Latest Breaking News

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

212. You're reading that into it. That point is ambiguous.

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:29 AM

Sep 2012

The word "temporarily" isn't used. And, if you knew anything about security clearances, you would know that in this sort of thing where analyst loses clearance because of security reasons the standard procedure is to reassign the person to perform tasks not requiring a clearance in an unsecured area away from classified materials, effectively making that person redundant and unproductive. During the next review, the person is fired on those grounds.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

285 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US calls Assange 'enemy of state' [View all] AntiFascist Sep 2012 OP

meanwhile killing women and kids in the name of the USA gets a nobel peace prize. nt msongs Sep 2012 #1

Yes, we are well aware you hate Obama. But you need to put a cork in it until after the election. kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #3

Thats right we won't allow truthiness here . Don't forget to alert on me too. bahrbearian Sep 2012 #6

Your opposition to any dissenting viewpoint is censorship Fuddnik Sep 2012 #8

I haven't censored anyone. You don't know the meaning of the word. I've expressed my opinion. kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #86

You can't censor anyone. You might get a post hidden on DU but that will not sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #133

Well the questions are dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12

Right..... DeSwiss Sep 2012 #16

Thank-you. robinlynne Sep 2012 #24

De nada DeSwiss Sep 2012 #69

You are free to criticize Dems at your nearest neighborhood Freeper hive Xipe Totec Sep 2012 #126

So you think we should be quiet about issues, until the time to talk about issues is past? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #131

My response is to the Voltaire quote in your reply Xipe Totec Sep 2012 #267

So I was right. You believe that Corporate Lobbyists should be free to get the sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #271

You must learn to read more carefully Xipe Totec Sep 2012 #273

Interesting rant. Did you intend it for someone else btw? Not that I mind, I sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #274

I'm not critisizing any Dems. In fact I haven't spoken the name of a single one. DeSwiss Sep 2012 #152

+1 nt OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #153

We are all free to criticize Dems wherever we want. That is called democracy. robinlynne Sep 2012 #172

and that poster is free to say what that poster said here fascisthunter Sep 2012 #279

ooh. your sig gave me the shivers. robinlynne Sep 2012 #171

Thank you. DeSwiss Sep 2012 #184

and this sig is beautiful. especially right after the other. robinlynne Sep 2012 #185

So, I take it you prefer Rmoney? Because like it or not, that's the choice. kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #91

How truly pathetic. n/t DeSwiss Sep 2012 #94

my, that is so elegantly stated Capn Sunshine Sep 2012 #99

Thank you. I thought it best to be direct, succinct..... DeSwiss Sep 2012 #161

So if you opposed the War in Iraq I take it you loved Saddam Hussein? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #135

It's like debating seven-year olds. OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #151

Thanks for the heads up. ;-) n/t DeSwiss Sep 2012 #155

Lol, you're right. Although that is an insult to seven year olds. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #156

So if you opposed the War in Iraq, you Loooooved Saddam Hussein? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #272

LOL! OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #25

I just posted the part of the TOS you refer to...........thanks for pointing it out as well George II Sep 2012 #55

And after the election will be different? Who do you think you are fooling. rhett o rick Sep 2012 #97

No, it's not a violation of TOS. Wanna put that to a test? leveymg Sep 2012 #109

"Your blatant opposition to our chosen presidential candidate is a violation of TOS." That sure is pam4water Sep 2012 #137

Once again, reread the TOS. George II Sep 2012 #164

We know what the TOS says, but we dont agree with your judgement that the post is in rhett o rick Sep 2012 #233

YES, I understand that people disagree.....unless of course one "side" criticizes Assange's cult... George II Sep 2012 #251

get another hobby fascisthunter Sep 2012 #278

to Siberia! to to the gulag! robinlynne Sep 2012 #175

Don't you realize you can't criticize "Saint" Julien or his supporters without recrimination? George II Sep 2012 #163

Actually he makes a fair point Scootaloo Sep 2012 #201

Criticizing A Bad Policy Of The US Government And The Inexplicable Nobel Selection Rules cantbeserious Sep 2012 #205

Exactly, save it for sometime between May and July of 2013 hughee99 Sep 2012 #239

