Hello:

Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/) has probably produced more scoops in its short life than the Washington Post has in the past 30 years. If they had not obtained and then posted this video, we would not know about what happened with this incident.

The video is gruesome. Before it was leaked, the pentagon said they were responding to US troops coming under fire. The video shows something different...

The point of my post isn't the video, however. It's about wikileaks OBTAINING and RELEASING this video. I've been having a spirited discussion on another thread with some right wingers regarding their rant about restoring the Constitution. I wonder what they'll say about our First Amendment rights to a free press. Whadya want to bet that they'll condemn the release of the video, and out of the other side of their mouths, they'll scream about restoring the Constitution?

excon

It sucks when journalists get killed when they choose to embed themselves with enemy insurgents . The rest of the video looks like troops engaging insurgents during a war.

Wikileaks is a disgrace .They are serving as propagandists for the enemy.

There is a spirited discussion of it on Digg: Classified US military video depicting slaying of Iraqis

I know you want to talk about the constitution, just wanted to offer the background.

The answer to the constitutional question is that Wiki is constitutionally permitted to release the video but whoever supplied it is a traitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wikileaks is a disgrace .They are serving as propagandists for the enemy.

---

Hello again, tom:

So, you DON'T support our First Amendment rights to a free press. That's what I thought you guy's would say. And, uhhh, that restoring the Constitution thingy you guys are hysterical about - what happened to that?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The answer to the constitutional question is that Wiki is constitutionally permitted to release the video but whoever supplied it is a traitor.

---

Why? Because it exposed a "mistake"?

There was no mistake .It is war. The leaking is what is not covered constitutionally .

There were no AK-47s, no RPG (it was a camera on a tripod.), kids in a car were fired upon by the helicopter. No one ever fired at the americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The leaking is what is not covered constitutionally .

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't know about that: Whistleblower Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

excon

So the troops have to wait to be fired upon 1st ? This isn't police action it is war. You say it wasn't RPG . I see something different. But even if it is a camera in a war zone ,why should the troops assume that someone wants to take their picture when pointing what looks like a weapon at them.
I'm sure Wiki wouldn't honor their memory or restraint.

Ex will get back to you on the whistlebower act. Not sure it applies to the military or for classified information . Also it is possible under various intelligence acts that the proper release would be to Congress and not the press.

I have emailed some people I know who are more familiar and will get back when they reply. Wikileaks is also a challenge because they operate inside and outside the US .I know much of their information has been filtered through their London operation.

Quote:

---

And, uhhh, that restoring the Constitution thingy you guys are hysterical about - what happened to that?

---

That would be putting words in my mouth . For the most part I think the Constitution doesn't need restoring . I point out specific cases where I think Congress ,the President oversteps... or in most cases ,the Judiciary mistakenly rules.

I agree with most of what the teaparty says about the Constitutional rationale for the growth of the government .But rarely do I find violations by the government regarding the press or speech.

The only 1st amendment issue I usually have is the misinterpretation of the establishment clause and the free exercise clauses to the 1st amendment .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So the troops have to wait to be fired upon 1st ? This isn't police action it is war. You say it wasn't RPG . I see something different. But even if it is a camera in a war zone ,why should the troops assume that someone wants to take their picture when pointing what looks like a weapon at them.
I'm sure Wiki wouldn't honor their memory or restraint.

---

If it's war--REALLY war--why aren't we doing an all out effort to WIN it? We have the military and technology to take the country over and wipe out the population.

Oh wait--we're trying to be HUMANE during war.

Either we're the bad guys who are trying to win, or we're not really fighting a war.

Take your pick.

Hate to break the news to you... actually glad to break the news to you. The Iraq war has been won.

Still waiting for someone to declare VI day and schedule the ticker tape parade down the 'canyon of heroes' that our troops so richly deserve.

Yes restoring things to be "like" they were when consitituion was written.
No news people with the military, anyone even writing negative about troops considered an enemy

Churches that were loyal to England had to close and their lands taken away.

Yep the good old days when it was first written and how the founders wanted it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

There were no AK-47s, no RPG (it was a camera on a tripod.), kids in a car were fired upon by the helicopter. No one ever fired at the americans.

---

Haven't watched the video yet but the opening disclaimer states "although some of the men appear to have been armed," which means most likely they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hate to break the news to you ...actually glad to break the news to you. the Iraq war has been won.

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm going to reserve my vote till the fat lady sings. We still got lot's of soldiers there. Let's see how things are when they leave. Like when Bush hung his banner out too soon, I think you're being premature.

excon

Our troops are still in Germany ,Japan,the Balkans ,Korea among many other nations . We will have a presence in Iraq by mutual agreement of our Iraq ally for a long time despite the President's claims of complete withdrawal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ex will get back to you on the whistlebower act. Not sure it applies to the military or for classified information . Also it is possible under various intelligence acts that the proper release would be to Congress and not the press.

I have emailed some people I know who are more familiar and will get back when they reply. Wikileaks is also a challenge because they operate inside and outside the US .I know much of their information has been filtered through their London operation.

---

Here is the law pertinent to members of the Armed Forces .
As suspected ;"whistlebowers " are protected when they report to Congress ;and inspector ,or within the chain of command.
US CODE: Title 10,1034. Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions

Im not sure what other had seen in the video but there was communication of others at the scene that fled and it caused the second attatck on a home. I don't see where they weren't doing their job. The unfortunate side is that yes. We must be fired upon first and more then once then receive permission to engauge. Its insane to release the dogs of war and put them on a short leash.