If we weren't the "big warmongering" country we have been of late and decided to give peace a chance, there wouldn't be anything to leak.

That said, leaks have to be expected. Journalism is for the most part sensationalism. To be shocking, you have to dig and look for the most outrageous stories to put out there.

This is just another one.

Hell, if our government does the "leaking" as has happened in the recent past, it isn't treason then.

It needs to be fair.

If the information gets out, it gets out.

What else can you do?

This will not be the last time and definitely won't be the worst of it either.

We gave peace a chance and what was the lesson learne? They bombed a couple of embassies, bombed a ship and flew 4 planes up our a$$.

Yea, peace really worked well.

You ask, "if the information gets out it gets out,what can you do?" I say you fry the bastards who let the information out. I do not care what your job is, I do not care what your position is, who yo daddy is or who yo momma is, if yo let something out that is deemed secret, then you should be punished for it. If yo are shown as receiving said information, yo need to be punished as an accomplice to the fact. If you have received it and make it more available to those unauthorized to know of it, Then yo are guilty as the original leaker and need to be fried for leaking secrets.


Wow, what a concept? Punishing a politician when he/she screws up. What will happen to America then?

We weren't giving peace a chance though.
Look up what Clinton did over there in "military actions", it wasn't exactly peaceful actions.

If he's proven guilty of being the one who leaked these documents, I have no problem with him being sentenced to being immediately and permanently oxygen-deprived. This is what SHOULD happen to the people at the New York Times and other 'media' that PUBLISH national secrets. It's called an 'object lesson'. Matter of fact, I have no problem with putting Julian Assange in there to make it a 'two-fer' ...

What about treason trials with the same penalty for the people who told us they knew exactly where Bin Laden, and the WMD's were? they found none of them, but are making millions of dollars from the war!

What about treason trials with the same penalty for the people who told us they knew exactly where Bin Laden, and the WMD's were? they found none of them, but are making millions of dollars from the war!

probably never will get the details on that one,,,who the sources were and what info they actually provided or how it was obtained,,,

I saw the sources on the news, and I heard the info. they provided.


Now, the same sources who told us on the news, they knew for sure where everything was at, are making lots of money from the war; but, never found any WMD's, or Bin Laden.

Ah, the over-reactionary pseudo-patriotic zealots are at it again! Maybe if they actually read about wikileaks, they'll find that the media spin on this is just that-spin. The documents on wikileaks didn't reveal any "new" information or reveal sources. They just confirm what everyone already knew-that the "war" is going badly. It's not the Pentagon Papers or anything even remotely as secret.

As propublica writes,
"What's crucially different from the Pentagon Papers

In terms of important disclosures, it's not even close, with the historical importance of today's documents likely to be relatively minor, and that of the Pentagon Papers enormous. The most significant revelations today include the Taliban's limited use of heat-seeking missiles (which had been previously reported, though little-noticed), and the Pakistani intelligence service's constant double-dealing and occasional cooperation with the Taliban (long the subject of news stories, and even of some official complaints).

In 1971, in contrast, the Pentagon Papers revealed a host of important discrepancies between the public posture of the U.S. government with respect to Vietnam and the truth -- from the Truman administration, through the times of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.

These included Johnson's dissembling during the 1964 presidential campaign and in the run-up to the key decision in 1965 to send large numbers of combat troops, as well as confirmation of U.S. involvement in the 1963 coup against South Vietnamese premier Ngo Dinh Diem. And perhaps most famously, was the evidence that the administration had decided to escalate the war before the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave it the authority to do so.

There are many reasons for the differences between these two troves of documents, but perhaps the most important is that today's documents provide a "ground-level" view of the war, while the Pentagon Papers offered a classic "top-down" perspective. Wars are fought on the ground, and the perspective such a view provides can be invaluable. But many of a war's key secrets, especially in political terms, are generated at the top."

P.S. in case you didn't know, wikileaks also has another bundle of secret documents-which it has threatened to release if anything happens to Assange. Hooray for Assange! End the Military-Industrial complex!

Nice post!


The First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




It is un-American to abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press.

For hundreds of years Americans fought for those rights.



Any citizen of The United States of America fighting against the First Amendment, is a traitor; and deserves the punishment the say traitors should have.

Hmmmmmm. So it is OK for a soldier to yell "Hey enemy! We are over here. Come shoot my hidden buddies!... because he has the freedom of speech?

Duh.

So it's okay to tell the world that we are being lied to,

And.... as the post I complimented pointed out, the lies are bad, and they've been going on, for a long time.

The rules of military justice are what counts.

904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

end quote

The soldier does not get to decide what top secret documents his "freedom of speech" can release. The method of release does not have to be to the enemy directly, it can be made public and becomes an indirect release of information to aid the enemy.

If it is proven that an informant was killed because of information that was leaked in this matter the court of military justice can give him the death penalty. He could get it anyway.

It's the law and "freedom of speech" has nothing to do with it.

Anyone remember the Iran-Contra hearings?

Ollie North ( who i used to like) was being basically tried on TV for suppying arms to Iran.

He did not report to any commander he never revealed who he really worked for but our military and congress and the white house tried to make him an enemy.

It was so cool how he turned it around on them and made them look like fools on National Tv but u know what he did his job still..

To protect the president at any cost which he did because thats the only one who really could give his approval to supply Iran arms..


Why did we do that? They were fighting Iraq whgo at the time had the strongest military in the middle east.. Well we know the rest of the story.

Then what did we do... we supplied Bin Laden the training and Arms to fight soviet helecopters in Aphganistan.

Wow when we want we give our enemies anything they need.. In the background of cource and then its.. DENY DENY DENY..

Remember Bush in the early 2000'w after 911.

I saw a post about Clinton did nothing.... You shouold read up on what Clinton did and how congress stopped him.

But a big denial was the Dr. Rice he turned over to them intel and a plan that was already in motion to kill Bin Laden and where to do it.

What did they do ..they scrapped oit said it was failed intel.. would not even look at it.

It had in it that thier intel said he was getting ready for a major attack against the US on our soil and it was imminent to kill him and wipe out his Al Queda.

No good we will make our own plan and details.

Remember how pissed Clinton got when ABC asked him about Dr Rice saying she got nothiong from his administration?

That was no put on he was totally pissed because he knew they could of possibly prevented 911 and they lied about what was given to them.

Anyone who does have our nations highest secrets have been screened so deep for months if not years before they were given that clearance..

I almost wonder if this young man they knew had problems and used him as a scapegoat being so young and nieve.

It would not be hard to do as a stunt to get us away from something in the background that was going on under our own knows but all we heard was about this.

I wonder what it was anyone have any idea?

I think he should go to prison for several years but i really have never seen anything thats deserves a young mans life ruined forever it is now anywazes.

but u know our people blowing away people who clearly were not shooting at us is murder and that was being covered up.

So his name is Mudd now huh..

Military law over-rides the Constitution?