Are you kidding? n/t bitchkitty Sep 2012 #254

Exactly. DeSwiss Sep 2012 #9

So which one of those..... DeSwiss Sep 2012 #79

You skipped over the FIRST part of my quote of the TOS: George II Sep 2012 #143

We all understand it is important to elect more Democrats dflprincess Sep 2012 #154

Then why criticize them during an important election campaign? George II Sep 2012 #159

Because when they're looking for our votes is the only time they may listen dflprincess Sep 2012 #166

So you're not supporting "D"emocratic candidates...as we said, a violation of the TOS around here! George II Sep 2012 #170

constitution..first amendment. Every elected official has sworn an oath to uphold it. Citizens are xiamiam Sep 2012 #187

You can defend "D"s, "R"s, and "I"s if you like, but........... George II Sep 2012 #218

I sent money to Bernie Sanders dflprincess Sep 2012 #190

You're completely missing the point. George II Sep 2012 #219

I don't see the part about not criticizing leadership or policy. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #157

Well... George II Sep 2012 #162

You may not like it, but it's still not a TOS violation. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #165

It's not "Saint" anything, bitchkitty Sep 2012 #255

Harping on spelling errors on the internet went out with the Atari computer........... George II Sep 2012 #262

I get what the statement says..... DeSwiss Sep 2012 #178

Who is "msong"? George II Sep 2012 #183

As for who is..... DeSwiss Sep 2012 #186

I always thought the line was advocacy against a Democratic candidate... David__77 Sep 2012 #192

Neither Lieberman nor Miller ran for office as Democrats after they "crossed over" George II Sep 2012 #195

True... there are others though. David__77 Sep 2012 #199

So where d you fit in if you think President Obama did not and does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #83

Come and sit by me pscot Sep 2012 #90

No thanks........... George II Sep 2012 #146

George the first was often reckoned pscot Sep 2012 #194

See my response to the previous post above - ditto to you! George II Sep 2012 #145

Do I have your permission to start alerting on the Neo-cons prowling around posting war propaganda? leveymg Sep 2012 #116

What does that have to do with my post? George II Sep 2012 #147

You're the one who posted the TOS. leveymg Sep 2012 #210

And which one of those applies to anyone in this thread? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #139

Why did you skip over the first part of my post and zero in on the last part? George II Sep 2012 #148

Okay, since you haven't pointed any of them out I guess there are none here. So why sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #275

It's right in front of your eyes, if you choose to ignore it then so be it George II Sep 2012 #277

No shit! MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #81

Hope this ends all the silly posts about how the US doesn't want to get him! FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #2

It should. TDale313 Sep 2012 #4

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. K&R anyway.... nt riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #5

Could you highlight the part in the article where it said the US did want him please as I am cstanleytech Sep 2012 #11

Really? FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #101

"Enemy of the State" also isn't supported by the article. jeff47 Sep 2012 #108

You're right. How did I get that from this? FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #200

How does that = "they want him arrested and extradited" ? cstanleytech Sep 2012 #111

They did not steal anything. They did what news organizations are supposed to do sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #149

Reread my post sabrina. cstanleytech Sep 2012 #160

you missed the part that classifies wikileaks with al queda. And the part that says that SPEAKING to robinlynne Sep 2012 #177

Nope, reread. cstanleytech Sep 2012 #188

Yes, (to your respondee), reread AND familiarize yourself with the UCMJ. George II Sep 2012 #229

And like I said reread because I covered it. cstanleytech Sep 2012 #242

That was a subjective interpretation of the article, not a statement of fact FROM the article! George II Sep 2012 #221

I'm bookmarking for later; greiner3 Sep 2012 #14

Hope Assange supporters will start actually reading the articles instead of just the headlines. jeff47 Sep 2012 #74

So you dont support Assange but do support WikiLeaks? Strange. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #103

Assange's ego is destroying any good WikiLeaks can do. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2012 #120

His "ego"? You are condeming him because of his ego? I hope you arent fooling yourself. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #142

I'm condemning him because he's putting himself above his cause. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2012 #252

What are you basing that on? nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #257

"Excessive ego" - Sounds like the sort of denuniation made by Stalinists of the Old Comrades. leveymg Sep 2012 #220

Feel free to describe his attempts to avoid the consequences for rape in any other way. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2012 #253

