backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by heffeque.. on Aug 11 at 6:13 PM


  (Source: Flickr)

Taliban gunmen mudered a tribal elder, who they believed was revealed as a U.S. "spy" by Wikileaks documents.  (Source: Sky News)

Wikileaks founder and convicted computer criminal Julian Assange  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Over 70 other tribal elders receive death threats, U.S. Congressman calls on death penalty for leaker Manning

It's been a nightmarish last few months for U.S. Military officials.  First they discovered that a young soldier serving in Iraq had acted as a spy passing documents to the site Wikileaks.  Then they endured Wikileaks release of 90,000 U.S. Military documents -- many of them classified -- detailing their operations in Afghanistan.

The Taliban, a radical Islamic militia in Afghanistan, announced its gratitude to Wikileaks for the release and vowed to hunt down those revealed in the documents to be collaborating with the U.S.  It appears that they have now made good on that threat.

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen.  He was then executed.

At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S.  One such threat is signed by Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.  When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.

The note reads:
We have made a decision for your death. You have five days to leave Afghan soil. If you don’t, you don’t have the right to complain.
NewsWeek first reported on the murder.  They report that the Taliban believes the documents showed it U.S. sources, including the murder victim, Abdullah -- whether or not they truly do.

Wikileaks
founder and convicted Australian computer criminal Julian Assange claimed in a TIME interview that the leak was justified in the name of transparency.  He assured that no one would be harmed by the leak, stating:
We feel confident. The material is seven months old; we reviewed it extensively. We held back 15,000 documents that we felt needed further review because the type of classifications they had. We've been publishing for four years a range of material that has caused the changing of constitutions and the removal of governments, but there's never been a case that we are aware of that has resulted in the personal injury of anyone.
In related news, U.S. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has called on the U.S. Military to pursue the death penalty in the Manning case.  He says Manning's actions constitute treason in a time of war and thus should be punishable by death.  His statements came in an interview, which is preserved here in an audio recording.

We spoke with key government witness Adrian Lamo, who turned Manning in, about Rogers' remarks.  He tells us he doubts the U.S. government would pursue the death penalty given that they didn't in the case of Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent-turned-Russian spy.  Lamo states, "The damage done by Bradley Manning doesn't begin to approximate the damage Robert Hanssen did."

Hanssen received a life sentence, which he is currently serving.

If the government were to pursue such a sentence, though, Lamo says he would refuse to testify.

He states,"I elected to turn Manning in, in the hopes of saving lives.  I'm not going to participate in a process that's going to take a life.  There should be no other blood spilled by Wikileaks."

He concludes, "Under any other circumstances I will testify in the case.  [But] my concern for human life comes first."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Link between murder and wikileaks?
By aston12 on 8/3/2010 3:43:42 PM , Rating: 4
The topic states "Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies" "

So you make it look like wikileaks is the reason behind the murder...

Where exactly is the source that shows the link or the source that shows the victim mentionned in the wikileaks document?

I am not saying it can not be true, just that "newsweek" reported is not enough...... .




RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 3:54:22 PM , Rating: 3
The leaked documents were by no means fully redacted of identifying details. The names of many tribal leaders that have worked with the Afghanie government and US troops were found in the leaked documents. If the executed individual was in fact one of the leaked names than Assange (and Bradley) is fully responsible for their deaths.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 4:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
You probably don't understand exactly how the law works. You don't have to pull the trigger to be guilty of a death. If your buddy shoots someone while holding-up a liquor store and you drove him there and drove him away, you are going to be convicted of that death. Any contributory act that leads to a deliberate murder can also be convicted of the crime. The assasination of these tribal leaders is an obvious risk to the release of their names.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By tjvanpat on 8/3/2010 6:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In theory this statement might be true. However, the vast majority of "contributory acts" are highly unlikely to result in a murder conviction. Driving the car in a drive-by is one case where you probably would get convicted. Driving someone to the location where they committed a murder is less likely.


Incorrect. If you knowingly drive someone to a place where they are going to commit a murder, you have a very good chance of being convicted of murder as well (guilty by association). It would be more difficult to convince the jury you are innocent, than guilty.

I think you are misinterpreting the use of the term "fully responsible". Perhaps "undoubtedly responsible" would fit you better?


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/2010 6:33:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think you are misinterpreting the use of the term "fully responsible". Perhaps "undoubtedly responsible" would fit you better?


I can accept that phrase.

To me, "fully responsible" means, "100% responsible." As opposed to "partially responsible," which is what I would say Assange is, here.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By heffeque on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By afkrotch on 8/3/2010 9:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
Releasing document for transparency of the government is one thing, but releasing documents that happen to mention possible spies that are currently still out in the field is another.

Regardless of what you think, there is no such thing as strictly black and white in the world. There is always a gray area. There will always be things within the government, any government, that the world is best off not knowing.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By TheEinstein on 8/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By jonup on 8/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:39:34 AM , Rating: 5
Assange is not an American. His rights are not protected by our Constitution. Manning is an American. But, since we're at war, and he leaked secret intelligence to the enemy which may well result in the death of allied forces, he has committed treason and will be tried as such.

I also don't see how tax dollars are being wasted here. We left Afghanistan to fend for itself back in the 80s, and the Taliban took over, got to supporting Al Qaeda and then we got 9/11 and a complete collapse of the United States economy. There's a saying that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

One more - there are no inhuman actions going on - the leaked documents have showed nothing of the sort. The casualty figures are lower than any other war of similar ever fought.

And what's this stuff about Republicans and small government? This isn't a Republican war. It's an American War. Damn near everyone in Congress authorized it. Believe me - we're all ready to leave, but there's a fair precedent that's been set that says if we mess this up, it will probably bite us in the ass a lot harder than if we'd stayed.


By asuffield on 8/5/2010 1:19:33 AM , Rating: 1
Assange is not an American. His rights are not protected by our Constitution.

An interesting attitude, but I'm fairly sure your courts have disagreed with it on several occasions. Citizenship is not a requirement for constitutional protection in the US. Fortunately.

Manning is an American. But, since we're at war, and he leaked secret intelligence to the enemy which may well result in the death of allied forces, he has committed treason and will be tried as such.

The US is not at war. That requires an act of congress. The US is merely "conducting peacemaking operations overseas". This is the official position of the US government.

Manning has already been charged and will not be tried for treason. He is charged with two counts of violation of the uniform code of military justice. The first is article 92 (failure to obey orders) and the second is article 134 (general conduct bringing discredit upon the armed forces).


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Hyraxxx on 8/8/2010 6:45:09 PM , Rating: 1
Our Constitution does not grant us rights, it reinforces rights we already have because we are human. Lets our rules know our individual sovereignty.

We are not at war. We are in a military incursion. The media just likes throwing the word 'war' around.

Assange is a true patriot. US just being there is a crime. How many civilians has the US murdered? Where is the outrage against the war during the Obama administration?


By Chaser on 8/9/2010 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for everyone but I'm outraged over the 3000 civilians that were murdered when the World Trade cCenter buildings were flown into and blown up.

Assange voluntarily joined the U.S. military service. It's shameful and saddening when "patriots" like Assange (and you) gleefully justify treason and endangering fellow military personnel with impunity.


By TheEinstein on 8/5/2010 3:22:29 AM , Rating: 3
Rating me down does not change the facts.

This man aided and abetted terrorists. The United Nations recognizes them as terrorists. Russia recognizes them as terrorists, NATO recognizes them as terrorists.

His deliberate choice to reveal classified information without filtering them aided and abetted the terrorists.

If we sent a drone to kill this man we would be in our rights. If we seized him from his hiding hole and put him in gitmo, we would be in our rights.

Wiki-Leaks is GONE.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By jonup on 8/4/10, Rating: -1
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:25:00 AM , Rating: 5
We live in a Republic, not a direct democracy. You don't have the right to personally know everything that's going on at any given time in the government. Transparency is one thing, but releasing classified documents in the middle of an ongoing war is treason.

The Romans recognized millenia ago that a direct democracy was simply not feasible. So, in closing - I hope you like knowing that we're doing a good job over here, even though that knowledge comes at the expense of the lives of our Afghan allies.

*Warm Fuzzies*


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By heffeque on 8/4/2010 4:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Releasing document for transparency of the government is one thing, but releasing documents that happen to mention possible spies that are currently still out in the field is another."

The White House made that possible. It was the White House's job to filter the possible spies and they didn't do it, so he's obviously not responsible for that.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 4:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna let you off with a warning for not using sarcasm tags on a Wednesday, sir - but, next time, I'll have to issue a citation ;)


By heffeque on 8/11/2010 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
There's no sarcasm there. He asked the White House to help him filter the info and the White House didn't want to cooperate.

Here's your citation ;)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/07/29/...


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By inperfectdarkness on 8/4/2010 9:57:37 AM , Rating: 5
wait...

so you think that the white house should condone leaks such as this by being willing to "filter" them out?

negative.

the white house is not about to let the world think that we're "ok" with having protected information in the public sector. worse, even IF they agreed to filter the documents--the filtered parts would likely still find the light of day; thanks to conspiracy idiots.

rest assured that if the white house had filtered anything, the same apologists (of which you are yourself a staunch believer) would come out with a statement painting the white house as culpable and quite complicitous. IF such a transaction ever did happen between wiki-leaks and the white house--the response from the white house was the correct one.

the blood is on the hands of wikileaks and the source behind these documents. blood also resides on the hands of al qaeda; but the latter has not changed circumstances by this development.

collaborators should be tried and punished to the maximum extent allowable under law. in this case, that includes execution.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By jonup on 8/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 12:45:08 PM , Rating: 5
A small price to pay? The rate of collateral civilians casualties in this war has been one of the lowest of any war ever waged?

The tactics have been respectable and commendable. It's time to give it up and stop spreading FUD.


By priusone on 8/5/2010 5:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
Have any of the deaths listed in the documents done out of malice or were they accidents, mainly based on identity? Our troops are held to a very high standard and exercise great constraint in their actions, yet the tens of thousands of women and children IED's kill, well they are not important. People like Jon would rather that Saddam be in power, punishing the 70+% of his population, killing off the Kurds, and spending the rest of the money on his fellow Sunni's. Oh well.

And if you think that Manning's actions will result in only 70 "elderly" people dying, you have no idea. The Taliban will kill way more than that using the excuse that Islam is a Religion of Piece.

Those of us who have had our boots on the ground and have walked among the downtrodden truly know and understand what freedom means.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the White House would rather that secret documents remain secret. Blaming the negligence of Wikileaks on the White House is patently ridiculous.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/2010 6:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incorrect. If you knowingly drive someone to a place where they are going to commit a murder, you have a very good chance of being convicted of murder as well (guilty by association).


First, you did not say "knowingly" before. And that is something you would have to prove (that the driver knew what was going to happen), in any case. I was just saying, vs. a driveby (where the driver is actively involved in the crime), a "drive-to" is less likely to be considered murder. The key word would be "knowingly," however.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/4/2010 4:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
Look, its obvious you have a lay person's understanding of the law and you should not try and tell others how it works. The original poster was trying to describe the "felony murder rule" concept.

In a felony murder rule situation, you only need to be a small part of ANY felony. And if any murder happens during that felony (the robber accidentally discharges his weapon and kills the clerk), then EVERYONE involved is guilty of "felony murder" - which is typically punished the same as a full blown 2nd degree murder... even same as first degree in some jurisdictions.

So yeah - no "knowingly" is necessary. The "knowing" (guilty intent) requirement is satisfied as to the underlying felony... it just gets transfered to the murder.

Its still a stretch to apply here though. Too tenuous. Assange does not fit that concept, as he is not in cahoots with the taliban.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/4/2010 5:41:12 PM , Rating: 1
My point was, if you drive someone to a location, and they murder someone there, you are not automatically guilty of the murder. For example, if you did not "know" what the person was going to do, you would likely be found not guilty.

I am not talking about a case where someone is accidentally murdered during the commission of a felony.

That is my point concerning the word "knowingly." You cannot be complicity in a crime if you are unaware of the crime.


By adiposity on 8/4/2010 6:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
err, complicit.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By fic2 on 8/3/2010 6:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean accomplice.

Guilt by association is more - Al-Qaeda is composed of Muslims. Al-Qaeda is a group of terrorists. Therefore, all Muslims are terrorists.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By tastyratz on 8/3/2010 7:13:47 PM , Rating: 5
no
I think the correct legal term is actually "accessory"

The driver of a car would be convicted of "accessory to murder" Provided the DA wanted to press charges (you bet your ass here)

Manning is screwed, Assange will probably float around in mixed jurisdiction land and never actually be extradited. On US soil they would both be guilty of accessory and most likely prosecuted to the maximum to well deserving be made an example of.


By fic2 on 8/3/2010 7:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. I kept trying to think of the proper term but couldn't get it out of my age addled brain.


By bfellow on 8/5/2010 3:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
What if the driver of the car also ordered the hit or wanted that person to die? Then he would be just as guilty as the shooter.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Ard on 8/3/2010 7:13:59 PM , Rating: 5
As an attorney I can tell you that you're wrong. If you drive someone to a location knowing they're about to commit a murder, there are two likely crimes you're going to be charged with:

Conspiracy to commit murder
Accessory to/Aiding & abetting murder

You will not be charged with the murder itself UNLESS the murder was completed in the midst of another felony (i.e. robbery; the underlying murder does not cause murder to attach to the non-acting party). In that instance you would be charged with felony murder . Every state penal code has it's own particularities, especially in the realm of aiding & abetting, but those are the general principles.


By JonnyDough on 8/4/2010 2:39:53 AM , Rating: 2
Without actually checking an internet source due to laziness and the fact that anyone who cares will inevitably go looking it up I believe I may be correct on the following:

An accessory is someone who helps plan and execute the events leading up to a murder, but is not involved in directly causing the death.

An accomplice is someone who has a hand in the death, but is not the instigator or the mastermind or whatever. In virtually every multiple person crime there is someone who pushes the hardest to commit the crime, and a follower. For more on this study criminal behaviors.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By namechamps on 8/4/2010 8:21:52 AM , Rating: 1
To take this even further off topic....

quote:
However, the vast majority of "contributory acts" are highly unlikely to result in a murder conviction.


Felony murder statute. You and friend rob a bank. Guard gets killed and in the process he kills you friend. You face murder charge. In some states you face 2 murder charges however not all states include death of co-conspirator in felony murder statute.

Same situation except guard MISSES your friend and kills bystander. Now you are looking at double murder charge (bystander and guard).

BTW: I agree with you on the fully. Most people use the English language imprecisely.


By adiposity on 8/4/2010 2:32:16 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I agree with all this.

A "contributory act" could include telling them where the bank was. Would someone who did so also be charged with murder? Probably not.

Obviously, what Assange did was more significant than that. But he did not participate directly in the deaths here. He just provided the information that instigated it. To equate it to murder is a stretch.

If you tell a violent person their wife is cheating on them, and they murder their wife, are you responsible?

-Dan


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By aston12 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
That is why trials are good and asking some tribal leader before you shoot someone is bad.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By NullSubroutine on 8/3/2010 4:16:36 PM , Rating: 5
Counter-point, the Taliban are merely playing (violent) politics, these tribal leaders are only being targeted because it sends a message to the perceived weakness of the United States. They could in fact have nothing to do with the US and be sided with Taliban for all anyone knows, but that isn't the point. The point is fear and intimidation, even if you sacrifice one of your own, it puts all the other sheep in line, or at least makes them think twice.

The elder could have been targeted for other reasons, but claiming his name is on this list is only politically expedient for the Taliban to put doubt in the minds of others.

Here is the best example I can come up with. Let's say that there is a public list of sex-offenders, someone on that list gets murdered. Even if the sex offender was killed during a story robbery, it can be claimed he died because he was on the list. This sends a clear message to other sex offenders on the list, regardless of the validity, it also makes the point he would have died irregardless, even if he was not on the list.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By DougF on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
By NullSubroutine on 8/3/2010 9:34:40 PM , Rating: 5
I think we both have too much time on our hands.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
And that may be, at this point, what's happening. The Taliban are playing this up while the story is fresh.

Make no mistake, these guys are intelligent killers, and they have the means to translate these documents and turn them into actionable intelligence. They will glean targets from this, and they will move against those targets.

Their tactic now is fear, because it's the best hand they have. In a couple weeks, their hand will be better for vengeance.


By Aloonatic on 8/3/2010 4:58:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If the executed individual was in fact one of the leaked names than Assange (and Bradley) is fully responsible for their deaths.
Call me old fashioned, but I reserve a little blame/responsibility for the guys pulling the trigger and whoever ordering them to do so. Not to mention the people who put these poor people (your everyday average Afgans) in the middle of all this in the first place.

The leaked documents are just one small part in the chain of events that lead to any exacution, so I think it's a bit unfair to say that teh wiki-leaks people are fully responsible.


By Lerianis on 8/8/2010 10:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, they are not. The fact is that they could have and probably would have gotten this information in ANOTHER way. This is like saying that these people are responsible for a person's death when they expose people who have poisoned children in corporations and they are killed.

I hate to put it to you, but in the eyes of a good bit of the Afghani people, the people who work with us ARE traitors.


By hlper on 8/3/2010 6:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that the Taliban will look for more than names. A lot of these communities are very small, and saying a location, a title of someone cooperating, or description is probably enough for the Taliban to kill an individual. Even if they are not sure they have the right person, it works for them to say they do. It keeps the people too afraid to support anyone else.

Even if there is no identifying information at all, the Taliban is also likely to say there is because it is an embarassment for the US and it's allies, and they can make any examples they want (legitimate or otherwise) that we can't keep those who help us safe. Of course, the further you go down that line of logic, the harder it is to put it squarely at the feet of Wikileaks, but nothing was gained from this mess. It's not like there was really anything new in the documents, just more of the same depressing news.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Nik00117 on 8/3/2010 8:39:16 PM , Rating: 5
I work with the military very closely, I can tell you for a fact if it's secret it's secret for a reason.

Now I could understand if the military was abusing people and breaking serious international laws yes that's fine leak it. But releasing the names of our informants? I don't want to know who informs our military of Taliban operations because I want them to keep informing us.

Seriously the search for truth can kill many, sometimes it's best not too look for it.


By inperfectdarkness on 8/4/2010 10:07:07 AM , Rating: 5
precisely.

which is why i was so amazed about the last article on this--and how all the GOOD comments got down-rated by the apologists.

let me paint a different picture:

would you be ok with the names of everyone protective-custody and information-relocation had ever worked with---to be released into the public sector?

that's precisely what's going on here. think about it.

trevor goodchild's "total openness" is a nice utopian fantasy. it's also quite impossible. bad people will do bad things if certain types of information are publically available.

the apologists may now resume suckling at bin laden's teet.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Dark Legion on 8/3/2010 8:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is actually no proof in this article that the two are connected. There is only this statement from newsweek:
quote:
They report that the Taliban believes the documents showed it U.S. sources, including the murder victim, Abdullah -- whether or not they truly do.

Not saying it's not true either, but to answer your question, nowhere. Shoddy reporting at best.

For the love of atheismo, DT, get Mick off the wikileaks articles.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By rdeegvainl on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2010 12:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
You call my statement weak, then follow it up with several weaker hypothetical statements yourself.

quote:
The parents of anyone who committed murder set in motion the chain of events that lead to murder, same of the parents of anyone else who committed a crime.


Are you serious? How is this even remotely comparable to my statement? Reaching a bit much...

quote:
What is absolutely not in dispute is the lives of at least 70 people are ruined by terrorists in a different country that believe they can do or kill whoever they want as long as the claim in it the name of jihad.


Of this we are in perfect agreement. But exposing our Afghan informants isn't exactly going to help us stop those terrorists.


By rdeegvainl on 8/4/2010 4:21:38 PM , Rating: 4
Show where the afghan informants were exposed.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:08:10 AM , Rating: 1
It's not weak at all - it's how the world works. It's more on par with a Polish family during WW2 that ratted out their neighbors and all the Jews hiding in their basement.

It's pretty fucking obvious that it's going to lead to their death. Get a clue, dude.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By AEvangel on 8/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
Prove it? That's not really the point - it doesn't matter if these 70 people are informants or not. Their lives are still ruined all the same.

Still - I can see where you're coming from (even though I don't find the story unbelievable at all), and I, too, hope we get some confirmation soon.


By AEvangel on 8/4/2010 5:49:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Prove it? That's not really the point - it doesn't matter if these 70 people are informants or not. Their lives are still ruined all the same.


I guess your right to some extent people need to realize this is someones simple opinion a "blog post" and as much as they would like to make it seem credible with links to Newsweek, it's quite obvious their personal bias shows through.

Also at the end of the day it's all done to get hits on his blogs and the website to generate more internet traffic, so his employer can make more money.

This has nothing to do with spreading the truth, real facts, or actually helping the poor people living in this war torn land, it's about money, half truths, hearsay, and innuendos.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki