I would pay more attention to the last part of the Oath, its just as long as the first and just as specific:

It does not say "I will obey all orders based on how I feel they should be carried out based on my individual judgment."

I wonder what the UCMJ says about what he did...

Here it is Section 904 Article 104...

Quote:

AIDING THE ENEMY Any person who-- (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

That is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read on the internet.

Millions of pieces of information and you demand that every one have it's security classification justified? To who, you? Shall we lay them all out in a parking lot or something so you and your fellow utopians can argue over the merits of releasing them to the enemy?

Pure foolishness. :nope:

Exactly.

A couple of stories.

I bought my dad a DVD set of "Confidential Films of WWII", now if thats what they considered Confidential back then, some of the stuff on this website about current operations must be Top Secret.

One night a buddy of mine let slip a little nugget of secret information. Our enemies certainly knew that we know all about it. Its obvous to all parties concerned whats going on but I still sat on that nugget until I saw it mentioned in the press by an embedded reporter. Just about anything concerning the 5th Fleet is classified nowadays for obvious reasons.

Now if you think the US makes lots of info classified try researching a country like North Korea; whats in their troops mess kits is a state secret! Compare that to the US, in another thread I was tracking USN Carrier movements based on press photos.

Traitor to his country.

<edit> now that I've read all the posts between your question and this post I'll add that it is simply black and white- he's a traitor to his country. His helping the U.S. doesn't mitigate the fact that he stole some of his country's secrets and turned them over for personal gain or an attack of conscious.

Not as ridiculous as you might first feel. He is more correct than you might think.

The only people who can classify stuff are a select small number of people granted the warrant of Originating Classifying Authority. They do go through a lot of training and are subject to classification review. Even thought a specific person is an OCA, there is a staff that reviews it for his or her signature.

Everyone else in the system is only allowed to create classified documents based on derivative classification. This means based on a classification source. No one at the worker-bee level (which is 99% of the people) is authorized to simply make something classified.

This is why at the bottom of classified documents is the classification block which lists the authority to classify, the source of classification, and the date in which it will automatically become classified (with some exceptions). Also included is the PCN (Personal Classification Number) which is a unique number that identifies the person deriving the classification.

Any piece of classified information had better be able to be backtracked to an OCA or a derivative source authority. :yep:

This is addressed in Executive Order 13526 December 29, 2009.

That was interesting Platapus and it sounds about right according to my own (now ancient) experience as a Military Communicator, but it's kind of besides the point too. The stuff that Manning stole was classified and he knew that it was classified, but he took it anyways. He deserves to burn.

Wow crimes against humanity:har:
Someone is so far down the rabbit hole there is no longer any glimmer of light for them to see by.



TLAM doesn't part (1) of nasty treasonous acts fit like a glove the very actions exposed in some of these cables.
So that means that sections of the US govt. and some of its staff both civilian and military are very very guilty of aiding the enemy.

Just for the fun of it given that Haplo ridiculously raised a different category of crimes, wouldn't the US govt. be guilty of crimes against humanity for some of the acts that were revealed as it is obviously a government, is alledgedly supposed to be organised and is according to its own documents has been playing a big role in some really nasty crimes.

An interesting article:

the conservative case for wikileaks

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12...for-wikileaks/

My christmas essay for you! :DL (Our christmas was chaotic and delayed by 24 hours, due to weather and traffic problems).

=================

US servicemen need to make an oath when entering service, the versions are slightly different for non National Guard and National Guard services, in that the latter additionally mention the federal state and the governor, otherwise they are pretty much the same.

"I , (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

or

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."

Let's ignore the discrmination of atheists and non-theistic beliuevers for a moment. :D

What people swear is loyalty to the constituion, and obedience to the president and commanding officers. What people also swear is that they will put their allegiance not only to the constitution, but to single individual people, like the president.

That holds certain problems. Because what if the people you have sworn loyalty to, do violate the constitution that you also have sworn loyalty to...?

Only romanticising, infantile and naive dreamers could ever hope that a president or a governor or all officers in an army higher in rank than you are, are immune to human flaws, never can have intentions of betrayal, or cannot show criminal energy in abusing legal or constituional rules for lobby interests or their own private banking account. We all know from everyday poltiics how very much different politics are. And any politician, including presidents and governors, never are saints. At best you can hope that they are just humnans that beside their motivation to perform as best as they can, nevertheless make human errors and false assessements - almost never it gets better than just this.

