Again, I never said I disagreed with that. However, circling back to the beginning, if there was a valid, legal route for Manning to take, the case wouldn't have been brought up to him. Since there isn't, here we are.
LFOF. Your name gives it away. And because I proclaim that I am a liberal, you and others use it against me.
But, there is a valid, legal route to expose corruption, etc... It's probably flawed, like anything gov't run, but, it's there... Julian Assange is not part of that legal avenue... - - - Updated - - - No, you don't necessarily keep the secret, but, you take it up the proper legal route, and, you don't just put it out in the public domain...
All of which has zero to do with leaking classified information, that you signed a NDA agreeing not to do... Not to mention he's in the military, and the military legal system is different...
There was a valid, legal route Manning could have taken, but he didn't take that route. He took the Wikileaks route. As for Snowden, if he didn't have a legal route then that problem needs to get rectified. If the NSA is violating the laws that Congress passed then there needs to be a way whistleblowers can expose that misconduct to the proper authorities so that they can put an end to it and hold any guilty parties accountable for their actions. .
Sort of. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us/in-bradley-manning-case-court-denies-recusal-request.html?_r=0
I lean Libertarian and agree with many of their platform items, but think that most Libertarians lean conservative. There's a reason why both Pauls are Republicans, not Democrats and that Rand Paul is strongly backed by the Tea Party. PFC's should never be in position to release classified information to the public. The "legal route" you describe is best done through oversight committees in Congress, our elected leadership.
Sort of, what? The defense only requested that the presiding officer step aside... His replacement still would've been military...
Those charges were dismissed because Nixon and his crew broke more laws to get the evidence. I guess stupidity trump the charges.
I don't think he's likely to live 100 years; perhaps another 50 or so years but most certainly not another 100.
He works for the Department of Justice, which is going after Assange. It was a conflict of interest and they asked him to recuse himself. So it was SORT of prosecuted by the military, and not the DoJ.
Sorry, I must have forgot what "secrets" mean. There should be no legal way to spill the beans. If you feel it that important, then suffer the consequences. Don't run and hide because you know that you are doing a crime.
Uh, no... Bradley works for the DoD, not the DoJ... If you were referring to the judge, the same applies... It was entirely prosecuted by the military...
It's a grey area. Ellsburg leaked info about Nixon, who was illegally doing wire-taps in violation of the US Constitution and Federal Code and thereby making Nixon a traitor for not upholding the USC. I am not sure who leaked about Reagan; but Reagan was a traitor of the worst kind. He sold weapons and parts to Iran / Khomeini during an Arms Embargo in trade for releasing seven hostages, then funneled the illegal cash to Central America to fund a group of terrorists called Contras that were trying to overthrow a government that was recognized by the UN (though arguably a horrible government). So when I hear about folks like Ellsburg, Snowden, or whoever leaked Iran Contra Gate; I view them as American heroes reporting traitors. And to be very clear, if someone doesn't uphold the US Constitution they are absolutely traitors, which Nixon and Reagan were. And if Obama knew about the NSA spying on American Citizens and kept it quiet, he is a traitor too.
And it doesn't work, as pointed out by Ctrl. Here's a full breakdown of how rough legal avenues are and then the government still comes after you: http://www.whistleblower.org/action-center/save-tom-drake Either route they go, they'll be in court for charges, and fighting for their life. Since that's the case, they might as well just release everything, and deal with the consequences as they come, as they're going to either not do it or do it. Those who decide to do it, shouldn't be banished because of them trying to bring it to people's attention. Let's fix that issue first, before looking to stop whistle blowing all together.
Unjust laws unjust, has everything to do with everything about this case. It's bullying tactics at it's best. Either shut up, or go to jail, your choice.
Like I've said repeatedly, I'm sure the legal avenue is flawed, and, if the information on that website is accurate, seeming bias aside, then, Drake did, in fact, exhaust several legal options to expose what he found... And, a situation like that is inexcusable, as is publicly leaking classified information...
Did he aid the enemy? Did he put it in a place where the enemy could find? Was it that different than putting secret documents in a hollowed out rock for the enemy?
I don't know of any legal route. You need to tell me about it. I have had a TS with USAF, S with DoD, TS with CDC, and TS with the IRS; and never once did those agencies ever tell me I had a way to report abuses of the USC or US Code that were shared to me via a need-to-know. I think the expectation is that you have to keep your pie-hole shut no matter what you find out.
If you actually had those clearances, then, you know that there are avenues to report criminal violations...
