A New York Times story (8/9/13) about the sentencing phase of the trial of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning caught my eye with this headline:
Witness in Manning Case Says Leaks Could Help Al-Qaeda
What the Times reported was this:
A prosecution witness in the sentencing phase of the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning told a military judge on Thursday that Al-Qaeda could have used WikiLeaks disclosures, including classified United States government materials provided by Private Manning, to encourage attacks in the West, in testimony meant to show the harm done by his actions.
So what was the evidence? The Times explains:
The witness, Cmdr. Youssef Aboul-Enein, an adviser to the Pentagon’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism, said that WikiLeaks materials showing that the United States had killed civilians, for instance, could help Al-Qaeda. “Perception is important because it provides a good environment for recruitment, for fund-raising and for support for Al-Qaeda’s wider audience and objectives,” he said.
So the potentially most damaging part of Manning’s disclosures was that the war kills civilians—and that U.S. enemies could use that fact to recruit others.
If that’s the standard—that the killing of civilians might rally people behind the cause of Al-Qaeda—then shouldn’t someone be talking to George W. Bush about ordering the invasion that caused all the killing? Of course not—the only person facing punishment is the person who thought the rest of the world should know about it.
We—and certainly many others—have made the point that the prosecution of Manning should be treated seriously by journalists and press freedom advocates—especially now that the government is laying out its case about what it considers to be the harm done by WikiLeaks.
How civilized we are
That we only seek to sentence the messenger to 90 years
Rather than kill him
Uh…but there is certainly interesting evidence that we did it literally (Sibel Edmunds statements for instance) and that the US government is aiding them now (how many stories on Syrian rebel’s connections to Al Qeada already mean this)?
This information written as a speculative isn’t anything new. We knew when we invaded Iraq that act would be the greatest advancement for Al Qaeda’s cause. Recruitment soared when this happened. This is a known fact. We are punishing Manning for leaking to Wikileaks documents of information already known. It’s closing the barn door after the horse has already fled, then blaming the horse for leaving.
The corporate media is too cowardly and too sycophantic to risk seriously challenging the military. They rarely question policy and we saw how they all so easily rolled over and let George W. rub their obedient fat bellies on Iraq. They don’t want to lose their valuable high-level sources, find coveted invitations to Georgetown socials dry up or risk the FCC NOT looking the other way on all sorts of petty but fineable infractions.
it’s a good time for everyone to watch or watch and listen again on youtube to john f. Kennedy’s speech to the press club about the secret government. it’s an incredible speech. one of the reasons he ….?
he and Eisenhower both warned us about all of this unacceptable insanity- what we are now.
there’s an article at counterpunch called, “aiding the enemy” … I was actually waiting for someone to ask the question about WHO EXACTLY has been aiding the enemy. shouldn’t we ask, or what?
not to even mention, who IS the enemy? is it TERROR? (well, then..)
yes, we are ALL so “civilized” to remain as we are, to watch as they , we, “let” Bradley manning only get 90 years and to accept the fact that the media cooperated SO well in keeping his trial secret and military-controlled, too.
then, peter dale scott’s latest lengthy article .. about who, what, why anyone “aided” al Qaeda for decades- is an unbelievable expose that should make us all sit up, maybe stand up, and ask more questions and demand more answers. do try reading it, if you can stomach it.
so, blaming and persecuting Bradley manning , Julian assange, and innumerable other whistleblowers looks horribly all like a total cover up.
yet..! they’re still using the same training and Islamic fighters now in Syria and who knows where else still. Syria is being destroyed even as we talk about this now. why?
every war is disgusting, brutal and unforgivable, and it’s all ruining our country at the same time. who is aiding all this war-making? are we?
i guess Bradley’s sacrifice, ed snowden’s, or the effect of anyone’s whistleblowing isn’t really meaningful, or newsworthy, enough for America– not for what we are now… weakened… terror-ized, by
what looks like a military, secret, unfriendly, dying economy and fascist!… shameful MESS!
Wow that might be the definition of twisting a story to fit a template..Bush never needed to do anything to make these people hate us more.And in their culture Im not sure that walking with a big stick did not help.This they truly respect.Throwing yourselves at their mercy ,just makes it easy to draw the scimitar across your throat(that a twisting of an old arab saying)How well the information dump of stolen information will be used by our enemies, is totally irrelevant to this case.To draw that inference is good press .But really we will never know or hear about that ,as it is classified.The law he broke is all that matters here.
George W is a war criminal AND the worst president in U.S. history.
But really we will never know or hear about that ,as it is classified.The law he broke is all that matters here. – .
Right, because when a government does something illegal or immoral, it should be their right to declare everyone who doesn’t keep quiet about it as criminals to make sure that nobody else can find about the illegal and immoral acts the government committed. It worked so well for the likes of Nixon and Company during Vietnam. So lets make sure that anyone who tattles on the Government and exposes their wrongdoing are punished to the full extent of the law of people who are breaking their own laws. Make sure the weasels in charge stay in charge by prosecuting those who stand against them.
I think we have proof positive that listening to the wrong winged morons on Fux Snooze cause major brain damage.
___________________________________________
So this article does bring to mind the question, what about those people who actually freed the Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place, to fight the ‘evil empire’ by replacing the leaders in charge with the Taliban and arming them. Wouldn’t that count as “aiding the enemy”? Can we say “Guns for Hostage” trade.
We need to remember that the families (Bush and bin Laden) did business together for years before 9 11
On the subject of killing civilians… http://usanity.com/2013/08/10/dead-declared-to-have-been-militants/
Michael the most unpresidential thing any president does is give the order that results in peoples death.Every president has done it.If that is you definition of a war criminal Im sure few president would survive your scrutiny.As far as the legal definition have we not laid that to rest?Obama went in with all the bluster you fools could muster.You really believed BAM would put Cheney ,and Rumsfeld and Bush in chains didn’t you?All that nonsense the left blew out their asses you believed.Then nothing happened.Boo hoo hoo.the funniest thing is Michael saying Bush was the worst president.Really even with the hapless Obama standing right next to him that is how you see it?Well maybe that is not fair,Obama did not have the qualifications to run a 711 let alone a country.His disaster at least was always expected.Pad….Obama has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all the presidents combined.And yes that includes FDR during the war.Bush a war criminal….Im laughing my ass off at your idiocy.
I doubt it is the military or even the government that the journalists are afraid of the most. I think most of them are more afraid of being fired from their jobs, or worse yet, being blackballed from the industry completely by employers who can pay enough for a journalist to make a living.
However, the recent bad news for the whistleblowers Snowden and Manning (and others) will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on any genuine journalism this press might actually undertake.
Both Bush and particularly Cheney for prolonging the pre-emptive war, based on false/trumped up information, so that his Halliburton could profit beyond the wildest expectation of any Iraq war contractor.
Joe…..Then that would make Obama an even bigger war criminal for prolonging your so called pre emptive war for years longer.Oh just one question.In Iraq’s surrender accord it was stated that if any of the 16 main caveats of that document were to be broken that hostilities would immediately resume.At the point at which Bush resumed hostilities ALL 16 caveats had been trashed.Are you saying that moving forward that all documents of this sort are not worth anything???????
@ Michael e: The ceasefire agreement does not authorise war under international law. The US used Chapter 7 Provisions under UNSCR 1441 to justify its attack and NO international jurists accept that as being valid. If George W. Bush could ever be brought before a court it would be an open-and-shut case. Don’t pretend that the continued US ability to defy international law is some sort of legal or moral justification.
Well we will never know if at some point Bush simply said that Saddam has flagrantly violated every caveat of his cease fire accord..whether or not the Un and the world body would of reacted as the accord directs….an “immediate resumption of hostilities”.If History be the mark- certainly Europe allowed Hitler to Flout the agreements signed by Germany at the end of WW1.So my guess is the rest would of stood with one hand rubbing their belly, the other their heads.Saddam in his last days admitted he Considered all documents signed null and void.He would never allow inspectors to keep him in a disarmed vulnerable position.He would re-arm in any and all ways he saw fit.So Bush had the measure of the man quite correct.Bush saw him as no longer bound by his surrender agreements.Saddam agreed.Bush felt he would never get a straight answer on WMDs.Saddam agreed.He freely admitted he was playing a shell game.Bush felt he meant to re-arm.Saddam agreed.Bush took his saber rattling against the US interests, and Israel seriously.Saddam admitted in the last days of his life that he saw himself as the “lion of Judea”.Born to fight and defeat Israel and America.He was stunned Bush called all his bluffs and attacked.But strangely he admired his “balls” in doing so.Bush was wrong on WMDs.Saddam fooled him and the world on that.But after 911, playing a dangerous shell game with an American president ready to act was folly.Your grasp of the situation of Bush misreading WMD stores as the be all ,and end all ,of the situational awareness at that time is a good talking point.But little more.Clinton himself said in his book that once Saddam had thrown down all surrender agreements that a resumption of Hostilities at some point was a given.
‘Well we will never know if at some point Bush simply said that Saddam has flagrantly violated every caveat of his cease fire accord..whether or not the Un and the world body would of reacted as the accord directs….an “immediate resumption of hostilities”‘ What does this mean? Do you have some form of brain damage or amnesia? Do you get paid to come up with this stuff? If so you should not give up your day job. Actually, I could use a job and I know I could come up with better specious nonsense than that, so if you happen to know anyone who is recruiting….
