Publishing Classified Information

[The1Doc]

i havent looked into it thoroughly, but i dont think theres too much wrong with the wikileaks thing. it seems like a good exercise in embarrassing stupid people.

 

as far as vietnam & all the other wars, the troops can only do as ordered, regardless if the commander-in-chief or any other leaders had the size of their manhood insulted or not.

[Vagrant0]

As a foreigner I'm proud of US journalists that have the backbone to reveal the lie within the legal possibilities and given military restrictions, something that other journalists elsewhere have not yet developed and probably never will, a filled tin cup does nicely, huh. If you hate them you don't have a political or military problem to defend, but a spiritual one.

Except that none of this came at the hand of a journalist... and that it's the journalists who are unified in the voice of "Kill Him!" toward the one who supplied facts...

 

Regarding those three persons mentioned, with all due respect, most of their "news" is just an endless string of rhetoric, opinion, and made-up facts. Oh sure, there might be a drop or two of meaningful and otherwise beneficial information in some of what they spew, but most of it is just poison. The downside is that people suck up the poison like candy and give the rational stuff a pass. It's not journalism, it's entertainment and tabloid reporting.

 

And for the record, if this information was sent to the press instead of a public and secure source, the story wouldn't see the light of day.

 

 

Regarding sensitive information and lies about wars or other diplomatic actions... That's always been. It's kinda just how the game is played and how it has to be played in order to ever get anything done. Arguably the reason why more isn't done in more recent years is because uninformed, and often contrived public opinion gets in the way. Arguably, the only reason why WWII was even won was because the public was not allowed to voice their opinion and was kept in the dark about most of what was going on. Afterall, who would agree to dropping a bomb on an enemy city when it would certainly kill or wound thousands of civilians and create ecological damage for decades to follow? The same sorts of people who would consider nuclear weapons as an option in war would be the same people to cry out publicly when it is found that the use of those weapons caused civilian casualties. Even Sun Tsu agrees that even the most decided victories can be prevented because of a lack of moral support at home.

[Harbringe]

Also just to add, Bill O'reily, Glen Beck, and Mike Huckabee all think that the person who leaked the Iraq documents (that put no lives at risk) should be PUT TO DEATH...

 

Does anyone else care that our media and our world has gone off a cliff?

 

Its hypocritical for them to make such a statement when in the case of Valerie LaPlame ? a CIA operative who was turned out while in the field by the Bush Administration for political gain ,yet in that case they made no calls for death ,even tried to find reasons to excuse them and make no mistake it was a treasonable offense .Just goes to show how much Fox News is an extension Republican/conservative party politics.

[marharth]

From Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution...

 

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

 

 

 

No, its not treason in any case.

 

No one who leaked the documents are trying to help terrorists.

Edited December 5, 2010 by marharth

[ginnyfizz]

You are quite sure about that, are you? That no-one was trying to help the terrorists? The fact is, you cannot be sure that they were not, any more than I can be sure that they were. You also forget that whatever it says in constitutional provisions or statute law, is always subject to interpretation by a court. You can be charged or convicted of a crime if you did not intend to cause a particular consequence, but were reckless as to whether or not you did cause it aka didn't give a bleep bleep for what havoc you wreaked as long as you got your fifteen minutes of fame, or your large backhander. Thus it is entirely possible that Private Prize Prat sorry, Manning could find himself on a treason charge.

 

Now there is also a rule known as the mischief rule that is operated by lawyers and judges, examining what was the actual mischief caused by any act or omission, and used to help determine punishment. In which case you would not give anyone a death sentence in the Wikileaks case, since all that has been caused are a few red faces. PPP Manning should certainly be court martialled for being a total ass and breaching military discipline. As well as for treason.

 

This is what grates on me about the whole Wikileaks thing. It's just an extension of how everyone feels the urge to splurge everything about themselves all over Facebook and Twitter, and in turn feels that they have a right to know everything about everything and everyone else. Mr Julian Assange is really no better or no different than the people who start press or internet or Facebook hate campaigns against hapless individuals, and I loathe how he is being portrayed as a champion of free speech when he is just a little mischief maker. I nearly died laughing at the whingeing when the Wikileaks site came under cyber attack. We have a saying around where I come from

 

"You'll play wi' t' bull till it tups thee" (tr. you will goad the bull until it gores you)

 

Take note, Mr Wikileaks.

[Aurielius]

From Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution...

 

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

 

 

 

No, its not treason in any case.

 

No one who leaked the documents are trying to help terrorists.

 

You might want to look up The Uniform Code of Military Justice first. I think that a Courts Marshall will have sufficient grounds to convict SPC Bradley Manning. The UCMJ which Manning is subject to will be decided in a Military Court not a federal one, the clause that you have quoted applies to civilians not active service military personnel. SPC Manning will be a resident of United States Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth for a long time.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 104—Aiding the enemy

 

(5) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

 

(a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.

 

b) Intelligence. “Intelligence” imports that the information conveyed is true or implies the truth, at least in part.

 

© Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

 

(6) Communicating with the enemy.

 

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy. See also - paragraph 29c(3).

 

(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

 

© Citizens of neutral powers. Citizens of neutral powers resident in or visiting invaded or occupied territory can claim no immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communication with the enemy.

 

Modified for Roquefort's vision strain, hope this is easier for you.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Aurielius

[roquefort]

Aurelius whatever you wrote is completely lost on those of us who use the white-background skin. Pale yellow against white is impossible. Even highlighting just makes it an eye-straining grey on black.

 

Just a heads-up. :thumbsup:

 

 

EDIT: @Aurielius thanks -- that's easily readable ;)

Edited December 6, 2010 by roquefort

[JohannesGunn]

It seems Mr. Assange has upped the stakes by threatening to publish a massive cache of documents if he is detained or arrested. :wallbash:

Can he not see he's just digging a bigger hole for himself?

[Harbringe]

From Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution...

 

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

 

 

 

No, its not treason in any case.

 

No one who leaked the documents are trying to help terrorists.

 

Outing an American spy ,while that spy was in the field would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy ,it certainly aids them and I do think they would find it comforting to be able to put a stop to said spy's activities on behalf of the United States.

 

I'm not talking about those who leaked the documents btw.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Harbringe

[JimboUK]

It seems Mr. Assange has upped the stakes by threatening to publish a massive cache of documents if he is detained or arrested. :wallbash:

Can he not see he's just digging a bigger hole for himself?

 

I can see the logic in what he's done, after all it's becoming obvious that those charges in Sweden are politically motivated. They were dropped only to the be reinstated again after the leaks with a different prosecutor in a city miles away from where the incident was supposed to have taken place.