SEC must be a grumpy old grandpa that should go outside and yell at the kids on his lawn to.. get off his lawn.
This is fairly accurate.
Topic: Bradley Manning - page 4. (Read 6273 times)
This is fairly accurate.
Someone's never heard of furries...
I just looked it up...and then promptly erased my browser history (thanks). So you perverts want to fuck cartoon animals or something? Is this common amongst bitcoiners?
Wait, no...nevermind. I think "ignorance is bliss" applies here.
It's not interesting. Furries gravitate towards eachother like magnets. Their fronts always connecting to the others' rear. 
Your armchair freeman legal interpretation means exactly fuckall when it comes to how the law and constitution actually works.
Just as Manning's and Wikileak's actions mean exactly fuckall when it comes to things like classified documents. Or bitcoin means exactly fuckall when it comes to money laundering and financial controls. Or 3D printing means exactly fuckall when it comes to gun control.
Judging from your incoherent response, smiley, and kitty avatar, I'm going to guess that you are probably just a child, and leave my response at this; you will understand all of this when you get older, for now go outside and play with your friends and don't worry about all of this scary grown-up stuff.
Someone's never heard of furries...
Furries are always matured and grown men.
Furthermore, I think Rassah is definitely older than SEC, and if he's not, then SEC must be a grumpy old grandpa that should go outside and yell at the kids on his lawn to.. get off his lawn.
Your armchair freeman legal interpretation means exactly fuckall when it comes to how the law and constitution actually works.
Just as Manning's and Wikileak's actions mean exactly fuckall when it comes to things like classified documents. Or bitcoin means exactly fuckall when it comes to money laundering and financial controls. Or 3D printing means exactly fuckall when it comes to gun control.
Judging from your incoherent response, smiley, and kitty avatar, I'm going to guess that you are probably just a child, and leave my response at this; you will understand all of this when you get older, for now go outside and play with your friends and don't worry about all of this scary grown-up stuff.
Ok! Buh-bye!!!!
Your armchair freeman legal interpretation means exactly fuckall when it comes to how the law and constitution actually works.
Just as Manning's and Wikileak's actions mean exactly fuckall when it comes to things like classified documents. Or bitcoin means exactly fuckall when it comes to money laundering and financial controls. Or 3D printing means exactly fuckall when it comes to gun control.
Judging from your incoherent response, smiley, and kitty avatar, I'm going to guess that you are probably just a child, and leave my response at this; you will understand all of this when you get older, for now go outside and play with your friends and don't worry about all of this scary grown-up stuff.
Your armchair freeman legal interpretation means exactly fuckall when it comes to how the law and constitution actually works.
Just as Manning's and Wikileak's actions mean exactly fuckall when it comes to things like classified documents. Or bitcoin means exactly fuckall when it comes to money laundering and financial controls. Or 3D printing means exactly fuckall when it comes to gun control.
so an unconstitutional law trumps the constitution.
Show me the Supreme Court ruling that says that the Iraq War (and every other military conflict since ww2) is unconstitutional, or even illegal.
The war was started and approved through legal means (the joint resolution). You may interpret it differently, but the Supreme Court doesn't (and they are the ones tasked with interpreting constitutional law).
Your armchair freeman style legal interpretation means exactly fuckall when it comes to how the law and constitution actually works.
So saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?
So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?
He stole and released critical intelligence that could result in harming diplomatic relations, and put American soldiers lives at risk during wartime (which is aiding and abetting the enemy). He intentionally violated the Espionage Act, and as someone with a security clearance, he knew the risks. Violation of the Espionage Act carries with it a penalty of death.
If he was unprepared to accept those consequences, he should've kept his treasonous mouth shut.
Wait, wait, wait. Full stop.
What WAR? The United States is not at war. Yes, they are actively murdering people in foreign lands, but ONLY Congress can declare war. Wartime rules DO NOT apply to this case absent that declaration.
The Iraq War which was authorized by a joint resolution by the senate and congress.
That said, there doesn't need to be a "declared war" for the Espionage Act to apply. Releasing classified information in peacetime is still espionage.
so an unconstitutional law trumps the constitution. And you are changing your arguments. Thank you, you have clarified your position. Here's a quote from another "traitor". It was written long before either of us were born (or hatched, as may be your case), but it was aimed directly at you.
Quote
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
So saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?
So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?
He stole and released critical intelligence that could result in harming diplomatic relations, and put American soldiers lives at risk during wartime (which is aiding and abetting the enemy). He intentionally violated the Espionage Act, and as someone with a security clearance, he knew the risks. Violation of the Espionage Act carries with it a penalty of death.
If he was unprepared to accept those consequences, he should've kept his treasonous mouth shut.
Wait, wait, wait. Full stop.
What WAR? The United States is not at war. Yes, they are actively murdering people in foreign lands, but ONLY Congress can declare war. Wartime rules DO NOT apply to this case absent that declaration.