It was consensual, so it wasn't rape. Next. leveymg Sep 2012 #261

I guess it was "legitimate rape"? George II Sep 2012 #264

what exactly is so strange about that? Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #215

That's the way I feel, too. Unfortunately...... George II Sep 2012 #268

It would behoove his detractors to do the same. The Doctor. Sep 2012 #132

Well then, I am now an enemy. I follow them on Twitter, I read their blog, I sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #141

Sabrina you are rocking tonight! robinlynne Sep 2012 #179

oh sabrina..you mean " i solemnly swear to uphold the constitution" part xiamiam Sep 2012 #191

Again, it would behoove you to read and understand the article. The Doctor. Sep 2012 #204

It won't. There are none so blind as those who will not see. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #136

lol... well, many who don't know him will believe it fascisthunter Sep 2012 #7

Am I mistaken, or... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #13

Put it this way dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #18

I guess anyone who seeded a WikiLeaks bittorrent OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #134

yes. beyond any doubt. Anyone who speaks with him can be prosecuted? insane. robinlynne Sep 2012 #27

Same concept as excommunication, nyet? malthaussen Sep 2012 #29

If the death sentence is on the table for mlitary personnle speaking with assange, that means Bradle robinlynne Sep 2012 #32

Yes, you are mistaken. jeff47 Sep 2012 #77

Absolutely. DeSwiss Sep 2012 #88

Assange live at the UN in a few minutes. Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #10

Their on air dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #17

I'm keeping it on my screen while I wait. I wonder if Assange's Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #20

http://rt.com/on-air/un-general-assembly-live/ reorg Sep 2012 #21

That just defaults back to the news. I can't find a way to listen. Gregorian Sep 2012 #23

cnn.com/live1 n/t AntiFascist Sep 2012 #28

CNN's feed seems to f'd up, rt.com is much better n/t AntiFascist Sep 2012 #35

Sorry, works fine for me reorg Sep 2012 #61

On now here: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/ Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #34

Shit, I missed it. Gregorian Sep 2012 #43

This is wrong. defacto7 Sep 2012 #15

Huh. Imagine that. Nt xchrom Sep 2012 #19

Gee, his concerns about US intentions toward him appear to be well founded. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #22

Who would have thought? How would anyone be expected to know? byeya Sep 2012 #26

So basically, the minute he sets foot in Sweden, KamaAina Sep 2012 #30

We don't do that. OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #33

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to show you KamaAina Sep 2012 #39

No, because the article completely contradicts the headline. jeff47 Sep 2012 #82

I really hate to say this, but most of us are considered enemies of the State Demeter Sep 2012 #31

I proudly wear my "I AM AN ENEMY OF THE STATE" button every time I vote. hobbit709 Sep 2012 #57

Yes, The Patriot Act Killed Democracy - Any Dissent Of That Law Makes One A Terrorist cantbeserious Sep 2012 #206

WTF - this is an outrage! Exposing crimes is not a crime. grahamhgreen Sep 2012 #36

Under The Patriot Act One Is Only To Expose The Approved Types Of Crimes cantbeserious Sep 2012 #207

Freedom of information, is there such a thing? n/t AlphaCentauri Sep 2012 #37

I have defended him numerous times here on DU, but my opinion is changing... Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #38

Maybe he committed a crime... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #42

While I want to see him back in Sweden, I think this is a worrying development muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #50

It chills into the marrow, doesn't it? I worry Mnemosyne Sep 2012 #58

Fortunately, the development didn't happen. jeff47 Sep 2012 #66

Quit spreading lies in my thread!! AntiFascist Sep 2012 #75

Keep desperately trying to make an issue from the opposite result jeff47 Sep 2012 #87

Keep desperately trying to make an issue from the opposite result... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #93

Apparently I'm going to have to explain sarcasm to you. jeff47 Sep 2012 #102

I have to disagree with that assesment. Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #63

If the USA is a force for global stability, the Force is not with us is it? Proletariatprincess Sep 2012 #138

whoah. robinlynne Sep 2012 #182

I would agree with you that some things need to be kept confidential -- others, not. gateley Sep 2012 #193

So this means any journalist who challenges the state is a terrorist? nt valerief Sep 2012 #40

