Some would call it treason.

Okay with me:

Some would go with tar and feathers, and a rail ride out of town.

That, too.

Some confuse their conduct with patriotism.

Piss on 'em . . .

I say.

Update:

Let's be sure to watch for the coverage when the Washington Post and the New York Times follow up on those Afghans whose names were disclosed in their reporting, in the purloined, leaked documents which they vetted before publishing, to see whether anyone is losing his head over this.

"The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world," he said. "Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures, will become known to our adversaries."

That's in the Times today, although because I read it online, I cannot say what page or section it runs in.

Not page one.

Let's just think of them as accessories, shall we?

And for now at least, let it go at that.

Further Update:

The founder of the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding "If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them."

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website. "Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," he said.

Information from the documents could reveal:

* Names and addresses of Afghans cooperating with Nato forces

* Precise GPS locations of Afghans

* Sources and methods of gathering intelligence

Any takers on a bet that the next story written about this by either the Post or the Times will feature the word "unexpectedly"?

No.

I don't expect so.

Oh, and I understand the term "wiki" to denote a community of people, not just a handful, offering entries to a common website. Is someone checking to see whether Wikileaks fits that description, and if so, attempting to "out" the members of the community?

Yet?

The Last Update (For Now):

We end as we began the day, with an image to turn the stomach.

Brad Manning out-of-uniform

Investigators found concrete evidence on computers used by PFC Bradley Manning that link him with the leak of classified Afghanistan war reports, a U.S. defense official said, The Wall Street Journal reported July 30. Defense officials said the FBI was investigating whether civilians aided Manning in providing the information to WikiLeaks.

Defense officials said Manning used his "Top Secret/SCI" clearance to tap into documents around the world. A search of the computers yielded evidence he had downloaded the Afghanistan war logs, the defense official said.

"To betray, you must first belong," is a US Army Counter-Intelligence (CI) Truism.

In this case, knucklehead here recruited himself, and he betrayed for no measureable purpose. That is, Brad Manning did not betray his country for money, nor did he betray for an ideology or cause.

He did it because he was a fame whore; he sought attention for himself.

Manning passed the video to Wikileaks in February. After April 5 when the video was released and made headlines Manning contacted 20-year-old Tyler Watkins - a close friend in Boston - from Iraq asking him about the reaction in the United States.

"He would message me, Are people talking about it? Are the media saying anything?"

How nice that the Washington Post and New York Times could accommodate his dreams of fame, or in this case . . .

Infamy.

Permalink