Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning Charged With Aiding the Enemy
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Washington Post reports that the army has brought twenty-two new charges — including the Article 104 offence of 'aiding the enemy' that carries a potential death sentence — against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, a former intelligence analyst accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks. The new charges, filed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, include wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it will be accessed by the enemy, that US officials have asserted could put soldiers and civilians at risk. However the prosecution has notified Manning's attorneys that it will not recommend the death penalty and the charge sheet, like the original set of accusations, contains no mention by name of the enemy to which the US military is referring. Manning's supporters reacted to the new charges with dismay. 'I'm shocked that the military opted to charge Pfc. Bradley Manning today with the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy,' says Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist, which has raised money for Manning's defense. 'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"
That "enemy" being the American people.
but he gave the info to wikileaks which is cool, so they should just like let him go and tell him not to do it again
It'll be interesting to watch the prosecution try to weasel out of this simple question.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
did anybody think he would get off with a warning? at least the prosecutor said he would not seek the death penalty. guess the US doesn't want a martyr's blood on its hands.
Yeah, because US people are way more important and deserve to be alive. The rest of us are less important and our lives are disposable.
If there's one thing the business of government will not tolerate, it's competition -- especially when that competition exposes government as the incompetent, self-serving elite which they are. The plain fact is that Manning and Wikileaks did what government could not -- and in the process exposed their corrupt objectives -- and now the elite at the top of the pyramid are absolutely fuming.
I don't know if there's anything I enjoy more than watching the power pyramid squirm with jealousy and embarrassment.
And his disclosures to wikileaks are arguably responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia, which set off Egypt and Libya. Maybe he should get a peace prize before you go and kill him.
It does not matter what the content of the leak was or what supposedly beneficial effect it had. Breaking faith with your country and failing to follow orders cannot go unpunished.
Pretty sure that the GUY WHO SET HIMSELF ON FIRE was the catalyst for the revolution in Tunisia.
The law also forced Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color. Some laws are immoral and need to be broken for the greater good.
Hes not going to get the death penalty, but he better get the book thrown at him and along with everything else AND the kitchen sink. on a side note.. with all the info he leaked what no info on the states having UFOs or stuff on the MIBs geez. at least leak something worth while to read.
Just as in the previous two Bush administration (this being the third Bush administration currently), the "enemy" is whoever is not "with us". Anyone who did not aid in invading Afghanistan or Iraq can be counted as an "enemy". Anyone who doesn't view tax breaks for the rich as the pathway to economic salvation is an "enemy". Anyone who uses a god-forsaken and wholly Un-American "socialized" single-payer health care system can be an "enemy".
Sure, Manning aided someone from at least one of those categories.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Remember that to stand any hope of getting their sticky mits on Julian Assange they have to say
"honest, we sure ain't gonna shoot him".
UK extradition LAw (An afaik European as well) states that extradtition is not on the card where the death penalty is involved.
So Pfc Manning has to avoid the death penalty just so the judges over here can say, "off you jolly well go Mr Assange".
Then they sentence both of them to 999years without parole in Gitmo after a 30min sham trial in Cuba having given the EU two very big fingers and a dose of 'we don't care'.
then Pres Obama can tell the Americans, 'Job Done'.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE THRUTH
He did the crime, and he's going to do the time.
What, no presumption of innocence? No due process? We've made so much progress!
I disagree, if you have clear evidence of a crime, you are obligated to disclose that information. If not by US law, then by the 'be a fucking human being' law. Let the courts sort it out later.
I have not read the leaked documents, so I can't comment about how many, if any, fall under the above.
Also in this case, since it was a capital crime, "doing the time" could very well mean he would be executed. The punishment seems very much disproportionate to what he actually did. All he did was expose corruption and for that he should get the firing squad?
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
Are you kidding? When the powers that be commit treason by disregarding the Constitution, it is freedom of speech, like that exercised by Manning, that allows us to tell the world about it.
Mostly he did not expose corruption. He provided a wholesale dump of classified government data to someone who was going to publish it on the internet. And if you think this was good, look at what Mugabe has done with this information in Zimbabwe.
Jesus, get out of my country. (Briton here)
People like you are what gives retards in power the power they have.
Not only will he not get his arse kicked, he is likely going to be killed because America are embarrassed that such secrets got out to "the enemy" and want to make an example of him.
I bet you'd probably cover for cops abusive powers as well.
You are one sad example of a human. I hope you aren't in a position of power.
2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
That is ridiculous. Ever read "Civil Disobedience"? Few would argue the American revolution wasnt a moral case of breaking laws, or that the civil rights movement wasnt a moral case of breaking the laws. I can think of several laws off the top of my head that should be broken regularly if it suites a person. Marijuana use, prostitution, and buying alcohol on Sundays.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
The People.
Ask an Egyptian
Ask a Tunisian.
Ask someone who marched in Selma.
The Digital Sorceress
>>>He did the crime,
I doubt it. The docs were also being leaked to the New York Times, and they say their source was not a private. This looks like a frame job to me.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Apparently, so did Manning... Maybe he'll be the catalyst for the revolution in America. Which is long overdue, by the way.
Really? Even the feds admitted there were no tactical threats from his release, and that it consisted largely of embarrassing diplomatic emails. If you make this claim, you should back it up, because when even the feds admit there was no threat. Innocent until proven guilty, so you need to provide proof.
It's amazing that even after so much corruption in government has been exposed, the common man simply brushes it off and reverts to blindly trusting authority. If that doesn't illustrate the power of indoctrination, I don't know what does.
In the absolute, I would agree. The world would be a nightmare if everything was public. Big governmental agencies needs privacy.
The problem is all the wrongdoing that has been shielded this way. When someone is the witness of so much abuse, it is a civic behaviour to violate secrecy agreement and divulgate all the wrong doing.
This is a risky behaviour, but in this case, it was heroic. Governmental agencies shall be warned that secrecy shall not be used for hiding wrongdoing. They shall have ethic and behave well, otherwise they will lose all secrecy.
Bradley E. Manning deserves a reward for his good action.
How many lives were saved by making the document "secret" which revealed Hillary had stolen credit card numbers from visiting dignitaries?
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Rules are made for a reason.
Yes - but the fact that a rule exists doesn't make it a good rule or correct to use in every situation. How would you like a rule that had a dealth penalty for posting dumb comments?
Failing to name "the enemy" is standard military procedure. Referring to them by a name would humanize them more than a generic noun like "the enemy" would.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz1FXksZKgb
1) Manning signs up with the military... in doing so he specifically agrees to be held accountable for pesky little things like treason.
2) Manning commits treason.
Why shouldn't he be held accountable?
Your analogy is missing a big element... Rosa Parks was being discriminated against for no reason. Manning willingly agreed to those rules, so it's not enough to say "he did good by breaking the rules". He still broke something he agreed to uphold and the punishment is warranted on that grounds alone.
In a perfect world he would have gotten many people in the US military/government tried for war crimes, but he still leaked military secrets to the public and no matter the content that is treason. Just because other people did really bad stuff doesn't give him card blanche to do it too (unless you believe it does, in which case it's a different though equally interesting conversation).
I invite you to change my mind on this, but you'll have to do a lot better than racism for your analogy.
And I don't believe for a second that 1) he was doing this for some higher cause, more like blatent teen narcissism; or that 2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
Point 1 is a baseless ad hominem attack, and as for point 2, that is complete and utter bullshit. Some laws need to be broken, Rosa Parks was not just a criminal.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wow, a lot of dumb posts for this article. I'm not a lawyer of military justice, but releasing sensitive classified documents onto the internet is certainly, in layman's vernacular, "aiding the enemy". We are currently fighting two actual declared hot wars, and we have enemies in each of those, and in each of those the enemies gained operable knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have. How is that NOT aiding the enemy?
To me it is a plain case of treason and capital punishment seems reasonable, but a life sentence could also be reasonable if the prosecution is feeling generous.
A mere forty years ago a great whistleblower did his work and risked all, but did not get placed in brutal imprisonment and danger of death for putting his country's moral character to a test, and even a corrupt President would voluntarily resign upon the revelation of his lawbreaking. I speak of course of Danny Ellsberg and President Nixon.
Anyone who could become privy to what Pvt. Manning did, that is that the USA conducts thinly veiled torture with electric shock, waterboarding, psychological torture, and that it renditions prisoners to regimes like the recently deposed one in Egypt which engage in blatant torture including drills,
anyone who could see that this is a blatant exercise of power meant to subdue the disadvantaged of the world and mold the economics to the advantage of America's elite to the detriment of everyone else, including future generations,
anyone who could see the brutality of willful shoot-ups of civilians and journalists by snickering, racist Apache gunship crews,
anyone who could see the contravention of international law and agreements we are assigned to and to which our national honor is affixed by deliberate scheming,
anyone who could see that the nature of our government's policies is hidden, distorted, or misrepresented to its constituents
and hold their peace, working in silent assent to atrocities, and not speak out, would have been convicted at Nuremberg, would have made themselves directly share responsibility for monstrous crimes, and would be no guardian of liberty or law, but a tool to those who corrupt both. If the letter of the law is all that is right and Bradley Manning is a criminal for blowing the whistle on the corrupt exercise of power, then everyone who signed the American Declaration of Independence ought to have hung too, and apologies are due for this nation's existence altogether with its rights and wrongs, and a ridiculous and futile exercise - thus the powers that would have Manning punished are discredited.
They who would sacrifice essential freedom for a little security will gain neither, and lose both, quoth Ben Franklin.
They who would sacrifice basic humanity and law for obedience to tyrants are heirs to tyranny and the stain that brings, and none of the things that have ever made this country worth fighting for. We'll need more people like Manning to get our country back from the plutocrats and propaganda that have already plundered its wealth for their wars.
Isn't it funny that we (the US) don't care about Mugabe, but do care so much about Libya? I wonder why?
There is a war going on for your mind.
I haven't heard that. Do you have a reference for that?
There is a war going on for your mind.
Keeping a secret is not inherently immoral. We all agree that individuals have a right to privacy.
Individuals do not have a right to keep crimes private, any more than government does.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The media has already said that it's unlikely prosecutors will press for a 21-gun salute to the head.
Obvious. It occurred after the leak, so it was obviously because of the leak.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
unless your smoking the same stuff which Krugman of the NYT is because he claims its because Obama is President and our audacity and courage to elect him empowered the people of the Middle East to revolt.
As for aiding the enemy, well, pick one. I am sure we can make one up if we need it. There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them. Its far better to portray it as Us vs The Man even though half the place is willing to hand over all rights and money provided they think someone else gets the shaft.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That's all well and good, but we shouldn't be shocked when the person who broke the law gets the penalty imposed by the law. It's to be expected.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I was wondering the same thing.
If anyone has any information to substantiate the claim of "It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East" I'd like to see it.
Purely curious here. I feel like I missed something huge.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) supersedes civilian law when dealing with members of the Armed Forces: Army, Air Force, Navy (Marines included here, even though they hate being told that they're in the Navy :P ) & Coast Guard.
When enlisting or accepting a commission, you swear an oath to uphold all of these laws and much, much more. You forgo your Constitutional rights -- this is one of the reasons that military service is considered making a sacrifice. You accept a new set of rights which are outlined in the UCMJ. What a Private First Class thinks is of no concern -- Privates are for doing, Sergeants are for making sure things are done, and Officers are for thinking (in a nutshell). His only obligation is to follow the lawful orders given to him by his seniors.
Whenever something is done by a Soldier, it is often covered by multiple Articles of the UCMJ. For example, mouthing off to a senior NonCommissioned Officer may violate the following:
Article 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures.
An interaction as simple as "Private Smith, take out the trash." -- "Fuck you Sergeant Jones!" is clearly more complex than one guideline, and is that NCO or Officer's duty to interpret and punish accordingly.
The same laws which protect the United States and its allies also protect each service member. He will receive a fair trial through Courts Martial, and may be found guilty or not. If he has been found to (intentionally or unintentionally) disclose sensitive or classified information, he will pay accordingly. Each charge will be looked at both individually and collectively as to its intent and results. The military takes care of its own.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Yes because Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Or was it Eurasia? So many enemies...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
'I'm shocked that the military opted to charge Pfc. Bradley Manning today with the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy,' says Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist, which has raised money for Manning's defense.
I fully expected the prosecution to throw the book at Manning. Waving the threat of capital punishment serves as a great way to make future Mannings think twice before replicating his actions. (or at least to remain sensibly quiet about doing so)
Maybe you missed it - but Obama is a Democrat... He is currently the President / Commander in Chief, not George Bush... Crazy I know.
Big Government agencies shouldn't exist to have privacy.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
Specifically, you can be charged as an 'accessory after the fact' if you conceal evidence of a crime. I'm not actually sure if official secrets are a defence against this, so not disclosing an official secret that concealed a crime and disclosing it could both be illegal in some cases.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
charged != convicted.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ask a KKK member in the 30s.
Oh, wait...
The absolute rule of majority is not democracy. It's tyranny. If popular support was everything needed to break laws you can call most populist South American dictators as heroes.
I'm a Brazilian. Brazil is an interesting country. In the 1700s Brazil had a very fast growth epoch, enough the scare Lisbon. Lisbon decreed a 20% tax on mining profits, a ban on all manufacturing industries and the use of military force to collect taxes, if needed (the derrama). A few bored intellectuals started an independence movement - but the population overall just supported the Portuguese Crown, being Catholics and the divine theory of the right of Kings. When the Portuguese discovered the movement they chose a scape goat, hang him, chopped him in little pieces and scattered him between Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais - like between New York to Boston.
The same population that then supported the Crown also supported the Vargas dictatorship in the 30s. The Vagas dictatorship started displaced the democratic (although elitist) government that ruled the country from 1889 to 1930s. After the Vagas dictatorship the country would only live a very troubled democracy between 1945 to 1964 - but with strong military interventions. The democracy has only been restored in the late 80s, after a lot of blood been spilled.
Popular support is a component of democracy but it's not enough to decide the fairness of laws.
But isn't that exactly the point - that the USA should not be stealing credit card numbers from visiting dignitaries in the first place? And this release of information will help prevent this sort of immoral thing from happening in the future.
He also swore an oath to uphold the ideals and the constitution of the USA. When he finds evidence that those ideals are being violated by those further up the chain of command, what is the correct response?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This has been asked-for many, many times on /.
Nobody here ever makes the effort to substantiate this claim.
However, lots and lots of people here repeat it, nonetheless.
Yeah, this was an ego thing for sure. That's why he submitted it to a secret leaking organization anonymously.
Idiot.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
when it comes to publishing information almost everything about the effects is "Arguably".
The leaks about the leaders of the countries in question wouldn't have helped.
The government there was afraid enough of the information in the cables to censor wikileaks and sites which referenced the cables about tunisia.
of course they might not have actually done much to accelerate the revolutions either.
we can't be sure.
it's not falsifiable either way unless you can think of some objective way of deciding beyond your ironclad certainty that wikileaks could have had no effect at all.
There are quite a few articles like this that allege that the cables about the Tunisian government combined with the self-immolation of the grocer to ignite the revolution. Please note that the Tunisian government thought that the cables were important enough that they blocked access to Wikileaks and other sites that were carrying news about the leaked cables, and reportedly imprisoned some people over their dissemination.
From the article:
No one is suggesting WikiLeaks and its editor Julian Assange can take full credit for toppling the corrupt Tunisian regime. But the whistleblower's contribution to Ben Ali's downfall might at least give the US Justice Department, determined to prosecute Assange as a spy, pause for thought.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
WTF is going on with people? He's now in detention, can he still leak documents? Then why the hell are you treating him like he's a threat to all human beings? Damn the US authorities.
Everyone who has ever been granted a security clearance understands what the consequences of disclosing classified information to unauthorized parties. If he didn't think he would get caught, well that's his problem. History is full of people serving life sentences or given the death penalty for unauthorized disclosure or espionage (Lonetree, Ames). He did the crime, he must face the consequences.
He fought The Law; The Law Won.
>>>He did the crime,
I doubt it. The docs were also being leaked to the New York Times, and they say their source was not a private. This looks like a frame job to me.
The docs were initially given to the Times by Julian Assange himself. Once that relationship went sour, the Guardian continued to share (initially quietly) the information with the Times. Citation. There was a much, much longer story in the Times itself on the entire relationship between WikiLeaks, the Times, the Guardian, and that paper from Spain, but I can't find it now. The before-linked WSJ article sums it up nicely, however.
Assuming, for the sake of argument that Manning actually did it (which has not been proven, but seems likely).
The important question you should ask yourself is what is "traitor" and what is a "patriot"? By definition, treason is acting against the best interests of your nation, thus whether Manning is a traitor or patriot depends entirely on whether he was justified in releasing the documents. If he exposed important wrong doing on the part of the government then he acted in the best interests of his nation and can not be a traitor.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Contacting JAG
The only traitors here are the lying scumbags in public office that Manning exposed. America's politicians need to be exposed for the corrupt assholes they are. The people in charge of our government are the ones who are selling out the country. The more embarrassment they get the better. Manning is a hero for the people of this great country, and this is an example of no good deed going unpunished.