Some people seem to automatically imply that Manning deliberately acted on behalf of personal scruples, or intentionally was to commit himself on a moral mission his conscience could not refuse to start, since he wanted to demask "the system" and saw himself unable to support lie and corruption any longer. I don'T know. I hjave no personal impression oif him at all, and what makes me think and hesitate to agree to this assessement is that it was reported that he boasted and bragged with the theft of the data, and even have announced it in advance, if I remember correrctly (I may be wrong on the latter, I am not sure). Bragging and boasting is not the behavior I would expect from somebody acting by moral motivation and moral scruples.

However, I am not limited to see this affair from just a juristic perspective, or just from a military standpoint. I rate this affair by the effects it causes.

There was much material released that just badmouthed individual leaders or countries, this is material that just stirr emotions, but does not any good beyond just this, so one can ask if it really was necessary to release this.

Then there was material that showed that the real assessement of persons and countries decisevely differs from the wanted media propaganda and what the "official" Washington tells the world that it is thinking about said persons and countries. That this becomes known, can be a good thing, in a past thread I gave the example of Turkey, that officially is demanded to be brought into the EU, but that in reality is seen as being on the path to become a fundamentalist and autocratic regime that is hostile to Western democratic principles. For the Europeans it is good to know that Washington wants them to do something which Washington ob viousdly thinks is dangerous and harmful for Europe to do. Other examples are the revelations about the widespread Arab support for military action against Iran, or the revelation to what degree America cooperates with tyrannic autocratic regimes, allows to get abused by them at times, and abuses them in return at others - all this whiole the media give a complete different picture of what Washington officially thinks about such issues.

Finally there was material released that simply illustrates how Washington kicks other nation'S soveriegnity with both boots and tries to conspirate and lobby for economic or other own interest by trying to punish opther governments if these governments do not accept to delibaertly act in violation of their own people'S explciit will. I give the example of Washington trying to undermine the widespread European resistence to genetically altered food by recommending punishing and painful (original quote) consequences against the EU and single EU members if they do not allow Monsanto to introduce genetically altered wheat, and establish American monopoles in Europe. That may be what Washington wants. But it is not what the huge majority of European people in almost all European countries want. Punishing governments and economies if they do not act agains their people, may not be a compliment for America - but it certainly is good for the intended receivers of such strikes to know about them.

For the most, the cablegate material so far falls in one of these three categories.

Back top Manning, morals, and the oath of allegiance. The question was what to do when you are in thge tricky situation that you should be loyal to a principle, and at the same time should be loyal to a single or group of individuals who violate these principles.

Can loyalty to these people be demanded and still be maintained under such a self-contradicting circumstance, just because of an oath that leaves you in the no win-no win situation that you must violate your loyalty either to the principle or to the person you sworn loyalty to?

Some people here said that American soldiers are "property" of the state. Well, that is a re-introuction of slavery then, because in our cultural understanding only in a system of slavery humans can be the property of institutions or other humans. If it is true that soldiers are just property of somebody, then everybody is a stupid dumbhead voluntaring to become that, and I also cannot bring this into conformity with several basic principles the US claims to depend on. It is also a totalitarian feature: the state/the social context/soiety is all, the individual is nothing. That is if not facism then totalitarianism in its purest form since Sparta (which is often mentioned to have been the first of such a system). In Germany, it is different. The modern German view sees soldiers as "citizens in uniform". Now there is opportunity to rtaise criticism of that, too, and I have done that in an own thread longer time ago. I just bring it up to show that alternatives are possible.

