President Obama: No Whistleblowing on My Watch

Obama: No Whistleblowing on My Watch
The US Military Should Be Ashamed of Its Treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning
by Ann Wright
January 6, 2011

.... the Obama administration's warning to Bradley Manning and to other whistle blowers is this: blow the whistle on government criminal actions and we will put you in solitary confinement before you are charged, much less go to trial. You will be treated as an "enemy combatant," in America's ongoing wars on about everything, including the truth.

Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army Private First Class (PFC) intelligence analyst who turned 23 years old in late December, allegedly leaked a video of a US helicopter attack that killed at least eleven Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters reporters, to the website Wikileaks. Two Iraqi children were also severely wounded in the attack.

PFC Manning's alleged actions are just as important as those of the whistleblowers who informed us of the Bush administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans. The video taken from the U.S. military helicopter that fired the killing rounds of ammunition, graphically showed US military pilots firing on and killing innocent civilians in Iraq. In addition to this "Collateral Murder" video, PFC Manning is suspected by the government of leaking the "Afghan War Diaries" - tens of thousands of battlefield reports that explicitly describe civilian deaths and cover-ups, corrupt officials, collusion with warlords, and a failing US/NATO war effort.

Manning had the legal responsibility to disclose evidence, even classified evidence, of criminal actions conducted by government officials

If indeed, Manning did give the video to Wikileaks, his actions show clearly that he reasonably believed that war crimes were being covered up, and that he took action based on that belief. Exposing criminal actions done under the cover of government orders is a responsibility and duty of military personnel as codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as the Geneva conventions and the Nuremberg Principles.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/06-8

uncovered--even if it happened in Bush's term.

what is wrong with our world.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and whoever is elected, it will make no difference. In 2000 , our govt. was taken over by a coup. When the SC can rule that the US vote does not count...the constitution absolutely stripped..two illegal wars...state media...and what is so alarming to me,everybody just keeps complaining like we still live in a democracy.Complaining about surges in Afghanistan, Gitmo staying open, taxes by the billions going to banks and WE are not allowed to know what happened to the money. What is it going to take to wake this nation up? And do you notice that the laws passed by the SC and Congress benefit corporations while citizens are losing more and more daily?

(try 1963) it just became blatantly obvious in 2000.

between us and the rethugs. We don't care who is in office....if it is wrong, it is wrong.

is considered "one of ours" or "one oftheirs."

And to differentiate based only on party affiliation when the action is the same is wrong.

comrade- you dropped your pom-poms. You must cheer the new "democrats" :)

perfect-anything-our party-does-is A-Okay-with-me-because-the-Dems-can't-do-anything-wrong-party-member. First, I am an American. As far as I'm concerned, a political party is an organizational appliance to work for a better country that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves, works for the greater good for everyone. It is not the country and it is not a religion. And I swore no loyalty oath to any political party.

If the Dems do wrong, then I'll call them on it as quickly as I will the Repubs. And if it would be wrong for GWBush to do something, it would be just as wrong for Obama to do the same thing.

I never suscribed to "my country, right or wrong." My creed is more like, "My country: when it's right support it; when it's wrong, change it." And I follow the same policy on the Democratic Party.

I'm not a "New Democrat." I'm not a Blue Dog Democrat. I'm not a "Progressive" Democrat. I am a LIBERAL who believes in integrity. If that makes me not eligible for your perception of what a real Democrat is, then TOUGH TOE NAILS. I don't give a flying leap off of a shallow curb.

would impart a bit of the "tone" i was speaking. We do not disagree- my sarcasm just runs deep.

is that I'm a human being FIRST, because certain values trump nationality and all other ethnic qualifiers. And after that I'm an American and a progressive and a Jew, which are more or less on the same level for me because I'd still be a progressive no matter what country I lived in. If I were an Israeli for example (as long as I'm on the subject of ethnic qualifiers) I'd be an active member of Peace Now. That goes directly to the issue of being a human being FIRST, before anything else.

After that, I belong to the Democratic Party as a means to an end, as the established vehicle for putting progressive ideals into action. Or at least it used to be.

I already answered this.

now come on, you professional leftist, go take your drug test and pick up your pom-poms.

