Bradley Manning Makes Statement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bradley Manning Makes Statement

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday March 2, 2013 @10:58AM from the answering-questions-of-patriotism dept.

Bradley Manning, the 25-year-old U.S. Army soldier who allegedly leaked hundreds of thousands of internal memos about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been held by the government for two and a half years. On Thursday he pleaded guilty 10 of 22 charges brought against him, and now he has released an official statement. Here's an excerpt: "On 3 February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the submit documents link. Next I found the submit your information online link and elected to submit the SigActs via the onion router or TOR anonymizing network by special link. ... I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to provide the documents to the Washington Post. It provided rough guidelines saying ‘It’s already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You might need to sit on this information– perhaps 90 to 100 days to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day. After sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt’s house in the event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11 February 2010. Although the information had not yet been publicly by the WLO, I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday."

54 of 440 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Its hard to tell by DFurno2003 · 2013-03-02 11:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

If any good come from this... Has it caused any measurable change in government policy? Or did it just cause tightening of their grip on classified data?
1. Re:Its hard to tell by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-02 11:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I was thinking about this the other day.
  WRT Manning: I feel a bit bad for him. I absolutely understand that there's a need for secrecy in war-fighting, and I appreciate that the military has the ability to enforce that secrecy with punishment. I still feel bad for him. This young man was not in the best frame of mind, and it sounds like he really thought he was trying to do something right.
  WRT the material: The first strike seems entirely legit. The one that killed the two Reuters people. They met with armed belligerents, at night, in an area where they knew there was fighting. Everyone wishes they hadn't been in the mix when our pilots and gunners did what they were supposed to. This, however, is going to happen when you have reporters pushing the limits of sanity to get a story in a war zone. Beyond that, it's chopper gunners shooting at a group of enemy combatants with RPG's and small arms, just like they're supposed to.
  The second strike was wrong, and demonstrates what Manning was talking about when he talks about the fog of war. Bad things happen. The people on the guns obviously weren't trying to kill innocent, unarmed people. But they did, acting on invalid assumptions from the earlier strike, and it's tragic. There's no way around that.
  WRT the handling of the material: The military's approach to the material (denying FOIA requests) was shady, but a pretty obvious function of, "err on the side of keeping stuff secret." You can't have war without casualties, and any time it happens somewhere where people live, some of those are going to be bad kills.
  That said, handling of the material was absolutely atrocious. The "collateral murder" video was a selectively edited, perversely annotated, propaganda piece. Every effort was made to point out there were two people with cameras, not AK's, and no efforts (at all) were made to point out the loaded RPG's and small arms carried by the people they were meeting.
  It's a mess. I feel bad for the kid... he was in a bad place before, and an even worse place now. I feel bad for every serviceman that got a bad rap from this situation, and I can see how unfair the whole thing was to our military in general. I do think the military made it worse by denying the release in the first place, and turning Manning into a Streisand situation.
  WRT lessons learned: Don't deal with wikileaks. Deal with proper news outlets carefully. Don't deal with shady 3rd parties over IRC. Do everything you can to stay "on the level", lest you become the story, instead of what you're trying to report.
2. Re:Its hard to tell by femtobyte · 2013-03-02 13:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  WRT the material: The first strike seems entirely legit. The one that killed the two Reuters people. They met with armed belligerents, at night, in an area where they knew there was fighting.
  Funny that the term "belligerents" is rarely used to refer to the side that imported routine flaming death from the skies to the region, and actually has the option to pack up their stuff and go home. The horrifying thing revealed/verified to many people by these leaks is not that "a few bad apples sometimes do wrong in the fog of war," but that the US has created a system where it is perfectly normal and "legit" behavior to be flying around looking for folks to gun down. The phrase "the banality of evil" comes to mind for this.
3. Re:Its hard to tell by VinylRecords · 2013-03-02 13:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  WRT Manning: I feel a bit bad for him. I absolutely understand that there's a need for secrecy in war-fighting, and I appreciate that the military has the ability to enforce that secrecy with punishment. I still feel bad for him. This young man was not in the best frame of mind, and it sounds like he really thought he was trying to do something right.
  It's not just the military information though. Manning was leaking diplomatic information to wikileaks. Thousands upon thousands of pages of documents of diplomatic cables given over to a foreign entity with no oversight whatsoever. Many of those cables containing information and messages that were extremely sensitive and were made public without any attempt to redact or withhold the sensitive information.
