Wikileaks to release more info

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

How many assumptions did you make in that paragraph?

Way too many.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

You are correct with Assange but PFC Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen and therefore open to a charge of treason. We simply don't know the breadth of damage his actions may or may not have caused. There are certainly assets in the field that have been compromised. Whether these assets have or might be liquidated is now a concern. If Manning is found guilty he should be shot (but we probably don't have the balls to do so).

Per the United States Constitution, Article 3, § 3:

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.

Though what constitutes "aid and comfort" to the "enemies" of the United States, can vary on a case-by-case basis, I haven't seen anything that would indicate PFC Manning meets either of the two constitutionally-required criteria. Did he give anything to an enemy of the United States? (Assange doesn't count -- we are not at war with him.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Way too many.

Seriously, these were diplomatic cables (emails in reality), not messages sent to spies, excuse me, assets who have since been shot, i mean liquidated.

Someone watches way too much Chuck.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Way too many.

Per the United States Constitution, Article 3, § 3:

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.

Though what constitutes "aid and comfort" to the "enemies" of the United States, can vary on a case-by-case basis, I haven't seen anything that would indicate PFC Manning meets either of the two constitutionally-required criteria. Did he give anything to an enemy of the United States? (Assange doesn't count -- we are not at war with him.)

I believe a good lawyer could make the case that by deliberately giving a foreign national classified documents he was in turn giving aid and comfort to our ememies. It does not state that the aid has to be directly given to our enemies. This may be splitting hairs but isn't that what lawyers do? If assets (read informants/spys/diplomats) were compromised he could be considered to have rendered aid to our enemies. If a soldier loses his/her life due to one or more of these leaked documents that would also be aid to the enemy.

I think it is a moot point though as we, with our current DOJ, don't have the guts to bring him up on treason charges. He will be found guilty of some series of lesser charges and put into prison for the rest of his life. He will become a pariah to most and a hero to the wacky few and every few years there will be an uproar and petition to release him.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I believe a good lawyer could make the case that by deliberately giving a foreign national classified documents he was in turn giving aid and comfort to our ememies. It does not state that the aid has to be directly given to our enemies. This may be splitting hairs but isn't that what lawyers do? If assets (read informants/spys/diplomats) were compromised he could be considered to have rendered aid to our enemies. If a soldier loses his/her life due to one or more of these leaked documents that would also be aid to the enemy.

I think it is a moot point though as we, with our current DOJ, don't have the guts to bring him up on treason charges. He will be found guilty of some series of lesser charges and put into prison for the rest of his life. He will become a pariah to most and a hero to the wacky few and every few years there will be an uproar and petition to release him.

Funny how you're talking to a "good lawyer" and still think you know better...

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Funny how you're talking to a "good lawyer" and still think you know better...

Funny how you try to find things in many (read your posts in other threads) peoples posts to start your little cat fights. I won't play in your litter box.

I presume MC is a good lawyer but really don't know him except through these posts and neither do you. He seems very competent and knowledgable. He and I may disagree but we both know it is not personal. You on the other hand revel in the vitriol. I meant know offense to him and think you know that.

I apologize to MC if he has taken offense to my comment. It was a general statement and not directed to/at him.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I believe a good lawyer could make the case that by deliberately giving a foreign national classified documents he was in turn giving aid and comfort to our ememies.

As a lawyer (good or not is debatable DF ), I do not agree.

It does not state that the aid has to be directly given to our enemies.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." More has to happen than the information getting to enemies of the United States. A traitor must actually "adhere" -- affirmatively join with and give allegience or support to -- our enemies.

This may be splitting hairs but isn't that what lawyers do?

Sometimes, when the law will support the splitting of the hairs. A court buying the splitting of hairs is a different matter, particularly if we're talking about SCOUTS.

I would have thought that someone who has expressed sympathy for the Tea Party movement would be more concerned with strict adherence to the Constitution than with splitting hairs.

I think it is a moot point though as we, with our current DOJ, don't have the guts to bring him up on treason charges.

I'd say that if he's not brought up on treason charges, it has nothing to do with the current administration and everything to do with the constitutional definition of treason and the Rule of Law.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Funny how you try to find things in many (read your posts in other threads) peoples posts to start your little cat fights. I won't play in your litter box.

Because you're stuck in the sandbox with the other Keyboard Kommandos.

Seriously, you make a post full of assumptions with no backing and then follow it up with your ITG decisiveness while deriding the "current DOJ" for not having the male gonads to do what YOU think should be done. Therefore if they don't do it, it's because they're cowards, not because it's not the right choice. Good to know that you, with your high level government and military experience are here to correct these testicle-lacking wimps.

[agzg]

Harold James Nicholson, Aldrich Ames, and Robert Hanssen pretty clearly committed treason.

I'm not sure what PFC Manning did amounts to much more than a leak (on a large scale). I don't believe Scooter Libby was charged with treason, but with obstruction of justice and perjury.

[DrPhil]

LOL. I can see why Drolefille perceived a particular tone in Ghostwriter's post. The power of the written word.