That is the message I'm getting out of this. They_Live Sep 2012 #85

Enemies of the state.. they mean Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzo, Rice jerseyjack Sep 2012 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #44

Good ol' hope and change. villager Sep 2012 #45

good krawhitham Sep 2012 #46

Well, where are the people that kept saying Sweden wasn't going to extradite him and hobbit709 Sep 2012 #47

Thery're all celebrating the news Spirochete Sep 2012 #54

Nah, we're busy trying to get people to actually read the article jeff47 Sep 2012 #65

Absolutely wrong... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #71

Lack of evidence of leaking classified information. There's ample evidence for communication jeff47 Sep 2012 #92

Nope, see my posts above... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #100

Keep trying jeff47 Sep 2012 #106

See post #140 and answer it, if you dare n/t AntiFascist Sep 2012 #168

Correct me if I'm wrong, but defacto7 Sep 2012 #48

I'll correct myself defacto7 Sep 2012 #95

Unconscionable bread_and_roses Sep 2012 #49

Here we go again!! George II Sep 2012 #51

only heaven05 Sep 2012 #53

The sad part is, nothing he released has caused any change. Socal31 Sep 2012 #64

WikiLeaks arguably druidity33 Sep 2012 #209

true heaven05 Sep 2012 #224

Except, it didn't. This seems to be much ado, etc. Robb Sep 2012 #56

Pure speculation... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #70

Leaking the information is irrelevant jeff47 Sep 2012 #73

So, according to your logic... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #84

You hypothetical isn't the situation at hand. jeff47 Sep 2012 #98

Then by your very own logic... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #117

You are still conflating two different charges, which is probably part of why you're wrong. jeff47 Sep 2012 #119

Your argument is now clear as mud... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #125

You've explained this quite well, I think. Robb Sep 2012 #127

Designed to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who dare expose the truth about US policy. marmar Sep 2012 #59

Actually, the article doesn't say what you claim. jeff47 Sep 2012 #60

Overstating MY case? AntiFascist Sep 2012 #89

That's fucking disturbing. What does that make me.... if I decide to send him $$$. n/t Smarmie Doofus Sep 2012 #62

Someone who cares about their country. n/t jtuck004 Sep 2012 #67

Nothing you weren't yesterday. Because the headline doesn't match the contents of the article (nt) jeff47 Sep 2012 #68

Quick, you'd better notify the Sydney Morning Herald... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #72

Why? I can read their article and recognize the headline is click-bait. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2012 #110

Julian Assange SamKnause Sep 2012 #76

You forgot free the Walkers and whistler162 Sep 2012 #105

not rape. consensual sex. a condom broke. stop calling it rape. robinlynne Sep 2012 #181

One of the potental charges against him is rape, you refusing to accept that dosn't change anything Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #216

The charge on the EAW is rape. How does a sleeping woman consent msanthrope Sep 2012 #263

... The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list struggle4progress Sep 2012 #284

Oh for god's fucking sake - that is insane. MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #78

It would be nice to see the actual declassified documents, rather than Dorling's interpretation struggle4progress Sep 2012 #80

Nah. You should know by now only the headline is enough. randome Sep 2012 #114

I don't read it the same way as the headlines imply. The context is that wikileaks is the conduit 24601 Sep 2012 #96

Ok, now that's something that can be discussed... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #113

You're doing plenty of jumping to conclusions as to why there was an investigation jeff47 Sep 2012 #115

More lies... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #118

The FOIA document does not provide any such evidence. jeff47 Sep 2012 #123

The article provides the context... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #128

Vice Presidents preside over the Senate and run nothing but their personal staffs. They are not 24601 Sep 2012 #144

Oh really? AntiFascist Sep 2012 #167

The power to recommend is the power to express an opinion. Executive authority runs from 24601 Sep 2012 #248

Reuters has reported that the Obama Admin. is divided on the wisdom of prosecuting Assange... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #260

Here's the actual FOI document if you'd care to read it... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #203

goodbye right wing spook fascisthunter Sep 2012 #276

This will make the Republicans and the Conserva-Dems jump with joy. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #104

Anyone want to lie to us and still pretend that the US Gov't has "no interest" in Assange? leveymg Sep 2012 #107