A military organisation of course depends on discipline and hierarchy. Normally, orders must be obeyed without wasting time with discussing them and demanding them to be shown appropriate. Trust plays a role. But trust can be abused - and can be abused the easier the more blindly it is given. There also must be the opportunity for each and every soldier to reject obedience if he is given commands that are illegal or are in violation of the oath he has made. I often have said that one of my main criticisms against Bush, and administratioins before him, was that they betrayed the troops. Vietnam was no war of need, but a war of desire, and it was staged (Tonkin), and politicians constantly messed up the military execution. Betrayal of the troops and the American public. Iraq/Kuwait 91: the military defeat of Iraq - which was absolutely possible and within reach - was deliberately prevented, Saddam was helped to be left in power, the assassination squads of the Kuwaiti rulers were brought back into power, and the troops even were expected to sit on the fence and do nothing while watching Saddam'S helicopters massacring the revolting Kurds and Shias. Betrayal of the troops and the American public ( a revolt the administration had helped to provoke, and then also betrayed). The Iraq war 2003: incompetently planned and prepared, badly executed due to constant political interference by an incompetent defence minister, triggered by lies and faked information, on b ehalf of economic lobby groups. Betrayal of the troops and the American public. Afghanistan: the last thing one must say is that it was incompetently waged for too many years. If not betrayal then at least political incompetence must be called out. Like in Iraq, arrogant dilletant like Rumsfeld and Cheney and anti-intellectual, unedcuated idiots like Bush should not be allowed to influence how a war is being fought, or more precise: they should not even be allowed to have the power to decide whether or not to launch a war at all. Thousands of troops and tens of thousands of civilians have payed their incompetence with their lives.

It is oftenb said that the German Wehrmacht should have revolted against Hitler, instead of allowing their Prussian codes of honour to lead them into blind obedience and loyalty to a regime of evil and a criminal in command who both worked for the doom and the disadvantage of the German nation and the Germn people. And some tried that, there have been many attempts to assassinate Hitler, both from within the military, and from non-military origians as well.I would not complain if the German officer corps would have rejected Hitler's order to attack Poland on grounds of staged events and efaked evidence. And so, I alos would not have complained if the Americna militzary would have rejected to obvey orders to attack Iraq on grounds of constructed claims and faked evidence. Inm both cases, it would have been the duty of the military to not obey, for the sake of the interest of the American people and on behalf of the principles the American nation historically has been founded upon.

We Germansa have a nice word for blind, uncritical obedience in the military. We call it "Kadavergehorsam".

I do not defend Manning, as I said above, becasue I do not know his motivation. But I refuse to damn in general the possibility that somebody refuses to be obedient when he would need to violate his conscience in the meaning of needing to support the violation of constitutional principles and human interests of he nation's people when staying loyal to those who deliberately decide to ignore and violate these, and ordering the military to support this personal agenda.

That's why I think it is inevitable to give Manning a public trial, not a hidden tribunal from thnat institution that has own interests at stake and a natural interest to keep certain things hidden while also conducting an intimidating example.

As far as Assange is concerned, and Wikileaks, they did nothing criminal by publishing it. And any law in America that wants to forbid the other TV and press media to publish information given to them by informants, should be considered as unconstitutional and hostile towards basic and inevtiable principles of a free and democratic soceity. The US was not meant to become a police state with censored media.

Instead of calling for legalised censorship (want some of the new Hungarian laws, maybe? ;) ) , you should better understand how dangerous it is to have an uncritical attitutude towards technology and data security - something which Europeans have a much stronger demand for, whileAmericans tend to ridicule right this and often call it a hostile attitude towards technology. Of course, stricter security rules work tw-ways. They make it more unlikely that somebodyx wals in with a USB stick and copies data onto it, but it also allows the state to again move beyond the clountetrcontrol of the electorate and to hide it'S anti-democratric power structures from the public that it betrays.

And finally realise this: if somebody like Manning would not have been American, but Chinese or Russian, and would have leaked the ablegate materiual about the Chinese and Russian state and diploacy, all those of you who know condemn Manning would hail that other guy as a hero and you would celebrate his civil courage, and you would argue how great it is to have the internet and something like Wikileaks, and you would demand China or Russia tpo release him becasue he is a human rights activist and a fighter for civil freedom and open society etc etc.

No arguments from me on that. What he did was wrong. The discussion that what he released has not caused any harm is sophistry at best and inaccurate at worst.

Since there is no way we can ever protect ourselves from someone, with a clearance, from betraying his or her country, we have to "educate" people so that they won't choose to betray their country. That education will come in many forms, one of which is a speedy, fair trial for Manning and if found guilty, I truly believe he needs to be executed.

We can not have people in the military thinking that they can violate the classification laws "just because they feel they should".

Manning, if guilty, is a criminal. And the Government can not afford any perception that he "got away with it". Mannings lack of honour and discipline can spread like a cancer among other weak-minded people.

