Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Are Troops Talking to Assange ‘Communicating With the Enemy’? [View all]robinlynne
(15,481 posts)13. That is what it says. clearly.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As long as they do not pass classified info they should be able to talk to wikileaks. nt
hack89
Sep 2012
#3
And the irony is Manning would have been fine legally if he had just reported the classified stuff
cstanleytech
Sep 2012
#7
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
I don't think so, but I'm not up to date on it. There were threats of some punishment.
freshwest
Sep 2012
#31
going on to say: He should be arrested by Eric Holder. We arrest any military who speak with them.
robinlynne
Sep 2012
#16
Holder is the AG...and has made statements previously about building a case against Assange.
George II
Sep 2012
#22
exactly. in other words, what the poster is saying is NOT true. They call him a criminal, and anyone
robinlynne
Sep 2012
#23
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
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
The matter was closed because there was no evidence she had released any information
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#43
The investigation actually began due to her failure to follow the directives of the 11 January 2011
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#48
"Communicating with the enemy" is expansively construed. Communicating restricted military
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#57
The UCMJ crime "communicating with the enemy" is expansively understood to mean
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#40
Aiding the Enemy (UCMJ art. 104). Five separate acts are made punishable by this article ...
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#47
No: I explained that "communicating with the enemy" is expansively construed
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#55
As far as I can tell, the FOIA release does NOT identify either Assange or Wikileaks as "the enemy"
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#42
Please identify where in the FOIA release such a statement occurs, because
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#53
Yes, "communicating with the enemy" is construed expansively. If one provides restricted
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#56