Skip to main content

View Diary: Manning Gets Secret Hearing to Determine How Much of Trial for Disclosing Secrets Will Be Secret (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did you actually read the diary before (19+ / 0-)

    launching your personal attack?

    From the diary:

    The judge's secret hearing tomorrow was requested by the defense
    From you:
    Secret hearing was demanded by defense.
    From the diary:
    . . .  prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein . . . said at Feb. 26 hearing that more than half of the government's 141 anticipated witnesses would testify about classified information, necessitating closure of up to 30 percent of the trial.
    From you:
    Prosecution wanted it to be open.
    •  What is the purpose of the diary then? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, sebastianguy99, erush1345

      Defense demanded the hearing, it is being conducted.

      •  but but but...... DROOOONNNNNEEEEZZZZZ!!! (5+ / 2-)

        circling like flies above raddack's head telling her the gov'ment is BAAAAAD!

        i am so tired of the twisting and turning of very event (DEFENSE requested hearting...) into how the big bad government is so bad...

        Here's my experience from attending Manning's riveting testimony describing how the military tortured him:
        [italics added]

        because it is all about jesselyn all the time....

        perhaps this would be more credible if she didn't generalize so much.  WHICH journalists - name names - give cites - expand beyond the "me"

        After multiple journalists repeatedly criticized the secrecy and demonstrated their willingness to file Freedom of Information Act lawsuits challenging the lack of transparency, the media and public finally received a copy of the judge's key ruling on the Espionage Act.
        hers isn't "journalism" - it isn't even sloppy reporting - her screeds are posts with a bias that is so apparent that it proliferates in everything she writes:  government bad, government treated me badly, everybody who does anything is a victim, all those who are being tried (even when pleading out on many counts) are victims and innocent.

        her writing is so biased that any small points she might gain are overshadowed by the gross inaccuracies of her miscategorizations and accusations.

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:44:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Question for you edrie: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BradyB, Aunt Martha, CIndyCasella

          Do you ever read your sig line?  Maybe you should and not just read it but put it into practice.  It IS possible to disagree without being vicious.  Just sayin'.

          "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

          by 3goldens on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:11:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  stating facts is not "vicious" - in my world, it (5+ / 0-)

            is called truth.

            i have little tolerance for those who abuse truth.  have YOU read all of her diaries?  how many do not circle back to jesselyn and her experience in the lindh case?  almost every single diary  returns to that issue (or the "whistleblower" issue which she promotes based on her own questionable behavior).

            i don't see my comment as "vicious" - believe me, if you wanted to see "vicious", i could provide it - but i don't and won't.  my comments are harsh because of the tone of her diaries, her misrepresentation and distortion of facts in this situation and others, her determination to excuse any behavior by anyone in an attempt (imho) to excuse her own lack of judgement and ethical responsibilities as a lawyer.

            ms raddack comes here almost daily with the same theme: government is bad, government can't be trusted because she says so.

            her diaries are an insult to the intelligence of the readers who disagree with her premises.  

            when i find her posts disingenuous and deceptive is my opinion - and i'll continue to express that opinon and welcome people to disgree on the facts presented both by her and by me.

            and, trust me when i say, my posts may be harsh, but they are far from "vicious".  you don't want to SEE me post vicious - and, quite frankly, neither do i.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:36:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for admitting that it's all about (4+ / 0-)

              the diarist.  You're not disagreeing with the content of the diary, you're just simply engaging in personal attacks.

              •  i am disagreeing with the conspiracies ths diarist (2+ / 0-)

                keeps pushing.  and, your hr to someone with whom you are engaging in discussion is against site rules.  again, reported.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:43:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, you're attacking the diarist, (6+ / 0-)

                  you have provided exactly zero evidence that she is engaging in conspiracies, you have provided no reason other than personal ones about the diarist to explain your comments about this diary, and I HRed you and then explained why I did so.  Again, it's excellent that you reported me so that your personal attacks against the diarist can be more widely seen.

                  •  perhaps you are unable to read what i continually (3+ / 0-)

                    am saying:

                    let me say it more clearly for you

                    i object to misleading misrepresentations of fact.
                    i object to manipulation of the facts to try to support previous questionable behavior of the poster.
                    i object to using this site as a bully pulpit for distorting issues based on bias.
                    i object to generalizations that would lead to questionable conclusions that are inaccurate based on facts.
                    i object to the continual attempts to group every lawbreaker as a whistleblower

                    disclaimer: someone i highly respect and call friend is a government whistleblower and was totally correct in his actions.  raddack's attempts to whitewash her own unethical behavior are an insult to those who act in good faith to correct situations within the government. raddack's actions (going to the press without full knowledge of the situation in which she intruded herself) have been used to promote her book, her popularity and her own agenda.  it is this that i find extremely troubling.

                    it is for this reason that i will challenge her premises when appropriate - and, in this situation (as others she has posted) i have challenged her veracity.  she is now a "public figure" - if she can't take the heat, she should leave the kitchen.  

                    it is sad and somewhat pathetic that she would need the "defense" of bloggers instead of returning and addressing these questions directly.  she has never once responded to any objection i have made to her posts.  nor does she respond to other critics.  why not?

                    at least, sirota would stand up and defend his position - for that, i give him credit.  raddack does these hit and run diaries then waits for others to "get her back".  

                    i have absolutely NO respect for her in regard to her assertations that all government is bad (did she think so BEFORE she took that government job and was dismissed or did this opinion come afterward? - this is a valid question, imho.)

                    many posters here have taken apart her statements over and over again - yet, there are a very few who also hold the "all government is bad" philosophy who vigorously and blindly defend that premise and her.  that is really a pity.

