Hopefully Snowden lives long enough to give enough evidence to have Obama impeached. I imagine Snowden mysteriously dies within the next year...Seal Team 6 style.
...people wanted change... they got it. Vote smarter next time people.
Printable View
Hopefully Snowden lives long enough to give enough evidence to have Obama impeached. I imagine Snowden mysteriously dies within the next year...Seal Team 6 style.
...people wanted change... they got it. Vote smarter next time people.
People don't care as long as it doesn't affect them. No one wants to take on a cause and be prosecuted for it. Venting on the internet is enough.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Specifically what was the damage to the US that was done by his releases?
Who specifically died because of his release of information?
Why is it that the whistleblower is convicted to 35 years and the crimes he exposed aren't fixed and the people who committed those crimes not punished?
Why does it matter if he was transgender?
His courtroom statements are of a man trying to beg for his life and admit guilt because he has been broken by a year of what many people consider torture. Eg solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and forced strip naked in a and sleep naked in a cold cell.
Once again no one in the Obama administration or the American government has been able to identify anyone hurt by manning's leaks. The only damage has been that manning exposed the fact that our diplomats are gossipy little girls and that they spy on our "allies". Where is the Valerie plame that was exposed by robert novack?
Where is the kill lists that the obama administration disclosed in order to brag about how tough he was?[/QUOTE]
He did at the very minimum 6.2 million dollars worth of damage.
Dismissing his statement at trial is again, dismissing his agency. He said something you disagree with, therefore, he must not mean it. It's only because he broken.
Anyhow, he knowingly broke several laws he took an oath to uphold. The judge who dismissed the prosecution's strongest assertion, that the Taliban killed someone who was working with the US based on the wikileaks material, still felt his crimes were sufficent to merit a sentence of 35 years.
In short, I don't want a 22 year-old private making foreign policy and deciding upon his own authority to release 700,000 documents.
Your Valerie Plame analogy doesn't really work as she didn't die either and the Robert Novak in this case is Julian Assange, the outsider, not the insider with security clearances.
[QUOTE=reppy]Journalists are allowed to "leak" all the time -- when it benefits the administration in power. The letter of the law does not apply to the elite.[/QUOTE]
Journalists don't leak. They are the recipient of leaks.
However, you're correct, they have been several leaks recently favorable to the administration and they will not be prosecuted.
[QUOTE=COnDEMnED]Hopefully Snowden lives long enough to give enough evidence to have Obama impeached. I imagine Snowden mysteriously dies within the next year...Seal Team 6 style.
...people wanted change... they got it. Vote smarter next time people.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
Book it here.
Snowden is going permanently defect and Julian Assange will move on the next person he can convince to throw his life his away.
[QUOTE=niko]He didn't realize this would be the outcome of what he was doing? He leaked government secrets, you are going to jail. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow and you which you don't. I feel bad for him but didn't he commit the crime of which he's going to jail for?[/QUOTE]yep.
People saying what he leaked didn't hurt people are missing the point. He leaked classified government information. This is not a gray area that some classified information is ok to leak as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
[URL="http://www.alexaobrien.com/verdict.html"]here's a terrific graphic detailing the verdict[/URL]
that comes from Alexa O'brien, whose been covering the trial since it began. her archive for the trial is sorta legalistic but pretty clear and at least you know you're getting the facts.
i should also note, and i didn't realize this until i just went ever it, the prosecution did fail to get an espionage charge to stick... it was the only one Manning's defense refused to enter a reduced plea for, the Granai Airstrike in Afghanistan that killed ~100 ppl. i'm not exactly sure what the difference is between that and say the logs or the diary and i'm too tired to try and figure it out.
[QUOTE]So he could have faced 20 years on these charges alone. I find that serious.[/QUOTE]
well it's serious if you take it at face value and don't evaluate its grounding as well as its implications. 20 years... on what charges? those he plead guilty to? you're the one emphasizing the humanity of the Bradley Manning that leaked the documents. at the same time it only makes sense to emphasize the humanity of the Bradley Manning that is currently standing trial... obviously in an even more confusing and overwhelming position than he was when he stabbed his stepmom or solicited online dates or whatever he did according to that nymag article you posted.
his back is totally up against the wall. he's been maliciously subjected to abuse by guards... highly sexual and humiliating abuse actually, even worse given his background. he's up against the most overwhelmingly powerful institution in the world, in a military courtroom that at least his defense would claim totally biased -- biggest complaints being totally ignoring motive (a factor you ironically brought up in this thread) and using 'potential harm' for the trial and relegating provable harm to the sentencing part. another facotr that comes into play is the concealed nature of the trial itself -- there have been claims that the judge would have felt pressure to treat the whole debacle entirely differently had it been totally open to public access.
of course there was no expectation for complete exoneration, the entire deck was stacked against him. his defense has been playing a violin with its teeth just trying for anything that might work. at least thats my reading.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]However, you're correct, they have been several leaks recently favorable to the administration and they will not be prosecuted.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?
[QUOTE]He did at the very minimum 6.2 million dollars worth of damage.
[/QUOTE]
please give me a source for this
[QUOTE]Dismissing his statement at trial is again, dismissing his agency. He said something you disagree with, therefore, he must not mean it. It's only because he broken.
[/QUOTE]
You think its ok to hold a person for 3 years and 9 months of which were in solitary confinement, 23 hours a day? Making them strip naked and sleep naked in a cold cell and all before being convicted of anything?
The sixth amendment
[QUOTE]In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a [B]speedy[/B] and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[/QUOTE]
3 years is speed to you?
please state the name of the person harmed by Manning's leaks, or admit that the prosecution could not prove in court any specific american had been hurt by manning's leaks.
[QUOTE]In short, I don't want a 22 year-old private making foreign policy and deciding upon his own authority to release 700,000 documents.[/QUOTE]
But you are ok with the 50+ year olds in the US government holding people indefinitely at gitmo on almost no evidence, the pentagon hiding civilian casualty figures (explain how that is operationally sensitive), the military refusing to prosecute the perpetrators of the collateral murder video. All of which Manning's leaks exposed. None of which will ever be punished.
Where is the outrage at those crimes?
[QUOTE=daily]yep.
People saying what he leaked didn't hurt people are missing the point. He leaked classified government information. This is not a gray area that some classified information is ok to leak as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE]
Ok, i think he has already suffered enough and the stuff he leaked had a lot of benefits in informing the American public about our government. We are not supposed to a nation where the government keeps everything a secret from our citizens. We are not supposed to be north korea. What is the problem with Americans knowing that we dont have any evidence on most of the detainees in gitmo? What is the problem with Americans knowing that the pentagon has hid the fact that they keep track of civilian casualty figures? What is the problem with Americans seeing video tape of American soldiers killing iraqi civilians (is seeing it the offensive part)?
But lets for the sake of argument assume he deserves his sentence. Why isnt dick cheney and scooter libby in jail for disclosing Plame's identity? Why isnt the administration official that disclosed the CIA's kill list in jail? Why is it ok for the administration to leak political favorable classified information, but not ok to leak politically unfavorable information?
So the specific section of espionage act is this[QUOTE]Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it; [/QUOTE]
KevinNYC, it's one thing to pick sides (and you choose the one pretty much everyone would expect you to), but to try to play both and feign empathy here when clearly you show by your posts that you don't have any for him is a bit much. You're the only poster here that I can imagine who would defend and cheer if he got a harsher sentence like 60 years to life. And the fact that you turn a blind eye and ignore discussion to stuff like when he was tortured just makes your empathy come off as really fake, man.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]I cant believe some people argued he should have stayed in America to face "Justice".
[/QUOTE]
I know, huh? Given a choice: get tortured and spend most of your life in jail, or not get tortured and not spend most of your life in jail... who would in their right mind choose the former option? And nope, choosing the latter option does not make you a traitor, it means you are sensible and not out of your ****ing mind.
Supposedly this is Bradley Manning's pardon letter to Obama:
[QUOTE]The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.
In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.
Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.
As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter-to-president-requesting-pardon/2013/08/21/b6ae28b4-0ab5-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter-to-president-requesting-pardon/2013/08/21/b6ae28b4-0ab5-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?
please give me a source for this
You think its ok to hold a person for 3 years and 9 months of which were in solitary confinement, 23 hours a day? Making them strip naked and sleep naked in a cold cell and all before being convicted of anything?
The sixth amendment
3 years is speed to you?
please state the name of the person harmed by Manning's leaks, or admit that the prosecution could not prove in court any specific american had been hurt by manning's leaks.
But you are ok with the 50+ year olds in the US government holding people indefinitely at gitmo on almost no evidence, the pentagon hiding civilian casualty figures (explain how that is operationally sensitive), the military refusing to prosecute the perpetrators of the collateral murder video. All of which Manning's leaks exposed. None of which will ever be punished.
Where is the outrage at those crimes?
Ok, i think he has already suffered enough and the stuff he leaked had a lot of benefits in informing the American public about our government. We are not supposed to a nation where the government keeps everything a secret from our citizens. We are not supposed to be north korea. What is the problem with Americans knowing that we dont have any evidence on most of the detainees in gitmo? What is the problem with Americans knowing that the pentagon has hid the fact that they keep track of civilian casualty figures? What is the problem with Americans seeing video tape of American soldiers killing iraqi civilians (is seeing it the offensive part)?
But lets for the sake of argument assume he deserves his sentence. Why isnt dick cheney and scooter libby in jail for disclosing Plame's identity? Why isnt the administration official that disclosed the CIA's kill list in jail? Why is it ok for the administration to leak political favorable classified information, but not ok to leak politically unfavorable information?[/QUOTE]
Hypocritical. Yes, but not surprising.
6.3 million dollars is how much they just investigating the damage Manning did. I'm sure a lot more was spent actually changing practices and methods througout the military and the state Department. One reason Manning was able to get so much material, was security information used to be siloed, security was greater, but the downside it made it much harder for analysts to get the information they needed. After 9/11 they recommended much more openness and information sharing, this has had a lot of benefits of getting useful information back to the front lines quicker. After Manning, they had to start putting walls back up.
I never said one thing about how long Manning was held or his conditions.
Manning was in protective custody/solitary because he was considered a danger to himself, after he fashioned a noose while in custody in Iraq. When he told his guards he could very well choke himself with his underwear they took his clothes away at night.
As for "the perpetrators of the collateral murder video" even Manning believed that was an accident. He was upset that the government was keeping the video from Reuters and the comments of the pilots, but didn't think it was cold blooded murder.
GTFO with North Korea.
Libby's not in jail, because his jail time was commuted by the President of the United States. He still had to pay a fine though. Cheney's not in jail because there was no evidence against him. There was more evidence against Rove.
Manning's time in custody will count against his sentence an he is eligible for parole in about 8 years.
[QUOTE=falc39]KevinNYC, it's one thing to pick sides (and you choose the one pretty much everyone would expect you to), but to try to play both and feign empathy here when clearly you show by your posts that you don't have any for him is a bit much. You're the only poster here that I can imagine who would defend and cheer if he got a harsher sentence like 60 years to life. And the fact that you turn a blind eye and ignore discussion to stuff like when he was tortured just makes your empathy come off as really fake, man.[/QUOTE]
Utter bullshit.
You can have empathy for someone and still realize they are guilty and must pay the penalty. It's a pretty significant part of Christianity. He was a ****ed kid going through a lot of shit, and he bought into the hacker ethic of there should no secrets ever and he made terrible decision and it cost him. But let's be clear. He's guilty.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Utter bullshit.
You can have empathy for someone and still realize they are guilty and must pay the penalty. It's a pretty significant part of Christianity. He was a ****ed kid going through a lot of shit, and he bought into the hacker ethic of there should no secrets ever and he made terrible decision and it cost him. But let's be clear. He's guilty.[/QUOTE]
Bought into "no secrets ever" ethic? Are you joking? He felt what the government was doing was morally wrong. You know, he has something called a [I]conscience[/I], even if people like you try to paint him as mentally ****ed up. Maybe if the government didn't do morally wrong things we wouldn't have leakers like him... ever think of that?
[QUOTE=falc39]Bought into "no secrets ever" ethic? [/QUOTE]
"Information should be free" - Bradley Manning
He leaked in bulk. Do you think he read all 700,000 pages of what he released?
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]He leaked in bulk. Do you think he read all 700,000 pages of what he released?[/QUOTE]
He'll have plenty of time to catch up on his reading now
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]He leaked in bulk. Do you think he read all 700,000 pages of what he released?[/QUOTE]
he leaked in bulk, but if we're talking about the Manning trial -- and not the Wikileaks trial that's surely on the USG agenda -- he certainly had no reason to predict the entire cache would be leaked. which meant that he did not intend whatsoever to harm national defense (or security to be more accurate), he intended to reveal what he believed should be subject to public scrutiny.
it's in the public domain now only because of a journalistic error, months after which Wikileaks decided there was no point in holding back anymore. but initially, only few thousand cables, literally 1% of them, were made available.
