HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » Why are Bob Woodward's WH...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:55 PM

Why are Bob Woodward's WH sources - or Woodward himself - not on trial next to Bradley Manning?

Why are Bob Woodward's WH sources - or Woodward himself - not on trial next to Bradley Manning? The extremist prosecution of Manning, accused of 'aiding and abetting al-Qaida', poses a real threat to US press freedom


Journalist Bob Woodward has spilled far more sensitive secrets than WikiLeaks, including in his 2010 book, Obama's Wars, praised by Osama bin Laden. Photograph: Brad Barket/AFP

There are numerous travesties defining the ongoing prosecution of accused whistleblower Bradley Manning, but none more dangerous than the accusation that by leaking classified information, he "aided and abetted the enemy" (al-Qaida) - a capital offense. Not even the government claims he intended to help al-Qaida. The theory is that, even though it was not his intent, the information Manning disclosed may end up being of value to the terrorist organization: a claim that applies to virtually every leak of classified information to any media organization, thus transforming standard whistle-blowing into the equivalent of treason.

In late September, I wrote about documents obtained from the Air Force relating to an investigation of a systems analyst suspected of communicating with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. The documents listed the suspected crime as "Communicating With the Enemy" under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice - almost certainly the same theory the government is employing in an attempt to put Bradley Manning in prison for life. I wrote then about why this theory poses such a towering threat to investigative journalism:

"It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy' or 'communicating with the enemy' even if no information is passed directly to the 'enemy' and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it 'indirectly' informs the enemy.

"The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with 'aiding' or 'communicating with the enemy' by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn't that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information - whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet - a capital offense: treason or a related crime?"


-SNIP-

In order to demonstrate that Manning's leaks aided al-Qaida, the government yesterday said, for the first time, that it intends to introduce "evidence that Osama bin Laden requested and received from a Qaeda member some of the State Department cables and military reports that Private Manning is accused of passing to WikiLeaks." Bin Laden and other al-Qaida members almost certainly had an interest in reading the vast majority of national security leaks over the last decade published by the New York Times, the Washington Post and other media outlets. The very notion that their mere interest in leaks proves the "aiding and abetting" charge demonstrates just how menacing this theory is.

More at......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/manning-prosecution-press-freedom-woodward

11 replies, 1043 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why are Bob Woodward's WH sources - or Woodward himself - not on trial next to Bradley Manning? (Original post)
KoKo Jan 2013 OP
MADem Jan 2013 #1
KoKo Jan 2013 #2
MADem Jan 2013 #4
jerseyjack Jan 2013 #3
MADem Jan 2013 #5
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #6
Larrymoe Curlyshemp Jan 2013 #7
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #8
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #9
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #10
idwiyo Jan 2013 #11

Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:03 PM

1. I have always made the assumption that he is a three letter man.

And he's always been one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:27 PM

2. okay...that's too cryptic for me to decipher.....

But....well a three letter man starting with "C"....got it. The rumors have been strong...

Bernstein was the Good Guy...the "tool?" Ya' think?

It will come out for our Great Grandchildren...given how long they've taken to release the JFK investigation. (I don't think even the Kennedy kids even knew or will know).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:05 AM

4. There ya go.

He did his military service in Naval Intelligence.

He always seems to land on his feet.

I don't think he's without resources, and if he's not in the club, he's an associate member, as it were.

IMO, anyway. I could be wrong, though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:44 PM

3. Well, first of all, Woodruff ain't gay. At least I don't think he is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:06 AM

5. Do you mean Woodward? And why is that salient? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:59 AM

6. Another silly bit from Glenn Greenwald

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:45 AM

7. You mean

 

another incisive post from GG, who had to leave this country in order that his anti-neocon voice be heard!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larrymoe Curlyshemp (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:06 PM

8. Is that his latest explanation of his move? He used to say that he had moved

to Brazil because it was easier for him to get residency there than for his partner to get residency in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:13 PM

9. Bob Woodward is no Bradley Manning

The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald gets it wrong by comparing the two
By Jeb Golinkin
January 11, 2013

... Greenwald's primary argument strikes me as dangerously extreme.

Essentially, Greenwald argues that the government's theory that Manning is guilty of a crime for revealing classified information that eventually found its way into the hands of al Qaeda leaders applies with equal force to the country's most prolific investigative journalist, Bob Woodward, who regularly manages to pry classified information out of his sources and almost as regularly publishes it on the front page of The Washington Post or in one of his many best-selling books ... Put simply, Bob Woodward never had a duty, and never took an oath, to protect the government's secrets or follow the orders of anyone in the government ...

... Woodward's job is to try to acquire and reveal government secrets for the benefit of the public at large, even though this often involves compromising government priorities.

Bradley Manning had very different responsibilities as a member of the United States Army. When Private Manning joined the service, he swore an oath ...

Pointing to the oath may seem overly legalistic or even a bit nave, but its importance cannot be overstated. Had Manning not sworn that oath, and had the military not perhaps far too blindly believed that he intended to abide by it, the government would never have allowed Private Manning within a country mile of any of the sensitive information Manning dealt with for hours each day. In breaching that trust, Manning breached the same public trust that Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen did ...

http://theweek.com/article/index/238689/bob-woodward-is-no-bradley-manning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:15 PM

10. Osama bin Laden got classified cables Bradley Manning passed to Wikileaks: prosecutors

Military prosecutors said an Al Qaeda member gave some of the leaked material to the terror boss after he asked for it. Prosecutors also said they had logs showing Manning and Wikileaks head Julian Assange 'laughing' about the Pentagon's response to Wikileaks.
By Philip Caulfield / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 11:28 AM
Updated: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 12:19 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/bin-laden-wikileaks-material-article-1.1237371

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:06 PM

11. K&R WikiLeaks is the enemy of the state. How bloody ironic is that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread