Mr Crowley, what went on in your head?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I suppose if he'd put the revelations in a pumpkin for commies to pick up later we'd have to argue that he only gave them to the pumpkin which is not an enemy of the state?



I think LJ is a little harsh there but on the other hand he's not and anyway you started it or he did and your agnosticism does reach very enormous (or very low or medium) heights at times. Can we be positive though that there actually IS a Mr Crowley?

Meade or Youde

[Andrew D]

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah.....

A perfect summation of Lord Jim's utterances on this topic and so many others. It is somewhat refreshing to see it coming from the horse's, er, mouth.

[loCAtek]

The Army files 22 new counts against Pfc. Bradley

If I may Lord Jim, I'd like to make a prediction?

I predict: that Manning will receive enough convictions to sentience him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, however not the Death Penalty; with reduction in rank, pay and upon completion of his sentence- post-mortem Dishonorable/Bad Conduct Discharge (you can't be held in a military prison unless you are a servicemember. Albeit an E-ZERO; which most of them are, but a serving member of the armed forces. ) ...with no possibility of parole.

As you were.

[Lord Jim]

I suppose if he'd put the revelations in a pumpkin for commies to pick up later we'd have to argue that he only gave them to the pumpkin which is not an enemy of the state?

LOL

No doubt....

[Andrew D]

Ah, there's nothing like an imaginative analogy to make up for an absence of evidence.

(I draw plenty of analogies. The difference is that when pressed, I can back them up.)

Lord Jim says "makes them available to our enemies". General Meade talks about "revelations ... for our enemies to pick up later".

And both of them may be right. Maybe Manning did deliberately make information available to our enemies. Maybe he did deliberately disclose revelations for our enemies to pick up later.

Or maybe he did not.

There is still that FACT which those who want to convict him of treason without the benefit of a trial -- sorry, a "legal nicety" -- don't want to (can't?) come to grips with:

Manning did not -- as he well could have -- disclose the information to our enemies.

What do Lord Jim and General Meade have to say about that fact?

That is not the only fact that bears on the question of Manning's guilt or innocence, but for the moment, it will do. Manning could easily have disclosed the information to those who could have made immediate use of it to harm the US. But he did not.

Why?

Hmmm?

Why?

Hmmm?

Why, if he intended to betray the US to the enemies of the US, did he not disclose the information to the enemies of the US?

Hmmm?

Why?

Hmmm?

Oh, that's right. That is one (and only one) of those questions which his accusers prefer not to address.

And why is that?

Hmmm?

Why?

Hmmm?

Could it be that they have no answer?

Hmmm?

Could it be?

Hmmm?

[Lord Jim]

an absence of evidence.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... and in many liability cases Andrew, for example company A did not purposely hire person X to secretly videotape women in the bathroom, the guilt of company A exists in that they did not take reasonable and proper precautions to prevent what happened. Their non-evil intentions are not an adequate defence.

In addition to Mr Crowley, I'd like to see all the idiots who created a situation where some lowly schmuck in a foxhole can download such apparently damaging documents in the dock along with him. I think that will round up most of the liberals on the planet who think that government secrets indeed should be shared with the enemy; as well as the presumably more rightish dolts who went along with it

All the same, better there than here. The ANC (in its governmental disguise) is only too anxious to go in the opposite direction and created an Unfreedom of Information Act to control whistle-blowers and the press. Their problem is not that national security is breached but that government secrecy is - who stays in what luxury hotel; which Zuma family member gets the next tender; where did billions of rands disappear to last year from the budget of (insert any govt dept, provincial dept, state company, etc here).

Mr Crowley should perhaps come to SA and apply his peculiar talents. We would not be discussing his upcoming punishment but instead looking for the body. Once you've gone West you know it's the best

Meade

[Lord Jim]

Gen'l, I believe you misspoke....

Crowley is the name of the publicity seeking State Dept. official who just resigned after publicly criticizing the treatment The Traitor Manning has been receiving in custody.

The Traitor's name is Bradley Manning....

