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.
Except, you know, a jury.
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...
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?
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.
Correct.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
However, the man still deserves the death penalty for his treason.
However, it's still not treason. He may have broken his oath, but he upheld his responsibility to the American people. And you and all the other people calling him a traitor are doing the work of those who would oppress you, and me too.
It's true that he's just digging at them in that sentence, which is a truly brilliant piece of work. We all know that "proper authority" is code for "all the power". And you are kissing their assholes bigtime.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
He should have shouted:
There!
are!
four!
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
And yet Rove, Libby, and Cheney walk free...
Treason is defined in the Constitution. This is clearly not treason as so defined, nor was he charged with such. The most treason-like thing he was charged with (giving aid and comfort to the enemy), he was acquitted of.
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?
So you are saying that we have law to punish people? That is screwed up. We have laws so that we can have a just and fair society. When the govenment is acting unjustly and breaking the law there is no consequences to them because they make it illegal to bring the information to the people and other branches of government so that something can be done. It is legitimate to break a unjust law, especially when the unjust law is created to protect those who would abuse their power. Therefor what Manning and now Snowden have done is beyond reproach.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
he most certainly does not. those that committed the heinous acts that he reveled may deserve it but not him.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
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.
Sigh. He gave out information indiscriminately. Had it been about a specific issue that was illegal/immoral, than he would be a whistleblower. BUT, that was not what he did, nor was it his intention. He simply wanted to harm America.
Manning is no different than Snowden in this regard.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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).
Oh, I agree with you. I dislike those 4 actually. Most of W's admin, including W, should have gone to prison for their many crimes. However, what manning released had nothing to do with that. And much of what manning released was not illegal on USA's part, but caused major issues elsewhere, including with ppl dying.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Except there is no enemy, and there was no aid or comfort given.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Lets see. Did he give them aid by releasing all sorts of information that used to recruit other muslims to be terrorists? Yup.
Was that information used against America to back attacks on America? Yup.
Did multiple witnesses say that he did in fact do this act? Yup.
Did he do a confession in open court? I do not recall, but I do not think so.
However, he (and snowden) fit the definition 100%.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, it seems he wanted to help America. The same as Snowden. If there was harm done, it was towards the American government. Harming the government is often the best thing you can do for the country.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
...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.
Some of what he released was crimes by soldiers, and they SHOULD be punished. This would be considered acts of whistleblowing.
However, Manning, like snowden, went much further, and released information that was NOT illegal by our nation's laws and certainly not outside of the norms that other nations do. As such, those parts became treason. Again, this is just like Snowden.
Look, if I somebody is robbing a store and I stop them, that is good. OTOH, if I stop them, and they leave, and then I rob the store, then I am guilty. IOW, one part was good, but one part was illegal. Manning and Snowden did BOTH. And for the information that Manning and Snowden have released to the enemies of the west, has caused a lot of damage.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
Really what information did Snowden leak that wasn't show a invasion on our rights or showing abuse of power? while much of what he has leacked has not been released yet everything i have read should be known by the people. On the other hand Manning just leaked everything because he didn't know what all to leak and didn't know how to go through what he had.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
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!
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!
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.
Or what reason you break it you may well have to pay the price. That is precisely why we have laws.
Why do we have laws, when they don't apply to those in power? Manning uncovered crimes, and he is the only person being punished. If you believe in the rule of law, that should chill you to the bone.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So you are saying that we have law to punish people? That is screwed up. We have laws so that we can have a just and fair society.
No, he didn't say that. He said we have laws so that we can have a just and fair society, so if you decide to break them, we are going to punish you more than you feel is fair. That is how criminal justice works in reality.
When the govenment is acting unjustly and breaking the law
What secrets did Manning reveal of the government acting unjustly and breaking the law?
Video of a military operation in a war zone that resulted in dead civilians that were running around with armed combatants?
Diplomatic messages that show diplomats are less than honest when dealing with assholes they can't stand?
there is no consequences to them because they make it illegal to bring the information to the people and other branches of government so that something can be done. It is legitimate to break a unjust law, especially when the unjust law is created to protect those who would abuse their power. Therefor what Manning and now Snowden have done is beyond reproach.
Snowden at least showed the US government was spying on US citizens. I don't like how he has acted since he leaked that info, but have to admit his info is actually relevant to us civilians.
Manning showed that bad things happen in war zones, and diplomacy involves being diplomatic. I don't get the hero-worship over that.
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.
Bradley Manning Says He's Sorry...that he didn't defect to Russia with Snowden when he had the chance.
Except there is no enemy, and there was no aid or comfort given.
And there were no articles of war, signed by the president, and ratified by congress.
Now the US government can openly torture US citizens who cross the line.
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).
No, treason is a very specific thing, and Mannings actions don't fit the bill. Treason is giving away nuclear secrets, not making you look like an asshole.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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.
Some of what he released was crimes by soldiers, and they SHOULD be punished.
But they won't be punished. Think hard about what this means about this country and the rule of law. Do you want to support powerful criminals, or those who break the law for the greater good?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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
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.)
including with ppl dying
Who died?
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
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.
Absolutely not. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact the he was ACQUITTED of aiding the enemy. This means that he did not do such a thing, no matter how much you want to bend the facts to make it appear so. Simply making something available on the internet that can be accessed by anyone, even if it includes "the enemy" has been demonstrably proven to not be "aiding the enemy".
“knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly.”
That is the definition as per Article 104 of the UCMJ, and is what he was charged with. Take a moment to think about the words, and what they mean. The question isn't "did he release information that then became available to the countries enemies?". The question is, "Did he give intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly?", and the answer was "No, giving information to Wikileaks does not mean that he gave information to the enemy, even if Wikileaks then made it available to the public at large."
Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
Yes, assuming you're saying the current administration is the United States, but who are the United States?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is about more than playing lawyer. The federal government has been long in contradiction of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and has certainly been skirting what constitutes a "war" in Article 1 sect 8, and now the Executive Branch finds itself at odds with at least the Fourth Amendment, too.
There are processes to follow if one wants to change how that document works. Those processes have not been followed. The entire governmental system set forth in the Constitution is questionable if it does not honor its founding document.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
So by your definition, the news media, every time a reporter factually reports a government bomb going astray and blowing up a bunch of children, commits treason? What a disturbingly paranoid world you must live in, worrying about every minor action you might commit being a crime.
Giving aid to enemies in a time of war refers to stealing secrets that are tactically valuable to the enemy, not revealing evidence of crimes that are psychologically valuable to the enemy—not revealing secrets that are only secret because nobody else happened to be watching at that particular moment. The Constitution's prohibition against treason was never intended to give protection to war crimes.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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!
"'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.
But that was a different world. 9/11 changed everything, man.
Seriously, as cynical as it sounds, at least in the U.S., if the Nuremberg trials were conducted today, we'd probably let them off for "just following orders". Chilling, isn't it, how quickly we have become the enemy, a mirror reflecting that which our forefathers died fighting against?
"What truth is there, but the law?" they say. "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
This is what it sounds like when justice ends and the blind and arbitrary pursuit of revenge begins. This is always what it sounds like.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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...
As posted above: "He upheld the Oath he swore to protect the constitution from Enemies Foreign AND Domestic"
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.
Probably because it was easier to overload manslaughter than to come up with a brand new crime.
Now when will Manning get a code red.
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.
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!
The information might have been used to recruit people into being terrorists, but that's not what aid means here. Let's say that I was an academic during the Cold War, and I released a document that supported communism from a scholarly viewpoint. Because of this, another nation joined the USSR. By your kind of interpretation, that would be an act of treason.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In retrospect, hindsight is 20/20. Or the shoulda, coulda, woulda syndrome.
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
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.
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.
Did he give them aid by releasing all sorts of information that used to recruit other muslims to be terrorists?
A photo of Katy Perry in a miniskirt could be used to recruit some Muslims to become terrorists against the immoral Untied States. So who should go to jail for that one, the skirt-wearer, the photographer, or the publisher?
The sight of a Seattle traffic jam full of Hummers, Escalades and Navigators could be used to recruit some of the eco-fanatics to become terrorists against the US. Should we jail Detroit?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Do you have any evidence to support your accusation?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
And what do you mean by "Anyway, what did he "whistleblow"? That the Patriot Act is still law? Everything he revealed is in compliance with that law,"
That's only true if you think the 4th amendment isn't law.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I don't know, I kind of like it. Using that level of "evidence" the entire United States government could be convicted of treason. Along with a whole lot of other people of course... But what the hell? Selective enforcement seems to work great for the powers that be.
Assange (the rapist), you mean because he had consensual sex he is a rapist. No trial has been held and no conviction has been made. So you go way too far in calling him a rapist.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
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!
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.
None of that excuses the lack of prosecutions for the very clear cut crimes he did expose. Anyone who believes in the rule of law should demand prosecutions for those crimes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
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.
Of course, it could easily be postulated that the authority referenced is in regards to the fate of the individual -- where anyone higher in the pecking order is indeed an author of your fate. Perverted, yes... but then, that's how language grows.
Not everything, but no-one cared because many people didn't think the 1918 revolution was legitimate anyway.
Yeah, the situation with assange bothers me. He is an Aussie. He did not take an oath to protect american/western secrets. America has NO rights to go after him. Now, Sweden is a different issue. We really do not know what happened so that is for Sweden and assange to sort out. But USA should not be interfering in this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Snowden told how we spy on other nations to get to terrorists. The other nation's Intel worlds AND leaders KNEW that we did this ( and the rest of 5i along with germany and france, spy on USA citizens). We used that information to stop multiple attacks in EU. Now, not only are we stopping helping Germany, France, etc, BUT they will also slow down Intel to the rest of the west. We just told AQ and Chinese spies to have at the west.
that is treason by snowden. Manning also did the same.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
'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
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!*
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]
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
Snowden told how we spy on other nations to get to terrorists. The other nation's Intel worlds AND leaders KNEW that we did this ( and the rest of 5i along with germany and france, spy on USA citizens). We used that information to stop multiple attacks in EU. Now, not only are we stopping helping Germany, France, etc, BUT they will also slow down Intel to the rest of the west. We just told AQ and Chinese spies to have at the west.
that is treason by snowden. Manning also did the same.
Did they really? How do we know they stopped any attacks because all the evidence is classified? Also they have show a unrepentant willingness to lie to congress whenever they deem it convenient and they have even less regard for the American people at all, so how can we trust a single thing they say is true not some fabricated FUD story to keep the people frightened of the big bad terrorist and demand the big brother keep them safe? as for telling the Chinese you think that the Chinese those people that have been systemically probing out computer system did not already know how this was being done hell there have been report floating around for years saying they already have access to the D.O.D.'s SIPRNET which would give then access to all of this anyway. AQ could of been spied on just as effectively with legal means as well and if they were smart would already have been hiding their communication in darkent sites and using strong encryption that’s standard presager for hiding form the US gov. the only people that these leaks really affect is the American public which has had there eyes opened to what the government had been doing.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
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.