I'm going to gather my thoughts in an effort to help you resolve yours. :)

However, that will take a while.

See ya later!

Yea, what is up with THAT!!!??

I mean, ignoring for the moment that abomination that was Star Trek 90210, I see this happening in a LOT of TV shows...

EUREKA for one...

I guess it could be worse...

Producers and Directors could resurrect the old Dallas/Dream Sequence again...

Gods.....

Michale.....

Good point. Very good point.

Michale.....

Given this, secrecy is anathema to the diplomatic process...

On the other hand, diplomacy ALSO exits to prevent enemies from nuking the hell out of each other... In THOSE cases, I can see where secrecy is essential...

It's likely that the second form of diplomacy is what we are discussing..

Michale.....

Yes. That's a good way to put it. I think this is, what I'd call, Category A - deals which may be bad to begin with.

I think there's at least a Category B as well. Possibly more. Still not sure how to characterize the difference though.

Unfortunately, work is getting in the way of my being able to think this through :)!

And don't think I don't notice the irony of me arguing on the side of full disclosure. :D

LOL! At least you point it out and can joke about it!

-David

But that's kinda my point..

If a deal would be jeopardized by full disclosure, then maybe it's a bad deal to begin with..

And don't think I don't notice the irony of me arguing on the side of full disclosure. :D

Michale.....

I think of these as "thinking out loud" sessions. At a lot of sites you don't get this because of the back and forth nature of things.

So thank you both for being patient w/ me!

Liz- We're finding out that there is a big difference between what our government says in public and what is said in private - we're finding out about some of the backroom deals.

You still haven't shown me any examples where secrecy is necessary for diplomacy.

Surely you cannot be saying that there should be no private and confidential documents exchanged between diplomats?

No. But I'm trying to make some distinctions and figure out how I feel about this. And when it looks like our own government is lying to us, I'd err on the side of transparency.

What's interesting to me is how aggressively our government is pursuing Wikileaks compared to how little they pursued those responsible for the Wall Street crash.

What does this tell us about the priorities of our government?

How can you negotiate with someone in good faith knowing that secrets are being kept?

I think what Liz is arguing is that the negotiations themselves should be kept secret because otherwise any deals might be jeopardized. For example, if you're trying to negotiate w/ Qaddafi and you make fun of his mustache in an e-mail to the Israelis. Ok, bad example, but you get the idea.

And to some extent I think I'd agree. Though as I've mentioned, still thinking through this.

The point I'm stuck on is that I think the secrecy thing has gone to far. It feels more like secret deals cut in back rooms which could be wildly unpopular if not for their secrecy.

Here's where I feel that right now we need to air on the side of transparency.

-David

Right now, our government is so corrupt and our traditional institutions for shedding daylight on corporate/government activities (such as the press) have been so bought and paid for that I would rather see everything out in the open.

I think I get it now - you are confusing the need for transparenty in government (see: Obama/Biden administration for most transparent government yet! Really.) with what diplomacy is.

You still haven't told me what possible legitmate purpose is served by the release of all of these diplomatic cables which are private and confidential, potentially a quarter million of them, no less.

Surely you cannot be saying that there should be no private and confidential documents exchanged between diplomats? But, if you are, I think we're done here and will have to agree to disagree, plain and simple. :)

Maybe that has been the whole problem with the Israel/Palestine negotiations from the get go.

Too much secrecy...

How can you negotiate with someone in good faith knowing that secrets are being kept??

Michale.....

:D

Michale...

The only area I can think of where diplomacy would be needed is while negotiations of some sort are going on. Take the Israel/Palestine situation, for example. Either side might not want to leak details of concessions as this might jeopardize ongoing negotiations.

Now, you're getting close ... expand on that a little bit more and you'll be very close ...

Here is another plain and simple question for you ...

What do think the role of the State Department is ... I mean, other than anything having to do with war? :) :)

You surprise me. What do you think diplomacy is - a lead up to war? ... the execution of war? ...

As I mentioned, I still don't know quite how I feel about this. Yet anytime someone tells me something is "a plain and simple fact", my instinct is to question it.

What would be the reason for secrecy? Well ... the biggest one I can think of is that we're involved in something that many people would not support if they knew the true details. Example: The Iraq War.

Maybe, instead of "secret diplomacy", we shouldn't be involved in these things.

Can you cite me an example where diplomacy required secrecy that doesn't fit this pattern?

Again, I still have mixed feelings about this. But when someone tells me something is a "fact" with little to back it up, my internal alarm goes off.

The only area I can think of where diplomacy would be needed is while negotiations of some sort are going on. Take the Israel/Palestine situation, for example. Either side might not want to leak details of concessions as this might jeopardize ongoing negotiations.

But this would only be truly relevant while negotiations were ongoing. From what I saw, this didn't happen with the Wikileaks cables.

Right now, our government is so corrupt and our traditional institutions for shedding daylight on corporate/government activities (such as the press) have been so bought and paid for that I would rather see everything out in the open.

-David

In fact, I challenge you to name me one public official from the Obama administration who has said anything remotely resembling that Karzai smells like roses.

Liz, you're picking at details while missing the larger point: Why are we propping up another corrupt leader (while behind closed doors admitting he's corrupt)?

And, to put it yet another way ...

What do you suppose would be the motive for making available for public consumption a quarter million private, confidential and sensitive diplomatic cables? What was the "whistleblower" blowing the whistle on, precisely?

As you fully realize, we live in a very complicated world with international challenges that are wrought with sensitive issues. These kinds of challenges need to handled - oh, how shall I say, diplomatically? ... with the utmost sensitivity and discretion.

Now, I'm all for whisleblowing and the strongest of protections for whistleblowers. But, what we have here with the wholly indiscriminate release of a quarter million extremely sensitive and confidential diplomatic cables is a whole other issue and not at all related to exposing wrongdoing.

Discretion, as opposed to secrecy, is what is needed for effective diplomacy.

I challenge you again to explain to me what legitimate purpose the potential release of 250,000 private and sensitive diplomatic cables could possibly serve.

I mean, let's get real here.

Of course, I don't think the government needs to work in secrecy.

I also don't think that the government needs to work under a microscope, particularly when it comes to private and confidential diplomatic cables.

Here is a plain and simple fact - efffective diplomacy cannot take place completely in the public view.

Our own officials are telling us that they believe Karzai is corrupt and a narcotics trafficker. Yet all we're told about him by our officials and press is that he smells like roses.

Quite obviously, you are listening to the wrong public officials! In fact, I challenge you to name me one public official from the Obama administration who has said anything remotely resembling that Karzai smells like roses. Because, I would like to refer them to the vice president. :)

The key is not getting rid of or reducing the secrecy...

The key is electing leaders that we TRUST to do right by us...

Michale.....

Thanks, CW. I meant to mention that here so I could thank Michale. I will have to check out Gangs of NY - I had no idea there were actual historical examples of private firefighting.

@Liz
I didn't have a change of heart Re. WikiLeaks.

Apologies. Didn't mean to imply you so much as our government.

I will say again - the latest WikiLeaks info dump of diplomatic cables, has absolutely nothing to do with government transparency or with exposing government wrongdoing.

Liz, what I believe is that government should not be telling their people one thing while, in secret, they do another. This is what got us into situations like the Iraq War. When the government lies to the people, this is not a government we should trust. This is what got us into the Iraq War.

This is some of what the Wikileaks documents reveal. That we were bombing Yemen while the leaders in Yemen were saying they did it.

Our own officials are telling us that they believe Karzai is corrupt and a narcotics trafficker. Yet all we're told about him by our officials and press is that he smells like roses.

Let me ask you this. Why do you feel a government should have to operate in secrecy? But why do you believe secrecy is a must have in the diplomatic world?

(I know Michale's opinion on the subject - he would say it has the potential to jeopardize military operations if the wrong info is revealed.)

For the record, I'm still not quite sure how I feel about this. I can think of cases where secrecy might jeopardize diplomacy. However, on the other hand, I think we are lied to way more than we should be using this as a justification.

-David

But what is undeniable is that Democrats had the political power to make things better.

But they made things worse because they pursued their OWN agenda instead of doing right by the country and ALL Americans..

Sure, one can spout a fact here or a poll there and say things are better... But, looking at the larger picture, looking at all aspects of our lives, can anyone truly say that things are better??

Michale.....

Yer right.. I did forget something...

"Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
-President Bill Clinton

It's rather ironic...

Trump appeals to Joe Q Public because he treats the enemies and competitors of the US the way the Left wants Obama to treat the GOP...

Just stick it to 'em without a thought to the consequences....

Michale.....

But pushing the deficit to obscene heights in just two years isn't exactly a great track record for the Dems.. Nor is having a virtual lock on the government and failing to accomplish anything meaningful..

You're making this too easy, Michale.

In your haste to always equate - usually, falsely so - what the Republicans and Democrats are doing, you like to think you're giving the impression that you're a reasonable sort of guy and then, BOOM, you give yourself away as nothing more than a little shit disturber. I know. I can be one myself. :)

Do you want to know what gives you away? It's your devilishly selective memory.

I remember reading a sci-fi book as a kid that had this.. The first chapter was a very intense and exciting chapter about 2 fighter pilots attacking an enemy stronghold. It described the combat action and how the fighter pilots evade enemy defenses and approached the enemy HQ.. One of the pilots received damage so he made the decision to kamikaze his fighter into the enemy HQ. Then the lights came on in the control room and his wingman cracked, "nice landing".... :D

I remember thinking how kewl that was and wonder if I would ever live to see that come to pass..

And here we are..

Don't recall the name of that book, but it illustrates perfectly how yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact..

Take THAT, anyone who ridicules my Star Trek quotes!!! :D (not any regulars here, to be sure..)

Michale.....

Heh. GOP in control? I echo Liz -- you've got to be freakin' kidding. Let's see, under Bush and a GOP Congress: two wars, unpaid for; Medicare Part D, unpaid for; massive tax cuts, unpaid for. Not exactly a great track record, is it?

No it isn't...

But pushing the deficit to obscene heights in just two years isn't exactly a great track record for the Dems.. Nor is having a virtual lock on the government and failing to accomplish anything meaningful..

In short, Democrats had their shot. They did more harm than good..

The alternative to the GOP is 4 more years of Democratic Party rule.

Our economy cannot survive that...

Actually, wasn't Wikileaks indirectly responsible for some of the Arab Spring uprisings? Diplomatic cables about Tunisia (I think, doing this from memory) were one of the things that set the crowds off.

That's the claim from Wikileaks. I didn't read any claims from other sources however.

The Abu Graib photos (note: not from Wikileaks) did more damage than anything Wikileaks has yet done, in my opinion.

Which makes the lack of reaction to the Kill Team photos all the more insidious... It's not a case of the MSM lieing down on the job but rather a case of actively supressing news so as not to embarrass an American administration.. Much like CBS refusing to release the "Hot Mic" recording where, it is alleged, that Obama refers to Americans as "slugs"..

Rather ironic since the Left is usually up in arms over so-called "selective editing" of releases from the Right...

Michale.....

You're right, that wasn't what you asked. Sorry, it was late at night and I was tired and answered the wrong point. Mea culpa.

See my comment to Michale two paragraphs ago here, for how I think it played out. Again, just guesswork, though.

No worries ... it happens. Oh, and thanks for the bit of editing magic. :)

There's still a lot about this that just does not add up for me. It feels like we don't know anywhere near the real story ... yet.

Thanks for the link to David's blog. I enjoy reading his thoughts.

Actually, wasn't Wikileaks indirectly responsible for some of the Arab Spring uprisings? Diplomatic cables about Tunisia (I think, doing this from memory) were one of the things that set the crowds off. So the diplomatic cables' leak, so far, has had more real-world impact than the military ones. The Abu Graib photos (note: not from Wikileaks) did more damage than anything Wikileaks has yet done, in my opinion.

-CW

Check out David's blog post, which was inspired by a comment thread here. It's an interesting post, and I would encourage him to watch "Gangs Of New York" to see how the "private firefighting" actually worked out, historically (mostly, it didn't).

-CW

Not wanting to appear to be ganging up, Liz...

What's your take on the previous WikiLeaks releases? The ones that deal with exposing military actions??

The diplomatic WikiLeaks release appears to be nothing more than embarrassing to the US.. Juvenile claims from one US Diplomat about Daffy Duck's hot nurse with the big rack and things to that affect..

But when one starts laying out Military Operations and processes, that has real world implications..

No one gives a rat's arse if Daffy is boffin' a stacked Ukranian nurse. Well, someone might care, but in the grand scheme of things, it's small potatoes...

People can die if military secrets become common knowledge....

Michale.....

I wouldn't say "wrong" what I'd say is "inconsistent" in their attitude.

The GOP is taking a crack at it. Unfortunately for them, the American people don't agree with the Ryan plan. Republicans are overreaching, and they haven't really realized it yet.

As for Manning, what I think is that the military itself is mighty PO'ed at Manning, and that's where the mistreatment likely sprung from. The GOP was incensed at Manning when the Wikileaks thing happened (they were incensed at Assange, too, but he's not a US citizen, limiting what they can do to him). But I'm not basing that on any facts, just a hunch, I do admit. I think Obama listened to his generals, who told him they had the Manning situation under control, and he just rubber stamped their decision. When it became a bigger and bigger embarrassment, I think Obama finally decided enough was enough. Again, pure supposition on my part, though.

Liz [4] -

You're right, that wasn't what you asked. Sorry, it was late at night and I was tired and answered the wrong point. Mea culpa.

See my comment to Michale two paragraphs ago here, for how I think it played out. Again, just guesswork, though.

Michale [6] -

Heh. GOP in control? I echo Liz -- you've got to be freakin' kidding. Let's see, under Bush and a GOP Congress: two wars, unpaid for; Medicare Part D, unpaid for; massive tax cuts, unpaid for. Not exactly a great track record, is it?

dsws [7] -

TALON robots? I've got to look that up...

Michale [9] -

That is an interesting (and scary) point. Hmmm. Gotta think about that one.

nypoet22 [14] -

I base my supposition on an underlying theme, which is that presidents (especially Democrats, Clinton and Obama being the two best examples) who have not served in the military tend to defer to the Pentagon for military decisions more than people who have served or Republicans (Bush's time in the Natl Guard doesn't really count, I should mention). I think that's the dynamic that could be going on here. Obama, for instance, left Gates in charge, to assuage the Pentagon's fear of Democratic presidents. It worked, at least on keeping the Pentagon happy, but it meant he ceded some decision-making that another president might not have.

Again, pure supposition, though.

David [16] -

I hadn't made the Ender's Game connection, but you're right.

You put it better than I have here -- "making an example" is precisely what I think was going on. Good phrase, well done. And I also think you hit the nail on the head with the "Bush would be bragging about it" comment. As a matter of fact, your whole comment (especially towards the end) is the best thing I've read on the subject. I think your take is pretty accurate, all told.

-CW

I didn't have a change of heart Re. WikiLeaks.

What legitamate purpose can you conjur up for the release of the wholesale and non-discriminate release of private, confidential and sensitive diplomatic cables?

What wrongdoing has been exposed? What was the "whisleblower blowing the whistle on, in other words?

I trust you are not among those, like the WikiLeaks supporters, who believe that the State Department and its diplomats must operate under a public microscope without being able to conduct diplomacy in a discreet and effective way.

I will say again - the latest WikiLeaks info dump of diplomatic cables, has absolutely nothing to do with government transparency or with exposing government wrongdoing. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I merely state that it is apparent from the factual evidence that OBAMA's opinion is that Manning's revelations wasn't any big deal until such time as the revelations embarrassed the Obama Administration politically and diplomatically..

This simply re-enforces the belief that Obama has little use for the US military and anything that cast aspirations on the US military is no big deal..

The current issue with the "Kill Team" photos in Afghanistan simply provides more evidence to that theory.

The simple fact that I hold Obama to the same high standard that ya'all applied to President Bush could be viewed as nothing more than poetic justice... :D

Michale....

That's quite a broad statement, Liz.

What Wikileaks is doing is shedding unprecedented light on what the world's most powerful corporations and governments are doing.

We seemed to be all for Wikileaks until the light was shined on our government. How do you explain the change of heart?

How is this not about anti-transparency?
-David

I appreciate your response regarding why the Obama administration would allow the alleged inhumane treatment of Pfc Manning. I haven't heard any better explanation, to date.

Contrary to Glenn Greenwald’s conspiratorial nonsense, however, the potential WikiLeaks release of a quarter million private and sensitive diplomatic cables has nothing to do with government transparency or wrongdoing, whatsoever.

This statement could apply to just about anything coming from you.

The weather ...
The Bulls winning in the playoffs ...
The daily stock prices ...

What I'm really curious about is: how come you're doing a flip-flop?

You're complaining about something that if others were doing, you'd be 100% for. At this point, you'd usually be saying that someone like Manning sides with the terrorists and should have been water-boarded.

Does this mean you're abandoning principles to play politics :)?

We're standing on a principle: Innocent until proven guilty. And I'd say the same thing regardless of who was in charge. In fact, I have.

You seem to be flip-flopping in the wind because you just don't like Obama. You did the same thing w/ Syria. Where you would have been applauding a Republican or even other Democrats, you're criticizing Obama.

I'll be direct. What is your principle on this?

Are you for innocent until proven guilty. If so, then why did you support torturing prisoners at Guantanamo?

If not, what is your principle?

I think you've just made up your mind about Obama, and no matter what he does, if he turned water into wine, you'd still be complaining that you were thirsty :)

-David

Except Michale makes it political and about Obama.

It IS about Obama. Do you think anyone could have come down on Manning like a ton o' bricks w/o tacit approval from the Oval Office???

Do I believe Obama or any Democrats directly support this?

No.

Oh com' on, David.... Obama is up to his neck in this...

"He {Manning} broke the law."
-President Obama

No "he allegedly broke the law" ; no "he is accused of breaking the law"...

No, it was "HE BROKE THE LAW"..

If that's not directly supporting this, what is??

Michale.....

Its somewhat surreal when you think about. Reminds me of "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card.

What on earth is going on here that the US government is treating this individual in such a manner.

@Liz- The best explanation I've seen about this so far goes something like this. If you don't want to have whistle blowers, you make an example out of anyone who steps forward. This is very similar to what happens in our country when folks reveal corporate wrong doing in our fair country.

Sadly, I think the point Michale makes is close. Except Michale makes it political and about Obama. Bush would have done the same thing. Except he would be bragging about it.

Its a thinly veiled threat, not to Manning, but to anyone else - you do this, and we will come after you.

Glenn Greenwald has the best writeup I've seen on this so will point you at it:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/150330/glenn_greenwald:_how_the_us_government_strikes_fear_in_its_own_citizens_and_people_around_the_world/?page=entire

Left vs. right, Republicans vs. Democrats, is very much a false divide in our country.

The real divide is much closer to: corporations vs. people, the rich vs. the middle class/poor. It is much more an economic divide.

And Wikileaks is a threat to this established order. So what do you do? You make an example out of anyone brave enough to come forward.

Do I believe Obama or any Democrats directly support this?

No.

Do I believe Democrats fear the political costs of coming out in favor of the rights of the accused?

Yes. I believe the Dems fear being labeled weak in the press and the court of public opinion. Is this ironic? Yes.

Is this sad? Yes.

The right thing to do, in my opinion, would be to stand up for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

-David

I think we just have to accept the fact that any elected politician, regardless of affiliation, will look out for their own best interests, rather than ours...

Michale.....

Maybe I'm trying too hard ...

Nothing that fits the available facts..

On the other hand, I am not trying very hard. :D

Michale.....

As to Manning...

THAT is why he has been held in dungeon like conditions ...

Hey, at least you knew what I was asking. Of course, I don't buy that answer. :)

Could there be something else to explain it?

Ouch!! :D And the ref takes a point away!!! :D

In the lost points department, you are so far down that you have to look up to see your knees!

So, let's not get into a debate about that, OK? :)

I see this as the potential for increasing terrorism on our shores..

Since *we* won't be fighting them over there, Islamic terrorists and radicals will have no choice but to come to the US if they want to kill Americans...

Michale....

Surely, Michale is not right about this because he has used all of his credibility some time ago, don'tcha know. :)

Ouch!! :D And the ref takes a point away!!! :D

Michale.....

According to Wikipedia, over 3000 TALON robots have been deployed to combat theaters.

"that's not what I asked."

That was perfectly clear. CW's reply was far below his usual standards.

As opposed to Democrats who could only grow the spending to unheard of heights and totally decimated the economy??

This country's economy simply cannot survive 4 more years of Democrat rule....

Michale.....

Maybe it's time to give the GOP a crack at it, eh??

A crack at what? Getting spending under control? Growing the economy?

Are you freakin' kidding me!?

Does that help explain things?

Ah, no.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, that's not what I asked.

Here is the pertinent part of my rant, just to be clear:
There must be something I'm missing here because if the charges of his treatment are true, and I'll stipulate that they are, I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth this Pfc would be receiving this kind of treatment.

According to Michale, Manning has suffered this inhumane treatment simply because he ambarrassed the Obama administration. Of course, I think the reasons are more complex.

Why do you think he has suffered this kind of treatment?

To be clear again, I am fully aware of the basic tenets of the American justice system. Up here in the Great White North, we actually have much the same system ... surprise, surprise. More suprising still, I fully support it!

And, that still leaves me wondering - if all the reports of inhumane treatment are factual and, once again, I'll stipulate that they are - what on earth is going on here that the US government is treating this individual in such a manner. Surely, Michale is not right about this because he has used all of his credibility some time ago, don'tcha know. :)

Hope all of that is clear as mud.

Seriously.

Feel free to be as patronizing as ya want, CW.. :D

David Brooks, of late, has been saying something which makes a lot of sense. Brooks is a moderate conservative (or, if that species doesn't exist anymore, perhaps a "reality-based" conservative), and what he's been saying could almost be called a truism: "Americans want more government than they are willing to pay for."

In this, you seem to imply that the American people are WRONG in their attitude..

And I agree with that.. We as Americans are, on the whole, a spoiled lot.. We want all the creature comforts, but don't want to pay the bill.

This is simply a wrong attitude to have...

Agreed??

But then, all your talking points seem to re-enforce this attitude for political gain??

Our American government simply MUST get this out of control spending under control.

I am sure we agree on that...

Obviously the Democrats can't do it, even with a super-majority and a lock on all facets of government.

Maybe it's time to give the GOP a crack at it, eh??

I'm just sayin'..

As to Manning...

His only "crime" is embarrassing the Obama Administration.

THAT is why he has been held in dungeon like conditions and that is why there hasn't been such an outcry from the Hysterical Left...

This is apparent from so much available evidence, it's hard to list it all.. But foremost amongst this evidence is the simple fact that, when WikiLeaks released military secrets, the Obama Administration's reaction was, "hoo-humm, no big deal, let's do lunch."

Only when the Obama Administration was politically and diplomatically embarrassed by Manning, did the wrath of The One explode....

Michale.....

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but here goes:

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. This means that you are not subject to "punishment" until you are found guilty by a court of law. In this case, becase PFC Manning is in the Army, the UCMJ applies. He was not (until very recently) even accused of any crime. Therefore, the situation he found himself in was of a punitive nature -- before any court (or court martial) found him guilty.

That is what was wrong. If he is eventually found guilty of crimes against America, his status will then change. But until that point, he is deemed innocent by American law.

You'll notice I am taking no sides on whether he is, in fact, guilty of such crimes, or not. That is for a court (or, more appropriately, a court martial) to determine. But until that point is reached, he is entitled to a certain level of human dignity, which he is guaranteed under both the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Republicans used to be such big fans of the "rule of law" -- and Democrats used to be such big defenders of the rights of the accused. THAT is what is disappointing, to me, personally.

Does that help explain things?

-CW

So, I don't get this Manning situation.

When he was named as the alleged source for the continuing (at least until the end of days next spring) WikiLeaks info dump, my reaction was immediate and severe - throw the bloody book at him, figuratively speaking, of course. That's a pretty heavy book, after all.

Now, he's been in custody since then and apparently under conditions which have been deemed indefensible by many. I've also heard that he was prone to suicide.

There must be something I'm missing here because if the charges of his treatment are true, and I'll stipulate that they are, I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth this Pfc would be receiving this kind of treatment.

From the beginning, I have found this entire situation to be rather disconcerting for its negative impact on the conduct of US diplomacy. And, I have very little regard for any US citizen who would be involved with an illegal transfer of private and sensitive diplomatic cables, to an organization like WikiLeaks whose founder has an obvious Messianic complex, among other delusional fantasies. Add to all of this the confinement and treatment of Pfc Manning and I have to surmise that there is a quite a bit more to this story than meets the eye.