Rickyp:

You can argue all you want that rights exist but without protection for those rights its just individuals acting as far as their power to support their actions takes them.

...so you are saying they have a right to rebel? "as far as their power to support their actions" would indicate if they had arms, they had the power to do more, seems to me like you are supporting our side, it also makes me laugh a bit, this completely un-liberal passive position.

What if your government cracked down on your hate speech laws? suddenly you can't post these feelings on Redscape? Suddenly people are being arrested for their opinions that happen to differ from the governments? Would you support that decision? I assume not, how would you go about changing it since you claim you can't do anything illegal???

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20047027-10391695.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/18/mexico-drugs-trade

Obama DOJ operations have sent thousands and thousands of guns to Drug Cartels in Mexico. Some of these illegal weapons have been used in the murder is US Border Patrol Agents. Wikileaks revelations played a role in larger drug war story.

Agent lists loyalty to the Constitution as reason for whistle blowing against Obama regime.

Neal Anderth wrote:http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4631235/exposing-government-secrets/

Thanks for that link.

Jesse Ventura thinks Assange and Manning are heroes. Well, that settles it. After he cracked the 9/11 conspiracy (the government brought down the towers), who can doubt the man?

Ventura was a hero. The new Ventura is the result of being dropped too many times on his head (having chairs smashed over his head, etc.) during "wrestling" matches.

I can hardly wait for the next video--Rosie O'Donnell? Ralph Nader? Charlie Sheen? Lady Gaga?

You've really moved the ball forward!

DF speaking to Danivon...

Doctor Fate wrote:Would Bush be directly responsible?

You betcha.

So, why is it that Obama is not responsible--given the notoriety of this case and the firing of Crowley?

The only way this could be said to not require Obama's direct approval would be if when it first became public he ordered it to end. The alleged smartest President ever is not in the dark, so how is he not morally culpable?

Which leads to my major conclusion: there is more going on than N/A is aware of. Whatever is being done to Manning is for a reason and I'm willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt. If you're not, that's your call. I don't "know" what Obama's reasons are, but I'm fairly confident he's not sadistic nor "torturing" Manning. There are legitimate situations that would justify the reported conditions Manning is being subjected to. Until we know more, I'm going to presume Obama is not evil--in this case. You can choose to believe otherwise if you like--what's it like to be on N/A's side?

"U.S. military officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, deny Manning was tortured, but one said "the Marines blew it” in terms of how they treated him.'

The question now Col. Jessup is 'Who Ordered the Code Red?'

Neal Anderth wrote:DF speaking to Danivon...

Doctor Fate wrote:Would Bush be directly responsible?

You betcha.

So, why is it that Obama is not responsible--given the notoriety of this case and the firing of Crowley?

The only way this could be said to not require Obama's direct approval would be if when it first became public he ordered it to end. The alleged smartest President ever is not in the dark, so how is he not morally culpable?

Which leads to my major conclusion: there is more going on than N/A is aware of. Whatever is being done to Manning is for a reason and I'm willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt. If you're not, that's your call. I don't "know" what Obama's reasons are, but I'm fairly confident he's not sadistic nor "torturing" Manning. There are legitimate situations that would justify the reported conditions Manning is being subjected to. Until we know more, I'm going to presume Obama is not evil--in this case. You can choose to believe otherwise if you like--what's it like to be on N/A's side?

"U.S. military officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, deny Manning was tortured, but one said "the Marines blew it” in terms of how they treated him.'

The question now Col. Jessup is 'Who Ordered the Code Red?'

No matter how anyone wants to spin it, with the pub this thing has had, if (emphasis on IF) anything was done to Manning that was illegal or immoral, the President is responsible. 8 months? That's on him.

Neal Anderth wrote:Frontline: WikiSecrets

I wonder who would poll better: your man or OBL?

Hmm, my guess would be Manning, mostly because OBL has more name recognition.

Manning is a traitor, not a hero.

Thanks for the video Neal. Gonna pass it around.

Doctor Fate,
Treason, really? Who shall be the 2 winessses to the overt act? Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution of these United States of America. The "T" word is serious buisiness and has been abused and bandied about in the past (thats part of why it is so defined in the Constitution).

