- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So you think refusing to use a condom is merely "douchebag", refusing to get tested after refusing to use a condom is merely "douchebag" and that the US should have apologized for a human shield used by rogue journalists (as if the US doesn't apologize profusely for collateral damage).
Do you not believe that ambassadors should have secure lines to their higher-ups in which to pass speculation?
Man up and apoligize for it.
Relevence?
He refused to use a condom and is under rape charges. The more obvious reason for refusing a test is that it complicates the rape charge.
"Embarrassed"? Wow, could you be a bigger apologist.
You think the US doesn't apologize for collateral damage?
He released such documents and caused trouble for US ambassadors around the world. Do you not know about that part of wikileaks?
They obviously didn't in this case. They classified the material remember?
Yes I know about it. But again, whats that question got to do with what we are talking about?
The New York Times didn't steal their information directly from a military installation.The New York Times has disseminated classified information before...should they be held for espionage also? Why/why not? (Note that I am NOT defending Manning, I believe that he is where he is suppose to be..and should be there for a long time. My question is mainly regarding the journalism aspect)
Money, self gratification through affirmation of his ideologies, his name being known world wide, etc. The guy is a megalomaniac, there's a lot to choose from.How did Assaunge benefit himself?
A lot of information was given away, including the names of informants who were working for the Coalition Forces. I'm guessing they're all dead now.From what I have read and heard and understand the information regarded what happened in the past.
From your link....
So what exactly constitutes "interests of National Security"?
I've already stated what they did that was wrong. Sorry if you can't accept that the right thing to do was to at the very least admit that wrong did happen. Even if that wrong was an accident it was still wrong. Or should we not have involuntary manslaughter charges in our legal system?
what? no you didn't - you linked wikipedia, not a single controlling document for US Classification guides.
here. DOD 5200.1. Executive Order 13526. Then perhaps you can tell us about your time as an original classification authority and your ability to speak to the legal review process.Enjoy.
Did you see the multitudes of other documents referenced?
Do you think warzones are like normal domestic situations?
The New York Times didn't steal their information directly from a military installation.
Money, self gratification through affirmation of his ideologies, his name being known world wide, etc. The guy is a megalomaniac, there's a lot to choose from.
A lot of information was given away, including the names of informants who were working for the Coalition Forces. I'm guessing they're all dead now.
Yes I did. What exactly constitutes "interests of National Security"?
1: No.
2: Irrelevent.
Any one of the many general apologies suffices.
Do you think that part of wikileaks is legal or justified?
No it does not. Would you accept such an apology?
I believe that wikileaks had every right to release the information that they did. But then I believe in freedom of the press.
What Assaunge did wasn't rape. As was said earlier if you do what he did here in the US this would be a non-issue and nothing would have come of it. (BTW for actual rape here in the US the victim can refuse to prosecute...all they have to do is refuse to testify and without their testimony the person walks)
As for your reference to "The Great Satan"...last I knew that is what Islamic extremists called the US...what do they have to do with this discussion?
And no, its not that big of a mystery as to why he hasn't gone back. Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US in which they pretty much ALWAYS extradite to the US. You should note that originally the Prosecutor there in Sweden wasn't going to charge Assaunge. It wasn't until after Assaunge had leaked those files that the prosecutor "decided" to charge Assaunge. IIRC the "rapes" as you call them actually happened a year or so before these leaks.
You may want to look in them for your answer. There's literally hundreds of them. "Covering something up" isn't one of them, though.
You're the one that brought up involuntary manslaughter. I agree, it's irrelevant. Why did you purposely bring something up that was irrelevant?
Why are you rationalizing Manning leaking information when the only problem you have with the actions was that no apology was issued afterward?
Oh come on. You like the Great Satan label. You can admit it. It's what turns worms like Assange into heroes for those on the Far Left. If the United States is the target, then any outrage is permissable. Even releasing private diplomatic communications that might result in death to Americans or their allies.
I believe that wikileaks had every right to release the information that they did. But then I believe in freedom of the press.
Yes, it does and, yes, I would.
Yeah, well... releasing classified ambassador speculation? That serves no purpose and hurts diplomacy fundamentally. You don't like diplomacy?
When you have something that is actually relevent to say then I will yank your chain.
fascinating. so you do not believe in such a thing as proprietary information?
And whenever you say anything that isn't a knee-jerk defense of the Australian rapist, I'll care.
So if your child was killed in a war even though he was a civilian that was doing NOTHING wrong you would accept a "general" apology that isn't even directed at you? Some how I doubt it very seriously.
I like open and honest diplomacy. Not hidden.
When it comes to the government? No. As I said before the only things that should be classified is military movement/stratagies, and military technology.
Do you really think that they would say "Oh! lets cover this up!" No. They would have it fall under one of the various qualifications...such as "interests of National Security".
Ok, now I understand what you meant. I am not calling for the troops that did the shooting to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. My bringing it up was to show that killing someone accidentally is considered wrong in our society. Right? So shouldn't there at the very least be an apology for committing something that was equivilant to involuntary manslaughter (the accidental killing of someone)?
I'm not rationalizing anything that Manning did. As I have said before I agree that what Manning did was wrong. This whole conversation started because someone (can't remember who now without looking) questioned whether "misdeeds" was evidenced in the leaks. I showed that there was.
You think there needs to be a personal apology for all collateral damage resulting from human shields and rogue journalists?
Diplomacy requires the ability for ambassadors to pass speculation and other classified info back and forth with their country.
There were no rogue journalists or human shields. No matter how many times you repeat it it still will not be true.
No it doesn't. You just think it does.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?