Some people think that he's guilty because he was charged. Some people think he's innocent because he was charged. I think I'll let the due process play out.
Manning is accused of creating pretty much all major US military leaks published in 2010. Within months of these leaks which focus on the Middle East to a great part, a cascade of popular revolts sweeps through most Middle Eastern nations.
Naturally, the promotion of actual democracy in these nations threatens the strategic position of the US as the sole bringer of Iraq-style "freedom". It's hard to force a regime change in democratic countries (well, the US did that during the cold war, but that was before the internet). Freedom in the Middle East is the enemy. Manning and Wikileaks aid the enemy.
Very arguably, tension in those countries has been building for years along with their population. Social media, or more to the point, the free flow of information has the tendency to reduce friction in systems it infects. By friction, I don't mean social friction, I mean the stickiness of resistance to change of those systems. Wikileaks was a very small piece of the information flows that unstuck those medieval societies. And what example are the rebels pointing to: Democracy.
Having said that, not all information should be free, say, your personal habits for marketdroids, your bank records, your medical records, reporters' sources, diplomatic cables, etc.
That's news to me. Please enlighten us: exactly when did congress formally declare war as the constitution requires? Oh, that's right -- they haven't actually declared a war since WW2. Stop spouting bullshit.
Those who fought in the American Revolution would say the same thing. Aren't Manning and all the other members of our armed forces supposed to be fighting for the same thing?
Also, wasn't there some story a couple weeks ago about the DOJ not being able to find any link between Manning and WikiLeaks?
Every bit of this smells rotten.
Rosa Parks was not just a criminal.
Yes, she was. Like it or not, she was.
The thing is however, after much prodding, we realized that she shouldn't be a criminal. She is however, a criminal.
So am I for that matter, as I've broken the law as well, but just because you don't agree with the law doesn't change the fact that it was broken.
Change the law, don't break it. Sometimes it takes breaking it to point out how stupid it is and to get people to take action, but that is NOT YOUR FIRST METHOD TO FIX THE LAW, its the last.
As you'll see in someones sig floating around slashdot comments, there are 4 boxes for the defense of liberty:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Used in that order, not any other order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The State Department called for both to step down. What's your definition for "not caring?" That we have a bigger reaction to Helicopter gunships firing into crowds and fighter jets bombing civilians then we do a country where the military kept violence relatively low? If you think it's economic based do you honestly think losing Libya's oil would cause a greater impact then losing access to the suez canal?
If he'd been more specific it would be easier to defend him: for example if he'd only leaked reports about the killings of civilians which didn't get reported accuratly at home or the collateral murder video.
If the only thing he'd revealed had been serious crimes which had been shielded from scrutiny by the classification laws then I'd be leaping to defend him.
But he just seemed to download everything and sent it to a foreign journalistic(ish) entity.
There's a difference between exposing something unconscionable to light of day and just throwing the doors open and giving everything away.
The former should be lauded and rewarded, agreement or no, the latter should be punished even if there are some horrible things discovered as a result.
I wish I had a mod point for you. Thank you for a dose of sanity.
I think you missed the point.
"innocent until proven guilty" not "well he did the crime" when no court has actually pronounced him guilty of the crime.
Not such a good idea to appeal to "the people" in a discussion sub-thread where Rosa Parks or Selma was mentioned. When the U.S. judiciary in the 1950s, and the executive in the early 1960s, acted to protect the civil rights of blacks, "the people" were not yet in favor. For instance, the majority of Americans thought Brown v. Board of Education was decided wrongly. Sometimes the U.S. government acts against the popular will of the people -- and thank goodness for it.
That's not to say that your appeal to "the people" is off-base -- not at all. Just that the world has more shades of gray than you seem to be allowing. Similarly, many people here on /. are adamantly opposed to government secrecy of any kind, even though it's easy to point to cases where government secrecy saved lives or prevented horrible things from happening. Those cases are almost always historical -- that is, they happened decades ago -- because at the time such events occur (or are prevented from occurring), the secrets are, well, secrets, so most people don't know about the positive role secrecy played until a long time later when the need for secrecy is no longer present. But that doesn't mean there aren't secrets being kept right now that aren't necessary, despite the black-and-white worldview of a lot of people here.
I'm not going to comment on whether he was in the right or wrong.
2) Got very angry at having to be a closet homosexual, even though the military is generally not interested in punishing people who are "discrete homosexuals."
You're an idiot. They punish "indiscreet" homosexuals, but not "indescreet" hetrosexuals. It would be entirely fine and fair if they punished soldier who brought their wife/husband along to some event for being indiscreetly hetrosexusal. But they don't so they're still wildly biased. Do not try to spin this policy as in any way reasonable.
no unethical behavior,
. It was indiscriminate in a "you screwed with me, so I'll screw you right back" way.
So? Just because he didn't have the right motivation didn't mean that he didn't reveal whole heaps of unethical behavior. I can tell you're very much biased because you're trying to use unrelated facts (his motivation) to discredit other facts (the leaked material).
You're being as emotional as the "nutjob dupporters" you so vigorously decry.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's the response those in charge of the military want, largely because they know it's not going to change anything and it helps them keep an eye on troublemakers. Whether it's the moral response is another question entirely.
We (I'm from the U.S.) aren't officially at war with anyone. How could he be aiding an enemy that doesn't exist?
Put identity in the browser.
Will some one give him a Code Red?
"Lets just hand out free medical care! The Canadians do it! We're letting people die in the street!"
As a Canadian, yes we do, it works very well, and we laugh at your stupidity when you fight against it. Its just one more thing that makes us shake our heads and say "dumb redneck americans have no idea whats good for them"
Talking points straight out of Glenn Beck's ass. I hope you're being sarcastic, because it feels like I'm feeding a troll.
You're probably going to get modded down for that; but it illustrates the error in the original assertion quite succinctly.
In the late 1700s you could ask someone in the US. It happened again in both the 18 and 1960s. Too bad so few get it now.
I think they should, in private, do all kinds of research like that. Are you kidding me? This is the fate of the world, I would expect and hope every single person we have sent to any other country for that kind of a political position is closely monitored by the host country. I would expect Russia, the UK, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Brazil and.... well maybe not Brazil.... to have the DNA of every single US President since DNA analysis came about as well as any other information they can get on him. Credit cards of dignitaries is just such a non-issue. They're credit cards! Even drug dealers know when not to use them!
I'm sorry but credit card numbers? Really? thats what you chose as a secret we shouldn't have been keeping? Grow up, this isn't a commune, this is international politics. The only reason its a secret is so other countries don't know what we know and may make a mistake when doing something they might not want us to know.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail. Your solution is a non-solution.
This is the danger Eisenhower warned us about - an industrial-military that is unaccountable for its constitutional violations.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
If he felt that his action was morally necessary, he must accept the potential consequences.
Truly gross amounts of information that should be in the public domain are classified by the US gov't. Some of us are working to change that system. Going 'vigilante' and deciding to release that information yourself (and let's assume he did it for moral reasons, and not primarily attention-whoring), well, you play the game and take your chances.
I know if I or someone I knew was put in danger by their names being leaked, I'd want the death penalty, too.
I'd be curious how many of his "free information!" supporters were faux-outraged by the 'leaking' of Valerie Plame's former covert status? (ie motivated primarily by politics, not ethics)
-Styopa
How about you define patriotic? Last I checked, torturing people wasn't actually part of our big Stars and Stripes and fireworks and what have you extravaganza that is this nation.
There is no -1 Disagree.
The problem I have with your argument is the lack of discrimination Pfc Manning displayed on what constitutes "evidence that those ideals are being violated". Had Manning leaked only things that tend to show some sort of wrong doing I might have agreed with you. But a great deal of what was released was secret yet not sensitive information that had no bearing on any ideals. From wikipedia:
The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
The leaked cables expose that British official revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, even though international treaties prohibit spying at the UN.[47] Further, they reveal that U.S. diplomats told an Afghan government official to keep quiet after they learned that a major U.S. government contractor firm was pimping little boys to be auctioned off to be raped by Afghan policemen in parties organized by the contractor
While there was information in the cables that should have been exposed, there was a lot that should not have been like what US ambassadors thought of French President Sarkozy. I don't know why Pfc Manning disclosed the information and I don't know why he didn't limit it to revelations of wrong doing. But I don't share your view of his actions.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The cables weren't the reason, but they *were* the catalyst.
The unrest started in Tunisia as protests against the ruler's immediate family who were making out like bandits. The corruption had long been known about (it wasnt subtle) but the spark was the wikileaks release which showed a bunch of cables from US embassy in Tunisia that detailed the corruption. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/02/wikileaks-exclusive-book-extract
The government responded by shutting down wikileaks access which resulted in Anonymous group taking action against official Tunisian government sites and defacing them (with the same cables, amongst other things) which also had a pronounced and under reported effect on people's urge to actually protest.
So, Bradley Manning has probably done more to unleash the wave of democratization hitting north Africa than any other single individual. That doesn't make what he did legal but if everyone stuck to what was legal, we would all be living as serfs to feudal barons.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Exposure.
Sure, random positive side effects may have come from it
Like saving some hundreds Iraqi lives spared because US soldiers or US contractors didn't opened fire so easy after the movie went public.
Damage/problems created by Manning's activities are not necessarily the same as any damage due to posting wiki-leaks. I wasn't thinking of Wikileaks in particular. They released a subset of the data but Manning actually downloaded a lot more than that. The entire data set will/has make it into the wild.
Well ideally he would have some recourse within the system itself, or would not have willingly joined it in the first place. I know that I wouldn't join a military that didn't have some reasonable system in place for dealing with corruption further up the chain.
If everyone refused to join the military until some reform happened the leak wouldn't have been needed... and drafts of unwilling soldiers don't score governments a lot of points. I don't see the US citizenry trying very hard for reform, so they must not think that the military did anything wrong.
*big, bold, super huge caveat* What I'm suggesting is not the quick way to make change, nor is it always effective... but it is the right way to do it in a system that allows such changes. He chose an eye for an eye, and I think that puts him in the guilty corner.
"Lets just hand out free medical care! The Canadians do it! We're letting people die in the street!"
As a Canadian, yes we do, it works very well, and we laugh at your stupidity when you fight against it. Its just one more thing that makes us shake our heads and say "dumb redneck americans have no idea whats good for them"
Yep. You Canadians pay significantly less in health care costs and get better health care on average (though the high end care award still goes to the US.. for the few that can afford it). Now if only I could understand what possessed you to make your unit of currency the "loon"...
You would love reddit!
Aiding the enemy was a law created to stop soldiers from doing things like giving guns to the Germans during World War 2. The sort of thing that directly will get Americans killed.
In this case "Aiding the enemy" is being broadly interpreted as exposing anything that our military doesn't want exposed. We're not even talking about detailed attack plans or other secret information that provides genuine strategic advantage, and the documents themselves show that the "enemy" already has a good understanding of US patterns.
We've gone from "Aiding the Enemy" as direct action to directly help the enemy kill Americans, to broadly releasing information to everyone in an attempt to expose misinformation. In other words, actual direct intent to help the enemy is no longer a requirement. QED, anything viewed as negative to the US military effort can also be viewed as a capital offence. That should *not* be applied to Manning.
The ______ Agenda
Rules are made for a reason. He knew the rules. He did the crime, and he's going to do the time.
As long as those in power claim to be above the law, that argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Actually, the people who continue to vote them into office are the ones who are selling out the company.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I don't care if he is a emo kid, narcissist, angry teenager, terrorist, or freedom fighter. He exercised his constitutional duty to reveal criminal behavior and expose the duplicitous and potentially illegal actions of the state department, department of justice, department of defense, military leaders, congressional representatives, executive branch, foreign ambassadors, foreign leaders, low-level diplomats, and corporate executives to name a few. That the state is so corrupt that their are no investigations into (documented) war crimes, child prostitution, bribery, extortion, constitutional violations, international treaty violations is totally irrelevant to Bradley Manning. Opponents of Bradley Manning are opponents of the principles of our constitutional democracy.
Stealing classified documents and leaking them isn't necessarily treason. And unless the prosecution can show what enemies were specifically aided by the release, I can't see that charge sticking, even in a military court.
That said, I don't expect the revolutions in the Middle East that started from all of this to play much role, if any. The ends do not justify the means, and it's unlikely than Manning knew his actions would lead to democratic revolutions in other countries. It also remains to be seen whether or not those revolution serve to help or hinder the United States.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
>>>Sometimes the U.S. government acts against the popular will of the people -- and thank goodness for it.
FALSE. Most people didn't care if blacks went to school with whites. "The People" i.e. the majority were fine with it, and by Brown v. BOE virtually all schools north of Carolina were already integrated. (My mom's school had blacks and whites as far back as the 1930s.)
It's also worth noting that segregation only existed because the US Government MADE it happen. The USG had the opportunity in the 1880s to kill segregation before it really took hold, but instead the USG said "yeah segregation is fine" and suddenly it became a national mandate. What had been a small policy in a few backwards Southern cities became a nationwide mandate enforced by the US Government. (Ditto the later segregation of the integrated, colorblind army.)
And last but not least, the USG also tried to enforce bussing programs, where whites were forced to go to innercity schools while blacks were bussed to suburban schools. The People stood-up and protested against this idiocy, and the program repealed within a decade.
Not everything the USG does is holy. Or good. In fact on balance I'd say the USG has done more Harm over the last 150 years then good.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Yup, all laws are absolutely justified, and none of this would have happened if Rosa Parks would have shut up and sat her black ass down at the back of the bus where she belonged.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
Not only entitles, but in some cases obligates.
Ref: Nuremburg trials, where it was firmly established that following the laws and orders of superiors is not a valid excuse.
The crime Manning committed, except stupidity in trusting Lamo, was embarrassing those in power. That's a capital crime anywhere.
The real crime was committed by those who (a) logged all information in one place (placing all their eggs in one basket), and (b) let sensitive documentation be accessible by single individuals, without even logging the access.
And, of course, the crimes that the disclosure uncovered, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.
Because money makes you crazy. Duh. :)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
What in the world are you talking about? The constitution does not afford freedom of a soldier to divulge state secrets that they've sworn an oath to protect under penalty of death. NONE of the framers of the constitution, not a single one, would have had that meaning in freedom of speech. Even if the Supreme court ruled in such a ludicrous way thereby invalidating all NDA's and countless laws as well I'm pretty sure the vast super-majority of the American public would sponsor an amendment to the constitution making it clear that laws requiring the keeping of such state secrets by people who agree to that duty are legal.
Even if you do believe he had a moral high ground there are still consequences that he must face. When you pluck a tiger's tail don't be surprised when he turns around and swipes your face off your skull, no matter what the Tiger has done up to this point or what your intent was. The sad truth is he went up against the most powerful state in the world and he lost.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
And the founders of the US were all traitors to the crown of England. What are you saying?
Even in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the notion of conscience is recognized in the course of the execution of one's duty. If a service member is witness to criminal actions by his superiors, he is compelled by duty, honor and conscience to report it.
Are the actions of the US Military and Department of State criminal? Some would say so. And do you think it is "appropriate" for diplomats to also serve as spies? Not only is this simply "wrong" it is quite probably also illegal under international rules and law.
What Manning did was most likely driven by a sense of righteousness and justice. Would I have the courage to act similarly in the same situation? I can say that I would be tempted to but I doubt I would have the balls to carry it out. Manning deserves our admiration for his courage and conviction. He knew he was laying his life on the line and that it would create international news and awareness. He did it anyway. Think on that. This is no "ego trip." This goes way beyond ego.
My understanding is that the cables showed the level of duplicity in certain regimes and that that contributed to the final straw that broke the camel's back. Though I've also read commentary that said it was the Fed's policy of exporting inflation that was the real tipping point, so who knows? We're much too close to the action, historically speaking, to have enough perspective on the whys and wherefors.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
But that doesn't mean they won't be punished right?
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
If I am reading your comment properly, you seem to be implying that laws about military secrets are as bad as jim crow laws. You live in a dream world, and need to get perspective. Secrets are necessary in this world, especially for diplomacy reasons.
Further, this is the military. You dont go getting your own ideas about what needs to be done in the military; if you do, you need to quit. Its not a place for fun and games.
If that happens then everyone should receive the message they are trying to send loud and clear - don't fuck with the US government. When push comes to shove they will do what it takes to maintain power and control. Right or wrong, however you view that doesn't matter. It's a fact.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
The 'bad guys' would need a time machine to make any use of it. None of the data details future military operations. Your argument is like saying a non-fiction book about the Bay of Pigs published today, detailing the tactical errors of the operation, is treason for providing sensitive information to Castro. Just because information is embarrassing doesn't mean that it aids the enemy.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
You are aware that there were military secrets during the civil war, and you would probably be shot for treason for disclosing them to the enemy during that war?
"throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see what sticks". It's a common tactic when one side has limitless funding and resources. Also called "Steamrollering". The Army's first set of charges were too weak and full of holes. As the wiki leaks story progressed (and stories of Manning's torture), the Army realized that they would lose if they went to court with what they had - none of their accusations held water. So they came up with as many charges as they could, and "re-charged" Manning. Trouble is, like the first set of charges, these are weak, too, but the Army is banking on "prosecution fatigue" where the court will get tired of wading through the prosecution's BS and pick SOMETHING that they can get a guilty verdict on. Let's hope Manning has good representation who sees through this and will stop this tactic in its tracks.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Well so in fairness I used treason just as a simple example... Though given the scope of the leak he performed I'd say treason probably fits.
If in fact you could successfully argue that he didn't break any rules, then we're done here... I'm working under the assumption that he did break the rules (because that's the context of the discussion, not because I always assume guilt)
Some here feel that Manning is a traitor and hanging's too good for him. Some here feel that the guy is a hero, and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are many arguments for and against. Regardless, Manning is only so far CHARGED with various "crimes". I haven't seen that the prosecution has any actual evidence to convict.
Consider the financial meltdown for a moment. Do you realize that NO ONE has gone to jail for that? Nobody. Nada (don't reply about Madoff, that's not related).Sure, there were some guys from Bear Stearns that were charged, but the convictions didn't happen because the prosecution couldn't convince a jury, because they just didn't have enough evidence.
Lately, prosecutors haven't even been pursuing charges unless they are sure they can make it stick. Of course, the military is different in that they think they can railroad anyone they like, to make an example and keep the rest of us in line. But the truth is, when Manning comes to trial, the prosecution may have a hard time making the case stick.
In the meantime, put the noose away and give the dude a little more breathing room. After all, we are supposedly living in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you guys with the noose in your hands want to change that about the "land of the free" as well.. Yeah America. You're number one.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
... what is the correct response?
Just blindly do what you're told and if the brown and slippery hits the rapidly rotating you can always use the "I was following orders" defence!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
That may cover a couple of the documents, but what about the hundreds of thousand other documents he released? Classification of documents and punishing people for breaking it isn't unconstitutional and the vast majority of what Manning allegedly released doesn't show those in power breaking the law or any illegal activity at all.
But isn't that exactly the point - that the USA should not be stealing credit card numbers from visiting dignitaries in the first place? And this release of information will help prevent this sort of immoral thing from happening in the future.
You are looking at this wrong... Is it wise to let your enemy have any advantage if you end up in a war? Stealing the credit card numbers is just part of the information required to totally decimate your enemy. Not that we are at war with many of the credit cards that were requested, but having the option available at a later date is prudent planning. Is it immoral? What if the person in question is using his credit to purchase weapons to be used against us? One can play the what if game forever, but the idea here is to be fully prepared to dominate your opponent. As long as the State department doesn't collect information on US citizens, I have no problem with the practice.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Because that clearly would have accomplished oh so much. They didn't prosecute that helicopter crew even when the entire world saw a video of them opening fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle attempting to collect dead and wounded after their first attack...you really think they would have done something if only they saw it? You can argue all day long about whether the first attack was "justified," but there's no getting around those pesky Geneva Conventions when it comes to engaging medics and wounded enemies.
Which law was broken? Was there anything in the cables that indicated that "those in power" broke the law? I haven't waded through all of them so I honestly don't know. Most of what I've seen seems to be pretty dry State Department stuff.
So assuming those is power broke now laws, then what he did is indefensible. He should pay for what he did.
"Treason" my ass
He has grossly mishandled huge numbers of documents classified "secret". A "secret" classification is one of the lowest (least sensitive) defined.
There is a crime here, but it is far less than treason.
It is in fact far less than the crime involved in outing Valerie Plame, for which no individual was punished, even though it compromised a covert CIA front
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Keeping a secret is not inherently immoral. We all agree that individuals have a right to privacy.
Individuals do not have a right to keep crimes private, any more than government does.
That is true, however, members of the military give up certain rights. And many things we think are rights, really aren't. Individuals do have the right to keep crimes private. If I see a purse snatcher steal a purse, I am not required to call the police.
As for reporting, he did have the option to report his concerns through proper channels. He chose not to do that. He could have contacted a senator or congressman (it was an election year after all). He chose not to do that.
This is a really slippery slope people are proposing, most likely, because they agree that what he released was important. However, if he had released the plans for invading some stronghold, because he thought it was wrong, would people still be saying that he should be let off the hook?
If the answer to whether his conduct was proper is going to be based on the content of what the leaked information was, then all we are really doing is rationalizing an improper behaviour in the first place.
> more to unleash the wave of democratization hitting north Africa than any other single individual
Sorry, I meant to add, except for the guy who set himself on fire.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
The text of the UCMJ is pretty broad. So something like sending a birthday card directly to your brother who happens to be an enemy soldier would technically fall under it (if you sent it through proper channels, no problem...).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
It doesn't matter who the people vote for. Either Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche will get elected every single time.
Maybe PFC Manning is guilty of a crime, maybe he isn't. Either way, this is obviously a big deal to the DoD, among others. Why is no going after the policy-and-decision makers that created an environment such that a lowly PFC could take and leak so much sensitive data?
Perhaps you should bother to understand what it is you're saying before you go mouthing off. "Arguably", means its open to discussion and/or debate. The speaker is indirectly soliciting discussion or debate. Speakers who say such things are more typically open minded in nature. Someone who attempts to cast an open minded person in a negative light, strictly for being open minded, is what the world considers negative and closed minded.
The basis for your rant means that we should listen to a negative, closed minded person and absolutely most not discuss or debate else you'll then attempt to cast them in a negative light. Basically, your words make you out to be a prick. And using you're own words pretty well proves absolutely nothing you say is worth discussion; unless you want to prefix it with, "Arguably."
As another nit, people who attack accurate communication, for being accurate, such as you have done, likely have other issues. Which again raises the question as to why we should listen to you. Arguably, we shouldn't.
He fully expected to spend decades in a Federal prison for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was fully prepared to do so.
That he did not was a result of gross misconduct by the Nixon administration resulting in his charges being thrown out
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
So anonymously he didn't even go bragging about it.
onsidering the nature of what was allegedly done, and the position held by the defendant, I think it's perfectly reasonable to go for the maximum punishment. IMHO, It really doesn't matter what the documents were that were leaked. Hell, they could have been a top secret souffle recipe, and I would still want to see the offender properly prosecuted!
P.S. Mmm, souffle. http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/cheese-souffle-recipe/index.html [Food Network – Alton Brown]
P.P.S. Maybe I shouldn't have skipped breakfast this morning...
My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
I note that opinions expressed in support of the charge are marked as trolls, while opinions expressed in opposition to the charge are modded up.
Good.
Perhaps if there were actually some good arguments for punishing Manning, they wouldn't be marked as troll. "Hang the bastard" and "he got what he deserves" aren't arguments, they're ignorant and inflammatory claims.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Manning had other, more responsible, options for blowing the whistle on any specific activity he believed was illegal. Instead he took the "ima blow the lid of this" approach and leaked a whole bunch of very sensitive information, much of which had absolutely nothing to do with illegal activities.
Leaking the collateral murder video, that was maybe patriotic. It was limited to a very specific instance that he believed was illegal and being covered up.
I am also curious how history will treat him. But I find it hard to believe that he will ever be considered a noble patriot.
Assuming, for the sake of argument that Manning actually did it (which has not been proven, but seems likely).
The important question you should ask yourself is what is "traitor" and what is a "patriot"? By definition, treason is acting against the best interests of your nation, thus whether Manning is a traitor or patriot depends entirely on whether he was justified in releasing the documents. If he exposed important wrong doing on the part of the government then he acted in the best interests of his nation and can not be a traitor.
Not quite. Treason also involves the why he did it. If I am in the military and I am compromised by a lovely spy and end up leaking information, I am not a traitor (I am in really deep shit, though). If I leak that same information intentionally, then I am a traitor. It also is important as to who the information is leaked to. The NY Times is different than sending it to foreign nationals (ie foreign journalists). If he had disseminated that information to the local media, he would still be in trouble, but probably not for treason.
I just re-read my comment again and realized that I did say "no matter the content, that is treason" which is at odds with what I responded to you with.
I guess what I should have said is "no matter the content, that is against the rules". I can agree that it's not fundamentally treason.
You funny apologist clown.
It is legal to violate Geneva convention (rendition, various "torture" techniques)?
Is it legal to violate UN charter and spy on diplomats (using techniques that constitute identity fraud in our own country)?
Is it legal to prostitute children in Afghanistan?
Is it legal to cover up civilian casualties of war? Misrepresent civilian deaths? Cover-up friendly fire casualties?
Is it legal to bribe/extort foreign officials?
Is it legal for US companies to perpetrate fraud on developing nations?
Is it legal to bypass UN&US sanctions on "enemy nations"?
Is it legal for the US government to threaten foreign nations wishing to take action against illegal/unethical behavior of US corporations?
Is it legal for the US government to retaliate economically against foreign nations who impose legislation in their countries opposing dangerous or untested products?
Is it legal to test drugs on Nigerian children without their knowledge or consent and blackmail prosecutors suing you for said actions?
You are blithering idiot for choosing willful ignorance in the face of the revelations in these cables. At the absolute bare minimum, there is evidence to support additional investigation to determine what laws were broken.
Well, the charges against Manning have been formally and legally documented. One can argue about the consequences, but I have not heard anyone argue that Manning did not do what has been alleged. "Material support to the enemy" could be a charge that requires not just potential impact, but also motivation, and that's what the Court will have to decide.
The opinions that "the people rule", "openness is the only way", etc, etc, are hyperbole.
The Civil War? The one before which Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? The one where "the enemy" was anyone who believed in states' rights? Yes, I am aware the Constitution was repeatedly violated by the Federal government during that war. Just because it's the government doing it doesn't mean it's not illegal.
Ego padding may or may not have anything to do with gaining recognition. Had he not been fingered, he would have been able to smugly observe the media frenzy knowing that he was responsible for it. And he would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the Military (whom he believed wronged him) was getting what they deserved, by being criticized for the leak.
It's very likely that a huge motivation for his activity was revenge. Considering the international impact of his actions, that makes him a very very selfish prick, in my humble opinion.
Also in this case, since it was a capital crime, "doing the time" could very well mean he would be executed. The punishment seems very much disproportionate to what he actually did. All he did was expose corruption and for that he should get the firing squad?
Actually, what he did, right or wrong, is disseminated classified military documents to foreign nationals (wikileaks) during a time of war. The penalty for that can be death. The courts will have to decide whether the information disseminated warrants that penalty or not (most likely not).
Interesting read. Thanks!
I've been saying that for a while and here is why
1. Information like this is compartmentalized and a IT guys is not going to be in a position to intercept all diplomatic transmissions _and_ decrypt them. Anyone that knows the details out how an agency such as the Dept of State compartmentalizes these and ensures their integrity throughout the chain of custody knows that this is very unlikely, if not impossible. But these same people can't ever speak publicly on the matter.
2.Hardly any of the information truly damaged the US or it's key allies like Israel, only it's "allies" that have played both sides of the fence have been damaged by the information leaked.
It's not evidence, just a conspiracy theory. It's most likely not true given the ineptness of large institutions to coordinate these things, but it just doesn't make sense to me. How can one man be in control of so many diplomatic wires? The systems in place simply don't allow this. Only the very top of the intel tree sees everything, and that's at the level of the administration. Hillary Clinton having access to _all_ of these would make sense. Manning? Not so much.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
The State Department called for both to step down. What's your definition for "not caring?" That we have a bigger reaction to Helicopter gunships firing into crowds and fighter jets bombing civilians then we do a country where the military kept violence relatively low? If you think it's economic based do you honestly think losing Libya's oil would cause a greater impact then losing access to the suez canal?
If I could mod you up, I would.
Manning should have taken the information that he had to the DCIS or the FBI. Either way, he would have been protected under the law. Instead he took it to a "news agency" if you can call it that. The military has ways of disclosing wrong doing that is not part of the chain of command, so one is not subject to reprisal. The DCIS and FBI are both really good at prosecuting people in high places... just ask Blagojevich. Had Manning done it the proper way, he would not be the celebrity that he is.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
How would you like a rule that had a dealth penalty for posting dumb comments?
But that would lead to the end of the internet!
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
You're right the danger to soldiers and citizens is easily dismissed, because its fairly obvious those are not real concerns of our foreign policy.
1) Soldiers volunteered. If they don't want to die for shallow and vain reasons they chose the wrong occupation. Shit for a long time we sent them into battle unarmored.. Sounds like a really important resource to me... Meat shields.
2) It overlooks the fact that the primary danger to our soldiers is the occupation of enemy territory. And the primary danger to citizens in occupied territory is from the war we wage. It's a bit hypocritical don't you think then to chide leaked documents for "putting lives at risk"?
You go further up the command, all the way to Obama if you need to. There is an inspector general system. What you don't do is commit a crime yourself by passing secrets to foreign entities! He did not expunge any names of informants, any of that was done by WikiLeaks. So yes, he aided the Taliban!
If this is serious, you're no better than the Iranian conservatives demanding death penalty for protestors and opposition politicians.
I don't say he didn't do something illegal that may be punished, but demanding the death penalty is extreme.
The absolute rule of majority is not democracy.
No, that IS democracy. Rule of absolute democracy, to oppress a minority, is tyranny. There is a huge difference. I've seen your notion before by many others but it absolutely is not valid. Not even close. Democracy exists to serve the majority; and the world says rightly so. I happen to agree. Democracy and republics are about the best form of large governance mankind has been able to implement. Its not perfect and its impossible to make everybody happy, but that's what we got.
Democracy absolutely can be used for tyrannical ends but absolute rule by the majority IS democracy at its best.
Wait, our helicopter gunships or Libya's? Because the State department didn't seem to care if it was our own.
Any instability in oil dramatically affects prices. See your local gas pump for what Libya's uprising has done.
If there were ever an apt mod war, I would say this is it. You essentially have a dispute over the execution or pardon of a US citizen.
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
You say this because during the revolutionary war the continental army didn't do anything wrong or underhanded in fighting the british and it was only after that there were atrocities in war?
I don't agree with what the government was doing as revealed by the leaked documents. I also don't agree that a member of the military should be allowed to disseminate classified information to foreign nationals during a time of war and not be penalized for it. The issue at hand is not about whether or not the government was in the right about what it was doing but instead whether Manning was right in what he was doing.
I agree. This guy deserves his day in court but if they have the proof he broke the rules and he is convicted he should face the harshest punishment.
http://thislandpress.com/09/23/2010/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/
The more important failing point of his argument is the part where he believes that Manning was disillusioned with Don't Ask, Don't Tell to the point where he released these documents in revenge. Frankly, that argument doesn't make any sense when he knew there was a president that promised to repeal the policy and it was already under pressure to be repealed before he released the documents.
Manning was a whistleblower. He wasn't a vengeful child or traitor.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Secret murder. The US government killed people in Yemen and paid off the Yemeni government to take the blame for it. No declaration of war by Congress, just some drone attacks with the usual undisclosed "collateral damage" via a high-pressure freedom dispersal unit (some call them missiles). That's one really obvious one. Need more examples? I'll say it again: It's not legal just because the government is doing it.
That was true for about an hour, and now has been reversed. Comments rated as trolls are now +4 Insightful, and comments in support at +5 Insightful are now +2/+3.
Funny business going on.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Are you really saying
Are you really saying you're not a troll?
Popular support is a component of democracy but it's not enough to decide the fairness of laws.
So what is enough? most people that hold your argument seem to believe in nothing more than a "I'll know it when I see it", the idiocy of which ought to be obvious enough.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
I'm sorry, I thought that soldiers took an oath to defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign or domestic. So when the Executive Branch continuously violates the Constitution, it is their duty to refuse to help to do so, and in fact actively prevent such crimes. One such way is to use political speech, such as pointing out repeated unconstitutional acts by the government. Or am I wrong here? Are you saying US troops do not have a responsibility to defend the supreme law of the land? Is it OK for them to follow orders, even when those orders are unconstitutional?
>>>But that doesn't mean there aren't secrets being kept right now that aren't necessary
Like the slaughter or journalists, cameramen, and children by US Soldiers. That *definitely* has to be kept secret, or else the american public might decide that "war sucks" and demand the killing be ended immediately. "Lock up that video damnit!!!" George Duh Bush (stamps Top Secret on tape). "Gotta keep fighting and killing!"
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Maybe you missed it - he said "Republicrat" party, correctly identifying the group of nominally divided thieves who have successfully conspired to prevent real change in politics for nearly a century now.
There's also plenty of historical cases where the strong and decisive leadership of an absolute monarch or dictator saved lives and prevented horrible things from happening, yet here we are.
Sometimes, the grey really *is* only a few shades away from black you know, the fact that secrecy isn't entirely without merit doesn't make it a net positive overall.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Rosa Parks was not just a criminal.
Yes, she was. Like it or not, she was.
The thing is however, after much prodding, we realized that she shouldn't be a criminal. She is however, a criminal.
So am I for that matter, as I've broken the law as well, but just because you don't agree with the law doesn't change the fact that it was broken.
Change the law, don't break it. Sometimes it takes breaking it to point out how stupid it is and to get people to take action, but that is NOT YOUR FIRST METHOD TO FIX THE LAW, its the last.
As you'll see in someones sig floating around slashdot comments, there are 4 boxes for the defense of liberty:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Used in that order, not any other order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
You say to change the law don't break it and sometimes it takes breaking a law to point out how stupid it is.
What law did Manning break that you are wanting to apply this to? Let's see, a member of the military (Manning) willfully disseminated classified information (leaked documents) to a foreign national (wikileaks) during wartime. I'm not sure how breaking that law will cause a moral change in the country with regards to that law.
As for the notion of soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, while that sounds good and is a catchy slogan for the tea party, calling for armed insurrection hardly seems to support the rest of your stated position.
Has anyone considered that he will face the consequences of his actions (you know, like an adult) because he simply thought his country's ideals were that important? He would have understood better than any civilian the consequences of going up against the US military's torture regime and show trials. Manning made the world a better place even knowing the abuse he would suffer after being caught.
Disagreeing with a law certainly does morally entitle you to break it. It simply doesn't shield you from the legal consequences. It's called "civil disobedience". See also Antigone, Underground Railroad, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Amnesty International, etc.
As for blatant teen narcissism, I'd say that applies more to Adrian Lamo.
This post just smears him, making a ton of assumptions/accusations about his reasoning, based on nothing, when Manning himself (in the chat logs) described his reasons for releasing the information:
"Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth regardless of who they are because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning
What the fuck is going on to get slurs like this modded up so high? Is the moderating system being abused?
Anyone else notice the tags change from having "republicans" to having "democrats" in the list?
What is with that?
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
The military has laws which make it very illegal to do what Manning allegedly did. At the time he allegedly released the documents, he was sworn to obey those laws. Assuming for a moment that he is indeed guilty, he should have to pay the price for his actions. As for whether or not his act was noble, that is for history to decide. Most heros pay a high price to earn that label. Often the price is their life.
Having a bookmark to Google does not make you an expert on everything.
Actually, you're wrong and ignorant. A soldier is REQUIRED to divulge secrets if crimes have been committed. You'd like to ignore the crimes part, but it's a huge reason why this all happened.
I'm pretty sure that the vast super-majority of the American public would sponsor an amendment to the constitution making it clear that laws requiring the keeping of such state secrets by people who agree to that duty are legal, with the exception of crimes against said constitution.
As a soldier he took an oath, and accepted some limitations to his rights. He did have legitimate avenues to address legitimate concerns, and failed to use them.
And everybody please research the charge of "Treason". Everyone keeps using that word, I do not think it means what you think that it means.
First of all, military courts have different criteria and standards than does civilian courts. Secondly, they need not directly tie Manning to WikiLeaks; though obviously the prosecutor would strongly prefer it. They need only determine the information was disseminated by Manning. And based on the information which is known, it does sound like they have a reasonable case to present.
his NAME is Mohamed Bouazizi
In Project Mayhem, you are awarded a name when you are captured or killed.
You think it a coincidence that Allstate's current advertising campaign revolves around Mr. Mayhem?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The POINT is that the elite at the top of the pyramid did a run-around on the constitution in order to make it happen. Why? Because they KNEW that they couldn't make the war happen using the formal process of declaration as the constitution requires -- because at the bottom of it all, the wars are unjust.
When they've got billions of dollars on the line, and the one thing standing in their way is the supreme law of the nation, what does the business of government do? They route around the supreme law of the nation. There's a reason why the constitution has been mitigated by the elite to mere "suggestions" rather than laws -- because the business of government is infinitely more profitable when there are no limits to what they can do.
Yea, if only the military had thought of giving TS SCI clearances to some members of JAG so that they too could deal with such things.....
You say this because during the revolutionary war the continental army didn't do anything wrong or underhanded in fighting the british and it was only after that there were atrocities in war?
I believe that was a war of defense of our rights to self-rule, not a pattern of imperialist interference in the governments of other countries, by force or otherwise.
I also don't agree that a member of the military should be allowed to disseminate classified information to foreign nationals during a time of war and not be penalized for it.
We're not at war, because Congress didn't make a declaration of war. Therefore, the continued military activities are illegal, period. It's not just a technicality, it's part of the larger point that our Congress has allowed things to go completely off the rails.
Actually my understanding of the charges doesn't require that the enemy actually used the information, just that the person provided information that could be used. And when you think about it, that makes sense. Otherwise we would be stuck waiting for US servicemen to actually die before any legal action could be taken.
Government has oversight, and gets oversight already -- especially if the likes of you and I do our jobs as citizens and ensure they remain accountable.
Which you have not, considering all the attrocities the US has been committing ever since they invaded Iraq. Rape, indiscriminatory murder, torture, etc, all of which people have found out practically by chance. And what happens when people actually show these realities to the world? they're called "traitors", just as it happened with Abu Ghraib.
Put it this way: if you have a partner, you're going to be as honest as you can, but you're NOT doing to tell her that her arse looks big in those jeans, are you? Not all secrecy is bad. Real life defies teen basement-dweller logic.
Yeah, I am and in fact I have, with no ill effects. Sorry, but real life *also* defies zealous ultranationalism.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
I am all for people being held responsible for their actions, be it government officials or any one else.
Manning, a former intelligence analyst, should have known better. End of thought. Sometimes
intelligence is not what it seems.
"(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."
When you get a security briefing, such things are made apparent to all. He was apparently not listening or selectively listening. If it
was the latter, he deserves whatever he gets. If it was the former, he is not a candidate for the kitchen police. How did this person
get any clearance? Should not the people who granted this clearance be held accountable also, on an equal basis?
Simply put, the claim that Manning exposed corruption can't save him. If he had only exposed corruption, he'd be golden. Whistle-blower laws would have protected him. Probably would have had his life turned upside down for a while, but come out the other side.
But he didn't just expose corruption. He also chose to release unrelated documents that he shouldn't have. He left himself wide open for prosecution doing that. The law doesn't look at two acts and balance them. You can be a saint of a person, helping the poor for decades, etc etc. Kick one of them in the nuts and you still go to jail for assault. The law doesn't go "Hey, you've been a good guy, we'll look the other way on this one."
Now he can hope that the judge(s) will take the sum of his deeds into account and have mercy, but that's unlikely. The judges can rationalize it as "You discounted the harmful side-effects of your actions. Therefore we will discount the helpful effects."
As for "aiding the enemy", it will be an easy argument for the prosecution to argue. There doesn't have to be any actual aid or enemy. They just have to show he had reason to believe it could aid the enemy. Not "believe", "reason to believe". His reason to believe? He would have been told releasing documents could aid the enemy. Doesn't matter if he accepted that reason or not, he was given that reason. He just had to be told divulging the documents could aid the enemy.
Even if not told, he was releasing secret documents which by definition are not released so as to not aid the enemy. What enemy? Doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if the enemy was real or hypothetical.
He's screwed.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Yeah, that worked out real well for Lynndie England, didn't it.
Half of Congress are millionaires, the rest is in the pocket of billionaires to become millionaires.
They don't give a shit about poverty.
Thank you Mr. Constitutional scholar, now would you be so kind as to point out which violations of the Constitution he exposed? I'm not saying laws may not have been broken, and it seems that some rules of engagement where violated (which BTW happens just about 100% on both sides in any armed conflict), But there is nothing I have seen that is a clear violation of the Constitution. (and by this I mean the actual Constitution, not the "Constitution" that is thrown around by both extreme these days).
--- Nothing To See Here ---
You sir are an idiot and a jack ass. It's no wonder this country is going down the crapper with the sort of deluded morons that post this sort of dribble.
1 DADT was at most a motivating factor, it wasn't the only one, and there were definitely plenty of criminal activities included in what he leaked.
2 is just complete bullshit, the DoD has a history of ignoring DADT and ferreting out homosexuals regardless of their discretion.
3 Again, I'd like to reiterate that you're an idiot looking to justify the government's point of view, he didn't have the expertise or the resources to troll through all that without getting caught, so he released them to somebody who had a lot more resources.
4 No, he didn't dump them to the public, he dumped them to wikileaks that redacted and then dumped them. What you're saying is factually ignorant and incredibly misleading.
If you engage in an illegal war, invade a couple of countries, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, break US law, violate the constitution, and completely ignore international law, including the Geneva convention treaties put in place after the atrocities of WWII, and you THEN proceed to cover it all up, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, and you are even considered heroic and patriotic, and nothing happens to you except maybe getting more funding.
However, if you BLAB about it and release documents that PROVE it, THEN you're a horrible, horrible person who needs to die.
God, the people in this country are fucking stupid.
Exactly what enemy are they referring to? Them? Adjusts Tinfoil hat.
No, no. We're at war with Terror, Drugs, and Poverty. I don't really know which of those he aided, although a coworker of mine claims that Julian Assange is "a terrorist by anyone's definition", so maybe it is Terror.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Their duty in that regard is to refuse specific orders that are clearly illegal. The military is not the tool for deciding whether certain debatable actions of an executive branch that has nothing to do with their orders falls within the bounds of constitutional law, that's the Supreme Court's job. There was nothing clearly illegal, constitutionally or otherwise, about the order to Manning to NOT divulge ALL classified material he could get his hands on. That's the order he disobeyed, and that's what he's being charged with.
How do we know the cables got leaked by Manning? All we know "for sure" is that he leaked the helicopter video...... Assuming he leaked the cables just because they were leaked in close succession with the video is not accurate. Just because we have NO EVIDENCE about who leaked the cables isn't reason to ASSUME it was him. If I were someone trying to cover my ass I would make sure it got blamed on someone else....
Individuals must choose, decide their "essential" nature rather than having it given from some transcendent source.
Here is Art. 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47/X/904
Any person who - (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.
Looks like the procecution will need to prove intent to assist those against whom we are at war.
Just because I didn't think that the information was sensitive in context of national security doesn't mean that they should not have been secret. In the case of diplomatic communications, for example, the discussions were often candid. Sure the French ambassador knows that the English ambassador thinks he's an asshole, but does the whole world need to know?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Quite right! It's the damned Electoral college's fault. Where's my pitchfork?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I have a hard time being sympathetic. If there were some particular issue of malfeasance addressed by these documents then that's one thing. "Entity X has done something wrong and here are the docs to prove it." No problems. However I just can't believe anyone actually read 300000 documents before casting them into the wind. That goes for Manning and Wikileaks. They seem to think that every secret is something evil that needs to be exposed, which is just not true. All tech companies have proprietary info that they keep under wraps etc. If all secrets are bad, then I want Assange's personal info: credit cards, phone numbers, bank accounts and physical location tracking every 5 minutes. What is he trying to hide? He must be doing something bad!!!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
And the founders of the US were all traitors to the crown of England. What are you saying?
They took responsibility for the consequences of their actions by funding and leading a revolution.
This idea that Manning should do the time is all about responsibility. He could have done it and then fled to another country, or done it and then attempted to organize a revolution, or gone underground, or any of a number of things. He chose to sit and wait to be identified, putting himself entirely at the mercy of our laws, and that too is taking responsibility. His choice was in the type of consequences that lay before him.
What you are doing is second guessing Manning. Are you of the opinion than Manning is not competent to make these choices himself? Thats the crux of it, really. If you think Manning to be a complete dimwit, below the threshold of competence, then sure.. he should not have to take responsibility for his actions. If you believe that he is not a dimwit, that he is above the threshold of competence, then you surely must agree that he knew what could become of him given the choices that he made.
History is littered with people who willfully broke laws and willfully accepted the responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It is because they then took responsibility that they are considered great men and women.. heroes.
Maybe Manning was stupid enough to think they he wouldnt get caught, yet still considered competent by any reasonable measure. If thats the case, then he is not a hero.. just someone that couldnt fathom the enormity of his position, and those people must also face the consequences of their actions for if they didn't, everybody would play the fool.
"His name was James Damore."
You mean the warmonger Friedman, not the Nobelist Krugman.
What exactly does freedom of speech have to do with treason?
What exactly does treason have to do with freedom of speech?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Their duty in that regard is to refuse specific orders that are clearly illegal.
That's a good answer, and I see what you mean now. However, it's also a very convenient answer for the people who run a system that's engaged in widespread criminal behavior. It's easy to point at any single order or duty and say clearly how it's not illegal, and so failure to obey is punishable. It should be apparent, though, to someone insightful, that this is an easy way to spread the responsibility for criminality in such a way to make everyone part of a criminal gang feel innocent. Surely you wouldn't say that preparing an MRE is unconstitutional? Yet that preparation of the MRE, along with the development of missile technology, along with the conveyance of fuel, along with relaying information and much more all make military action possible. That the action itself is illegal is never apparent along the way at all the small steps. That's why I think it's important to defend acts such as Manning's.
Have you been following this story at all or are you making rhetorical arguments about guilty until proven innocent? If you haven't, you should read the wikipedia article or watch the Daily Show story. If it's the second, you're right. But whoever leaked the info didn't appear to do it to expose a particular wrong doing. They just seem to give out all the info.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Government has oversight...honest and hard-working diplomats...Governments are essentially shameless
You cannot be serious. The capability for individuals to affect change is weaker than you deem it to be. The capability for groups to affect change however is strong, such as is the case with a government. Without an informed populace the individuals see no need to become a group. We the people cannot even vote well without good information. Other than that I do not even know how to talk about those three ridiculous statements you made. There are brief moments in history where governments will have oversight, then those moments are gone.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
You need to brush up on your geography if you think the suez canal runs through zimbabwe
Purely out of curiosity, why is it always the UK's NHS that's held up in the US as the example of "This is socialised healthcare, it's terrible, we mustn't do it"?
Most of the first world has some sort of socialised healthcare - Canada does, most of Europe, Australia. And they all operate in slightly different ways to the NHS - usually by heavily subsidising healthcare but not making it entirely free. But we don't hear Americans saying "Canada has social healthcare, look how terrible it is!". We don't hear "France has social healthcare, look how terrible it is!" Why not?
I disagree with you because rules are sometime wrong and our governments are fucking everyone over all the time.
Hitler made rules, was it right to follow Hitler's rules? Funny how people are still going to trial for following Hitler's rules. "2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it." So if you disagree with killing Jews you have no moral right to disobey Hitler because rules are made for a reason.
There is no "certainly" that the released documents compromised any soldiers or our assets. Only 5000 documents of the 250K have been released, and they were redacted with the help of the news outlets that published them.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
Actually, you're both missing kind of a big point:
The law is the law. If you break it - even for the best reasons - you have to be willing to accept that there may be consequences. Even if the law is eventually struck down, even if the law is blatantly wrong, even if the consequences you face vastly outweigh the "harm" done by violating the law.
Laws are laws. Work to change them if you disagree with them, protest them by breaking them if you want, but be willing to accept that you may face severe consequences if you do.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
That's because the "enemy" the government is referring to is the public. They obviously can't admit that in a court filing.
Liberty in your lifetime
As far as I know, covering up murders/manslaughter is still against the law. So, since 'those in power' knew about it and did nothing, they DID break the law.
Its easy to say things in hindsight, especially when you aren't familiar with how such sitituations work. There was an investigation and it was found to be an accident. And really, when you think about it clinically its easy to see why it happened:
1.) Unknown vehicle comes in during an engagement. The enemy is known to use civilian equipment.
2.) The helicopter crew isn't able to stare closely into their cameras for an extended period of time like you are post facto; the images aren't all that clear especially if you watch it through in full the first time.
3.) With adrenalin flowing and their training kicking in they respond to a potential threat to their lives accordingly.
Accidents happen in war. Tensions are high, everyone is scared, and with guerrilla/insurgency warfare you don't KNOW who the enemy is since they look like everyone else. After you lose a few friends to "civilians" who were really guerrillas, its easy to either A) start hating the civilians (see some of the atrocities in Vietnam) or B) be jumpy/trigger happy when its you and your buddy's life on the line.
It is really easy to sit safe in your home, watch a video clip over and over 50 times, and then make commentary of how "wrong" someone's behavior was. You weren't there. You weren't feeling the fear, anxiety, excitement... You don't know what its like to have your days filled with boredom, just wishing you could go back to the World, when suddenly you are pulled into an incredibly tense and frightening situation. You don't know how you'll react after you've been trained so that when your mind shuts down you will hopefully still do what needs to be done.
This is Slashdot. There are comments every day about people making emotional judgements about situations, and how that is wrong. How people should use logic, and try to figure out every possible factor and then work out what the best solution is. Maybe you should try that, the old "put your self in their shoes" method, before rushing to conclusions like the "sheeple" you so profess to hate.
There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them
Got a decent fer'instance? Even one single solitary document containing even one fact that you can demonstrate might have even theoretically endangered a single life?
Seems nobody else has managed that challenge yet. There were one or 2 half hearted attempts months ago, but the best they could do was documents showing where troops were many months before the release. They couldn't seem to find any cases where the troops were still where the documents said they were.
So there it is, show us here a single solitary instance where even one life might reasonably be believed to be endangered and we'll all quit dismissing the endangerment argument so easily.
Worked at Nuremberg.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Military justice is not the same as civil/criminal justice. By its nature, the military lends itself to be more brutal and totalitarian.
Yes secretes are necessary because people would revolt if they know exactly how corrupt their governments are. It's like the illusion of democracy ie voting along party lines. My MLA that I voted for is really representing me when he is told how to vote in the house of commons or they kick him out. No it's not rigged.(/sarcasm) My MLA voted the exact opposite of the way he promised the people who voted him in because he didn't want to lose his position with the conservative government. So why did I bother to vote? To give some lying asshole a cushy job and and then fail to do what he promised? Now shouldn't he be on his way to jail?
Please tell me, and I'm serious about this, what wrong doings has leaking all that information uncovered? Last I heard, it was the accidental but unsympathetic killing of a journalist and how US diplomats talk crude behind people's back.
The journalist is subject to interpretation and plenty of people have edited the video to their interpretation, but as far as I know, the rest of the leaks had little to do with any wrong doings.
I could see your point otherwise. Hell, I would probably be championing it with you. But I don't see any massive wrong doings that were uncovered.
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail.
You've never been in the military or you would know that your answer is incorrect. If indeed Manning had felt there was some moral issue involved, a violation of law or orders, the proper place to take that complaint would be the local offices of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) or the Inspector General (IG). They are expected to deal with evidence which may be classified in nature. WikiLeaks is not part of that solution.
And for those who are eager to elevate Manning as responsible for rebellion around the globe, while I strongly debate whether he had anything to do with that, you have to be prepared to also lay at his feet partial responsibility for the deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire between factions.
You do realize there is a well documented path between the press publishing articles and riots, murders, and even civil ware breaking out in Iraq and Afghanistan? All too often, if the press has simply waited a week or as much as thirty days, much of these massive numbers of deaths could have been prevented.
While you're busy blaming everyone, don't forget that the international press has massive blood on their hands too. Not to mention, its extremely well documented the international press and especially US press played an active role in public manipulation which led to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like the slaughter or journalists, cameramen, and children by US Soldiers.
While that is true, much of what the public regards are "slaughter", very likely referring to well known publicized events, actually validates you have no idea what the hell you talking about and have been manipulated; actively being used as an ignorant puppet. In reality, had you actually been the person with your finger on the trigger, you would have done the exact same thing. You see, knowing the whole story and not just propaganda lies, while what you likely know, makes a world of difference.
No then, I'll say it again. There absolutely has been slaughter and in many cases, willful, knowing slaughter where soldiers should be held accountable. Just the same, many of the well publicized events, to which you're likely referring, are absolutely not some of them. Of three videos I've seen released from wikileaks, only ONE (that's 33%) actually (meaning in the real world) depict a crime. Having said that, many people believe 100% of what they've seen are war crimes. That means the general public, which likely includes you, are absolutely wrong 66% of the time. Add to that the general ignorance about the press, well, most vocal people like you have absolutely nothing but misinformation, propaganda, and ignorant lies.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/28/cable_exclusive_the_secret_obama_administration_memo_on_child_soldiers?hidecomments=yes Nice guy that president of yours
Rubbish. The President is the position of a spokesperson, a figurehead, and a puppet. He makes "decisions" based upon the information he is fed by his aides and their staff, who.... Oh! Are exactly the same people who were present during President Bush's administration.
Gee, you don't suppose... Maybe... They're telling him the same stuff they told Bush, do ya? That'd sure be one hell of a coincidink!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Manning sold out his own country for nothing more than self-satisfaction. I'm glad to see him getting charged with aiding the enemy. I hope he gets the death penalty.
Even if we take that first part for true (maybe we assume that no one could possibly do something with good intentions that ends up hurting some idiotic sense of national pride), really?
Manning is a kid who was serving in the military. HE'S the first guy you'd like to see on the chopping block for "selling out" his own country? Not, say some elected official who has taken money from corporations to make decisions against the interests of the citizenry? Really? Wow. Okay. Wow.
Oh wait, the "nothing more than self-satisfaction" is what deserves the death penalty? If, say, the Koch brothers had paid him to do it, that would make it okay?
contains no mention by name of the enemy to which the US military is referring.
The main motivation of Manning/Wikileaks has been to inform the public about the goings on in the Pentagon, State Department, and various theaters of war. And in that sense, they have succeeded. So I guess Walt Kelly said it best;
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Have gnu, will travel.
And I don't believe for a second that 1) he was doing this for some higher cause, more like blatent teen narcissism; or that 2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
"Entitles?" As in morally or legally? If a law is immoral, I'd say you have plenty of moral justification for breaking it. Lets not pretend laws are perfect, handed down from the Gods.
How am I missing that point? it's exactly what I said...
I love these Americans that take a single incomplete second hand experience with Canadian health care and immediately believe that it extrapolates to the entire system. The reality is that the vast, VAST majority of Canadians don't ever go to the U.S. for health care, and most of us are perfectly fine with the wait times. Personally, I've had several broken bones, had several family members with cancer and heart problems, and I've never had a problem with the wait times. In fact, I don't even know anyone that has ever had an urgent health care issue that wasn't taken care of promptly.
If our health care system was so bad, you'd think we'd see more outrage among actual Canadians instead of just a steady stream of outrage and rhetoric coming from American "conservatives."
Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans couldn't afford the treatment that was given to Danny Williams, and under the American system they'd either have to put the next few generations of their family into tremendous debt or just forgo treatment and die.
I hate to break this to you, but plenty of Canadians live practically normal lives with pace makers.
That seems pretty shaky to me. Wikileaks would have to be interpreted as an "enemy", which is quite a stretch. I can easily imagine a judge not agreeing with that interpretation. Just imagine how disappointed you will be if he is found not guilty of all charges.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Yeah Wikipedia and a show on Comedy Central are definitely my two main sources of news.....but....here's the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article: In June 2010, the magazine Wired reported that the U.S. State Department and embassy personnel were concerned that Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army soldier who had been charged with the unauthorized download of classified material while he was stationed in Iraq, had leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks rejected the report as inaccurate: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".[16][17] Yeah..."concern" is really the same thing as having ANY sort of evidence not to mention proof... I'm not just making an argument for the sake of argument...basing your assumptions on knee jerk logic, "OH HE LEAKED THE VIDEO SO IT MUST BE HIM THAT LEAKED THE CABLES!!" is something Fox News would (and does!) do...is that your main source of news?
Individuals must choose, decide their "essential" nature rather than having it given from some transcendent source.
There's plenty of money for all that, it's being hoarded by a new aristocracy.
Bradley Manning, you're the only soldier in the last 11 years to which I can honestly say "Thank you for your service. You are a true hero." The rest of them are "just following orders" in a pair of useless wars. Good on them for serving their country by serving the popularly elected government, but the missions are honorless.
Blar.
Motivation is critical to many crimes. Heck, the whole concept of a mens rea which is fundamental to many felonies, is based on the state of mind and motivation of the individual.
Manning cannot attach a legally reasonable connection between his motivation and his chosen course of action which would motivate a non-brain dead jury to say "this man clearly acted to uphold the spirit of the law or protect the public."
If you don't get the difference between leaking specific documents that you know show clear criminal acts and dumping a volume of documents that would take a small army of readers to verify out of sheer spite, then you are the moron. The difference between that is the difference between shooting someone in self-defense under legally questionable circumstances and gunning down an entire public space while claiming you did public good because a few of the victims just so happened to have warrants for their arrest.
"He did what he did as an act of revenge against a policy he disliked."
You can't possibly actually know that.
>>>Iraq and Afghanistan?
The best way to prevent death is to (back in 2002) keep the US soldiers at home. You could have saved nearly one million deaths.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
I don't think it's reasonable to say that one man's self-immolation automatically disqualifies all the other contributing factors. Bradley manning is a whistle-blower, he brought to light all kinds of military and government corruption. We have a strong tradition of that in the US, because most of us don't believe our government is beyond reproach. So I think maybe you are the traitor, since you are putting your government and military above our nation's best interest and above any sense of decency and fairness, and above any practice of transparency and full disclosure. Your blatant disregard for the truth, in that you want it to remain hidden, is disgusting.
Theres not a war?
Department of Defense begs to differ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_on_Terrorism_Service_Medal
The President agrees that there is a war.
"Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Inauguration/story?id=6689022&page=1
Congress also agrees that there is a war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
Vote third party. Get your friends to vote third party. You wont change the fact that each election you are presented with two unpleasant choices, if each election you accept one of them.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Wrong. Maccleans (popular Canadian magaznie) recently ran an article rating the health care systems in most developed countries. Canada ranked dead last.
I am a dual citizen and have lived for multiple years in both countries. I can attest to the fact that the US health care system is superior to its Canadian counterpart.
The facilities, quality of care and time it takes to get a procedure done are all better in the US.
No, the law was that a Black or other minority had to give up their seat if a white person wanted it. Rosa Parks wasn't the first to resist, just the first one who worked at the NAACP.
Claudette Colvin, a 15 year old high school student, had resisted 9 months earlier and it was her case that went to the US Supreme Court and it was her case that ended bus segregation.
No one, this is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the regular US Legal System.
I believe that was a war of defense of our rights to self-rule, not a pattern of imperialist interference in the governments of other countries, by force or otherwise.
They were British citizens, what "right" to self-rule did they have? Not that I support a monarchy, but it wasn't even about self-rule it was about having a say in how they were ruled, but not self-rule (" taxation without representation"). What came after that was what we now view as normal, but even at the time, it was considered an experiment in democracy.
We're not at war, because Congress didn't make a declaration of war. Therefore, the continued military activities are illegal, period. It's not just a technicality, it's part of the larger point that our Congress has allowed things to go completely off the rails.
Constitutionally, congress must make the declaration of war, however, the constitution does not specify the words that must be used to make the declaration. Many constitutional scholars hold that Congress must actually use the words. However, the appellate court says otherwise (see Doe vs Bush) and hold that congress appropriating funds to fight a war (or whatever you want to call it) is in fact their tacit declaration.
And we had Rush Limbaugh, probably one of the most out spoken "conservative" critics of national healthcare go to Hawaii which has the most socialistic healthcare system in the US for his medical needs. He didn't pick Massachusetts which has a similar system; no, he bloodly got as from the US as possible without actually leaving it.
Not to mention the conservative, cut-spending-now republican convention whose top topics were against nationwide healthcare was in Hawaii. And they totally ignored Hawaii's situation.
So either these guys publically disagree with nationwide healthcare and privately love it, or they have no clue how to manage anything. Either way, you wouldn't want them leading the country.
A fitting name to post under for a Canadian. :)
... contains no mention by name of the enemy to which the US military is referring
There isn't one in the War on Terror ;) They are everywhere, all around us, *lurking*
How is that sanity if it would result in no action being taken?
Last I heard, it was the accidental but unsympathetic killing of a journalist
Last you heard, huh? Is it a lot of effort to keep yourself ignorant?
That was two journalist, a bunch of civilians, and the maiming of two children. Not "one journalist". That was a war crime using armor-piercing rounds to slaughter civilians, journalists and children.
"No big deal". To you. Because you don't care, and because you'll excuse anything, so long as you think it can benefit you. Gotta keep that oil flowing, don't cares about the blood.
You can't take the sky from me...
Treason is the wrong word here, and the use of it says something very, very worrying.
The Constitution says:
The audience for Manning's leaks was, in large part, the American public. To call his disclosure treason is to say that the American public is the enemy of the American government.
Thoreau had it right. You can try and work within the system if you want, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. But sometimes civil disobedience is the only alternative that we the people have in fighting immoral and unjust laws. Some people ARE willing to face the consequences, and I applaud them. That is why they do it. Because they are willing to do what it takes to change society for the better.
What does Mugabe have to do with the Suez Canal, other than being on the same continent?
Mugabe has used starvation as a weapon against his own people.
You have to love the /. attitude: If I don't look at this an immediately understand this, it must be really stupid.
If you want to understand it, try to this about running a government for the people. Attempt to describe the programs you would setup for dealing with foreign countries. It would be easy now to say, "I don't know what those would look like, but they certainly don't involve this..." but the idea is to think a little, not just react.
Breaking the law may be a solution of last resort to defy unjust laws, but don't you think that we've reached that point?
The ends do not justify the means
The ends do justify the means when considered holistically.
The prosecution will undoubtedly preface everything by saying that protecting secrets while maintaining an orderly process of declassification is important to the functioning of government and to national security. That is an end which they are seeking through the punishment of Bradley Manning.
To the contrary and an equally valid an argument is that the outcome has been on balance positive in that once it was revealed how US diplomats evaluated foreign leaders it showed to the people of these countries that their governments not only were not respected but were rather the laughing stock of the world.
But it is also fair to say that people have died because of these leaks. Perhaps fighting for a good cause, but still dying. In which case the outcome very much matters. Dying (and killing) for a good cause is better than dying for a failed one.
Also consider the morality of betraying a confidence placed in you. That is an outcome also.
So perhaps one particular end does not justify the act, but a more perfect justice would consider all the ripples from this act and judge and punish accordingly. If I had to call it based on an admittedly incomplete set of information. He is probably guilty of mishandling classified information and should receive some minimal punishment.
I do believe that law and order and national security are important enough to justify some secrets and that people must weigh some serious consequence when deciding to leak. 6 months or 1 year in jail (including time served) and dishonorable discharge would cover it in my mind. And it would wisely balance both the actual and potential harm and the benefits of his alleged act.
Dude is guilty, dude needs to stand trial and stay in prison if found guilty.
Really? I didn't realize a verdict had already been reached. What's that? It hasn't? You're just making shit up?
Ah, well in that case I am going to stand back and wait for the trial and, you know, that important thing called evidence, before accepting such blatantly naive claims.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
...but it was actually just self-aggrandizement, same as that prick Assange. For that, he needs to be made an example of.
If attention whoring and self-aggrandizement are crimes that need to be prosecuted we should probably start rounding up all the 16 year olds in the country now. It will take awhile to prosecute them all.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Are you arguing that we're at War with Iraq? Because, you know, we're not. We won that war. The war is over. Hell, we've even finished the occupation, technically.
Likewise, 'terrorists' does not appear to qualify as an actual 'enemy' for us to be at war with. Under the authority of that bill, we have invaded, and thus gone to war with, Afghanistan, but likewise that war is also over.
The US is at war with no countries right now. We have soldiers dying in various countries, but those are peacekeeper actions within allied nations, not 'war'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I rather JAG be notified and them handling the actual investigation other than some lowly private who sat and watched a few videos and came to his own conclusion without interviewing the pilots, the commanding officers, and etc.
But hey I guess this private has lots of experience in this field.
DU rounds aren't a war crime, yet, so I doubt regular AP rounds get you a war crime.
No, but there was a war and there remains a war in Afghanistan, Al Qadea and the Taliban remain there.
War is hell.
Which is exactly WHY you shouldn't enter it without just cause - which is exactly what we did. I have never seen a good reason as to WHY the US invaded Iraq.
Yes, we've been there a long time and some may say that is irrelevant now. But NONE of this would have happened if we a) weren't there or b) had any kind of how/when we were going to leave.
Amazing how that one horrible decision has led to so many others. It has cost this country, and others (among other things) loss of money, credibility, and lives.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
A "secret" classification is one of the lowest (least sensitive) defined.
"Confidential" is actually lower and still considered "classified". My understanding, based on media reports, is that many or most of these documents are actually marked confidential and only some are marked secret.
In contrast to a historical reference like the leaking of the Pentagon Papers which was in fact "top secret" at the time it was leaked and published by the New York Times.
"what thousands of American soldiers' lives and trillions of dollars were lost trying to do for Iraq and Afghanistan."
You seem to think that USA goals for Iraq and Afghanistan includes democracy or freedom of speech or whatever. Wrong.
"Manning and Wikileaks have done for the rest of the middle east"
In fact, if USA wanted it, democracy would happened at mideast long ago. USA aren't powerless. USA just choose differently.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
How do you think JAG would respond to a private telling them "I have evidence that we are engaged in an unjust war based on false premises and that our military policy is harming the interests of the United States"?
This private may not have experience. He does, however, have a conscience. That latter is somewhat lacking in the people who call the shots.
it was each citizen's duty to disobey illegitimate rules ?
paying your dues to aristocracy, was a rule back in 18th century. so was subjectship of the king.
i see you talking very comfortably and smugly, while enjoying the benefits of the rule-disobeying, your ancestors have done ?
isnt there a contradiction there ?
