Obama smacked in the mouth

[Big RR]

And how many have been harmed after these dire predictions? I haven't heard of one.

[Lord Jim]

And how many have been harmed after these dire predictions? I haven't heard of one.

That reminds me of an old joke:

Mother: Eat your vegetables Johnny, don't you know their are millions of kids starving in Africa?

Johnny: Oh yeah? Name one...

Big RR, if it isn't immediately obvious to you that:

If you reveal the names of the people who have been providing you intel, and the methods you use to acquire intel, to your enemy in a shooting war, you are endangering lives.

I'm afraid I really can't help you....

All I can say is that I'm very grateful that you didn't opt for a career as a military officer....

[Big RR]

Come on Jim, if even one guy gt a scraped knee, the government would be trumpeting it all over the media. Their silence on this speaks volumes.

[Crackpot]

How is it in out interest to trumpet that we cannot protect our informants RR?

[Big RR]

Isn't that something the government already said when they insisted people would be hurt and killed because of the disclosures?

[Lord Jim]

Come on Jim, if even one guy gt a scraped knee, the government would be trumpeting it all over the media. Their silence on this speaks volumes.

We've had this discussion before, and my take on this is exactly the opposite...

CP is right...

There is absolutely no benefit in "trumpeting" this....it's all downside....

If we started broadcasting the names of folks who helped the NATO forces who were off'd as a result of this, what affect do you suppose that would have on our ability to recruit more help to gather intel?

You seem to keep losing sight f the fact that this is an ongoing military operation...

[Scooter]

If you reveal the names of the people who have been providing you intel, and the methods you use to acquire intel, to your enemy in a shooting war, you are endangering lives

That's taking as a given that any such identifications had taken place. I haven't seen anything except the government's (incredibly self-serving) say-so that it has happened. You'll pardon me if I'm not prepared to take their allegations at face value.

[Big RR]

Well jim, you can buy the government's story if you want; I would like to see some proof. I won't accept that lives were placed at risk on the say so of self-interested bureaucrats and politicians. Face it, the claim of secrecy and lives at risk has been used to keep a ot of potentially embarrassing documents from being publicized agan and again throughout our history.

[Lord Jim]

Amnesty International, Human Rights Groups Ask Wikileaks To Censor Civilians' Names

LONDON — Human rights groups said Tuesday they've asked WikiLeaks to censor secret files on the Afghanistan war to protect civilians who've worked alongside the U.S. and other foreign forces from reprisals.

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and three other groups have sent a series of e-mails to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange calling for the names of Afghan civilians to be removed from the 77,000 classified military documents published by the online whistle-blower last month.

Nader Nadery, of the commission, said the groups want the names removed from files already released, and from any documents disclosed in the future.

"There was no consideration about civilian lives," Nadery said, noting a rise in assassinations of Afghan civilians seen as government collaborators.

"We said that in the future the names should be redacted and the ones that are already there need to be taken down. Even though it's late, it still worth doing," Nadery said. He said the group had not yet received any response to its requests.

The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, the Open Society Institute and the International Crisis Group have also been involved in exchanges about the released documents.

Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood said that while other human rights groups had also sent a joint letter to WikiLeaks, Amnesty was not among its signatories.

Instead, she said that the London-based campaigners had communicated with Assange's group over the issue of the disclosure of identities of Afghans who've worked alongside international forces.

Flood declined to comment in detail and could not confirm whether Amnesty or other groups would help WikiLeaks censor files. WikiLeaks did not immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment Tuesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/1 ... 77048.html

[Lord Jim]

Wikileaks Afghanistan: Taliban 'hunting down informants'

The Taliban has issued a warning to Afghans whose names might appear on the leaked Afghanistan war logs as informers for the Nato-led coalition.

By Robert Winnett in Washington 7:00AM BST 30 Jul 2010

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

"Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... mants.html

[Big RR]

The Taliban, a source you can trust.

[Lord Jim]

I guess you don't like Amnesty International either....

ETA:

Well Big RR, you don't believe our side, you don't believe their side, and you don't believe independent third parties....

I have to say that doesn't leave much....

[Andrew D]

In response to Lord Jim's unsubstantiated claim that Manning is a traitor, I pointed out that treason requires both doing something which gives the enemy aid and comfort and doing so with the intent to betray the U.S. And I observed:

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.

To which Lord Jim responded:

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

Not that facts matter to Lord Jim, but Rosenberg was not convicted of treason. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.

Nor does the law matter to Lord Jim.

It really makes no difference in fact what his [Manning's] "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.

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. ...

But your wanting does not make it so.

But the Supreme Court's having said so does make it so.

As I have pointed out to Lord Jim repeatedly:

[T]he crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy-making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength-but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

[Cramer v. U.S., 325 U.S. 1, 29 (1945).]

* * *

It’s hard to see how it could be made any clearer: Treason requires both that the accused have given the enemy aid and comfort and that (s)he have adhered to that enemy – i.e., had “the intent to betray” the U.S. to that enemy.

But why should anyone care what the Supreme Court says about the law of treason? Lord Jim has pronounced that it "really makes no difference in fact what his [Manning's] 'motivation' is". Therefore, whether Manning intended to betray the U.S. makes no difference. It is contrary to a Lord Jim pronouncement, so it must be wrong.

