The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

LOL were those mounties?

Might have been some of those in there also. Take a look at the background features.

[StrangeSox]

Might have been some of those in there also. Take a look at the background features.

 

LOL, palm trees. Don't worry, the commenters on YT have plenty of excuses! Fox never claimed that it was video from Madison!

 

Watching it again, the guy I thought was mounty was just someone wearing a red jacket and a wide-brim tan hat.

[bmags]

LOL, palm trees. Don't worry, the commenters on YT have plenty of excuses! Fox never claimed that it was video from Madison!

 

Watching it again, the guy I thought was mounty was just someone wearing a red jacket and a wide-brim tan hat.

 

the mounty look is in.

[BigSqwert]

That channel is a f***ing disgrace.

[StrangeSox]

Texas Immigration Bill has Big Exception

 

As proposed, House Bill 1202 would create tough state punishments for those who "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" hire an unauthorized immigrant. Violators could face up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

But it is an exception included in the bill that is drawing attention. Those who hire unauthorized immigrants would be in violation of the law -- unless they are hiring a maid, a lawn caretaker or another houseworker.

 

Texans need their cheap domestic servants!

[StrangeSox]

Fetus called to testify

 

Two fetuses will be presented as witnesses before an Ohio legislative committee that is hearing a bill to outlaw abortions after the first heartbeat can be detected inside a woman's womb.

 

The fetuses will appear live and in color before the committee on a video screen projecting ultrasound images taken from their pregnant mothers' bodies. Janet Folger Porter, head of Faith2Action, an anti-abortion group, said the fetuses will be the youngest witnesses to ever testify when they come in front of the House Health and Aging Committee Wednesday morning.

 

"Lawmakers are going to be able to see as well as hear the babies' heartbeats," said Porter. "We think this is going to do a lot to keep other babies' heartbeats going in Ohio." She said two Ohio women -- one nine weeks and the other 11 weeks pregnant -- have agreed to be scanned with ultrasound machines for the hearing.

 

Abortion rights supporters said they are dismayed by what they see as a spectacle dreamed up for media attention.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Bradley Manning could get the death penalty for being a whistle blower.

[BigSqwert]

Reading this made my day.

[Cknolls]

http://akaka.senate.gov/press-releases.cfm...87-16a85af18ed7

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Bradley Manning could get the death penalty for being a whistle blower.

 

Obama's DoJ has been incredibly terrible on whistle blowers.

[Soxbadger]

Because hes not a whistle blower, he was a member of the US military with clearance who violated the UCMJ.

 

Whoever wrote the article must not be an attorney, because I really see nothing wrong with what the US govt is doing. They have every right to prosecute for what they believe to be an act of espionage.

 

Basically the prosecutors are always going to shoot for the moon. If you dont bring a charge, you cant win on it. They would be derelict in their duties if they did not charge him with everything under the sun. It is up to his Defense counsel to defend him, not up to the prosecutors to be lenient.

 

Our justice system has rules for a reason. As for the entire hes being held, Im not familiar with the UCMJ, but I assume that the US has followed the UCMJ guidelines.

 

At the end of the day, no one forced Manning to join the military. But once he did, he became subject to the UCMJ.

 

To that end, Daniel Elsberg was not a member of the US military when he released the Pentagon papers. Thus Ellsberg was not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. The article is comparing apples to oranges.

 

This is why non-attorneys shoudlnt write legal articles. Im even hesitant to respond because ive never been a part of a UCMJ proceeding.

[lostfan]

What whistle did Manning blow of any consequence? I mean really? What big secrets did he expose and what's going to change as a result of anything he did (for the better)? Some misguided hero-worshipping here. He just grabbed as much classified s*** as he could find, put it on a disc, and gave it away. f*** that.

[lostfan]

I mean, if someone I work with takes a folder full of reports and analytical products I've done in the past year (which will have my name, and phone number at work on it) and burns them to a CD and mails it to Wikileaks and then I have to answer to a bunch of self-righteous media hacks about some s*** that was taken blatantly out of context, and where none of them even attempt to put it in its proper context, I'm going to want to punch that person in the face.

[Balta1701]

What whistle did Manning blow of any consequence? I mean really? What big secrets did he expose and what's going to change as a result of anything he did (for the better)? Some misguided hero-worshipping here. He just grabbed as much classified s*** as he could find, put it on a disc, and gave it away. f*** that.

He did supposedly expose that Iraq helicopter massacre video. That's legitimate whistleblowing.

[StrangeSox]

What whistle did Manning blow of any consequence? I mean really? What big secrets did he expose and what's going to change as a result of anything he did (for the better)? Some misguided hero-worshipping here. He just grabbed as much classified s*** as he could find, put it on a disc, and gave it away. f*** that.

 

Manning's not a hero, and he very clearly broke some laws. Still, the government's treatment of him has been s***. They've gone after other whistle blowers, even re-opening cases that the Bush DoJ dropped years ago. And how they're treating Wikileaks, as if it's some sort of terrorist organization, is ridiculous. I know you've seen Greenwald's stuff on this before, and I don't think there's any excuse for the government's actions.

[Soxbadger]

If he wanted to "whistle blow" he should have filed a report with the Office of Special Counsel.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Counsel

 

Whistleblowing isnt releasing classified information to 3rd parties and then when you get caught claiming you are a whistle blower.

 

Whistleblowing is following the procedures and doing things the right way.

 

Now lets say he reported to the Office of Special Counsel and they did nothing. Then he would have a very legitimate argument for going to a 3rd party. Unfortunately, I doubt this happened as the "Whistle blower" argument is a created defense.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, the Obama DoJ has aggressively gone after whistle blowers and people who leak documents. And they've been pretty terrible about it. Is that better?

 

eg:

 

Article 104 -- which, like all provisions of the UCMJ, applies only to members of the military -- is incredibly broad. Under 104(B) -- almost certainly the provision to be applied -- a person is guilty if he "gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly" (emphasis added), and, if convicted, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." The charge sheet filed by the Army is quite vague and neither indicates what specifically Manning did to violate this provision nor the identity of the "enemy" to whom he is alleged to have given intelligence. There are, as international law professor Kevin Jon Heller notes, only two possibilities, and both are disturbing in their own way.

 

In light of the implicit allegation that Manning transmitted this material to WikiLeaks, it is quite possible that WikiLeaks is the "enemy" referenced by Article 104, i.e., that the U.S. military now openly decrees (as opposed to secretly declaring) that the whistle-blowing group is an "enemy" of the U.S. More likely, the Army will contend that by transmitting classified documents to WikiLeaks for intended publication, Manning "indirectly" furnished those documents to Al Qaeda and the Taliban by enabling those groups to learn their contents. That would mean that it is a capital offense not only to furnish intelligence specifically and intentionally to actual enemies -- the way that, say, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were convicted of passing intelligence to the Soviet Union -- but also to act as a whistle-blower by leaking classified information to a newspaper with the intent that it be published to the world. Logically, if one can "aid the enemy" even by leaking to WikiLeaks, then one can also be guilty of this crime by leaking to The New York Times.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

 

And more generally:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr.../whistleblowers

Edited March 3, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

I already read that article, here was my comment:

 

Whoever wrote the article must not be an attorney, because I really see nothing wrong with what the US govt is doing. They have every right to prosecute for what they believe to be an act of espionage.

 

Basically the prosecutors are always going to shoot for the moon. If you dont bring a charge, you cant win on it. They would be derelict in their duties if they did not charge him with everything under the sun. It is up to his Defense counsel to defend him, not up to the prosecutors to be lenient.

 

Our justice system has rules for a reason. As for the entire hes being held, Im not familiar with the UCMJ, but I assume that the US has followed the UCMJ guidelines.

 

At the end of the day, no one forced Manning to join the military. But once he did, he became subject to the UCMJ.

 

To that end, Daniel Elsberg was not a member of the US military when he released the Pentagon papers. Thus Ellsberg was not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. The article is comparing apples to oranges.

 

This is why non-attorneys shoudlnt write legal articles. Im even hesitant to respond because ive never been a part of a UCMJ proceeding.

 

[StrangeSox]

Greenwald is a lawyer and has a background of litigation constitutional law and civil rights.

 

I don't think your comment really addresses anything Greenwald was saying (or has said) about this case, to be quite honest. And your dismissals of him as a non-attorney smack of logical fallacy, even if it was true.

 

He isn't making an argument that Manning didn't (allegedly) violate the UCMJ; he's making an argument against what these charges imply based at least partially on an article, linked by Greenwald, written by a law professor. IF Manning was the leaker, he very clearly violated the UCMJ and should face charges. I wouldn't argue that and neither would Greenwald. What is being argued against is Manning's treatment (23/7 solitary confinement for 10 months), the aggression with which he's being prosecuted (both legally and in the media) and what their methods of prosecution really mean.

Edited March 3, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

I guess then his problem is that hes an attorney with a bias.

 

And I stand by my argument. Greenwald, for being an attorney, leaves out every single important piece of information.

 

1) Why is Manning being held under solitary confinement?

 

2) What is the normal procedure for dealing with a person accused of espionage?

 

Greenwald's article is all over the place. Part of it he compares Manning to Ellsberg, pointing to the difference in treatment. He does not even mention that Ellsberg was not in the military and therefore could not be tried under the UCMJ.

 

So to clarify, he may be an attorney, but he wrote a brutal article that absolutely makes no sense and my only conclusion is that he is trying to apply his Civil background to UCMJ.

 

What does he want the Obama administration to do? Go easy on espionage?

 

At minimum it would behoove the US to at least try and make an example of Manning so that they dont have more documents leaked.

[StrangeSox]

I guess then his problem is that hes an attorney with a bias.

 

And I stand by my argument. Greenwald, for being an attorney, leaves out every single important piece of information.

 

1) Why is Manning being held under solitary confinement?

 

2) What is the normal procedure for dealing with a person accused of espionage?

 

Greenwald's article is all over the place. Part of it he compares Manning to Ellsberg, pointing to the difference in treatment. He does not even mention that Ellsberg was not in the military and therefore could not be tried under the UCMJ.

