We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us

The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes …

[snip]

The developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic, oppressive, or corrupt the [sic] government to its citizens.

Army Counterintelligence Report on WikiLeaks, allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning between February 15 and March 15, 2010

I quipped in my last post that the new charges filed against Bradley Manning teach us that we are the enemy–or at least are considered to be the enemy by the federal government. I was referring to the charge that Manning “knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy.” After all, we’re the ones Manning allegedly gave this information to.

Via Glenzilla, Kevin Jon Heller provides more detail about what this charge entails. He summarizes his understanding of how the military might be intending to prove their case against Manning this way:

[1] Manning is guilty of “giving intelligence to the enemy,” because he gave intelligence to WikiLeaks that he knew would be made available on the internet, and an enemy of the United States did, in fact, access that information.

[2] Manning is guilty of “commun[i]cating with the enemy” because he gave information to WikiLeaks intending that an enemy of the United States would receive it.  (The “intent required” view.)

[3] Manning is guilty of “communicating with the enemy” because he gave information to WikiLeaks knowing that it would be published on the internet, where any enemy could access it. (The intent not required view.)

Heller dislikes examples 1 and 3 because they threaten Manning with life imprisonment for something that newspapers do, but he doubts the government is relying on example 2 because, he argues, it would require making the argument that Manning intended al-Qaeda to get the information. Yet, as Glenn points out, we don’t have to guess at Manning’s intent (at least if we believe the chat logs are authentic); Manning described his own goal for leaking information this way:

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] – and god knows what happens now – hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms – if not, than [sic] we’re doomed – as a species – i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens – the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded – people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . – i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public. [emphasis Glenn’s]

Glenn suggests another possible way the government might be thinking of “enemy” here–one Heller dismisses.

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.

I’d like to look at that possibility more directly, because I think it is one the government might actually have the proof for.

As I noted earlier, Charge II, Specification 15 alleges that Manning:

between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a classified record produced by a United States Army intelligence organization, dated 18 March 2008, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit … the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it …

This is one of the new charges from yesterday.

We know from the date and the description that this charge refers to the counterintelligence report the NGIC did on WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks published that report on March 15, 2010.

That’s significant because, in addition to treating WikiLeaks as a counterintelligence threat, the report reviews several leaks of DOD information previously released by WikiLeaks, then describes the threat presented by it this way.

(S//NF) It must be presumed that Wikileaks.org has or will receive sensitive or classified DoD documents in the future. This information will be published and analyzed over time by a variety of personnel and organizations with the goal of influencing US policy. In addition, it must also be presumed that foreign adversaries will review and assess any DoD sensitive or classified information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site. Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future. Sensitive or classified information posted to Wikileaks.org could potentially reveal the capabilities and vulnerabilities of US forces, whether stationed in CONUS or deployed overseas.

(S//NF) The proliferation of access to Internet, computer, and information technology technical skills, software, tools, and databases will allow the rapid development, merging, integration, and manipulation of diverse documents, spreadsheets, multiple databases, and other publicly available or leaked information. Possible enhancements could increase the risk to US forces and could potentially provide potential attackers with sufficient information to plan conventional or terrorist attacks in locations such as Iraq or Afghanistan.

In other words, the government is newly charging Manning with leaking a document that clearly identifies WikiLeaks as a threat to US forces. And while the charging document makes no mention of WikiLeaks, we know WikiLeaks received the document, because they published it.

But that’s not the only example of a new charge like this.

Charge II, Specification 3 alleges that Manning:

between on or about 22 March 2010 and on or about 26 March 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States government intelligence agency, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate … the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it …

As I noted earlier, on March 23, 2010, the WikiLeaks twitter feed reported,

We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command.

In his chats with Lamo, Manning described trying to figure out who was tracking Julian Assange and specifically mentions internal discussions about the Garani video.

(2:05:58 PM) Manning: it took me four months to confirm that the person i was communicating was in fact assange

(2:10:01 PM) Lamo: how’d you do that?

