Friends of Wikileaks' traitor Manning whine about government investigation. Well, duh.

By | November 10, 2010, 7:07am PST

Summary: Here’s a little tip. If you don’t want to feel intimidated and harassed by the government, don’t pal around with traitors.

It seems to me that if you’re going to be the friend of a traitor, you might expect to be of interest to the government.

Sigh. Every time I write about Wikileaks or Bradley Manning, the wackjobs come out of the woodwork, so let’s get the disclaimers over with first.

If you haven’t been keeping up on our coverage of Manning and Wikileaks, here’s some back-story for you:

Once more, for the record, I do not support the Iraq war. I thought it wrong-headed at the beginning and I consider it strategically non-valuable for the United States now.

So there you have it. You know where I stand. Now, let’s get back to our story.

According to yet another diatribe by Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, the claim has been made that the government is “harassing” friends and supporters of Bradley Manning (the army guy who leaked classified documents to Wikileaks).

Greenwald is obviously not objective. He makes the following astonishing statement: “I think Manning, if he did what he’s accused of, is the most heroic political figure of the last decade at least.”

Uh, no.

It is not heroic to take an oath to protect and defend the United States, to accept a job where you’re entrusted with classified information, and then leak that classified information, putting American soldiers and assets at risk of loss of life.

That’s not being a hero. That’s being a traitor.

As Greenwald reports it, Manning’s supporters and friends are being detained when they enter the country and whatever digital devices they are carrying have been confiscated.

Well, good. That means America’s national security professionals are doing their job.

If people who are known associates and supporters of a traitor (whose primary crime has been leaking classified information) are coming back into the United States, they should be inspected. Are they carrying stolen classified information? Are they preparing to commit further crimes and put further American soldiers at risk?

These are important questions that investigators need to answer. The government is doing exactly the right thing.

Don’t like it?

Here’s a little tip. If you don’t want to feel intimidated and harassed by the government, don’t pal around with traitors.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
107
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Friends of traitor Bradley Manning whine about government investigation. Well, duh.
libertarian forever 17th Dec
@Johnny Vegas "no lie"? Where shall we begin? WMD? Mass graves? Ties to terrorist organisations? The eventual destination of all that black gold? These lies have been widely known about in Britain for years now, and even publicised by the BBC.
There is nothing patriotic about blind, unthinking servitude - it does your countrymen no favours in the long run. When one of your number shows you the truth about the way your 'representatives' (fat with the lard of halliburton) are operating you denounce him as a villain. This is why your country is sliding. Through your intellectual neglect and callous disregard for truth and freedom you have let the tyrants amongst you rise to the top as in ancient Rome and Nazi Germany.
History repeats itself; your country is destined to fall.
David-
I frequently disagree with you, but I gotta hand this one to you. You hit the nail on the head.

Treason in treason.
@chipbeef My allegiance is to the American people and the world first. The US gov has invaded more places than any other gov and has probably done policies that have killed as many people as Hitler did. Bradley Manning is a hero
@bigsteve666

And you Sir are stupid and ignorant and also a traitor.
0 Votes
+ -
Godwin's Law already?
caspianhiro 11th Nov 2010
@bigsteve666 and just like that, you lose.
@bigsteve666

Your true allegiance is showing through - you have none. The American people you have mentioned are the "ones" that think like you - not the majority of Americans that believe you are wrong. But since you are a true elitist you "know better."

You should go and take a few world history courses at your local college and not get your facts from Rolling Stone. The US has historically been restrained in its use of military might. Comparing our government to Hitler is just name calling when the facts don't support your argument. Name calling is just propoganda.

Manning gave his word...breaking it just illustrates his lack of honor.
soldiers take an oath to also uphold & defend the constitution. this was an unconstitutional war, without a declaration from congress. hard to tell who & what is right & wrong. someone has to stop the political industrial war machine. who better than a soldier?
@bigsteve666 spoken like a true fascist ******
@bigsteve666

YOu and Manning are proto-typical millenials: It is all about them and their precious unhurt FEELINGS, and they can't be trusted with anything.
@chipbeef

Well one things right. The wackjobs are now writing blogs.

Obviously you just can't handle the truth wink

If Fox hadn't hired so many republicans and presidential candidates,. you could probably put in your resume.

We getting back to tech anytime soon?
@tonymcs@... well said!
@chipbeef

Indeed- I live a few blocks from where a bunch of traitors are buried and some were gunned down by the proper right duly empowered authorities. You may have heard of the cemetery- the Granary Burial Ground in Boston.

DC needs all the help it can get from right thinking citizens like you. One thing though Chipbeef- you should sign your real name to your Patriotic posts. I'm sure your neighbors would like to know that they can count on you to rat them out to the gubmint when the time comes.
@Chris Dowd
Well just because you're a stupid idiot doesn't mean he has to be.
0 Votes
+ -
Bradley manning
dakaygees 10th Nov 2010
The government betrayed us and all Bradley Manning did was to let us in on the truth that's been hidden from us. Who started a war based on a lie? It dam sure was not Bradley Manning.
0 Votes
+ -
HAHAHAHA
Johnny Vegas 10th Nov 2010
If youre talking about the war in Iraq Saddam started it. There is no lie there. The govt didnt betray us in any way. Bradley Manning should spend the rest of his life in Levenworth.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually the Iraq was was - is - illegal
HollywoodDog Updated - 10th Nov 2010
@Johnny Vegas ... at Nuremburg the legal principle that the levying of aggressive war is a crime was established, and Nazis were hanged for commission of this crime. American judges at Nuremburg also gave great speeches at the time about how this was not victors justice, but bedrock legal principle to which all nations including our own would be held.

Any war not permitted by virtue of self defense or sanctioned by the UN Security Council is illegal
@Johnny Vegas Are you high? Did you just get done listening to President Bush's new book on audio (I'm gonna go ahead and assume you can't read).

We (the USA) started it all. We made up reasons for it as we went. When each reason proved false, we made up another. And another and another and another.

The most likely reason? The Bush family is in bed with the Saudi Royals, and Saddam Hussein was Saudi Arabia's biggest threat in the region.

Remember, TWO Bush presidents attacked Saddam Hussein. The first one didn't have the time/stomach/support to take it all the way. The second one did.
@Johnny Vegas

MANNING SHOULD BE EXECUTED
@Johnny Vegas

Actually no, he should not spend any time in Levenworth outside of the investigation and trial.

We still live in a time of declared war and during times such as these traitors should be shot. Manning willing betrayed the country he swore an oath to protect. He needs to no longer be apart of this world, based on the UCMJ.

For all of the squeamish, spineless lumps that don't believe anyone should be put to death; death is a very good deterrent provided that it is actually carried out.
@Johnny Vegas "no lie"? Where shall we begin? WMD? Mass graves? Ties to terrorist organisations? The eventual destination of all that black gold? These lies have been widely known about in Britain for years now, and even publicised by the BBC.
There is nothing patriotic about blind, unthinking servitude - it does your countrymen no favours in the long run. When one of your number shows you the truth about the way your 'representatives' (fat with the lard of halliburton) are operating you denounce him as a villain. This is why your country is sliding. Through your intellectual neglect and callous disregard for truth and freedom you have let the tyrants amongst you rise to the top as in ancient Rome and Nazi Germany.
History repeats itself; your country is destined to fall.
@dakaygees

No he just lied when he signed the oath. It always stuns me that people try to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually.....
Lerianis10 10th Nov 2010
@Joe Dufflebag

Frankly, I think he had a higher oath to his own sense of morality in this case. He showed the **** that our country was doing over in Iraq and Afghanistan, which if we had been SMART and not started that war....... we wouldn't be having the problems we are having today.
@Joe Dufflebag Wrong. There are exceptions in the code of conduct to disobey immoral orders.

The oath including defending the country against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

What you mean is that you disagree, that Manning's morals don't agree with YOURS.

(this would be the part when someone like you would typically spout about how morals are absolute)
@dakaygees but Mr. Manning accepted a position in which he was under oath to protect and defend the United States and his fellow army compatriots, and he betrayed them into harm's way. Why did he accept a position of trust if he intended to betray that trust? It's not just about letting us know about anything to do with a war he doesn't believe in. (If that's the case, why did he join the service? He wasn't drafted--he chose to join.) It's actively betraying others he has sworn to defend and support. It would be like shooting his company fellow members in the back on the battlefield. In effect, that's what he did.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:
Lerianis10 10th Nov 2010
@Red In Blue

Specious logic there. He didn't join intending to 'betray his country' and really..... I would say that he didn't do that. I would say that he SERVED HIS COUNTRY by showing the dirty dealings and massive problems that are going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, which our government was not copping to.

If anything, this man is a TRUE patriot. Someone who saw bad things our government was doing, and said "To HELL with my oath, this needs to be made public!"

He is the 'Deep Throat' of today.
  • Flagged
@ Lerianis10 He didn't have to say "to hell with my oath". The oath includes defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Government/military coverups are inimical to our country's ideals.

Or is it ok to forsake our ideals in the process of preserving them?
0 Votes
+ -
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
0 Votes
+ -
@HollywoodDog , by the way.
@HollywoodDog
Nope it was not treason and the Iraq war was a mistake.
That being said, Manning is still a traitor any way you try to spin it and he and his associates should suffer the consequences of his own wrongful actions.
In war there are always innocent casualties. I am not saying that every US soldier is a war criminal, and I am not saying that every person killed by the US in Iraq was innocent - I am saying that some US troops are war criminals and some Iraqis that were killed by them were innocent. The wikileaks documents remind us of this and demonstrate that the US government and military systematically covers this up. In war there are always those who are trigger happy murderers. We should be bringing these war criminals to justice as they do more damage to American Interests than those who leak the information.

We do have a right to know that some of our "heroic" US troops murdered innocent Iraqi civilians in the process of "protecting our freedom" and that this was systematically covered up.
The use of the term "Traitor" to describe those who leaked this information is a stretch and is so often used to describe those who expose wrong doing. I don't see how this information increases the risk to our troops. Those who have seen their loved ones killed by them know what goes on. Those insurgents who seek to kill our soldiers know all this stuff anyway. The only ones harmed by this are those who lied to us about it.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually.....
Lerianis10 10th Nov 2010
@gnickturner

The problem with your statement is your assumption that war is necessary. It ALMOST NEVER IS! In fact, the only war that was necessary that the United States has been involved in the past 110 years was the first World War, the Second World War, and the First Iraq War.

Every single other was a war of aggression by us against a group of people just because they weren't doing what we wanted them to do, when they were not directly attacking us.
@Lerianis10

Just curious, who exactly directly attacked the U.S. prior to WWI or the first Iraq war?
@gnickturner To use the term "traitor" to anyone who hasn't been convicted of such in the proper courts is to spit on the ideals of our own country....ironically traitorous behavior in and of itself.
0 Votes
+ -
A morality thought experiment
HollywoodDog 10th Nov 2010
First, let me preemptively plead guilty to Godwin's Law.

Suppose you're a 17 year old in Germany and enlist in the Wehrmacht. Like all enlistees, you're required to swear to this oath:

"Ich schw?re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da? ich dem F?hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f?r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."

The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German state and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

So, you train with the Wehrmacht and do as you're told. You find yourself, five years later, attached to units which invade Poland on September 1, 1939, and by virtue of your access to classified documents, you find out that Einsatzgruppen paramilitary units are following right behind the advancing Wehrmacht, doing evil things of which you do not approve.

So now you find yourself in a quandry. You think that maybe by leaking these documents to the German people they will, in their wisdom, see the wrong and evil in the policies of their government and maybe do something about it so that the evil acts do not continue.

If you leak the documents, does that make you an evil traitor who is doing something wrong?

If the answer to that question is no, leaking the documents is not wrong, then you have just signed on to the principle that in some cases leaking is right.

All that is left now for us is to 'haggle the price.'
@HollywoodDog

Ordinarily we are on opposite sides of nearly every issue, but in this I find myself agreeing with you.

The problem is, of course, one man's leak is another man's treason. The leak about the helicopter shooting a civilian target? Yeah, that probably shouldn't have been covered up and the leak was jusifiable IMO. We should have apologized, made reparations to the families of the victims, and did whatever possible to make things right, which admittedly isn't really possible since we can't raise the dead.

But instead once it's discovered we targeted the wrong people we look like monsters when we try to cover it up.

On the other hand, 90,000+ operational reports (and they aren't "classified", they're FOUO), probably *isn't* justifiable.

By strict interpretation *EVERY GOVERNMENT* is guilty of crimes meriting death, even in peace time. Every one, no exceptions anywhere on Earth or human history.

But then strict interpretation is the same thing as "0 tolerence" and we've seen where that leads.

The US Government isn't calling him a traitor, they aren't charging him with treason. So they must not think he's guilty of treason, and they're the *victims* of his "crime".

If the victim isn't calling it treason why should anyone else?
0 Votes
+ -
The Nazi rule
boomchuck1 10th Nov 2010
Hollywood, haven't you ever heard of the Nazi rule. Start comparing someone to the Nazis and the conversation ends.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, I'm aware of it
HollywoodDog 10th Nov 2010
@boomchuck1 ... While it is almost always misused, I'm firmly in the camp which says there are things to be learned from the Nazi experience, and there are some ways that some people and some governments act which are at times echoes of the Nazis. It would be a mistake to take all comparisons off the table.

Note I didn't compare anyone to the Nazis. I picked an example involving Nazis as a method of conjuring a leaking and oath-violating situation that all thinking people could agree was valid.

This is more intellectually honest than saying "The government doesn't like somebody, so off with his head."
Of the many illegal things done in our recent past. These searches seem very legitimate and prudent. I can't say palling around with traitors is a good phrase. People that knew him prior to the allegations and arrest just knew a soldier. There's nothing wrong with that; they are some of our finest people. Post arrest I'd accept it as due diligence not harassment.

The issue here is not that he uncovered a crime. He stole documents and did a data dump. If he'd said on date X I saw Y happen or it became known to me and was asked to cover it up in a veil of secrecy I might view him differently. Instead he was disillusioned and used his access to gather any and everything possible then threw it into the public domain. Far from heroic.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:
Lerianis10 10th Nov 2010
@clif@...

When there are too many things that the United States are doing wrong to personally attest to, a data dump is just fine and dandy.
Yes, this IS a heroic action, and a lot of soldiers I have talked with agree with that, including ones who finally got out of the service after threatening to sue the government for extending their terms multiple times.

The fact is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were ILLEGAL WARS!
0 Votes
+ -
Too many
clif@... 10th Nov 2010
@Lerianis10

Did every document he released show an war crime? To say every act in an action not covered by the UN is a crime dilutes the ability to truly view illegal acts. Of the thousands of documents he sent out for everyone that doesn't document a crime against humanity he should be charged with illegal disclosure. That's giving him a pass on some, (in my mind) he would need to prove that civilians/non-combatants were intentionally attacked. I don't believe his data dump proves that. He published more than enough to gain a government trial and probably jail time.

Our war in Iraq was one we didn't need, but we didn't go after civilians. We had collateral damage (which is still people) but that was not our intent.
@Lerianis10

Do remember, there's no such thing as a legal/illegal war. There *are* wars that people with a bigger rock said were illegal but that's just the powerful dictating to everyone else.

In the end, law is nothing more than somebody with a big rock saying "do what I tell you or I'll bash in your skull."

Dress it up however you like, in the end that's the gist of it. Therefore legal is whatever the most powerful entity says it is.

Invoking Godwin's law again (this thread's just full of it) had Nazi Germany won the war (and it's frightening to think they could have) it would now be perfectly legal (and patriotic) to murder every Jewish person in existance. I think you'd agree that would be horrific, not patriotic. But it would have been *legal*.