As MysticCat seems to have figured out, I think Ghostwriter was simply using this instance to make case that a "good lawyer" can argue anything even if it doesn't make sense at face value (and even if the lawyer himself/herself doesn't personally agree with it). I definitely see that point but that's where the splitting hairs comes in and I agree with MysticCat that attempting to make such a case doesn't mean it will be done effectively. Whether it is done effectively in terms of outcome is what makes the difference and arguably makes one a "good lawyer." Lawyers can sell it, even as eloquently and convincing as possible, but it doesn't mean that anyone will really buy it.

It's good to know that this Assange(?) dude is now in custody. I hope no one really believes that his arrest isn't tied to the WikiLeaks, as officials claim. There are few coincidences in life.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As a lawyer (good or not is debatable DF ), I do not agree.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." More has to happen than the information getting to enemies of the United States. A traitor must actually "adhere" -- affirmatively join with and give allegience or support to -- our enemies.

Sometimes, when the law will support the splitting of the hairs. A court buying the splitting of hairs is a different matter, particularly if we're talking about SCOUTS.

I would have thought that someone who has expressed sympathy for the Tea Party movement would be more concerned with strict adherence to the Constitution than with splitting hairs.

I'd say that if he's not brought up on treason charges, it has nothing to do with the current administration and everything to do with the constitutional definition of treason and the Rule of Law.

MC, please read my previous post. I apologize if you thought I was belittling your abilities. I was not.

I see an "or" in the Constitution which kind of changes my perception of what it means. I.E. - or ... giving them aid and comfort. This is where the lawyers could/would split hairs.

Where I might see a case for treason others obviously will not. I believe the charge of treason in a military court could stand as the methodology for trying a person is somewhat different from what we laymen see in our everyday judicial system. Not an expert on military trials but just an opinion.

As we have discussed before, I am a States Rights advocate though I do believe in the Tea Party movement and much of what it stands for/against.

Our DOJ is a joke. For years now we have enforced laws that we conveniently chose and ignored those that are not what we politically wish them to be. This goes for the Bush/Clinton/Bush and Obama administrations. But that is another thread.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. I can see why Drolefille perceived a particular tone in Ghostwriter's post. The power of the written word.

As MysticCat seems to have figured out, I think Ghostwriter was simply using this instance to make case that a "good lawyer" can argue anything even if it doesn't make sense at face value (and even if the lawyer himself/herself doesn't personally agree with it). I definitely see that point but that's where the splitting hairs comes in and I agree with MysticCat that attempting to make such a case doesn't mean it will be done effectively. Whether it is done effectively in terms of outcome is what makes the difference and arguably makes one a "good lawyer." Lawyers can sell it, even as eloquently and convincing as possible, but it doesn't mean that anyone will really buy it.

It's good to know that this Assange(?) dude is now in custody. I hope no one really believes that his arrest isn't tied to the WikiLeaks, as officials claim. There are few coincidences in life.

Oh that post I didn't have a tone issue with, I just made a snarky comment about the fact he was actually talking with one. The first post where he's guns a-blazing has the tone issue.

I don't even know about the rape charges. I hate to doubt a victim, but there have been such conflicting stories about what the victims have said, and how the prosecutors in Sweden have handled this that I don't even know what the facts are.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

Harold James Nicholson, Aldrich Ames, and Robert Hanssen pretty clearly committed treason.

I'm not sure what PFC Manning did amounts to much more than a leak (on a large scale). I don't believe Scooter Libby was charged with treason, but with obstruction of justice and perjury.

Yeah, but Libby didn't leak anything classified to anyone as far as I can see. This makes it apples and oranges compared to Manning who deliberately did so. Bob Novak (RIP) was the one who leaked Valerie Plames' name.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I don't even know about the rape charges. I hate to doubt a victim, but there have been such conflicting stories about what the victims have said, and how the prosecutors in Sweden have handled this that I don't even know what the facts are.

Yeah, we'll certainly see what's going on with those rape charges soon enough, I think.

Although the victim blaming has taken a different route this time: Instead of "she deserved it" it's "she trapped him because she's a radical feminist!"

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Yeah, but Libby didn't leak anything classified to anyone as far as I can see. This makes it apples and oranges compared to Manning who deliberately did so. Bob Novak (RIP) was the one who leaked Valerie Plames' name.

Bob Novak was the journalist, not the source of the leak. Also, there was no evidence that he knew she was a covert officer.

Regardless of whether or not Libby was the one who pulled the trigger (I have my own doubts, there), he was the fall guy, and has been convicted, therefore takes the blame. You better believe the source of the leak in the Plame case did it deliberately.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Because you're stuck in the sandbox with the other Keyboard Kommandos.

Seriously, you make a post full of assumptions with no backing and then follow it up with your ITG decisiveness while deriding the "current DOJ" for not having the male gonads to do what YOU think should be done. Therefore if they don't do it, it's because they're cowards, not because it's not the right choice. Good to know that you, with your high level government and military experience are here to correct these testicle-lacking wimps.

Yawn! Your honor, I rest my case.