How 'bout actually reading the article? jeff47 Sep 2012 #112

Hey, Jeff - the article supports my comment. What happens to an analyst who loses his clearance? leveymg Sep 2012 #121

This analyst's clearance wasn't lost. jeff47 Sep 2012 #122

You're reading that into it. That point is ambiguous. leveymg Sep 2012 #212

*scratches head in wonder* Are you arguing that they should allow someone who cstanleytech Sep 2012 #124

She (the analyst) didn't leak anything. Read the article. leveymg Sep 2012 #211

My apologies but I wasnt responding to that part but rather the part where you said cstanleytech Sep 2012 #217

A little fascism to go with dinner. 20score Sep 2012 #129

not all of us xiamiam Sep 2012 #197

Wikileaks has released the document reorg Sep 2012 #130

So, where is jeff47 to look at this? AntiFascist Sep 2012 #140

State terror nt tama Sep 2012 #213

even worse, she read about assange and wikileaks on the web. She read about them. robinlynne Sep 2012 #245

Time to call in the drones? GeorgeGist Sep 2012 #150

"Enemy of state"? George II Sep 2012 #158

TOS! OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #169

In case you missed it... George II Sep 2012 #173

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #174

Must've struck a nerve. Robb Sep 2012 #180

Try this then : US calls Assange 'enemy of state' dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #208

"THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States "... George II Sep 2012 #222

US calls Assange 'enemy of the police state' ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #176

..enemy of our domestic enemies as per our Constitution. Festivito Sep 2012 #202

Enemy of state terrorism tama Sep 2012 #214

"Enemy of the Corporate State(s)" would also be more accurate. Zorra Sep 2012 #280

this breaks my heart..Its humiliating and a violation of everything I thought my country was about xiamiam Sep 2012 #189

Lauded for leaking classified information? mzmolly Sep 2012 #227

lauded for being an extraordinary journalist and truth teller xiamiam Sep 2012 #231

Kept in the dark about what, exactly? mzmolly Sep 2012 #232

Nothing good tama Sep 2012 #234

This message was self-deleted by its author mzmolly Sep 2012 #235

Describe the tyranny Assange has exposed, aside from his own assistance of the Taliban? mzmolly Sep 2012 #236

Nah tama Sep 2012 #238

Thought so. mzmolly Sep 2012 #240

Short for: tama Sep 2012 #241

Short for .. mzmolly Sep 2012 #258

Dear, tama Sep 2012 #259

Uh huh. You let me know when you figure out what Assange's great contribution to humanity is. mzmolly Sep 2012 #270

an interview with Assange today should clear up this article xiamiam Sep 2012 #196

+1 KoKo Sep 2012 #265

what the what!? n/t iamthebandfanman Sep 2012 #198

Scoop has a link to pdf of the actual FOIA release: it doesn't seem to show what Dorling claims: struggle4progress Sep 2012 #223

The dates actually sink Dorling's notion. Robb Sep 2012 #225

People may not understand what the UCMJ "communicating with the enemy" offense struggle4progress Sep 2012 #228

Please provide links as to how the offense is so broadly construed... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #282

Aiding the Enemy (UCMJ art. 104). Five separate acts are made punishable by this article ... struggle4progress Sep 2012 #283

So, in the context of this sub-thread.. AntiFascist Sep 2012 #285

You seem to be glossing over much of the relevent information... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #237

Nonsense. Look at the charges, and the dates. Robb Sep 2012 #243

Two errors in your theory reorg Sep 2012 #246

Here is Truthdig's and Glenn Greenwald's take on it... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #266

Which is accurate. mzmolly Sep 2012 #226

Personally speaking, I was put on many "lists" of political enemies of (fill in the blank) about 49 bobthedrummer Sep 2012 #230

I'm very sad about the news lovuian Sep 2012 #244

Biden likely made the statement a couple of years ago... AntiFascist Sep 2012 #247

The article does not cite or link to anything treestar Sep 2012 #249

Well, then... the "US" must be full of shit... MrMickeysMom Sep 2012 #250

Eisenhower warned us about those military-industrial complex FUCKS. Fire Walk With Me Sep 2012 #256

K&R n/t rachel1 Sep 2012 #269

Outrageous and indefensible. Wake the hell up, America. woo me with science Sep 2012 #281