(2:12:45 PM) Manning: I gathered more info when i questioned him whenever he was being tailed in Sweden by State Department officials… i was trying to figure out who was following him… and why… and he was telling me stories of other times he’s been followed… and they matched up with the ones he’s said publicly

(2:14:28 PM) Lamo: did that bear out? the surveillance?

(2:14:46 PM) Manning: based on the description he gave me, I assessed it was the Northern Europe Diplomatic Security Team… trying to figure out how he got the Reykjavik cable…

(2:15:57 PM) Manning: they also caught wind that he had a video… of the Gharani airstrike in afghanistan, which he has, but hasn’t decrypted yet… the production team was actually working on the Baghdad strike though, which was never really encrypted [my emphasis]

While we can’t be sure, I suspect the reference in Charge II, Specification 3 is to this information about the surveillance of Assange.

If I’m right about that, then it means the government is charging Manning with providing WikiLeaks with information about the surveillance being conducted, in real time, on WikiLeaks. And it would make it easy to prove both that “the enemy” got the information and that Manning intended the “enemy” to get it.

So if the government maintains that, by virtue of being an intelligence target, WikLeaks qualifies as an “enemy,” then they can also argue that Manning intentionally gave WikiLeaks information about how the government was targeting the organization. Which would make their aiding the enemy charge easy to prove.

But I also think that opens up the government to charges that it is criminalizing democracy.

As I noted above, the government’s own report on WikiLeaks describes its purpose to be increasing the accountability of democratic or corrupt governments. The government, by its own acknowledgment, knows that WikiLeaks’ intent is to support democracy. Furthermore, while the intelligence report reviews the debate about whether WikiLeaks constitutes protected free speech or criminal behavior (without taking a side in that debate), in a discussion of WikiLeaks’ efforts to verify an NGIC report on the battle of Fallujah, the report acknowledges that WikiLeaks did the kind of thing journalists do.

Wikileaks.org and some other news organizations did attempt to contact the NGIC personnel by e-mail or telephone to verify the information.

[snip]

Given the high visibility and publicity associated with publishing this classified report by Wikileaks.org, however, attempts to verify the information were prudent and show journalist responsibility to the newsworthiness or fair use of the classified document if they are investigated or challenged in court.

So while the military, according to its own report, describes WikiLeaks as a threat to the armed forces, it also acknowledges that WikiLeaks has behaved, at times, as a journalistic organization.

Mind you, all of this is simply a wildarsed guess about what the government may mean with its invocation of the “enemy.” But if I’m right, it would mean the government was threatening Manning with life in prison because he leaked information about the government’s surveillance of what it admits is an entity that engages in journalistic behavior.

Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She’s known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps.

Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial.

Marcy has a PhD from the University of Michigan, where she researched the “feuilleton,” a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse and dog in Grand Rapids, MI.

  1. emptywheel says:

    From here:

    “Enemy” includes (not only) organized opposing forces in time of war, (but also any other hostile body that our forces may be opposing) (such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades) (and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations). (“Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and the citizens of the other.)

    • bmaz says:

      At first blush that seems pretty broad.

      But, I dunno. Are “our armed forces” “opposing” WikiLeaks? I am not sure you can say that, especially at the time Manning allegedly committed the acts. Although, I guess the CT paper could be taken as evidence of that.

        • NMvoiceofreason says:

          It doesn’t matter what the vessel used was to transport the stolen goods. The important part is he intended to damage the US through disclosures of classified information to our enemies – ALL of our enemies at once. While they may hate wikileaks, they can only fry Manning.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Only if the surveillance teams were conducting a military op, it would seem. How else does WikiLeaks become a force opposing “our forces” and make Manning’s conduct a violation of the UCMJ?

            • emptywheel says:

              What if they were engaged in cyberwar with WL?

              Mind you, I think our “cyberwar” troops didn’t start fighting WL until 8 months later. But we have every reason to believe we did deloy “cyberwar troops” against them.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                Which cyber-warriors? Military personnel, employees of the USG, subject to the UCMJ and other laws that empower and restrict their conduct, or the army of private, civilian, outsourced, unaccountable and not legally protected contractors?

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    I don’t think I suggested there were any, none at least that the DoJ would recognize as law. If there are, the USG just outsources it to a private sector it has worked hard to keep free from legal constraints.

