My understanding is that he owned a 2013 model. Also, @chingalera, my understanding is that the car was traveling south, and thus the engine was found a couple hundred feet in front (not behind) the vehicle.

Personally, I find this suspicious. Most suspicious is the call a few hours prior to the accident he made to a wikileaks attorney. Normally, I wouldn't expect official agencies to put out a "hit." There are just safer ways of going about preventing a damaging story, like detention, or smear campaigns. However, if it's possible he had damaging documents that he could release via wikileaks, it would be out of their control. In that case I'd entertain the possibility.

Also, Richard Clarke (former Counter Terrorism Czar) has points out that we have good reason to believe that major country intelligence organizations have the ability to remotely control cars. Further, he pointed out that this crash (especially the lack of skid marks) is consistent with such. He was careful, however, not to explicitly implicate any particular agencies. For my money, LAPD is at least as likely as the FBI. Those fuckers are no good.

I'm boring? It took you the equivalent of a book to answer a few simple questions. Did I as for a lecture on the oath of office? No. Did I ask for a lecture on the forth estate? No.

You used one as an excuse the other as a reason but nether answered the questions.

Finely after all the dogma I get an answer. A piss poor answer but its better than you rehashing the same thing for a forth time.

So Lets look at what you provided.

First Article.
Shit.. An article repeating the same dogma again for a forth time.....

Second Article.
FINELY! Examples! was that so hard? Really?
and it shows. Nothing that was not already known. (My Opinion)

"A Pentagon spokesman told the New York Times this week that under its procedure, when reports of Iraqi abuse were received the US military "notifies the responsible government of Iraq agency or ministry for investigation and follow-up".

If you know a better way?


So what did his leaks really do?

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert who submitted written testimony, said that upon reviewing the information Manning released, he discovered that it included techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, names of enemy targets, names of criminal suspects and troop movements, according to The Guardian.

Navy Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Hoskins also reviewed the documents and found potentially damaging information, including codewords, tactics and techniques for responding to roadside bombings, weapon capabilities, and assistance the U.S. military had received in tracking down suspects from foreign nationals, The Guardian reported.

These are just some of the reasons I consider him a traitor. This put people at risk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-prosecution


He should of just released documentation on what he thought were the crimes or corruption. Not all of it and defiantly not that information.

@skinnydaddy1
the ignorance of your commentary is staggering.
it reveals a total lack of understanding in regards to:history,the fourth estate and the importance of whistleblowers.

you state that he betrayed an oath.
but what was that oath in regards to?
the government? or the citizens and constitution of the united states?

manning has stated quite clearly he felt the american people needed to know what was being perpetrated in their names.

he honored his oath.

as for HOW he released that information i disagree with as well.he should not have just dumped massive amounts of data,unlike snowden who vetted the information,manning just dumped it.

he gave this information to wikileaks.
a notorious and well-known site for whistleblowers to retain anonymity.
your accusation that this site "lies" is unfounded and has no basis in truth.

maybe in your mind wikileaks lies but that is speculation and conjecture.better known as "wishful thinking".

which brings me to my next point in regards to your willfully ignorant commentary.
you state:
"He gave information to a a group of people that used it to lie and put people at risk for nothing."

and yet in your ad hominem swipe at @Asmo you state:
"What secret did he give away that was damning to the US government? Oh thats right Nothing Other than information that gave away procedures on how informants were handled and oh! some of their names."

well?
which one is it?
were people put at risk or werent they?

you make an argument in one comment where manning is a traitor and had put people lives at risk and in your very NEXT commentary you state that nothing of value was revealed.

you literally negated your first position by YOUR OWN COMMENTARY.

you postulated the our opinion of our government is irrelevant.
i totally agree.
our opinion of our government is irrelevant in these matters.

the fourth estate was put in place to be the watchdog of the powerful.
it is VITAL to this estate that they be able to glean information on the inner workings of governmental processes.for this to work whistleblowers who uncover government malfeasance be allowed to reveal the glitches in the system.

a government by the people for the people should be informed on the goings on of a government enacting policies in THEIR name.

manning saw a glitch in the system and revealed some of the working of our government and by YOUR OWN COMMENTARY,did not reveal anything of significant value.

manning stood up to the most powerful institution on the planet and has suffered three years in prison (wheres the speedy trial?).has been sleep deprived,forced nudity and been subjected to loud music for hours on end (all forms of torture).

he has suffered all this because he felt the american people had the right to know.

manning has shown a courage and a set of balls that has become painfully obvious you do not own.

manning is not only a hero but has a brass set.

@lantern53

i think the only thing manning did that could be considered "wrong" is the pure data dump he performed.

unlike snowden,who sifted and vetted the information and then forwarded the information to a journalist (glenn greenwald at the gaurdian),manning just dumped massive amounts of information to wikileaks.

but manning is also paying a high price and he is willing to pay that price.
so while i may disagree with his methodology i admire his courage to face the full force of the united states federal government.

its interesting that you find people who criticize the federal governments practices as being confused.
let us look at the definition of terrorism shall we?

from the FBI:“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

now the key word here is "unlawful".
which can be translated as being "when THEY perform acts of violence against a population it is "terrorism" but when WE perform acts of violence against a population it is "counter-terrorism" because WE made it lawful".

the arguments is about distinctions and it is flimsy when you question the validity coming from a government which performs drone strikes on a daily basis on brown people.

when a person straps a bomb to their chest and walks into a cafe and detonates themselves in a crowd they are a terrorist.
when the US government sends drone strikes and bombing runs to a village in yemen they are terrorists.

there is no distinction.
just because the government proclaims otherwise or your desire for the US to be standing on moral ground are irrelevant.

they are,by definition,both terrorists.

and when you consider the guidelines put forth by the nuremberg trials after WW2,in which it was the UNITED STATES government which implemented the majority of those guidelines both bush and obama and consequent participatory members of those administrations should be (and ARE in the international court of law) war criminals.

but the united states government conveniently ignores just about everything outside their own interest.even if that interest after the second world war was to diminish the practices our very own government engages in on a global scale every day.

it is the height of hypocrisy and reveals a moral bankruptcy that is staggering.
when they do it =terrorism
when we do it=counter-terrorism

i call bullshit.

Larry mentioned Palantir as a company that could provide technology to protect our privacy. Yet Palantir was involved in the campaign to take down WikiLeaks, so he might as well have named Gamma Group, the creators of FinFisher, your friendly Dictator's trojan of choice.

Scum, the lot of 'em.

Here's my suggestion on how to prevent abuse of (big) data: don't collect the fucking data; don't merge databases; don't store anything longer than absolutely neccessary. But demanding that sort of restraint strikes me as just as pointless as telling a 16 year old to stop wanking...

This guy is definitely smarter than Manning, because he took extraordinary steps to get away. Even if he's on the run he's in better shape than Manning who suffers greatly. We should make it a requirement that the next president who wants our vote must pardon Manning.

I don't like Assange, he's such a cunt and you can see that with his personal relationships. He has of course done something important and he shouldn't be put in jail for what he did, but I feel that some of the people from Wikileaks should get more credit than they did. What might be happening though is that Assange has decided to play the martyr, and keep everyone off his former colleagues. Whether that was done selfishly or selflessly I think it was a good thing. And certainly what he did was very important, this is just my personal opinion of him.

I worry about this Edward guy though but I think it was very smart of him to go public with his identity. Now everyone can put a face to the man who the NSA and the CIA will be either hunting or trying to discredit. It severely ties their hands in the PR department.

A comment over at the Guardian just reminded me of something. Remember the HBGary/Palantir hack in early 2011? It produced an outline on how to discredit WikiLeaks through attacks on its supporters, including Glenn.

