and then they will profit from the elderly’s untimely death through “Mortality Swaps” and “Longevity Swaps”

fun fact: Deutch was once reprimanded for mishandling classified information . . the same verbiage used in the government’s press release against Drake.

if you dig through the CIA directors, you will find that quite a few of them either mishandle sensitive information or purposely give it to the media to fight a political battle through public relations. (A good starting point being Burn Before Reading by Stansfield Turner)

the report also talks about the house intelligence committee investigating NSA in 2001.

one of the people on that committee was IIRC Diane Roark, the same from Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article who was raided by armed FBI agents in 2007, and was basically slandered in Obama’s DOJ Indictment of Drake (which said she got sensitive info from him after she left congress)

somehow i feel like this is deeper than any of us realize right now.

the complainants that generated that IG report were supposed to be anonymous. How, then, did Bush’s DOJ track them down? The only reason it went after Drake, from the public knowledge that I have read of the case, is that they were looking for Tamm, but instead stumbled on the Baltimore Sun Gorman articles from 06 …

how did they work their way from 2006 Baltimore Sun articles back to a Congressional staffer who was involved in the thing circa 2001? and to her anonymous associates who were part of an IG complaint?

MadDog:

“As I see it, if the US government won’t admit the authenticity of the Wikileaks DABs, and that the US government is the owner of said documents, then they have no standing to be a party to any proceedings regarding the Wikileaks DABs.”

Excellent point, especially since some of the charges against both Manning and the unknown Cambridge wikileaks people are specifically 18 USC 641, ‘Embezzlement and Theft of government property’. How can they prove that someone stole a “record” or “thing of value” from the government if the government won’t even admit that it ever created the “record” or “thing of value” in the first place.

My other question: how can these cables be government property when the only property law that would apply here is copyright law, and most US government publications are automatically uncopyrightable and in the public domain upon publication?

btw NSA’s Turbulence (started circa 2005) has offensive capabilities.

brilliant speculation!

Manning is only charged uner 18 USC 1030(a)(1) (computer espionage) and 1030(a)(2) (unauthorized access).

Lets take Charge Sheet 1 Charge 2 Spec 1. 1030(a)(1) in regards to the Collateral Murder video.

Here’s a defense. (a)(1) criminalizes passing information that’s been “been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations”. Note it doesnt use the word ‘classified’.

Now, as far as I am concerned, the ‘collateral murder’ video “protection” had nothing to do with ‘national defense’ or ‘foreign relations’. Why did the executive orders ‘protect’ that video? The usual BS reasons, overclassification, covering up controversy and incompetence, etc etc. What is my evidence? There were people all over FOB Hammer watching these types of videos as entertainment – there are even similar videos uploaded to youtube. I call that “de-facto unclassified” and selective prosecution of Manning in order to persecute the source of whistleblowing, and suppress public discussion of an important topic, namely the conduct of the war in Iraq. Colin Powell showed those kinds of videos during Gulf War I while Norman Schwarzkopf told jokes about dudes getting killed on TV . . what is the difference?

Now what about charge sheet 1 charge 2 spec 5, 1030(a)(2) in regards to the Collateral Murder video. (a)(2) says “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . ”

Ok. He had authorization. He had authorized access. That stuff, as stated, was open and everyone at FOB Hammer was showing it off to their buddies. It was all over the place. Again, de-facto authorized, and selective prosecution to punish whistleblowing.

Even the Espionage Act charges, 793(e), have problems. Sheet 1 Charge 2 Spec 1 – the Collateral Murder video and 18 USC 793(e). That law uses the phrase ‘information related to the national defense’. Now, when Congress made that law, it was talking about stuff like diagrams of ships, and secret memos revealing war plans. Please tell me how gun camera footage reveals vital national defense information? Was it the part where the guy said ‘got those bastards’ after he shoots a reporter? Was that vital national defense information? If it is, then why is similar stuff leaked all over youtube as ‘trophy videos’ or ‘entertainment’?

18 USC 1030 (a)(2) is also one of the charges against Bradley Manning.
18 1030 is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

IMHO it’s a backdoor Espionage Act. They took all the laws criminalizing the disclosure or posession of information, broadened them to apply to more people and more types of information, and then stuck ‘computer’ on the end of them so that nobody would notice what was happening. Since all information nowdays is sent on computer, it’s kind of going to become the “go to” law to harsh on whistleblowers… maybe?