Read radical news here
Sigh, you're trying to compare two different situations, like the replies to this post too. No one ever got hung for keeping secrets. They got hung because they took part in the act or ordered it. Manning was not in that helicopter shooting people, he is some guy who found the video and leaked it. Two completely different scenarios that people apparently just dont get.
So very true. I've posted the same thing a few days ago. Plus, the members of the military are overseas specifically to coerce and kill. That adds yet another layer of hypocrisy to the "OMG! think of human lives" argument.
What does Mugabe have to do with the Suez Canal, other than being on the same continent?
Mugabe has used starvation as a weapon against his own people.
You do realize that the Suez Canal is in and controlled by Egypt right? just as oil is in and controlled by Libya? Hence the comparison.
If he truely had the intention of trying to bring to light some questionable acts, he went about it the wrong way. To explain in IT terms, its like finding out your company is storing passwords in plain text files, do you A) tell your management or B) Post them on the internet? If your management does not listen, then you go further up the chain. That is the right and responsible thing to do.
When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
Yes, but it isn't their DUTY to break the law themselves in order to find out that those in power have broken the law.
I believe you're thinking of Mubarak. Mugabe is the dictator in Zimbabwe, and one of the worst bastards in Africa.
Well lets just get rid of money entirely and everybody live on good intentions.
Now I know thats going to the extreme, and I'm not trying to be a troll, but you have to realize that making fat ass sums of money is a big reason people work as long and as hard as they do. Take away the incentives and they will just stop trying to get ahead. You think its hard to get people to take their education seriously now, wait until you don't have that "you need to get a good education so you can get a good job and afford X" line. Notice how we aren't all firemen, astronauts, pilots or [insert childhood dream job here]? Why do you think that is?
People doing business for the satisfaction of accomplishment and not power or money is very very rare (but very very admirable and I think very present here on Slashdot). However, big changes in quality of life are preceded by big industrial movements, which are preceded by big scientific movements. You can't just cut the incentive for industry at the knees and expect the equation to still work, unless you want a government directed industry which I strongly disagree with on the terms of believing it to be morally wrong. And even if we did go with it do you really think that would work?
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
and which 'lives' were these secrets saving ? the private cia contractors which ran torture camps ? those who aided kidnappings all over the world ? double agents which have been delivering wedding locations to cia so that cia strikes could kill hundreds while trying to kill a few random mid ranking commanders ?
precisely what lives were these secrets saving again ? these 'innocent' people who have consciously contracted with cia to effect murders, kidnappings, torture in exchange of money ?
dont give us bullshit.
Read radical news here
You don't see a reason why the US Diplomat's comments on, say, the Prime Minister of Italy should be kept secret?
Even in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the notion of conscience is recognized in the course of the execution of one's duty. If a service member is witness to criminal actions by his superiors, he is compelled by duty, honor and conscience to report it.
Pretty sure, in the bolded statement that they meant report it to a superior officer or up the chain of command, not to media outlets....
so, kkk was a majority back in 1930s ? or a local majority which was trying to go medieval on people ?
and, rule of majority, is tyranny ? so then, we should allow local tribes in south america and africa, to continue cannibalism tradition, which was banned ?
dont be a witless moron. there are moral and ethical standards at any given time. some rules and laws are set to observe these. you cant go saying 'majority is tyranny' and go about ritual sacrifice, or cannibalism, or lynching.
'state secrets' has not even been the want and desire of the majority. it was invented and perpetrated by government agencies, and the private interest backers placing their candidates in front of the people as multiple choices.
Read radical news here
I would disagree. If he had gotten those documents to someone in American media, perhaps. But by sending them to an international leaking organization, he did specifically put them on display for the whole world to see.
First, have you listened to the audio in that video? The crew was practically begging for permission to shoot, bantering back and forth like they were playing a video game. As far as I'm concerned, when you approach a situation that could involve taking life with that kind of attitude, nothing that follows is an "accident." As for "your buddy's life on the line," whose life, exactly, was on the line? The only "engagement" going on was the helicopter gunning down a bunch of men who didn't even know anything was coming. That helicopter was far enough away that the "enemy" probably couldn't even see them, let alone hit them with anything, even if they had presented a weapon, which that vehicle didn't.
And most importantly, if it truly was an accident, they should still be in jail. I guarantee you that if a civilian "accidentally" killed multiple individuals, none of whom had given any indication of danger, we would lock them up for a long time on manslaughter charges...but if a soldier does it, they're off scott free? You're right, being a soldier does mean making difficult decisions with little time, but they all knew that when they signed up and accepted that responsibility. Stress, fear, excitement...none of it is an excuse for making a mistake that takes innocent life.
He exposed a lot of shit. That being said, the article does state that the prosecutors are not looking for the death penalty.
Assange would never go to Norway to get the Nobel Peace Prize, since the Norwegians might extradite him to the U.S. like the Swedes.
Norway has repeatedly denied extraction to the U.S since we consider their prisons to have way to low standards and the death penalty to be a cruel punishment. Norway would be way safer than Sweden.
-- Linux user #369862
He wasn't forced into the military, he willfully joined up. So he knows the rules (he learned OPSEC on day one) and broke them anyway, which makes him a traitor. His actions endangered the lives of soldiers around the world and undermined their effort (regardless if you agree with it or not). It's an insult to anyone who has worn the uniform. But of course all you armchair warriors will disagree because you know nothing about what it's like to serve a single day let alone in combat, well except for maybe Call of Duty. Let me be clear, a soldiers life isn't a political pawn!
There are several people making this valid point here, but they're all posting AC. Why is that?
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
The one where "the enemy" was anyone who believed in states' rights?
The one where they demonstrated those "state's rights" by participating in armed revolution against their country?
So you would agree that Bradly Manning is responsible for every single civilian death in Northern Africa (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc.)?
And the "wave of democratization" is likely going to be usurped by already-organized groups with political aspirations in these areas. Note that the folks that actually started both the French and Russian revolutions were nice, friendly people that never envisioned what was going to come out the other end. My guess is that the only organized groups there are in these places are Islamic fundamentalists that will institute a pan-Islamic calphate. After all, the borders of these nations are completely arbitrary and have no basis in history or geography. So why wouldn't they unite?
Never-mind I'm in the wrong and didn't read carefully. I assumed a comparison between Egypt and Libya and skimmed the word assuming it was Mubarak and not Mugabe.
I don't understand why this isn't more clear cut. He broke the law by releasing classified documents. If someone who worked for your billion dollar company suddenly decided that he was pissed off and would open-source all of your proprietary code, people shouldn't suddenly say that he is innocent. Now he's also in the military and the laws in the military are way more strict about doing anything harmful to your country. He broke the law and now he will be punished for it. Prosecuting Assange is a much less clear-cut case because it is unclear whether or not he broke a US law.
Had he presented JAG with real evidence (not simple assertions) of illegal activity they may have ignored it, they may have acted. Unfortunately Manning did not avail himself of that very appropriate option. Instead he skipped right over all the responsible options and openly released a huge pile of unrelated sensitive information.
Manning had legitimate methods for expressing his grievance. He did not use them. Assuming that JAG would have ignored or covered up his evidence is short-sighted.
Popular support is a component of democracy but it's not enough to decide the fairness of laws.
Popular support is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for just laws.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
it was actually just self-aggrandizement, same as that prick Assange..
And you know this for certain how?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
In what fantasy world do you think that JAG would respond favorably to someone presenting them with evidence of war crimes committed by the commander-in-chief?
First of all:
Treason (noun)
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Now, whether or not the military laws cite #2 or #3 as "treason" specifically, I assure you there are rules about exactly those two things. I'm perfectly allowed to use words as they are defined.
Secondly, handing military secrets over to foreign nations could most definitely and reasonably be taken as giving aid to the countries enemies.
If you are talking about accountability, you should be using the legal definition, not the lay definition in the dictionary.
If you want to talk about "betrayal of trust or confidence", then Bush's committed treason a dozen times over in the dictionary sense.
Foreign nations, defined broadly, are not an "enemy", or at least I hope to hell they are not, by the constitutional standard. Such a charge would never hold up in a (fair) court.
You can't declare war against an organization, only another country. We have no specific country we are fighting against so we are not technically at war despite all the rhetoric in D.C. This is why this charge won't stick, because no stated enemy was helped by leaking the cables, it was merely embarrassing for a lot of people. I have no idea why Republicans came up with this idea that terrorism should be fought with armies, the only thing it is good for is funding the military industrial complex.
It's actually pretty easy. All I have to do is watch you go on a frothing at the mouth rant about something that I already acknowledged and said was subject to interpretation, then look for anything else important that was added to the discussion. Turns out there isn't so I'm just as ignorant as I was before you wasted electrons showing the world how one sided you are.
Yea, and no one cared one bit or knew about it until it was known that a journalist was killed. Even the video, yes the edited versions that make it look like they knew he was unarmed too, refer to the one journalist in the titles and mentioning of the situation. It's not like those other people disappeared, but it's perfectly logical to refer to it as the journalist getting killed situation.
Your right. I don't care in the sense that it was in the middle of a war, they were in a conflict zone, and a mistake happened. It's not some big evil thing like it's been made out as at all. Is it a tragic mistake that I wish wasn't repeated, Yes. But that doesn't make it "wrong doings" warranting the release of shit tons of information and documents completely not related to it.
But it's obvious you are just letting your ignorance and emotions, probably combines with some inaccurate preconceived notions, troll your logic so I probably shouldn't have replied at all. You spent the better half of a paragraph attempting to make me recognize more about a situation I already knew about. Then you pretend to know what I think in turn when you can't even grasp referencing to something in shorthand. But what tops it all off is your notion that it's about the oil flowing. Grow up and grab a new argument. Perhaps this time, one that grounded in reality.
The law also forced Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color. Some laws are immoral and need to be broken for the greater good.
Rosa Parks was arrested charged and spent at least overnight in jail as a result of her civil disobedience.
Moral objection to laws and civil disobedience does not mean that you are exempt from punishment. In fact, more often than not, it means that you WILL be punished, so that you can then have full standing to challenge the law in court.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Wrong. Maccleans (popular Canadian magaznie) recently ran an article rating the health care systems in most developed countries. Canada ranked dead last.
I am a dual citizen and have lived for multiple years in both countries. I can attest to the fact that the US health care system is superior to its Canadian counterpart.
The facilities, quality of care and time it takes to get a procedure done are all better in the US.
I suggest you make any necessary changes to wikipedia then, since your source is so much better than than the one used there. Seriously, Canada's health system isn't a model of efficiency (that title goes to Sweden), but compared to the US it's a utopia.
And do you think it is "appropriate" for diplomats to also serve as spies? Not only is this simply "wrong" it is quite probably also illegal under international rules and law.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it is par for the course in International conduct, even among allies. In fact, it's rather EXPECTED behavior of diplomats. That's why we don't tell them anything that we don't want the other side to hear.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
So yes, he aided the Taliban!
What aid did he give? Material to leverage in the course of recruiting terrorists? Then the whole war is an act of treason.
"...gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly."
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47/X/904
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1942 that an enemy doesn't have to be in uniform and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 further defines it.
He is going to rot in prison.
Ah arguing semantics, the last resort.
1) I'm not a lawyer, I don't need to talk like one.
2) While I did perhaps over generalize by saying "foreign nations", in this case it really doesn't matter. Manning gave it to the whole world, in which I assure you the US does have enemies
You aren't actually arguing for your point anymore, you're just trying to nit pick mine with logical fallacies and semantics so I'll go away and you can pretend you were right.
By the way, do you really think that because Bush wasn't tried for his war crimes that no one should be?
The military is not populated entirely by soulless monsters prosecuting some crazy conspiracy. The military is made of people who have consciences, as you've suggested with Manning.
In what world do you think a Military Officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes would be complicit in sweeping evidence of illegal actions under the rug?
Seriously, take off the tinfoil hat and let some blood get back to your brain. Manning had legitimate recourses for blowing the whistle on illegality that did not include throwing a lot of legitimate clandestine operations under the bus. The guy is a petty vengeful prick that doesn't deserve the altruistic credit he's been given.
First, have you listened to the audio in that video? The crew was practically begging for permission to shoot, bantering back and forth like they were playing a video game. As far as I'm concerned, when you approach a situation that could involve taking life with that kind of attitude, nothing that follows is an "accident."
Ummm, it's radio chatter chief. You don't get emotional on the comms, or at all if you can avoid it. That's how artillery gets dropped on your own guys or civilians. When you're flying a multi-million dollar killing machine providing top-cover for countless boots on the ground, well, golly gee Sally, you just don't have time to take a personal moment and cry a little while second guessing yourself over the radio for the entire AO to hear. If you're the 19 year old kid on the ground taking RPG fire do you want to hear you're top-cover which is supposed to be protecting you crying "Oh God I just killed someone. Was it the right person? I hope it was the right person! I'm scared up here!!"
And most importantly, if it truly was an accident, they should still be in jail. I guarantee you that if a civilian "accidentally" killed multiple individuals, none of whom had given any indication of danger, we would lock them up for a long time on manslaughter charges
It's almost as if different rules exist for soldiers in warzones then civilians in peacetime in recognition of the differences in environment and expectation....
The one where they demonstrated those "state's rights" by participating in armed revolution against their country?
You know what the difference is between a civil war and a revolutionary war? Winning.
The rebels won the revolutionary war. They were heroes.
The rebels lost the civil war. They were traitors.
Tell me, what exactly is the difference?
Because, in this case 'enemy' is people'. their own people. imagine - what would the people do with the information that their government is betraying country's ideals and hiding stuff through the wall of secrecy !! what blasphemy. what treason ! how could, 'the people' know what their government is doing !!!! outrageous ...
its rather impossible to come up and say 'hey, we are doing shit behind our people, and so we dont want them to know. so, our enemy is people'
Read radical news here
But, the question is, whether WE, as 'the people' have to accept that, or not.
let me tell you as one of those people - we dont. we own the government. not government us. government, cannot define what's right, or what's wrong, without us.
and i dont remember defining doing filthy shit behind country's back, and then hiding it behind a wall of secrecy, as an allowable act.
Read radical news here
there's no getting around those pesky Geneva Conventions when it comes to engaging medics and wounded enemies.
Which is why they don't fire when the guy is just crawling around on the ground, but when what they think are his buddies show up in an unmarked transport, don't give ANY first aid that would indicate they are medics, but just grab him by the feet and arms and try to escape from the battlefield they do fire. Mistake? Yes. Violation of Geneva Conventions? No.
I think if you're talking about legal repercussions for actions then you certainly do need to talk like a lawyer. Saying that you're not a lawyer and you don't need to "talk like a lawyer" when discussing legal matters is about as absurd as coming to an engineering conference and saying that you don't know mathematics and expecting none to be discussed around you.
For instance, you are, as you have clearly demonstrated, a wanker. You're also exhibiting it in public. Should you be arrested for public fornication, which is illegal in a lot of jurisdictions? No, because "wanker" means different things in different contexts.
There have been very, very few prosecutions for treason in US history, leading one to the conclusion that the definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy" is constructed in a rather narrow sense. Note that Daniel Ellsberg was not charged with treason for leaking the Pentagon Papers.
There's a concept in law that you're only guilty of a crime if you had some level of "guilty mind" (Latin: mens rea) to commit that crime. You cannot be charged with murder unless you intended, with a guilty mind, to kill someone. (This is why the crime of manslaughter exists.) I know you're not a lawyer and don't want to consider points of law, but you brought up the law by saying that this fellow needs to be punished for treason.
Even if Manning's release of the documents resulted in some boogeyman "enemy of the US" receiving "aid and comfort" (which has not been shown), he is still not guilty of treason because he did not leak the documents with the intent that enemies of the US should benefit militarily from them. Is he guilty of violating the conditions of his security clearance? Sure. But this is not treason.
Can we shoot all the douchebags on TV too? Maybe then people in america might go do something with their lives instead of televising and satirising themselves into the permanent vegetative bloodlust that got them where they are now.
When the corruption goes up high enough in the chain of command, you have to report it to the highest -- that would be the public.
How would you like a rule that had a dealth penalty for posting dumb comments?
There are days... There are days...
That is all.
No, there is no assumption of innocence when someone admits to doing it.
Really? That's somewhat surprising, given how often people confess to things they haven't in fact done. Some have even been executed for false confessions (like the case in England that led to the abolition of death penalty there).
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail. Your solution is a non-solution.
Sorry, but that's not true. For starters, revealing classified information of a certain level like SECRET to others who have a SECRET security clearance is not a crime. It is frowned upon if they don't have a "need to know", but it's not a crime. Every JAG officer or civilian has at least a Secret clearance, and there are plenty with Top Secret clearances specifically for the reason of handling cases that involve it. Contacting JAG also protects the individual from any backlash. Depending on the severity of the allegations, the individual who reported something to JAG (or the alleged wrong doer) may be transferred to some place where nobody knows him/her where they continue doing their job, but they are immune to any "punishment". If punishment is found to have happened, JAG itself can prosecute those who did it. If all else fails there is always the IG (Inspector General), who is basically the equivalent of an Internal Affairs. So, whistle blowers in the military are protected if the they go about it the right way.
