Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning Says He's Sorry
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Washington Post reports that Pfc. Bradley Manning told a military judge during his sentencing hearing that he is sorry he hurt the United States by leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks and he asked for leniency as he spoke for less than five minutes, often in a quavering voice "I'm sorry I hurt people. I'm sorry that I hurt the United States," said Manning, who was convicted last month of multiple crimes, including violations of the Espionage Act, for turning over the classified material. "I'm apologizing for the unintended consequences of my actions. I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people." Speaking publicly for only the third time since he was arrested in Iraq in June 2010, Manning said he had been naive. "I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'""
I'd be sorry if you locked me in a box for years.
What would YOU say if you'd been through what he has? Who can say if he's sincere? This is just another part of the dog and pony show. Keep fighting.
He is clearly just trying to show remorse and get a lighter sentence now. In any measurable way his actions have made the world a better place, no not resulted in any demonstrable harm (except what the US deserves for its actions).
Can't blame him when he could be facing the rest of his life in jail, but I don't believe him for a second.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
that he fell victim to the 5 dollar wrench.
He apologized for the result of his action, not his action.
"I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"
Because those with the authority weren't going to do anything for the betterment of the world.
He loved Big Brother.
Wrong and illegal are not always one and the same.
After a few months in the basement of the ministry of truth he had finally learned to love Big Brother...
So they "enhanced interrogation" and/or solitary'd him until he broke and said anything they want to make the pain stop, and we're totally supposed to think that his epiphany was due to suddenly remembering just how free we are and people-loving is our government?
Riiiiiiight.
*Fun fact my captcha there was "kneecap". How appropriate.
Maybe the only thing he did wrong was give it to Wikileaks instead of the Guardian or Der Speigel and running. It's amazing how uninterested domestic media was in the info.
He apologised if the accusations made against him without evidence (that he damaged the USA or innocent people) were true for doing it.
However, since the people he's hurt are criminals and the USA has not been damaged (the criminals who think they ARE the USA [see Noah in Bourne Legacy] have been damaged, but I count them not the USA), there's nothing to apologise for.
They probably said that he'd be dangling on the edge of a trapdoor if he didn't at least let it be hinted he was at fault.
I think we've already summed this one up.
1. His backers will just assume he's either lying to get a lighter sentence, or he's been to the reeducation camp and loves Big Brother now.
2. His detractors? They will believe he's trying to get a lighter sentence and still isn't sorry.
Either way, he deserves the jail-time and not martyrdom.
Did he also say he loved Big Brother?
Except, you know, a jury.
In general no, personally yes.
It sucks that you're locked up buddy, but you did the right thing.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Stockholm Syndrome - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
We now return you to Jersey Shore...
So you'll suddenly think raping your mother is okay if there were no law forbidding it? If there's intelligent life in the universe, it's no wonder we haven't found them. They're not letting us.
Yes, because of course laws are our sole source of morality...
No, wrong and illegal are different sets. Hopefully, they have considerable overlap, but all things that are wrong certainly shouldn't be illegal, and there are things that are reasonably illegal that are not wrong. Now, whether or not what Manning did was wrong is a matter of opinion, but whether wrong and illegal are the same thing or not is not up for reasonable debate.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Torture has come so far in the last 200 years that when the defendant gets dragged into the court room, there isn't even visible evidence of Iron Maiden puncture marks, the flopping limbs that come from the rack, the rapid flinching from water boarding, or the glossy eyed stare from being subjected to countless hours of network TV.
Stop trying to confuse Javert. You'll only cause him to kill himself, you know.
Manning is a hero. The disclosures of the illegal activities of the illegal U.S.A. Government will reverberate for decades. It had to be done.
box what about 5-10+ years of end less boot camp with and hardass DI?
Any action is going to have positive and negative consequences. The question is: does the good outweigh the bad?
It's probably too early to tell if your actions served the greater good.
On the other hand, what you did was important for your country: the United States is a representative democracy. In order for your government to work as intended, both the representatives and electorat must have information regarding both policies and how those policies are implemented. Without that information, decisions are ill informed (at best) and possibly even manipulated to serve the interests of the government, a particular branch of the government, or a small group of individuals (at worse).
If there was something that the US was doing that bothered him, why didn't he just leak what was relevant to that instead of just dumping everything? There were a lot of embarrassing revelations that came out of his wikileaks dump, and whatever he was trying to accomplish, those stupid but insignificant tid-bits overshadowed it.
being sorry.
So it's not wrong for your wife to lie to and cheat on you, since it's not illegal?
Bad analogy.
Better analogy: You're cheating on your wife. I tell your wife that you're cheating on her. Am I wrong?
Analogy +1: In this case, you're the government and the wife is the American people. As it happens, you've made a law that no one is allowed to disclose if you cheat on your wife.
Analogy +2: Our marriage contract says that you don't have the power to make that law.
So: You've broken our marriage contract by making a law stating that no one can tell anyone if you cheated on your wife. Then you cheated on your wife, breaking the covenant of marriage. Then you locked up the guy who tattled that you cheated on your wife.
Who's in the wrong here?
Explain exactly why it was wrong (as opposed to illegal).
Technoli
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
I can totally relate to this. When it's you against the whole system what else can you expect someone to do .
"In over 200 years this country has never even admitted a single mistake, let alone apologized for one. We don't have government by the people for the people but by TV for the rich . I gave this documents to wikileaks to try and force my country to change for the better and encourage other people to do the same. We're not the heroes, we're the bad guys."
I would have loved him to say that. Can't put a single finger of blame on him for not saying it though.
I don't think you know what illegal means.
The crimes that were brought to light from these leaks were necessary, and it is distinguishing that the true criminals are still allowed to be free. Mr. Manning isn't a criminal, he is a whistle blower, and yet that is not how he is being treated. It is funny how quickly people forget the past.
This brave new world of ours, is a big disappointment.
Yep... showing respect towards the 'proper' authorities and recanting is the way to go if you end up on the wrong side of a society that is starting to show many parallels with George Orwell's 1984 (or the Spanish Inquisition or similar). I know I would. Sad but true...
In that case I'd really like to hear your views on slavery, segragation, and voting rights. I'd also like to know how you define things as right and wrong that are illegal in one state or nation but not another.
"You should have thought about that before..."
Have you ever heard of the crime "structuring"? If you haven't let me give you a little summary.
See, a long time ago, for a variety of reasons, some probably legitimate, many probably not, the government made the sale and possession of drugs illegal (including alcohol, at first). In order to maintain illegal businesses, a number of various types of organized crime arose. In response to this, the IRS was given sweeping powers to strike at individuals regarding their assets and income. A set of laws was put in place to give them this power and now, lying to the government about the source and value of your personal income was illegal.
As a result, organized crime businesses needed to find means of distributing cash without records, hence "money laundering". Often using a business, such as a laundromat to direct money elsewhere, criminals could distribute their cash. As a result, a series of new laws were created to prevent the distribution of cash to businesses, including sweeping NEW laws enabling the government to snoop in private company's records.
Moving on, the crime bosses began to launder money internationally. This usually involved briefcases full of cash. As a result, some western countries enacted regulations on the amount of cash one could carry over the border. Today, anything over $10,000 in cash must be declared and will usually be subject to investigation as to the source.
But deciding this wasn't sufficient, in the 1980s, a new law was created, called "structuring". This law essentially prevents you from carrying the sum of $10,000 over the border over the course of multiple trips. This law simply states that you may not circumvent arbitrary controls, such as currency limits, by conducting your activities in such a way as to avoid them.
As the result of a law to prohibit the structuring of activities to avoid the law to prevent the carrying of cash, which itself is to avoid the law of domestic money laundering, which itself is to avoid the law of revenue auditability, which itself is set up to prevent those who started a business based on that which is of questionable ethics (selling prohibited substances).
Illegal does not always equal wrong.
Or what reason you break it you may well have to pay the price. That is precisely why we have laws.
I can't believe I'm reading this. After almost 400 years, we're repeating history.
Did I miss something? Have we got actual examples of people who were hurt by this?
Something not right about this !!
Oh, wait !! Money !! Changes everything !! - Dame Cyndi Lauper
Logical argument for the win.
"Sorry I revealed your dirty laundry and forced you to admit the truth."
In light of his solitary confinement abuse and who knows what else I'll take his statement with a grain of salt. The government's track record for torture and abuse isn't that good.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I kind of hoped that it'd be more in the spirit of the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?
Now he is being facetious. To be honest, I like him for saying this. You know that he is digging at them with this.
However, the man still deserves the death penalty for his treason.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's a matter of personal opinion. In general wrong and illegal are the same thing, because no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way.
No, it's a matter of fundamental morals. If you'd lived in nazi Germany, would you have ratted on a neighbour hiding Jews? Not doing so was illegal, but also the only right thing to do.
Equating illegal with wrong means you're uncritically accepting your government as the ultimate judge in ethical matters.
Manning: 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'
If the people above you are corrupt or inept, it isn't impossible to change the world for the better.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Thing is, in international conflicts, lives are on the line every day. It's just whose lives are endangered that one side takes issue with.
Lives are also daily at stake in the more or less secret drone wars the US are waging around the world today. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Jemen are some examples. Civilians get killed by US drone pilots fromthe other side of the planet.
I for one am happy the world is starting to get a look into US dealings in foreign affairs. Like hiw Norwegian wx-coos have been recruited by the US embassy in Oslo to spy on Norwegian citizens for the US.
No, the world clearly needs more Mannings' and Snowden's.
A little postscript: This time around it was the US that got busted, I'm hoping for similar leaks in the whole world. We need more transparancy.
That's a matter of personal opinion.
No, it's not.
I think Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best:
"Always remember - everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
No, that's not a Godwin, because I'm not calling you a Nazi.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
My fellow liberals, there is no right and wrong its all what you feel my brothers and sisters. Welcome to the new chaotic world where the government says jump and we say how hi(gh).
Dang touch keyboard. So many errors.. Sorry!
"ex-cops" it should read in there somewhere.
Manning has apologized for his actions, but all he did was expose the questionable actions of those in power. Where is the apology from them? It will never come, because the ruling class is not subjected to the rules, only guys at the bottom like Manning.
"I'm sorry I hurt people. I'm sorry that I hurt the United States," said Manning
Is this sonofabitch calling the Pentagon a liar? How dare he! The Pentagon investigated and clearly reported that the Wikileaks leak did not pose a threat.
DoD Says Wikileaks Not a Threat
The Pentagon is telling NBCâ(TM)s Michael Isikoff that a special assessment team looking over the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war logs has found nothing that could damage national security.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If you think it is punishment, then boot camp is not what you think it is.
You have to be trolling. So if you go to work tomorrow and your bosses murder 12 children then dump the bodies in a river - you wont report it and because hey, its in your job description. You have no spine.
He should have shouted:
There!
are!
four!
lights!
It would seem that they were finally successful in making him see "five lights."
I'd say pretty much the same thing.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Ah, the "just following orders" excuse.
In another time and place there have been such processes before :(
Rudolf Slansky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sl%C3%A1nsk%C3%BD_trial
If he hadn't been tortured for, what was it, a year?, before recanting, it would have have been a little more impressive. The US Cherry Picks what it considers torture, so they can state out loud that they don't torture. Human Rights organizations don't see it the same way.
He may not have and could not have succeeded in his purpose and goal single-handedly. The goal and purpose can only happen as others join in exposing the criminal and dangerous behaviour or those in control of government. Manning did great, but we need MORE of them to be effective.
the last Castle did that movie go to far?
what is Ft. Leavenworth really like?
http://art-bin.com/art/amosc_preeng.html
Krestinsky: Yesterday, under the influence of a momentary keen feeling of false shame, evoked by the atmosphere of the dock and the painful impression created by the public reading of the indictment, which was aggravated by my poor health, I could not bring myself to tell the truth, I could not bring myself to say that I was guilty. And instead of saying, "Yes, I am guilty," I almost mechanically answered, "No, I am not guilty."
Vyshinsky: Mechanically?
Krestinsky: In the face of world public opinion, I had not the strength to admit the truth that I had been conducting a Trotskyite struggle all along. I request the Court to register my statement that I fully and completely admit that I am guilty of all the gravest charges brought against me personally, and that I admit my complete responsibility for the treason and treachery I have committed.
Just because something is wrong doesn't mean that not doing it isn't the right thing to do. Not ratting on your neighbor would have been the right thing to do even though it would have been wrong, and if you were found doing it you would have to take the consequences of it. There jury/judge or whatever they had would not have said that it was all ok just because you felt that you did the right thing.
Wow, so much bullshit could have been cut by murdering some teetotalers.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
But deciding this wasn't sufficient, in the 1980s, a new law was created, called "structuring". This law essentially prevents you from carrying the sum of $10,000 over the border over the course of multiple trips. This law simply states that you may not circumvent arbitrary controls, such as currency limits, by conducting your activities in such a way as to avoid them.
I wonder if Bloomberg could use that concept to prevent people from buying a 12oz drink and getting refills (or just buying four 12oz drinks).
If you read it straight, Manning is saying that everyone should defer to "proper authority" without any qualifiers or limits, which is a rather authoritarian point of view. He's tweaking the court, the government, and the public there.
Sorry, man. I think you a great service to the United States and the world. One person's "Enemy of the State" is another person's Patriot. To me, he's a patriot--and I say that as a war veteran.
Dang touch keyboard. So many errors.. Sorry!
"ex-cops" it should read in there somewhere.
Damn, I was already googleing the mysterious Norwegian wx-coos.
...that sounds suspiciously like the self-accusations during the Moscow Trials.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How about we support a presidential candidate who runs on the issue of pardoning Manning?
If I go to work tomorrow for an organization whose job is killing people who are not in the organization, then I won't be surprised when I find evidence they did so. You might as well put on trial all governments everywhere if you don't think bad things should ever happen.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It is not surprising that courts want people to say certain things, to re-establish their sense of moral correctness and order, or that they get the people in front of them to say these things. It is (always) surprising that anyone not on the bench gives these words any weight at all. Coerced testimony is, after all, no true testimony at all.
As for Manning, I think that Geek Empire nails it
but it really shouldn't be..
'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'
Funny, that is EXACTLY the kind of reasoning that was explicitly and universally rejected during the Nuremberg trials.
My fellow conservatives, there is right and wrong and we're the ones who dictate what it is. Welcome to the new world where the government says jump, but only with authorized partners and never on a Sunday because that's the Lord's day. How high? We already told you exactly how high, are you questioning our authority, maggot?
The only difference between the conservatives and the liberals is whose orders they want you to have the freedom to follow.
rot in hell obama
He broke his word, he broke whatever trust and faith and responsibilities that his chain of command entrusted in him.
