Bradley Manning Convicted of Espionage, Acquitted of 'Aiding the Enemy'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bradley Manning Convicted of Espionage, Acquitted of 'Aiding the Enemy'

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @06:12AM from the win-some-lose-some dept.

crashcy sends word that a verdict has been handed down in the case of Bradley Manning. Quoting: "A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy, but convicted him of multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act. Private Manning had already confessed to being WikiLeaks’ source for a huge cache of government documents, which included videos of airstrikes in which civilians were killed, hundreds of thousands of front-line incident reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, dossiers on men being held without trial at the Guantánamo Bay prison, and about 250,000 diplomatic cables. But while Private Manning had pleaded guilty to a lesser version of the charges he was facing, which could expose him to up to 20 years in prison, the government decided to press forward with a trial on a more serious version of the charges, including 'aiding the enemy' and violations of the Espionage Act. Beyond the fate of Private Manning as an individual, the 'aiding the enemy' charge — unprecedented in a leak case — could have significant long-term ramifications for investigative journalism in the Internet era."

108 of 529 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by unique_parrot · 2013-07-30 06:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

he should be given a medal (in my opinion).
1. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by i+kan+reed · 2013-07-30 06:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  NSA wasn't Manning. NSA was Snowden. Manning released diplomatic cables to wikileaks.
2. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by gmuslera · 2013-07-30 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As much as deserve prison everyone that works for NSA and every associated company. Ok, but they are working for the US government. So, would you complain if any of them get a century in prison in any other country of Earth? What if Russia extradite Snowden in exchange of US extraditing anyone spying on russia citizens? That should make things fair, but i don't know how much time would take to send to Russia so much people.
  And remember what Manning disclosed, basically your country, at your name, doing nice things slaughtering innocents just for fun. If you feel heat in your high ground is because how close is to the earths core.
3. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by i+kan+reed · 2013-07-30 06:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Only in the vaguest sense? Manning was a soldier, Snowden a civilian. Manning leaked a huge swath of cables regardless of content. Snowden leaked details on a program he thought was abusive. The government involved is the same, but the "system" Snowden would face would be a standard civilian jury. Manning stood in front of a military tribunal without a jury of his peers.
4. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  With fighting corruption landing you serious jail time, I am in no hurry to volunteer. Especially when I have a family to worry about. Much safer to leave, which is what I am planning on in the next few years.
  
  But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary.
  Tell that to international war crimes courts and see how far it gets you. Of course, Manning was a private with no serious decision making authority, so he would be safe from that. But this attitude you mentioned doesn't stand up to even recent historical precedent. You have a moral human duty, as determined by international courts even , to not be complicit in the slaughter of civilians.
5. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Atzanteol · 2013-07-30 06:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You also swear an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies. If you feel that your oath to protect papers violates your oath to defend the constitution which do you go with?
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
6. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-30 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "As an ex-military member who held a security clearance, I'm glad he'll likely get prison time. Yes the system is corrupt. Yes he had other avenues that may not have been productive at stopping the corruption. But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!"
  But this ignores the larger question: which "promise" is paramount? His promise to protect that information, or his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States?
7. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by ackthpt · 2013-07-30 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm still waiting on the Dick Cheney/Halliburton no-bid-contract, because they were the only company (very mysteriously) prepared to be able to provide all services in Iraq. There's corruption. Manning is merely a cog in that giant mechanism.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
8. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 06:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is bullcrap.
  But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary.
  You would die protecting the US government from having its citizens realize that the military is murdering civilians for fun and profit? You really are an idiot and the US is lucky to have folks like you with security clearance.
  Take action, go to your congressmen, get out there and vote, explain to others where the corruption is and convince them not to continue to vote for those people that are corrupt.
  The American people did vote. They voted for a candidate that explicitly promised the closing of Guantanamo and an end to an unjust war. Instead what they got was more murder and a president that defends the massive spying aparatus. So who are we supposed to vote for? Manning is on the side of the US citizen. Neither party is, and the military certainly is not. You're on the wrong side of history.
9. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by C0R1D4N · 2013-07-30 06:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  " But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!"
  
  " I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
  
  What happens when the first half is at odds with the second?
10. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!
  So you're saying he should haveJust Followed Orders, right?
  May I remind you of something?
  Oaths of Enlistment
  
  "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
  Oath for Commissioned Officers
  "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
11. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by KiloByte · 2013-07-30 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ok, but they are working for the US government.
  How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
12. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by hawguy · 2013-07-30 07:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  ...for the crimes that he's convicted of.
  When leaks like this one happen, a lot of attention and effort is spent on punishing the leaker, but we seldom hear about punishment for those that should have protected the data. Why did Manning not only have access to this sensitive data, but was able to download it and walk it out of the office?
  In my company, the receptionist isn't supposed to tell anyone what's in our sensitive financial documents and really has no reason to read them. So he can't - his login doesn't have access to those files and if he persists in trying to get access, his username will come up in IPS alerts.
  While I suppose it's publicly comforting to go after the leakers once they are caught, what about the spies that steal the data and hand it over quietly to their keepers? If the data is so easy to access that an Army Private can walk in and download thousands of documents, does anyone really think that spies from other nations aren't doing the same thing? The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws.
  The same applies to Snowden - he shouldn't have been able to download thousands of pages of classified documents and walk out with them unnoticed.
  So who's getting fired over lax security?
13. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by AuMatar · 2013-07-30 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  Not at all. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes the good you do eclipses the bad. We can argue whether or not it does here, but to blindly state "he broke a rule, he must be punished" is childish.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
14. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by anagama · 2013-07-30 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You are confusing a moral judgment with a legal one. Neither did "bad" things, they both did illegal things. We should as a society ask ourselves, when doing the legal thing is bad, and the illegal thing good, should we not indict the law and pardon the lawbreaker? How you answer that question tells a lot about whether you are an authoritarian minded person, or a person with high moral standards.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
15. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 07:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The American people did vote. They voted for a candidate that explicitly promised the closing of Guantanamo and an end to an unjust war.
  Don't forget he also promised to protect whistleblowers.
16. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm absolutely certain they didn't pick the ordering of those by accident.
17. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort. His mass dump of documents shows his motive was less about any duty to the Constitution than it was a blatant FU to the Military & Government that entrusted him with his clearance.
  Many here are also making it seem as though he had physical possession of these documents, and failed to protect them. The fact is that he actively mined the data and then dumped it without bothering to know the full scope of what he had released.
  For the apparently numerous people here who bear a grudge against the USA of one kind or another and think that this is great due to the embarrassment to the military and Government in general, give it a rest I'm sure we'll still bail your ass out again sometime in the future without expecting any thanks from you. You can call us ignorant for that if you want, it's just in our nature.
18. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Richard_at_work · 2013-07-30 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I agree with you, he released a lot of information which exposed the US governments less desirable actions, actions which should be looked at in great depth.
  However,my issue with Manning is that he also released a lot of other documents. 250,000 cables, for example.
  Now, let's say that he actually went through those cables to determine that they all had some relevance in exposing unfavourable aspects of the US government - lets say that it took 30 seconds to read each cable and make that determination, left pile or right pile, relevant to exposing actions or not, release or not.
  That means that if he actually did his due diligence, if he actually ensured that he was only releasing documents worthy of exposing unsavoury actions and nothing else, nothing that didn't actually directly support his reasons for handing the documents over, then he would have had to have spent 86 days solid doing that.
  86 days, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week determining if the document should have been released. Assuming he touched nothing other than the 250,000 cables he released.
  No one can argue that he did that - he hands over a huge bunch of stuff in which he likely didn't actually know the contents of for a significant proportion. That right there is why I think these verdicts are proper. That's not whistle blowing, that's acting inappropriately for his position and even his intentions.
  Yes, he is a whistle blower, and yes he did whistle blow on a lot of things that should have been blown, but he did it in a manner in which he could not reasonably claim he had limited his actions to documents and files that supported his whistle blowing.
  His act of legitimate whistle blowing and his act of illegitimate disclosure of unrelated documents are two things that can 100% be dealt with separately.
19. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 07:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So who are we supposed to vote for?
  Isn't that clear already? Vote 3rd party. A vote "thrown away" on a 1 in a million chance is still worth more than a vote which actively makes things worse.
20. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-07-30 07:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  Brilliant idea for a Gedankenexperiment, in the Classical Einsteinian sense of the word! Let's see if we can cast this, not in the pointer sense of the word, as a current TV reality show:
  