Legal does not mean right, and illegal does not mean wrong. That misconception is at the root of a lot of human misery. Witness slavery in the US during the pre-Civil War days.

Consider that the next time you claim a war is "illegal". Also consider that war is killing people that don't agree with you.

Makes war seem kind of insane, doesn't it? By your argument, that would make you you in favor of "legal" insanity?
0 Votes
+ -
Afghanistan is a legal war
HollywoodDog 10th Nov 2010
@Lerianis10 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368, adopted unanimously on September 12, 2001.
@ HollywoodDog In any military action in which the US participates, only Congress has the power to declare war.

If Congress has not declared war, it is not a war.

As Congress declared war in Iraq? Pakistan? Afganistan?
@God of Buscuits

(stupid ZDNet reply depth limits)

"In any military action in which the US participates, only Congress has the power to declare war.

If Congress has not declared war, it is not a war.

As Congress declared war in Iraq? Pakistan? Afganistan?"

Yes. According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Specifically SJ Res 23 on September 14, 2001 (Afganistan) and HJ Res 114 on October 16, 2002 (Iraq)
@Lerianis10

Hmmm..... given that the U.S was DIRECTLY ATTACKED three times (twice at the WTC and the USS Cole), by your above posting these wares were absolutely necessary.

Can't have it both ways.
0 Votes
+ -
No, No, No.
LowBudgetDave 10th Nov 2010
The government cannot take someone's property just because their friends might turn out to be criminals. If this was true, the governemtn would simply take everyone's property, and return to you what they no longer want, like they do in North Korea.

If the government has proof, then prosecute. If the government has no proof, then they have no right to detain anyone, nor to confiscate property. This is known as "Habeas Corpus", and it is the fundamental principle that all liberty is based on.

If you believe in freedom at all, then you must defend the concept that I cannot be prosecuted for the crimes of my neighbor.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:
Lerianis10 10th Nov 2010
@LowBudgetDave

Exactly right. I don't see them seizing the computers of a person's relatives when they are accused or proven to be trading child pornography, so what is the impetus here?

Seems like an attempt at putting fear into people who might support this man.
0 Votes
+ -
@LowBudgetDave ... and to search anyone who comes in, and in the case of electronic devices to keep them. They could do even more, like keep you for three days in a room that analyizes your, 'output' looking for contraband.

The question is whether it's appropriate to use this power as a tool of intimidation for people who are not suspected of any crime.

Bradley Manning, whatever you may think of him, is entitled to legal representation at trial. Setting up a legal defense fund is part of allowing him representation in my vew, and it looks like the shakedown may have been done for PR value, to frighten anyone who might consider helping him or donating to his legal defense.
Your understanding of the law is wrong on so many levels that it reveals your slant: You started with a conclusion based on your narrow political ideology, and tried to twist the law to support it.
If the government orders a soldier to destroy evidence of a ghastly crime, it is the moral AND LEGAL responsibility of every soldier to disobey that order. This law is familiar both inside and outside the U.S. Military, and is unquestioned.
When the President and Vice-President of the United States authorized the use of torture, it was the President and Vice President who committed treason. The person who preserved and reported evidence of the torture was merely following the law of the United States, and the moral code of the entire world.
Let me repeat this in case you missed the point: If a policeman decides to shoot someone for a minor traffic offense, the policeman is the one who is guilty. If Manning records the incident on his iPhone, and takes it to the newspaper, Manning is not at fault for the ensuing riots. The policeman is at fault, not only according to law, but according to any definition of right and wrong that you care to use.
@LowBudgetDave

"When the President and Vice-President of the United States authorized the use of torture, it was the President and Vice President who committed treason"

No, they didn't. They probably comitted crimes against humanity, maybe war crimes (maybe) but they didn't commit treason.

It's getting basic points like this wrong that gut your argument. After that, the rest of your arguments are too suspect to be of any use.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix