Sunday, November 28, 2010

Immediate Execution Upon Conviction For Treason

This isn't little, this thing with WikiLeaks.com, run by Julian Assange. In case you aren't aware of WikiLeaks, it is a website famous on the margins for leaking stuff that isn't supposed to be famous. Ostensibly a "whistle blower" site, lately it has become a portal to the world for stolen top secret documents. In today's case, it was top secret government documents that were leaked after they were allegedly stolen by PFC Bradley Manning, a military intelligence (oxymoron, eh?) analyst who was previously arrested for releasing the "Collateral Murder" video, which, shall we say, reflected poorly on our side.


The United States Government, of the people and for the people (it Will be again, my friends!) knew that this disclosure of classified documents was to be published against their will. How is this possible? A PFC is a "new guy" by military career standards, usually someone in their teens or early twenties. Manning is 22 and sent emails to his friends bragging about having leaked massive quantities of classified military information. Why did he have unfettered access to hundreds of thousands of pages of classified material without direct supervision?


Why, once Barack Obama was made aware of this upcoming leak (yes, he knew days in advance), didn't he do more than simply tell Assange not to do it? Understand the gravity here. People's lives are immediately endangered. International relationships and world peace and world cooperation, fragile as that is, are all immediately endangered. Global financial markets are immediately endangered. Our government will shut down a child pornography site (as well they should) in a second! Why not a known, previously proven traitorous site?!


Mr President, you do not get months to act when the emergency is now. Didn't the Gulf oil spill teach you anything??


People go to jail for a very long time for far lesser crimes than treason. When a person knows that documents are stolen (Assange was told) and when the United States of America notifies you to cease and desist and then you go ahead and release classified material during wartime, you have pretty clearly crossed the line into treasonous activity.


The penalty for treason during wartime is death.


PFC Bradley Manning traded the security of our nation for personal gain. Julian Assange traded the security of our nation for personal gain. Let's even toss in Michael Moore, yes, that's right, Michael Moore. That fruitcake hanging way out there on the left fringes has offered to pay for Assange's criminal defense. If Michael Moore can see the criminality from his vantage point, before an arrest has even been made, I think the state has a pretty obvious case.


If one single American life is lost due to this self-aggrandizing disgrace of a soldier or his accomplice, Julian Assange, the rule of law should dictate their immediate execution. I am speaking to you, directly, Senator. Yes. You.

This face is a treasonous disgrace to every soldier that ever carried a pack on their back and a rifle in their arms.

p.s. Yes I know WikiLeaks in in England. Doesn't matter. Also, The New York Times should be held just as accountable as any other entity that knowingly disseminates stolen, classified material.

11 comments:

  1. I agree. PFC Manning should be executed for treason. As a former Intelligence analyst, we know the penalty, we sign formal documents stating our understanding of the penalty, and we know the outcome of disclosing classified information. His crime is worse than that of Usama Bin laden, because he betrayed his own country, his people, his integrity, his word.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it would be a good idea to wait to see if Manning leaked this stuff before we call for the firing squad. He's not accused of anything other than the collateral damage video. And then, treason has to be verified by two witnesses or by confession in open court. Neither is likely to happen in this case. No one has been executed for treason since we've had a Constitution and that's not likely to change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He did brag via emal to a bunch of his buddies. Those emails are in the possession of the authorites.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, and nobody ever brags about stuff they didn't do.

    It's not enough to convict of treason. This is in-the-Constitution stuff, not just some obscure legal code. Bragging in emails isn't admission in open court and it's doubtful that there is more than one witness to any of this.

    There's a reason why no one has ever been executed for this. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not that I'm opposed to stringing the bastard up, mind you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We've gotten a little off the point here but just for fun, on September 17, 1787, the constitution was signed and agreed upon.

    William Bruce Mumford was convicted before a military commission of "treason and an overt act thereof" then hanged on June 7, 1862 (almost 100 years to the day before I was born). He would have been my Da you know.

    Then there was poor David Owen Dodd. He was only 17 in 1864 but not too young to have his neck stretched as well.

    Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sent to the chair after they were convicted of espionage. They passed stolen documents to the Russians. Sound familiar? The Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and on April 5 were sentenced to death under Section 2 of the Espionage Act of 1917, 50 U.S. Code 32 (now 18 U.S. Code 794), which prohibits transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government information "relating to the national defense." I contend that perhaps Mannings fits that criteria as well. During wartime that crime is considered... yup, treason.

    None of the above cases required (nor did they receive) confessions. The emails of Manning were sent to at least one of his friends plus the actual information to WikiLeaks. That's two (not that the slimeball Assange would throw his pet to the wolves).

    Firing squad, hanging, electrocution. All fine options. Injection is too nice, imho.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason. They allegedly spied for the Soviet Union -- and the Soviet Union was our ally in WWII. Treason requires giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Our disagreement is on who is doing the charging and carrying out the sentence. Mumford was tried (under very questionable circumstances) by a military tribunal, as was Dodd. Legally, military tribunals are not courts -- they are military commissions. There are all kinds of differences between courts and military tribunals and the standards for conviction are much lower (just as an example -- to get a conviction in a court the jury must be unanimious; a military tribunal requires just a 2/3 majority).

    SO -- no one has been convicted in a U.S. court of treason and then executed.

    Happy now?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pentagon letter: no us intelligence sources or practices were compromised.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  9. If its a secret kept from us by the government its probably something they weren't suppose to be doing in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can't decide if you're kidding or not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Treason will almost Always be conducted in a military setting because that is usually where the fallout lands. Besides, those constitute court for those involved and they are U.S. Just because it's not done downtown, doesn't mean it's not held in U.S. court. Dubious proceedings or not, a cat's a cat and that's that.

    The lives lost will be the families and individuals named that live in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, where retribution is sure and deadly.

    ReplyDelete