But if you're a foreign national supporting a traitor doesn't that make you, at the very least, an enemy of the United States?
Circular reasoning, unless Wikileaks was already considered an enemy of the United States. And Manning is NOT charged with treason.
Lawyer reasoning... Someone gave Wikileaks the information. The information was classified. Therefore, someone committed treason in releasing it. That Manning has not been charged is not really pertinent to the point that treason has been committed by someone. But if it makes you feel better to score that point, then, yes. You're right up to that point. Wikileaks had already been releasing information considered damaging to the U.S. so, yes, they were already considered by many to be an enemy of the U.S. That this administration hasn't, seemingly, done much about it hardly proves anything considering who were talking about on that score.
Leaking classified material is not treason unless it was specifically to an enemy of the United States, and even then only if it helps them. Since Wikileaks is not an enemy of the United States, Manning has not been, and will not be, charged with treason. You can't just make up new definitions of treason to try to get Wikileaks declared an enemy of the US.
I don't know how leaking classified information to the WHOLE GODDAMNED WORLD doesn't qualify as leaking it to an enemy. And I don't see how it doesn't help them. The person who made the leaks is a traitor.
Thanks for quoting the Constitution because it shows that I'm right. By giving secret information to all comers, including the enemies we are fighting, Assange has shown himself to be an enemy of the United States. As well, the person who gave the information to him, knowing full well that it would be distributed broadly, is most definitely, a traitor. We are in a state of war. The leaker is giving our enemies aid. Assange is supporting the leaker. Case closed.
I might agree except that it's way too easy to be in a state of war. If you think about it, we're always at war with someone, whether it be birds in the air or boots on the ground. When it's the "world", then it's much simpler for a supposedly well meaning interpretation of the law could be used to make everyone look like traitors if they are caught "giving aid" to the "enemy". The word "traitor", at least these days, should be thrown around as rarely and as delicately as possible.
I'm pretty sure we have laws about top secret and classified material. If this guy didn't have a huge "insurance policy" in place he would be apprehended and brought to justice. It's a good thing for him that healthcare passed - after what he did most insurance providers would yell "Whoa! Preexisting condition - lack of discretion and brains!" and can said insurance policy.
The US is virtually always "in a state of war". That shit gets old, and is no excuse for either state-sponsored murder or restricting freedoms.
It doesn't work that way. There's this pesky 1st amendment, and the whole "freedom of the press" thing. Which is why he hasn't been charged with treason. Circular reasoning, until Manning is charged with treason (which would indicate that Wikileaks was already an enemy of the US, or that your novel idea that what intermediaries do with information determines what the original leaker is charged with has been validated by the courts, insofar as the prosecution hasn't been laughed out of court). By the way, are you also going to start calling for the arrest of anyone in the US involved with the AP, New York Times, and the 3 other news agencies who have been releasing the cables independently of WL in this country alone? Shall we invade Britain and shut down the Guardian?
Talk about twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend something hideous you like... First of all, tell me your opinion of the person that leaked the material. What should happen to them? Let's get that out of the way because your answer to that will answer whether I even bother continuing the rest of this.
... That post was made in the Blue Room...why the fuck are you not only using information from that room, but posting a link to it?
He should be charged with unauthorized access to a computer system, and whatever the UCMJ dictates in regards to revealing classified material (which is not treason).
Because he's scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything at all he can use in here, of course. Which is only more evidence of just how pathetically weak his skills are.
So you're just going the simple route on the charge when it's obvious (to everyone else on the planet, at least) that he knew full well what would happen with the data he released? You see, if he were just a whistleblower, there are plenty of other routes he could've taken that would've addressed his problem in more reliable, less dangerous to national security ways. There are laws and procedures that protect the whistleblower from these kinds of repercussions. The way he did it means he's in for a world of trouble. But his actions did aid and abet enemies of the U.S. and put our troops in danger. It seems that his and Assange's supporters are so caught up in their glee at some politician getting his or her comeuppance that they're willing to overlook or downplay that simple fact.
Web definitions for espionage: •Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. ... •The act or process of learning secret information through clandestine means; Undercover work; Spying as reconnaissance •The practice of obtaining secrets (spying) from rivals or enemies for military, political, or economic advantage using illegal or unethical methods. I think Assange's activities certainly meet those definitions.
Dear Little Miss Sanctimony, If you've got 250 bucks just laying around, why didn't you practice the Kool Aid you bought into in school and spread that money around to the homeless people on the streets. Wikileaks has more than enough money without your pity.
If Assange does, then so do a large proportion of journalists. The US government (and several other governments) are effectively trying to criminalise dissent.
That may apply to Private Manning, although I'd argue that the moral requirement to blow the whistle on this stuff overrides whatever oath he took. It certainly does not apply to Julian Assange.