  Der Führer: Barack Obama
  
  Heinrich Himmler: Eric Holder
  
  Adolf Eichmann: Carmen Ortiz
  
  Josef Goebbels: Hillary Clinton
  
  Rudolf Hess (the wacky one of the boys): Anthony Weiner
  
  Herman Göring is up for grabs . . . your suggestions are requested!
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
21. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by oreaq · 2013-07-30 07:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why do you have to pick one? Can't you "fight" both? How much was Halliburton's cut? $50 billion over 10 years or something like that? Solyndra got $550 million. That's a whooping 1%. Note that I'm not defending Obama. Of course he should be punished for his crimes. I'm just providing some perspective.
22. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by cold+fjord · 2013-07-30 07:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  When leaks like this one happen, a lot of attention and effort is spent on punishing the leaker, but we seldom hear about punishment for those that should have protected the data.
  Army disciplined 15 over Bradley Manning and Wikileaks
  
  The U.S. Army discliplined 15 people as a result of an internal investigation into the decisions and failures that put Pvt. Bradley Manning in a position to download and leak thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables he allegedly provided to WikiLeaks, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.
  At least one non-commissioned officer was reduced in rank for dereliction of duty, according a legal filing made public by Manning's defense over the weekend.
  --------
  
  Why did Manning not only have access to this sensitive data, but was able to download it and walk it out of the office?
  In my company, the receptionist isn't supposed to tell anyone what's in our sensitive financial documents and really has no reason to read them. So he can't - his login doesn't have access to those files and if he persists in trying to get access, his username will come up in IPS alerts.
  As an analyst that prepared reports he needed access to data. The network apparently wasn't properly prepared and certified for use. There probably should have been better controls for sharing different stacks of data, but the nature of counter-insurgency warfare would tend to press against some of them at some level.
  The failings of the people managing the network don't excuse Manning's data breach.
  
  The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws. ... The same applies to Snowden ...
  I think that might be worth considering if you can do the same following your house being burglarized, your car stolen, and your bank account emptied ... in separate events.
  
  --
  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
23. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-07-30 08:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then? I mean, if "ends justify the means" then what prevents us from going down that slippery slope?
  IMHO the ends do not justify the means. We should always evaluate HOW we do things, and never cross certain lines, regardless of the benefits of crossing those lines.
  However, that being said, the MEANS in this case are just, because there was no other possible way to effect change. YOU can effect change using Just Means, you have to understand and accept the consequences. Snowden didn't harm anyone in particular, and the case can be made that he didn't harm anyone in general, except the powers that were abusing the system. THAT is what makes it just, IMHO.
  Do not give the nutjobs permission to do "whatever it takes" to accomplish their goals.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
24. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Wookact · 2013-07-30 08:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wrong answer. The constitution trumps all lesser laws.
25. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Motard · 2013-07-30 08:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And Manning specifically requested a single judge rather than a panel.
26. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Wookact · 2013-07-30 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  Because the Haliburton contracts were orders of magnitude higher then the solyandra contract?
27. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?
  The defendants at Nuremberg (they weren't "fine folks") had committed crimes against humanity.
  
  More importantly, they were on the losing side.
28. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by scot4875 · 2013-07-30 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  Well it's comforting to know that we aren't as bad as Nazis.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
29. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by hawguy · 2013-07-30 08:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The U.S. Army discliplined 15 people as a result of an internal investigation into the decisions and failures that put Pvt. Bradley Manning in a position to download and leak thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables he allegedly provided to WikiLeaks, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.
  At least one non-commissioned officer was reduced in rank for dereliction of duty, according a legal filing made public by Manning's defense over the weekend.
  So one officer lost rank, 14 others had some non-specified administrative punishment when through their action (or inaction) they allowed a serious intelligence leak? And the only leak they *know* about was the one from Manning, who knows how many other analysts walked out with data but didn't release it to the public?
  
  As an analyst that prepared reports he needed access to data. The network apparently wasn't properly prepared and certified for use. There probably should have been better controls for sharing different stacks of data, but the nature of counter-insurgency warfare would tend to press against some of them at some level.
  Doesn't the leak show that there definitely should have been better controls?
  