What about the trust and faith he placed in his chain of command, which was broken by covering up illegal and immoral actions condoned by that chain of command? That's far worse than anything Manning did.
He messed up in the biggest way possible for someone of his job.
The only way Manning messed up was confiding in Adrian Lamo.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Your brain appears to be working in reverse.
Bad things happen, but when they happen they should be aired publically and those responsible tried for their crimes. Cover-ups, like Manning exposed, are never acceptable in a free country.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Not ratting on your neighbor would have been the right thing to do even though it would have been wrong
Words don't work that way. Either its right or its wrong, you don't get to change their definition mid-sentence to protect your shitty little argument.
I think the more disturbing part of the GP is "no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way".
In other words people are incapable of making their own decisions. The Mayor of San Diego gets a pass for harassing women because he didn't get the appropriate training. No one told me it was wrong, so I assumed I could do it. It is the final and complete rejection of any kind of personal responsibility. It is not YOUR fault. You were just doing what you were told/trained to do and therefor the fault lies with whoever told/trained you.
Mark it well.
Bradley Manning Says He's Sorry...that he didn't defect to Russia with Snowden when he had the chance.
I can't believe no comment I've read has anything bad to say about Manning.
He indiscriminately released material that he knew would be harmful to the US. If he'd discovered a particular document which the American people needed to know about which he released, that might make him a whistle-blower. In that case, it could be argued he wanted to improve his country because he had a specific problem with an actionable remedy.
However, since so many documents were involved, I think it unlikely he knew exactly what he was releasing. This means the information would be embarrassing for sure and possibly harmful to US interests and potentially deadly to individuals. I'm not aware of any other goal he had (a specific program he didn't like). His only motivation seemed to be, "I don't believe in classified documents and I'd like to harm the US government."
I want my government to be more open but also think that it must keep some secrets in order to act effectively on my behalf. He's just a thief who stole documents from an entity many Slashdot users don't like.
To be fair, money laundering and organized crime would arise in any illegal, but profitable enterprise. There's always going to be something that the government actually needs to make illegal that organized crime can be organized around, it just may not be as popular as drugs.
For instance, the trafficking and sale of "sex slaves" is something that is a common organized crime "product". Obviously, it would be unconscionable to allow that to be legal. That would also force the creation of money laundering and other currency restrictions.
I personally agree that simple possession and use of drugs for the most part, should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. We're just filling up prisons with non-violent offenders.
However, I personally feel that the existence of this sort of overreach is less of a plan to criminalize everyone, and more of a natural outgrowth of increased technology, communications, and capabilities for everyone. There has been the suggestion that eventually every individual might have control of some amount of power or energy equivalent to a nuclear bomb simply through the steady march of scientific advancement. Regulations that attempt to control this will become increasingly centralized and oppressive simply because a) they are scrambling to keep up with increased capabilities and b) because their increasing ability to regulate makes it easier for them to regulate more.
That's why I wonder at people who want to legalize certain drugs, but at the same time, want the government to control health care or other things. The government is going to eventually use its control over various things to restrict completely unrelated actions. Consider the "Interstate Commerce" clause of the Constitution. The founders were 18th Century gentlemen who thought the apex of technology and interstate commerce would be things like log roads and canals which would cross borders and so should be coordinated Federally. Do we really believe that they meant for that clause to turn into the enabling clause for all sorts of items that are only tangentially related to commerce (as it existed in their time)?
I think you clearly see the problem, but the actual cause and process isn't that there are certain moralizing fascists in charge. The process of government overreach grants it's power to whoever can grip the reins, Democrat or Republican, fascist or socialist. And in the process, even those "controllers" simply become grey government politicians who are riding the tiger because they are afraid to get off (or they enjoy the ride).
One lousy night of extra-judicial service by a half dozen L.A. County Sheriff's Deputies, and I caved. A rather craven, boot-licking moment that I am not too proud of. I didn't get the Rodney King-style beatdown that was scheduled for that morning's lull in business, but I was convinced to plead guilty to a crime that did not occur, so as to avoid the guaranteed five-year sentence in the State Penitentiary.
I'd suggest shuffling, shackled, down a mile of cement corridor, in paper slippers, before criticizing this guy.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Or rather someone in your crusade to vilify Wikileaks.
Lamo.
If prostitution were legalised, I expect demand for those sex slaves would go down to the point it was no longer a commercially viable criminal enterprise. Trafficking covertly and maintaining security around the slave doesn't come cheap.
I'd say that if he was a whistleblower, he'd have taken more care of what he did release, and tried to keep it "on-topic" for some abuses that he could validate were serious and needed to be focused on. He'd also have taken some interest in how they were presented. Presenting the video in question as "Collateral Murder" was frankly incendiary and not conducive to debate, and while he was not responsible for that presentation, Manning selected the outlet and controlled the flow of the data.