  There are needs for secrecy in war. Diplomacy. Business. Personal affairs. And no matter how much Julian Assange argues, you can't really have a world where everything is in the open. There are still files from WWI that are secretive because they contain information that might cause international incidents. When you have countries fighting over centuries old conflicts and warring over ancient religions you might want to bury things that could escalate conflict. This was the rational behind hiding Bin Laden's dead body photos. Rather than make him a martyr and have his image being a rallying symbol for terrorists the government censored it.
  You think if wikileaks had photos of Bin Laden that they wouldn't release them? They don't care about security of the free world. It's a little game to them to show how powerful they are. "Look at us.....we got Bin Laden's photos WORLD EXCLUSIVE". They are no different than the tabloid media who exploit any (personal) information just for magazine sales and internet clicks.
  WRT the material: The first strike seems entirely legit. The one that killed the two Reuters people. They met with armed belligerents, at night, in an area where they knew there was fighting. Everyone wishes they hadn't been in the mix when our pilots and gunners did what they were supposed to. This, however, is going to happen when you have reporters pushing the limits of sanity to get a story in a war zone. Beyond that, it's chopper gunners shooting at a group of enemy combatants with RPG's and small arms, just like they're supposed to.
  If three armed bank robbers storm a bank are you going to rush into that same bank with a ski-mask and a camera so that you can cover the story better? These journalists rush into war zones dressed like militants. And they carry cameras that are tripod mounted or have telephoto lenses that look like weapons from far away. When you're in a helicopter and you've just seen a man firing a weapon from the sky, then another man runs next to him with a two foot long metal object, are you going to risk that being an RPG if it is one, instead of a camera?
  WRT the handling of the material: The military's approach to the material (denying FOIA requests) was shady, but a pretty obvious function of, "err on the side of keeping stuff secret." You can't have war without casualties, and any time it happens somewhere where people live, some of those are going to be bad kills.
  That said, handling of the material was absolutely atrocious. The "collateral murder" video was a selectively edited, perversely annotated, propaganda piece. Every effort was made to point out there were two people with cameras, not AK's, and no efforts (at all) were made to point out the loaded RPG's and small arms carried by the people they were meeting.
  The government is fucked either way. They hold onto the material and everyone assumes the worst. They release the material and wikileaks will selectively edit the information just like the 'collateral murder' video to fit their agenda. The military loses every single time. No matter what the agenda that the media wants pushed is pushed. The military has to defend themselves from something, either withholding information, or "MURDERING INNOCENT BABIES".
4. Re:Its hard to tell by nametaken · 2013-03-02 14:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He wasn't in the best frame of mind because he was having serious psychological issues related to gender identity disorder, sexuality in a "don't ask, don't tell" military, and a handful of other issues. He was looking at a possible discharge from service.
  Lay off the rhetoric, it's making you jumpy.
5. Re:Its hard to tell by RazorSharp · 2013-03-02 15:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There are needs for secrecy in war.
  But is there a need for war? How is it that we can agree not to use this or that in war, we can agree to handle enemy combatants a particular way, we can agree that civilians are off-limits and total war is a no-no -- we can agree to all these particulars on the ways in which war is conducted, but we cannot agree to simply not wage war?
  The most ironic thing is, American school children are taught in history class that the reason we are independent from the UK is because the British were stupid enough to believe that rules applied to war. By breaking their rules -- by using guerrilla warfare -- we achieved victory. Strange that the countries with the largest and most capable armies are the ones who also always insist that war be fought according to their rules.
  I believe that Assange does what he does because he believes that the world is far too advanced to conduct warfare, and I agree. The only reason that warfare still exists is because there is a multi-billion dollar industry built around it. We could have killed Bin Laden without ever invading Afghanistan. There was absolutely no good reason to invade Iraq. The foot soldier is an anachronism, a horse and buggy that provides no useful function. They're too dumb to be useful, so we give them guns and send them off to the desert to kill brown people so we can pretend like they're actually doing something that matters. We don't want them to die because that looks bad, so we don't even send them on the most dangerous missions -- those are reserved for mercenaries -- and then when the foot soldier returns home we shower them with praise for being so brave.
  Wanna know who's a helluva lot more brave than any army grunt? Julian Assange. He's taking on the world.
  If you believe there are a need for secrets in war, you're right. But to conduct war under the rules of the Geneva convention is a far greater atrocity than to conduct total war -- at least when one commits to total war they're not deluding themselves into believing that they're behaving in an ethical manner. Manning tried to expose the activities our military engages in for what they are -- high tech barbarism. Good for him, and good for Wikileaks for fighting for civility. Because, in a civilized world, there's no need for secrets. A government of secrets is not a government for the people, it's a government that rules the people. There's a name for a government of secrets: fascism.
  
