Stop the torture of Bradley Manning

Or perhaps Wikileaks. It's a dangerous implication.

From the UCMJ:

b) Enemy. “Enemy” includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. “Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.

There's little doubt useful intelligence in vast amounts was realeased to those who oppose the US military, and there's also little doubt that the US own intelligence apparatus was negatively affected by the action - they had to shut down the largest information sharing network any armed forces ever created because of the leak, and there's little doubt that's going to negatively impact survivability of US troops in the future.

I'm aware of that definition. So who does it refer to in this case? Presumably the Taleban etc. Is it also Wikileaks?

So if someone wants to kill you--indeed they're making plans to--but you don't know their name, then you have no enemies?

Hope they execute the treasonous fucker.

Some commentary on "the enemy"...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/pers-m04.shtml

^ That stuff just sounds like tinfoil-hat commentary. Where do you get it? When you won't even post a link to it, it doesn't make it very credible.

I thought I'd included the link, so I've corrected that now. The source is the same as the OP, which no doubt you dislike. Nevertheless, what is wrong with the analysis?

To be perfectly honest: If you have to bother having it spelled out for you, then there is little sense in bothering. Like I said, it's tinfoit-hat stuff. Anyone prone to believing that kind of drivel isn't really open to being told it's drivel.

I'm not open to being told it's drivel, no. That requires some evidence or argument against its claims.

Is it not the case that designation of Wikileaks as "the enemy" would leave it open to some form of attack, including the "rendition" of its founder to a secret prison to be tortured and who knows what else? It's not as if that sort of thing hasn't already been happening to others, or as if there wasn't already a prominent international effort to deprive Assange of his liberty by (to put it mildly) highly dubious means.

And is it not the case that the Nixon administration took the position in 1971 that any leak of classified data was "aiding the enemy"?

Finally, if Manning is "aiding the enemy" in leaking classified information, how can anyone publishing it (presumably then allowing the Taleban to read it) be said not to be doing so?

These are serious attacks on the freedom of the press, as has been the response to Wikileaks generally.

^ Wether or not you agree w/ wikileaks, Manning is a traitor who violated his oath and his duty and deserves everything coming to him, probably more.

Oh, and you (and your quack commentaries) have posted no evidence that Wiki is the "enemy". Until you do it is just drivel. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, not others to disprove it. Strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. What has been noted is that "the enemy" has not been named, perhaps deliberately, meaning that it could be taken to mean Wikileaks.

It "could" be, but until you prove this wild claim, it is just that.

Correct. That's all that is being said.

Your post 371 went far beyond that.

It is wild speculation by people who are anti-US and comes with no evidence. If Fox News had put out a commentary like that on something you were opposed to you'd be hopping up and down about how biased and stupid it was.

It did not. The implication is conditional.

...designation of Wikileaks as "the enemy" would leave it open to...

"I'm not open to being told it's drivel, no. That requires some evidence or argument against its claims." is what you posted. Wrong. It requires evidence and proof on your part to prove it is anything but drivel.

Jesus H. Christ. My post is right there and you can't even quote it accurately.

Since there was no claim made that this certainly does refer to Wikileaks, no "proof" of that is required, nor has such proof been implied to exist. You are the one resorting to strawmen.

Who cares exactly who the enemy is Rick?

The guy knowingly and deliberately violated his oath. He knew full well what he was doing and the possible consequences.

Send him to prison (at least) and be done with it.

Since when have you given a rats ass about a member of the American military anyway?

Anyone who cares about freedom of the press, if a legal media organisation is being labelled as such.

Since this one started exposing the crimes and duplicity of said military.
Of course, contrary to the nonsense frequently repeated around here, I don't hold anyone connected to the US armed forces to be "evil" or anything of the sort.

How is this different than any other prisoner in a maximum security prison? Show me where it is torture to force other prisoners to undergo the same treatment.

Reread the third paragraph.

So, by your own admission, you only care about a member of the U.S. military when they are violating their oath, committing treason in an effort to paint the U.S. military in a bad light.

And you might not realize it but "freedom of the press" is not and has never been unlimited and unconditional.

Nor should it be.

Not even close to what I said.

You are entitled to your fascist views. I do not share them.

So by RickyRetardo's definition of free press the US would have been obligated to allow Japanese and Nazi press access to our military during WWII. After all freedom of the press trumps all. Oh that is unless you're Fox News in which case you have no rights.

Nope. Freedom to report whatever you wish (which I support) does not imply unlimited access to the military or any other organisation.

Let's see how many more strawmen you can construct. And....go!

So what limit would you impose, Henry? Looking for a consistent standard here, and not blatant ideological favoritism.

On freedom of the press to say whatever they wished? None whatever. Up to and including sedition.

That contradicts the exclusion of "unlimited access to the military or any other organisation".