The Iraq War which was authorized by a joint resolution by the senate and congress.
That said, there doesn't need to be a "declared war" for Mannings actions to be considered illegal. Releasing classified information in "peacetime" is still espionage.
So saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?
So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?
He stole and released critical intelligence that could result in harming diplomatic relations, and put American soldiers lives at risk during wartime (which is aiding and abetting the enemy). He intentionally violated the Espionage Act, and as someone with a security clearance, he knew the risks. Violation of the Espionage Act carries with it a penalty of death.
If he was unprepared to accept those consequences, he should've kept his treasonous mouth shut.
Hint: the red question just needs a Yes or a No
Hint: the green question just needs a Yes or a No
The first is not a "yes or no" question, because it is a leading question. It doesn't really matter what the classified documents reveal, because stealing and releasing classified documents is illegal and a clear act of espionage. If he felt that something illegal was happening, he should've gone through the proper channels and had it investigated.
For your second question, yes.
Oh, okay, so he should have let the torturers and murderers investigate their own crimes. That's a great idea! How about we let regular lawbreakers be the judge in their own trials?
The government is not a hive mind, nor is everyone in the government (or even most of he government) complicit in the alleged crimes....and yes, government officials investigate other government officials all the time, it's how the justice system
FTFY
How is a video from a helicopter showing the pilots gunning down reporters and civilians "pertinent to national security," and why was it classified, other than to hide a crime?
By showing when where and how American troops
That said, he released a few hundred thousand classified documents, not just a video on an airstrike.
How is that relevant? It doesn't matter if it was in the past, it still reveals critical OPSEC information.
So saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?
So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?
He stole and released critical intelligence that could result in harming diplomatic relations, and put American soldiers lives at risk during wartime (which is aiding and abetting the enemy). He intentionally violated the Espionage Act, and as someone with a security clearance, he knew the risks. Violation of the Espionage Act carries with it a penalty of death.
If he was unprepared to accept those consequences, he should've kept his treasonous mouth shut.
Wait, wait, wait. Full stop.
What WAR? The United States is not at war. Yes, they are actively murdering people in foreign lands, but ONLY Congress can declare war. Wartime rules DO NOT apply to this case absent that declaration.
If you deny this, then you are saying the Constitution is invalid (as opposed to useless, which it demonstrably is.). If you say the Constitution is VALID, then EVERY SINGLE BELLIGERENT ACT committed by the United States since 1945 has been demonstrably illegal. If you deny THIS, then you are back to the first part. A lawless government has no validity. Either the Constitution says what it means, or it means nothing.
In order to prove treason, even absent the above, you would have to demonstrate SUBSTANTIALLY that Manning gave aid and comfort to the enemy, since he in fact did the very opposite of making war against the States in pointing out to their alleged citizens that the people in charge were engaging in criminal activity under the color of law. Whistleblowers are not traitors. I would argue that they are patriots.
I again refer you to Thomas Jefferson. Since you've already outed yourself as a Tory sympathizer, you probably don't care.
I suppose you people think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are heroes too, huh?
Did they help expose any criminal acts perpetrated by government officials?
They sold identities of active CIA agents to the Russians. Since espionage is technically illegal, yes.
I wasn't aware Manning sold the documents to Assange. Also we don't care about other people, stop trying to deviate the thread.
Plenty of other posts you didn't answer btw.
It doesn't matter if he sold the documents or not, he stole and illegally released classified documents.
I've answered the relevant ones.
This thread is so amusing that I am considering unignoring the SEC agent. In the mean time, my response to OP: Bradley Manning is a true American hero.
How is a video from a helicopter showing the pilots gunning down reporters and civilians "pertinent to national security," and why was it classified, other than to hide a crime?
By showing when where and how American troops
That said, he released a few hundred thousand classified documents, not just a video on an airstrike.
I suppose you people think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are heroes too, huh?
Did they help expose any criminal acts perpetrated by government officials?
They sold identities of active CIA agents to the Russians. Since espionage is technically illegal, yes.
I wasn't aware Manning sold the documents to Assange. Also we don't care about other people, stop trying to deviate the thread.
Plenty of other posts you didn't answer btw.
How is a video from a helicopter showing the pilots gunning down reporters and civilians "pertinent to national security," and why was it classified, other than to hide a crime?
By showing when where and how American troops are operating in a war zone, you endanger other soldiers operating in that war zone.
That said, he released a few hundred thousand classified documents, not just a video on an airstrike.
*snip*
Freedom comes at a cost, and that means punishing those who would try to undermine it.
I suppose you people think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are heroes too, huh?
Did they help expose any criminal acts perpetrated by government officials?
They sold identities of active CIA agents to the Russians. Since espionage is technically illegal, yes.
Jump to: