US Politics

[berbatrick]

Treason and espionage would insinuate some sort of collusion with an adversarial faction or looking to deliberately undermine the nation's security. I don't think that was Manning's intent. Nor was it Elsberg's.

Out of interest, what you consider to be a bona fide act of whistleblowing?

It's amazing that she wasn't even convicted of treason despite a really hard and precedent-setting prosecution, but saying "Manning is a traitor" seems to unite both parties -- it's just that Republicans like to add "Bradley" before that quote.

 

[berbatrick]

On Snowden, he did leak via journalists, but him ending up in Russia of all places is a bit damning. If he'd stayed in the US and fought his case in court and in public opinion, as Ellsberg did, he might seem more genuine.

The judge, Col. Denise Lind, asked the prosecutors a brief but revealing question: Would you have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to WikiLeaks but directly to the New York Times?

The prosecutor’s answer was simple: “Yes Ma'am.”

 

[Raoul]

Treason and espionage would insinuate some sort of collusion with an adversarial faction or looking to deliberately undermine the nation's security. I don't think that was Manning's intent. Nor was it Elsberg's.

Out of interest, what you consider to be a bona fide act of whistleblowing?

Espionage doesn't have to involve a foreign nation state. The UCMJ statute includes an "intent to injure the United States" or advantage a foreign nation provision, by (among other things) transmitting intelligence or cryptographic information. ...."The accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct."

There are various ways within government channels for whistleblowers to shed light on things that shouldn't be happening that don't involve publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents, many of them needlessly included, to the likes of Assange, and by extension to all foreign adversaries. There are reasons states keep secrets - to gain advantage over their adversaries so they can continue obtaining information behind the scenes in order to strategize policy decisions when dealing with the said adversarial countries on important issues. Manning simply dumping a bunch of information into the public domain completely undercuts that process, which is why he was convicted of 22 counts of computer fraud to espionage to causing intelligence to be published into the public domain so adversaries could access it.

 

[berbatrick]

There are various ways within government channels for whistleblowers to shed light on things that shouldn't be happening

Why Intelligence Whistleblowers Can't Use Internal Channels
Even the director of national intelligence admits there aren't adequate safeguards for officials who see wrongdoing.

The CIA obtained a confidential email to Congress about alleged whistleblower retaliation related to the Senate’s classified report on the agency’s harsh interrogation program, triggering fears that the CIA has been intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases. The CIA got hold of the legally protected email and other unspecified communications between whistleblower officials and lawmakers this spring, people familiar with the matter told McClatchy. It’s unclear how the agency obtained the material.

At the time, the CIA was embroiled in a furious behind-the-scenes battle with the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panel’s investigation of the agency’s interrogation program, including accusations that the CIA illegally monitored computers used in the five-year probe. The CIA has denied the charges. The email controversy points to holes in the intelligence community’s whistleblower protection systems and raises fresh questions about the extent to which intelligence agencies can elude congressional oversight. The email related to allegations that the agency’s inspector general, David Buckley, failed to properly investigate CIA retaliation against an agency official who cooperated in the committee’s probe, said the knowledgeable people, who asked not to be further identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Today's CIA employees have witnessed torturing colleagues in the agency get away with their crimes. They've watched Kiriakou go to jail after objecting to torture. Now, in the unlikely event that they weren't previously aware of it, they've been put on notice that if they engage in whistleblowing through internal channels, during the course of a Senate investigation into past illegal behavior by the CIA, even then the protections theoretically owed them are little more than an illusion.
...

As Marcy Wheeler persuasively argues, the CIA gains significant leverage over the executive branch every time it breaks the law together:

• Torture was authorized by a Presidential Finding—a fact Obama has already gone to extraordinary lengths to hide
• CIA has implied that its actions got sanction from that Finding, not the shoddy OLC memos or even the limits placed in those memos, and so the only measure of legality is President Bush’s (and the Presidency generally) continued approval of them
• CIA helped the (Obama) White House withhold documents implicating the White House from the Senate

Wheeler adds, "This is, I imagine, how Presidential Findings are supposed to work: by implicating both parties in outright crimes, it builds mutual complicity. And Obama’s claimed opposition to torture doesn’t offer him an out, because within days of his inauguration, CIA was killing civilians in Presidentially authorized drone strikes that clearly violate international law." Obama is similarly implicated in spying that violates the Fourth Amendment. When illegal behavior is endorsed by the president himself, when there is no penalty for blatantly lying to Congress about that behavior, how can internal channels prompt reform?

 

[Raoul]

Why Intelligence Whistleblowers Can't Use Internal Channels
Even the director of national intelligence admits there aren't adequate safeguards for officials who see wrongdoing.

Do you have an opinion that doesn't involve pasting links to articles ?

 

[Eboue]

- it's just that Republicans like to add "Bradley" before that quote.

Indeed. And Raoul has referred to Manning as "he" twice now.

 

[Raoul]

Indeed. And Raoul has referred to Manning as "he" twice now.

This happened before Bradley became Chelsea.

 

[Eboue]

I understand. I still think it is disrespectful.

 

[berbatrick]

Do you have an opinion that doesn't involve pasting links to articles ?

Do you have an opinion of Trump independent of having read any article or seen any TV about him? What do you think about the US role in 1971 in the Bay of Bengal? Should the Janata Dal have ended dual-membership in 1980, leading to its own collapse? Does the political independence granted by a collegium surpass the democratic oversight of an NJAC?

No links, please. All your own opinions.

 

[Raoul]

I understand. I still think it is disrespectful.

Nothing disrespectful about it. The person who did all of this was known as a male Army soldier named Bradley Manning. Its completely accurate.

 

[Raoul]

Do you have an opinion of Trump independent of having read any article or seen any TV about him? What do you think about the US role in 1971 in the Bay of Bengal? Should the Janata Dal have ended dual-membership in 1980, leading to its own collapse? Does the political independence granted by a collegium surpass the democratic oversight of an NJAC?

No links, please. All your own opinions.

WTF does that have to do with this thread ? You seem to have a bad habit of posting articles about content you don't understand as if its supposed to substitute your own lack of understanding about the topic. If you're going to do that then why not just read up on the topic until you feel confident enough to discuss it in a thread.

 

[Eboue]

Nothing disrespectful about it. The person who did all of this was known as a male Army soldier named Bradley Manning. Its completely accurate.

Do you still call divorces by their husbands last name?

 

[Raoul]

Do you still call divorces by their husbands last name?

Depends on the context.

 

[Il Prete Rosso]

Do you have an opinion of Trump independent of having read any article or seen any TV about him? What do you think about the US role in 1971 in the Bay of Bengal? Should the Janata Dal have ended dual-membership in 1980, leading to its own collapse? Does the political independence granted by a collegium surpass the democratic oversight of an NJAC?

No links, please. All your own opinions.

Since you started it. What do you think of the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans today given their behaviour during Obama's Presidency?

 

[adexkola]

I watched The Post yesterday, and the Ellsberg v Manning & Snowden comparison comes to mind. I'm reminded of what Mark Bowden wrote way back (https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...manning-dont-understand-about-secrecy/278973/) about the "wholesale" nature of what Manning in particular did, vs Ellsberg leaking it to the NYT & Wapo who in turn could filter and write about the items most egregious and relevant to the public. When wikileaks was out you could read all about unethical actions of the govt, but you also compromised some of the back-channel comms that US embassies the world over had with local politicians as part of regular business.

On Snowden, he did leak via journalists, but him ending up in Russia of all places is a bit damning. If he'd stayed in the US and fought his case in court and in public opinion, as Ellsberg did, he might seem more genuine.

Snowden probably saw what happened to Manning and said, "feck that". I agree that going to Russia wasn't the best PR move, but what other countries don't honor extradition treaties with the U.S.?

 

[MTF]

@berbatrick
That doesn't mean the outcome of the trial would have been the same. Ellsberg was charged, and acquitted. Although... military tribunal, she probably wasn't going to get an acquittal.

Snowden probably saw what happened to Manning and said, "feck that". I agree that going to Russia wasn't the best PR move, but what other countries don't honor extradition treaties with the U.S.?

At the time Ellsberg was willing to go to jail for what he was revealing... of course its easy for me to opine from the comfort of my home and having no access to secret documents. Its complicated, and demanding some specific form of bravery from someone is pretty unfair. But it did leave Snowden looking more like Kim Philby than Daniel Ellsberg.