Doctor Fate,
I know why they are leaning so heavily on Manning. They want him to not only admit to having handed the data to Wikileaks but they want him to
(probably falsely but only 2 people really know what happened) say that Assinage coerced or bribed or otherwise induced the leak. If they could do that then they could charge Assinage and ever since we coerced the Swedes into violating their own laws and wounding the independence of the Swedish judiciary wthh the whole Pirate Bay thing... Well they are hoping he will be extridited to Sweden , then we lean on the Swedes and they extradite to US. That is what this is about.

Alan Smithee wrote:Doctor Fate,
Treason, really? Who shall be the 2 winessses to the overt act? Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution of these United States of America. The "T" word is serious buisiness and has been abused and bandied about in the past (thats part of why it is so defined in the Constitution).

I think there are more than two witnesses. I suppose we'll have to wait to find out--unless you are part of the investigation, "Alan."

Doctor Fate,
If there were 2 witnesses to the same overt act he would be charged with treason. He is not, the constitution sets the bar for a treason conviction almost impossibly high. If however you have information as to who might have seen what overt act that qualufies as treasonous under the constitution I would be extraordinarilly interested in knowing the details.

Alan Smithee wrote:Doctor Fate,
If there were 2 witnesses to the same overt act he would be charged with treason. He is not, the constitution sets the bar for a treason conviction almost impossibly high. If however you have information as to who might have seen what overt act that qualufies as treasonous under the constitution I would be extraordinarilly interested in knowing the details.

How do you know he won't be charged with treason?

Alan Smithee (also Allen Smithee) was an official pseudonym used by film directors who wish to disown a project, coined in 1968. Until its use was formally discontinued in 2000,[1] it was the sole pseudonym used by members of the Directors Guild of America (DGA) when a director dissatisfied with the final product proved to the satisfaction of a guild panel that he or she had not been able to exercise creative control over a film. The director was also required by guild rules not to discuss the circumstances leading to the move or even to acknowledge being the actual director.

He hasn't YET been charged with treason. Maybe the threshold is so high the prosecutors view it as unnecessary when he may face death anyway?

The Army on Wednesday filed 22 new charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of illegally downloading tens of thousands of classified U.S. military and State Department documents that were then publicly released by WikiLeaks, military officials told NBC News.

The most serious of the new charges is "aiding the enemy," a capital offense that could carry a potential death sentence.

Pentagon and military officials say some of the classified information released by WikiLeaks contained the names of informants and others who had cooperated with U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, endangering their lives.

I know some here are twitterpated with him. Then again, I understand Charles Manson still gets a lot of fan mail, so there's no accounting for the twisted thinking of some folks.

Yo Rickey P,
I also wonder about Warsaw and the Ghetto. Did the Jews of Warsaw have any right to resist the functioning government that was after all only trying to protect the rights of Aryans to be free of Jews (said right established in the nuremburg laws of '36)

Assuming as you claim to: that there are no inherent rights and that the only rights that matter are those guaranteed by a governent one would have to conclude that those dirty Jews were behaving in an unlawful fashion trying to dodge the oven! How dare they! Right?
Yes this and the other attacks on your position of similiar nature, someone mentioned Libya- deliberately misinterpret you message. Please correct me if I am wrong buy ultimatlely you are saying that the power of peaceful protect is invincible and that there is never a need to use violence against the established and accepted authorities.
If I am right in that then I submit! The Mahatma was right, Love is the supreme force of the universe and violence can never withstand those who walk the path of ahisma. However, for people who do not want to walk the path of ahismsa people like you... (don't even try to tell me you do, I bet you eat meat or cheese or other products of animals and if you do not you are not in prison which is where people in english speaking countries who practice ahisma end up) So for people like you and me who are not great souled ones... Rebellion is NEVER JUSTIFIED really? Not ever, not even in Warsaw? or Sobobor? or Hati? Or Nat Turner? or John Brown? NEVER!

I think you've been painted into a corner and that you really do on some levels think it's ok that the Jews of warsaw did what they did. I think that you even think violence is ok under certain circumstances if used by the people collectively and only against "evil" (ie warsar or sobobor)
Just eat a bit of crow and go back and qualify a couple of your eairlier statements and your position becomes somewhat logically defenceable again. Not that that matters , since when do commies or socialists or what ever you call yourselves these days care for logical consistancy?