 

So to clarify, he may be an attorney, but he wrote a brutal article that absolutely makes no sense and my only conclusion is that he is trying to apply his Civil background to UCMJ.

 

What does he want the Obama administration to do? Go easy on espionage?

 

At minimum it would behoove the US to at least try and make an example of Manning so that they dont have more documents leaked.

 

First, it's pointed out explicitly in the article that Manning is under different circumstances because he's subject to the UCMJ. The Ellsberg comparison is made to show the cognitive dissonance in people that laud Ellsberg but lambaste Manning.

 

As for the bolded, that's a damn good question. It's one that there isn't a good answer to, aside from "punishment" or "to try to get him to plea-bargin against Assange/Wikileaks"

 

From a December article:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...0/12/14/manning

 

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

 

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

[lostfan]

I like Greenwald (bought his books etc.), I just think he gets really carried away sometimes and he loses track of what the government's legitimate goals are, and he comes across like everything the government, especially the intelligence services, does is inherently evil and immoral and has no training or checks to prevent legal abuses whatsoever (which is bulls***). He starts losing me when he goes off on those rants, and if you ask him directly a version of the implied question I just asked in the previous sentence, of course he will say that's not what he's trying to do, but his blogs hardly ever address anything like that. He *really* loses me when he starts talking about Awlaqi - it is legitimate bulls*** that the government gives itself power to skip due process and assassinate a U.S. citizen, HOWEVER he at times (s***, most of the time) comes off like he's defending Awlaqi himself. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Awlaqi is a legitimate piece of s*** who needs to be dealt with.

[Soxbadger]

show the cognitive dissonance in people that laud Ellsberg but lambaste Manning.

 

I guess that is where he loses me. There is no cognitive dissonance, because Ellsberg in no way shape or form was military. His job wasnt to handle confidential information and make sure that it doesnt get in the wrong hands. When you are in the military, you are not an ordinary citizen (and we arent even talking about a conscript, this was Manning's free will to join the military) and you are subject to different rules.

 

Unlike Ellsberg who continually tried to get other people to act (he repeatedly asked Senators to disclose the information) and only leaked it after he exhausted all other avenues, Manning never even reported it. In fact an entirely different person had to tell the US govt what Manning was up to.

 

Furthermore, Ellsberg was drawing specific attention to the fact that the US govt had explicitly lied to the people of the US and to Congress. Ellsberg was not just releasing every document he got his hands on, he was only releasing those that he felt legitimately were necessary for people to have. Furthermore, only excerpts were ever released by Ellsberg, it was Senator Mike Gravel who would publish the entirety.

 

Conversely, Wikileaks is a clusterf*** of nonsense. Some important, some that has no meaning to the American people and should have absolutely not been revealed. You cant just carpet bomb with highly confidential information and expect that its going to be considered a good thing.

 

I wonder what Greenwald would think if I ran his computer server and I had access to his Client Defense files (back when he was a litigator). Would he consider it "whistleblowing" if I published attorney/client emails that indicated his client was a murderer?

 

When you deal with confidential information, there is an understanding that there is a reason that it is confidential. If he uncovered some evidence that the US govt was directly lying to the people of the US as well as Congress, and he only published those excerpts, youd be right, hed be comparable to Ellsberg and there would be a cognitive dissonance.

 

The problem is that the cases are distinguishable, the only similarity is that they involve classified documents, which really is only a superficial similarity.

[lostfan]

I guess that is where he loses me. There is no cognitive dissonance, because Ellsberg in no way shape or form was military. His job wasnt to handle confidential information and make sure that it doesnt get in the wrong hands. When you are in the military, you are not an ordinary citizen (and we arent even talking about a conscript, this was Manning's free will to join the military) and you are subject to different rules.

 

Unlike Ellsberg who continually tried to get other people to act (he repeatedly asked Senators to disclose the information) and only leaked it after he exhausted all other avenues, Manning never even reported it. In fact an entirely different person had to tell the US govt what Manning was up to.

 

Furthermore, Ellsberg was drawing specific attention to the fact that the US govt had explicitly lied to the people of the US and to Congress. Ellsberg was not just releasing every document he got his hands on, he was only releasing those that he felt legitimately were necessary for people to have. Furthermore, only excerpts were ever released by Ellsberg, it was Senator Mike Gravel who would publish the entirety.

 

Conversely, Wikileaks is a clusterf*** of nonsense. Some important, some that has no meaning to the American people and should have absolutely not been revealed. You cant just carpet bomb with highly confidential information and expect that its going to be considered a good thing.

 

I wonder what Greenwald would think if I ran his computer server and I had access to his Client Defense files (back when he was a litigator). Would he consider it "whistleblowing" if I published attorney/client emails that indicated his client was a murderer?

 

When you deal with confidential information, there is an understanding that there is a reason that it is confidential. If he uncovered some evidence that the US govt was directly lying to the people of the US as well as Congress, and he only published those excerpts, youd be right, hed be comparable to Ellsberg and there would be a cognitive dissonance.

 

The problem is that the cases are distinguishable, the only similarity is that they involve classified documents, which really is only a superficial similarity.

Agree entirely

[GoSox05]

Nice to see some congressman attending an event like this.