U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

reply to post by gncnew


The given examples are too simplified and self-contained.
Would I like to know what everyone around me does or think? No, but when it is done in my name, or the consequences come back to affect ME for actions I did not commit, you can bet your ass I would like to know.

Originally posted by gncnew


This oath isn't a conditional thing. It's not an oath with a disclaimer for "as long as you don't have an issue with the info" just in case you find something you disagree with or think is morally reprehensible.

Here is the thing. You swear and oath to the country, and its Constitution, first.

www.history.army.mil...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That "domestic enemies" mention? Well, sometimes it can be your military officers and President. I would hope that any military person would refuse to participate in a military coup of our country, even if their commanding officers said they had to.

Your loyalty is to your country and Constitution first, your government second. Its the whole reason we have the right to bear arms, and some of the founding fathers mentioned that sometimes the government might need a good kick in the butt. We arent founded on blind obedience to our leaders. We are founded on the right of the people to determine the course of this country, and right now the media and the government keep us in the dark about the truth of what our leaders and their sugar daddies are up to.

I think transparency is a good thing, and if we werent treated like mushrooms, we wouldnt have to be applauding someone leaking information, now would we?

They work for us, supposedly, they should be answerable to us. We should be able to see what they heck they are doing in their ivory towers.

I'm not for treason one bit, but this info if it gets out can open the eyes of americans. But you can also say well he sent it to an australian or whatever and the whole world will see this info so it's like passing info onto the rest of the world.

Is he doing a service for Americans? Yes he is, but unfortunately he could also be hurting us in a way too.

Either way I'm interested to see what comes of this.

So what happens to the guy who leaked the stuff? Surely they'll be planning the death penalty, won't they?

Sucks, but he definately should've been much more careful about how he told someone what he did.

Originally posted by signal2noise
I remember the "good ol' days" when someone was hung for doing something like that.

Traitor.

Before you label him a traitor, ask yourself what motivated him. Was he a Benedict Arnold, looking to sell out his brothers for power?

Not hardly. He was a conscientious objector that blew the whistle on what he thought were misdeeds. He did this for you. And me. If he is executed, he will have given his life for you. And me. Two complete strangers.

That is what soldiers do. They lay down their lives to protect the American populace. Now, maybe they are manipulated into supporting a mafia pentagon (see Smedley Butler), but their intentions are most often honorable.

Just like this guy. This guy who now sits in jail just because he couldn't stand seeing our officials do the things they do. And for this act of love, .love for country and love for his fellow humans, you revile him?

That is truly, truly sad.

Originally posted by gncnew
I think the thought that we have any right to transparency is somewhat idealistic at best. Without secrets the world would be a very lonely and desolate place.

Think of it in terms of a microcosm. If you actually knew everything your mom thought about you - how would you feel?

If you actually knew EVERYTHING your boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband thought about you - or more importantly - about other people... how would that relationship go?

Here is the thing.

If I tell you to choose between option A and option B, and give you no other information, can you make an informed decision? No, you really cant. And, you also cant know whether or not you chose the "good" option and I dirty tricked you and gave you the crappy one any way. See how that works? You really dont get a choice when you dont know the details.

This isnt about personal feelings for your friends and family. Sorry, but your example sucks. This is about the work of employees, (our elected representatives) and their bosses, (the public) having a right to see that work, so that they can make informed decisions about whether or not to retain them as employees or fire them.

You mention that we dont have transparency because we dont vote for it. I say thats a load of stuff. We dont have transparency because the lack of transparency is undermining our ability to use our votes in a meaningful way.

We all know that the military isnt going to publish its battle plans before the battle. No one is asking for that either. But AFTER the battle, we damn well have the right to know the truth about what they did so we can decide whether or not to fire their bosses and hire someone who works the way we want them too.

You can steam and fuss all you want, and defend the "right" of our leaders to do whatever they want without being held accountable for it, because they hide it all from us, but you are wrong. Thats not the way it should work in a pseudo-democracy. They are supposed to be accountable to us, and you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth by saying its our fault for the way we vote, but then at the same time saying we shouldnt have the right to have the information needed to vote well.

Did you guys read that yahoo article posted earlier...somethings not right with this whole situation...

Party clones, sheep, uber patriots and other dear leaders knob slobbers are apparently under the hysterical 1930s German delusion.. there are no domestic foes in govt... naw!, home grown terrorists, like the radicalized Ron Paul tea-bag militia truther platoon.. they're the real domestic enemy!, the GOP & DNC love and listen to the masses, as a thanks for our vote... heh..

