Taliban Hunt Them Down

[DREDger]

According the Englands Star Telegraph, the Taliban are claiming to hunt down those Afghans named in the 90,000 leaked Afghan documents in Wikileaks.

Talk about irresponsible journalism on the part of Wiki Leaks.  You would think the editors could have at least blacked out informants names to protect them (and their family) from retribution. 

Wiki leaks claimed to have done this, but appearantly didn't do a very good job of it.  The London Times was able to identify a number of informants names, fathers names and town within 10 minutes of searching.

Posting the leaked documents is journalism, leaving in the names of low level operatives is criminal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html

[Shuffler]

Time to take out those that choose to be traders.

[oakranger]

Traders the media are.  WTFG!

[NOT]

but, what are they trading???




NOT

[DYNAMITE]

Time to take out those that choose to be traitors.

FTFY

[DREDger]

As far as the soldier or soldiers go who simply mass leaked classified information, they are traitors to their oath and country.

This is not the "Pentagon Papers" with strategic revalations not already known.  They disseminated operational information that could give our enemys tactical knowledge and advantage.  This puts coalition lives at stake.

They deserve to be hung....or at least shot.

[whiteman]

They deserve to be hung....or at least shot.

+1

[Fishu]

It's great that there are sources like Wikileaks for leaked documents, especially when the documents may reveal criminal activity in the government, but regardless there should be some level of ethics in this. It's not necessary to publish all the names when there's a real possibility of danger to them and they really don't deserve it. I don't care if some real scumback gets killed, but these informants are not the bad guys nor the soldiers at the frontline.

[oakranger]

The people that realest the info, can they be charge for treason?

[USRanger]

The new America doesn't charge anyone with treason because it might hurt someone's feelings and we might be considered mean.

[Shuffler]

As I said before.... no one is charged with treason to protect the folks higher up who should be charged with treason too.

[Chalenge]

Make me President and I will fix the problem. I promise! 

[Slash27]

The new America doesn't charge anyone with treason because it might hurt someone's feelings and we might be considered mean.

God forbid we offend anyone.

[Ack-Ack]

The new America doesn't charge anyone with treason because it might hurt someone's feelings and we might be considered mean.

The reason why we don't charge people with treason all that often in the US is the burden of proof required to support the charge of treason.  In the US, before someone can be convicted of treason it requires at least two witnesses to the same overt act or an open confession in court.  That's why guys like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were charged with espionage instead of treason.


ack-ack

[oakranger]

The reason why we don't charge people with treason all that often in the US is the burden of proof required to support the charge of treason.  In the US, before someone can be convicted of treason it requires at least two witnesses to the same overt act or an open confession in court.  That's why guys like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were charged with espionage instead of treason.


ack-ack

Yea, time to bend the rules on the "...before someone can be convicted of treason it requires at least two witnesses to the same overt act or an open confession in court." and demonstrate that U.S. will no longer tolerate treason.