 

[Kaos]

Espionage doesn't have to involve a foreign nation state. The UCMJ statute includes an "intent to injure the United States" or advantage a foreign nation provision, by (among other things) transmitting intelligence or cryptographic information. ...."The accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct."

There are various ways within government channels for whistleblowers to shed light on things that shouldn't be happening that don't involve publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents, many of them needlessly included, to the likes of Assange, and by extension to all foreign adversaries. There are reasons states keep secrets - to gain advantage over their adversaries so they can continue obtaining information behind the scenes in order to strategize policy decisions when dealing with the said adversarial countries on important issues. Manning simply dumping a bunch of information into the public domain completely undercuts that process, which is why he was convicted of 22 counts of computer fraud to espionage to causing intelligence to be published into the public domain so adversaries could access it.

Which foreign country was gaining an advantage by Manning's actions? It seems to me the biggest objection to it was that it was endangering the lives of US armed forces personnel, yet you could argue the US was already doing that with its visible presence in hostile territory and the atrocities committed by US troops witnessed by locals. See, it seems to me the government wasn't worried about how it would empower the enemy abroad, but rather the proverbial 'enemy' at home - ie those opposing such military conflicts. The 'treason' and 'espionage' charges were just cheap accusations to detract away from what Manning was actually trying to bring to light.

And realistically what would happen if he raised his moral concerns via official government channels? More likely she'd be told to shut up and threatened if she couldn't keep a lid on it. I can't ever recall a scenario where the white house, state department or any other body had publicly come out and disclosed such a thing on the back of someone raising concerns within the 'proper channels' - "yep, its been brought to our attention that we've been doing some questionable things, thought you should all know".

 

[Raoul]

Which foreign country was gaining an advantage by Manning's actions?

All of them. Since he released the information to Wikileaks, every adversarial state benefited from it. At least old school traitors/spies worked with one government to where the damage was limited to just them.

It seems to me the biggest objection to it was that it was endangering the lives of US armed forces personnel, yet you could argue the US was already doing that with its visible presence in hostile territory and the atrocities committed by US troops witnessed by locals. See, it seems to me the government wasn't worried about how it would empower the enemy abroad, but rather the proverbial 'enemy' at home - ie those opposing such military conflicts. The 'treason' and 'espionage' charges were just cheap accusations to detract away from what Manning was actually trying to bring to light.

There are many objections. Endagering the lives of troops through [then] his actions is one matter. Allowing all foreign adversaries to change the way they communicate to evade U.S. collection is another. Both were damaging and thus the espionage charge was solid - on more than just one count. Manning is fortunate to be alive, much less frolicking about amongst the public and announcing a Senatorial candidacy.

And realistically what would happen if he raised his moral concerns via official government channels? More likely she'd be told to shut up and threatened if she couldn't keep a lid on it. I can't ever recall a scenario where the white house, state department or any other body had publicly come out and disclosed such a thing on the back of someone raising concerns within the 'proper channels' - "yep, its been brought to our attention that we've been doing some questionable things, thought you should all know".

They're not supposed to reveal it to the public. That's the entire purpose of keeping the channel within government circles so it can be addressed and resolved internally to avoid it reaching adversarial states. Manning is extremely fortunate that Obama was in office when all of this happened other wise a slam dunk life sentence was a certainty, with a possibility of execution.

 

[berbatrick]

@MTF
Chelsea was acquitted of "knowingly aiding the enemy" as well, the point is that the US govt doesn't differentiate between the outlets that people leak to.

They're not supposed to reveal it to the public. That's the entire purpose keeping the channel within government circles so it can be addressed and resolved internally to avoid it reaching adversarial states. Manning is extremely fortunate that Obama was in office when all of this happened other wise a slam dunk life sentence was a certainty, with a possibility of execution.

The reason I link articles is because they are usually written by knowledgeable people. For example,

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/08/the-price-for-proper-channel-whistleblowing.html

In 2008, Gina Gray, an Army civilian employee, raised concerns about the way Arlington National Cemetery was handling the remains of American soldiers and their graves. She refused to sign off an internal report and brought her concerns to the commanding general in charge. Gray’s information led to a series of scandals and to her being fired. She then passed her information to three Congressional offices, but the management of Arlington National Cemetery didn’t change until Gray went to the press and the inspector general.