                    As just one example, the USG has gone to great lengths for over a decade to resist adoption here of and even of credible US compliance with EU-style data protection laws (mandatory for the export for storage, use or processing of personal information on EU nationals), despite the wide latitude in them for exceptions for police and judicial authorities.

                    Societies in the EU have too many expectations for what amounts to privacy. The EU, for example, just helped nix country-wide DNA collection in the UK. The government has supposedly agreed to “destroy” much of its existing databank. (I doubt that will be before they’ve copied it or sent it to the US for safekeeping.)

                    Meanwhile, data collection, processing and use here go without virtually any practical privacy or use constraints; it generates billions in annual revenue, without disclosure to the public whose cable viewing, telecoms and utility usage, driving and other habits are being minutely catalogued and mined for “relevance”, security and profit.

              • bmaz says:

                Enemy. Couple of quotes from Cramer v. United States

                Thus, the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy — making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength — but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

                From Douglas’ dissent:

                “Now gentlemen, motive should not be confused with intent. If the defendant knowingly gives aid and comfort to one who he knows or believes is an enemy, then he must be taken to intend the consequences of his own voluntary act, and the fact that his motive might not have been to aid the enemy is no defense. In other words, one cannot do an act which he knows will give aid and comfort to a person he knows to be an enemy of the United States and then seek to disclaim criminal intent and knowledge by saying that one’s motive was not to aid the enemy. So if you believe that the defendant performed acts which by their nature gave aid and comfort to the enemy, knowing or believing him to be an enemy, then you must find that he had criminal intent, since he intended to do the act forbidden by the law. The fact that you may believe that his motive in so doing was, for example, merely to help a friend, or possibly for financial gain, would not change the fact that he had a criminal intent.”

                On that there apparently is no disagreement. A man who voluntarily assists one known or believed to be an enemy agent may not defend on the ground that he betrayed his country for only thirty pieces of silver. See 79 U. S. 347; 87 U. S. 463.

  2. NMvoiceofreason says:

    Feds: leaking is worse than spying
    Leaking classified information to the media is a more serious offense
    than spying, the Justice Department argued in a court filing last week.
    The argument came in a motion supporting the detention of Jeffrey
    Sterling (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM176_110114_detention.html )
    , a former CIA officer indicted for allegedly giving a reporter
    classified details about a CIA program aimed at interfering with
    Iran’s nuclear efforts
    (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0111/ExCIA_officer_indicted_in_le
    showall) .
    “The defendant’s unauthorized disclosures…may be viewed as more
    pernicious than the typical espionage case where a spy sells classified
    information for money,” the prosecution team wrote in a brief submitted
    by attorneys at Justice Department headquarters and the U.S. Attorney’s
    office in Alexandria, Va.
    “Unlike the typical espionage case where a single foreign country or
    intelligence agency may be the beneficiary of the unauthorized
    disclosure of classified information, this defendant elected to disclose
    the classified information publicly through the mass media. Thus, every
    foreign adversary stood to benefit from the defendant’s unauthorized
    disclosure of classified information, thus posing an even greater threat
    to society,” the brief said.

    Josh Gerstein politico

  3. scribe says:

    Nice of our military to tell us that they, and not Congress, get to tell us who the enemy is.

    All of which pretty much proves both Assange’s, Wikileaks’ and, as far as we can tell, Manning’s point.

  4. 1970cs says:

    But Wiki wasn’t clearly seen as an enemy before the cables from Manning were sen’t, so this might be under a similar classification as the pre emptive war/occupation of Iraq.

    “We Have Met the Enemy and She Is Us”

    • emptywheel says:

      No. The intelligence report, written in 2008, makes it clear that DOD already considered WL a threat at that point. Furthermore, the prosecutors could make a strong case that Manning knew that DOD considered WL a threat.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The risk this analysis is concerned about is that the American public know what it’s government does. Government officials competent enough to hold their jobs must assume that resource-rich states and corporations – be it China, Mitsubishi or the Russian military – have their own means to elicit, buy, steal or hack secrets and use them privately when competing with US political, military or commercial interests.

