freedombecki,
et al,
Yes, there is some serious concern here.
An Army PFC had access to all those files by himself? Bullshit.
He bragged to internet friends he had used his knowledge and skill to leak classified documents to "someone," blablablah, and that he had to do it.
(COMMENT)
Yes, the internet conversation seems to be the "original lead." It appears that it is the only single piece of evidence that ties him to the leak. But is it true or was it just bragging? Was Manning the only one involved, or were there more?
The government just seems to have immediately assumed that Manning was the only one involved and that the entire dump was made by him. Yet with all the computer forensics, they have not been able to figure how he did it.
On the question of "ACCESS." Access does not mean that you actually have knowledge of the content. It only means that you have the ability to see the content. There were literally several thousand of SIPR account holders that had the exact same access. Manning had nothing unique in terms of SIPR access.
I'm still maintaining that while his supervision was lax, no one could have known he took upon himself the power of higher-ups to give away secrets placed in trusted confidence in his hands, considered honorable before discovery. Some of the descriptions I just read seem to show he had an asocial character disorder, and he was relieved of his security clearance due to his odd aggressive behaviors toward coworkers he disliked. He made himself out to be a hero in aberrant social sites on the internet, to cover his traitorous butt. There, being a traitor is irrelevant, because all of them betrayed loyalties to engage in their aberrant social behaviors.
(COMMENT)
There seems to be plenty of indicators that suggest that Manning had a questionable mental state and should have been denied access pending further evaluation; agreed.
There is reasonable suspicion to believe that he was, somehow involved in the leaks.
In the meantime, all the hate-America left is investing in propping up this criminal's reputation to be worthy of a saint exposing military crimes. Instead, his information killed all the Afghan informants who helped rid Afghanistan of Talibanis due to his carelessness and that of Wikileaks director Julian Assange who thought he had the USA pegged to a wall for engaging an enemy who took out the World Trade Center in our country in theirs, but there were flaws, and those flaws killed informants although Wikileaks hotly denies it with rash lies. When you're a sneaky, snarky, sniveling snake, you'll waken to evil at some daybreak.
(COMMENT)
I don't know about all this. I'm interested in the basic interrogative. But I would be interested in knowing who you know was killed as a result of the WikiLeaks dump. While the claim has been often made that 100's of informants were at risk of being killed, the US Military is having trouble substantiating that claim.
Whether it is true or not, might not be the issue. It may be more a matter of intent.
There is also the question of the original mind of the operation. That is, if you were Country X, and you wanted to damage or neutralize both the military intelligence and diplomatic mission of the US, in either Iraq, Afghanistan or both, then how would you go about doing it? One way is certainly this way.
We don't know exactly what happened, how it was accomplished, who was all envolved, where all the information was collected, OR --- when, from where and how the information was transmitted to WikiLeaks. When have one name, and one computer, with no connection to the documents released or a connection to WikiLeaks.
There is simply a lot of serious questions yet to be answered.
Most Respectfully,
R