I think it would be safe to say that in any organization, there are individuals in there who have bad days, or who are catty or assholes. We're all that way sometimes. By simply dumping hundreds of cables out there, he didn't just expose possible illegal scenarios, he held the conduct of the State Department (for instance) up to a level of scrutiny that no individual would tolerate, and certainly could be detrimental to a department that is charged to work with groups or governments that individuals might find objectionable, but who those Foreign Service Officers have a duty to their elected leaders to try and do the best job they can do, and provide the most candid advice they can.
but if prostitution where legal, the amount of sex slaves would go down, and the government would be able to ensure protections for prostitutes, and make their living conditions better.
The reason they can be treated like sex slaves, is because they can't go to the cops to complain.
"And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
But to be representative of the analogy, you have to add that you as the third party signed an agreement and swore under oath that certain information would be given to you that you would keep secret and not divulge to others, including information you do not agree with like the fact that the other party is cheating on his wife. You can go ahead and break that oath and agreement, and you may or may not be wrong, but you are certainly in play for legal action for breaking such an agreement.
no comment
He joined the military. He obtained clearance for classified material. He was trained on the consequences of missusing this information. He indescrimanantly stole hundreds of thousands of documents, and releases them without even reading them. Anyone with security clearance knows that this is the way you go to prison. He did this because he is profoundly emotionally disturbed, with a history of violent outbursts, and self destructive behaviour. Like Snowden, the primary crime is stealing classified documents.
If you think he is a convenient idiot for your particular agenda, so be it. That doesn't make him a hero, just an idiot.
We have a lot of messy laws. I am trying to figure out how abortion is legal but if a person causes the death of a fetus in a car accident, etc. they can be charged with man slaughter.
no comment
My personal experience dealing with psychotics is that this is surprisingly effective. Take the words right out of their mouth, and the delusional motherfuckers take it at face value, like I finally saw the light.
It can't hurt.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Read Adrian Lamo's story. Thats a little fucked up too. That man was broken by the system as well.
If there ever was a reason to hate institutionalized psychiatry its Adrian Lamo.(he got arrested once, after he reported a crime against his property, because they cop though he talked like a mental patient, so he was forcibly institutionalized, also social stigmitation made him an outcast wandering the streets for about a decade. Men like him are damn easy to coerce into doing whatever. I suspect some form of stockholm syndrome from a decade of abuse from the system.)
He upheld the Oath he swore to protect the constitution from Enemies Foreign AND Domestic.
including with ppl dying
Who died?
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
This is pretty black and white: Regardless of what Manning was going to do with the information. He stole information that was the property of the US Government. Call him a patriot or robin hood he is still a thief.
Perhaps the classified sentencing testimony had a strong emotional impact on PFC Manning. Maybe he realized that he really did, quite unnecessarily, hurt a lot of people. He's an emotionally damaged kid.
He deserves real prison time, but not something that's going to take most of his life away.
Part of that oath made by the third partywas however to uphold and defend the marriage contract above all other concerns, even your own life.
It was the people who's atrocities Manning revealed that committed treason against America.
Because he was really just mad at his boss, and his claimed moral high-ground was revenge and not really trying to change anything for the better.
More important I would be as sorry as needed to get out earlier. Like, before I am 90.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That's a good point. Really, Manning should not have talked to anyone. If he simply had to talk to someone, there are much safer ways to do it than IM.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We're just accepting that wikileaks is an "anti-secrecy group" now?
"'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?"
Whenever I begin a sentance with how on earth followed immediately by possibly nonsensical belligerance is sure to follow ... who knows if this was sincere or not but It does remind me of another "confession"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)#Aftermath
Nothing really matter if I have the big guns (figuratively and literally). You're just gonna accept that the law I made was respecting the marriage contract.
He was entrusted with a clearance. He broke his word, ....
His supreme order was to uphold the constitution. If the US conducted acts which he judged were violating the constitution, it was his duty to betray his superiors. This or he just follow the result of the Milgram's experiment...
I'm in between Manning’s original statements-by-his-actions and this contrition. (1) Airport users and news watchers knew, or IMHO ought to have known, a great deal about the several threads behind the growing security state: (1) Power politics just can't be nice; we may one day have species-wide law IF we can figure out how to have one government and not be oppressed, but it's a jungle until then. So the revelations ought not to surprise; (2) Government has a propensity to avoid embarrassment at almost any cost. Obviously silly and wrong yet in part somewhat excusable: graceful acceptance by most of at least the general legitimacy of authority is fundamental to authority existing without either stark oppression or the sort of anarchy that can kill a major fraction of the whole people; and (3) individual empowerment is a new thing, with the part that applies to the ability of seriously angry people to essentially wage war like a State being a real threat, one that properly scares people.
I think we knew about most all of it, or ought to have, making almost all of the revelations not revelations at all. Except for the disclosure of sources and methods, this could endanger the lives of people acting from conviction and in our interests, not a good thing.
In sum, Manning was no traitor, yet if his apology is centered on the possible risk to the lives of agents and tipsters; it makes sense that he would now say that.
Not relevant analogy. He said that it's wrong if it's illegal because you don't know it's really wrong unless it's made illegal. If it's not illegal it's not wrong.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Except, you know, a jury.