    Ideologues have long been concerned about hiding their behavior from the public. They still seethe over the release of the Pentagon Papers and that no criminal liability – for the leakers – attached to them, just as their peers still seethe over Roosevelt and Johnson’s social legislation and still spend billions to demolish it. But since the start of the ueber-secretive Cheney administration, fear that the public learn about what the government does in our name seems as overblown as fears about what loincloth clad tribesmen might do to topple our democracy (as if they were the ones pushing hardest).

    WikiLeaks is an intermediary, facilitating distribution of leaked materials that could readily find their way onto the Internet. It’s the public, the voting public especially, that this analysis and the political patrons it was meant for fear most. It begs the question about what they fear being exposed to the light of day or the antiseptic of revelation, regulation and reform. It is one more thing that puts government in the same leaky boat as the banksters, both of whom are increasingly staffed by the same bad actors.

  6. Kitt says:

    @emptywheel:

    I hope you’ll have time to address what was said in this video of Geoff Morrell being interviewed by a couple of media Stars. Especially zero in on how Morrell depicts Manning’s detention, about which he dances around with happy talk at around 7:00 minutes into the video.

  7. Frank33 says:

    Enemies of the USA. That would be Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who finance terror attacks against innocent people. The government is concealing that hostile nations are committing terrorism. Then the government is committing treason against the people of the United States. So of course, citizens are the enemy. But the Supreme Corrupt Court has promoted corporations to be superior to citizens anyway. The military and corporations have joined to make the non-corporate stakeholders, slaves to their Empire.

  8. Knut says:

    Marcy, one thing. We know that Assange possibly possesses the names of American operatives or collaborators in a number of Middle Eastern (and other)countries, which he put under lock and key as an insurance policy against his assassination. That information has got to be pretty lethal to US interests. Do you think this might be the reason why State and DOD are so upset? True, it hasn’t been released, but it is out there like the sword of Damocles.

    The other stuff is embarrassing, as Biden said, but hardly mortal. What’s your take on this?

    • tjbs says:

      Because some people insist on degrading, dehumanizing rants when they don’t know what they are talking about.

      Treasonous, so say you loud in the court of public opinion to poison the atmosphere before a open legal proceeding has taken place. Nice.

      You know rumor and government leaks not facts challenged in and adversarial setting.

      Nice character assassination.

      • scribe says:

        Please don’t feed the troll.

        More likely, he’s already stuffed full from gorging at the Koch-roach buffet.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        That’s an interesting response. I can see your point. I doubt the troll will though.

        Existentialism (especially Kierkegaard’s brand) puts my brain into the mental equivalent of a long, lazy, infinite loop. Fortunately, I have discovered a break statement. I’ll just go take over the world (virtually, of course, Sid Meyer’s Civilization Revolution on the iPad).

        Whew… that was close….

  9. donbacon says:

    I guess one might say that Julian Assange is an enemy of the US government.

    He begins by describing a state like the US as essentially an authoritarian conspiracy, and then reasons that the practical strategy for combating that conspiracy is to degrade its ability to conspire, to hinder its ability to “think” as a conspiratorial mind. The metaphor of a computing network is mostly implicit, but utterly crucial: he seeks to oppose the power of the state by treating it like a computer and tossing sand in its diodes.

    http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/

    But no more an enemy than many of us, hey?

  10. leftdcin72 says:

    It is now March and promised January release of documents concerning Bank of America never happened. I don’t see that Wikileaks is having any effect.

  11. jaango says:

    I am somewhat sanguine in that Manning will be drummed out of the military, given the use of military law. However, civilian law is quite different. Thusly, an “appeal” filed in Arizona and where a Jury Trial is exercised, would provide relief to Manning.

    Subsequently, Jury members comprised of Diversity, would recognize that the War on Terror, was initiated on a “bogus artifice” relative to the AUMF and where “unassialable facts” were absent. As such, the Constitution requires a Declaration of War and nothing less. And why is this important?

    In jury trials here in Arizona, the judge cannot overturn said decision, and the jury is not prohibited from “going further” and for deciding that the purveyors–of this war and the torture that was inclusive, can be ordered to be prosecuted.

