Getting Away with Torture: Obama Bans War Criminals, Except Our Own

By executive order on Aug. 4, President Barack Obama refused entry to the United States of war criminals and human-rights violators (jurist.org, Aug. 4). He ignored, as he often does, the deeply documented factual evidence of war crimes committed by the Bush-Cheney administration along with grim proof that the Obama administration also violates our anti-torture laws and the U.N. Convention Against Torture we signed. Take, for example, right now under Obama, “The CIA Secret Sites in Somalia” (the nation.com, July 12).

In what will be an historic 108-page report, “Getting Away with Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees,” Human Rights Watch is further accelerating the rising insistence here on accountability from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and former CIA director George Tenet for having not only authorized these war crimes, but also failing “to act to stop mistreatment, or punish those responsible after they became aware of serious abuses”

Not only has President Obama rejected an independent criminal investigation of these highest-profile officials, but also, adds Human Rights Watch, of Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, David Addington (counsel to Cheney) and, among others, John Yoo, author of the unsparingly cruel, aptly dubbed “torture memos” from the Ashcroft Justice Department that gave “legal cover” to allow torture.

Moreover, as Stephen Rohde, constitutional lawyer and chairman of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, discloses (truthout.org.getting-getting-away-with-torture, July 28), Freedom of Information lawsuits filed by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have yielded more than 100,000 pages of documents detailing these war crimes.

As others and I have reported in articles and books, there is additional evidence, including from actual Defense Department records, of the deaths of “detainees” in our custody. Because unknown numbers of these deaths are very likely to have also taken place in CIA “black sites” and during CIA “renditions” to countries known for torturing, there is no way of knowing how many other “ghost prisoners” have disappeared into eternity because such information remains classified.

It is also worth noting as Jane Mayer, a key historian of this “dark side” of our history, emphasized the impact on some CIA agents of their involvement in these crimes. As I have reported (“History Will Not Absolve Us: Leaked Red Cross report sets up Bush teams for international war-crimes trial,” Village Voice, Aug. 27, 2007):

“She quotes a former CIA officer: ‘When you cross over that line of darkness, it’s hard to come back. You lose your soul. You can do your best to justify it, but … you can’t go back to that dark a place without it changing you.’”

CIA agents are also human beings.

For those growing number of Americans who are concerned with what has been and still is done in our names, it’s important to know exactly the warning in this regard in the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by our government in 1994:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

“An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.”

The United States also signed the Geneva Conventions, which mandates and please pay attention to this, President Obama each contracting party “shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches (of the Geneva Conventions), and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.”

This means that you, President Obama, are obligated to bring the foregoing list of war criminals during the Bush presidency into our courts or, before that, be subject to an independent criminal investigation. Next week, reasons to believe that you and your administration have also been violating the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and U.S. laws.

Also, Americans of all political parties, faiths and backgrounds are themselves obligated to insist that this administration, like Bush-Cheney’s stop preventing lawsuits on these war crimes from even being heard in our courts under the perversion of “the state secrets” doctrine.

We owe it to our next generation and those following to take responsibility for our worldwide shame of having become a torture nation. As we condemn other nations’ crimes against their citizens Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, et al our government makes it easier for those countries to escape accountability by utterly denying our own complicity in the cruel, inhumane, degrading torture that has given terrorists around the world so valuable a means for recruiting more terrorists.

Not one of the aspiring Republican candidates for the presidency next year has said a word about this. And Obama cherishes their silence.


 Global Research Articles by Nat Hentoff

U.S. 'black hole' prison's activities kept a secret

Almost all the known Republican candidates for the presidency have signed a pledge to assure their voter bases they share common principles (“Signing Away the Right to Govern,” The New York Times, July 19). Among the pledges:

“Cut off federal financing to Planned Parenthood … and enacting a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.” But omitted from any of these texts is a pledge to restore the Constitution’s fundamental separation of powers that has imperiously been ignored by the Bush-Cheney and Obama administrations, thereby resulting in a shroud of secrecy (the “state secrets” closing of court cases vital to our rule of law) and so much increased surveillance by the state that it makes us a nation of suspects.

Predictably, the Democratic base for our sovereign incumbent’s re-election has shown no concern for reviving our individual liberties under the Constitution.

Accordingly, there is a festering Obama war crime very unlikely to be mentioned during next year’s skewering debates and character assassinations. On July 16, 2009 (“Mr. President: We Are Still Torturing?” cato.org), I reported:

“In a continuation of the Bush-Cheney practice of deliberately keeping certain groups of suspects far away from our courts and our laws, as well as hidden from monitoring by international human rights groups, the Obama administration has told a federal court our prisoners at Bagram (Air Field in Afghanistan), many held for more than six years without charges, have no rights under our laws.”

No wonder Obama, the self-ordained champion of transparency, continues to oppose charges by civil-rights and human-rights organizations that some Bagram “detainees” have been killed during “coercive interrogations” at a principal U.S. prison there inmates call “the black hole” (“Afghans ‘abused at secret prison at Bagram airbase”’ BBC News, April 15, 2010).

For more documentation of what was and is being done in our name at Bagram, there is the fourth article in “Bagram Week” by Andy Worthington, a truly reliable investigative reporter (“The ‘Dark Side’ of Bagram: An Ex-Prisoner’s Account of Two Years of Abuse,” www.andyworthington.co.uk, April 17). He quotes a former prisoner in the main Tor Jail (“the Black Jail”):

“There were also no facilities for handicapped or wounded people. Many prisoners had no legs or had other handicaps. It was difficult for them to go to the bathroom. There was one person in my cell who had fallen off the roof when he was arrested. His 10-year-old son was shot during the raid. He arrived in prison with two broken legs. For two months we carried him to the bathroom.”

A website I visit every day is JURIST — Legal News and Research, maintained by the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Law (jurist.org). In “Bagram detainees allege torture at a secret U.S. Prison in Afghanistan: BBC” (jurist.org, April 15, 2010), I find: “U.S. President Barack Obama made a surprise visit … to the base at Afghan-istan (and its prison).”

What did he see? What were his reactions? That is classified. You want to know why? From the same “Jurist” story: “Despite the alleged witness accounts of torture … the U.S. government continues to deny the existence of secret prisons in Afghanistan.”

For four years, the ACLU, logically dismissing this denial by the Obama administration — including its curiously named Justice Department — has been trying hard to discover for itself what’s actually happening at Bagram. In April 2009, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the actual records of the detention and treatment of Bagram prisoners and how they can “challenge their detention.”

As of now, the reality is these prisoners still have no real-time, real-life way of challenging their imprisonment — let alone the conditions of their confinement — under what used to be our laws.

Currently before the courts, there is a rather special and spirited dispute between the ACLU and the Department of Defense. In response to the ACLU FOIA request, the DOD sent to the ACLU, by mistake, a document about the criteria by which prisoners are held at the Bagram detention center. The Obama administration, insisting the document was properly classified, demands it be returned to the DOD.

Until this is resolved, the ACLU can’t tell me what’s in that especially secret document. But it does say, “It contains the criteria for labeling ‘detainees’ an ‘enduring security threat.”’ I know this means “prolonged and possibly indefinite detention.” For some, a death sentence.

I’ve reported that President Obama is a big fan of preventative permanent detention, finding its legality somewhere in his personal constitution. However, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, teaches Obama our rule of law:

“The U.S. military should not be detaining people indefinitely, based on secret criteria, in a war with no foreseeable end,” Shamsi said. “Having seen the enduring security threat criteria, we can say without a doubt that nothing about them is properly classifiable or could pose any threat to national security if disclosed.

“The government should never have classified this document in the first place, and it is simply indefensible that it continues to seek suppression of the document now.” When the FOIA request was made in 2009, she adds, there were about 600 held at Bagram. “That number has now nearly tripled, and Bagram detainees still do not have access to a court or independent and impartial tribunal to determine the legality of their detention.”

I’ll keep you informed on how this battle turns out. Does any presidential aspirant of either party have anything to say?

Oh, and let’s not forget: Despite Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay, it’s still open. Now he has two Guantanamos.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.

