White House Threatens 'SF Chronicle' for Covering Manning Protest

[Agorism]

White House Threatens 'SF Chronicle' for Covering Manning Protest

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/28/MNA51J994T.DTL&type=printable

[Teaser Rate]

On one hand, I’m really sick of seeing media outlets portray the criminal who undermined his country’s national security as an innocent martyr, so I couldn't be happier that someone is punishing the SF Chronicle for doing it. One the other hand, I don’t think the White House should restrict access to news outlets based on specific content.

[Aratus]

they say the 40 ANONYMOUS hacker people have a link to young private manning?
the white~house wants the press corp happily muzzled & complacant at this point?

[Icymudpuppy]

On one hand, I’m really sick of seeing media outlets portray the criminal who undermined his country’s national security as an innocent martyr, so I couldn't be happier that someone is punishing the SF Chronicle for doing it. One the other hand, I don’t think the White House should restrict access to news outlets based on specific content.

Since when is telling the truth in a free country criminal. Specific operational plans like Operation Overlord from WWII are worthy of being kept secret. The technical readouts of a new military technology such as the battlefield tracking FBCB2 which was developed for the Stryker brigades is worthy of being kept secret. The criminal actions of our elected officials acting on our behalf are not worthy of secrecy. The criminal actions of soldiers in the field are not worthy of secrecy. Nothing in the wikileaks files undermined our national security. Only embarrassed people who need to learn some humility.

Big brother is watching us. We need to watch right back.

[RM918]

On one hand, I’m really sick of seeing media outlets portray the criminal who undermined his country’s national security as an innocent martyr, so I couldn't be happier that someone is punishing the SF Chronicle for doing it. One the other hand, I don’t think the White House should restrict access to news outlets based on specific content.

The white house, the government is FULL of genuine murderers and thieves who will never, never be punished for their crimes and, in fact, lionized for doing so. They're responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and you're pissed off at the guy that released a bunch of files that were not even top secret like Ellsberg did who got nobody killed?

You have one whacked out set of priorities.

[Cap]

On one hand, I’m really sick of seeing media outlets portray the criminal who undermined his country’s national security as an innocent martyr, so I couldn't be happier that someone is punishing the SF Chronicle for doing it. One the other hand, I don’t think the White House should restrict access to news outlets based on specific content.

You are just fucking trolling.

[CaseyJones]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=87504

here is some video of the protest

[Todd]

On one hand, I’m really sick of seeing media outlets portray the criminal who undermined his country’s national security as an innocent martyr, so I couldn't be happier that someone is punishing the SF Chronicle for doing it. One the other hand, I don’t think the White House should restrict access to news outlets based on specific content.

In a free society, information being accessible on what your holy government does in your name is paramount. You speak in generalities as there is no evidence of undermined National security from what was released. It's never a bad thing when the crimes of a government are exposed.

[amy31416]

You are just fucking trolling.

Or worse, he's sincere. A lot of GOP assholes who are pro-war, pro-empire xenophobic jerkoffs think it's just fine that we murder people, and that people who expose our gov't for the murderous regime they are are traitors.

Traitors to what, I'm not sure--but I suppose they justify it in some Jack Bauer "24" type fantasy.

[Teaser Rate]

Or worse, he's sincere. A lot of GOP assholes who are pro-war, pro-empire xenophobic jerkoffs think it's just fine that we murder people, and that people who expose our gov't for the murderous regime they are are traitors.

Traitors to what, I'm not sure--but I suppose they justify it in some Jack Bauer "24" type fantasy.

I don’t see why you have to be a war loving neo-con to oppose the actions of a soldier who deliberately broke the law by leaking classified intelligence documents to a foreign outlet with an anti-American agenda. I don't think you have to live in a fantasy world to oppose such an action against your country's best interests.

And yes, undermining our standing around the world and our ability to negotiate peace between countries is against all of our interests.

[Agorism]

We need to declassify all government information. 100% transparency.

[mczerone]

I don’t see why you have to be a war loving neo-con to oppose the actions of a soldier who deliberately broke the law by leaking classified intelligence documents to a foreign outlet with an anti-American agenda. I don't think you have to live in a fantasy world to oppose such an action against your country's best interests.

And yes, undermining our standing around the world and our ability to negotiate peace between countries is against all of our interests.

1 - there is an appropriate punishment for such leakage. A Court Marshall under threat of dishonorable discharge.

2 - "Your country" is no less safe because of Bradley Manning. A few heads of state got butt-hurt because the leaks exposed their petulant behavior and lies, but their war orders are what get people killed, not the info being given to the people.

3 - Why do you want the Federal Government being the one single psychopathic agency responsible for "negotiating peace"?

4 - Why do you personally identify your status to that of Hillary Clinton? Certainly she does not actually reflect onto any of us, so why does it matter how she, or the other individuals in the Federal government, are judged by foreigners?

I can understand why you'd want Manning to be exposed to the force of a just law, but he's being kept in solitary confinement and tortured because he embarrassed the people with the guns, with the control of "the law".


Oh yeah, you never denied being a "war loving neo-con", you just said you didn't have to be one to love violence perpetrated against someone who sabotaged your neo-con foreign policy.

[amy31416]

I don’t see why you have to be a war loving neo-con to oppose the actions of a soldier who deliberately broke the law by leaking classified intelligence documents to a foreign outlet with an anti-American agenda. I don't think you have to live in a fantasy world to oppose such an action against your country's best interests.

And yes, undermining our standing around the world and our ability to negotiate peace between countries is against all of our interests.

Why don't you go and try to think about things on a deeper level? Perhaps then you'll get it, if you're capable of such things.

Good luck.

[osan]

On one hand, I’m really sick of seeing media outlets portray the criminal who undermined his country’s national security as an innocent martyr, so I couldn't be happier that someone is punishing the SF Chronicle for doing it. One the other hand, I don’t think the White House should restrict access to news outlets based on specific content.

This is pretty fucked up thinking, though you are entitled to it if it makes you happy.

Manning has exposed things that needed exposing. I doubt there has been any hit to national security, but some hit to the security of those whom Manning's exposures placed in the crosshairs. Good.

Punish the paper? I hope they tell Obama to kiss their asses.

[Dr.3D]

I'm surprised there is any legitimate press to threaten.

[Teaser Rate]

1 - there is an appropriate punishment for such leakage. A Court Marshall under threat of dishonorable discharge.

That’s not your call to make.


2 - "Your country" is no less safe because of Bradley Manning. A few heads of state got butt-hurt because the leaks exposed their petulant behavior and lies, but their war orders are what get people killed, not the info being given to the people.

While it’s difficult to assess the long-term consequences of his actions, but two things are certain, 1-the International backlash against us and our allies will likely have a negative effect and 2-it will make negotiation more difficult in the future.


3 - Why do you want the Federal Government being the one single psychopathic agency responsible for "negotiating peace"?

Because it’s the only one capable of enforcing it.


4 - Why do you personally identify your status to that of Hillary Clinton? Certainly she does not actually reflect onto any of us, so why does it matter how she, or the other individuals in the Federal government, are judged by foreigners?

You could say that about any high ranking member of the government. The fact is that she represents us to the rest of the world and a successful PR attack against her makes the rest of us look bad.


I can understand why you'd want Manning to be exposed to the force of a just law, but he's being kept in solitary confinement and tortured because he embarrassed the people with the guns, with the control of "the law".

I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s being tortured under any reasonable definition of the term.


Oh yeah, you never denied being a "war loving neo-con", you just said you didn't have to be one to love violence perpetrated against someone who sabotaged your neo-con foreign policy.

Unlike neo-cons who believe we should use our military overseas to establish order at home, I believe we should limit our military involvement to events which affect our security or national interests.

[Teaser Rate]

Why don't you go and try to think about things on a deeper level? Perhaps then you'll get it, if you're capable of such things.

Good luck.

Let me ask you this: how do you picture the Cuban missile crisis would have ended if a wikileaks-like outlet had published the secret agreement we had negotiated with the Soviets to keep the world from blowing up?

Don’t get me wrong, government transparency is a good thing, and we should have more of it, but there are certain things which can only be done behind closed doors. Undermining our government’s ability to negotiate peace isn’t going to help anyone.

[amy31416]

Let me ask you this: how do you picture the Cuban missile crisis would have ended if a wikileaks-like outlet had published the secret agreement we had negotiated with the Soviets to keep the world from blowing up?

Don’t get me wrong, government transparency is a good thing, and we should have more of it, but there are certain things which can only be done behind closed doors. Undermining our government’s ability to negotiate peace isn’t going to help anyone.

Negotiate peace? Our tax dollars went toward underage gay sex parties. Toward torture. Murder. Cover-ups. Billions of dollars have disappeared.

If the threat of being exposed wasn't a problem, we'd have much more of this going on in our name, with our money. But don't worry, very few Americans seem to give a crap, and our "enemies" already know.

[specsaregood]

Let me ask you this: how do you picture the Cuban missile crisis would have ended if a wikileaks-like outlet had published the secret agreement we had negotiated with the Soviets to keep the world from blowing up?

Don’t get me wrong, government transparency is a good thing, and we should have more of it, but there are certain things which can only be done behind closed doors. Undermining our government’s ability to negotiate peace isn’t going to help anyone.

The cold war could have ended sooner as the world realized neither side wanted to actually go to war? Americans might have realized having Castro next door wasn't a dangerous thing and we might be trading today -- me smoking a cuban here in the states and/or vacationing on their beaches?

Nobody really knows how things would have ended if it wasn't covered up in secrecy, all we do know is that our government has proven itself corrupt and not worth trusting with secrets.