[rubato]

So far no one has shown that Manning did anything that is more harmful than beneficial to a democratic society.


Where does the constitution say that government has a right to keep facts necessary for a population to govern themselves intelligently, secret from the electorate? Where does it say that they have a right to lie and cover up the lies forever?


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Well, excluding the hyperbole;

Executive Order 12958-Classified National Security Information, as Amended

Some highlights;

(j) “Damage to the national security” means harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States from the unauthorized disclosure of information, taking into consideration such aspects of the information as the sensitivity, value, utility, and provenance of that information.






nn) “Unauthorized disclosure” means a communication or physical transfer of classified information to an unauthorized recipient.





(oo) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

(2) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to classify or continue the classification of information contrary to the requirements of this order or its implementing directives; or

(3) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gen'l, I believe you misspoke....

Crowley is the name of the publicity seeking State Dept. official who just resigned after publicly criticizing the treatment The Traitor Manning has been receiving in custody.

The Traitor's name is Bradley Manning....

Very true - lost my way on that one!

[MajGenl.Meade]

So far no one has shown that Manning did anything that is more harmful than beneficial to a democratic society. Where does the constitution say that government has a right to keep facts necessary for a population to govern themselves intelligently, secret from the electorate? Where does it say that they have a right to lie and cover up the lies forever? yrs, rubato

"a population to govern themselves intelligently". When did that start?

[Gob]

Jim, can you get shot of the huge image below the blind chap, too big by far.

[Gob]

PS. most of this animosity could be avoided if those involved just prefaced their posts with "in my opinion Bradley Manning..."

edited as my original text could have been taken as apportioning blame to one or other. It is aimed at all.

Gosh, me trying to be a peacemaker... Must be time for the rapture...

[Lord Jim]

PS. most of this animosity could be avoided if those involved just prefaced their posts with "in my opinion Bradley Manning..."

Are you referring to The Traitor Manning?

I have absolutely no problem with prefacing my posts by saying, "In my opinion, The Traitor Manning...."

Anything in the interest of promoting peace. Always glad to lend a hand....

[Lord Jim]

Jim, can you get shot of the huge image below the blind chap, too big by far.

Is that image screwing up the board in some way? It hasn't been affecting my dealing with the board, but if it's a problem, I'll delete it.

I believe the point's been made....

[rubato]

So far no one has shown that Manning did anything that is more harmful than beneficial to a democratic society. Where does the constitution say that government has a right to keep facts necessary for a population to govern themselves intelligently, secret from the electorate? Where does it say that they have a right to lie and cover up the lies forever? yrs, rubato

"a population to govern themselves intelligently". When did that start?

It has been a gradual process.

England only gave the vote to all male and female citizens after WWI. The US only gave the effective right to vote to southern blacks in the 1960s.

On the whole self-government is better now than 100 years ago across the G-20. So the experiment is quite successful given the short time its been going.


Hiding the truth and lying are evil. Exposing the truth however inconvenient and awkward is healthy.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes indeed. I was thinking of the Bush election(s) which apparently are not regarded as evidence of intelligent citizenry?

Unfortunately we humans do hide the truth constantly - I doubt not that there are some things about you that would best not be common knowledge. There is no evil in a government maintaining confidentiality of diplomatic correspondence. In fact, diplomacy requires it or it wouldn't be very diplomatic would it? Contrarily if exposing a truth (not even a lie) leads to the death of another human it may be regarded as something a little graver than "inconvenient and awkward".

All generalities are dangerous!

Meade

[Big RR]

Contrarily if exposing a truth (not even a lie) leads to the death of another human it may be regarded as something a little graver than "inconvenient and awkward".

But what if the disclosure leads to the ends actions which might result in the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands? Certainly the people in a democracy need to know what is being done in their names, and if their elected representatives conspire to hide certain "inconvenient truths" to manipulate public opinion, don't you think the people should know? And might this not involve the disclosure of such truths?

[Rick]

One only quantifies "prevention" with a body count...