Earthlings Trailer (by mpeniak)

http://www.martinpeniak.com Powerful, informative, controversial and thought-provoking, Earthlings is by far the most comprehensive documentary ever produced on the correlation between nature, animals and human economic interests. See Earthlings: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#

Source: youtube.com

Fireside: Still Torturing in “Black Sites” Under Obama (by TheAlyonaShow)

Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Base, has a huge prison that can house up to 2600 detainees, and despite the Pentagon’s denials there are more out there. The AP’s Kim Dozier released a report detailing what that “more” is. According to this report, there are roughly twenty secretive, “temporary” prison sites in Afghanistan run by the Joint Special Operations Command.

Source: youtube.com

US probes hacker threat over #WikiLeaks soldier #Anonymous #BradleyManning

The hacker group Anonymous is reportedly seeking to disrupt activities at the Quantico, Virginia base

Enlarge

The image of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is seen on the whistleblowing website. The Pentagon said Tuesday it had requested an investigation into a hack group’s reported threat against a military base that is being used to hold a US soldier suspected of giving documents to WikiLeaks.

The Pentagon said Tuesday it had requested an investigation into a hacker group’s reported cyber threat against a military base that is being used to hold a US soldier suspected of giving documents to WikiLeaks.

Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan said the probe was requested after news that the hacker group called Anonymous was seeking to disrupt online activities at the Quantico, Virginia, base where Private Bradley Manning is incarcerated.

“The base at Quantico, including the brig, are aware of that and they have made law enforcement agencies aware of that as well,” Lapan said.

The Financial Times reported that hackers known as “Anonymous,” which had claimed credit for attacks supporting WikiLeaks in recent months, was seeking to disrupt communications at the US Marine base.

Manning, 23, has been held at the prison since July under a maximum security regimen because authorities say his escape would pose a risk to national security.

The army private faces numerous charges of stealing classified files and is suspected as the source of a trove of secret documents published on the WikiLeaks website in recent months, which have infuriated and embarrassed US officials.

US military authorities brought additional charges against Manning last week, accusing him of illegally downloading vast numbers of secret government files and “aiding the enemy.”

His defense lawyers have filed a legal complaint over the conditions of his detention at Quantico, which include a “prevention of injury” watch, which his lawyer said includes being forced to sleep naked.

His supporters say the regimen is inhumane and has been deemed unnecessary by psychiatric experts.

The WikiLeaks website has yet to disclose its source for the US military and diplomatic documents published in recent months, but suspicion has focused on Manning, who worked as a low-ranking army intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Manning was arrested in May and authorities have yet to say when he will be put on trial. If found guilty, Manning faces up to 52 years in prison.

In December, the loose-knit group of hackers known as Anonymous staged cyber attacks on the websites of Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and others accusing them of withdrawing services to WikiLeaks.

The Truth Behind Quantico Brig's Decision to Strip PFC Manning

The Brig has stripped PFC Manning of all of his clothing for the past three nights, and they intend to continue this practice indefinitely.  Each night, Brig guards force PFC Manning to relinquish all of his clothing.  He then lies in a cold jail cell naked until the following morning, when he is required to endure the humiliation of standing naked at attention for the morning roll call.  According to Marine spokesperson, First Lieutenant Brian Villiard, the decision to strip him naked every night is for PFC Manning’s own protection.  Villiard stated that it would be “inappropriate” to explain what prompted these actions ”because to discuss the details would be a violation of PFC Manning’s privacy.”

The defense communicated with both PFC Manning and the Brig forensic psychiatrist and learned more about the decision to strip PFC Manning of his clothing every night.  On Wednesday March 2, 2011, PFC Manning was told that his Article 138 complaint requesting that he be removed from Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury (POI) Watch had been denied by the Quantico commander, Colonel Daniel J. Choike.  Understandably frustrated by this decision after enduring over seven months of unduly harsh confinement conditions, PFC Manning inquired of the Brig operations officer what he needed to do in order to be downgraded from Maximum custody and POI.  As even Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell has stated, PFC Manning has been nothing short of “exemplary” as a detainee.  Additionally, Brig forensic psychiatrists have consistently maintained that there is no mental health justification for the POI Watch imposed on PFC Manning.  In response to PFC Manning’s question, he was told that there was nothing he could do to downgrade his detainee status and that the Brig simply considered him a risk of self-harm.  PFC Manning then remarked that the POI restrictions were “absurd” and sarcastically stated that if he wanted to harm himself, he could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops. 