  The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws. ... The same applies to Snowden ...
  I think that might be worth considering if you can do the same following your house being burglarized, your car stolen, and your bank account emptied ... in separate events.
  If my house staff found a hole in the back of my safe and some of them have been been slipping 20 dollar bills out of the safe for years, I'd be pretty thankful when my maid got busted while trying to deposit her stolen cash in the bank, revealing the hole to me so I could stop the leak.
  I'd still be mad at her, but glad she got caught since it exposed the security flaw.
30. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by citizenr · 2013-07-30 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to ...
  .. to cover up rednecks in a chopper murdering children because MURICA FUCK YEAH!
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
31. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-30 08:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What crimes were those? Oh that's right, even though thousands of documents have been circling the internet for years now, not a single one implicates the government of wrongdoing, just business-as-usual borderline "unethical" stuff that they do so we can sleep in warm beds and work in cushy offices. Corruption charges?! Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the streets. Corruption is why we win.
  Actually, corruption is why our economy and governmental systems are going into the toilet. I understand that the American empire and my material excess is made possible by corrupt practices. But really, it's a deal with the Devil.
  As we are seeing, the instruments and methods used to enforce American wishes abroad are slowly being brought home for use in the US. The people doing terrible things around the world in order to bring us cheap oil and pliant foreign governments don't actually care about you or me. They care about the large businesses whose interests they advance. They work for the Elite. They only care about us as far as we can be exploited to buy things and vote for the right people.
  Personally, I think they can put their "deal" where the sun don't shine. If my prosperity is bought with the blood of the poor and deluded, I don't want it. But I don't make the rules and I have seen what happens to those who push back too hard. But I also know that those who spend too long between a rock and a hard place get crushed.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
32. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-30 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why do you have to pick one? Can't you "fight" both?
  THANK YOU for being able to see the difference between what's truly wrong, and what offends partisan sensibilities.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
33. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by blackraven14250 · 2013-07-30 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  I can see what you mean about Manning not using a more legitimate channel, since Wikileaks isn't exactly the pinnacle of journalism. However, Snowden went to the Guardian, which is absolutely a legitimate channel for whistle-blowing.
34. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by hawguy · 2013-07-30 08:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  >Both Snowden and Manning took oaths with a clear understanding that they would be severely penalized if they violated that trust.
  
  If the government is relying on an *oath* to protect my data, then I'm even more outraged that they have so much of my data.
  Outside of a court, an oath means nothing - it's as valuable as a double-super pinky swear. The government wants me to believe that terrorists are out to kill me even if it means killing themselves, but at the same time, I'm supposed to believe that an oath is going to protect my data as well as national secrets because no evildoer would swear on god that they won't do something bad?
  Data security is not cheap (in implementation costs or labor), but if we're supposed to believe that having this data out in the wild could be compromising our national security, isn't it worth securing the data? Fort Knox doesn't leave piles of gold around the complex and just rely on staff to promise not to take it - they have serious security protocols that limit access to the gold and don't let any single person in a position where they could steal it, even if it makes working there less efficient.
  
  It's unfortunate they didn't use a more legitimate whistle-blowing channel - they've thrown away their lives.
  When those that are collecting the data are willing to outright lie about it to congress, and even those in congress that knew about the data collection are still defending it, what is the legitimate whistle-blowing channel that will let the public know what's going on?
35. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by scot4875 · 2013-07-30 08:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then?
  Nice strawman, but I'll respond anyway. (Also, are you aware that "slippery slope" is the name of a fallacy? Not an argument?)
  No, "ends justifies the means" doesn't justify torture and here's why.
  1) It doesn't work.
  2) Torturing their soldiers/"enemy combatants" loses us any sort of moral standing on the issue. We can't use their reprehensible behavior to garner sympathy from neutral parties when we do the same thing.
  So in this case, the "ends" aren't desirable. Therefore they can't be used to justify the means.
  It's nice that you feel so strongly about government corruption, but then get so fucking defensive when corruption is exposed. It's almost like double-think. Oh wait, no, it is double-think.
  Now I'm sure that you'll equate my nuanced view to double-think, but here's the difference: I'm actually thinking. I look at each situation and try to evaluate them individually and see what outcomes I can expect from them, and may well come to the conclusion that something is bad in one situation and not bad in another situation. YOU, on the other hand, take event A, try to find something else that you can compare it to (event B), and then use your judgement of event B to decide whether event A is good or bad. One of us is thinking; the other is doing pattern matching.
  As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely nothing bad that has resulted from Manning's leaks. From where I sit, life has gone on pretty much unchanged. I fail to see how terrible his actions are when, predictably, none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by folks like yourself came to pass.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
36. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by HeckRuler · 2013-07-30 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In case anyone was wondering about those numbers, it was about $0.5 billion to Solyndra vs $7 billion to Halliburton.
  
  Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million.[19] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.
  
  In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.
  Solyndra failed because it couldn't compete with China who, arguably, dumped solar cells to kill such competition. Halliburton on the other hand, is a war profiteer that sent their CEO into politics to secure a contract.
37. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-30 08:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort."
  Well, you have a point, but I will nitpick a bit. It is not reasonable to expect him to do that, for the simple reason that it probably wasn't possible. I may or may not agree with the law, but it has to be reasonable.
  
  On the other hand, it might have been reasonable for him to only release those things which he had reviewed, and suspected to be in violation of the Constitution. I am basically agreeing with you, but there is a subtle difference. And maybe that's what you meant.
  
  "The fact is that he actively mined the data..."
  Did he? I could be wrong, but I understood that the data was easily and readily available due to the nature of his job. That may be wrong, but that was what I read in the news.
  
  "For the apparently numerous people here who bear a grudge against the USA of one kind or another and think that this is great due to the embarrassment to the military and Government in general, give it a rest I'm sure we'll still bail your ass out again sometime in the future without expecting any thanks from you."
  I think it's a great and wonderful embarrassment to the government, too. And I'm a citizen of the United States.
  
  Many of the documents made it very clear that our government was working covertly in ways that were not necessarily in the actual interest of The People of the United States. I applaud those revelations.
  
  Remember that real treason is disloyalty to your country and your people, not disobedience toward your government. That was the fundamental error made by the people who brought the Nazis to power.
38. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by HeckRuler · 2013-07-30 09:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I agree with you, he released a lot of information which exposed the US governments less desirable actions, actions which should be looked at in great depth.
  However,my issue with Manning is that he also released a lot of other documents. 250,000 cables, for example.
  Those diplomatic cables had some of the most damning material!
  Did you miss the one where US taxpayer's money is being funneled through Dyncorp to purchase little boy sex slaves on the behalf of the US military as party favors for Afghan warlords? And this is similar to their behavior in Bosnia in 1999. So FYI, the US has a department for buying and selling sex-slaves. No, it doesn't really matter that it's a separate company.
  That's the most vile one I know of off the top of my head. There's also evidence that Monsanto and Pfizer use US diplomats to badger governments so they get out of lawsuits. And Monsanto is just as evil as you'd expect. Damn straight this should be "looked at in depth" and then people should be thrown in prison for life. And it makes Manning look like a true patriot. We've GOT to fix this. We HAVE to be the good guys.
  Seriously, if this is news to you, GO READ IT.
  Hey, I get what you're saying. That he shouldn't have just leaked all this information without making sure it wasn't endangering anyone. And that's a mountain of work. So thank goodness that he went to a professional leaking site like Wikileaks to handle it all. (Too bad they trusted Guardian journalist David Leigh with the encryption key. He fucked up and it all got released underacted after about a year.)
39. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by dgatwood · 2013-07-30 09:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort. His mass dump of documents shows his motive was less about any duty to the Constitution than it was a blatant FU to the Military & Government that entrusted him with his clearance.
  You could just as easily argue that his mass dump of the documents shows that his motive was to do his duty to the constitution:
  
  Had he gone through those 250,000 documents before releasing anything, assuming he could spend three hours per day doing it, even at one document per minute, it would have taken him almost four years. After such a long period of time, the information would no longer be timely, and many crimes would have been much harder to investigate.
  Had he released those documents one at a time as he found the incriminating ones, he would have been stopped after the first one. None of the other abuses would have been revealed at all.
  Therefore, short of finding a few thousand other people in the military who were all willing to similarly stick their necks out, the only way he could fulfill his perceived duty to reveal those abuses was to mass release the documents to a neutral third party (the press) with adequate resources (people and time) to review them in a timely manner.
  Based on that, I would argue that the only questions that can reasonably be asked are whether he had a duty to tell the world about these abuses, and whether that duty trumped his duty to keep military secrets. All other questions are meaningless.
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
40. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by cold+fjord · 2013-07-30 09:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Manning probably conspired with Assange to get the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks made the information available to anyone that wanted it, including the Taliban and al Qaida. The Taliban and al Qaida are the enemy, not the US public and international press. The Taliban stated that they were using the information to hunt down informants. That is where the charge of "aiding the enemy" came from.
  That is a more useful explanation than your troll.
  
  --
  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
41. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-30 09:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "THE LAW OF THE LAND declares that some people are only 3/5ths of a person. And women need not apply... Its a shitty document in places. We've done our best to patch it up in places, but it could really use more amending. However that's a long and time consuming process. In the event that time is of the essence, and following it would violate your own moral code to follow the law, you violate the law."
  While I don't disagree with you absolutely, I think you are taking THIS out of context.
  
  The "3/5 of a person" bit was only a bow to the reality of their time. If the founders had tried to abolish slavery via the Constitution, it would never have been ratified. It might never even have gotten off the floor.
  
  On the other hand, they deserve credit for wording the rest of it such that it did, in fact, support equality across the board. This left open ground for equality when society grew up a little bit.
  
  Keep in mind that even Jefferson, who owned slaves (he inherited them), strongly disliked and spoke against the institution of slavery, but felt that it would be economic disaster to try to abolish the already-existing slavery all at once. He supported a law to ban the importation of any more slaves, and he did attempt to outlaw slavery in all the new Western territories (i.e., everything West of the existing 13 States). He authored that bill. But it was voted down by one vote. Jefferson said:
  
  "Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment!"
  and
  
  "We must await with patience the workings of an overruling Providence, and hope that He is preparing the deliverance of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to their distress..."
  In the Declaration of Independence, he also lambasted King George for supporting the slave trade. So there were attempts to change things, even then. I think blaming the founders for trying to do the best they could, given the realities of their time, is a bit unrealistic.
  
  Which is why I say: no, it's not a 'shitty' document. It has lasted longer than any other Constitution in anything approaching modern history. It may have some flaws, but it's a damned good document.
42. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by lgw · 2013-07-30 09:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Right, shooting civilians (including their children) who come to help others who have aready been shot (including an accredited journalist) is "just business-as-usual borderline 'unethical'".
  Let me phrase that differently: "War is Hell". It's an ugly business, and always has been. Compared to civilian causalities and treatment of "enemy" civilians in any previous wars we've done quite well this century.
  In the incidents I've seen, the guys pulling the trigger were following the rules of engagement. The ROE are designed to balance the risk to soldiers against the risk of civilian casualties. The balance will never be "no civilian casualties", and most people in a war zone go out of their way to be clear they're not part of any conflict. Helping enemy combatants while the fight goes on makes you one, and misunderstandings are easy on both sides when the combatants don't wear uniforms. The soldiers can't be sure who's an enemy, the civilians can't always guess that someone who was just injured is being seen as an enemy, and so on.
  The best possible thing for the safety of civilians is to ensure both sides wear uniforms, as required by just about every treaty since the idea of uniforms happened. Failing that, the best you can hope for is that the ROE gives reasonable consideration for civilians (and ours do), and that the soldiers follow the ROE and are punished when they don't (also true).
  All I saw from the "Manning videos" was "man, war still sucks, don't have any illusions of a video game war". The video was shocking, but not evidence of any scandal.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
43. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by QRDeNameland · 2013-07-30 09:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Are you sure you understand what Rule of Law means? It is basically the concept that, in the words of John Adams, of being "a government of laws and not of men." In other words, that no one is above the law, and that is indeed a moral principle and not authoritarian.
  I suspect you are reading the term as if it were synonymous with "Law and Order", which is indeed a battle cry of the authoritarian.
  
  --
  Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
44. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by LordLimecat · 2013-07-30 10:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Apparently it is now (has always been?) in vogue to criticize America for things that never actually happened. If you took time to actually understand the issue, the "collateral murder" video doesnt show any children being killed. The (2?) injured children were transferred to a US military hospital for a day before being released to an Iraqi hospital.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
  Now go forth, and try to keep the uninformed BS to a minimum.
45. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 10:28 · Score: 2
  
  The judge obviously disagreed with that reasoning which is good because it is a load of horse shit.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
46. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 10:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A government of laws and not men is all well and good except when a law is unjust. Then the rule of law is more like the ruly of tyranny. Something that John Adams was not a fan of. When a law is unjust and/or unconstitutional we are all above the law. The law exists to serve men. Men do not exist to serve the law. Laws are not a a substitute for morality. Just because something is illegal does not mean that it is wrong. I don't think the way that the phrase is often used, as a justification for going after Snowden for instance, is a moral principle simply because law has so little to do with actual morality.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
47. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by segfault_0 · 2013-07-30 10:48 · Score: 2
  
  And after the pinky swear there's jail time. At some point you have to either trust some people or use robots. It's like asking someone to watch your kid or your house -- you assume they wont kidnap your kid or steal your stuff - but in the end, you're running on faith once you're on down the road.
  You don't fix government or the law by circumventing it, just like you don't fix murder by taking your own personal vengeance on the killer. Do you think Mr. Manning looked at each of those cables and decided which ones were bad and which ones were not bad? Or if they would hurt someone if they were released?
  Sometimes the courts don't work -- sometimes your vote doesn't get counted -- sometimes people in the government are dishonest -- and there is no Santa Claus. Doesn't mean you stop going to work, and start learning chinese.
  