Nicely put.
Well ideally he would have some recourse within the system itself, or would not have willingly joined it in the first place. I know that I wouldn't join a military that didn't have some reasonable system in place for dealing with corruption further up the chain.
There is a system. It's JAG and the IG (Inspector General). They do work, if used. They both have their own chain of command as well, making them separate entities from each other as well as separate from the the chain of command that investigating or prosecuting, kind of like Internal Affairs of a police department.
No doubt you would claim those 9 children obliterated the other day by Nato gunship crews were also "armed" as they would picking up wood for a cooking fire.
Damn the ENEMY, but they are sneaky, huh? Frankly, the "Apache community" should stand trial the way Lt. Calley once did, but we know that's not about to happen, especially not in the lawless rogue empire nation of the United Skynet Almagamated (USA).
Perhaps you are related to the vice-prez of the USA, Joey Bin Biden. No doubt we should seek his wise counsel on the matter, just as we wonder what he would say about whether Gadhaffi is an actual dictator, or even a psycho dictator, something which evidently appears to have caught our banksters, pharmaceutical lobbyists, Monsanto lobbyists, and Exxon-Mobil lobbyists, like Susan Rice and the other neocons on Obama's administration, completely by surprise!
We do know of vice-prez Joey Bin Biden's recent sage declarations: that Mubarrak of Egypt was "NOT a dictator" and that "Julian Assange is a high-tech terrorist" --- you go, Joey Bin Biden, man of many achievements (such as that op you were a part of, together with Anita Hill, to get Clarence Thoms seated on the US Supreme Court --- you go, Joey!!!!).
I've know a variety of military pilots over the years; some stalwart and of absolute integrity, such as Maj. Fritz Meyers, who refused to take the path of least resistance and retired early to publicly denounce the "official version" of the surface-to-air missile shootdown of Flight 800 (which the radar data, released some years later under an FOIA request, has proven).
But those Apache crews, and the Nato crews, aren't among them.
Not sure what your point was, but you DO realize that he was on vacation (Christmas 2009) in Hawaii at the time he experienced chest pains. This was an EMERGENCY! Nothing pro-active or scheduled about his decision.
Life is not for the lazy.
Given that soldiers swear an oath to uphold the ideals of the constitution, it is their moral and duty to disobey order which violate these principles. This is what Manning did and of course this is why we have trials to determine if he should have disobeyed secrecy rules, if you're a soldier and you witness the government breaking it's own rules it is your responsibility to bring it to light.
One can reasonably argue that the leaked cables was the match that lit the powderkeg. Wikileaks' revelation of the extravagance and corruption of the Tunisian governing elite is what motivated the Tunisians to finally revolt. That revolt would not have occurred if the strong desire wasn't already there, if there wasn't already a long history of simmering resentment. And Tunisia's revolution (or revolt if that's what you call a revolution as it's occurring) obviously motivated Arabs across the rest of the region to do the same.
There are many, many, actually countless, numbers of laws congress has and is now in violation of. The vast majority of them should be dangling at the end of a noose for crimes against the people.
Good question. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but doesn't creating an act-of-war (911 WTC, bombing of USS Cole...etc) constitute that person, group, and associations thereof as an enemy of the state? Or, is an enemy only defined by an official declaration of war by congress?
Life is not for the lazy.
huh?
You think the U.S. is so weak that they would have to resort to credit card fraud to hurt their enemies? There is no country on this planet that could stand up to the U.S. in an all out confrontation. Maybe in another decade China will have the resources but putting yourself in a perpetual state of readiness for war is the exact reason much of the world dislikes the U.S. and calls us warlike people. You are much better aligning yourselves economically as that will prevent escalation to war. China for instance is so involved in our economy that it was be mutually assured destruction if either side targeted the other.
Seriously, quit being so paranoid and realize that if they really want to decimate anybody, credit cards would be no where on their radar and are completely unnecessary for tracking funds necessary to for instance purchase weapons to be used against us. Violating the privacy of visiting dignitaries is not a good idea and does nothing to improve relations with them, quite the contrary, if they have to always be guarded then you won't get anywhere with them when you're negotiating.
> So you would agree that Bradly Manning is responsible for every single civilian death in Northern Africa (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc.)?
Would you agree that Jesus is responsible for every death committed in the name of a Christian god? That Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington are responsible for every death from every bomb dropped by a US plane or bullet fired by a US soldier?
> My guess is that the only organized groups there are in these places are Islamic fundamentalists that will institute a pan-Islamic calphate.
Rather than guess why don't you use the wonderful resource known as the Internet to educate yourself? As far as Egypt and Tunisia go, the people are fairly well educated and a lot of the necessary institutions for democracy are already there, as well as a strong sense of nationalism. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism is just the latest boogeyman, like the communists in the 1950s.
You might be using some selective remembrance there.
The Canadian health-care system is trash talked to. In fact, one of the funniest thrashings of the Canadian health care system is the fact that a superior court ruled that Quebec's ban on wait time insurance was immoral because the wait times for treatments were causing people to die or be permanently disfigured by their conditions.
France and other larger countries are typically ignored because they aren't thrown up as models of how it can work. This is mostly because the UK and Canada are more similar to the US. When people claim it can work, they know the population in the US won't stand for the differences between the US and France in the government of the economy and other areas. It's implicit that their systems works because of things that are radically different which we won't accept.
And I think this is what people are forgetting. Those "classified" documents showed illigal activity buy the US government. Illigal activity is never suppose to be classified. I think the governments pososition will fall apart in court when this is brought up. Unless of course they don't allow the docs to be used in court for "state secret" reasons, which I wouldn't put above them. Even if the docs are already widely available.
Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.
Depends. If where talking about Wikileaks, sure. But if your talking about the Federal Gov where that was NOT the intent, well... the latter is like blaming the home owner (not the thief) for not locking his doors. Or, blaming a victim of rape for being too seductive and sexy.
Again, it's all about the intent and whom the instigator is.
Life is not for the lazy.
When the My Lai Massacre was first reported, a Col. Colin Powell, of Americal, was instrumental in covering it up.
Which is how those clowns reach general and admiral rank (see the background of douchey John McCain's father and grandfather).
Only after the gunship crewman became a civilian, and continued to pursue the matter did it ever reach the light of day.
But with endless duty and service in today's nonconscripted slave military, and partially-privatized, how could Manning know when, or if, he would ever be separated from service?
A lot of posters today simply can't locate their genitals....
Excellent point. I have often wondered how the White House claims "wartime powers" (wrt wiretaps, search of private homes and businesses, and surveillance of civilians) when we do not have an official declaration of war.
Maybe we do. I have never seen or heard about it. All I hear is "wartime powers" "wartime powers" and more "wartime powers". Where is the declaration of war?
They do not want to make an actual declaration of war because, if they did, then the terms and conditions for the end of the war would be given in the declaration of war. If we had terms and conditions for the end of the war then we would have citizens pushing to meet them and then there would be no perpetual assumption of "wartime powers". The scam should be crystal clear.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Your right, south and central America are far more likely spots for Canadian medical tourists. Just like India and Taiwan are popular with the UK's.
And no, it's not a single instance extrapolated, it's a single instance that is easy to remember because it's a politicians who bailed on the system.
You mean like the wealth being made from wait insurance? You know, the insurance policy that quite a few Canadians are purchasing that guarantees they will be taken out of the country for treatment if necessary?
I could see your point if health insurance wasn't still being purchased and sold in Canada to Canadians.
Wrong. the medical bills would simply be levied against their estate and their kids wouldn't get any inheritance. What wasn't paid would be written off in taxes and keep their paid services per charitable services at a rate in which they continue to receive the non-profit tax deductions.
There are enough programs out there that it's likely it would have been paid for in the first place. I'm not sure why you insist on perpetuating the myth that people are left to die because they can't afford something. It's illegal for any hospital to refuse emergency medical treatment to anyone on the bases of their ability to pay.
The parent may have implied a couple incorrect notions, you certainly did. Let's take a chance and see what happens if our notions are actually correct before spouting them. I'm betting that improvement in both places could be possible.
Are you really trying to say that context doesn't matter? Of course the contents of the information leaked is very important in determining whether or not the information should be leaked. I don't know anyone that thinks the government can't keep some secrets, but wrongdoing should never be covered up. Since there was evidence of wrongdoing the conduct was indeed proper. There is a huge difference between selling secrets to an enemy and broadcasting evidence of crimes being committed with offenders going unpunished.
While I think U.S. soldiers wouldn't fire on civilians unless they thought they were truly in danger, I think we need to be much more honest about why we are there to begin with and why we are putting soldiers in dangerous situations where they could be committing war crimes in the first place. If there was a much greater amount of transparency then none of this would have been necessary. It's ok to admit mistakes, hiding them only slows progress and in these cases only galvanizes the enemy against you further.
Of course we shouldn't be in the nation building business anyway but we made one hell of a mess of the middle east in the 60's, 70s, and 80s. There was marked improvement in the 90s but that led us where we are now, fighting people that we both trained and armed.
You are confusing the rights of public and private entities.
Public entities report to their citizens, and should be transparent in their activies.
Private citizens and companies have should have certain rights to privacy.
46137
In case you didn't miss the next response to your parent, check it out: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2020186&cid=35368210
He links to an article that answers your question: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/02/wikileaks-exclusive-book-extract
I'm sure if you looked you could find more articles that strengthen the association, but the cables definitely had an effect in confirming the Tunisians' suspicions about the extravagance and corruption of their ruling elite and pushing them further toward revolution. Maybe they would have revolted without the leaked cables, but the leaked cables definitely helped.
Here are a few: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/cablegate-disclosures-have-furthered-investigative US Contractors in Afganastan pimp out young boys and the State Department coverd it up: "The Guardian reported on a cable describing an incident in which employees of DynCorp, a U.S. military contractor, hired a âoedancing boyâ for a party. The term âoedancing boy,â also known as bacha bazi, is a euphemism for a custom in Afghanistan in which underaged boys are dressed as women, dance for gatherings of men and are then prostituted. Read more. The incident allegedly involved soliciting local Afghan police for a bacha bazi as well as usage of illegal drugs. The cable detailed that Hanif Armar, minister of the Interior of Afghanistan, urged the United States to help contain the scandal by warning journalists that reporting on the incident would endanger lives. "
Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.
'treason' is bullshit. if you think 'treason' is a real crime, you're a moron. yes, the morons are in charge but that's nothing new.
at the end of the day, EVERYONE is responsible for their own well being and making intelligent choices.
the very concept of 'my country, right or wrong' is braindamaged to the very core. we need to stop making people into robots.
we have brains. use them. value each decision and stop being a damned automaton. 'patriotism' just another way of saying 'we are better than you' - and that's just plain sickening, if you really think about it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"
There's nothing ironic at all about the situation. The State department cables may contribute to revolution and revolt in the Mid East BECAUSE a traitorous American RELEASED them. If the American wasn't a TRAITOR, then those cables would never have come out, and perhaps we would not be seeing this level of turmoil right now.
I find it ironic how someone could totally misuse the word irony, and yet not perceive that it was a traitorous act that caused the situation to come about, NOT the mere existence of diplomatic cables, that have always had a Machiavellian nature since the dawn of statecraft.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
There are several people making this valid point here, but they're all posting AC. Why is that?
Because whoever wants them to make these posts didn't give HBGary the extra $50k for bots with real accounts.
Support SETI@home
Without someone with the intellect of the framers of the constitution, the original American revolution would probably have resulted in a third world country. The problem is not the current generation if you get my meaning...
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Others disagree with this view. They consider that if the public knows exactly what's said, then a frank exchange of views is not possible.
It may be misclassified, but no law is broken misclassifying it in this way. It's simply not likely to cause enough damage if this is done, and easily reversible in the rare case that it does some sort of harm.
Please hold the sarcasm; it's not conducive to rationale discourse (I know I'm expecting a lot from Slashdot).
Here's an interesting case for you:Take an expensive therapy like Provenge (an immunotherapy for prostate cancer that costs around 90k per patient and that extends life for an average of 3 months). Now, with the demographic shift that is occurring due to extended life spans coupled with the fact that prostate cancer is predominantly a disease of old age, how do you decide who gets something like Provenge in a government-subsidized system like Canada? Does everyone get it or no one? If the former, how can you possibly think the system can withstand the costs of this sort of thing. If the latter, wouldn't that mean the most advanced therapies are not available in Canada (since going private in Canada for the therapy would be impossible since they don't allow a two-tier system)?
during a time of war...
Which war is that?
Here's the thing - if you're flying an attack helicopter, part of your job is to kill human beings. For the sake of your own humanity, you're forced to dehumanise them.
Anyway, banter is just that - banter. Talk to anyone who deals with death on a regular basis. They'll have a pretty dark sense of humour. It's a shield. This does not mean they're not being professional. The crew knew that there was a risk that they were attacking civilians. This is why there are procedures in place. But the procedures just reduce the risk. They don't eliminate it
War is still a dangerous place. It's tragic but mistakes happen. They happen a lot. That's not the crime here. The crime is that this was covered up.
Seriously - who exactly is the enemy? Everyone who isn't American? In my mind, at this point in time, the American government is clearly an enemy of the people.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
That's a BS argument. He didn't release them for that point and probably had no idea what he was releasing.
If you opened fire on a crowed and happen to kill some wanted criminals by chance should you be forgiven for the incident?
It would destroy America? Cool, when do we get started?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Actually, the Canadian unit of currency is the "Dollar". Please hold while I shake my head again and mutter something about dumb redneck americans.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
You're an idiot, and you're lying. Every study I've ever seen has been extremely critical of the US health care system because it really isn't better. Hell, cuba's health care system is better than the one in the US.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Specifically, (in the Rosa Parks case) the law was that Blacks had to sit at the back and whites at the front. There was a movable marker establishing where the sections were. The "white" section was getting too full, so the driver moved the marker further back, and Rosa Parks refused to move.
Rosa Parks was a good public face for the campaign. A Well spoken respectable middle aged woman was simply better for convincing the public than a pregnant 15 year old with a tendency towards profanity.
Yeah, this was an ego thing for sure. That's why he submitted it to a secret leaking organization anonymously.
Idiot.
and then bragged about it in a bar. Idiot.
OK, so now that we've established that you're an idiot, what now?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Yeah, it's so much better in america where they can discriminate against people and just outright deny them healthcare for stupid reasons. Holy fuck you're an idiot.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Actually, it's a defined, real crime, per the Law of the Land, the US Constitution.
Article III, Section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
18 USC 2381:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Treason is directly betraying the country to an aggressor or invader- or being one yourself. It carries one of the highest penalties: Death. You get lesser punishments upon mitigating circumstances.
Next time...educate yourself before calling someone a moron, okay?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Yeah, I saw one.
One of the cables talked about a wealthy fencer from a prestigious family from a specific city in Iran as being an informant to the embassy. Now, it didn't mention his name specifically, but come on, how narrow is that pool going to be? I also don't know if anything has come from it yet or will come from it, but it's pretty safe to say that this dude is less then safe. Maybe, I guess it depends what prestige gets you vs. the spy hunters in Iran.
That's the worst I've seen from the pile. But despite his possible risk, the good that the leaks have done far outweigh the bad. The USA is not immune to corruption or abuse, and sunshine is the best cure.
Hate to break it to you but you have been brainwashed by insurance company propoganda to act against your own best interest.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Actually, the Canadian unit of currency is the "Dollar". Please hold while I shake my head again and mutter something about dumb redneck americans.
Yeah, that's what I thought too until I went to Canadia, and all the Canadians called it the 'loon' because of the bird on it (another questionable choice -- you didn't have any PEOPLE you were proud enough of to put them on your money, besides the queen of a different country?). What's even worse, they called the two loon the 'toon'. You poor Cannucks have some self esteem problems I think, but I like your country, even despite your obsession with curling and the Savage brothers.
Please hold the sarcasm; it's not conducive to rationale discourse (I know I'm expecting a lot from Slashdot).
Here's an interesting case for you:Take an expensive therapy like Provenge (an immunotherapy for prostate cancer that costs around 90k per patient and that extends life for an average of 3 months). Now, with the demographic shift that is occurring due to extended life spans coupled with the fact that prostate cancer is predominantly a disease of old age, how do you decide who gets something like Provenge in a government-subsidized system like Canada? Does everyone get it or no one? If the former, how can you possibly think the system can withstand the costs of this sort of thing. If the latter, wouldn't that mean the most advanced therapies are not available in Canada (since going private in Canada for the therapy would be impossible since they don't allow a two-tier system)?
