. The story about the latter event is that when the King summoned him and asked for his resignation Hoare asked to be made ambassador to France. The King joked that they needed no more "Hoares in Paris". And said afterwards "the bloody man didn't even laugh".

[rubato]

So far I would say that Assange will never reach even 1000th part of the deliberate harm done to the United States by the BushCo party.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

[I suspect that what probably happened is that the traitor approached scum boy, (wikileaks has been around for a while) and let him know of his desire to betray his country and the position that he occupied which granted him some security access.

Traitor? Do you have information that shows that "scum boy" "lev[ied] War against" "the United States" or "adher[ed] to its Enemies"? Do you have information that shows that "scum boy" intended to betray the US?

Or is this just more "I don't like what this guy did, so he's a traitor, but I'm fine with John Yoo's making the permissibility of torture the official policy of the US, so he's not a traitor" stuff that we've all become so accustomed to?

[Lord Jim]

Traitor? Do you have information that shows that "scum boy" "lev[ied] War against" "the United States" or "adher[ed] to its Enemies"? Do you have information that shows that "scum boy" intended to betray the US?

You have misinterpreted my remarks....

I've pointed out on several occasions, that scum boy, ( Julian Asswipeange) could not possibly be tried for treason, because he is not an American citizen....(though he could certainly be brought up on espionage charges)

The traitor I refer to is Bradley Manning.....

His case is textbook.

[Andrew D]

So do you have information that shows that Manning "lev[ied] War against" "the United States" or "adher[ed] to its Enemies"? Do you have information that shows that Manning intended to betray the US?

Or is this just more "I don't like what this guy did, so he's a traitor, but I'm fine with John Yoo's making the permissibility of torture the official policy of the US, so he's not a traitor" stuff that we've all become so accustomed to?

[Lord Jim]

"adher[ed] to its Enemies"?

That would appear to be self evident....

Do you have information that shows that Manning intended to betray the US?

So your position would be that betraying the US was just a happy "unintended" consequence of his downloading hundreds of thousands of pages of classified US Defense and State Dept. Documents and passing them on to Asswipeange for publication?

So his "intention" was...what?

To pick up chicks?

[loCAtek]

I'm actually beginning to lean towards Assange being a form of cyber-terrorist.

I f he were leaking information about illegal activities that needed attention in order to be brought to justice, as investigative journalism has done in past, then he would have been doing a service*. However, what he's chaotically doing isn't helping, but harming many legitimate diplomatic relationships that were benefiting not just the US, but many nations. Not to mention damaging strategies that have or could have reduced aggression.

*Granted, a few leaks were of injustices, but the majority were of daily diplomatic operations.


Who is this benefiting? ...other than Assange's ego? The degree of potential harm is reaching terrorist act levels.

[Big RR]

So now truthfully reporting to a population what's being done by a democratically elected government put in place by the people is a form of "terrorism"? Is there no end to how far that word can be stretched/perverted? FWIW, the same could be (and has been) said of any investigative reporting exposing secret governmental/political actions.

[rubato]

Other than an increase in the general level of noise i can't see any harm at all from the leaks, so far. There have been benefits; Putin was peeved enough to go on Larry King and complain because Gates described Russia as an 'Oligarchy', an opinion shared by all the world, Berlusconi was publicly shamed for cozying up too close to Putin, and now the Arab states in the gulf are saying publicly that it would be a good thing if we bombed Iran's nuclear fuel processing plants. All positive effects.

Especially the last.

It raises the question "what if we did it deliberately?". Might have been a very clever move if we did.

Overall I would say that world leaders are all smart enough to know that what people say when not in their presence won't always be pleasing to hear. Most of it will be shrugged off.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

"adher[ed] to its Enemies"?

That would appear to be self evident....

But it is not.

Do you have information that shows that Manning intended to betray the US?

So your position would be that betraying the US was just a happy "unintended" consequence of his downloading hundreds of thousands of pages of classified US Defense and State Dept. Documents and passing them on to Asswipeange for publication?

We have not seen that "betraying the US" even occurred.

Manning could have passed the documents to Assange out of a sense of patriotism. He could have believed that it is in America's best interest for the American people to know the truth. And if so, he was probably right. But even if he was wrong, the intent, however misguided, to do what one believes is in one's country's best interest is not the intent to betray one's country.

You want Manning to be guilty of treason. But your wanting it does not make it so.

[Lord Jim]

Manning could have passed the documents to Assange out of a sense of patriotism

Yeah, Julius Rosenberg may have felt the same way....

It really makes no difference in fact what his "motivation" is; he stole classified documents for the purpose of publishing them which contained sources and methods information that endangered the lives of his fellow soldiers in the field and provided a treasure trove of intel for the enemy. (While adding nothing of value to the knowledge of the general public)

As I said; text book treason.

You want Manning to be guilty of treason. But your wanting it does not make it so.

Actually, you want to pretend that what the little angel claims his "motivation" was makes a rat's ass of difference to the question of whether or not he is guilty of treason. (From everything I've read about the little fuck milk, it appears his motive was similar to Oswald's; he wanted to become famous and important. Like his mentor Asswipeange, he suffers from delusions of grandeur)

But your wanting does not make it so.

[Andrew D]

Manning could have passed the documents to Assange out of a sense of patriotism

* * *

It really makes no difference in fact what his "motivation" is ....

You wish. But as is so often the case, reality is contrary to your assertion:

One may think disloyal thoughts and have his heart on the side of the enemy. Yet if he commits no act giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he is not guilty of treason. He may on the other hand commit acts which do give aid and comfort to the enemy and yet not be guilty of treason ....

(Tomoya Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717, 736 (1952).)

Your wanting his motivation to be irrelevant does not make it so.

... you want to pretend that what ... [Manning's] "motivation" was makes a rat's ass of difference to the question of whether or not he is guilty of treason.

Yeah, it's all pretense on my part. The fact that the U.S. law of treason -- about which you evidently know precious little -- as declared by the U.S. Supreme Court makes Manning's motivation matter, well, of what significance could that possibly be?

You and ... and ... and ... well, you want it to be otherwise. And that's all that counts.

... he stole classified documents for the purpose of publishing them which contained sources and methods information that endangered the lives of his fellow soldiers in the field ....

Evidence? Where is the evidence that the lives of soldiers in the field were endangered by what Manning did? And where is the evidence that Manning intended to endanger the lives of soldiers in the field?

... and provided a treasure trove of intel for the enemy.

Who is this so-called "enemy"?

Newsflash: Your claim that the identity of this so-called "enemy" "would appear to be self evident" is no substitute for the so-called "enemy's" actual identity.

Where is the evidence that what Manning did provided "a treasure trove of intel for" that supposed but unidentified enemy? And where is the evidence that Manning intended to provide a treasure trove of intelligence for that supposed but unidentified enemy?

... text book treason.

What textbook is that?

Oh, I know: Jim, Lord, Treason Is Whatever I Say It Is (Pertinacity Press, umpteenth rev. ed. 2010) at p. only.

As I said ....

And there we have it. It is a Lord Jim[b/] pronouncement. It is intrinsically uncontradictible. Evidence is irrelevant.

Doesn't it ever get old?

[Lord Jim]

I hope he hires you to defend him Andrew....

He'll hang for sure....

"You can't convict my client of treason because he says it wasn't his intent to commit treason. He thought he was stealing and making public all those documents that the Taliban themselves said have helped them, in order to do something good for America ..."

Sounds like an insanity defense.....

After the officers serving on his court marital tribunal finish laughing, they'll vote "guilty".....

[Gob]

WHISTLEBLOWING website founder Julian Assange has broken cover to accuse the Australian government of abandoning him to attacks by the US government.

From a location in England the Queensland-born Mr Assange questioned what it meant to be an Australian citizen. As the WikiLeaks chief waited for his likely arrest so British authorities could extradite him to Sweden over allegations of rape and sexual molestation - which he denies - he said he missed his country ''a great deal''.

''However, during the last weeks the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return impossible but that they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people,'' Mr Assange wrote in The Guardian.


''This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.''

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 18kpq.html

[Andrew D]

I have no evidence to support my position.

I have nothing to say about the governing law.

But God damn it, Manning is a traitor, because I want him to be.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[loCAtek]

He claims his motive was to make government (any government) transparent.

1) Who died and made him transparency Czar? I didn't vote for him.


and;

2) Why doesn't he make himself transparent, and turn himself in?


The mark of the megalomaniacal: You have to do, what I don't!



...bitch!

[Andrew D]

You are evidently talking about Assange, not Manning. (Manning is reportedly already in custody.)

It appears to be impossible for Assange to commit treason against the U.S. Treason requires the intent to betray one's country. One can commit treason against the U.S. only if the U.S. is one's country. Assange, I understand, is Australian born. He reportedly spends his time in various European countries. I have seen nothing to indicate that the U.S. in any way his country. Charging him with treason against the U.S. would make about as much sense as would charging me with treason against Zimbabwe.

[loCAtek]

He claims his motive was to make government (any government) transparent.

[Andrew D]

Is that intended to suggest that it is possible Assange, who owes no allegiance to the US, to commit treason against the US? Or are you just wandering again?

[Econoline]

I'm actually beginning to lean towards Assange being a form of cyber-terrorist.

I f he were leaking information about illegal activities that needed attention in order to be brought to justice, as investigative journalism has done in past, then he would have been doing a service*. However, what he's chaotically doing isn't helping, but harming many legitimate diplomatic relationships that were benefiting not just the US, but many nations. Not to mention damaging strategies that have or could have reduced aggression.

*Granted, a few leaks were of injustices, but the majority were of daily diplomatic operations.


Who is this benefiting? ...other than Assange's ego? The degree of potential harm is reaching terrorist act levels.

Actually, he probably has more in common with the "anarchists" smashing store windows to protest the WTO. I have to wonder what this latest dump was supposed to accomplish, and what it actually will accomplish.

In the wake of 9/11 it was said that various American government agencies should have shared more information with each other: will they now move to reverse that process because there is now too much access to classified information by those who don't really need to know?

Will other governments' diplomats now be less candid with their American counterparts because they think that whatever they say might soon appear in the New York Times?

Would either of these outcomes be a good thing, for the U.S. or for anyone else in the world?

Who is this benefiting? ...other than Assange's ego?

Good question.