(Again) Welcome to the new American century.
May 10, 2007 5:04 PM Subscribe
Stephen Aftergood posts a document from Wired. US Army pr complain, threaten. Aftergood responds. Commentators demands the brig for Aftgergood. Other commentator responds, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is a more logical place. But since Aftergood is a civilian he is not eligible for incarceration there either."
"As he has done nothing wrong it looks as though he must remain free."
This post was deleted for the following reason: please use quotations properly and save the OMG for things that people really said and plurals for when there are more than 1 + echo chamber -- jessamyn
The description in the post is totally misleading. It cites only one commentator, who facetiously suggests (in a blog post title) that Aftergood should be put in the brig BUT then writes that "Aftergood, who is a thoughtful critic of government secrecy—he and I have debated issues of secrecy and government leaks in the pages of COMMENTARY—would seem to have the law on his side." I don't see anyone actually suggesting that Aftergood should be incarcerated for this.
posted by brain_drain at 5:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by brain_drain at 5:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Great post from post."" Enjoyeds lots things on in. You can has cheeseburger.
posted by Roman Graves at 5:35 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Roman Graves at 5:35 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
(I counted the comments at the blog right wing blog for the plural.)
posted by acro at 5:42 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by acro at 5:42 PM on May 10, 2007
Yeah, I'm a little confused as well. I don't see anything really specific in the links suggesting that Aftergood should be jailed other than this:
Aftergood is the horse out of the barn. Whoever obtained the document at Wired should, however, be compelled to reveal from whom he got it, or spend the next 10-20 years in jail.
Which appears to be just some dude commenting on the site, which is also followed up with this:
Then the scum-sucking government employee who distributed it in an unauthorized manner, after taking an oath not to, should be prosecuted until his life is no longer worth living.
So while a little irrational, it seems to be irrational across the board.
posted by quin at 5:46 PM on May 10, 2007
Aftergood is the horse out of the barn. Whoever obtained the document at Wired should, however, be compelled to reveal from whom he got it, or spend the next 10-20 years in jail.
Which appears to be just some dude commenting on the site, which is also followed up with this:
Then the scum-sucking government employee who distributed it in an unauthorized manner, after taking an oath not to, should be prosecuted until his life is no longer worth living.
So while a little irrational, it seems to be irrational across the board.
posted by quin at 5:46 PM on May 10, 2007
All I see so far is that the Army wants him to take it down and he said no.
That's the entire situation. Everything else in your FPP seems to have no basis in reality whatsoever. Perhaps the wingnut blog commenters are going nuts, but who cares, and why FPP that garbage?
It's not like it's gonna come true, and blog comments calling for jailing treasonous liberals aren't exactly news, you know.
Am I missing something here?
posted by Malor at 5:48 PM on May 10, 2007
That's the entire situation. Everything else in your FPP seems to have no basis in reality whatsoever. Perhaps the wingnut blog commenters are going nuts, but who cares, and why FPP that garbage?
It's not like it's gonna come true, and blog comments calling for jailing treasonous liberals aren't exactly news, you know.
Am I missing something here?
posted by Malor at 5:48 PM on May 10, 2007
You have Army Publications hosted on your website illegally, there are
only 5 Official Army Publications Sites. You are not one of them, you can
link to our publications, but you cannot host them. AR 530-1 is a FOUO
publication, it is not intended for Public release. Please remove this
publication immediately or further action will be taken.
Thank You,
Cheryl Clark
HQDA/OAA/SOA
Army Publishing Directorate,
Electronic Library Section
(from the second link)
posted by acro at 5:51 PM on May 10, 2007
only 5 Official Army Publications Sites. You are not one of them, you can
link to our publications, but you cannot host them. AR 530-1 is a FOUO
publication, it is not intended for Public release. Please remove this
publication immediately or further action will be taken.
Thank You,
Cheryl Clark
HQDA/OAA/SOA
Army Publishing Directorate,
Electronic Library Section
(from the second link)
posted by acro at 5:51 PM on May 10, 2007
Probably not a big deal, unlikely to be pursued, but if it is, you saw it here.
posted by acro at 5:53 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by acro at 5:53 PM on May 10, 2007
Meanwhile, they're imprisoning people for simply disclosing the names of people we're holding without trial at Gitmo: a Navy lawyer will be prosecuted for releasing the kind of information that the White House is trying to hide. Seems the identities of some of the detainees at Guantanamo are dangerous to our security. This isn’t habeas corpus, even, it’s their NAMES for god’s sake. ...
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on May 10, 2007
Amberglow: I am no fan of the administration, but that blog post is a bit of a misquote. The original article says:
posted by blahblahblah at 6:43 PM on May 10, 2007
Diaz is charged with failing to obey a lawful general regulation, engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer by wrongfully transmitting classified documents to an unauthorized person, and turning over to an unauthorized person secret information related to national defense.More detail is here. Apparently, he knowingly passed along classified documents to lawyers seeking to file habeas corpus requests. Maybe the documents shouldn't have been classified, but he definitely sounds like he did something wrong under the law.
The complaint does not specify what type of information Diaz is accused of printing and communicating, but a Navy spokeswoman has described it as a document containing names and other identifying information about Guantanamo detainees.
posted by blahblahblah at 6:43 PM on May 10, 2007
Some bored clerk at the Pentagon got dumped by her boyfriend last weekend.
posted by smoothvirus at 7:12 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by smoothvirus at 7:12 PM on May 10, 2007
Habeas corpus [L. you may have the body.] (Law)
A writ having for its object to bring a party before a court or judge; especially, one to inquire into the cause of a person's imprisonment or detention by another, with the view to protect the right to personal liberty; also, one to bring a prisoner into court to testify in a pending trial.
--Bouvier.
[1913 Webster]
Sounds like it should be legal in a liberal democracy like the United States.
posted by acro at 7:15 PM on May 10, 2007
A writ having for its object to bring a party before a court or judge; especially, one to inquire into the cause of a person's imprisonment or detention by another, with the view to protect the right to personal liberty; also, one to bring a prisoner into court to testify in a pending trial.
--Bouvier.
[1913 Webster]
Sounds like it should be legal in a liberal democracy like the United States.
posted by acro at 7:15 PM on May 10, 2007
The document is not secret and it's not protected by copyright. If the Army didn't want it published, they shouldn't have published it.
The Army is not only wrong, but stupid. No wonder the Iraq War is lost. These people can't find their ass with both hands.
posted by Charles Wilson at 8:17 PM on May 10, 2007
The Army is not only wrong, but stupid. No wonder the Iraq War is lost. These people can't find their ass with both hands.
posted by Charles Wilson at 8:17 PM on May 10, 2007
« Older Leave the Guns, Bring the Nolli | King me Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mr_roboto at 5:11 PM on May 10, 2007