Trading places with Bradley Manning.

[Andrew D]

All Republican elected officials -- Senators, Representatives, Governors, Legislators, etc. -- should occupy Manning's cell.

The "Defense" Department -- whose name is a right-wing lie -- could have stopped Wikileaks from disclosing classified information.

The DOD chose to let that information become public.

The DOD let classified information become public, because the DOD knew that the "classified" information was not kept secret for any reason other than political butt-licking.

And yet there are people on this board who cast aspersions on Wikileaks and its founder for doing nothing more than disseminating information which the DOD effectively agreed should be disseminated.

Manning is in a cell for supposedly betraying America.

Congressional Republicans devote their pathetic excuses for lives to betraying America.

All of them should be occupying Manning's cell.

[Gob]

The "Defense" Department -- whose name is a right-wing lie -- could have stopped Wikileaks from disclosing classified information.

The DOD chose to let that information become public.

The DOD let classified information become public, because the DOD knew that the "classified" information was not kept secret for any reason other than political butt-licking.

Evidence for this?

[Jarlaxle]

The voices in his head.

[rubato]

We've been around this block before but: Anytime a government thinks they can hide information from the public forever it creates the opportunity for corruption. Wikileaks has done us a service. No one has yet shown any way that we were harmed by it.

The Pentagon papers and the Iran-Contra exposure of Reagan's treason were good for the country.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

The "Defense" Department -- whose name is a right-wing lie -- could have stopped Wikileaks from disclosing classified information.

Evidence for this?

See, e.g., here:

DoD Slaps Down WikiLeaks' Offer to Review War Docs

When WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan, it kept an additional 15,000 documents off the Web, pending further review. The site's organizers apparently invited the Pentagon to collaborate on examining these additional files prior to publication, but a letter from a DoD lawyer makes it clear the department isn't interested.

An overture by WikiLeaks to the U.S. Defense Department to collaborate on sanitizing classified documents on the Afghan war before the whistleblowing website makes the material public has been spurned by the federal agency.

"[T]he Department of Defense will not negotiate some 'minimized' or 'sanitized' version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. government classified documents," Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson wrote in a letter dated Aug. 16 to an attorney, Timothy J. Matusheski, claiming to represent WikiLeaks, a copy of which was obtained by TechNewsWorld.

"The Department demands that nothing further be released by WikiLeaks, that all of the U.S. government classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately, and that WikiLeaks remove and destroy all of these records from its databases," the DOD counsel added.

See also, e.g., here:

DOD: Our Bad, We DID Talk to WikiLeaks
The Pentagon is walking back initial denials that it tried to contact WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in recent days to discuss still-unreleased secret files from the Afghanistan war. And new details divulged by defense officials suggest their middleman for contacting the website was an obscure lawyer based in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Earlier today, Assange told reporters that he'd "received contact" from the military and he'd "welcome their engagement," adding: "It is always positive for parties to talk to each other." But according to Newsweek:

...spokesmen for both the US Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense denied that any such contacts had occurred. The office of the Army's general counsel, the military service's chief lawyer, has had "no contact with Julian Assange or any representative of WikiLeaks," said Col. Thomas Collins, an Army spokeman.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman went on to say that there was no "direct contact with WikiLeaks," and the DOD's only avenue of communicating with the site was "via the media."

That now appears to be untrue. In discussions with reporters later Wednesday at the Pentagon, Whitman clarified the military's position. According to Stars & Stripes DC bureau reporter Kevin Baron: "DOD just released a letter sent on Monday to an indivudual they 'came across' who was 'purporting' to be an atty for WikiLeaks." Whitman told the assembled reporters that the DOD had scheduled a phone conversation at 10 a.m. on Sunday, "but the atty did not show."

See also, e.g., here. WikiLeaks withheld 15,000 documents for potential review to ensure that WikiLeaks would not release the names of innocent people. In response, Department of Defense Counsel wrote a letter to Wikileaks's lawyer

which makes clear that WikiLeaks did exactly that which DoD officials denied they did: namely, they asked DoD for help redacting these remaining documents. That letter, written by DoD Legal Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson to WikiLeak’s counsel, Timothy Matusheski, explicitly recounts — contrary to the emphatic denials in Newsweek — that WikiLeaks’ lawyer had contacted the Pentagon and requested help in the “harm minimization” process. The DoD, however, is explicitly refusing to offer any help whatsoever:

Thus, the Department of Defense will not negotiate some "minimized" or "sanitized" version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. Government classified documents. The Department demands that nothing further be released by WikiLeaks, that all of the U.S. Government classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately, and that WikiLeaks remove and destroy all of these records from its databases.