Kieran…Well that very informative understanding of the document signed by the Iraqi representatives, and spoken of by Clinton( who you have stated must of had brain damage or amnesia)General swartzkopf presiding was not ambiguous.Any caveats being broken would result in a resumption of hostilities .You seem to be saying that document meant as little as the one Hitler broke prior to ww2.as i recall people of your ilk felt exactly that way in those times.
Kieran- So you are actually saying exactly what I said you were saying.You are saying that the ceasefire agreement signed by Saddam’s generals ,and Saddam himself at the end of Gulf war one and its 17 caveat’s , and all agreements signed in that document that allowed for a cessation of hostilities were null and void the moment they were signed?That they were never worth the paper they were written on?And that no military treaties /agreements with the US are worth anything, at anytime due to the lawlessness of America and that in your eyes technical legal speak can be brought to bear To prove all treaties null and void on that basis?I suppose that also paints Bush sr,Clinton,Bush ,AND OBAMA along with much of the the security forces, intel and Executive branch of this country over 4 administrations as illegal stone cold morons.And I suppose in retrospect that makes our enemies the fellows in the white hats!!!!Sweet dancing Jesus you are a lib aren’t you?Read the treaty.Read it twice.Read it thrice.”It is understood that if Iraq and her leaders breaks this agreement, or any of those demands set down that they have on this day………………signed that hostilities may at any time resume”That is only that agreement.Your flouting of 144 as proof of Bushes non compliance and criminal activity is just not legally valid.Saddam was in violation.That is known.Spain and France thought that more time should be given for Saddam to come clean(we know from Saddam himself that he had no intention of ever complying fully so that argument is finished)Bush reading the man correctly said that authorization was already given then for hostilities.To this day there are still valid arguments on both sides.To say it is cut and dry in nonsense.Saddams own words destroy your argument.So in the end it was a matter of time.did Bush jump too soon giving You a better argument to attack him.Probably .But the push was going to come to shove.Read 144 again .You don’t seem versed on it.Also remember the oath the president takes.His oath is to the constitution.An oath of defense of this country,and it’s interests.There is no oath to the UN(a questionable body at best)or any other world bodies.That said he did his best to comply with world body standards and agreements.You see him as a criminal for moving too soon against this murderous unrepentant tyrant.I do not.Though I see mistakes clearly in the process and in hind sight.By the way….Obama feels as I do.His lack of any action proves that.
I gotta hand to Michael E. He’s a very good propagandist for the neocons and radical Right. Such a job requires some considerable mangling of reality, though.
“Wow that might be the definition of twisting a story to fit a template.”
No, but Britain’s Downing Street Memo showed “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy” by the Bush Administration.
“Bush never needed to do anything to make these people hate us more.”
Invading a nation based on lies and falsehoods tends to make some folks upset. It grew entire al-Qaeda movements in Iraq and elsewhere. Really. Just like Obama’s drone strikes create more enemies than they destroy. US bombs + dead children = more enemies. Pretty basic.
“Bush was the worst president. Really even with the hapless Obama standing right next to him that is how you see it?”
Really. Bush left us expanded debt, two wars, the Patriot Act, a surveillance state, and a severe recession. Obama will need to listen to Republicans more if he wants a similar record.
“Bush felt he would never get a straight answer on WMDs. Saddam agreed.”
So Bush gave us straight answers? LOL!!
Show us those “nukular” aluminum tubes, “biological labs”, , “connections to al-Qaeda”, evidence of Iraq training AQ on “chemical weapons and deadly gases”. How about that meeting in Prague between Iraq and AQ that was “pretty much confirmed” according to Cheney?
“Bush was wrong on WMDs. Saddam fooled him and the world on that.”
More accurately, Bush fooled Americans. His constantly linking Saddam to AQ had most Americans (including Sarah Palin) believing Iraq had something to do with 9-11.
How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
“His oath is to the constitution. An oath of defense of this country, and it’s interests.”
No, the oath is to “faithfully execute the office of President” (That would mean not starting wars based on lies.) and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Nothing about defense of its “interests”, or let alone Big Oil’s, Wall Street’s or Halliburton’s interests.
But I need to say, well done, Mike E. You’re qualified for a job at FOX(R).
I highly recommend that my faithful followers on Face Book read what these people have to say about George Walker Bush’s White House years as the President of the United States of America!!
http://www.cheatsdatabase.com/2477AvweYRgANdlmcV8l.html
高品質,2015 エール·ダルジャン [2011] ＜白＞ ＜ワイン／ボルドー＞ 限定SALE,人気SALE