Though Gray has been officially labeled a whistleblower by the Pentagon’s inspector general, she has not been compensated for her firing. She has had to drop her case seeking compensation because she remains unemployed and can’t afford her legal bills, according to the Post.

https://couragefound.org/2014/07/cia-spying-on-its-own-internal-channels/

McClatchy reports that the Central Intelligence Agency may be “intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s classified 6,000-page report into the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation programme is still yet to be published and the Committee has already accused the agency of illegally spying on that probe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2ee3912ae0e_story.html?utm_term=.c75d94091ae7

Most federal employees who report waste, fraud and abuse have legal protections against retaliation by their bosses. If employees are retaliated against, the law defines certain procedures designed to get justice for whistbleblowers.

For employees in national security agencies, the protections are still a promise. National security contractors don’t even have that.

https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/3337...the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil

"I had to get out of there, because they were using the program I built to do domestic spying, and I didn't want any part of it, I didn't want to be associated with it," he says. "I look at it as basically treason. They were subverting the Constitution."

Binney says he and two other NSA colleagues who also quit tried sounding the alarm with congressional committees. But because they did not have documents to prove their charges, nobody believed them. Snowden, he says, did not repeat that mistake.

computer expert Thomas Drake thought blowing the whistle on what he considered unconstitutional NSA programs would shake things up there. Instead, what got shaken up was his own life.

"The only person who was investigated, prosecuted, charged in secret, then was indicted, then ended up facing trial and 35 years in prison was myself," he says.

Drake had taken his case both to the NSA and to Congress. After concluding his complaints were going nowhere, he showed unclassified information from the NSA to a newspaper reporter. For that he was charged with violating the Espionage Act. The FBI raided his home, too — four months after Binney's.

 

[Raoul]

@MTF
Chelsea was acquitted of "knowingly aiding the enemy" as well, the point is that the US govt doesn't differentiate between the outlets that people leak to.





The reason I link articles is because they are usually written by knowledgeable people. For example,

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/08/the-price-for-proper-channel-whistleblowing.html


https://couragefound.org/2014/07/cia-spying-on-its-own-internal-channels/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2ee3912ae0e_story.html?utm_term=.c75d94091ae7


https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/3337...the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil

I agree that the government needs to tighten up the process so that whistleblowing hotlines are safeguarded against abuse by others.

 

[roseguy64]

Lemon isn't that bad to be fair. He's just had it with people using his show to spew lies and untruths and it seems like over the past few months he's not allowing his guests to shift the goalposts during the debates. He's emotional at times and seems to take things personally but I do like the way stops his guests saying untruths.

That's my view of him too. In the past he used to be like Blitzer and Cooper(slightly) with letting the guests get away with nonsense but he's started cutting them off and asking follow ups since the Trump fanatics started appearing

 

[roseguy64]

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[DOTA]

@Raoul There was a documentary about Chelsea Manning you told me to watch ages ago and I never got round to it. Don't suppose you recall what it would've been?

 

[Raoul]

@Raoul There was a documentary about Chelsea Manning you told me to watch ages ago and I never got round to it. Don't suppose you recall what it would've been?

 

[DOTA]

Awesome. Thanks

 

[psychdelicblues]

Has someone hacked his twitter account?

 

[Eboue]

 

[Eboue]

 

[Eboue]

 

[Sweet Square]

The distortion of King views and message(I image this happens every year)is something to witness, at times they seem to be talking about a completely different person. Not even sure why Republican do it as they are so openly racist.

 

[Ubik]

It's bad enough when a died-in-the-wool southerner waves that flag, but when it's someone born and raised in Iowa ffs

 

[Raoul]

It's bad enough when a died-in-the-wool southerner waves that flag, but when it's someone born and raised in Iowa ffs

King is a moron. He can't seem to decide if he's a Farage/Wilders type, a standard right wing conservative, or an old school Reaganite.

 

[Eboue]

what a complete tool

 

[Raoul]

There's a tweet where someone replaced MLK with Ryan talking to Darth Vader floating about today.

 

[senorgregster]

what a complete tool

This has to be a Photoshop? How's that even possible?

 

[berbatrick]

what a complete tool

He's literally this.

 

[langster]

 

[Nucks]

This has to be a Photoshop? How's that even possible?

I count one African American (light skinned possibly Indian/Pakistani descent) and one Asian in the entire crowd, lol.

 

[Raoul]

Judge Janine superimposed over the North Korean propaganda lady.