  --
  
  I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
48. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by KiloByte · 2013-07-30 10:53 · Score: 2
  
  The Holocaust was legal according to German laws, passed by democratically chosen parliament. On the other hand, NSA directly violates the constitution.
  So when it comes to following legal principles, the NSA is actually worse. Both boil down to the same issue: might makes right. Ex post facto law against someone you have no jurisdiction whatsoever? Hey, you won the war. A pesky constitution disallowing your abuses? So what the citizens can do against you...
  Soviets murdered over three times as many people as Nazis[1], including war crimes, genocide, outright shooting at their allies, yet no one said a word against them. The whole point of laws is to protect the weak against strong, and here our civilization has failed miserably.
  [1]. No, I'm not saying killing >20mil is nice, just that killing >60mil is worse.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
49. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by DrJimbo · 2013-07-30 10:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Most of the people arguing for manning have failed to defend the mass dumping of *all* that information.
  [...] He didn't need to dump 250k of docs to make his point.
  Manning's defenders don't don't defend it because it Manning didn't do it. He didn't do a mass dump. He released documents to news organizations so those organization would vet them and release only what was proper to be released. That was the responsible thing to do under the circumstances.
  It's true that one of those organizations screwed up and released a private key that let everyone see all the documents but that was clearly not Manning's fault. No one defends that mistake. No one thinks it was right for all the documents to be released to the public.
  As a practical matter, it would have been impossible for Manning to do it much differently. Once the leaks started, his access would soon be terminated. He knew for sure a lot of the information was damning. He scooped up more than he could personally vet and gave it to people who were in a better position to do the vetting. That's exactly the way it is supposed to be done.
  You might want to try to blame Manning for choosing the wrong people to trust. Since most of the main stream media have stopped doing their jobs as journalist and have instead become sycophants to the people in power, Manning did not have a wide range of choice about whom to trust with his information.
  
  --
  We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
  -- Anais Nin
50. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by painandgreed · 2013-07-30 10:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  All I saw from the "Manning videos" was "man, war still sucks, don't have any illusions of a video game war". The video was shocking, but not evidence of any scandal.
  It was a while back, but I thought the scandal wasn't so much in what happened, but in covering it up after the fact.
51. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by cavreader · 2013-07-30 13:36 · Score: 2
  
  Manning could have faced a jury of his peers but decided to go the single judge route. It was his choice. Manning did not deserve to spend the rest of his life in jail and it looks like the judge recognized that fact to help reduce his sentence. He will probably get 10 years with credit for time served and released in 6 years. Snowdens case is a different animal. He has admitted taking his job for the express purpose of stealing information. That comes very close to meeting the definition of espionage. His subsequent threats to release further data on activities that have nothing to do with the US survelliance programs. This comes close to guaranteeing that the US government will do all they can to disrupt his life no matter where he is living. His asylum applications stating he is facing execution in the US is 100% bullshit. Where is the evidence of the US government executing someone for political purposes. Is there any proof at all that the US government has a habit of disappearing journalists or political activists? What's really bad is he has taken on all this trouble and achieved nothing. The surveillance and FISA courts are not secret and anyone claiming they didn't know really must not be paying attention. The politicians standing up and saying they didn't know about these programs are displaying the incompetence we have all witnessed over the years. And all the foreign countries who are acting surprised and offended that US intelligence agencies actually spy shows the idiocy of politicians is a truly global phenomenon.
52. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by mrchaotica · 2013-07-30 14:33 · Score: 2
  
  I'm curious, do you acknowledge that the US has any external enemies? Or do you think that the only enemy of the US is the federal government?
  I'm not the GP, but I'll tell you that the [cabal of fascist traitors within the] Federal Government is by far the most important enemy of the United States. Any confrontation with rival nations (e.g. China) won't be of a military nature any time soon (except maybe cyberwar), and little pissant groups like Al Qaeda aren't even worth worrying about.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 06:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Aiding the enemy carries the death penalty, but they can't really murder Manning if they want Snowden extradited, can they?
1. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by tnk1 · 2013-07-30 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No one thought he was going to get the death penalty. I'd have been surprised if he got life even. However, 20 to 30? Maybe. I'm thinking 5-10 years.
  That's also what I would think Julian Assange would get if the Federal Government got their hands on him.
  And I don't think Russia has a problem with the death penalty in extradition cases.
2. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by TWiTfan · 2013-07-30 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The U.S. government isn't looking to kill them, they mainly want two things:
  1) To silence them
  2) To send a clear message to any other would-be heroes about what happens to whistleblowers who embarrass the U.S. government
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
3. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by TechyImmigrant · 2013-07-30 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  >Do we really want a military full of people who think it's okay to give away millions of pieces of data whenever and for whatever?
  Yes, when the military is committing illegals acts and violating the constitution. In those cases it is other people who should go to jail.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
4. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by gordona · 2013-07-30 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  what damage? All he did was release the information that NSA was electronically evesdropping on US citizens. Something everyone knew anyway including our "enemies". He released no names of any covert agents, troop movements, or what Obama had for breakfast.
  
  --
  "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
5. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by schwit1 · 2013-07-30 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  I would add a 3rd reason ... it's in everyone's best interest. The death penalty removes any motivation to cooperate in revealing the extent of the treason. There also may be more questions later on.
6. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  A life sentence is probably what Snowden is looking at.
  No. What Snowden is looking at is exile. He's in a country with no extradition treaty with the US. There is no reason to believe he will end up back in the US at any point. That must really bother you.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
7. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bradley Manning, no matter where his heart was, committed treason
  Not according the judge in his case.
  
  Do we really want a military full of people who think it's okay to give away millions of pieces of data whenever and for whatever?
  Yes. And furthermore we want a much, much smaller military than we currently have.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
8. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by Mr.+Slippery · 2013-07-30 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  The death penalty removes any motivation to cooperate in revealing the extent of the treason.
  "Treason"? There is no treason in exposing the activities of the U.S. government to its citizens; if anything, the "treason" is in the acts of the military/intelligence/industrial complex.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
9. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by crashcy · 2013-07-30 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  Well, if the guy who oversees mass spying on everyone, friend and foe alike, then lies about it to congress, says he caused damage, well that's good enough for me.
10. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by bkmoore · 2013-07-30 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  John Walker and Robert Hanssen, sold military secrets and the identities of agents working for the U.S. to the Soviet Union. Manning and Snowden didn't sell anything to anyone. They didn't expose the identities of agents who were working for the U.S. They didn't sell information about sensitive military technology such as submarine detection sensors.
  Real spies don't go public with their information or their identities.
11. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-30 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  Except that's not what happened, there are several ways to report violations that are legal and secure, and even anonymous.
  Name them.
  I hear this excuse a lot, but to date not a soul has managed to provide any examples of other venues that would A) have been equally or more effective at bringing these events to the public's attention, and B) protected Manning from the persecution and downright criminal treatment he's faced the last 3 years or so.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
12. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-30 09:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I did not. I hate when some jackass statist "news" conglomerate insists on showing me some retarded film instead of giving me the words to read for myself.
  I did, however, do a bit of my own research, and found this article, in which Gen. Alexander repeatedly states "we have [concrete] proof that Snowden's actions have helped terrorists/hurt America blah blah blah," Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.
  Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.
  Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.
  Or a sucker.
  Speaking of which, I have a lovely piece of property spanning the East River in NY, NY, that would be a perfect investment opportunity for you...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
ramifications by Trepidity · 2013-07-30 06:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Beyond the fate of Private Manning as an individual, the 'aiding the enemy' charge — unprecedented in a leak case — could have significant long-term ramifications for investigative journalism in the Internet era.
Since he was acquitted of the charge, isn't that particular kind of potential ramification now less dire? It doesn't prove that the government will never be able to overreach in that manner, but the fact that they couldn't get a conviction on that charge here, even in a military court and little dispute about the underlying facts of document release, suggests that it won't be that easy.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:ramifications by tnk1 · 2013-07-30 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Aiding the Enemy" was always going to be a bit of a stretch here. The documents were embarrassing, but I'd have to agree that, in the end, he wasn't actually trying to help al-Qaeda. My biggest problem with him is that, in fact, he released so much that I'd have to call him on his statement that he could have had any idea that they would be harmless. His action was more reckless than malicious.
  He broke the law and I don't personally like what he did. He's definitely guilty of misusing his clearance and releasing materials he was trusted to keep secret. There will need to be a reckoning for that. If he feels he did the right thing, well and good. Perhaps he will be able to sleep well at night and even get a pardon. I just don't think that it's an action to be encouraged. There must be a better way.
2. Re:ramifications by icebike · 2013-07-30 06:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Beyond the fate of Private Manning as an individual, the 'aiding the enemy' charge — unprecedented in a leak case — could have significant long-term ramifications for investigative journalism in the Internet era.
  Since he was acquitted of the charge, isn't that particular kind of potential ramification now less dire? It doesn't prove that the government will never be able to overreach in that manner, but the fact that they couldn't get a conviction on that charge here, even in a military court and little dispute about the underlying facts of document release, suggests that it won't be that easy.
  Agreed, the summary was over-reaching.
  Its almost impossible to convict Journalists in this day and age of anything related to espionage.
  Still when this administration Taps Reporters phones and even taps Congressional Phones we are pretty close to a police state where you dare not even complain to your Congressman any more.
  They don't go after the congressmen or the journalist, just the people they talk to. (Or so they say).
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:ramifications by MindlessAutomata · 2013-07-30 06:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes. The proper way of airing the government's dirty laundry is through the official channel, i.e., the government.
  You're so fucking obedient to a symbol and a flag that you think the rules of nebulous "authority" figures and structures and systems are more important than the supposed reasons those rules were put in place to begin with. You'd defend keeping government secrets that show how they make us unsafe even though the purpose of government is supposedly to grant us some safety.
4. Re:ramifications by intermodal · 2013-07-30 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He gave information that could help the American people make better informed decisions regarding their governance. I think that counts as aiding an enemy of the state at this point.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
5. Re:ramifications by gl4ss · 2013-07-30 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  I honestly don't see what Manning released that made me "safer". Or served my interests in any way. Or those of the people of the United States.
  Snowden... I think you could make an argument since it affects citizens, but even that program was never presented with a list of things where it was used to harm citizens, it has always been just a "hey look at this stuff they could do!" In no way do I think the action he took was the only one he could have taken. It may well have been the quickest and certainly the most dramatic method, but there is a price for doing it that way. I hope it was worth it.
  it would have made you safer if they had done any actions to stop the emberrassing shit released in them. if they would for example review their internal processes to agree to international law, international declarations and agreements and stop trying to affect politics in ways which they actually for a fact know to be "wrong" and "unfair".
  otoh you know if you're going to tell something to the cia or american representative there's a very good chance that some fucking 5000 nobodies are going to be reading what you told - their intelligence system is fuckedly horizontal and apparently either nobody at the top is reading or it never reaches them. that actually makes you safer if you're going to tell them some stuff. it actually matters if you're iranian whisteleblower and don't want to get killed(that is, don't trust the usa to be good in their spy shit because they aren't, they're just good at being goons).
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
6. Re:ramifications by anagama · 2013-07-30 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  My biggest problem with him is that, in fact, he released so much that I'd have to call him on his statement that he could have had any idea that they would be harmless. His action was more reckless than malicious.
  Wrong.
  
  To impugn Manning's conduct, it is often claimed - by people who cannot possibly know this - that he failed to assess the diplomatic cables he was releasing and simply handed them over without having any idea what was in them. Here is Manning explaining the detailed process he undertook to determine their contents and ensure that they would not result in serious harm to innocent individuals; listen on the player above.
  
  Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.
  "In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.
  "The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.
  "The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.
  "The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.
  "The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.
  "I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.
  "I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."
  
  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/bradley-manning-tapes-own-words
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Not surprising by cold+fjord · 2013-07-30 06:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

There wasn't much question of what he had done - he admitted to a number of charges as it was. At the moment he could be facing up to 130 years in prison minus ~200 days from part of his pretrial confinement found to be excessive
Snowden would probably be looking at a similar outcome.
Hard to say what, if any, impact this could possibly have on any charges that might be filed involving Assange.

--
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
1. Re:Not surprising by Aryden · 2013-07-30 06:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  no, snowden is a civilian and thus not subject to the UCMJ.
2. Re:Not surprising by cold+fjord · 2013-07-30 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  I never wrote anything about Snowden being subject to the UCMJ.
  Snowden, like Manning, is likely to face charges for espionage, theft, and computer fraud. You do know that civilians can be charged with that, right? No UCMJ required.
  