You shouldn't be ABLE to compare the two on this.

Manning can't do any more damage. Holding him incommunicado puts the lie to the claim they are keeping him in solitary for his safety.

Commit war crimes and we'll all move forward. Expose war crimes and we'll lock you up. Makes perfect sense. :eyes:

and he should explain why he handed the material over to a guy with a 1.5 million book deal, and not the World Court at the Hague, and/or the UN, and/or the Iraqi government.


A note on your source...she wrote--

"Manning has now been in prison in solitary confinement for 7 months and still neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government has indicted him for any offense. Manning essentially is being treated by the U.S. government as an American citizen "enemy combatant.""

Manning was charged in July. 5 seconds on google reveals the charge sheet--on Manning's own website. Further, any delay in proceedings right now is partially attributable to defense motions--particularly, a 706 motion.

why are you bringing actual facts into the discussion? Don't you know that it's only emotion that's needed here?

Sid

he just chose the dude with a book deal....

I'd again explain what a "whistleblower" is, but I know you're just being disingenuous.

He declined to follow the proceedures the services have in place.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How should he have gone about getting someone in the government to look into possible criminal activity and cover-up perpetrated by the government?

to a publisher that he was confident would allow the world to see it. Terrible wrongs will continue to be exposed because of this effort. Hopefully society will right those wrongs. And you're lost in procedures.

How did he 'eschew' his legal recourse? They ignored his reports and nothing was done to stop the U.S. military handing over detainees to the 'new' U.S. trained Iraqi military who were torturing them. The Wikileaks documents prove that he was correct about that.

So, now that we know he did use the channels open to him, can you explain why his reports of war crimes were ignored by his superiors?

classified files to Assange, he did not hand it over to the guy with a one and a half million dollar book deal. That deal came many months after the info was given to Assange.

:sarcasm:

he didn't have a book deal when he "chose the dude".

That came after he spent so much money on legal fees defending his publishing company that he had to raise personal funds quickly... don't forget, funding avenues have been closed for WikiLeaks. As it stands there are only a couple of ways to donate, and the fear that donations are "monitored" is prohibitive.

Manning could have chosen someone else to leak the "trove" to. But who? Do you have someone you think would have been better at sifting through the density of these cables?

:shrug:

6 months after his arrest. So yes you are being disengious.

In December 2010 Assange sold the publishing rights to his autobiography for over £1million.

So, Manning was able to see into the future!!!

He truly is an amazing individual, because the book deal you speak of just happened last month, while Manning has been in confinement for several months now.

reported the war crimes he was witnessing to his superiors. He did not go to Wikileaks first. As you imply, facts are important.



Btw, is there something wrong with writing books? President Obama wrote two of them. Should we not have elected the 'guy who wrote two books' for some reason? Or is it that you need to write two books, before you are entitled to be taken seriously? If Assange had written two books it would have been okay?

Forgive my confusion, I'm not getting your point as to why writing a book is relevant to the discussion.

And as a Private, what was Manning supposed to, email the files to admin@hague.net? :shrug:

through his chain of command. He didn't like that? He shouldn't have signed up for the service.

I hope Wikileaks gets around to donating to his defense fund, like they promised.

first place.

And the very idea of a "whistleblower" exists because of instances where people can't just walk up to their superior and say, "Hey, boss, this classified cable documents that something might be illegal. You wanna pass this on to someone who can do something about it? Thanks."

I understand that, as someone in the legal field, it is your job to attempt to attack the integrity of anyone with whom you disagree, as opposed to actually attacking their arguments (from my past interactions with you), but I guess I had some naive hope that the "policy not personalities" rule on DU would make its influence known on all discussions here.

to eschew. He will pay the penalty for it.

If people always had perfectly legal means to do things like this, whistleblowers wouldn't even exist. And yes, Manning is paying the penalty. Not sure where I ever disputed that.

And the question I was asking had more to do with the obsession you seem to have with Assange himself, as opposed to wikileaks as an organization. Of course, I already know the answer to that question, I'd just like at least one person to own up to it.

to release classified documents to members of Congress, the United Nations or some foreign based court?

If so, provide the credible links.

"He will pay the penalty for it."

Should we just dispense with the trial and have you manage the file?

if we were talking about bush? Each general, colonel, captain, and sergeant also had a recourse. They could have told the truth. Instead, as one great body they put forth lies, defended the lies, and lied about the lying. One man did the honorable thing. One. Each service man and woman takes an oath to defend the country and to follow the rules of combat. All but one, it seems, broke that oath. If you want to hang Manning out because of the technicality, do you also want to try and imprison all other service personnel. Oh. And what about the commander in chief? In the military, the captain of the ship is responsible for anything done under his watch. My guess is that you will exclude our commander in chief from this?

would you prefer that Manning be shot or receive hard labor and a long prison term for "revealing" secrets the government wants to hide from the American people?

... to be shot I'm happiest thinking of him staying exactly where he is now until he is senile.

I find it remarkable that there are even a handful of posters here who want to punish severely people who exposed the underlying lies, brutality and illegality of U.S foreign policy. What's with them?

It's changed a little from the "My Country: Right or Wrong" days of Vietnam...

Since when, in this country, does a witness to crime, who is ignored when he reports those crimes, 'deserve to be shot'?

Amazing! We are now all to become complicit in the crimes we, at least Democrats, used to rail against and demand justice for those responsible. When did it change to 'the witness is the bad guy'?

He was ignored. This is why we have whistle-blower laws. When someone tries to report corruption but is ignored or silenced, they then have the option to go elsewhere, legally. Unless you don't think torture is a war crime of course ~

who would have done absolutely nothing or Manning would be suicided by now. How many remember the army ethicist who committed suicide? How many of you remember the young airforce woman who worked in accounts in Afghanistan? Remember, she told her parents something wasn't kosher and she joked that if something happened to her she didn't commit suicide. Don't you think she might have gone to her commander about some questionable monies missing or account errors? She was shot to death in front of the base chapel.

And, like his parents, I still question the death of Pat Tillman. You know my daughter believed in that oath she took and following the codes, and she had more harrassment and abuse from those over her--it almost broke her.

predicted, ignored and as he said, 'no one would talk to me'.

I'm sorry about your daughter, and yes, I do remember that poor soldier, and others btw, who committed suicide when they realized that war crimes were not going to be stopped. I also remember, other than Tillman, several others who had reported crimes and ended up dead.

Until the public supports those brave enough to do their jobs and try to stop human rights abuses, these courageous people will be alone and will suffer greatly.

Manning is a very brave soldier imo, he certainly must have known, considering he had reported the crimes, that becoming a whistle-blower was going to get him big trouble. He knew by then, that honor and integrity were not assets in the military.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

penalties to be determined by JAG.

Is that right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He is being charged on 8 counts of unauthorized release of classified material to third party (including hundreds of thousands of state dept documents unrelated to the warcrimes in Iraq).

This reminds me of the people who call Obama "arrogant" or Nader an "egomaniac."

Whether releasing the classified info was right or wrong, somebody as immature as manning should not have had access to sensitive info in the first place.

I wonder if it will be a mitigating factor at his trial.

He is simply young enough to think that his oath to uphold the constitution means that he should uphold the constitution.

Actually, do not know what the current military oath of service is. Likely something along the lines of "I will protect my superiors at all cost of human life or decancy?"

I assume you were being sarcastic, right?

Here is the real deal...

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Manning was doing what he thought was the right thing. I don't know exactly how I feel about his actions but I believe we all needed to see that 'Collateral Damage' video. We need to know what things are being done by those claiming to be fighting for America's freedoms and all that twaddle.

I fear Bradley Manning will be broken, psychologically, and manipulated into confessing to whatever the Government wants him to say.

as you are.

Whether or not Assange has a book deal is totally meaningless to quality and importance of the leaked material. But you know this. BTW, did Assange have the deal when manning came to him? Does it matter, or is it obfuscate and discredit any way possible?

Second of all are you fucking kidding about the World Court, the UN or Iraq? Yeah they did so much about Bush's crimes. :eyes:

Just so we are all clear here. You support the governments right to suppress information on their word that it could be bad for the country. Right? You support the fact that your government classifies at least 50 MILLION documents a year. You trust the US government to do what is in your best interest. Good luck with that.