  --
  "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
6. Re:Its hard to tell by RazorSharp · 2013-03-02 16:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You are a disgusting human being.
  I hope you thank those "dumb" foot soldiers for giving you the ability to post your crap.
  Oh, yeah, I completely forgot that America has been invaded recently and if it weren't for the amazing combat prowess of our jarheads I would be speaking Arabic right now. Keep buying into The Ministry of Truth's taboos, such as, "Thou shall not speak disparagingly of the military." The only positive thing the military does is give jobs to dumbasses who can't think for themselves and give jobs to intelligent engineers so they can design toys for the dumbasses to play with.
  
  --
  "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
7. Re:Its hard to tell by ultranova · 2013-03-02 17:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And no matter how much Julian Assange argues, you can't really have a world where everything is in the open. There are still files from WWI that are secretive because they contain information that might cause international incidents.
  
  And keeping them secret sends a powerful message: you can do horrible things with no regard to long-term consequences, because those who come after you will keep your secrets safe. Both your reputation and the cause you committed atrocities for are safe no matter what you do, so go ahead and shed more blood, no one will ever know. You are not accountable.
  You can have a world where everything is in the open, but the slimy things that live in the dark don't want it, for light would send them scurrying for cover. For everyone else it would be a far better world.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
8. Re:Its hard to tell by Runaway1956 · 2013-03-02 18:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "The trick is finding the appropriate compromise, such that the people we ask to conduct wars are able to do what we ask them to, but are still somehow accountable to the public for conducting it as well as can be expected."
  The biggest, and most obvious problem here, is that only a relatively small percentage of Americans ever know what war is.
  It's perfectly alright for a young mother in Viet Nam, Korea, or Afghanistan to witness her children being torn to shreds in an artillery barrage, or an air strike. But, that graphic portrayal of war is and always has been banned here in the states. Government doesn't want civilians to understand the horrors of war. Civilians mostly can't be bothered with understanding. Veterans aren't very inclined to talk about it. Government officials are mostly clueless - to them the numbers are just scores, with no horror attached.
  So - how do "we the people" hold anyone accountable?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
9. Re:Its hard to tell by zakkie · 2013-03-02 19:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do you think they give us their natural resources at almost free prices because its in their best interest? Nah all that is because we put cool despots in office and create instability we can exploit.
  And yet you still think it a good thing? You've just taken the bully stealing lunch money concept and scaled it up to global scale. Yes, *this* is why we hate you, and this is why what you do is wrong.
10. Re:Its hard to tell by Ultracrepidarian · 2013-03-02 19:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And some of us learned this in Vietnam. My thought as I left, "We make enemies faster than we can kill them."
11. Re:Its hard to tell by nyback · 2013-03-02 21:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bad things happen.
  
  Your way of stating "Bad things happen" WRT the second strike is as wrong as calling the first strike entirely legit. The moment we start to excuse bad things with "Bad things happen" we will accelerate our ride down the slippery slopes.
  
  The "collateral murder" video was a selectively edited, perversely annotated, propaganda piece.
  For those that has not visited http://www.collateralmurder.com/ for a while i recommend a re-visit. If you dont like the "selectively edited, perversely annotated, propaganda piece", you can watch the unedited full version of the video and make your own opinion what is propaganda and what's not.
  But most of all watch Ethan McCords eyewitness story from what happened not only in the video of said incident, but what was the instructed ways of handling incidents on the streets of Baghdad given by US military to its soldiers. Then take a few moments to consider what is your opinion on this.
  
