Latest Breaking News

cstanleytech

(26,224 posts)

8. Oh I agree there should be a major review over whats classified, why and for how long.

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:49 PM

Sep 2012

Take the helicopter incident for example. Why did they classify videotape of an incident we already knew took place? Its not like its hiding that it happened.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are Troops Talking to Assange ‘Communicating With the Enemy’? [View all] AntiFascist Sep 2012 OP

K&R KoKo Sep 2012 #1

No Pharaoh Sep 2012 #2

As long as they do not pass classified info they should be able to talk to wikileaks. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #3

That's not clear at all... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #4

I was just voicing my personal opinion hack89 Sep 2012 #5

And the irony is Manning would have been fine legally if he had just reported the classified stuff cstanleytech Sep 2012 #7

Wikileaks is considered to be breaking the law... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #10

That is what it says. clearly. robinlynne Sep 2012 #13

Classified information today Pharaoh Sep 2012 #35

I only care about that service member getting into big trouble hack89 Sep 2012 #36

Weird as it seems, it appears that people in the military are not allowed.. freshwest Sep 2012 #6

Oh I agree there should be a major review over whats classified, why and for how long. cstanleytech Sep 2012 #8

The only righteous reason, I guess, would be an innocent person's identity would be revealed and... freshwest Sep 2012 #9

I dont think that I buy that atleast as far as the helicopter incident, after all it didnt show the cstanleytech Sep 2012 #17

There would be other identifiers other than faces. I'm not there, so the fear is not mine. freshwest Sep 2012 #27

Was that seal who wrote the book arrested? robinlynne Sep 2012 #14

I don't think so, but I'm not up to date on it. There were threats of some punishment. freshwest Sep 2012 #31

assange is not the one ordering the murder of civilians using drones nt msongs Sep 2012 #11

+1. robinlynne Sep 2012 #15

+1 Vidar Sep 2012 #32

Why try to CREATE controversy? George II Sep 2012 #12

going on to say: He should be arrested by Eric Holder. We arrest any military who speak with them. robinlynne Sep 2012 #16

No..... George II Sep 2012 #19

Holder is the AG... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #20

Holder is the AG...and has made statements previously about building a case against Assange. George II Sep 2012 #22

Never been documented? Seriously? AntiFascist Sep 2012 #34

exactly. in other words, what the poster is saying is NOT true. They call him a criminal, and anyone robinlynne Sep 2012 #23

Being called a criminal is different than being called the enemy. George II Sep 2012 #29

The subject line is the title of the article... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #18

I read the entire article that you linked. George II Sep 2012 #21

may be at risk of a mlitary cirme which carries the maximum sentence of death!! Read your post!!!!! robinlynne Sep 2012 #24

MAY be at risk, depending on WHAT that communication is, it's not a given that they'll be at risk! George II Sep 2012 #26

so? Under what other circumstances MIGHT you be at risk of being pout to death for talking to someone robinlynne Sep 2012 #37

I recall there were several if not many that we learned of in basic training George II Sep 2012 #58

See post #25 below... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #38

You're referring to the article from the other thread... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #25

Yes, I was in the military and am familiar with the UCMJ, but.... George II Sep 2012 #28

My point is... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #30

If George Little lis talking, he's lying. My proudest possession is a letter written to my kas125 Sep 2012 #33

Scoop has a link to pdf of the actual FOIA release: it doesn't seem to show what some folk claim: struggle4progress Sep 2012 #39

It seems to be a Summary Complaint Report... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #41

The matter was closed because there was no evidence she had released any information struggle4progress Sep 2012 #43

Wrong, your pretzel logic doesn't hold up... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #45

The investigation actually began due to her failure to follow the directives of the 11 January 2011 struggle4progress Sep 2012 #48

I understand the order to avoid contact with Wikileaks... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #50

"Communicating with the enemy" is expansively construed. Communicating restricted military struggle4progress Sep 2012 #57

Where in the report does it allege... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #61

You obviously haven't read the documents struggle4progress Sep 2012 #63

Again, my only point is... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #65

no, the investigation began due to her interest in Wikileaks reorg Sep 2012 #66

You carelessly read the FOIA release and the 11 Feb 2011 memo struggle4progress Sep 2012 #67

You fail to understand what I am saying and what the FOIA release says reorg Sep 2012 #69

The UCMJ crime "communicating with the enemy" is expansively understood to mean struggle4progress Sep 2012 #40

Please provide a link... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #46

Aiding the Enemy (UCMJ art. 104). Five separate acts are made punishable by this article ... struggle4progress Sep 2012 #47

As I've asked many times before... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #51

No: I explained that "communicating with the enemy" is expansively construed struggle4progress Sep 2012 #55

The only issue I have... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #59

You obviously haven't read the documents struggle4progress Sep 2012 #64

The report itself contains a lot of information... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #68

As far as I can tell, the FOIA release does NOT identify either Assange or Wikileaks as "the enemy" struggle4progress Sep 2012 #42

You are responding to the wrong thread... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #44

The first sentence is your OP is verifiably false: it reads struggle4progress Sep 2012 #49

That sentence is at best debatable... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #52

Please identify where in the FOIA release such a statement occurs, because struggle4progress Sep 2012 #53

You might look at the title page... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #54

Yes, "communicating with the enemy" is construed expansively. If one provides restricted struggle4progress Sep 2012 #56

That is true as far as classified information is concerned... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #60

You obviously haven't read the documents struggle4progress Sep 2012 #62

Again, please note... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #70

it would appear the investigator was following the instructions in this "Tactical Reference Guide": reorg Oct 2012 #71