right-wing fanatic Marc Thiessen: WikiLeaks must be stopped

That's not my call. But I wouldn't want the blood of one of my countrymen on my hands.
Problem is that the guy doing the leaking doesn't care for anything but his own celebrity.
As for the NY Times, they have no credibility at all...

That's not my call. But I wouldn't want the blood of one of my countrymen on my hands.
Problem is that the guy doing the leaking doesn't care for anything but his own celebrity.
As for the NY Times, they have no credibility at all... Originally Posted by John Bull

NYT is quite concientious about going through documents and removing names and other information that could put a person at risk. I would bet that if the Wall Street Journal was given the same opportunity they would do exactly the same thing.

NYT is quite concientious about going through documents and removing names and other information that could put a person at risk. I would bet that if the Wall Street Journal was given the same opportunity they would do exactly the same thing. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I'll take your word for it DG.
For my part, they lost me with all the plagiarism incidents and their seeming reluctance to take the proper steps in a timely fashion.

Additionally, WikiLeaks offered the government the chance to tell them what they thought should be redacted and why. For reasons that escape me, the government refused.

"that useless private did and he should be fried for war time treason"

Bingo I hope that scumbag (Private Bradley Manning)is executed for his treason.As far as assange goes I'll qoute sun tzu "If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told"

Just like these guys were. That should happen to traitors.

As far as assange goes I'll qoute sun tzu "If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told"

Just like these guys were. That should happen to traitors. Originally Posted by macksback

All very well to quote from Sun Tzu. I - and I'm sure others - will claim that the publication by the NYT is not treason and seems like the courts would agree. Consider that the US govt has not made any move to prosecute the NYT.

Leaving those debates aside, under what definition could Assange possibly be a traitor to the US? He is not a US citizen, he has never sworn allegiance to the US.

The people who voluntarily go into the military do sign a contract waving their Constitutional rights in favor of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 106a covers treason/espionage. The punishment for treason can be death or life in prison and during a time of war it typically carries the maximum penalty, death.

There would be no parole for the individual and even if he managed to be released, a dishonorable discharge would follow him for the rest of his/her life.

The people who voluntarily go into the military do sign a contract waving their Constitutional rights in favor of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 106a covers treason/espionage. The punishment for treason can be death or life in prison and during a time of war it typically carries the maximum penalty, death.

There would be no parole for the individual and even if he managed to be released, a dishonorable discharge would follow him for the rest of his/her life. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

What he said. Make an example of PFC Manning and execute him.

While I oppose the death penalty (yeah, I can see the shocked looks on your faces), I completely agree that if PFC Manning is guilty of sending out stuff to wikileak that he should suffer consequences for it.

Manning's offense was at least as bad as Scooter Libby's. They should receive the same penalty.

But I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons, the least of which is that it is not a deterrent. Real punishments are deterrents. In this scenario, though, people do what they do out of principle, regardless of the existence of the death penalty.

In this scenario, though, people do what they do out of principle, regardless of the existence of the death penalty. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I don't believe Manning's actions reflect any principles. I suspect Manning was being childishly vindictive because somebody in his chain-of-command didn't approve his lollipop ration. IMO, had he been acting on principle, he would not have anonymously bragged to others about his seditious activities. Instead, he would have kept a low profile and continued to compromise U.S. security in order to continue to do harm to the U.S.’ war effort, or, conversely, he would have been much more public in revealing and admitting to his actions.

Manning's offense was at least as bad as Scooter Libby's. They should receive the same penalty.

But I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons, the least of which is that it is not a deterrent. Real punishments are deterrents. In this scenario, though, people do what they do out of principle, regardless of the existence of the death penalty. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And you think a kush prison cell with all the accoutrements of a summer hostal is a deterrent? Three square meals, weight rooms, conjugal visits ( in some prisons ), all the drugs a bribed guard can smuggle in, tv's, computer access, a "free" education, ( some ) states fighting for felons to have the right to vote, et.al. All bought and paid for by the taxes of the people they victimize.

I'm am aware of incarcerations that are happenstance where people are freed after the fact, but when murderers, pedophiles and rapists are out in 5 to 10, how does it make you feel about the safety of your family and loved ones who are now at risk?

Yeah, crucify some poor Private for leaking a bunch of random and largely harmless diplomatic cables, but let's give probation to a guy who outed a undercover CIA agent for purely partisan political reasons. How fucked up is that?

Yeah, crucify some poor Private for leaking a bunch of random and largely harmless diplomatic cables, but let's give probation to a guy who outed a undercover CIA agent for purely partisan political reasons. How fucked up is that? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Manning is not to be pitied. He bragged that he copied and released those documents for seditious purposes.

Likewise, what Libby did was legally and morally wrong. Yet Joseph Wilson's "partisan political" motives must be questioned as well. After all, it was his imperious criticism of the Bush administration that drew damaging, return fire. In 2004, a Vanity Fair article hinted that there were some who thought Wilson was part of an orchestrated, left-wing conspiracy.

"To some conservative pundits, it seemed incredible that Wilson could have caused such mayhem on his own without the help of some left-wing umbrella group. Clifford May received the following in an e-mail from someone who asked him to check out Wilson's background. The e-mailer wrote:

Think how hard it is to pull off (a trifecta of a Sunday New York Times
op-ed, a Sunday Washington Post story by staff writers Richard Leiby
and Walter Pincus, and an appearance on one of the Sunday talk shows)
even if you're a senior member of the Senate or a top politico.

He added, 'This is sheer brilliance, and it's not Wilson's brilliance that we're seeing.'"

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/va...erie_plame.php

And what was Valerie Plame's role? She was quite literally in bed with him, and she played a significant part in ushering Wilson into the CIA. Beyond that, little can be proved.

The truth behind this story is yet to be revealed in its entirety.

Joe Wilson is an American citizen who has a right to criticize his government without any retaliation. Much less retaliation against his wife. It's was a typical vindictive move against a whistle blower who caught the administration in a red handed lie. And Libby behaved disgracefully. He had all the advantages that society could bestow upon him and a position of trust. None of which this insignificant pipsqueak private has.