Thanks, and thanks for the discussion today. For anybody that does not yet have a copy of James’ book, Fighting For The Press, I highly recommend you get one, it is superb.

This is probably a stupid question, but did you like the James Spader movie on the Pentagon Papers, and how faithful did you find it to the actual story?

No. Pretty gutsy, but I couldn’t have ever signed off on that.

James, as you are aware, Pvt. Manning pled guilty to a number of counts and accepted responsibility; what do you make of that move? I was a little stunned that he and his attorney affirmatively did that with no agreement with the government in return. It struck me, and still does, that it was ill advised as his allocution process handed much of the foundation to the government on the top counts they are still prosecuting on = like espionage – on a silver platter. What do you make of that tactic?

Clark’s “evidence” was probably properly excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence actually.

James, in criminal cases there is a process available known as CIPA, would you be in favor of Congress creating an analogous program for civil litigation and, if so, how would you suggest it be structured? If not, do you have other suggestions on how to better allow classified evidence to be dealt with in civil litigation?

Mr. Goodale, welcome, and thank you not only for your time today, but also for all your efforts over the years in support of the First Amendment. I am of the understanding that you have opined, I believe perhaps on Democracy Now, that there exists a secret indictment of Julian Assange and/or WikiLeaks. Can you describe your basis for this statement and what evidence you have seen directs that conclusion?

Also, I am not all the way through it yet, but your book is fantastic, thank you for the tour of one of the most important times and cases in our legal history.

And then the people in charge of Pride rethought the matter and changed the decision. That is their right. And when you say “overwhelmingly” where do you get that, just make it up? Because there were clearly a lot of Pride members, especially newly recognized armed servicemembers, that objected vociferously to Manning being a symbol. It is nice to just make up your own statistics such as “overwhelmingly” I guess, eh?

I merely think that both sides have reasonable arguments here. If Pride wanted Manning, I have no issue with that, I can understand that. If they reconsidered and decided it was not the right choice, that too is their right. What I object to is the howling war that has been declared on them by the Cult of Manning. As to Manning himself, I think he is a complicated person, with complex motivations and acts, and that he is not singularly either a hero or a goat. To me, personally, he is much of both; mostly, I think the treatment of him was abhorrent and that enough pounds of flesh have been removed. They should accept his plea, sentence him to time served and discharge him.

Many of the cable were classified as only secret; others bore higher classification stamping. And, yes, the full assessments of damage are classified, which is exactly what they should be. “Dumping Manning” was also representative of the concerns of a hell of a lot of gay servicemembers who don’t want the symbol of their pride in service to be a guy that disgraced his uniform and admitted to doing so criminally.

I have a lot of sympathy for Manning in a great many ways. But, what he did is not necessarily “anti-war” so much as a petulant and indiscriminate wholesale dumping of classified information. If it had been restricted to the Collateral Murder video and the Gitmo evals etc, that would be one thing; but the wholesale dumping of classified State Department cables that were NOT DOD or “war” puts the lie to the catchall “anti-war” moniker you glibly want to assign to his actions.

Wow, this is absolutely epic. Although I care very deeply about LGBT rights and equality, and have spent years (and will undoubtedly spend some more years) trying to write about, argue and advance the legal case in support of them, I too, like Mr. Bogg, and am not gay and do not live in the greater SF area. It is not my fight, so while I have thoughts, they are not all that germane. With that caveat, I would say I agree with everything TBogg said in the main post and at comment 23. I also think Happenstance at 125 made very valid points as very much did Gannonguckert at 168.

It is false to say Mr. Manning is simply “being prosecuted” at this point; he has stood in open court and admitted guilt and disgracing the uniform he wears. That is what he himself has admitted he did. It does seem a bit much to make that the symbol of Pride in the year where so much has been accomplished in terms of gains in both the military and civilian settings. But that is Pride’s decision, both to make, and to reconsider. They have done so. At this point, the whining and screaming by Ellsberg and the Noisy Cult of Manning truly appears to be exactly that, and an attempt to hijack something that is not theirs. But, again, that is simply a view from the outside.

Yep. Frankly the US also has a lot of exceptions. That is the thing with a lot of conventions that many people don’t realize – the exceptions often so modify that the underlying intent is escaped.

Wonderful article Jeff.

Nicely done Teddy!

I stand by exactly what and typing in “LOL”repetitively is pretty pitiful as an intellectual response; though it is clearly the best you have.

The “charges” in the Swedish criminal justice system do not get formally “filed” until the defendant’s presentment to the court. However, the exact charges to be levied are specified completely in the arrest warrant, and that was accepted as sufficiently “charged” by every level of the British legal system where it was litigated. He is NOT simply wanted for “further questioning” that is a fabrication propounded by his cult of followers. Naomi wolf is nuts, and if things were that bleak on US extradition and charging, Ms. Jonsdottir would not be galavanting around this country as she is now.

Pretty amazing that Jonsdottir can just wander into and fully around in the United States and does not have to cower in fear in an Ecuadoran broom closet like Assange. But, if she can do that, kind of puts the lie to the Assange bullshit. Maybe it has just been he is too cowardly to face the Swedish charges all along. What a shock.

Nice job Kit. Sounds like a very fun interview.

You advocate freezing of defense budgets, halting force expansion, reevaluating Ops and Maintenance, setting hardware priorities among other things. All good ideas; do you have a strategic sense above and beyond that as to where the emphasis on the military should be among the branches in the future, and how that might be carried out?