Huh, I guess it's just me.

Seriously, I'm glad someone else is as amused as I am about the idea that Manning could just fucking ring up the Hague (1-800-THE-HAGUE) and say, "Excuse me, I'm just some random dude in the Army, and I have a bunch of classified documents I'd like to fax over to you guys." :rofl:

I was against the war in Vietnam and Southeast Asia back when I was a teenager and in my early 20s in the mid 1970s.

Then later, through the years, I've been reading a lot of the background about 'our' war machine and its relation to the U.S. economy.

his sworn declaration to defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic.

Including lies and the lying liars that tell them.

the data to him. Please stop spreading that lie.

There is no evidence to my knowledge that Assange knew anything about Manning before Manning blew the whistle.

Also, while I am very disturbed by breaches of loyalty, if Manning had evidence of war crimes, he was required by international treaties and law to disclose that I believe. If you know of some law that cancels out that international law about refusing to follow illegal orders and refusing to hide war crimes, please tell me what it is. I think that the duties of low-ranking members of the government and military were pretty well established during and after the Nuremburg trials.

I have mixed feelings when it comes to Manning's disclosures specifically. I just don't know enough about it. But I would remind you that if a person who covers up what is later deemed in a court to be a war crime becomes a sort of accomplice after the fact.

This is a really difficult case, and what happens to our country in the future will, to a great extent, depend on how this case is handled. If we as a nation have the integrity to acknowledge serious problems that have been made apparent from some of the Wikileaks, then we will be the better for it. If not, we will, as a country, pay a huge price. Cheaters are not free and cannot be.

charged with a crime and being indicted for a crime.

Why has a grand jury not heard the charges and been asked for an indictment?

I thought there was that small, other matter of 250,000 classified cables.

Sid

That's a lot of whistles.

that have already been published.

and completely nullifies any whistleblower argument used to defend him. He isn't selectively releasing information on what he believes to be a crime. He's simply releasing everything he took, regardless of the contents - unless you believe he knows exactly what's in the 250,000 cables, of course.

He's not a whistleblower, he's a thief.

Sid

so, why should that be a nullifying factor? He knew the crimes were there... just not where exactly. I think he's a hero... you think he's a goat. So be it.

:shrug:

dont ya Sid...

but I find the talk of "hero" and "patriot" somewhat nauseating.

Sid

And I don't mean that in a good way.

I was never that enthralled with Obama but I still feel like I was played for a fool. Maybe it's because, as cynical as I am I had just the faintest hope that that I would be wrong about him. Now I feel like I wasn't cynical enough.

He's done some good but he's always very, very careful to work safely within the parameters of what the wealthy power establishment in this country deems "good" (which is all about their interests).

. . . . ain't that the fucking truth, though?

it's just to give cover to otherwise naked kleptocracy. If we were really that militaristic, the Pentagon would have defended us on 9/11.

Instead, BushCo was screwing around with missible defense and cutting funds to counter terrorism. I guess they didn't have the business model down yet.

We've *always* been at war with Oceania!

"it's just to give cover to otherwise naked kleptocracy"

And thus it's been since at least Andrew Jackson.

Since I don't watch anything but Keith, Rachel and O'Donnell on MSNBC I must have seen it on one of their shows (not O'Donnell's obviously). It was made public by someone then and no one said a thing. So why is it such a scandal now?

They did the same thing, and both deserve the same thing...jail time.

Only he knows the real reason.

Is that still worthy of a leak these days?

is not even in the same universe as leaking evidence of mass crimes and corruption.

One act is clearly decent and one is clearly indecent. Every person with a half-functioning moral compass should be capable of understanding this reality.

Sid

So you are basing your opinion on what?

I love this. Take a stand against the release of documents that you have no idea whats in them. Gotta love blind faith in the government.

But judging from some of your own posts I no longer think you recognize it when you see it.

And whose war are you talking about?

Any war this country is involved in is your war just as much as it is mine.

Whether you like it or not.





Bradley is as big a criminal as Cheney.

can afford it?

After all, the laws broken are the same.

So maybe he should get the same "justice" as Cheney!.... in this all things are equal world of yours.

We'll have to see how it pans out. If Manning is able to become a billionaire and skate on his alleged crimes, then yeah, he's Cheney part deux.

criminal act of revenge, to cover up an even larger crime - and the other was an act of bravery to inform the public of misdeeds done in their name.

Yep, no difference that I can see.

March on with your logical self.

Wikileaks, he is wrong. This has nothing to do with Wikileaks but pfc. manning is not a private citizen and must follow military protocol.

If he gave it to Wikileaks, he is acting illegally.

There, I fixed it for you by removing the items that are clearly debatable (you know, since we're having a debate about it). The question of whether he was right or wrong is nothing more than one's opinion.

Not if it violates his oath to defend the Constitution from its enemies, domestic or foreign, and not if silence serves lying government propaganda campaigns that deceive the American people and get us involved in foreign invasions and military occupations.

His duty requires him to put the interests of the nation before that of some self-serving government bureaucrat or military officer who rubber stamp government documents secret in order to hide the governments true policies and actions from the American people.

The documents that have been published by WikiLeaks so far have absolutely nothing to do with protecting me or this country from anyone who wants to do us harm. There are no "national security" interests to defend and justify hiding this information from the people.

Then don't create a situation where there need even BE any whistle blowing.

:eyes: Whatever....


Obama is such a mamby-pamby jerk. His only advantage so far is that he isn't as bad as the alternative. (as for things, such as they are, getting done, you'll notice that's Congress, not Obama)

distortion.

Didn't think so...

I imagine it applies to ALL federally financed fuckups, yes?

to those of conscience, here. You have to be resolute, though, because you know the Harpies will descend on you relentlessly. It seems that there are an awful lot of individuals with an authoritian mindset these days. I don't understand it. Well, I do understand it, but prudence requires that I not comment.

I suppose in the interest of 'party over principle' I should not listen to what my conscience tells me. But I'll go with my conscience, thank you very much. No matter what else Obama has accomplished, his stance on human rights and due-process is a deal-breaker for me. End of story.

I'd encourage the reading of the comments section under this article over at Common Dreams. There's nothing there, at this point, that I can disagree with.

One poster offered this quote from Julian Assange, which I'd already printed out, awhile back, and posted near my computer:

"Try as I may I can not escape the sound of suffering. Perhaps as an old man I will accept suffering with insouciance. But not now; men in their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them." -- Julian Assange, 2007 blog entry

That caught my attentions as well. For his Wikileaks activism I applaud Julian Assange.

Stop wetting the bed in fear of the truth. That is all.

but let's just say hypothetically, wonder if some of the information released is about what really went down on 9/11--wonder if something is released on who did those put options on the airlines.

The information to me, even though damaging, like Dyncorp's perverse use of our money, is nothing compared to outing a network monitoring WMD-I don't believe the network was outed because of the yellow cake report-I believe they took it out to make up their own intel to further their own agenda. They took out a security apparatus that was for the security of this country, and some are worried about what is being released now. Even though most of us know some in our government have been wheeling and dealing behind our back with big business, bankers and others.

But these chicken hawks (even though most did not serve) have learned lessons from Vietnam--keep it out of the media, no draft (that might disturb the plebeian hornet's nest and no Mai Lais again. I mean of course there have been a few, but we have the corporate media with little journalistic integrity-have no fired up journalist to instill umbrage among the masses.

He leaked thousands of cables that didn't concern crime or corruption.

He didn't first attempt to resolve the situation through proper channels.

He sent the inoformation to an organization with no legal authority.

If it makes the president look bad, it is bad. There is no other measure that will be used to determine right and wrong.

He did not commit a crime because he has a legal obligation to expose illegalities, and many of the cables do just that and confirm that the U.S is routinely engaged in war crimes, seizures of people and other operations abroad that violate international law.

As for reporting this up the line, this would have been ridiculous, since it was the people up the line who were parties to these crimes.

And I think he would have been criticized by the anti-transparency brigade had he been selective in what cables he released ("he's hiding the true story") and that Wikileaks was the perfect organization to send the document to, since they have a reputation of being quite responsible in what and how they release documents.

So I'd say I disagree with every one of your points, as I understand them.

"He did not commit a crime because he has a legal obligation to expose illegalities, and many of the cables do just that and confirm that the U.S is routinely engaged in war crimes, seizures of people and other operations abroad that violate international law."

Some of the cables indicating crime or wrongdoing does not excuse all of them. We agree he can be defended as a whistleblower, but only for those that were truly whistleblowing.

"As for reporting this up the line, this would have been ridiculous, since it was the people up the line who were parties to these crimes."

His direct report was involved in the crimes? If he had reported it and nothing was done, it would strengthen the arguement he was a whistleblower when he went elsewhere.

"And I think he would have been criticized by the anti-transparency brigade had he been selective in what cables he released ("he's hiding the true story") and that Wikileaks was the perfect organization to send the document to, since they have a reputation of being quite responsible in what and how they release documents."

Sorry, but if he released cables he had no reason to just to please the "anti-transparency brigade" he ought to be convicted of extreme stupidity.

Did he have some good intentions? Probably. But I think he was immature, got carried away, and recklessly crossed lines you can't.

I think I understand your viewpoint, I just don't agree with it.

One point you make is this: "If he had reported it and nothing was done, it would strengthen the arguement he was a whistleblower when he went elsewhere."

Had he reported it up the line, I think something would indeed have happened, the most likely scenario being that he would have been removed from his position (or "red circled" and isolated) and no longer allowed access to incriminating documents.

St. Julian.

He didn't do that, so I not only hesitate to call him a Whistleblower, I refuse to.

Refuse.

and that is simply not the role or responsibility of a whistleblower. Ellsberg did not read all 7,000+ pages of the Pentagon papers before leaking them to the New York Times. It would have been a tragic waste of his, and our nation's, time.

I think the handful of people here claiming that Manning should have read and selected only cables he thought were important are quite disengenuous.

These are the same people who would have quickly condemned Manning for being selective and not exposing all the cables, which they would claim would have given a more complete picture that would, no doubt in their minds anyway, have exonerated the U.S for its lies and crimes.

NT!

are all meant for the control of us chumps who aren't in the ruling class. What's new?

Rec.

We can't kick their butts after 9 years? Oh yeah, the war machine can't get rich with a quick win, I forgot.

>>>>Punishment before the Trial-Solitary Confinement

Manning has now been in prison in solitary confinement for 7 months and still neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government has indicted him for any offense. Manning essentially is being treated by the U.S. government as an American citizen "enemy combatant." >>>

If not.... how long does the gov't... or the "army"... have before they have to put up or shut-up?

in July 2010 Manning was charged with violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the UCMJ. He is awaiting an Article 32 hearing which has been delayed while defense motions are resolved, one of which is a motion to review the security classifications of the materials involved in the case. The Article 32 hearing finalizes the charges - they could reduce or add charges - and then sets the court martial date.

He should be protected for doing that, not treated as an enemy combatant.

But of course, our government thinks it's above International Law, so they think they can do whatever they want.

Transparency my ass!

government must be reined in. But how do you do it? Half the population is clueless.

he committed theft of documents to see what would pop up. that isnt a whistle blower

Had Manning picked and chosen what to release. I'm sure the few anti-transparency people here would be moaning about how we aren't getting "the full story" because of this selectivity.

No, I think Manning did the right thing by releasing everything he could access on what is happening with U.S foreign policy, and letting Wikileaks and other journalists analyse the cables and decide what to publish.

then gathered info to out the crime.... ya, that is a whistle blower. what he did is no different than what repugs did to clinton. fishing for a crime.

his is theft. plain and simple

btw.... i guess i can label you pro naivety for your beliefs too. isn't it nifty to demean each others differing position.

It is nonsense to claim that anything about this whole thing is "plain and simple".

About the only thing "plain and simple" is that some people (like me) support whistleblowers and transparency when it leads to exposing government lies and crimes, and some people (like you) don't.

Anyone claiming with great certainty that this is a "plain and simple" matter is being disingenuous, or doesn't understand the facts.

my plain and simple is anything BUT plain and simple. bah hahahahaha

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well...I guess that DEPENDS on who they're whistleblowing on, doesn't it, Mr. Obama?

IntereSTINK.

Le sigh.