Manning went to with his concerns to a commanding officer (as is protocol) and was told to shut the f*ck up. He went around his commanding officer to another superior and was told likewise, STFU. After enough denials, he decided (after a great debate with fellow computer hacker LAMO that you can read online) he would leak all of these practices to the media (thru WikiLeaks, since most mainstream media wouldn't have published it) so the world could see what it's leaders and military were really up to.
That's called "blowing the whistle" on immoral and illegal behavior by those in power. Whistle blowers are those who risk their lives to save the world from incredible malfeasance by those who were elected or put in power to be responsible. Is that treason? Thomas Jefferson would say "hell no." That's being the best patriot America could ask for.
I would've done the same.
The last time this happened was when the "Pentagon Papers" were leaked to Daniel Ellsberg and published by the New York Times in 1971. The Supreme Court ruled that since the government was lying to public about civilian deaths in Vietnam and military actions, the public had a right to know. It changed the course of the war.
Here's a significant difference: The Pentagon Papers were filed "TOP SECRET"...the government cables Bradley Manning leaked (allegedly) were only filed "CLASSIFIED". When President Obama claimed "This isn't the same as what Daniel Ellsberg did" he was right...but not the way he thought he was. Bradley Manning is another whistle blower...and he should be free.
Showing posts with label The Pentagon Papers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Pentagon Papers. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
"The Pentagon Papers" Supreme Court ruling applies to WikiLeaks
I'm reading "Obama's War" by Bob Woodward ©2010, and on page 179 he says:
"On June 30, 1971, Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers case, nearly four decades earlier and just three months before I joined the Post, opened the door for such conversations with the government. In its 6 to3 ruling, the court essentially said THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT RESTRAIN THE PRESS BEFORE PUBLICATION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, which permitted The New York Times and The Washington Post to CONTINUE PUBLISHING the top secret 47-volume Vietnam War study, which showed that the government had repeatedly lied to the public about the war.
Because the government COULD NOT LEGALLY STOP US FROM PUBLISHING the McChrystal assessment, we had the upper hand in listening to arguments for deleting passages from the report. For the Pentagon Papers, the Times and Post did not consult the government in advance. To do so would have alerted the government and likely resulted in a court action to stop publication, which is exactly what the government did in federal court after the initial articles ran.
The beauty of the Supreme Court's Pentagon Paper ruling--WHICH FORBIDS RESTRAINT--is that IT ENCOURAGES US TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE PUBLICATION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS."
[my CAPS...but interesting timing on Woodward's part to bring this up now]
Since this IS the case, the US government CANNOT seek any kind of "espionage" charge against Julian Assange. They know this.
My questions are:
-If our government would take this again to the supreme court, do they have enough pull to change the ruling or alter it to depict WikiLeaks as something other than "The Press"?
-Do any of these political assassinations that happened in the last two weeks have anything to do with WikiLeaks?
1. John Wheeler III-bio/chemical warfare expert for both Bush's, found in land fill after the birds and the fish started dying (1/4/2011)
2. John Roll-federal judge placed in office by Bush Sr. in 1991, who in 2009, faced death threats after presiding over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit in Arizona, killed by Jared Loughner (1/8/2011)
3. Ashley Turton (married to Daniel A. Turton, 43, the White House's deputy director of legislative affairs for the House of Representatives)-lobbyist for Progress Energy, that Duke Energy bought for $13 billion in stock the day after her death, found in her burned car, in her garage (1/10/2011)
-Now that these people are dead, what new options does the government have in regards to WikiLeaks (meaning: did any of them have any damaging info or power that some in the government might have felt was a threat)?
-Were these assassinations simple vendettas performed by the CIA to intimidate anyone who might think of snitching to WikiLeaks?
Just questions...but transparency will sort it all out...
Transparency is the Apocalypse.
"On June 30, 1971, Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers case, nearly four decades earlier and just three months before I joined the Post, opened the door for such conversations with the government. In its 6 to3 ruling, the court essentially said THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT RESTRAIN THE PRESS BEFORE PUBLICATION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, which permitted The New York Times and The Washington Post to CONTINUE PUBLISHING the top secret 47-volume Vietnam War study, which showed that the government had repeatedly lied to the public about the war.
Because the government COULD NOT LEGALLY STOP US FROM PUBLISHING the McChrystal assessment, we had the upper hand in listening to arguments for deleting passages from the report. For the Pentagon Papers, the Times and Post did not consult the government in advance. To do so would have alerted the government and likely resulted in a court action to stop publication, which is exactly what the government did in federal court after the initial articles ran.
The beauty of the Supreme Court's Pentagon Paper ruling--WHICH FORBIDS RESTRAINT--is that IT ENCOURAGES US TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE PUBLICATION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS."
[my CAPS...but interesting timing on Woodward's part to bring this up now]
Since this IS the case, the US government CANNOT seek any kind of "espionage" charge against Julian Assange. They know this.
My questions are:
-If our government would take this again to the supreme court, do they have enough pull to change the ruling or alter it to depict WikiLeaks as something other than "The Press"?
-Do any of these political assassinations that happened in the last two weeks have anything to do with WikiLeaks?
1. John Wheeler III-bio/chemical warfare expert for both Bush's, found in land fill after the birds and the fish started dying (1/4/2011)
2. John Roll-federal judge placed in office by Bush Sr. in 1991, who in 2009, faced death threats after presiding over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit in Arizona, killed by Jared Loughner (1/8/2011)
3. Ashley Turton (married to Daniel A. Turton, 43, the White House's deputy director of legislative affairs for the House of Representatives)-lobbyist for Progress Energy, that Duke Energy bought for $13 billion in stock the day after her death, found in her burned car, in her garage (1/10/2011)
-Now that these people are dead, what new options does the government have in regards to WikiLeaks (meaning: did any of them have any damaging info or power that some in the government might have felt was a threat)?
-Were these assassinations simple vendettas performed by the CIA to intimidate anyone who might think of snitching to WikiLeaks?
Just questions...but transparency will sort it all out...
Transparency is the Apocalypse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