                    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                    by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:12:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Dear Aunt Martha, (4+ / 0-)

                please do read what's actually written there, not what you think it says or want it to say.

                Edrie is not engaging in personal attacks; she is expressing an opinion on the quality of the writing being put forth as "truth."

                I realize that critical reading is not much done anymore, but try it for a time; it will open your mind and you'll learn from it.

                There is no question that there is an unseen world. The problem is, how far is it from Midtown and how late is it open? -- Woody Allen

                by Mnemosyne on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:14:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  edrie's comments are (3+ / 0-)

            pretty much spot on in her assessment of that diarist's writing qualities.

            Radack isn't a particularly good writer, which applies to a great many people on the intertoobz. Just because you get to put your words into print does not make you a journalist.

            Inaccuracies, slanted writing, bias -- those are not journalism. And I recognize that many, perhaps most, people reading here have no idea what real reporting is, given that it is notable for its absence in American discourse of late.

            There is no question that there is an unseen world. The problem is, how far is it from Midtown and how late is it open? -- Woody Allen

            by Mnemosyne on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:11:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i had the great honor to work at cbs radio network (4+ / 0-)

              news - to work with the tv group, too - to work as crew on the macneil/leher newshour.

              i had the GREAT privilege to sit beside douglas edwards, sing our school song together with charles kuralt, arrange an interview with nureyev for reid collins, ALMOST become walter cronkite's personal assistant when he retired (but he wanted someone who could commit more than two years), to do research for special events, to sit with the editors and writers in that newsroom.

              i was the "stringer" (unpaid) reporting on the drunk who drove through the st paddy's parade in ny, stopped rather from saying that jim brady had died when all the other networks reported prematurely on his "death".

              i take "news" and "journalism" very seriously because i've seen it.  as a tem administrative assistant with cbs, i also had to read and sign the standards and practices manual - and, over the years, got to work in that newsroom for multiple vps, directors, etc.

              i love the news and i love the INTEGRITY of reporting.  that is why i give raddack hell for her lack of objectivity masked as "reporting".  make it an opinion piece and leave it at that - i'll still challenge the premise... just as i gave sirota hell for his misrepresentation of situations like the video ambushing and excoriation of dave obey in the halls of congress by tina whosywhatsit.

              truth is all we have to preserve a free society.  truth can be backed up with facts from multiple sources, tripled checked and verified and reported without coloration.

              that is why i don't remain silent.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:26:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  HRed. (0+ / 0-)

          If you want to disagree with the diarist, it's quite possible to do so without all the personal attacks.

      •  Again, from the diary: (0+ / 0-)
        The judge's secret hearing tomorrow was requested by the defense after

            . . .  prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein . . . said at Feb. 26 hearing that more than half of the government's 141 anticipated witnesses would testify about classified information, necessitating closure of up to 30 percent of the trial.

        •  if the hearing is "secret", then how does raddack (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345, Rei, reginahny

          or you, for that matter, know it is happening.

          this is a classic example of what i am objecting to in these diaries - all diaries - that use inflammatory words to color the subject being discussed.

          the hearing is CLOSED - a far cry from "secret".  it is being held within an environment that is not open to the public - there are transcripts, lawyers, court reporters (as in transcription) and others who will be present.

          the determination whether or not this information should be released for public perview will be made by the courts.

          or,

          are you suggesting we do away with the legal system entirely?  perhaps we should get rid of all government, too?

          we have a process for examining evidence and material - and it is NOT "secret".

          the use of the term "secret" implies the secret arrests, imprisonment, etc. of other regimes - and, yes, even with the bush administration.

          this is NOT the same, no matter how much raddack tries to make it so.  

          and, if you are defending her deliberate misrepresentation of what is happening, you need to seriously consider your own motivation here.

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:50:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  the defenders of raddack are back... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        reginahny

        and it's a shame.  credibility has more to do with facts, imho.

        after searching and reading that ap article on another source than the one linked, i was highly amused to find that the ap reporter quotes raddack liberally (well, in quantity sense, that is) and he starts out saying that the government "secrecy" is at an all time high - then goes on to discredit his own premise with the statements from lt. col. david frakt, who teaches law in univ. of pittsburgh:

        Lind's decision to hold the practice run out of public view has drawn mixed reactions from national security and legal experts. Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. David Frakt, who teaches at the University of Pittsburgh law school, called it a "great idea" for minimizing disruptions such as those at U.S. military commissions' cases involving terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Frakt defended Guantanamo detainees Mohammed Jawad and Ali Hamza al Bahlul in 2008 and 2009.
        "The judge wants the trial, when it happens, to go smoothly, and the last thing you want is some inadvertent disclosure," Frakt said.
        "What they don't want to do is to have a yo-yo effect—let the public in, send the public out, let the press in, send the press out," he said. "We have had that kind of circus atmosphere at Guantanamo, and it just looks very bad."

        Read more: Secrecy shrouds pretrial hearing in WikiLeaks case - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/...
        Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/...
        Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

        um... the reporter can't have it both ways - he can report differing opinions, using raddack and the law prof., but he crosses the line when he interjects his opinion into the article.

        sloppy writing and sloppy reporting in what was, otherwise, a fairly okay article, imho.  

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:12:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site