I wonder what angles they're gonna use to attack him this time around...

Bradley Manning Trial: WikiLeaks Lawyer Sees Spurious "Enemy" Claims & Bid to Scare Whistleblowers
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/4/bradley_manning_trial_wikileaks_lawyer_sees

Ten Revelations From Bradley Manning's WikiLeaks Documents
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/04/bradley_manning_trial_10_revelations_from_wikileaks_documents_on_iraq_afghanistan.html

@Confucius

thank you so very much for taking the time to clarify your position.
but i think we are in a fundamental disagreement.
and here is why:

1.manning approached wikileaks.not the other way around.
2.is manning a traitor or patriot? i guess it depends on the perspective.
but manning was quite clear his reasons behind revealing those documents and none of those reasons were of being naive' or subverted by a third party.

when you consider the oath of military responsibility,an i oath i took over 25 years ago,the line that stands out is "to protect from enemies both foreign and domestic".
could those documents be seen as subverting the american people?
and if so,would that not make revealing those documents a patriotic act?

again,perspective and i guess we disagree.

conversely, if we use your premise then we would have to view this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
as a traitor.
now the 70,000 plus documents HE revealed exposed the gulf of tonkin AND extremely sensitive data concerning the vietnam war.i would go as far to say that without this mans courage (yes..courage) to expose the lies of our government,vietnam may have lasted for a much longer time.ellisberg fascillitated the beginning of the end of the vietnam war

the documents manning revealed just left the american government red faced and embarrassed but nothing of strategic value.ellisberg on the other hand revealed much MUCH more.

traitor or patriot? by your definition:traitor and a far worse one than manning.

and on that we disagree.

what we agree on is that governments lie.
we are in unison on this point but we diverge on how to deal with the situation.

you suggest to work within the bounds of journalism or becoming a politician.
now who is being the naive one?
this implies that the 4th estate is in perfect functioning order and that politicians are informed on all matters.

i submit that neither is the case.
a corporate run new media which engages mainly in sensationalism and hyperbolic opinion rhetoric and a legislature that is mostly subserviant to their financial backers( basically wall street) are not the institutions to tackle and uncover government malfeasance and outright lies.

they have been corrupted.see:iraq war

so i find it disturbing when the government hi-jacks 200 ap reporters emails and phone records.

or when a low level private reveals low level ambassador documents.

or my government's justice department prosecutes SIX people under the espionage act but not ONE indictment concerning wall street.

the message is clear:we are the US government.fuck with us and we will fuck you up.citizen or non-citizen.
there will be no journalism.
there will be no leaking of anything.
sit down and shut up.

or we will ruin you.

government by the people for the people right?

Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at
meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a
little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act,
I'm afraid to say things like that.

http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#efmCS3CUB

anyway yea you can read the operational reports talking about civilan casualties and guess what? try and google for a news story about some of the horrors... must not have happened eh... someone made it all up, names, places, times

http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#efmCS3CUB

Kissinger: Ecevit can be very helpful. Art will see the Germans on the
way home and also see Haig to see about getting surplus parts out of
stocks. And [Ambassador David] Bruce was helpful.

Esenbel: The Europeans should find ways to meet quick needs; for
example, the Air Force needs spare parts. For other items that they
can't find in the stocks, maybe you could make a deal with the Dutch or
others to send it here.

Macomber: That is illegal.

Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at
meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a
little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act,
I'm afraid to say things like that.

We'll make a major effort.

Esenbel: Your Ambassador told me the opposite. In Germany they said
they delayed it one week so it looks like it happens after your visit.

Kissinger: My understanding is that the aid is now in force. They
informed us.

Yavuzalp: The political decision is made, they say, but they're waiting
for "appropriate timing" for implementation of the political decision.

http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#efmCS3CUB

I do not trust the wikileaks because the main man who was in charge got caught giving an underage salmon Bass To Mouth