  WRT lessons learned: Don't deal with wikileaks.
  WRT lessons learned: Keep yourself well informed. Have an opinion. Do what you can to affect society in the direction YOU think is for the good of all. Like Bradley, like Ethan.
Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by anagama · 2013-03-02 11:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Read this by Harvard Law prof, Yochai Benkler:
The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112554#

If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers. The consequences for the ability of the press to perform its critical watchdog function in the national security arena will be dire. And then there is the principle of the thing. However technically defensible on the language of the statute, and however well-intentioned the individual prosecutors in this case may be, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror of this case and ask: Are we the America of Japanese Internment and Joseph McCarthy, or are we the America of Ida Tarbell and the Pentagon Papers? What kind of country makes communicating with the press for publication to the American public a death-eligible offense?

Note, the espionage act doesn't apply only to people in the military.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
1. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by Brucelet · 2013-03-02 11:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway
2. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by Jessified · 2013-03-02 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Al Qaeda is perhaps the most brilliant organization on this planet. With such limited resources, they sure have crippled this great, free country to a common dictatorship.
3. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by greenbird · 2013-03-02 12:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  he press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway
  Yup. And that's why organizations like Wikileaks and technology like encryption and Tor are so critical. They've taken over that function. Actually they're even better for that function because there much less likely to be influenced by political pressure of any kind.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
4. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by girlintraining · 2013-03-02 13:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Al Qaeda is perhaps the most brilliant organization on this planet. With such limited resources, they sure have crippled this great, free country to a common dictatorship.
  People blame the terrorists for our plight, but let's look at this objectively: How much damage is this organization directly responsible for? A few buildings? Few thousand people dead? Whatever answer you come up with, even if you declare large swaths of the general population malignant, you can't approach the damage caused by our reaction.
  If America fell, it wasn't because of the terrorists, but us. We allowed our elected representatives to do this to us. We voted them into office repeatedly, and willfully. There is no "it just fell from the sky and killed our country" option here. We did this to ourselves.
  Point the finger in the right direction: Right back at you. Terrorists didn't do this, we did.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
5. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by anagama · 2013-03-02 13:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But the technology won't matter if people face the death penalty for leaking information regarding government malfeasance. That's the heart of this issue, the Government's desire to control every piece of information about what it does. Certainly the mainstream media (i.e., administrative stenographers and press release mills) has gotten to total lapdog status, but the reason WikiLeaks was so hated was because it actually performed the function the press was supposed to perform. But what will WikiLeaks or its successors leak if people honestly fear that death is the punishment for getting caught? If nobody comes forward, the technology is irrelevant.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
6. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by Demena · 2013-03-02 15:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Okay, disclosure. I am an Australian as is/was Murdoch. I have been alive through most of his business manipulations. I was once even an infinitesimal part of his empire. Never in my life have I known him to do anything altruistic. Everything is/was based on self interest. I wouldn't consider him liberal in any way. Even when he appears liberal it is based in self interest or maintaining power in both camps. Someone who appears liberal when the wind blows that way is not a liberal to me. A liberal has to be liberal in principle; has to have liberal principles and not switch as the wind blows. Murdoch has never appeared to fit this image. So I cannot see Murdoch as a liberal. Not in any way.
7. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by greenbird · 2013-03-02 20:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But what will WikiLeaks or its successors leak if people honestly fear that death is the punishment for getting caught?
  I think you underestimate people. At least from historical evidence people have fought oppression in the face of death or even worse punishments when caught.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
8. Re:Before all you blowhards cheer the Feds ... by Xest · 2013-03-03 01:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "If America fell, it wasn't because of the terrorists, but us."
  This is absolutely true. Far more Americans lost their lives going to war in Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, than lost their lives in 9/11.
  Bush took the 9/11 casualty figures, and multiplied them by three with his actions if you include Afghanistan also. That's quite a colossal fuck up of a response to the initial problem.
Arab Spring by betterunixthanunix · 2013-03-02 11:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

This was a big factor in the Arab Spring. There is a chance of good things resulting from that (it will be years before we know).

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Arab Spring by anagama · 2013-03-02 11:17 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Democracy in the middle east is not considered a "good" by the Feds. They much prefer friendly ruthless dictators. Not for example how we've never invaded Saudia Arabia and never have a bad word to say about them. Or how HRC considered Mubarak a friend of the family ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/secretary-clinton-in-2009-i-really-consider-president-and-mrs-mubarak-to-be-friends-of-my-family/ ).
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
2. Re:Arab Spring by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-02 11:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You seriosly believe there is "democracy" in Egypt now. Or Libya.
  It's true that the old dictators were toppled but now there is a power vacuum where new overlords are fighting for top dog position. Egypt have had an increase in islamic terrorism which is kept silent in media to not make it worse. Do you think the air balloon full of tourists that exploded was an accident or terrorism? Blonde women can no longer walk in Cairo without escorts for fear of rape. Seriosly, dude.
  Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
3. Re:Arab Spring by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-03-02 11:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't think they care if it's a dictatorship or not. The key word is friendly.
  For example Turkey has been a staunch ally since the Truman Doctrine and has the highest Democracy Index in the region excluding Israel.
4. Re:Arab Spring by jhoegl · 2013-03-02 12:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually, the key word is predictable.
  If a leader is unpredictable, no one can do business with them.
5. Re:Arab Spring by drcagn · 2013-03-02 12:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't disagree about how our terribly our government works, but it's kind of funny that you conveniently left out the very next question in that interview:
  QUESTION: Is this file, by any chance, connected to the invitation – extended invitation – for President Mubarak to visit the United States?
  SECRETARY CLINTON: No. It’s an annual report. It is not in any way connected. We look forward to President Mubarak coming as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States.
  QUESTION: How do you view the presidency in Egypt, the future of the presidency in Egypt?
  SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s for the people of Egypt to decide. That is a very important issue that really is up to Egyptians.
  
  --
  Scorta futuere amo!
6. Re:Arab Spring by cold+fjord · 2013-03-02 14:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Democracy in the middle east is not considered a "good" by the Feds. They much prefer friendly ruthless dictators. Not for example how we've never invaded Saudia Arabia and never have a bad word to say about them.
  Your post is largely nonsense. Democracy is considered good, even in the Middle East, although elements of the local culture and religion can make that problematic. Saudi Arabia has never given the US cause to invade it as it is a friendly government to the United States, one which the US spent considerable treasure and blood to defend. (You may recall that it was Saddam Hussain's conquest of Kuwait and direct threat to Saudi Arabia which resulted in the first big step towards his downfall.)
  And yes, the US does ciriticize Saudi Arabia, regularly.
  2010 Human Rights Report: Saudi Arabia
  
  The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem.
  One more thing, since so many people are confused on this point, the fact that 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia points to the problem they have with extremists, not to hostile action by the Saudi government. The 9/11 attacks against the US were no more Saudi government policy than the Fenian raids against Canada were US government policy.
  
  --
  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
7. Re:Arab Spring by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-02 16:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Saudi Arabia has never given the US cause to invade it"
  19 of the 20 aircraft hijackers on September 11th, 2001, were Saudi Arabian nationals.
  AC
8. Re:Arab Spring by quax · 2013-03-02 16:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Saudia Arabia is state sponsor of Wahhabism and supported the spread of madrassas in Pakistan/Afghanistan that teach this radical form of Islam.
  There'd be no Taliban nor Al Quaeda if Wahhabism wasn't so influential and well funded.
9. Re:Arab Spring by Runaway1956 · 2013-03-02 17:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Read up on Operation Ajax, the operation in which the United States toppled a perfectly legitimate democracy, in order to install a (spineless) puppet dictator, for the sake of saving some money on oil.
  Anyone who believes that the US government believes in democracy is a blathering idiot. Our government worships oil, and nothing else. Damned near everything we do is aimed at securing energy, almost all of it in the form of oil. Democracy is a fool's dream and a lie, pablum spoon fed to the idiot masses.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
10. Re:Arab Spring by Runaway1956 · 2013-03-03 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That counter-coup nonsense has already been addressed by others. I don't buy it, in the least.
  Ask yourself a couple questions. What was the motivation for the CIA's involvement in the coup (or counter-coup, if we accept your point of view)?
  MONEY!
  The US claims to love democracy. There was a democratically elected government in place. There was a handy dictatorial puppet at hand. For the sake of money, we established that dictatorial puppet, in the process destroying a democracy.
  YOU WILL NOTE PLEASE:
  I have made no claims that any of the existing government officials were "good guys". I have made no claim that none of those officials were power hungry mad men. I have made no claim that Mossadiq was a saint. Iran had it's problems, and was certain to encounter more. Iran may or may not have become our freinds, or our enemies, as a democracy. But, Iran's government was a legitimate democracy, and we were hypocrites to topple that government.
  Our one and only goal, was to enrich ourselves, and incidentally BP, with oil. Today, all of our meddling in the mideast is still aimed at that one goal - to secure a cheap supply of oil. We don't give a small damn for the people living in the areas that are rich in oil. And, we certainly do NOT respect democracy.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
11. Re:Arab Spring by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-03-03 04:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Compared to most of the world, they are definitely about average in the spectrum from say Norway which probably has the best democracy to North Korea which is probably the furthest from democracy.
  That is definitely better than the average for the middle east which is the worst region in the world overall.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
12. Re:Arab Spring by AK+Marc · 2013-03-03 11:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bush claimed we went in to Kuawait to "restore Democracy" and you do realize that the US started the Vietnam war by refusing to participate in democracy so that the US could set up a proper puppet dictatorship? The US put in power or supported after in, Castro, Noriega, and Saddam Hussein. We also ousted 2/3 and tried to oust 3/3. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson the first 10 times or so. Why is it that the US requires not only democracy, but that the people vote the way we would?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Torturing ants by 1s44c · 2013-03-02 11:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

The quote about how the US is similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass really sums the situation up for me. As someone in Europe I see the US forcing their way into war after war to justify having a military that has grown out of all control. A country that uses torture as an interrogation technique should not consider itself civilized.
1. Re:Torturing ants by anagama · 2013-03-02 11:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ahh, the very fine "your ancestors did something evil so you can't point out my current evil" retort. Brilliant. Settles the case for sure!
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
2. Re:Torturing ants by 1s44c · 2013-03-02 11:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Are you from one of the European nations without blood on its hands? Remind me, which one is that?
  No, of course I'm not. But I'm from one that learned from the mistakes of the past and after centuries of war learned to get on with its neighbors.
3. Re:Torturing ants by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-02 11:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Most European nations have done terrible things in the past and to a lesser degree in the present. I am not proud of being British, slavery, oppression and empire, all under that banner.
  However the US is the >current main player in the west and the key global enabler for war, torture and economic oppression. If the argument is that Europeans did things equally awful in the past, which i doubt anyone disputes... That excuses the current crop of Muslim extremists, because Christians did awful things in the past too.
4. Re:Torturing ants by 1s44c · 2013-03-02 11:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "But but but YOU did it too!" doesn't make it any less wrong. Nice try.
  No country in Europe has ever destroyed two entire countries because a group part based in one destroyed two buildings.
  I've heard of avenging a crime sevenfold but a country for a building represents vengeance carried way too far.
5. Re:Torturing ants by Ogi_UnixNut · 2013-03-02 11:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You do realise that a lot of countries in the EU have been implicated in the torture and the ferrying of suspects to other countries with more lax rules on "interrogation methods"?
  If there is one thing that the western European nations have not done, it is learn from the past, the same stuff is still going on today, including ignoring/violating international law when it suits them. The difference is that now they have the media to gloss over and sugercoat it so the citizens honestly feel they are the good guys.
6. Re:Torturing ants by onyxruby · 2013-03-02 11:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ah yes, because standing by and doing nothing while innocents are being slaughtered somehow lets you claim a clear conscious. Dictators and tyrants count on people like you to turn a blind eye to atrocities and genocide as it lets them get away with murder by the million.
  Clean hands you have there, keep that chin up and remember useful idiots like yourself are as indispensable to mass murders like Stalin, Milosevic, Assad etc as their own armies. Carry on with pride, job well done, no blood on your hands at all. How's that Syria thing working out for you?
7. Re:Torturing ants by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-03-02 11:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Baloney.
  WW I was based on the assassination of a single individual.
8. Re:Torturing ants by spire3661 · 2013-03-02 11:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Civilized human beings do not torture their enemies, ever. There is no context that justifies TORTURING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, EVER.
  
  --
  Good-bye
9. Re:Torturing ants by 1s44c · 2013-03-02 12:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A country that uses torture as an interrogation technique should not consider itself civilized.
  Never drop context, which in this case is the 3000+ deaths of September 11, 2001.
  How many people died as a result of the US reaction to the 3000+ deaths of September 11, 2001? How many of those dead had no involvement whatsoever in the September 11, 2001 attacks?
10. Re:Torturing ants by 1s44c · 2013-03-02 12:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Ah yes, because standing by and doing nothing while innocents are being slaughtered somehow lets you claim a clear conscious. Dictators and tyrants count on people like you to turn a blind eye to atrocities and genocide as it lets them get away with murder by the million.
  I was complaining about the US's war crimes, or don't they count as crimes if your own country does it?
11. Re:Torturing ants by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-03-02 12:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Using torture is a war crime. It is not acceptable nor is it productive. Senior US military command is on record stating it is immoral and counter-productive. It should never happen and those who engage in it, foster it or approve it should be prosecuted.
12. Re:Torturing ants by Mr.+Slippery · 2013-03-02 12:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Paraphrasing Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having such a powerful military, if we never use it?"
  The Founders were smart enough to realize the temptations of a standing army, and tried to put safeguards against one into the Constitution. That's part of what the Second Amendment is about -- not just the RKBA, but a structural defense against the formation of a military-industrial complex by relying on a militia rather than a large standing army. Too bad we opted for an empire instead; they never end well.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
13. Re:Torturing ants by ATMAvatar · 2013-03-02 12:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Things are not quite so simple. Our continual war also serves to justify the indefinite imprisonment of non-citizens without trial, giant military contracts handed-out to friends of those in power, and widespread and warrant-less surveillance of the public at large, among other things. In short, it's a nice means to expand power and corruption in US government.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
14. Re:Torturing ants by drinkypoo · 2013-03-02 13:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A country that uses torture as an interrogation technique should not consider itself civilized.
  Never drop context, which in this case is the 3000+ deaths of September 11, 2001.
  No one is dropping the context. It is considered, and found irrelevant, because you still don't get to claim the moral high ground when you do it. We're no better than they are, we only have different customs.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:Torturing ants by Misagon · 2013-03-02 13:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I am sorry that you still believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were "wars against terrorism". Missions into these countries were already planned before September 11, 2011.
  Do read up on the organisation Project for the New American Century.
  Read what the PNAC had been lobbying the Clinton administration to do, long before September 11, 2001, and do look at which high-ranking members of PNAC that had got high positions in the Bush administration in 2001.
  This is not a theory of mine about a supposed secret conspiracy. It has been out in the open all the time. For years, PNAC had a public web site where all this information was available.
  Torture is not only not civilized, it is also not reliable. The victim tends to not answer what the torturer wants to hear, not he truth.
  Back in 2003, there was no indication whatsoever that Al-Qaeda had any connection with Saddam Hussein. The only testimony that there was a link had been obtained during torture - a testimony that was later proven to be false. After the invasion, no proof of any link had been found.
  
  --
  "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
16. Re:Torturing ants by Demena · 2013-03-02 13:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You got your information wrong. Iraq was not destroyed because it had anything to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Saddam Hussein was an opponent of Al Quaida. Iraq was destroyed because Hussein presumed to sell oil for Euros thus elimination the world wide requirement to purchase US dollars to buy oil which would decrease the US economy if the use of Euros became widespread.
17. Re:Torturing ants by gknoy · 2013-03-02 18:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  AH, but here's the rub: How do you know that he has lied? There's no way you can trust his information before the Bad Thing happens, because it's unverifiable. And, as cold reading shows us, it's very possible for him to tell you what he thinks you want to hear, once you start hurting him enough that he'll do anything to make it stop.
  There's a reason the Inquisition was able to get people to confess to things which were untrue: torture.
Only capital punishment fits by julian67 · 2013-03-02 11:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Only capital punishment fits in a case like this because there are two factors so serious that no lesser punishment is appropriate.
The first is that the offender gave greater weight to his conscience than to the power of his state. He disobeyed orders and statute. Any student of 20th century history will tell you that blind obedience is the glue that binds successful societies and engenders success, safety and justice.
The second is that the offender communicated with people so depraved that they openly engage in journalism, a pursuit that has the potential to inform taxpayers and voters such that they eventually become able to make rational choices and decisions, regardless of the wishes of their superiors.
This has to stop now, and any repetition or emulation be discouraged by the least ambiguous means available.
CmdrTaco by Frankie70 · 2013-03-02 17:03 · Score: 4, Informative

10:1 They got the email but couldn't figure out how to open a zip file.

Then one of the said newspapers hired CmdrTaco. Taco was able to explode the zip file with gzip but then he refused to let others read the documents inside because the documents were not in an open format.