  --
  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
3. Re:Not surprising by whoever57 · 2013-07-30 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Assange is a foreign national and not a member of the US military.
  In other words, he owes no duty to the USA. He has no allegiance to the USA. His actions did not take place on US soil. He did not gather the documents from the USA. He did not violate the confidentiality of the documents (confidentiality was broken by Manning). There is no connection between his actions and the USA.
  
  He will almost certainly get off less harshly than Manning,
  IMHO, Assange should not face any charges.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
4. Re:Not surprising by Wookact · 2013-07-30 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why exactly would US laws apply to someone that was not in the US, and not a US citizen.
  
  Does Sharia law apply to people not living in a Muslim country?
5. Re:Not surprising by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-30 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  "Yes I'll publish it. See what else you can get."
  Is that a conspiracy? Can't be -- that's the press in action. Now paying or bribing is a different story, but I've never heard that being claimed.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I wonder what the charge was by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 06:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

For those that lied to Congress (Clapper & Alexander)?
Same system as the Mafia... by gweihir · 2013-07-30 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Talk to anybody outside, get tortured and killed. They have not quite figured out how to implement that time-tested approach fully, but torture they already do. If "by their methods you shall recognize them" has any truth to it, this makes the nature of the current US administration quite clear.
Seriously, if what you do is to horrible and repulsive that people inside your organization are willing to risk considerable punishment to leak them, then maybe the things you are doing are wrong and you need to stop?

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Befehl ist Befehl by marcovje · 2013-07-30 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

If I look at this case, it returns to the old Prussian adage "Befehl ist Befehl".
If you break the rules, you will be severely punished, and there is no excuse. No own responsibility, no greater good, just do what you are told, no matter what.
I don't think I have to explain you what that can lead to......
1. Re:Befehl ist Befehl by steelfood · 2013-07-30 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  If you break the rules, you will be severely punished, and there is no excuse.
  Sometimes, it's worth it. It all depends on who is breaking the rules, which rule is being broken, the reasons behind breaking the rules, and the punishment. Early Christianity is filled with accounts of martyrdom. It continues today in Islam.
  In fact, the U.S. was founded on breaking the rules. And the punishment for those rules broken wasn't going to be torture and some jail time. It was going to be torture followed closely by death.
  Remember that Nathan Hale was hung. Thoreau went to jail for his act of civil disobedience. Socrates took his poison even when his jailer offered him escape. Punishment is a necessary part of civil disobedience. It magnifies the injustice (though it is arguable whether Thoreau was jailed justly or not) and gives significance to the act itself. Nothing risked is nothing gained.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
2. Re:Befehl ist Befehl by SleazyRidr · 2013-07-30 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  For those of you you missed the point: "Befehl ist Befehl" translates to "Orders are orders" and the area previously occupied by the nation of Prussia is now principally occupied by Germany. Further reading can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
3. Re:Befehl ist Befehl by marcovje · 2013-07-30 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  The Wehrmacht and the SS also were military. Yet they were (and IMHO rightly so) convicted by the Neurenburg trials for this attitude.
  So I think my analogy was appropriate .
Re:He'll still die in Jail by crashcy · 2013-07-30 06:28 · Score: 5, Funny

I hate consequitively run sentences. It's unethiquical.
Punitive justice by sl4shd0rk · 2013-07-30 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

When does the US military go on trial for the exposed war crimes?

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:Punitive justice by csumpi · 2013-07-30 07:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Which ones? Like killing people with drones? You don't go to trial for stuff like that, you get the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Great infographic by barlevg · 2013-07-30 06:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Breaking down the verdict by charge, plea and ruling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/manning-verdict/
Incredible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

A man alerts you to how you're being ripped off by the people who claim to be working for you, and you take the side of the people ripping you off.
It's amazing how powerful the appeal to coercive authority can be. Nobody would ever knowingly accept being ripped off by a private party. In the private sector, breach of contract results in serious conseqences. Yet somehow, coercive authority gets a free pass. This is a perfect example of how indoctrination works.
1. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 06:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You haven't reviewed any of the material, have you.
  You probably haven't even looked at the video they deliberately mislabeled "collateral murder". (which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
  When that video came out I contacted a guy I know who happens to be an Apache pilot (but who wasn't in Iraq at that time). He quickly pointed out that it was missing a bunch of context because at that time the insurgents had been trying to score an apache kill, so the army was holding apaches back unless there was confirmed need for them (i.e. the ground troops were already engaged with the enemy). So the BS story that there weren't any insurgents around doesn't fly. And for the reporter whose died because his lens looked like an RPG, and he moved like a guy carrying an RPG, he agreeed that it's unfortunate but said with knowledge of what was happening and what the screen showed, he'd have pulled the trigger too.
2. Re:Incredible by stewsters · 2013-07-30 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For me it wasn't that they were shooting at samaritans who were trying to help the wounded, its that they were covering it up after it happened.
  
  Which is what this whole thing is about. A democracy needs to know how the people it voted into office are doing. If the government makes it all top secret and you can only see videos of the candidates hugging puppies, then how do you know you voted correctly? How will you vote for the best candidate if performance is hidden by journalists to afraid to tell the truth?
3. Re:Incredible by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You probably haven't even looked at the video they deliberately mislabeled "collateral murder". (which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
  It sounds to me like you are the one who hasn't looked at the video. Try watching it again. The long version. And notice how the helicopter pilot fires on unarmed innocent people including children who clearly are not carrying any weapons. It is true that there was a guy with a camera. And no it didn't look like a rocket launcher. And there were a couple of guys some distance away from the main group who were carrying what may have been rifles, probably guards to try to protect the rest of the people in a war zone.
  But that does not excuse a cold blooded massacre of unarmed civilians including children. They were even cheering and celebrating as they machine gunned innocent children. If they weren't sure they could have moved closer and waited to see if the two guys with rifles fired at them. Or at least picked up their rifles (assuming they actually were rifles) to aim at them.
  That video is probably the most disgusting thing I have ever watched. It is almost impossible for me to watch the whole thing in fact. I just get too angry. Those guys should be executed. I would happily do it myself. Not only have they not been reprimanded. Their names haven't even been released. That is just wrong. Very, very wrong. They committed serious war crimes. As clear cut as any war crimes. Those particular guys were truly no better than Nazis, and I say this as a jew with ancestors in Poland.
  I suppose I was naive, but I never really believed that our military behaved like that. Like vicious animals killing with enjoyment and laughing about it. Showing no honor or mercy even to children. And that is the importance of this video and in my view what really makes Manning a hero. That video needed to be released. Manning has given his life to get that video, among other things, out into the open.
  I can tell you one thing. After watching that video it will be a cold day in hell before I ever approve of us going to war for any reason except to directly defend ourselves here on US territory. Between that video and the revelation of what was going on at Abu Ghraib we have shown that we cannot fight with honor. We cannot be trusted to fight a war without senseless massacres and god only knows what kind of sick war crimes. We truly are just as bad or even worse than what even the most anti-American critics have always claimed.
  