I am not quite following you. So as to prevent any misunderstandings in this discussion, could you give us an example?

Nothing in the oath says anything about protecting the human interests of the nation's people. It is the role of the government to do this, not the role of the soldier individually. This is trying to say that even a no-stripe private should be able to determine what is "good" for the interest of the nation. We have elections for that. Some good, some bad, but it is the job of the people to determine their course, not the role of the military.

The oath is rather clear actually so let me ask, to claim this was done under the "support and defend the Constitution" clause, one has to be able to show that the Constitution was in danger. Where was the threat to the Constitution? There wasn't one. Where in any of these documents does it show that the Constitution was violated and disregarded?

None of this violates the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that the US Government cannot use leverage (political, monetary, military, etc) in its foreign policy duties.

How is this a question? For a civilian ok maybe it is, but the oath says nothing about "you decide whether you think this is in line with your own interpretation of what you think the Constitution says, and then don't follow it if you don't like it." Its not about "principles", its about protecting those that would overthrow the Constitution. Not one single thing that has been released can be shown to qualify as an "enemy, either foreign or domestic".

Seriously, people consider groups like Oathkeepers "fringe" because they are military and civil servants who recognize that certain orders that they may one day be given would violate the Constitutional guarantees we as citizens have. For example, ordering all the privately owned firearms to be confiscated is direct violation, and they make it know that they would not follow sucn an unlawful order. Where can Manning (or whoever did this if not him) point to any action in those leaks and say "Here is a direct violation of the US Constitution"? Whoever it is that did this - can't make that claim.

So the "principles" arguement is shown not to hold legal water. There are recordings of him stating that he did this to let the public - specifically he states his view that the US Government is in the wrong. He makes it clear that his intent is to create a change of direction through public outcry using this classified material. This is a violation of law. You want to talk Constitutional principles? Ok - this guy just violated them because we have elections for changing direction. Take the Apache tape that was released. It was released because the leaker disagrees with the war. So change the direction by legal means - not illegal ones!

This is what makes the principles arguement so laughable - to do this you have to lack principles! As for this:

Not going to happen. He is not legally entitled to one, and while his lawyer will attempt to get public outcry up for one, there is no legal basis or reason to allow it. The only reason anyone wants this is so that he can be made into a martyr.

There is no data showing Assange was directly involved with either gaining or releasing the data. As long as that stays true, then I agree. However, any person nother that knowingly releases information that results in the death of a human being, such as some of these documents may do by pointing out informers, etc, are, by US law, accessories to murder. If they result in the death of a US Citizen, then those laws are applicable. This is a protection against vigilante justice among other things. So to claim that Wikilieaks et al are free and clear is incorrect.

There is a big difference between a whistleblower and a traitor. A whistleblower does not commit a crime to point out what they think may be another crime. A traitor hides behind any shield that might protect him. This isn't about censoring the media (though nice attempt to divert the discussion), its about whether or not any group, media or otherwise, has a duty to deal with the information they have in a responsible way. If releasing it causes an increased risk of death to others, you don't release it. DUH!

Before anyone starts making the argument that releasing stuff "might" save future lives - remember you don't have the right to go walk down the road, blow some guys head off as he walks the other way, and then use the defense "but he was going to be the next hitler"! You cannot tell the future, but some things blatently and obviously rasie the real risk to other humans - like releasing some things. While releasing information that includes informant details has a very slim chance to change the big picture, your sacrificing lives to try it. I don't care if its Assange, Wiki or anyone else, no private individual or group, media or otherwise, has the right to play with human lives to that degree, especially in attempts to manipulate the public.

As the government and military are by their supply of arms ammunition training money and other things to the very people they are supposed to be at war with it means that they are the traitors.
It could have been said in their defence that they didn't know their work was benefiting the enemy as they didn't know what the people they were aiding were doing....if it wasn't for the diplomatic cables revealing that they knew damn well that the people they were helping are the enemy.

It is quite simple, if I am giving money and assistance to the very people who are financing and assisting the enemy then if I were to continue giving that money and assistance knowing that it was aiding the enemy then I would be aiding the enemy.
Since that knowledge appears to go through top levels of the military, its foriegn missions and even its supreme commander then undeniably the top echelons of the military are guilty of treason for aiding the enemy.

So there is a ridiculous situation where some low ranking nobody is being called a traitor for publicising the open treachery of his commanders.
He could of course theoreticly have taken his complaints about the treason through proper channels and gone through his superiors...but since the treason was at the very top levels it isn't really an option is it.

The basic dilemma, if you weant to call it that, you do not adress, Haplo. It is an implication of the oath that you protect the human interests of the American people. It is implicit - else oyu have the unacceptable situation that indeed you form a military that if ordered by the presdient or a giovernor or a superior officer can be used as a tool to supress trhe American people. You are talking about a tyranny and dictatorship then. If this what the oath is accepting and including to happen?

You point out that thgere are elections that bring people to poltiical powerr deciding on behalf of the American people and the coinstitutuons and Amendement's implocit or expclit principles and interest. You take it for granted that this is the case, always. But it isn't like that. In fact you often have polticiians trying to dodge rules and laws and such principles if it is in what they consider to be their interest.

And this is the basic dilemma that I point out. When those whose orders to obey you have sworn, are abusing their power to act in their own or their lobby group's interst but against the interest of the nation and its people - what sort of loyalty to your prioritize then? Do you stay with the Führer-Prinzip? Then you end up the way Germany degenerated in the 30s and 40s of the last century: loyalty to an oath to a group of people, no matter what. See how it ended. Or do your prioritize the loyalty to the American people, and so stand up against those in power violating the Amerian people'S interest? I gave examples of wars that did not serve your country any good.

This blind Kadavergehorsam and this naivety of simply blindly trusting in that the political superiors always decie on behalf of the interest of the American people, is just this: dangerous, and very, very naive. Don't fallow that path. A system demanding your blind obedience in that way, does not deserve neither your obedience nor your loyalty. You should consider your loyalty to be more valuable than to be wasted for just this.

Never accept them to take away independent thinking away from you. Not even the army. If you ust blinmdly obey ALWAYS, even when you start to carry out order that do crime and evil to innocents or your own people, then you become guilty yourself. And probably will try to justify yourself the same way many Nazi commanders and even KZ guards did after the war: "Ich befolgte nur Befehle." There mujst be a morally defined treshhold beyond which you must refuse to be loyal to individual people anymore - even when they are your CO. Even when they are your president.

I agree, it is a difficult issue, a fragile balance between maintaining a functional military and keeping your own moral responsibility and a clean conscience. But be aware of this, Haplo. In case you ever asked yourself how the Third Reich and the blind obedience of the Wehrmacht to Hitler could have become possible - the arguments you just gave and the attitude you illustrated, is the answer to that question. Those in the Wehrmacht for the most were no "evil" people. The officers knowing that Hitler was ruining Germany, and still remained obedient: only some of them were fanatics. Often they were just people often thinking and arguing excactly like you just do. ;)

There shall never be a defence of claims for blind, and total obedience to indiovidual people. There always must be limits to that demand's validity. Not having such limits, leads to abuse, tyranny, and evil. Obedience ion the understanding of discipline, and a reasonable routine in trusting: yes. Blind, uncritical obedience being prhibited to ever doubt: no, at no cost. We have learned our lesson in Germany. But for America, German history, Vietnam and Iraq maybe still were not painful enough to learn that lesson.

On Wikileaks, so far not a single case has become known or reported with evidence where people got killed by cablegate or Iraqgate revelations. But many tens of thisuands got killed and many hundreds of thoisuands lost all or got wounded and traumatised due to decisions and failures reported on by these releases and other investigative journalism in past years). So who is the bigger crimnal here? The traitor betraying his own people and causing the death of tens if not hundreds of thousands, or the one reporting about the betrayal and maybe in the future by doing so enables others to kill some few people more?

If Cablegate wopuld be about China and Russia, and Manning would be a Chinese dissident, many of those now calling for Assanage's assassination would hail him instead.

Different laws govern the executive and legislative branch branch. They have the power to break laws and even the Constitution when necessary and only answer for them if impeached.

So are you saying it is OK for the executive and legislative to commit treason as the particular law you cited doesn't cover them?
If so how does that apply to the military high command too?
Surely all the military officers at all levels involved in this blatant, long running and very nasty treason must be thrown into jail and held before they can be killed once their trial is over.
After all fairs fair and we only want justice eh and its for the good of the country that these people should be held to account for breaking their oaths and becoming enemies of the state they are sworn to defend.

Its the duty of the Executive Branch to determine who is the enemy is and after the Legislative branch has its say determine what actions are to be done against said enemy. The Military follows those orders. If those orders include say arming one enemy against the other it must obey those orders or those who do not will be in violation of military law.

The check against abuse of Executive and Parliamentary (Legislative Branch) Privilege is impeachment by the Legislature followed by indictment by the judiciary.

Oh and no they are not bound by the law I cited since that is the UCMJ and only pertains to those in uniform or those who commit military acts against the US.

This is where folks like Oathkeepers come in, Skybird. But there is a huge difference between government using military force to repress its own citizenry (which violates the Constitutional protections in the oath) and a specific person who acts as a traitor because they personally feel that the governmental position on a foreign conflict is in error.

No I don't take it for granted - it IS always the case. When has there ever, in the history of this country after the Constitution was ratified, not been an election as required by law?

Yes, it is....

Now see this is where you go wrong. Your earlier assumption that elections don't always happen allows you to form a wrong conclusion. Now its true that politicians try and dodge, but thats why the people can throw them out. Recalls, impeachments, elections, politicians being help accountable under the law, etc - all work. Sure, the people might vote them back in, but then when that happens, that is the will of the electorate, whether you or I like it or not.

"Elections have meaning" so Obama said, and so he will learn. But I digress. Lets continue.

Skybird, I mean this without vitriol, so don't take it badly. But you obviously have very little understanding of the DEPTH of structure our government has. Unlike other republics, our government is layered. Not just federally. States have huge legal rights and responsibilities that the Federal govt cannot cross. The feds cannot even send troops into a state for humanitarian reasons without the consent of that state's governor. Not just troops either - they can't do ANYTHING inside a state on any reasonable scale without state approval. Just look at how long it took to get help to Katrina victims. WHY? Because the governor failed to give the go ahead - as soon as the feds got it, THEN they could move. But not before.

Your arguement is faulty on both the State issue and on the election issue.

The system does not require blind obedience. This is your viewpoint that lacks a complete understanding. There are numerous ways to deal with issues other than treason.

Now your just preaching. Please, leave it to us that are ordained. :03:

No its not, if your uncomfortable with the military, don't join. If you don't like the direction of the country, get active.

Now you know better than this Skybird. Talk about revising history! Hitler came to power because the Weimer republic allowed political parties to take to the streets in violence against each other. They allowed their citizenry to be terrorized in the open. The Wehrmacht as it stood had little to do with peacekeeping in the civilian world. The reality is the only "input" the Wehrmacht had was that many soldiers who had fought in WW1 and felt betrayed by their government joined with Hitler. The failure of the Weimar republic to do this led directly to the people standing idly by when the Gleichschaltung policies in 1933 that effectively negated the German constitution of 1919 were enacted.

No one said blind loyalty or total obedience is called for Skybird. Whoever the leaker is, all they had to do was stand up, refuse to do their duty as a soldier and face a court marshal. Then, upon being kicked out of the military, they would be able to pursue whatever political stance against governmental policy they wanted. But if Manning is the person in question, then instead of taking a legal course of action, he took an illegal one. And for that, he will face the consequences.

More posturing? Who is the "traitor betraying his own people"? Bush? He got re-elected so the people spoke their will - you just don't like it. Obama? Who are you talking about here? Tens of thousands of deaths? Okay, and how many people would have died in torture chambers under Saddam, or been mercilessly killed by the Taliban had they been left in control? Based off of what we know historically - Millions - but see you don't want to deal with that. So how is that a betrayal?

I haven't seen or heard anyone calling for Assanage to be assassinated. Is this more hyperbole? If anyone is, then they are in the wrong. But then, this isn't about Assange - this is about Manning. If he is the one leaking the data, then he is guilty under the law and should be punished. You can dislike the US, dislike the war on terror, dislike whatever you want, but it is in the rule of law that keeps society functional. To turn your example back upon you - it was the Weimar republics failure to uphold the law that allowed the past that Germany learned from.

So much reading :88) :o

That is why keyboards have a 'Page Down' key. ;)

Or as some around here call it 'The Skybird Key'... :O: