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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I don't think you know what illegal means.
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.
Did I miss something? Have we got actual examples of people who were hurt by this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.