Agreeing that something is wrong and something actually being wrong are never the same thing.
Probably because it was easier to overload manslaughter than to come up with a brand new crime.
But fuck it anyway!
https://whatimg.com/i/wxmxgj.jpg
Now when will Manning get a code red.
Bad analogy.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means...
may your enemies outnumber your friends a billion to one
please mod parent up, public massive information about jury nullification is the only thing that can save the US
This smells like a counsel-advised plea for mercy prior to sentencing with the hopes of Mr. Manning breathing fresh air while he still has a few years of life left.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
The end.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
He was just one man. He never had a voice so we will never know what the trigger was. What we do know is that he took what he had available to him so that injustices could be found later. He needed manpower and a voice to help him. He trusted mainstream news to give a damn. He trusted wikileaks to give a damn. Turns out nobody gives a damn.
So guess what the more learned Snowden is doing in that hotel room between releasing a handful of documents? He is looking through what he has himself and only releasing what needs to be released in his opinion. That is also why there is this fear of him, nobody (publicly) knows how much he is actually sitting on.
I believe McCain is a dolt, but at least he was a brave dolt. He was captured and tortured in Viet Nam. While under torture, he signed confessions and accusations against the United States. But yet he was elected as a senator. There are many other examples, as others have pointed out.
Manning is in good company.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The greater wisdom of those who open the borders is not to be questioned.
Seastead this.
In general wrong and illegal are the same thing
That's a matter of personal opinion.
because no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way.
Of course they would be able to. What, you think people lack opinions?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
And here I thought one person making a positive difference over the authority was a foundational principle of democracy and a core american value. Obama is illegally attacking dissent and destroying democracy.
In retrospect, hindsight is 20/20. Or the shoulda, coulda, woulda syndrome.
You, sir, are Hitler
It would always be a "commercially viable criminal enterprise" because slaves can be forced to put up with things that a prostitute would not agree to or would charge a prohibitive fee for, such as unprotected violent sex with HIV-positive customers.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The jury's role isn't to decide right from wrong, or what the law is or should be. Their role is to decide the "facts" (i.e. what happened); everything else is a legal question for the judges and lawyers (and legislature and voters).
Jury nullification is the only way around that, and it's a gray area some judges use to declare a mistrial.
A much better analogy would be you tell someone's wife you saw him at lunch with some other woman.
Are you wrong? In his eyes, absolutely YES, in her eyes, the info is OK but you are creepy, to everyone else, we're forced to question your motives - and that's not easy.
But what do you tell yourself when she looks at you and says "I know."
Yes sex slaves was a bad example because as you say legal prostitution would probably negate most of the demand. On the other hand there are plenty of examples where organized crime would exist. Before prohibition made organized crime highly profitable most of the Mafia made their living hijacking trucks and selling the stolen merchandise out of the trunk of a car. In what example would you think that hijacking could be legal?
One of the other major areas that organized crime made money before drugs was in charging businesses "protection". This was naturally extended to ports where the charged shippers "protection". When the major organized crime busting came through and stopped it there were estimates that organized crime was adding 5% to the cost of every single item sold in cities like Chicago and New York.
Because of this it's very likely the currency and IRS controls would have been passed anyway to provide a weapon against this organized crime.
How is it any different than "pulling the plug" vs. smothering the same person with a pillow?
Am I comparing a fetus to a person in a vegetative state? Yes.
It sounds like the government has been indoctrinating him with propaganda this whole time while denying him any exposure to outside information.
"'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"
These don't sound like his words or the words of someone his age even, someone told him this and kept on repeating it to him. Who knows how many lies they have used in the process.
RivenAleem asks
"Did I miss something? Have we got actual examples of people who were hurt by this?"
Does it matter? He is in isolation and so the government can just make anything up with no checks and balances. They can list all sorts of fabricated deaths or assert, with no evidence, over and over that all sorts of deaths and injuries happened and that no good came from this. You are naive if you think, for a second, that they wouldn't lie and with no exposure to criticisms how could he know better? With enough brainwashing someone of his age would believe anything.
This really should make the U.S. government look bad, very bad, for isolating someone so young and then taking advantage of his young age to bombard him with nothing but one sided propaganda.
That's a matter of personal opinion. In general wrong and illegal are the same thing, because no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way.
No, it's a matter of fundamental morals. If you'd lived in nazi Germany, would you have ratted on a neighbour hiding Jews? Not doing so was illegal, but also the only right thing to do.
Equating illegal with wrong means you're uncritically accepting your government as the ultimate judge in ethical matters.
Where do fundamental morals come from? If the government is not the ultimate judge of ethical matters, who is? The government after all is nothing but a collection of people, such as in the Nazi case, who have decided that the Jews are "subhuman". In the pre-Civil War South, blacks were not considered to be human, but mere property, such as cattle or sheep. It is really a question of whether or not there are absolutes in the moral and ethical realm, as there are in the physical realm. No one can repeal or negate the law of gravity, because it is absolute as are all natural laws.
At one time people believed that all laws, whether natural or moral were put in place by the Supreme Lawgiver, God. The founding fathers believed that all humans have inalienable rights that are given to them by the author of life. All governments everywhere can and have only ever taken away these divinely given rights of all people. If God is left out of the equation, such as is commonly the case today, exactly who decides what is moral or ethical? Is it the majority opinion? Is it the one with the biggest and best weapons? Who?
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
I wonder if they used Ludwig Van?
As we're talking about the perversion of language, a topic dear to Orwell, let me say I believe everyone should insist that the term 'Authority' be used only in cases where the supposed authority has aetiologically created the domain of said 'authority', in substantial portion or entirety.
Try replacing the word Authority with Author, see how it fits or does not fit. In too many cases Authority is used in a sense of pecking order, which is a corruption. By doing this we are assisting the perverse alteration of thought through language of which Orwell warned.
If we insist that an Authority is only someone that is also an Author we will remove the subconscious attribution we give to people who are merely higher in pecking order. They wish us to think they had made or created their domain of power and hence are properly its source, a relationship so often unjustified.
A little postscript: This time around it was the US that got busted, I'm hoping for similar leaks in the whole world. We need more transparancy.
http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/
"The data is more than eight times the size of 'Cablegate' in terms of number of documents,
and more than 100 times the size in terms of data."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
you signed up, then betrayed your country, and now you have to pay... and no amount of Slashtardism can refute those facts
Only if there are enough unprotected violent-sex HIV-positive customers willing to pay high enough fees to justify a very dangerous and fairly difficult crime ring. I may be naive but that sounds to me like a very very small niche. Which is exactly what the parent said. I would quite f confidently posit that the vast majority of people that would pay for a prostitute are looking for fairly vanilla sex. Probably looking for what is slightly below the level of the majority of pornography. Which, demonstrably, there is no problem finding people willing to do for money.
He was on his way out, and he dumped not just the wrong doings but absolutely everything else he could get his hands on. And by dumping everything else he lost his moral high-ground/whistle-blower status and became just an angry employee.
It actually depends on a bunch of other market conditions which are not easy to measure.
The issue is pretty complex and the results may not be the same in different communities, depending on where are they on the market curve at the moment.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Already proven incorrect and untrue.
You personally have broken at least 4 federal laws today, and that is assuming you literally slept 24 hours through the entire day. A single second of waking time and you have committed many more than just 4 federal crimes, more like 10-50.
Have you purchased anything today? That's a federal crime.
Have you NOT purchased anything today? That is also a federal crime.
Both are detailed under the federal interstate commerce act if you care to read it.
You are not in jail, you are posting on slashdot.
Thus, proof that breaking a ton of laws does not result in you being in prison nor jail.
Your entire basis is flawed and wrong.
Not everything, but no-one cared because many people didn't think the 1918 revolution was legitimate anyway.
box what about 5-10+ years of end less boot camp with and hardass DI?
Sorry, can you repeat that please? I didn't get it the first time in your subject line.
Dick Cheney says he's sorry too.
but if prostitution where legal, the amount of sex slaves would go down
...and part of the reason for that is that "human trafficking" is defined in such a way that if a pimp helps a prostitute move to a more profitable city, it counts as "human trafficking" even if she is free to leave any time she wishes.
There's a reason you don't see television shows about "I was chained up in a basement and forced to have sex with random men for ten years." It's because "human trafficking," at least in the U.S., is essentially a work of fiction.
...'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'" EVERY single citizen has infinite authority over "those with the proper authority" which is GRANTED to them by EVERY single citizen. EVERY single citizen has a DUTY and OBLIGATION to "change the world for the better", make it so...
I think it has to do with writing things down on paper.
'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'""
Look's like someone was on Room 101
Does anybody else remember his 'A thousands deaths'?
...
Mannings words immediately struck reminiscent of Jerry Crove (protagonist/victim), Dr Swick (examplar) and the State power (villians) to compel 'truth'. I'm not going to go into the methods by which the State achieved 'confession/recantment', nor shall I revel the ending. Part of the book's premise is that Russia has conquered America.
Some quotes:
Swick: '... It was a foolish, immature desire to prove myself by thumbing my nose at authority. It meant nothing. I was wrong. The goverment has been kinder to me than I deserve.'
Crove's initial position: 'There is a time for courage and a time for cowardice, a time when a man can give in to those who offer him leniency and a time when he must, instead resist them for the sake of a higher goal. America was once a free nation. But as long as they pay our salaries, we seem content to be slaves! I plead not guilty, because any act that serves to weaken Russian domination of any nation in the world is a blow for all the things that make life worth living and against those to whom power is the only god worth worshipping.'
And, away from this topic, the desire to retain power is directly proportional to the degree of power achieved. Erosion of civil rights of the majority are the natural product of a well-maintained minority-held ruling power.
blinking in a weird pattern - --- .-. - ..-
I have a mixed opinion on Bradley Manning. Yes there have been war crimes done under the direction of the US leaders but honestly when your waging war against an enemy that doesn't care about things like human rights you do have to step over a few lines.
You also can't go into the military without knowing that you are going to see and do some horrible things after all the military's business is waging war when it has to. If you not sure you can handle it do not go in the military, it's that simple.
I think he made another bad move when he blamed the choices he made on his gender identity disorder. That is doing a MAJOR disservice to other people with GID who have served and continue to serve in the military. Many people with GID have served with distinction. In many case people who are male outside/female inside express themselves as the perfect super-soldier because they over do the male bravado and care little for their own safety.
I don't think he should serve time much longer than he already has because even if he is released he will likely never get a job where trust is a factor. His job prospects will be extremely limited.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
> The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I'm not sure about everyone here, but I honestly have to say as it looks now the tree will be drowning in an ever flowing river of blood as this nation is just plain fucked up. Manning, Snowden and all the people everywhere else are nothing but victims of a hit and run done under cloak and dagger and brushed off like nothing ever happened and 'people should just get over it'.
What makes my mind completely numb in utter disbelief is we have people like Snowden, Manning and Assange who sacrificed everything, EVERYTHING, to bring everyone the truth and what do they get in return? They are called traitors and betrayers, and what do the people do about it? Nothing, NOTHING at all. You'd expect full public support for these people, you'd expect all the people in the country to band together and call the government out on their BS and once and for all bring them down to their knees, but of course this will never happen because this nation is just fucked up.
I fight and fight and fight yet sometimes I even question my own fight because this fight needs every person out there. If only a minority are out there fighting for an entire countries freedom then you might as well rip that tree out and call it a night.
Bradley Manning faced his accusers. Julian Assange's sex crimes case have nothing to do with free speech, or Wikileaks. Julian Assange is running away from his accusers to avoid a two-year-old Swedish rape and sexual molestation accusations, NOT a U.S. government investigation.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
I remember when it was illegal for blacks to drink from the same water fountains as whites. Are you suggesting that a black drinking from a water fountain marked "Whites only" was wrong, because it was illegal?
I've just realised - he's a Christian. One of those particular brands of Christian that believes that the only true morality comes from his particular version of their god, and everyone else is a minion of Satan.
Except that Hitler did not always obey the law. In particular, he committed illegal acts before he could dictate the laws, but even afterwards he violated treaties binding on Germany, including the laws of war. I rather doubt he always went through the formality of changing the law when he could, and very likely broke German law, but I haven't studied that part of his career as much.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think, by arguing specifics, you're missing the spirit of Dr. King's words.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That none of the people responsible for the national security infrastructure of the military will ever be held accountable for creating a situation where such a low-ranking soldier would have enough access that he could see how rotten to the core our country is and feel compelled to assume the role of whistle-blower.
I'm also sorry that so many people think what he did warrants some sort of punishment, letting all the hoards of douchebags off the hook for their responsibilities, all the way up to, and including the President.
I'm sorry the cowardly US media has ignored the international criminal activities exposed by the leak, and continued leaks, and that people are too deluded with nationalism and patriotism to even question for a moment the false authority and hubris our government is obviously guilty of, not to mention the sheer unconstitutionality of it all.
But mostly I'm sorry that they drugged Manning up and tortured him for a protracted period for the specific goal of getting him to apologize publicly. It's disgusting, and yet another example of the rampant corruption that this nation is now entirely based on.
Possibly, but I often miss the spirit of words that include inaccurate and sweeping generalizations to make a point. I understand his point that highly immoral things can be legal, but I'd think of real examples - and Dr. King had enough of those.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But policing crimes with a victim is far easier, there is far more evidence, more witnesses, and far less sympathy.
you make it sound likes its equal effort for the government to enforce a law against the people, as opposed to protecting the people.
When people are being protected, their willingness to help the police goes up. This is how law enforcement is supposed to work.
When the populace is hostile to the police, you need more police, because no one is reporting crimes, so you need to spy on, harrass, and intimidate citizens to comply.
There are ways of coercing people that don't include chaining them up in basements.
While its true, a hooker has more a boss/employee relationship, there are very few if any protections for them, and they are often exploited.
Most fans of the "martial arts" would know that their skills were begun by peasants who were oppressed and, obviously, poor. They realised that their pitch forks and threshing sticks could be used as weapons, and voila! You have an institution that was truly relevant right up until the first world war.
My point is, when people are oppressed, such as in the dystopian world that some here have mentioned, the reality is that the oppression becomes an obsession for people who desire free will, and those people then use whatever devices they have at hand (books, education, the Internet, etc) to "cull" (metaphorically speaking) the oppression.
Anyhow, I'm personally a pacifist, and believe that peace contains the greatest prosperity. I don't ascribe to the "greed is good" philosophy, nor do I believe that because something great happened when someone was oppressed, that this then means only good things can happen when people are oppressed. People who think like that deserve to be laughed at, repeatedly. And then be made to sweep the chicken coop. /JB