  He quickly pointed out that it was missing a bunch of context because at that time the insurgents had been trying to score an apache kill, so the army was holding apaches back unless there was confirmed need for them
  In what possible way is that supposed to excuse a massacre of mostly unarmed civilians? Those were not insurgents. They shot at least one child and two guys from Reuters. This was a clear case of massacre an entire crowd of people first. Ask questions later. This is a crime of coward chicken-hawk murderers too afraid to get close enough to their victims to confirm that they really are enemies actively engaging in combat with them. Those are some evil fucks.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
4. Re:Incredible by loshwomp · 2013-07-30 09:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They shot at least one child [...]
  Just to add a bit to this, the verb "shot" is scarcely appropriate, because the 30mm shells the Apache fired are more like HE grenades than bullets (in both scale and effect). Totally disgusting.
5. Re:Incredible by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  There may have been two guys with rifles who were not aiming them. They were away from the main group that they slaughtered. If they had to murder someone without provocation out of pure fear and cowardice then they could have just aimed for those two. Or better yet acted like actual human being and try to take them prisoner instead of kill them.
  As far as the RPG there was no RPG and there was no firefight in the area until they started massacring civilians at least. If they were so far away that they could not tell the difference between a camera and an RPG then they should have moved closer until they could make a positive ID on it. Instead they just decided to murder everyone in the area.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
6. Re:Incredible by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 12:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Try to post a screen gab that shows children in the helicopter footage.
  If you watch the short version they are labeled on screen. If you watch the long version the little girl / first child is mentioned at 13:29, 17:20, and 18:18 where they finally seem to realize that the little girl who was shot in the stomach was not the only wounded child. They explicitly mention that there were two wounded children at 27:38. The second child can be seen being carried to an APC by a soldier at 23:10 of the long version. The first child / little girl is only seen briefly when she is carried from the van full of bodies, but she is on the video.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
7. Re:Incredible by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 13:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe that should have been a clue for them to move closer before simply firing machine guns into a small crowd who were not firing at them. Those guys should be known as the Butchers of Baghdad.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:Should have been convicted on all counts by TWiTfan · 2013-07-30 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the reporters for the Washington Post and New York Times whom he initially approached had done their fucking jobs, he would never have went to WikiLeaks. The reason he had to release the whole cache is because no journalist gatekeeper would take him seriously (the way Glenn Greenwald did with Snowden).

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Espionage vs. Journalism by EmagGeek · 2013-07-30 06:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry, but stealing classified information and disseminating it to the public is not "investigative journalism."
Ironic..... by houbou · 2013-07-30 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember a movie with Keanu Reeves where he was transporting data using his brain "Johnny Mnemonic".. something about government/big pharma not wanting certain 'cure' information to be leaked and in the end, it was the underground hackers who risked their lives getting the info to all citizens. Seems to me like we are heading up that way... Ironic that certain movies from the 80s and 90s were able to predict scenarios such as theses.
What's The Point? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-30 06:54 · Score: 2

What is the point of convicting him of "espionage", if he wasn't "aiding the enemy"? I understand that those laws may cover different acts, but isn't that against the whole spirit of those laws in the first place?

Just asking.
Re:My suggestion to the Nobel committee by pr0fessor · 2013-07-30 06:58 · Score: 2

I was really surprised about Obama getting the peace prize... wasn't Linus Torvalds nominated at some point? I think he is more deserving.
Re:Should have been convicted on all counts by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-30 07:33 · Score: 3, Informative

He had no business leaking what he did.
Yes he did

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
This all sounds slightly familiar... by Roger+W+Moore · 2013-07-30 07:45 · Score: 5, Funny

In 2013 a crack intelligence operative was sent to prison by a military court for a crime he didn't commit. This man promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, he survives as a soldier of fortune. If you have something you need leaked, if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire: THE B-TEAM.

I'm sure Julian Assange could do double duty as 'Face' and 'Howling mad Murdoch' ;-)
Convicted of violation of the Espionage Act? by VortexCortex · 2013-07-30 07:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Convicted of violation of the Espionage Act? Ah, well then we should revise said act to retroactively apply exemption to actions which do not aide the enemy. For, if they do not aide the enemy, then they aide the ally or no one. Surely we can't be throwing people in jail for helping us?
Proposed solution to these leaks by BringYourOwnBacon · 2013-07-30 08:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

It seems tragic that the only way to expose the overstepping of the government on human rights is to have lone leakers throw themselves under the bus and expose information, often haphazardly, to the world. There should be a system in place where government employees can appeal anything they consider unconstitutional to a special court for review. It is up to the judicial branch to uphold the constitution and seems utterly ridiculous that these secret overreaches by the executive branch are not eligible to the same checks and balances put in place for public laws.

I want to see publicly nominated and vetted judges sitting on a board to review classified procedures and actions for their constitutionality. The proceedings can be secret, but the number of cases overturned and left standing should be made public. It may be a pipe dream, but I think this would go a long way to restoring the people's trust in their government by restoring the accountability that was supposed to be there in the first place.
Re:Should have been convicted on all counts by anagama · 2013-07-30 08:01 · Score: 4, Informative

He didn't even release the whole cache. Some reporter let slip the password for the encrypted file. http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/wikileaks-guardian-journalist-negligently-published-password-to-unredacted-cables.html

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
had to think about it... by globaljustin · 2013-07-30 10:12 · Score: 2

I think that both of them did a great service to Americans....Their motives, as far as I am concerned, are irrelevant.
I can't disagree here, but I look at it a bit differently I guess since I worked in journalism.
They don't control what 'the media' does or how it reacts to unfolding events and they can't be expected to be experts at media relations (even if they are narcissists to varying degrees).
However, 'the media' is definitely part of the military/industrial/illuminati complex...whole companies with vast media holdings are comprimised. Manning/Snowden knew enough to know their info was 'earth shaking'....if they knew that, they should have known they were at risk of getting in with the Adrian Lamos and Glen Greenwald's of the world.
I should, if I'm consistent, direct some of my personal outrage at Glen Greenwald, the reporter who originated Snowden's leaks for The Guardian. Greenwald and his bosses are snakes for how they handled Snowden.
if I was Obama, I'd offer Snowden a deal if he could offer evidence of malfeasence on Greenwald or The Guardian in this. They used him and hung him out to dry!

--
Thank you Dave Raggett