    Now, I realize that this may be some “mental masturbation” on my part, but serious attorneys would love to defend this case in Arizona’s courts. To wit, the Pentagon Papers case would be a “pikers’ run” in an historical contrast.

    Jaango

  12. Scarecrow says:

    In the two paras starting with this:

    (S//NF) It must be presumed that Wikileaks.org has or will receive sensitive or classified DoD documents in the future. This information will be published and analyzed over time by a variety of personnel and organizations with the goal of influencing US policy. . . .

    You could substitute The New York Times for Wikileaks without changing anything.

    So the definition they’re using for “enemy” logically does mean that Manning could be charged with giving information to the “enemy,” defined as The New York Times, or the Guardian, or to Marcy Wheeler. We are all “the enemy.”

  13. Billy Glad says:

    I just want to thank the bloggers and commentators here at firedoglake for being willing to try to think like the military prosecutors in this case. I can’t bear to do it for more than a second or two. I hope you don’t suffer any irreversible damage.

  14. waynec says:

    knut @ 24 said,

    “I should rephrase. Do you think Assange got this from Manning, or some other source. That’s the issue, I think.”

    Is there any way to know what files Assange got from PFc Manning as opposed to anyone else?

    How can the gov’t prove one way or the other where specific documents came from?

    • quanto says:

      I would wonder this also . In a report the New Yorker put out:

      http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all#ixzz0pWdlAepe

      “Before launching the site, Assange needed to show potential contributors that it was viable. One of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say, “We have received over one million documents from thirteen countries.”

      In December, 2006, WikiLeaks posted its first document: a “secret decision,” signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, a Somali rebel leader for the Islamic Courts Union, that had been culled from traffic passing through the Tor network to China. The document called for the execution of government officials by hiring “criminals” as hit men. Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, “Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?”

      So Wikileaks might have just been siphoning off information from other hackers. (what ever happened to honor among thieves?)

      This might have put them on the U.S intelligence radar back in 2006 seeing what they might be capable of. Also with this story from the Register:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/02/wikileaks_tor_snooping_denial/


      For example, in September 2007, Swedish security consultant Dan Egerstad ran a packet sniffer on five Tor exit nodes under his control, recovering the login credentials of about 1,000 email addresses, including at least 100 accounts belonging to foreign embassies in the process. One likely theory is that Egerstad had stumbled onto the surveillance of hacked accounts by unknown intelligence agencies, who were using Tor to disguise their identity. Egerstad was hauled in for questioning by the Swedish authorities over this exercise but never charged.”

      which might have brought Wikileaks to more attention to the U.S seeing how the same manner of surveillance was used

      My guess somewhere in 2007 there will be a George Bush secret signing statement listing Wikileaks as the “enemy”

  15. NorskeFlamethrower says:

    AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

    Citizen emptywheel:

    “…that opens up charges that the government is criminalizing democracy.”

    Of course that’s what they are doin’ regardless of the statement of formal charges but I would like us to look at the last time the government took a leak like this to trial: the Pentagon Papers. This was in fact the turning point in the war in Viet Nam, though it took another 4 years to formally end, I am convinced that if the verdict in that case had been against Ellsberg and the NYT we would still be in Viet Nam. The fact that we have been in Afgahnistan et al for 10 years now and that there has been no significant anti-war movement since the congressional authority for it warns me that if the courts find against Manning we are lookin’ at an end to even the sham of democracy in this country and an end to politics as we have known it.

    This is why I have been sayin on these pages for years now that our legal, judicial and justice system is completely corrupt and will be used to justify elected fascism and the end to the Bill of Rights. Unless we make the link between our economic collapse and the war(s) in the Middle East and grow an anti-war movement quickly around this comin’ show trial, we are done and our history is over.

    KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THERE IS NO COMPROMISING WITH FASCISM!!

  16. earlofhuntingdon says:

    As Glenn Greenwald posted on Twitter:

    Have more innocent people died from a) Manning’s alleged leak or b) the policies it subverted? I think the score is roughly 1 million to 0

    A million in our wars in the Middle East vs. the disclosures allegedly made by Mr. Manning. And that’s not counting the 2-4 million displaced persons or the nine boys in Afghanistan shot to death by helicopter gunships for collecting firewood.