[Andrew D]

... oh wait a minute, that's right... you claim you didn't even know who the enemy was, or even that there was an enemy ....

Actually, questioning who the "enemy" is was the only way to get Lord Jim to specify whether the enemy is the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Lord Jim settled on the Taliban. And as I pointed out:

One might well wonder about that, given various governmental pronouncements (a) that the enemy is al-Qaeda, (b) that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not identical, and (c) that there are some Taliban with whom the U.S. can cooperate.

Since I know that you are not too stupid to grasp this, the explanation has to be that you are being willfully and deliberately obtuse for ideological reasons....

This would not exactly be a "first" for you in that department.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's exceptionally rich, coming from the unsurpassed master of the evidence-free assertion.

Let's see, what has Lord Jim offered by way of substantive evidence of Manning's intent to betray the U.S. (in addition to Manning's having given the "enemy" aid and comfort)? Nothing.

But why should he? He has proclaimed Manning's intent irrelevant; therefore, it is irrelevant. And the Supreme Court's contrary conclusion matters not.

What substantive evidence has he offered to show that (except in a few high-profile cases), the detainees held at Guantanamo are "high value terrorists"? None.

But why he should he? He has proclaimed them high value terrorists; therefore, they are.

What substantive evidence has he offered to show that John Yoo did not make the permissibility of torture the official policy of the U.S.? None.

But why should he? He has proclaimed that Yoo did not make the permissibility of torture the official policy of the U.S.; therefore, Yoo did not.

We should be grateful to Lord Jim. Thanks to his pronouncements -- which are, of course, the standard by which objective truth is measured -- we know that Manning is a traitor, we know that the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists, and we know that John Yoo did not make the permissibility of torture the official policy of the U.S.

Blessedly, we no longer need to mess around with pesky things like evidence and reasoning. We need only bow in humble gratitude for His Omniscience's having magnanimously condescended to grace us with His Holy Truth.

[Lord Jim]

In response to Lord Jim's unsubstantiated claim that Manning is a traitor,

I was fully aware of the fact that Rosenberg was convicted of espionage, Andrew....

Doesn't change the fact that he was a traitor....

Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury....

Doesn't change the fact that the Order of Lenin recipient was a traitor....

We've had many traitors in our nation's history that weren't convicted of treason.

Whether Manning is convicted of treason or espionage, his actions make him indisputably a traitor.

[Gob]

The Pentagon says the documents leaked by the WikiLeaks website in July do not jeopardize any U.S. intelligence or sensitive military operations.

In an Aug. 16 letter released to NPR, Defense Secretary Robert Gates responded to questions about the WikiLeaks documents raised by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Gates said an initial Pentagon review showed the documents focused mostly on day-to-day military operations and did not reveal any significant national intelligence secrets.

Seen in Canberra;

[Lord Jim]

That's interesting Strop....

From the same Telegraph article I put up a couple of posts ago:

Robert Gates, the US Defense Secretary, warned that sources identified in the documents now risked being "targeted for retribution" by insurgents in Afghanistan.

He pledged a "thorough, aggressive investigation" to identify the leakers and said that steps were being taken to restrict access to classified documents in future.

[Lord Jim]

More:

In an exclusive interview on "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," to air this Sunday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the huge cache of secret documents obtained by the website WikiLeaks left him disgusted.

"How angry are you about it?" Amanpour asked.

"I'm not sure anger is the right word. I just -- I think mortified, appalled," Gates said.

"And if I'm angry, it is because I believe that this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk. It puts our soldiers at risk because…our adversaries can learn a lot about our techniques, tactics and procedures from the body of these leaked documents," he said. "You know, growing up in the intelligence business, protecting your sources is sacrosanct," Gates, who served as Director of the CIA in the early 1990s, explained.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/gates-gu ... d=11296907

I believe your quote refers to the second batch of documents dumped....

[Big RR]

I guess you don't like Amnesty International either....

ETA:

Well Big RR, you don't believe our side, you don't believe their side, and you don't believe independent third parties....

I have to say that doesn't leave much....

Generally I do, but they can and have been wrong on occasion. By the way, who is "us" and "them"? Are you really saying everything the american government says is "our" side? I'm not buying it.

[Andrew D]

Whether Manning is convicted of treason or espionage, his actions make him indisputably a traitor.

Thus saith His Omniscience; thus must it be.

Except that there is still no evidence that in addition to giving the enemy aid and comfort, Manning intended to betray the U.S. Without such evidence, there is no proof of treason, all battological fulminations notwithstanding.

Unless and until His Sciolistic Jejunity presents a substantive response to this:

[T]he crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy-making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength-but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

[Cramer v. U.S., 325 U.S. 1, 29 (1945).]

* * *

It’s hard to see how it could be made any clearer: Treason requires both that the accused have given the enemy aid and comfort and that (s)he have adhered to that enemy – i.e., had “the intent to betray” the U.S. to that enemy.

his obdurate refusal to do so will continue to stand as his admission that he cannot adduce against Manning the proof of treason which the Constitution requires.