PDA

View Full Version : Private giving up secret documents.



Roger Perry
07-27-2010, 03:12 PM
What are your thoughts about the Private that gave up all the Secret documents? What court action should be taken against him and what punishment would you hand out if you were a judge should he be found guilty?

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 03:15 PM
What are your thoughts about the Private that gave up all the Secret documents? What court action should be taken against him and what punishment would you hand out if you were a judge should he be found guilty?
That will be a tough one. At least theoretically he could be subject to charges of treason as well as a laundry list of other charges, the least serious of which would be thousands of counts of theft. If he doesn't go to jail for an extended period, we might as well give up on all notion of document security in the future.

BonMallari
07-27-2010, 03:30 PM
first of all is he being tried in a military court or a civilian court. and exactly what are the charges...also did he have an accomplice...way too many questions yet to be asked before deciding on his punishment...His charges could go all the way to treason in a time of war...

road kill
07-27-2010, 03:32 PM
What are your thoughts about the Private that gave up all the Secret documents? What court action should be taken against him and what punishment would you hand out if you were a judge should he be found guilty?

For the Bush administration secrets, he should get the Nobel Prize.

For and Obama secrets.....execution.


That about cover it?????





rk

Roger Perry
07-27-2010, 04:00 PM
For the Bush administration secrets, he should get the Nobel Prize.

For and Obama secrets.....execution.


That about cover it?????





rk

This time I asked a serious question.

road kill
07-27-2010, 04:24 PM
This time I asked a serious question.

OK, but it was a funny answer.

If this is the guy, the question might be asked "who the hell gave him clearance to access these materials????"



rk

Cody Covey
07-27-2010, 04:37 PM
they were only secret documents its not exactly hard to get a secret clearance...don't commit any crimes and pass a psych exam is about it.

M&K's Retrievers
07-27-2010, 04:38 PM
This time I asked a serious question.

How is one to know?

road kill
07-27-2010, 04:43 PM
How is one to know?


Oh, I think we know........



rk;-)

Roger Perry
07-28-2010, 01:18 PM
OK, but it was a funny answer.

If this is the guy, the question might be asked "who the hell gave him clearance to access these materials????"



rk

Apparantly his job was in communications which gave him access to secret material. I know when I was in the Navy I was a radioman and saw all kinds of secret material come across the teletype.

Of all the messages I saw come across the teletype, one stuck out in my mind. It was a telegram from a sailor's girl friend telling him she was pregnant and was wondering if he was going to tell his parents or should she tell them.

ducknwork
07-28-2010, 02:17 PM
This time I asked a serious question.

For some reason, 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' comes to mind...

dnf777
07-28-2010, 05:20 PM
they were only secret documents its not exactly hard to get a secret clearance...don't commit any crimes and pass a psych exam is about it.

Yes, but all security clearances are on a "need to know" basis. You are cleared at your level to see data at that same level ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR TASK AT HAND, IN YOUR CAPACITY. It does not give you carte blanche to peruse all secret information.

If this is a media circus at the worst, he should be charged with theft, security violations, etc....ordered to pay restitution if appropriate, and jailed.

If his actions compromised American lives, and any mission-readieness was undermined or worse, a troop was killed as a result, he should be executed for treason and abetting the enemy.

Leddyman
07-28-2010, 07:35 PM
Yes, but all security clearances are on a "need to know" basis. You are cleared at your level to see data at that same level ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR TASK AT HAND, IN YOUR CAPACITY. It does not give you carte blanche to peruse all secret information.

If this is a media circus at the worst, he should be charged with theft, security violations, etc....ordered to pay restitution if appropriate, and jailed.

If his actions compromised American lives, and any mission-readieness was undermined or worse, a troop was killed as a result, he should be executed for treason and abetting the enemy.

For once I totally agree with you.

Franco
07-28-2010, 07:47 PM
Yes, but all security clearances are on a "need to know" basis. You are cleared at your level to see data at that same level ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR TASK AT HAND, IN YOUR CAPACITY. It does not give you carte blanche to peruse all secret information.

If this is a media circus at the worst, he should be charged with theft, security violations, etc....ordered to pay restitution if appropriate, and jailed.

If his actions compromised American lives, and any mission-readieness was undermined or worse, a troop was killed as a result, he should be executed for treason and abetting the enemy.

Me too!

Only thing is, if it the first and not the latter, he should do at least 25-35 years. It would make others seriously consider if they want to leak documents.

ducknwork
07-28-2010, 09:44 PM
Should (or will) the guy at wikileaks be charged with anything for making documents that are supposed to be secret very, very public and endangering the lives of many people?

dnf777
07-29-2010, 05:08 AM
Should (or will) the guy at wikileaks be charged with anything for making documents that are supposed to be secret very, very public and endangering the lives of many people?

that's a tough one. Stopping news media from reporting news is a very slippery slope, but somewhere in the mix, should be journalistic discretion and ethics.

I asked the same question when Robert Novak released the name and position of Valerie Plame. That also endangered the lives of informants, past and present, and was highly questionable. The other two reporters (names escape me) were jailed, while he walked. While I despise the media for what they do often, a free press is truly the guardian of democracy. I'm just not sure how "free" our press is anymore when you look at who owns a large majority of media outlets. Diff'rent thread, though.

pat addis
07-30-2010, 06:24 AM
That will be a tough one. At least theoretically he could be subject to charges of treason as well as a laundry list of other charges, the least serious of which would be thousands of counts of theft. If he doesn't go to jail for an extended period, we might as well give up on all notion of document security in the future.

with these people in office he will get a medal

dback
07-31-2010, 08:47 PM
Couple of things in this article caught my eye.....what do you guys think? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38499161/ns/us_news-security

Eric Johnson
07-31-2010, 10:43 PM
It's my understanding that the young troop thought he would be protected by the whistle-blowers laws. The only problem is that the whistle-blowers statutes probably don't apply to the military.

Here's a summary of the law....

"...under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., which allows for a private individual, or "whistleblower," with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the federal government to bring suit on its behalf. This provision allows a private person, known as a "relator," to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The relator need not have been personally harmed by the defendant's conduct; instead, the relator is recognized as receiving legal standing (law) to sue by way of a "partial assignment" of the injury to the government caused by the alleged fraud."

IOW, the person who is the whistle-blower is a private individual who has knowlege of a fraudlent act and sues on behalf of the "king". This is a so-called "qui tam" action. It's a very old concept and rooted in common law.

In the lad's case, he simply violated the law regarding revealing secrets.....lots of them.

Ooops.

Eric

dback
08-01-2010, 11:21 AM
Here are a few questions I had on the article. First, as always, I wonder how accurate the article is depicting the facts as related to the troop. Secondly, it appears that the author of the article is making an effort to deflect the blame for his actions to others....specifically his 'American' father (shouting at him a lot). Third....his uncle apparently supporting his actions and fourth....a recent relationship breakup with his 'boyfriend'.....or did I read that wrong? Relationship stresses while deployed are always difficult but will this bring more focus on 'gay' relationships in the military?

On one of the news shows it was brought up that a number of the communications specifically name individuals that have assisted the US with terrorists in A-stan and that those revelations 'will cost lives'.

dback
08-02-2010, 08:42 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html
And so it begins. Nice to see some former Gitmo residents are signing the letters.