  17. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The use of newspapers and the like indirectly to communicate among co-conspirators is usually via the proverbial personal column, such as where spies or saboteurs exchange coded, seemingly innocuous information, intentionally and for nefarious purposes. That’s not the same “intent” as giving information to a publisher in hopes that it will be published, and that it will inform and spur debate and reform.

  18. montymarket says:

    The pen IS mightier than the sword.

    The US spends hundreds of $billion$ to invade (illegally) foreign countries, slaughter populations, wreck economies, etc., with the effect that here in the homeland as a result we are forced on the debit side of the ledger to fire teachers, firefighters, police officers, raid pensions and social security funds.

    Which imperils the US more? The warmongerers or a gaggle of truth revealers?

    For a mere $million$ or so a year, a pocket full of programmers reveal the truth over the internets and in the process lead to the take down of dictator regimes one after the other in a matter of months?

    Afghanistan now a decade debacle costing billions; Tunisia, a few cables and pow! Gonzo.

    Ain’t nothing like the truth. Who are the true enemies?

  19. MadDog says:

    Bradley Manning Status Update – This is from his lawyer David Coombs and I include the entirety of his post to ensure all understand:

    PFC Manning Forced to Strip Naked

    Last night, PFC Manning was inexplicably stripped of all clothing by the Quantico Brig. He remained in his cell, naked, for the next seven hours. At 5:00 a.m., the Brig sounded the wake-up call for the detainees. At this point, PFC Manning was forced to stand naked at the front of his cell.

    The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) arrived shortly after 5:00 a.m. When he arrived, PFC Manning was called to attention. The DBS walked through the facility to conduct his detainee count. Afterwards, PFC Manning was told to sit on his bed. About ten minutes later, a guard came to his cell to return his clothing.

    This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification. It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. PFC Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the Brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that on the very same night the US Government charges Manning with “Aiding the Enemy”, they strip him naked and force him to remain that way overnight and then in the morning stand naked at attention in front of the Duty Brig Supervisor.

    Yup, just a coincidence I’m sure.

    • MadDog says:

      PFC Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the Brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation

      Just thought I’d highlight the fun times they’re having at the Quantico Brig.

  20. MadDog says:

    OT – From the DOJ:

    Former U.S. Official Sentenced to 65 Months in Prison for Sexually Assaulting Woman on Embassy Property in Algeria

    Andrew Warren, 43, a former official with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was sentenced today to 65 months in prison on charges of abusive sexual contact and unlawful use of cocaine while possessing a firearm…

    …During the plea hearing last year, Warren admitted that on Feb. 17, 2008, he committed abusive sexual contact while on U.S. embassy property in Algiers, Algeria, by engaging in sexual contact with a female victim after he rendered her unconscious. Additionally, Warren admitted that on April 26, 2010, he unlawfully used cocaine while possessing a Glock, 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol in Norfolk, Va…

  21. rikkidoglake says:

    OT: FOIA requests in a civilized society . . .

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

    Saw a link to this in a mailing list today, with a one day turnaround on a rather contentious issue.

    Not all responses are that quick, but they’re all civil.

    And so easy to file a request.

  22. PJEvans says:

    I seem to recall that when this all started, the US government (or members of it) said, plublicly, that there was little if any damage from the information released.
    Now they’re claiming there was serious damage.
    Which one is the lie?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s a state secret; we’re not supposed to know. But vote for Obama. He’s better than Kasich or Walker or Newtie, right?

      • PJEvans says:

        That isn’t saying much.

        (I’d rather vote for someone who’s honestly crooked. Or at least for a known liar, because then I’d know what to expect.)

  23. Garrett says:

    A clarification, I think, about what an enemy is. This definition

    Enemy” includes (not only) organized opposing forces in time of war, (but also any other hostile body that our forces may be opposing) (such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades) (and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations). (“Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and the citizens of the other.)

    is from the Military Judges’ Benchbook (pdf p. 336), and not from UCMJ itself. The “model specification” and “elements” sections about Article 104 are worth looking at. The benchbook has a statement about its own level of authority on pdf p. 4.