Yeah, that's roughly the same stuff I hear from every Republican. That is, ignore the overwhelming empirical evidence that socialized medicine is better and cheaper, and ask a loaded question about a specific example that requires a committee to investigate, not a single person to answer based on some potentially erroneous information given by the asker of said loaded question. In short, like most things in life, it depends.
More to the point, Canadians have an average lifespan 3 years greater than that of Americans (see the chart in GP post). So it sounds like they're doing pretty good at keeping people alive.
To be fair American spies around the world are now under investigation. i guess Americans should ask themselves if informing the American people and the international community of illegal actions the government is taking without the consent of the people is something that should be punished.
Manning is getting punished because he snitched on the American gang Government for breaking international law. the international community should put trade sanctions on America for their behaviour.
Are you really trying to say that context doesn't matter? Of course the contents of the information leaked is very important in determining whether or not the information should be leaked. I don't know anyone that thinks the government can't keep some secrets, but wrongdoing should never be covered up. Since there was evidence of wrongdoing the conduct was indeed proper. There is a huge difference between selling secrets to an enemy and broadcasting evidence of crimes being committed with offenders going unpunished.
Of course content matters. So, too, who the information is disseminated to. Was the US wrong in what happened? It seems that way, but to tell the truth, I haven't seen the "other side's" story, so I don't really know. Is their solid evidence that the US covered it up or was it being addressed through other channel? I know it was covered up, but most things appear covered up if an investigation is in process. And, what should the government had done in the first place? Gone public? What would that have accomplished short of giving a lot of propaganda to those who would use it against the United States, which is exactly what is happening with the leaked information.
Also, a lot more was leaked than just the dealings with the military and the Iraq. One can only surmise that the motivation was not just about the war. Finally, as others have mentioned, there were other avenues to take that would not have involved sending classified information to a foreign national.
There are two issues involved in all of this. Should the information about the shootings, etc. been concealed from the public. I don't know. There is a lot of stuff that has gone on in most wars that the public never new and until recently would never have argued that they had the right to know. When this all gets to court, that issue will not be on trial.
What will be on trial is whether or not Manning violated the army code of conduct, whether the information was classified and whether he willfully gave that classified information to a foreign national. Assuming he is the source of the leak, which still has to be proven, those questions are pretty black and white.
Many people have commented on morality and conscience. It is true that a soldier does not have to carry out an order that is immoral or unlawful. However, what order was he given that he refused to carry out? None. Instead, people are trying to equate the right to disobey an unlawful order with taking action to right a wrong.
It is good to right a wrong, but if you do so in a wrong way, then you suffer the consequences. Giving classified information to foreign nationals tends to be the wrong way. He's in trouble, not because the NY Times ran the story but because he gave classified government documents to a foreign national. It doesn't matter whether the information contained in those documents should have been made known to the public or not. If he had given it direct to the Times, he would still be in trouble, but not for espionage and treason.
The documents show that the US government works with all kinds of despots and dictators, regardless of what we think of them. This was true in Tunisia before the revolt, the same is true of Egypt. It's not so far fetched to think that bringing that to light might contribute civil unrest in those countries, as their citizens would feel betrayed by their government. It's too bad a similar uprising has not happened here. It doesn't matter whether the law requires full disclosure or not, allowing the government to act secretly without accountability is a bad idea. The strong rarely need protection.
I don't really care what people know about me (maybe I should, but I don't). I'm not going to go out of my way to make that information available, but I will give it to anyone who asks and has a good reason. I have a good reason to want to know what the government is doing with my tax dollars. If they are crooked, I need to know that. I am a share-holder and the US government represents me. I don't want to see innocent people killed in my name using my tax dollars, and that's exactly what the military documents show.
Actually, that's the backup solution for the national debt.
It's "loonie", not loon.
She's not the queen of a different country, she's the queen of Canada. She just also happens to be the same person as the queen of the UK (and Australia, etc.). It's an important distinction.
We prefer to put people on our bills, which currently feature Sir Wilfrid Laurier (7th Prime Minister, on the $5), Sir John A. Macdonald (First PM, on the $10), Queen Elizabeth II (on the $20), William Lyon Mackenzie King (10th PM, on the $50), and Sir Robert Borden (8th PM, on the $100).
Also, in regards to the toonie, at least calling it a doubloon didn't catch on.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Not to mention that he and his insurance paid the bill, not the citizens of Hawaii.
You are an ignorant fool. First, Rush was on vacation in Hawaii. He didn't fly there from Florida or new york because he was having chest pains. He was already there. It's completely stupid to suggest that someone jumps on a plane and cherry picks some state thousands of miles away because of an emergency condition.
National health care has nothing to do with Hawaii. The health care in Hawaii, outside of minimum standards prescribed by the FDA, is completely Hawaii's jurisdiction. That's where the public health care belongs too. In the state, not the federal government.
Or, you just don't know what you are talking about and letting everyone on the world know it too. And if all your politics are this clueless, I'm not sure anyone should listen to you about it ever again.
Sorry, you're right about the "loonie". I gotta say though, "loonie" isn't really an improvement when talking about currency. The queen thing is kinda lame (what's she done for you lately?), but I get that it's kinda cool being able to move to Australia or the UK without as much hassle, and putting some old rich lady on your money isn't that high a price to pay for something like that.
So what can you tell me about curling and the Savage brothers? When I was in Vancouver for 2 weeks, I was able to find at least 2 curling matches and either Boy Meets World or the Wonder Years on TV at any given time.
When you are invaded, you are at war. An ex political faction of Afghanistan was driven out of power by a war we commence. That same faction, the one that gave safe harbor to Al Qeada, is trying to retake the territory.
In short, we are at war technically as much as any other way we have been in.
Probably because a: you don't understand why we went to war, and b: fighting terrorism with law enforcement turned into 4 hijacked planes and about 3000 innocent people dead who did little more then showing up to work.
The oath soldiers take says nothing about the ideals of the US constitution. Stop reading into things and turning it into something it isn't.
Th oath the soldiers take goes as follows.
There is another one, almost identical with the addition of governor for the national guard members.
Now regardless of what you think about what manning did or what was supposedly exposed, there were legitimate avenues of redress he could have taken. These avenues ranged from speaking to his commanding officer, speaking to a jag officer, speaking to his congressman or senator, or even the department of justice. He did none of this. Instead, he grabbed a bunch of documents, some video and other things that he most likely didn't even read and release them to the detriment of the country and the post he was serving under.
The way he went about things is somewhat like shooting a person to stop their broken foot from bothering them. He may have achieve what you think the goal was, but he went about it all the wrong way.
Had you read the wikipedia article, you'd would have seen the 40 or so referenced articles. But it is apparent that you are jumping to knee jerk reactions.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Are you being serious right now?
He may indeed be less safe, but not necessarily since harming him now would lend weight to his allegations.
That cable is odd in many ways. They seem to have done a lot of research into the informant including his hobbies, but they aren't really sure about the company he informed on. The best they could manage is a quick google? Couldn't they have asked him to be specific about the company?
Nevertheless it does meet the minimum requirement in that it could in theory endanger his life. I would like to see evidence of the 'many' military or civilians supposedly endangered.
Except, accourding to the Justice Department, the DOD does a very poor job of protecting it's whisle blowers. See section C of the report entitled "Increase of Complaints". (Compaints is in relation to reprisal complaints) Soruce: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/defense_dept_not_properly_protecting_whistleblower.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20TPMmuckraker%20(TPMmuckraker)#
Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.
After this, I'm not wasting any more time on you. Just remember that healthcare quality is more complex than a simple measure of mortality. If I live 85 years in Canada but with my last years with a broken hip because I can't get to the head of a waiting list versus to 82 in the US, I'll take the latter.
Yes because Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Or was it Eurasia? So many enemies...
Allow me to alleviate your (feigned) bafflement. (For those who like to cut to the chase.)
Previously unseen tape shows bin Laden's declaration of war
Bin Laden gave his peace terms in is letter to America. In short: covert to Islam as a nation, give up the US constitution and implement strict Sharia la
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Anyone who calls a unit of currency the 'loony' or 'toony' can't be taken seriously.
No one will see their attack coming.
After this, I'm not wasting any more time on you. Just remember that healthcare quality is more complex than a simple measure of mortality. If I live 85 years in Canada but with my last years with a broken hip because I can't get to the head of a waiting list versus to 82 in the US, I'll take the latter.
Yeah, I don't think that's the case there. But guess what? If you're in the US and don't have money, you won't be getting that hip replacement. Ever.
The Queen (and Governor general and Lieutenant governors) aren't really supposed to do much. They're strictly for head of state ceremonial stuff (greeting foreign dignitaries, etc.), whereas the Prime Minister actually does stuff in government, unlike the US where the president has to do both. I personally think it's more effective to divide the role like we do.
As for curling, I'm eagerly awaiting the world championships since Saskatchewan won the tournament of hearts (The skip's hometown isn't far from me). Also waiting to see if we'll win the brier next week.
No idea on the savage brothers. I've never much been interested in most TV.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
US Contractors in Afganastan pimp out young boys and the State Department coverd it up:
"The Guardian reported on a cable describing an incident in which employees of DynCorp, a U.S. military contractor, hired a âoedancing boyâ for a party. The term âoedancing boy,â also known as bacha bazi, is a euphemism for a custom in Afghanistan in which underaged boys are dressed as women, dance for gatherings of men and are then prostituted. Read more. The incident allegedly involved soliciting local Afghan police for a bacha bazi as well as usage of illegal drugs. The cable detailed that Hanif Armar, minister of the Interior of Afghanistan, urged the United States to help contain the scandal by warning journalists that reporting on the incident would endanger lives. "
Not quite.
DynCorp disputes WikiLeaks allegations
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The 2011 "Manning Revolutions" the brought democracy to the middle east.
Congress and the justice department aren't part of the DOD. The DOD was not his only avenue of redress.
Anyways, your link intrigued me so I followed it to the source. Here are some things that the link failed to point out.
So of the 600 claims of reprisal, less then 1 in 5 were true. This means for every 1 true claim, 4 were false. But it breaks it down further with,
I think this speaks for itself, but in case it's not exactly clear, the one in five is from the number 54.
Oh yea, one more thing. The 20 and 15 percent differences. That's because the link you reference groups all claims of reprisal together. They are actually recorded separately when senior officials were investigated. 257 cases were with senior officials, 382 cases were with all other aspects of the DOD including defense contractors. Of the investigations into senior officials that were actually warranted, the "topics such as alleged violation of the Privacy Act, improper official travel, reprisal, sexual harassment and improper acceptance of a gift from a subordinate", were covered so it includes a lot more then just reprisals for whistle blowing.
The actual report cited in the link doesn't exactly paint the picture the link you provided does. It ignored plenty of details and attempted to lump complaints not even associated with reprisals on whistle blowers as if they were. Presumably, this was in order to bolster their case- whatever that may be. It may surprise you to know that the TPM site is basically a democrat schill group with stated goals that a united democrat front will deny republicans office. When encountering sites like that, You should always check the source and weed out the bullshit before taking it as fact. And that goes just as well for republican, or tea party or whatever sites making claims.
Not to mention the DOD already put out a statement saying the release of the files didn't put any of the soldiers or civilians at risk
Was destroying the left's (and maybe the right's) ability to think rationally and objectively. This thread is full of derp and whargarble defending a traitor who is getting exactly what he deserved.
Left, i am disappoint. /voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
What the hell ever happened to fact? Truth is for religious people. For intelligent people, we work in things like Fact and theories. Truth is word that allows people to abuse theory by accepting unsubstantiated theory as fact.
On the other hand, I'll take truth if you toss in a bottle of 30 year single malt scotch and a playboy cover model. Then I should be too busy to bother with silly things like fact.
It's not an unreasonable assertion. As with any mass movement, we can't know why exactly it happened. More generally, social unrest happens when people feel they are being oppressed or taken advantage of. You say a student burning himself caused it, but that's really just like a match starting a fire. Fire needs more than just a spark, it needs fuel. One person burning themselves would not lead social unrest in the US today because everyone is fat and happy for the most part, and they all have too much to lose. In Tunisia, though, such a thing was possible. And really, it was only a matter of time. In any case, any evidence that discredits the government (even if it's the government of another country) contributes to the perception of oppression and usury. So it probably did have something to do with it.
On a side note, you should consider cutting back on the meaningless inflammatory remarks. They only serve to shut down discussion. It's the cyber equivalent of covering your ears and yelling "I'm not listening". If you're going to do that, you'd do just as well to say nothing at all.
Subject says it all. Totally predictable and unsurprising.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The leaks happened before the revolution, they contained information about the government of Tunisia, therefore the potential for a causal link exists. You are correct that the man was not a student, as he was a graduate who was unable to find work and was fed up after the government shut down his vegetable stand. If you would to read a discussion of the link, here's a discussion of it. But honestly, I don't know what kind of "evidence" would prove such a link to your satisfaction. Do you? Would you like signed statements from all the participants saying that Wikileaks had something to do with it? All I said was that Wikileaks may well have had something to do with it. You say there's zero evidence, but I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for, it's not like there's going to be fingerprints or DNA evidence. The fact that the leaks happened soon before the revolution, and people were talking about it at the time is all the evidence you're going to get (and it's all the evidence you could possibly hope to get). If that's not enough for you that's fine, but there's no reason for you to shout down people who think it is good enough.
And what's with you saying that I'm arrogant or that I don't know what I'm talking about? All I have to go on is news reports, I've never been to Tunisia. If you'd been there and were involved with the rebellion, maybe you'd have a point. But as it stands, I don't see any reason to think you know any more about it than I do.
Once again, I would like to reiterate to you how unnecessary and pointless your name-calling and inflammatory remarks are. If you don't want to talk to me, you don't have to reply. You're really just wasting your fingers typing all that. I'm not going to get upset and my feelings will not be hurt by some random person on the internet for calling me names.
So your point is that the US, after 10 years of war, still has not been able to deal with a handful of individuals? Oh dear oh dear...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And you live up to yours.
Take off every 'sig' !!
The fact that the leaks happened soon before the revolution, and people were talking about it at the time is all the evidence you're going to get. That is satisfactory to me. If you are looking for more evidence than that, what are you looking for? If you can't think of anything, that means a lack of evidence (in your eyes) was a foregone conclusion.
If the leaks had happened a long time before the revolution, or if they'd not contained anything about the government of Tunisia, or if they hadn't been discussed and shared among protestors in the time leading up to and during the revolution, I'd concede that they probably weren't a factor. But as it is, there's no good reason to say they did not contribute.
Ok, here is a quote from a young tunisian directly linking the cable to the revolution. Here is an article about the tunisian government blocking a website which posted the leaked cable. Here is an article about Gaddafi's statement that the leaked cables were responsible for the revolution (you didn't ask for that but I saw it from the other article and it seemed relevant).
Again, I'm not saying that the leaks caused the revolution, only that they contributed to it. There's enough information here to support that hypothesis.
Here's the thing, people have to be careful when saying wikileaks contributed to it because it's bad to imply that the revolution may not have happened were it not for a western news source (which is really what wikileaks is). Certainly, the Tunisians did the work (and paid in blood) to get these guys out of power, and they deserve credit for it.
You seem to be saying that the leak had no impact, and that it is only a bad thing. Then someone tells you that it's "arguably responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia" and you flip a switch. But it's true, a valid argument can be made that a revolution might not have happened without the credible disclosures of corruption contained in the leaked documents. If you search the internet, you will find no shortage of people making exactly that argument. We can never know whether or not the revolution would have happened without the leaked cables because the reality is that the revolution happened when the leak happened. We can't retrospectively separate the two.
You asked for evidence. I gave you the evidence you asked for and you said it wasn't good enough. Sorry, there's nothing else I can do beyond that. I don't know what you will consider a credible source of information, nor do I know whether or not such a source would support my argument (for the reason I mentioned above).
I think I made it pretty clear that I don't think it's appropriate to take credit away from the people of Tunisia. But just because you give credit to one source, doesn't mean there weren't any other contributing factors. All I'm saying is that Wikileaks contributed to the revolution, and that it might not have happened without it. At the very least, you have to admit that it had some effect.
A lot of news articles mention protesters citing wikileaks during their protests, though I can't find and direct quotes (except in blogs, which you say aren't credible). Here is one such article from the New Yorker (I don't know if you will consider it credible or not). Here is what it says:
Admittedly, that is supposedly cited from an article from the New York Times, but when you check the source article, it seems to have since been edited, and says instead:
Still, the meaning is the same. The leaks added credibility to the protesters complaints. Without them the protests may not have found the popular support they needed to succeed.
Here is a Tunisian website that translated and distributed the leaks prior to the revolution. If the leaks weren't important, why would Tunisian activists risk doing something like that?
I'm not taking any credit away from the demonstrators by also crediting wikileaks. There's enough credit to go around. If you have the attitude that it must be one and not the other, you miss a lot of important details of the event.
What did you think of the links I provided?