Bradley Manning Guilty On 20 Of 21 Charges

[Bogtrotter07]

An unjust law is no law at all. I wouldn't have followed prohibition, I wouldn't have obeyed the myriad runaway slave laws, I wouldn't have shut up about things like the Tuskegee Experiments, etc.

As for calling Manning/Snowden self-entitled, it's totally off-base for reasons that should be obvious. It starts with a C and ends with an onstitution. But but but the government said it was good! The lawyers checked it out! ...but, umm, the Supreme Court can't rule on something that isn't tried in court. So saying a program is legal/constitutional is silly because it has to be tried in court and can't be tried in court until it's... wait for it... made public.

The army warrant officer that flew the Huey Sierra at My Lai and positioned it to block the soldiers that were shooting women and children after raping and murdering scores, was actually punished more severely than any US soldier involved than William Cally, one platoon commander. Cally's middle name was Laws, ironically. Even the ones who had been identified as having committed rape and murder, with corroborated testimony were treated far less severely than this pilot.

Here is my point. People that break the law for the right reason have to be sure they are willing to shoulder the consequences. When Gandhi led the Indians to the ocean, to collect their own salt and violate the British law, they knew many would be beaten, maybe even to death. Once the British gunned down protesters, these people had to be responsible for their choices; it was life or death. The British press at the time called them Thugs. It was only the American press that presented an objective view of the protests. Time will judge.

I am not trying to analogize any examples I have made in terms of morality. I am just trying to show instances of times where individuals had to make monumental decisions in an instant, or over a period of time. Sometimes they were "right" and sometimes they were "wrong." But if that individual is willing to live responsibly with his decision, I don't get the name calling. Call EV names by all means, he is showing himself to be a douche-rocket as we speak, but if these individuals are willing to stand for their convictions, or if IE posers are, we don't need to call 'em names.

Finally, I think almost all of the Patriot Act and most SYG laws need to be reworked. They were efforts to clearly limit the constitution for personal gain. Many multi-national companies gain, actually!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

And why do you think that is? Because Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA and our armed forces do their job well. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with crimes against humanity, but he clearly broke the law and was sentenced accordingly.

You and I are old friends. Let me put you on the spot with a question, "Who does Amnesty International list as the top perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc.?

 

[TheRealLynch51]

You and I are old friends. Let me put you on the spot with a question, "Who does Amnesty International list as the top perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc.?

I like you too Bogs. I can't find a list, but I know the U.S. is near the top. That's only because Amnesty International even admits its agenda is to cover economically powerful countries more in the hope that other countries will adopt some of our humanitarian efforts. While I feel terrible that war crimes are committed and those responsible should be held accountable in some court of law, Manning deliberately broke the law and released some documents that had classified strategic information about the Iraq war. Was the document itself needed to expose war crimes? Yes. Did his releases also contain info that should never be in the public domain for security purposes? Again, yes. If he has just exposed war crimes, I would be screaming for the government to release him. However, I'm not going to forget someones misdeeds because of their good deeds.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I get your devil's advocate role GH but I'm also not going to debate hypotheticals.

My statement was clearly predicated on a hypothetical situation though:

If exposing war crimes is disgracing my country, then I'd disgrace my country at every opportunity.

Seems a bit uneven on your end.

 

[Grahambo]

My statement was clearly predicated on a hypothetical situation though:



Seems a bit uneven on your end.

My therapist told me its normal:

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Manning released more than just the crimes and that's why he shouldn't get the pardon. Releasing the crimes was the morally correct things to do. Releasing other classified documents was wrong and a pretty easy judgment.

Snowden did nothing morally wrong and is a hero. He exposed the government spying on Americans, which is deplorable. Snowden would be the one who deserves a pardon. However the NSA is still spying (I bet they would have continued even if that bill passed tbh), so he wouldn't get the pardon realistically.

 

[Fbolt]

While I feel terrible that war crimes are committed and those responsible should be held accountable in some court of law, Manning deliberately broke the law and released some documents that had classified strategic information about the Iraq war. Was the document itself needed to expose war crimes? Yes. Did his releases also contain info that should never be in the public domain for security purposes? Again, yes. If he has just exposed war crimes, I would be screaming for the government to release him. However, I'm not going to forget someones misdeeds because of their good deeds.

agreed

 

[ND NYC]

In terms of comparing and contrasting Manning and Snowden, Mike Hayden put it this way:

Manning exposed "cups of water" (who/what/where)...but Snowden exposed "the entire plumbing system" (how we do what we do, why we do it, methods we use) for all the world to see (and he may have more info still).

said while both were extremely detrimental said much much more dangerous to the entire natl security apparatus when "the how and the methods" is exposed like Snowden did this per a guy that ran both the CIA and the NSA.

 

[pkt77242]

An unjust law is no law at all. I wouldn't have followed prohibition, I wouldn't have obeyed the myriad runaway slave laws, I wouldn't have shut up about things like the Tuskegee Experiments, etc.

As for calling Manning/Snowden self-entitled, it's totally off-base for reasons that should be obvious. It starts with a C and ends with an onstitution. But but but the government said it was good! The lawyers checked it out! ...but, umm, the Supreme Court can't rule on something that isn't tried in court. So saying a program is legal/constitutional is silly because it has to be tried in court and can't be tried in court until it's... wait for it... made public.

The problem with the unjust law theory is that we are always going to decide in our own favor (I like to speed so speed limit laws are unjust and I won't follow them; If someone likes to smoke pot then they are likely to see those laws as unjust). That could quickly lead to a lawless society. Yes there are truly unjust laws but they are few and far between.

 

[pkt77242]

This is about as dangerous of an idea as one could have. Only the military and security analysts know reality so do not speak or think, just turn over all responsibility to them.

So what is your idea that teachers and construction workers should decide what our military does and what our security analysts could do? Look a fair number of your congressmen (and women) knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. If you got a beef it is with them so why don't you just vote them out. They are the ones you elected to represent you and to question programs, if you don't like the programs that they are aware of and not stopping them vote them out.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

So what is your idea that teachers and construction workers should decide what our military does and what our security analysts could do? Look a fair number of your congressmen (and women) knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. If you got a beef it is with them so why don't you just vote them out. They are the ones you elected to represent you and to question programs, if you don't like the programs that they are aware of and not stopping them vote them out.

No, I am not saying that a layman should be making battlefield decisions. I'm saying that the idea that an American citizen does not have a legitimate right to express an opinion on any matter in which our government is engaged is about as un-American of a concept as I can think of.

As to electing legislators that does not really have anything to do with whether one should be able to have and express and opinion on something. I don't think the only legitimate way to express one's belief in America is the ballot box. Additionally, we have two parties that are beholden to the same interests and a serious lack of electoral choices so the idea that could just vote someone in who would pursue a different course is pretty inaccurate.

 

[pkt77242]

No, I am not saying that a layman should be making battlefield decisions. I'm saying that the idea that an American citizen does not have a legitimate right to express an opinion on any matter in which our government is engaged is about as un-American of a concept as I can think of.

As to electing legislators that does not really have anything to do with whether one should be able to have and express and opinion on something. I don't think the only legitimate way to express one's belief in America is the ballot box. Additionally, we have two parties that are beholden to the same interests and a serious lack of electoral choices so the idea that could just vote someone in who would pursue a different course is pretty inaccurate.

So you are using the opinions are like *******s defense? We all have them? Nice, well in that case most of us aren't saying that people can't express their opinion, just that we can belittle their uninformed opinions.

 

[greyhammer90]

So you are using the opinions are like *******s defense? We all have them? Nice, well in that case most of us aren't saying that people can't express their opinion, just that we can belittle their uninformed opinions.

He was responding specifically to Grahambo saying that we shouldn't post opinions about this stuff because we aren't in his line of work. For city construction that's one thing, when it comes to how our government acts on a foreign and domestic stage, I'd say that the most American thing to be is skeptical.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

So you are using the opinions are like *******s defense? We all have them? Nice, well in that case most of us aren't saying that people can't express their opinion, just that we can belittle their uninformed opinions.

That is not even close to what I said. I am not saying merely hey all opinions are equal. I am saying that yes even tose with ignorant opinions are entitled to them, but more importantly it is capable for one to have an informed opinion without any connection to military or security agencies. The best thing for the country would be for the most people to be informed and engaged. I completely reject the simplistic notion that only those involved in intelligence agencies and military have informed opinions on the matter. For one people within organizations perceptions are often completely colored by the culture of that organization meaning they cannot form an opinion that is not biased in favor of the organization. Second, one can certainly be informed on these matters without it being their occupation. It is quite possible for a well read intelligent individual to have a much more informed opinion than someone whose only basis for their opinion is having performed military service. Its just arrogant and wrong headed to think one's experience is that much more valuable than everyone elses and that others are not capable of having learned from both their own valuable albeit different experiences or their ability to learn from the informed opinions and experiences of others. And it is certainly everyone's right and probably duty to have an idea about what our government is doing and to form a belief on whether that is the right thing and how our country should be governed.

 

[ND NYC]

you guys seem to be arguing in circles on this all that really matters is this:

Manning not only admitted to many of his crimes before this trail (he plead guilty), but for the ones he didnt admit to, he was found guilty on al but one (albeit the most seriuos charge that he could have hanged for) per the process we have in place.

so...is it the process you disagree with here? the laws that are used to try him?

or do you disagree with Manning himself, who said he was and plead guilty to many of his crimes before the trial even started?

 

[Grahambo]

That is not even close to what I said. I am not saying merely hey all opinions are equal. I am saying that yes even tose with ignorant opinions are entitled to them, but more importantly it is capable for one to have an informed opinion without any connection to military or security agencies. The best thing for the country would be for the most people to be informed and engaged. I completely reject the simplistic notion that only those involved in intelligence agencies and military have informed opinions on the matter. For one people within organizations perceptions are often completely colored by the culture of that organization meaning they cannot form an opinion that is not biased in favor of the organization. Second, one can certainly be informed on these matters without it being their occupation. It is quite possible for a well read intelligent individual to have a much more informed opinion than someone whose only basis for their opinion is having performed military service. Its just arrogant and wrong headed to think one's experience is that much more valuable than everyone elses and that others are not capable of having learned from both their own valuable albeit different experiences or their ability to learn from the informed opinions and experiences of others. And it is certainly everyone's right and probably duty to have an idea about what our government is doing and to form a belief on whether that is the right thing and how our country should be governed.

Let me clarify a little bit. My point is more along the lines of this:

how can someone get an informed opinion on something as valuable as intelligence collected when they receive it after it has been watered down more times then I could count? For example, if you read something from one of the news agencies, you're trusting that what they are giving you is the unfiltered version that would allow you to form your own opinion. Instead, what you receive is the writers or news agencies biased spin placed on said article. I've seen countless articles put out the wrong information on sensitive matters.

Now, for someone that has worked up close and personal and received the information unfiltered, their opinion will be formed with the full knowledge and scope of what the intelligence is telling them. You're not so much forming an opinion as you are following what the intel is telling you. The enemy is around us constantly and is doing hard work to crack us which is why its hard to tell the public most information. It's almost like reading your playbook out loud a week before gameday.

My line of not subscribing to theory of everyone is entitled to an opinion was dumb and I don't truly believe that. Probably sour grapes for whatever reason at the time that I wrote it.

I used BB as an example trying to relay that someone who is a city planner will know about city planning and someone who works in intelligence in whatever capacity is going to know intelligence because that is their line of duty; surrounded by it all day. I'm not going to know the in's and out's of city planning by reading a few, filtered articles.

I wasn't trying to come off arrogantly. Just words on a computer screen. Hard to convey meaning behind a screen.

People will agree and disagree with me which is fine. No big deal. The world will keep on spinning and we will both hate UCLA equally.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

Let me clarify a little bit. My point is more along the lines of this:

how can someone get an informed opinion on something as valuable as intelligence collected when they receive it after it has been watered down more times then I could count? For example, if you read something from one of the news agencies, you're trusting that what they are giving you is the unfiltered version that would allow you to form your own opinion. Instead, what you receive is the writers or news agencies biased spin placed on said article. I've seen countless articles put out the wrong information on sensitive matters.

Now, for someone that has worked up close and personal and received the information unfiltered, their opinion will be formed with the full knowledge and scope of what the intelligence is telling them. You're not so much forming an opinion as you are following what the intel is telling you. The enemy is around us constantly and is doing hard work to crack us which is why its hard to tell the public most information. It's almost like reading your playbook out loud a week before gameday.

My line of not subscribing to theory of everyone is entitled to an opinion was dumb and I don't truly believe that. Probably sour grapes for whatever reason at the time that I wrote it.

I used BB as an example trying to relay that someone who is a city planner will know about city planning and someone who works in intelligence in whatever capacity is going to know intelligence because that is their line of duty; surrounded by it all day. I'm not going to know the in's and out's of city planning by reading a few, filtered articles.

I wasn't trying to come off arrogantly. Just words on a computer screen. Hard to convey meaning behind a screen.

People will agree and disagree with me which is fine. No big deal. The world will keep on spinning and we will both hate UCLA equally.

Yeah, I do still disagree on the general matter, but I respect that you have different opinion and have outlined it thoughtfully. Respectful disagreement with rational expression of opinion can lead to more nuanced and informed opinions on both sides.

 

[Grahambo]

Yeah, I do still disagree on the general matter, but I respect that you have different opinion and have outlined it thoughtfully. Respectful disagreement with rational expression of opinion can lead to more nuanced and informed opinions on both sides.

Absolutely. Best part about it is that come Saturday's we can go grab a beer together and root together like there's no tomorrow.

 

[PLACforever]

I look forward to the sentences for the 20 guilty charges being served consecutively.

Ditto.
RLTW

 

[Buster Bluth]

I used BB as an example trying to relay that someone who is a city planner will know about city planning and someone who works in intelligence in whatever capacity is going to know intelligence because that is their line of duty; surrounded by it all day. I'm not going to know the in's and out's of city planning by reading a few, filtered articles.

Except city planners don't have the ability to ignore property rights, because while I may know the best way to build a functioning neighborhood, even the common man has a qualified opinion on what rights he doesn't want squashed because some government agency wants to so.

Someone who works in intelligence may know the best way how to do X, Y, Z. But anyone and everyone has a qualified opinion on whether X, Y, Z are just.

Switching away from Manning to Snowden, if he didn't expose the program it couldn't be brought before courts to be deemed unconstitutional. That's the funky part of our system. Snowden deserves the Peace Prize for his work in exposing to the world that governments around the world are secretly and deliberately destroying privacy. It's a worse transgression than anytime ***** did. There, I said it.

 

[greyhammer90]

Lol I think it's time we stop censoring a certain terrorists name.

 

[pkt77242]

That is not even close to what I said. I am not saying merely hey all opinions are equal. I am saying that yes even tose with ignorant opinions are entitled to them, but more importantly it is capable for one to have an informed opinion without any connection to military or security agencies. The best thing for the country would be for the most people to be informed and engaged. I completely reject the simplistic notion that only those involved in intelligence agencies and military have informed opinions on the matter. For one people within organizations perceptions are often completely colored by the culture of that organization meaning they cannot form an opinion that is not biased in favor of the organization. Second, one can certainly be informed on these matters without it being their occupation. It is quite possible for a well read intelligent individual to have a much more informed opinion than someone whose only basis for their opinion is having performed military service. Its just arrogant and wrong headed to think one's experience is that much more valuable than everyone elses and that others are not capable of having learned from both their own valuable albeit different experiences or their ability to learn from the informed opinions and experiences of others. And it is certainly everyone's right and probably duty to have an idea about what our government is doing and to form a belief on whether that is the right thing and how our country should be governed.

First I will say that I agree that it is important to have a well informed electorate.

As to the bolded part, I strongly disagree. Our whole entire economy and way of life is built on specialization. Most people if it is not their job can learn just enough to be dangerous but not enough to truly master a given field. To think that the average person (there will always be individual exceptions) can master what is going on in the intelligence and counterterrorism more than someone who sleep and breathes it is just crazy talk. It is like saying that you can learn to be a doctor while doing a day job as an accountant by reading some articles and watching some news. Not bloody likely. There is a reason that the military specializes (infantry, logistics/supply, intelligence, etc) because it literally takes significant time and resources (years) to learn what is important and what is not important.

 

[AvesEvo]

I don't think you have a clue what we're up against. The Red Scare has been replaced by the Muslim Scare. You're more likely to die of you refrigerator falling on you than a terrorist attack. And for the true irony of the situation: our actions in the middle east are only creating more enemies. People were absolutely outraged when those kids died in the kindergarten shooting in Connecticut, that's how many kids die annually in Pakistan from our drones.

For all you folks pleading to make sure national security is a priority, you should start criticizing our bull-in-a-China-shop policies.

Actually, many more children die from drones.

 

[kmoose]

our actions in the middle east are only creating more enemies

The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what we do in the Middle East. The Radicals hate us because our perceived sins (of excess, of casual sex, of greed, etc) are an affront to their ultra-conservative religious views. They are no different from those who bomb abortion clinics, in that sense. It is a sense of moral outrage that drives their hate for us. They simply distort our policies in their own countries, to rally the masses to their cause.

 

[Irish YJ]

I've said it before....

Just another reason why packing up and moving to Belize or somewhere sunny for retirement becomes more attractive every day.

Government sucks, and society as a whole is just plain disappointing anymore. Not being the negative nancy, as I have a really positive personal outlook on life.... but going somewhere where life is much more raw and simple has a charm about it. Not to mention the tropical breeze, beaches, rum, I can go on...

 

[ACamp1900]

I'll agree on this point... I doubt more and more that i will retire here if I have a choice in the matter...

 

[Buster Bluth]

The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what we do in the Middle East. The Radicals hate us because our perceived sins (of excess, of casual sex, of greed, etc) are an affront to their ultra-conservative religious views. They are no different from those who bomb abortion clinics, in that sense. It is a sense of moral outrage that drives their hate for us. They simply distort our policies in their own countries, to rally the masses to their cause.

It's exactly the other way around and has been said over and over by top (and honest) officials. If what you're saying were true they'd be actively trying to blow up the entire western world. This war is entirely political on their end, and economic in our end. It's cultural on both ends only in what the governments/organizations tell the populace.

They don't hate us for our freedom or our way of life; most Muslims appreciate and admire that actually (plus you don't see them blowing up Norway). They hate us for being imperialists.

And stupidly, our response to 9/11 was to turn the imperialism up another notch. But hey the military industrial complex gets bigger contracts! Yay economic growth! Let's create more "terrorists" to ensure more contracts!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As to the bolded part, I strongly disagree. Our whole entire economy and way of life is built on specialization. Most people if it is not their job can learn just enough to be dangerous but not enough to truly master a given field. To think that the average person (there will always be individual exceptions) can master what is going on in the intelligence and counterterrorism more than someone who sleep and breathes it is just crazy talk. It is like saying that you can learn to be a doctor while doing a day job as an accountant by reading some articles and watching some news. Not bloody likely. There is a reason that the military specializes (infantry, logistics/supply, intelligence, etc) because it literally takes significant time and resources (years) to learn what is important and what is not important.

Yes, someone in intelligence will have a better idea of the methods being utilized and the threats we face than a layman. But such a person's opinion on whether the liberty (4th amendment/ privacy) we're sacrificing to achieve a certain level of security means f*ck all compared to yours or mine. A constitutional lawyer is the only one who could claim to be an expert on that subject, and even then, everyone is entitled to an opinion on how to best make that compromise.

And it's not like we're even at a point where we could choose to take the spooks at their word, because there's been no word. The methods, the threats... everything is classified. So we're being asked to blindly accept that shredding the 4th amendment is worth it in this case.

But from what little we know already, serious skepticism is warranted. Keith Alexander testified before Congress that ~20 terrorist plots have been foiled with the help of intelligence from this dragnet, but not a single one wouldn't have been solved but for the intelligence. Every one was foiled primarily by traditional police work.

The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what we do in the Middle East. The Radicals hate us because our perceived sins (of excess, of casual sex, of greed, etc) are an affront to their ultra-conservative religious views. They are no different from those who bomb abortion clinics, in that sense. It is a sense of moral outrage that drives their hate for us. They simply distort our policies in their own countries, to rally the masses to their cause.

This is an oversimplification. The "radicals" are an extremely diverse group of people. To state that they all hate American equally and for the same reasons, so we should continue indiscriminately bombing their communities with killer flying robots, is absurd.

 

[AvesEvo]

Way to take my point to the utmost extent. Gitmo has helped to save some of our citizens lives. Let's put it this way, the vast majority of people in Gitmo deserve to be there and if they hadn't associated with people they shouldn't of, they would be free to do whatever they please. And yes, civilian air strikes are terrible and I do not condone them. But you really think releasing documents is going to stop that? I don't think so.

Really? Because 86 of the 166 prisoners there have been cleared to leave. They will probably be there forever though because it has been decided that no federal funds will be used for the transportation of them... that sounds just.

 

[kmoose]

This is an oversimplification. The "radicals" are an extremely diverse group of people. To state that they all hate American equally and for the same reasons, so we should continue indiscriminately bombing their communities with killer flying robots, is absurd.

I never advocated indiscriminately bombing any communities. My point is: if we completely left the Mideast to their own devices, tomorrow........ in 20 years, most of the radical imams and sheiks would still be hating on us.