[QUOTE=RidonKs]he leaked in bulk, but if we're talking about the Manning trial -- and not the Wikileaks trial that's surely on the USG agenda -- he certainly had no reason to predict the entire cache would be leaked. which meant that he did not intend whatsoever to harm national defense (or security to be more accurate), he intended to reveal what he believed should be subject to public scrutiny.
it's in the public domain now only because of a journalistic error, months after which Wikileaks decided there was no point in holding back anymore. but initially, only few thousand cables, literally 1% of them, were made available.[/QUOTE]
I'm not following your logic. He gave away a giant pile of information. To reverse your question, why would he have any assurance the entire cache wouldn't be leaked?
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I'm not following your logic. He gave away a giant pile of information. To reverse your question, why would he have any assurance the entire cache wouldn't be leaked.[/QUOTE]
poor job phrasing -- he had no reason to believe the entire cache would be revealed to the public. if he intended to reveal all of it to the public, there were a hundred ways to do it. namely the internet. boom, all of it is available, no questions asked.
rather, he went out of his way to ensure the cables were sent to an organization that he believed would analyze them and reveal only that information that warranted no secrecy but that the public deserved to know.
and using the espionage act language you quoted and i paraphrased in this thread, the standard isn't having total assurance that the cache wouldn't be leaked in its entirety. the standard is having a reason to believe national security wouldn't be harmed. i believe, at least without any legal expertise to justify my opinion, that that standard was met. quite easily in fact.
edit: in fact, the real standard is that "united states" wouldn't be injured. which is even more interesting because "the united states" is not defined as the united states government or its own security concerns... it's just "the united states". presumably, the people of the united states. exactly whom bradley manning intended to help.
Leavenworth too. Any time he does there sure as shit won't be easy time.
Wow This KevinNYC guy is such a pest.
Leaking "secret" documents is not a crime. To bring an oath to it - well, the Clapper guy just lied to the Congress and he is fine - now leading the group to reform the very thing he was mighty OK to begin with!!! How about that.
My god Manning revealed the war crimes - what a criminal. :applause:
He did a document dump. Anyone who has gone through training for the type of clearance he had is fully aware of the consequences. They hammer that into you before and after you get the clearance. He did what he thought was right. Kudos to him. Now he is going through the consequences through his own doing. No sympathy from me.
[QUOTE=niko]He didn't realize this would be the outcome of what he was doing? He leaked government secrets, you are going to jail. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow and you which you don't. I feel bad for him but didn't he commit the crime of which he's going to jail for?[/QUOTE]
How about you follow Constition first, and some common sense?
If he saw the evidence of war crimes commited and chose to stay silent, wouldn't that be a real crime? I mean government stamping "secret" over everything that is the evidence of their crime doesn't fly, or does it?
[QUOTE=daily]yep.
People saying what he leaked didn't hurt people are missing the point. He leaked classified government information. This is not a gray area that some classified information is ok to leak as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE]
No.
Hear from Mr. Greenwald himself:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgnJ_W_5zU[/url]
Now even though he was working for a government, the truth comes first. I do not really care about some silly policy saying you have to hide war crimes.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Hopefully, Manning will be able to follow through and become a better person.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully, you'll decide to hurl yourself off a bridge.
[QUOTE=kNIOKAS]
Leaking "secret" documents is not a crime. [/QUOTE]:biggums:
:hammerhead:
:roll:
What do you think this whole trial thing was about?
This really sucks. If only he was talented enough to play football like his brothers Peyton and Eli, this would never have happened.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]:biggums:
:hammerhead:
:roll:
What do you think this whole trial thing was about?[/QUOTE]
This is the case of American citizens being shitheads and letting their government get away with commiting war crimes and oppresing those who think it is not ok.
[QUOTE=kNIOKAS]This is the case of American citizens being shitheads and letting their government get away with commiting war crimes and oppresing those who think it is not ok.[/QUOTE]
Can you PLEASE keep it down already? I'm watching Duck Dynasty.....idiot!!!
[QUOTE=johndeeregreen]Leavenworth too. Any time he does there sure as shit won't be easy time.[/QUOTE]
Bradley Manning is physically small, pre op transgender, and the government hates him. Prediction he gets raped so much that he commits suicide. government acts like they feel bad it happens, but secretly knew it would happen and wanted it to happen. All future war crimes are kept secret.
Its the same as the romans crucifixion practices. The crucified people were always those who challenged the state. The empire needed to make an example of them. They propped them up on a hill so that everyone could see how they died. Needed to intimidate others into submission. Oldest trick in the book.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]:biggums:
:hammerhead:
:roll:
What do you think this whole trial thing was about?[/QUOTE]
Intimidating future people who would disclose information such as:
-contradicting US government claims that they had no information on civilian casualties
-showing that the vast majority of gitmo detainees have been held without trial on no evidence. KevinNYC try to have some compassion for 1 second and imagine you were one of these men. one day an army ranger unit kidnaps you at gunpoint or a CIA officer tosses a bag over your head. All because one of your neighbors had a problem with you. Then you are held for 10+ years without trial. They force feed you because the US government wont allow you to die because it would embarrass them.
You're ok with that right? Because the men who made this decision weren't 22 year old transgender? The real injustice here is that the America people found about it right?
-Video of US pilots killing civilians and first responders and than celebrating their death. the pentagon refuses to follow our laws and release the video to reuters under the freedom of information act (the video is in no way operationally sensitive). The real crime here was leaking the video right?
You are ok with the US government supporting arab dictatorships and giving weapons to people we know are likely to use them against civilians right? the real crime is letting the American people know about it right?
We got to follow the rules blindly, if a soldier sees a war crime and they are ordered to suppress it, the moral thing to do is to keep their oath right? Follow orders at all times? You see evidence that innocent people have been held for no reason by our government for 10+ years, the immoral thing to do is to tell the american people right? gotta keep that oath right?
Also disclosing classified information is only a crime when it hurts the administration right? The political ramifications are what make it a crime right? Sure the government couldn't prove a specific person that was hurt by the leaks, but they stained the reputation of the government right? Leaking classified info about the CIA kill list helped the government so it was perfectly legal right?
Honestly man how much of your defense of the government here is related to the fact that you support Obama no matter what? I know people like you man, my cousin and I used to always talk about how Bush was violating our constitutional rights wiretapping without warrants and shit. Nowadays its just that Obama needs to protect us. Be honest if McCain were president you would support Manning.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]:roll:
Book it here.
Snowden is going permanently defect and Julian Assange will move on the next person he can convince to throw his life his away.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that the actual revelations don't offend you at all?
Only the people being that did the revealing.
[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]He did a document dump. Anyone who has gone through training for the type of clearance he had is fully aware of the consequences. They hammer that into you before and after you get the clearance. He did what he thought was right. Kudos to him. Now he is going through the consequences through his own doing. No sympathy from me.[/QUOTE]
:biggums:
Sometimes laws are unjust. A slave runs away from his owner he broke the law technically, that means he is undeserving of sympathy?
If a soldier sees a war crime, and is ordered to cover it up, but because of morals discloses it to the few reporters willing to go against the US government and then is punished for it he doesn't deserve sympathy?
1 question were the nazi and imperial japanese soldiers wrong to follow orders when they were ordered to destroy evidence of war crimes?
Edit: Honestly what for the US government apologists here:
what is the problem in a free country for the citizenry to know how many civilian's their government has killed in military operations? what is the problem with letting American citizens know that the vast majority of gitmo detainees have been imprisoned without trial and on no evidence? What is the problem with letting American citizens see a video of US soldiers killing civilians and first responders?
Bradley mannings leaks didn't contain top secret fighter plane designs, missile designs or any other weapon design. They didnt disclose the identity of specific CIA or military agents. They didnt disclose CIA or military operations. They didnt disclose future US military plans.
Which piece of disclosed information should not be known by the citizenry of a free country?
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Bradley Manning is physically small, pre op transgender, and the government hates him. Prediction he gets raped so much that he commits suicide. government acts like they feel bad it happens, but secretly knew it would happen and wanted it to happen. All future war crimes are kept secret.
Its the same as the romans crucifixion practices. The crucified people were always those who challenged the state. The empire needed to make an example of them. They propped them up on a hill so that everyone could see how they died. Needed to intimidate others into submission. Oldest trick in the book.
Intimidating future people who would disclose information such as:
-contradicting US government claims that they had no information on civilian casualties
-showing that the vast majority of gitmo detainees have been held without trial on no evidence. KevinNYC try to have some compassion for 1 second and imagine you were one of these men. one day an army ranger unit kidnaps you at gunpoint or a CIA officer tosses a bag over your head. All because one of your neighbors had a problem with you. Then you are held for 10+ years without trial. They force feed you because the US government wont allow you to die because it would embarrass them.
You're ok with that right? Because the men who made this decision weren't 22 year old transgender? The real injustice here is that the America people found about it right?
-Video of US pilots killing civilians and first responders and than celebrating their death. the pentagon refuses to follow our laws and release the video to reuters under the freedom of information act (the video is in no way operationally sensitive). The real crime here was leaking the video right?
You are ok with the US government supporting arab dictatorships and giving weapons to people we know are likely to use them against civilians right? the real crime is letting the American people know about it right?
We got to follow the rules blindly, if a soldier sees a war crime and they are ordered to suppress it, the moral thing to do is to keep their oath right? Follow orders at all times? You see evidence that innocent people have been held for no reason by our government for 10+ years, the immoral thing to do is to tell the american people right? gotta keep that oath right?
Also disclosing classified information is only a crime when it hurts the administration right? The political ramifications are what make it a crime right? Sure the government couldn't prove a specific person that was hurt by the leaks, but they stained the reputation of the government right? Leaking classified info about the CIA kill list helped the government so it was perfectly legal right?
Honestly man how much of your defense of the government here is related to the fact that you support Obama no matter what? I know people like you man, my cousin and I used to always talk about how Bush was violating our constitutional rights wiretapping without warrants and shit. Nowadays its just that Obama needs to protect us. Be honest if McCain were president you would support Manning.[/QUOTE]
You're constructing the very definition of a strawman argument.
Also don't accuse me of not having compassion. When I showed that towards manning earlier, I was accused of smearing him. Also I doubt he gets raped ever at Leavenworth, that's more of a state prison issue. You finding his motives acceptable, doesn't make him any less culpable.
A lot of good points, but the thing that stands out the most is:
1. Can't believe KevNYC is using a low ball deceptive use of logic in calling out Manning as a transgender. Haha what a loser. Look at this idiot trying to grasp at bullsh*t to make himself sound more reasonable.
2. The argument is split 50/50: one side believes Manning is guilty because he broke the law; another side doesn't believe the law is broken because what is being leaked is criminal in and of itself. It's hard to find a solution to this problem, so the question everybody should ask themselves is, "What does KevNYC think?" Usually the opposite of that should be the correct one.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Utter bullshit.
You can have empathy for someone and still realize they are guilty and must pay the penalty. It's a pretty significant part of Christianity. He was a ****ed kid going through a lot of shit, and he bought into the hacker ethic of there should no secrets ever and he made terrible decision and it cost him. But let's be clear. He's guilty.[/QUOTE]
So basically you're saying 'Ok I feel sort of sorry (not really), but he broke the law, and the law is the final word', while everybody is saying 'I feel really sorry for him, and the law is wrong'. Or that's what it seems like to me.
So I guess what really should be the topic is 'Should the laws be changed?'
who the hell decides to convert to being a female while doing a 35 year bid.
Nope the new premise should be:
1. What does KevNYC think? You have two possible outcome. If you agree with him, your position is incorrect. If you disagree, your position is correct.
That should be the new gold standard in seperating truth from fiction.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]You're constructing the very definition of a strawman argument.
Also don't accuse me of not having compassion. When I showed that towards manning earlier, I was accused of smearing him. Also I doubt he gets raped ever at Leavenworth, that's more of a state prison issue. You finding his motives acceptable, doesn't make him any less culpable.[/QUOTE]
No, he's making points beyond the surface level, something you can't seem to go beyond or want to acknowledge. Quite the artful dodger you are being here.
And one or two sentences doesn't make you seem compassionate when everything else you write comes off as the opposite.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]:biggums:
Sometimes laws are unjust. A slave runs away from his owner he broke the law technically, that means he is undeserving of sympathy? [B]You don't think it is silly to equate slavery with a guy who voluntarily signed up for the Army and who went through all the training to get the clearance he received? He was told over and over the consequences of revealing classified information. The slave had no choice with the situation given.[/B]
If a soldier sees a war crime, and is ordered to cover it up, but because of morals discloses it to the few reporters willing to go against the US government and then is punished for it he doesn't deserve sympathy? [B]Are you under the impression that he only gave up information pertaining to alledged war crimes? Are you under the impression he looked over each document before giving it to wikileaks? If he had only given up data revealing suspected war crimes then he wouldn't be in this situation. It's the 700,000 plus documents he gave up that had nothing to do with war crimes that has ****ed him. There have been other soldiers and contractors who have revealed suspected war crimes and they have not been imprisoned over it.[/B]
1 question were the nazi and imperial japanese soldiers wrong to follow orders when they were ordered to destroy evidence of war crimes? [B]The revealing of war crimes (people committing atrocities isn't what has gotten him in hot water) didn't lead to the full weight of the US government coming down on him. Revealing interactions with our allies amongst other things is what led to him getting the hammer. Was Manning ordered to destroy evidence? No. Did he bring any of this to the attention of his command or JAG? Did he attempt to do so and was rebuffed so felt he had no choice but to do a document dump of what he saw and what he didn't read over? [/B]
Edit: Honestly what for the US government apologists here:
what is the problem in a free country for the citizenry to know how many civilian's their government has killed in military operations? what is the problem with letting American citizens know that the vast majority of gitmo detainees have been imprisoned without trial and on no evidence? What is the problem with letting American citizens see a video of US soldiers killing civilians and first responders? [B]Why would you need to know how many people are killed in a war? There has been extensive coverage with regards to GITMO and the treatment of prisoners. Are you unaware of this? My problem is not with the video being leaked showing soldiers violating the Geneva convention. If that had been the extent of what he did (something that others have revealed; Abu Gharabe as one example) then I suspect the reaction would have been very different from the military and the Administration.[/B]
Bradley mannings leaks didn't contain top secret fighter plane designs, missile designs or any other weapon design. They didnt disclose the identity of specific CIA or military agents. They didnt disclose CIA or military operations. They didnt disclose future US military plans. [B]You don't understand. He went through the training which explicitely mentioned it would be a violation to reveal classified data. He willfully disregarded that and dumped a few hundred thousand files to wikileaks, which revealed classified, secret and top secret data. I am amazed this is so hard to understand. Maybe it is because you're a civilian who has never had the classified training. I doubt to this day the majority of those files have been gone over by wikileaks, so who really knows the extent of the damage? The government certainly wouldn't reveal the extent of it. [/B]
Which piece of disclosed information should not be known by the citizenry of a free country? [B]Why do you need to know it? Your feeling is that all data within the US government and military should be available to the general public or is it just certain data you feel should be available at all times to the public? I take it you think nothing should be classified?[/B][/QUOTE]
Is it possible to agree with a few things Manning did while disagreeing with other things? I feel the same about Snowden. I've no problem with him as an NSA contractor objecting to domestic spying as the NSA is specifically charged with none domestic data gathering. My problem with him was revealing the data gathering we do overseas as the NSA is lawfully charged to do this. That aspect he knew taking the job.
[quote][B]Why would you need to know how many people are killed in a war?[/B] There has been extensive coverage with regards to GITMO and the treatment of prisoners. Are you unaware of this? My problem is not with the video being leaked showing soldiers violating the Geneva convention. If that had been the extent of what he did (something that others have revealed; Abu Gharabe as one example) then I suspect the reaction would have been very different from the military and the Administration.[/quote]
Please re-read what you just said and [i]really[/i] think about it.
[quote]You don't understand. He went through the training which explicitely mentioned it would be a violation to reveal classified data.[/quote]
I wonder what kind of training the people went through that led them to shoot unarmed civilians. Did anything ever happen to them? Are they going to jail for 35 years?
[quote]He willfully disregarded that and dumped a few hundred thousand files to wikileaks, which revealed classified, secret and top secret data. I am amazed this is so hard to understand. Maybe it is because you're a civilian who has never had the classified training. I doubt to this day the majority of those files have been gone over by wikileaks, so who really knows the extent of the damage? The government certainly wouldn't reveal the extent of it.[/quote]
What "top secret" data did he release? I keep hearing people shriek and howl about all this super sensitive information he released... I haven't seen anyone actually point to anything that was damaging. Embarrassing? Yes. Threat to national security? Not from what I've seen.