As far as "duty".. he has one to defend against all enemies foreign or domestic, and he is "innocent" until proven guilty... I so hope he gets an aggressive defense team that argues he was upholding his oath by exposing domestic enemies..

Yea, the defense team would probably plummet from the sky in a fiery ball of death... long before exposing any elitists crimes... but it would totally freak out the oligarchs. Put them on notice the nefarious empire building, lying to starts wars, and other assorted occupation crap is being recognized, then leaked, by enlightened US military who see it for what it is: harming America.. only an "enemy" would harm America, eh?

Originally posted by thepixelpusher

• Did Wikileaks put the Govt. onto the leaker?
• Is Wikileaks a covert part of the govt trying to lure whistleblowers in and/or to get private parties to do their covert intel for free?
• Is the govt trying to smoke out what Wikileaks has (the hostory-making stuff to come that Wikileaks was planning to release) by putting false information about the emails?
• Or a wildcard...maybe the person arrested is just a intel hacker govt. person painted with the deed, who has finished his surveillance of Wikileaks and is pretended to be put in jail so he can go into deeper covert hacker ops. Off the grid so to speak.

Your thoughts???
[edit on 9-6-2010 by thepixelpusher]

Well, the target is Wikileaks, intentionally or accidentally. What happened is exactly that, what was said in the intel report of 2008: identify and expose the leaker and people will lose trust in Wikileaks.

Some commentators state already, that Wikileaks is on the ground, others, that it would at least have a negative effect on them.

Maybe they really were lucky in this case and really caught the whistleblower coincidentally as it is depicted. But still newspapers all around the world are repeating the first article, only adding some of Lamo's comments on twitter and on facebook.

There could be other scenarios. Maybe they used Lamo, making him believe, what he reported later, knowing that he would not like to get into trouble again.

But it really makes me wonder, that Lamo did not try to warn him, that he would have to act, if he tells him too much. He likes to quote this very often:

Ironic Joke: "If I told you I'd have to shoot you." Truth: "If I told you we could both go to jail." Sorry, but that's how it works, folks.

While he was afraid, he could get into trouble in this case, he is not afraid to tell the world:

Hackers confide in me all the time. I'd go to prison before I'd betray their trust. I didn't get Manning arrested. He got himself arrested.

(Both quotes from his twitter account.)

He also reacts very cool to even the worst comments. Seeing how active he is in different networks, he really seems to enjoy it. As if he had cracked something, like in the old times.

So I could imagine a third scenario. Maybe the whistleblower was suspected of being the one, who sent Wikileaks the video back in February and Lamo was the bait, to get him out of the den.

We still don't know much about the story. How did they get in contact? Did Manning use his real name? How could Poulson find a friend in Boston, his aunt (it is said, she posted for him on facebook, but using his password) and his father in Oklahoma? If you report someone, they won't give you the whole genealogy of that person as a reward.
Also I find it odd, that they published full names of all of them, but still I could not find any other article whith interviews with one of these people. Only Lamo is enjoying the limelight.

The easiest way indeed would be, to tell the world, the whistleblower was sentenced to death and is not available for questions anymore. But since the world is devided in pro and contra in this case, this could result in a backfire.

It is somewhat of a backfire right now, since the video came back into the public awareness and probably is seen by more people than ever before.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Siddharta]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


But we can't govern our country by mob rule. True democracy is nothing but anarchy. The more people you allow into the equation the longer and more complicated EVERYTHING becomes.

If we followed true democracy - and informed everyone of all the evidence - so that we could make a collective decision - we'd have already been annexed by Canada or Mexico because we wouldn't even be able to make the simplest of decisions.

We're a Republic. We elect officials to govern in our name. In this system we trust in their judgment and prudence to make sound decision on information and experience.

You have no inherent "right" to information as a citizen of the country. You have no right to know what deals are made in your name.

You gave those up to the congress and President. This is the way our Founding Fathers intended it. Find a single functioning country in the world - throughout history - that has operated in any other fashion?

Nations must keep secrets from each other and thus from their own people. Sure - you may feel like you'd never betray the interests of the nation or her people... but what about the guy next to you? Can you vouch for everyone in the public? What about those people here specifically to gain the information of what we're doing so they can relay that back to their governments?

The United States - even at it's very best - is going to do things that other Nations do not want them to do. This isn't sneaky or evil - it's just a simple conflict of interests. There are limited resources that every nation wants. We the people have demanded that our country is to provide us with the best opportunity to experience our inalienable rights.

Those rights - quite simply put - must come at a cost. At the very best it's simply an opportunity cost of another people. If we want to produce goods to sell into foreign markets - well we are going to cost that other market some jobs because they wont be able to make the same goods. Guess what we just ran into - a conflict of interests.

It's very nice to think we could all just get along but that's not been a part of the human legacy since Cain and Able.

What if a really good friend asked you if you could keep a secret? That friend implored you not to let anyone know because the information is just that big to your friend. This friend makes you promise one hundred times that you will not tell and tells you that they will no longer be your friend if you let others know.

By now your curiosity is peaked because you know that whatever it is has direct implications on yourself. It must because this friend is absolutely adamant that you tell no one. You agree of course and can hardly wait to hear the big secret.

Your friend's secret not only affects you but millions of others as well. You can hardly catch your breath after absorbing the enormity of it all. You make a decision right then and there that this friend has got to come clean with everyone regardless of the promise you made to your friend. Let the chips fall where they may.

reply to post by jackflap


That'd be great if we were only talking about one secret... but what if he had a bunch of secrets to tell, and in exposing them to others, 20 people die... all because the "enormity" of those secrets was simply too much to hold in?

reply to post by jackflap


Matter of fact - here is a better analogy:

You're on the Auburn Tiger football team. You're playing Alabama in the Iron Bowl at home. The score is 23-28 - Alabama with 0:37 left on the clock in the fourth quarter from your own 20 yard line. It's touchdown or nothing.

Now, you're coach has the perfect series of plays drawn up. Some are a little tricky - and involve unconventional stuff. One play has the Quarterback coming back to crack block on a defensive back. This type of block is pretty nasty and has been known to cause knee injuries - although not always - but is perfectly legal. The play also has a HUGE bust factor with a 50/50 chance of the other team getting a sack and ending the game.

Does the whole team (even those on the sidelines) have the right to know the exact play being called before it's run?

What about the home team fans? Should they announce to the stadium what play they are thinking of running and it's potential ramifications?

What about the officials? Should the coach let them know before he runs the play to make sure they're ok with it?

This is a VERY secret play - never been run before. The ramifications are HUGE! This could be the end of Alabama's undefeated season and launch Auburn into the National Championship game. This one play could change the college football landscape in less than 37 seconds....

Should we tell everyone and make sure they're all ok with it?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Before you label him a traitor, ask yourself what motivated him. Was he a Benedict Arnold, looking to sell out his brothers for power?

MICE. Money. Ideology. Compromise. Ego. The four things that usually are the reason why people leak information. I think Manning comes under "Ego".

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Not hardly. He was a conscientious objector that blew the whistle on what he thought were misdeeds. He did this for you. And me. If he is executed, he will have given his life for you. And me. Two complete strangers.

BS. How about spinning it this way: The info he gave up could get someone killed. The fellow Soldiers you think he was "helping".

How's that grab you? Next time I'm in Iraq or A-stan, I could kneeling in the dirt, trying to pack some Soldiers guts back inside of him while he's screaming, simply because Manning blew the whistle on what HE thought were misdeeds.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
That is what soldiers do. They lay down their lives to protect the American populace. Now, maybe they are manipulated into supporting a mafia pentagon (see Smedley Butler), but their intentions are most often honorable.

Please. Spare me. This man is no longer a Soldier. He's a waste of skin and valuable O2.

And thanks for the lesson on what Soldiers do. I guess it's something I must have missed in the past 20+ years of military service. I do remember being taught not to leak classified information, tho.

Originally posted by gncnew

If we followed true democracy - and informed everyone of all the evidence - so that we could make a collective decision - we'd have already been annexed by Canada or Mexico because we wouldn't even be able to make the simplest of decisions.

You are making a straw man argument. I never advocated what you are claiming I did. There is a difference between saying that we should have the information needed to decide who to vote for, and saying every citizen should be able to vote on every action taken.

Originally posted by gncnew
We elect officials to govern in our name. In this system we trust in their judgment and prudence to make sound decision on information and experience.

While you are correct that we elect officials to act in our name, you are incorrect that "trust" is the underlying driver. If our Founders intended us to rely on trust, they wouldnt have set up a process for election in the first place. The reason citizens vote is so they have, every so many years, the right to choose the person who will act in their stead.

As I already pointed out, if you do not know what your leaders are doing, you dont know whether or not to fire them. If you dont have information about the issues and actions of other nations and their leaders, you dont know who to hire to replace them if you do want to fire them. This isnt rocket science.

It should be abundantly clear that without an informed public, our electoral system is an utter sham, the illusion of democracy only. Which it is.

It just saddens me that people who are clearly not stupid, (such as yourself) are so highly indoctrinated that you cannot even logic something that simple out for yourself. You dont need tons of education to see that not having information about a choice makes it no better than a flip of the coin. All you need to do is think it through.

Originally posted by gncnew
You have no inherent "right" to information as a citizen of the country. You have no right to know what deals are made in your name.

You gave those up to the congress and President. This is the way our Founding Fathers intended it. Find a single functioning country in the world - throughout history - that has operated in any other fashion?

I think the United States operates just fine when people have the information they need to make good choices about electing their leaders. And your argument that no other country does it is silly. I presume you are still knocking over your own straw man.

Originally posted by gncnew
Nations must keep secrets from each other and thus from their own people.

When it comes to secrets like "how to build an atom bomb," sure, I agree. But the FACT that we have atom bombs does not need to be a secret. The problem here my friend is that other countries and their leaders know far more about our leaders actions than we do. The only ones being kept in the dark are us. Which you cannot justify with the "national security" argument.

Originally posted by gncnew

The United States - even at it's very best - is going to do things that other Nations do not want them to do. This isn't sneaky or evil - it's just a simple conflict of interests.

Its also irrelevant. I never said other countries had to like and approve of our leaders actions. The citizens of the country are not sheep to be protected by a Lord, we are supposed to be able, via our votes for our representatives, to direct the course of this country. There may be some thing which legitimately need to be kept close secrets, but you go too far in your interpretation that we have no right to know the vast majority of what goes on.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by hinky
Enjoy the American bashing going on. Be sure to thank the people of your own government for your free thoughts expressed here. If you're an American, shame on you.

im an american and im ashamed of YOU. the govt doesnt give me any freedom. the fact that i am an individual gives me my freedom. the constitution and bill of rights arent granting freedoms, they're telling you what freedoms the govt CANNOT deny you. people like you are what's wrong with the world.

Originally posted by signal2noise
I do remember being taught not to leak classified information, tho.

Sounds like: "I am proud to be a puppet on a string!"

Someone just has to tell you, there is a bad person, and you ask for his elimination. Reminds me to the video, which was allegedly leaked by that person. Obviously there are more of you, obviously there are more of these cases. For this, I thank the leaker.

All other accusations are still not proven yet. So I don't have to comment them, until there is more information.

Interesting to see you call for punishment. You were a fan of Adrian Lamo back in his "great times"? Can't imagine this.
Now you damn a kid, because Lamo said so? No further facts needed to "engage"?

Congratulations! You serve your country well!

Originally posted by Siddharta
Sounds like: "I am proud to be a puppet on a string!"

No, it sounds like, "I know what personal responsibility is". Something Manning (and you) seem to have no knowledge of.

Originally posted by Siddharta
Someone just has to tell you, there is a bad person, and you ask for his elimination.

No, since I work around and with classified information, I know what sort of damage can occur if it's leaked.

Originally posted by Siddharta
Now you damn a kid, because Lamo said so? No further facts needed to "engage"?

Nope, I can "damn him" because I know how much damage he can do because of his leaks.

You even don't know, if he exists. And if he exists, you don't know, what he really had and had not, nor what he really would publish or would not.

You just rely on the information, Lamos gave the world, which was spread by his old hacker friend Poulus.

We ALL don't have more than this.

And still some cry "hero" and some shout "Kill him!"

It seems to be easy to manipulate the average person. Let's show them, we don't judge, before we saw and heard the candidate.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Siddharta]

reply to post by Siddharta



You're right. Let's see what the investigation says before we decide whether he dies, or just walks away with a severe limp.

You want to see that virtual person dead or at least hard wounded?

Nobody can help you out of this.

You should play World of Warcraft and tell us your scores than.

I hoped, there is some human with intelligence behind that username, I could talk to. Obviously, there is none.

Congrats again, since you make your country look stupid - again.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Siddharta]