Even Voice of America has reported:

Pentagon Tells WikiLeaks Lawyer It Won't Help 'Sanitize' Documents

The Pentagon has told a lawyer who said he represents the founder of the website WikiLeaks it will not negotiate to arrange the release of secret documents with key information removed. Officials of the group told reporters Wednesday the Pentagon had agreed to open a dialogue on the issue.

A letter from Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson says the defense department will not discuss what he calls "some 'minimized' or 'sanitized' version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. Government classified documents." The letter also repeat's the department's demand that all the documents be returned, and that those which already have been published be removed from Wikileaks' databases and destroyed.

The evidence is abundant.

[dgs49]

So the points we can take from this are:

If it is illegal to publicize certain documents that are classified by the U.S. Government, and if you are in possession thereof and you feel that they should be released, then go ahead. Nothing wrong with that. Any prosecution would be "wrongful."

If a third party illegally obtains possession of classified documents, and they propose to allow the source to review them to see if they REALLY want to keep them classified, the source is at fault for the release.

Incredible.

[Gob]

Thanks Andrew.

[rubato]

The take away is that fresh air and sunlight to a lot of good and are rarely harmful.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Incredible.

Yes, your description of "the points we can take from this" is, unsurprisingly, incredible.

[dgs49]

Andrew: What is the import of laws prohibiting the release of documents that are rightly (as of right) classified? Are they to be obeyed or ignored? Do they carry the "force of law"? Or not?

If one breaks those laws, should the individual law-breaker be subject to prosecution? And if the elements of the crimes are proven, should the punishments called for in the statute be meted out? If not, why not?

If classified documents are wrongfully published (violating the applicable laws), should the Government be compelled to reconsider - in "negotiations" with the law-breaker - whether the classifications of the documents were appropriate in the first instance?

Is it a valid argument, after a law is broken, to aver that the law is unwise? Is this a legitimate defense?

Should law-breakers who are members of active-duty military services be treated: (1) the same as civilians? or (2) according to military protocols?

Do tell.

[rubato]

"We are not talking about justice, we are talking about the law".
Billy Budd

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

What US law has WikiLeaks broken?

It was WikiLeaks, not Manning, who offered the US Deparment of Defense the opportunity to review the documents before WikiLeaks released them.

[rubato]

I was referring to Manning.

Wikileaks has annoyed the unthinking uber-patriots but if they have broken a law I don't know what it might be. Manning, I suspect, has broken multiple laws, esp. since he is the property of the U.S. government.


yrs,
rubato

[Rick]

While in the Navy I was duty electrician, I had no clearance of any sort however when required I had to eneter super secret spaces such as the radio shack. This space has crypto gear and the messages are all classified even if they suggest that someone make sure the XO has his morning coffee.

Should I have been able to take any of these documents just because they were laying on a table? Not only take them but then give them to a third party that was not privvy at ANY juncture? Even it it was just to suggest the XO should make sure he gets his morning coffee?

I got in trouble for giving someone a cleaning solvent not knowing that he was going to huff it.

[Andrew D]

I was referring to Manning.

And I was addressing dgs49. I should have made that clear.

[Andrew D]

... the messages are all classified even if they suggest that someone make sure the XO has his morning coffee.

Which is a huge problem. Documents -- many people say many millions of documents -- are classified for no good reason.

Classifying a document which suggests that someone ensure that the XO has her or his morning coffee is just silly.

But many -- many people say a large chunk of the total -- documents are classified not for reasons of national security but because their revelation to the public would be politically inconvenient. Or politically disastrous.

I do not know what to do about that, but I know that the present classification regime is a national disgrace.

[Rick]

An example of a classified document even I had access to however would not want someone outside of my little circle, say an aircraft carrier, to have would be a "plan of the day".

We all just tossed them about but we made sure they didn't make them into the drink, or off the quarter deck when in port. At sea we were often shadowed by subs that would pick through the trash we tossed over board, in port folks would go through the trash bins.

Seems innocuous enough doesn't it, but it wasn't my call any more than it was Mannings

[oldr_n_wsr]

I can get anyones credit card/soc sec number if I tried hard enough. And you know people are trying. As far as our navy/army/airforce/marines codes/socsec/whatever, you know they are trying even harder.