Without consulting any Brig mental health provider, Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes used PFC’s Manning’s sarcastic quip as justification to increase the restrictions imposed upon him under the guise of being concerned that PFC Manning was a suicide risk.  PFC Manning was not, however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk Watch.  This is because Suicide Risk Watch would have required a Brig mental health provider’s recommendation, which the Brig commander did not have.  In response to this specific incident, the Brig psychiatrist assessed PFC Manning as “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient followup [with] no need for … closer clinical observation.”  In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning’s statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition.” 

While the commander needed the Brig psychiatrist’s recommendation to place PFC Manning on Suicide Risk Watch, no such recommendation was needed in order to increase his restrictions under POI Watch.  The conditions of POI Watch require only psychiatric input, but ultimately remain the decision of the commander. 

Given these circumstances, the decision to strip PFC Manning of his clothing every night for an indefinite period of time is clearly punitive in nature.  There is no mental health justification for the decision.  There is no basis in logic for this decision.  PFC Manning is under 24 hour surveillance, with guards never being more than a few feet away from his cell.  PFC Manning is permitted to have his underwear and clothing during the day, with no apparent concern that he will harm himself during this time period.  Moreover, if Brig officials were genuinely concerned about PFC Manning using either his underwear or flip-flops to harm himself (despite the recommendation of the Brig’s psychiatrist) they could undoubtedly provide him with clothing that would not, in their view, present a risk of self-harm.  Indeed, Brig officials have provided him other items such as tear-resistant blankets and a mattress with a built-in pillow due to their purported concerns. 

The Brig’s treatment of PFC Manning is shameful.  It is made even more so by the Brig hiding behind concerns for “[PFC] Manning’s privacy.”  There is no justification, and there can be no justification, for treating a detainee in this degrading and humiliating manner.

drinkthe-koolaid: whenitstrikesme: drinkthe-koolaid: whenitstrikesme: elledark: Ratcheting the breaking of Bradley Manning up a notch Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has been imprisoned at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for nearly a year under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. He has recently been charged with 22 offences and could face the death penalty.Why ? Well Bradley Manning is a whistle-blower. Through his leaks we know about a civilian massacre the army covered up in Iraq and the numerous lies it has told about civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The cumulative effect of the leaked logs is to paint a realistic picture of both of these illegal and immoral wars that is totally at odds with the happy-clappy government spin. There is no evidence and no serious suggestion that anything leaked by Wikileaks has in any way compromised American security or put lives at risk. Anyone who argues to the contrary must produce specific and credible proof or be ignored. At a time when 60% of the American public oppose the disastrous Afghan ‘war’ Manning is an American hero who has performed a service for his country.How is his country repaying his principled action ? For 23 hours a day this young man is totally isolated in his cell.  There he is barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions.  For reasons that appear completely punitive, he is denied the most basic amenities, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch).  In the one hour a day he is let out of his tiny cell he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. He is made to take drugs, allegedly to counteract the mentally damaging mental effects of long-term solitary confinement.They have now ratcheted up his torment. According to the latest reports he is being forced to strip naked for 7 hours stretches and also to stand naked outside his cell while he is ‘inspected’.  By the time his trial comes around the chances are they will have succeeded in their aims and he will be broken in mind and spirit.  Why are we seeing this blatant continuation of some of the worst aspects of the Bush regime when Obama campaigned on the need to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers ? How does he reconcile this with his conscience ? Doesn’t the hypocrisy make him gag ?Seriously, if this was happening under a right-wing fascist regime like George W Bush then decent Americans would be up in arms. So why the hesitancy to loudly and unequivocally slam Obama for doing exactly the things that were so despised about Bush ? I know in Americas two-party faux-democracy Obama may seem to represent the least-worst alternative, the acceptable face of corporate control, and I know a lot of liberals had much hope and faith invested in him but come on .. to give him a pass on this is craven and self-delusional. This is utterly despicable and exactly the kind of abuse Obama was expected to end.It doesn’t matter that Bush was 100% awful and Obama is perhaps only 90% awful. Its not about degrees of awfulness its about right and wrong and this is equally wrong whoever is doing it. Right now its Obama. The buck stops there. No excuses, he must be held accountable. Bradley Manning is not a hero.  I’m certainly no conservative and I’m not Hawkish, nor do I hope he gets the death penalty.  But you cannot pretend that all he did was leak the helicopter tape. He allegedly passed hundreds of thousands of unredacted classified documents to unauthorized persons. Wikileaks did do some diligence to mitigate damage when they leaked many of those documents, but that does not in any way change Manning’s crime. I’m not commenting on the humanity of how he’s being treated in prison, by the by. How are we supposed to have an open democracy if people are punished for telling the truth? If anyone has put our soldiers in danger, it’s the politicians who have been systematically tearing apart the Middle East for decades now, not some 22 year old soldier. Get your facts straight. That’s all irrelevant to my point. You’re talking politics, not facts. Bradley Manning was a soldier with access to classified documents. Based on the allegations (none of which have been proven yet, but no one really seems to be disputing with any fervor) he knowingly and recklessly stole and distributed a cache that may have been in excess of 200,000 classified files and handed them over to individuals who were not authorized to see them.  These documents were in no way limited to the helicopter video or the embarrassing state department cables. They included matters of real national security (such as the listing of infrastructure sites deemed to be the most vulnerable to attack — which wikileaks partially redacted).  You could make the whistleblower argument if he was careful and passed along only meritorious documentation; however, that’s not what he’s believed to have done.  You may well know more than me about the case, as I haven’t followed it as closely as perhaps I should and please correct me if any of the alleged facts I set forth above are incorrect. That said, you cannot ignore the fact that this guy stole and transferred to unauthorized persons for the purpose of widespread dissemination on the Internet classified documents (some of which dealt with national securities, some of which embarrassed the state department, and some of which showed that we are committing what might be called war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and through rendition). You might find merit what he did in outing the wrongs committed by our military, but please explain to me (1) the merit of the state department cables from a whistleblower and (2) how leaking unrelated information regarding national security is not a crime.  It is.  It’s that simple.* * All with the caveat that what is alleged to have been done by Manning actually was done by him. If what I said is politics and not facts then that argument also applies to what you said. The core difference we have here is: what does the government have a right to keep secret from it’s citizens? In my opnion, if my government is committing war crimes then I have a right to know. Theoretically, our government is supposed to govern with our permission. I do not give my government permission to kill innocent people. The fact that this was classified was not to protect anyone, but rather to keep us in the dark. If Bradley Manning’s actions directly put anyone in danger we can talk about that all you want, but unfortunately that is pretty much impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The only people in any danger are those who make millions from the Military/Industrial Complex, and even they are only in financial danger. Call it politics all you want, but those are facts.
Pop-upView Separately

drinkthe-koolaid:

whenitstrikesme:

drinkthe-koolaid:

whenitstrikesme:

elledark:

Ratcheting the breaking of Bradley Manning up a notch

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has been imprisoned at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for nearly a year under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. He has recently been charged with 22 offences and could face the death penalty.

Why ? Well Bradley Manning is a whistle-blower. Through his leaks we know about a civilian massacre the army covered up in Iraq and the numerous lies it has told about civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The cumulative effect of the leaked logs is to paint a realistic picture of both of these illegal and immoral wars that is totally at odds with the happy-clappy government spin.

There is no evidence and no serious suggestion that anything leaked by Wikileaks has in any way compromised American security or put lives at risk. Anyone who argues to the contrary must produce specific and credible proof or be ignored. At a time when 60% of the American public oppose the disastrous Afghan ‘war’ Manning is an American hero who has performed a service for his country.

How is his country repaying his principled action ? For 23 hours a day this young man is totally isolated in his cell.  There he is barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions.  For reasons that appear completely punitive, he is denied the most basic amenities, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch).  In the one hour a day he is let out of his tiny cell he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. He is made to take drugs, allegedly to counteract the mentally damaging mental effects of long-term solitary confinement.

They have now ratcheted up his torment. According to the latest reports he is being forced to strip naked for 7 hours stretches and also to stand naked outside his cell while he is ‘inspected’.  By the time his trial comes around the chances are they will have succeeded in their aims and he will be broken in mind and spirit.  Why are we seeing this blatant continuation of some of the worst aspects of the Bush regime when Obama campaigned on the need to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers ? How does he reconcile this with his conscience ? Doesn’t the hypocrisy make him gag ?

Seriously, if this was happening under a right-wing fascist regime like George W Bush then decent Americans would be up in arms. So why the hesitancy to loudly and unequivocally slam Obama for doing exactly the things that were so despised about Bush ? I know in Americas two-party faux-democracy Obama may seem to represent the least-worst alternative, the acceptable face of corporate control, and I know a lot of liberals had much hope and faith invested in him but come on .. to give him a pass on this is craven and self-delusional. This is utterly despicable and exactly the kind of abuse Obama was expected to end.

It doesn’t matter that Bush was 100% awful and Obama is perhaps only 90% awful. Its not about degrees of awfulness its about right and wrong and this is equally wrong whoever is doing it.

Right now its Obama. The buck stops there. No excuses, he must be held accountable.

Bradley Manning is not a hero.  I’m certainly no conservative and I’m not Hawkish, nor do I hope he gets the death penalty.  But you cannot pretend that all he did was leak the helicopter tape. He allegedly passed hundreds of thousands of unredacted classified documents to unauthorized persons.

Wikileaks did do some diligence to mitigate damage when they leaked many of those documents, but that does not in any way change Manning’s crime.

I’m not commenting on the humanity of how he’s being treated in prison, by the by.

How are we supposed to have an open democracy if people are punished for telling the truth? If anyone has put our soldiers in danger, it’s the politicians who have been systematically tearing apart the Middle East for decades now, not some 22 year old soldier. Get your facts straight.

That’s all irrelevant to my point. You’re talking politics, not facts. Bradley Manning was a soldier with access to classified documents. Based on the allegations (none of which have been proven yet, but no one really seems to be disputing with any fervor) he knowingly and recklessly stole and distributed a cache that may have been in excess of 200,000 classified files and handed them over to individuals who were not authorized to see them.  These documents were in no way limited to the helicopter video or the embarrassing state department cables. They included matters of real national security (such as the listing of infrastructure sites deemed to be the most vulnerable to attack — which wikileaks partially redacted). 

You could make the whistleblower argument if he was careful and passed along only meritorious documentation; however, that’s not what he’s believed to have done.  You may well know more than me about the case, as I haven’t followed it as closely as perhaps I should and please correct me if any of the alleged facts I set forth above are incorrect. That said, you cannot ignore the fact that this guy stole and transferred to unauthorized persons for the purpose of widespread dissemination on the Internet classified documents (some of which dealt with national securities, some of which embarrassed the state department, and some of which showed that we are committing what might be called war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and through rendition).

You might find merit what he did in outing the wrongs committed by our military, but please explain to me (1) the merit of the state department cables from a whistleblower and (2) how leaking unrelated information regarding national security is not a crime.  It is.  It’s that simple.*

* All with the caveat that what is alleged to have been done by Manning actually was done by him.

If what I said is politics and not facts then that argument also applies to what you said. The core difference we have here is: what does the government have a right to keep secret from it’s citizens? In my opnion, if my government is committing war crimes then I have a right to know. Theoretically, our government is supposed to govern with our permission. I do not give my government permission to kill innocent people. The fact that this was classified was not to protect anyone, but rather to keep us in the dark. If Bradley Manning’s actions directly put anyone in danger we can talk about that all you want, but unfortunately that is pretty much impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only people in any danger are those who make millions from the Military/Industrial Complex, and even they are only in financial danger. Call it politics all you want, but those are facts.

(via )

Source: elledark

Top