Bradley Manning Guilty On 20 Of 21 Charges

[pkt77242]

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.



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 would say that the Supreme Court will be the final determiner of whether it is allowable or not. Though I will say that if we are talking about the metadata, then the FISA court or FISC allowed it (which in this case is the relevant authority for the government to go to for permission, and yes I do know that the FISA court is pretty much a rubber stamp for the government). Maybe what we need to do is fix the FISA court?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

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.

My understanding of the argument you seemed to be responding to is this: our military adventurism in the Middle East may actually be undermining our domestic security by creating new American-hating terrorists each time a drone strike results in collateral damage.

Countering that with "they'll hate us regardless of what we do," seems a little backward, no? There are many courses of action we could pursue in the region; some would generate less animosity towards the US than others. Whether our current course is the best for promoting security at home is an important topic that virtually no one in Washington is discussing. What happened to the anti-war left once Obama was elected?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I would say that the Supreme Court will be the final determiner of whether it is allowable or not. Though I will say that if we are talking about the metadata, then the FISA court or FISC allowed it (which in this case is the relevant authority for the government to go to for permission, and yes I do know that the FISA court is pretty much a rubber stamp for the government). Maybe what we need to do is fix the FISA court?

That would be a huge step in the right direction, though I'm not sure how it can be adequately fixed since it has to be secret. Right now, there appears to be no effective check on the government's power here.

 

[Buster Bluth]

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.

Well they're human (we still hate Boston College for 1993's upset, amirite?). We have wronged them, they aren't soon to forget. We have installed hatred that won't soon dissipate.

However a quick study of history shows us no "radical imams and sheiks" talking about hating Americans before we started getting involved in the region (e.g. installing dictators in Iran in the 1950s, etc).

 

[kmoose]

Well they're human (we still hate Boston College for 1993's upset, amirite?). We have wronged them, they aren't soon to forget. We have installed hatred that won't soon dissipate.

However a quick study of history shows us no "radical imams and sheiks" talking about hating Americans before we started getting involved in the region (e.g. installing dictators in Iran in the 1950s, etc).

Ironically, our history of excess and opulence doesn't really kick into high gear until the economic boom of the post-WW II era. Have you ever been to the Middle East? The only reason that I ask, is that I have. Only to Jordan, mind you, but that is still the Middle East. And I found that the hate for Americans is pretty much non-existent, in Jordan. Perhaps that is because Queen Noor, the late King Hussein's 4th wife, was American. And she was very popular in Jordan.

 

[pkt77242]

Ironically, our history of excess and opulence doesn't really kick into high gear until the economic boom of the post-WW II era. Have you ever been to the Middle East? The only reason that I ask, is that I have. Only to Jordan, mind you, but that is still the Middle East. And I found that the hate for Americans is pretty much non-existent, in Jordan. Perhaps that is because Queen Noor, the late King Hussein's 4th wife, was American. And she was very popular in Jordan.

I would say that Jordan is not representative of the middle east. I know a fair number of people from that country or who's parents are from that country (about 10 or so) and they don't want to in any way be associated with the Middle East.

 

[kmoose]

I would say that Jordan is not representative of the middle east. I know a fair number of people from that country or who's parents are from that country (about 10 or so) and they don't want to in any way be associated with the Middle East.

Who's to say that Jordan isn't more representative of the Middle East than other countries? Based on their geography, Jordan is absolutely in the Middle East. Syria to the North, Israel to the West, Iraq to East, and Saudi Arabia to the South.

 

[pkt77242]

Who's to say that Jordan isn't more representative of the Middle East than other countries? Based on their geography, Jordan is absolutely in the Middle East. Syria to the North, Israel to the West, Iraq to East, and Saudi Arabia to the South.

Culture wise it is different. It has a decent sized Christian population (2-6%) for the ME. Though many Christians have left Jordan, the country is still much more tolerant of them than any of the Countries you listed besides Israel. Jordan is nothing like most of the ME countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. Maybe you could compare it to Israel but even then it is a Country that is largely Muslim (instead of Judaism), that openly tolerates and even celebrates Christianity. Find another Muslim country that does that.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Culture wise it is different. It has a decent sized Christian population (2-6%) for the ME. Though many Christians have left Jordan, the country is still much more tolerant of them than any of the Countries you listed besides Israel. Jordan is nothing like most of the ME countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. Maybe you could compare it to Israel but even then it is a Country that is largely Muslim (instead of Judaism), that openly tolerates and even celebrates Christianity. Find another Muslim country that does that.

Regardless, not liking Christians in the Middle East is not the same as wanting to actively pursue attacking the western world.

 

[pkt77242]

Regardless, not liking Christians in the Middle East is not the same as wanting to actively pursue attacking the western world.

What the Hell? Where were we even talking about that? From where did that come?

 

[Anchorman]

Jordan is a poor representation of the Middle East from a cultural/view on the west point of view. Far more pro-American, "pro-" ("we-can-deal") with regard to Israel, etc. than the rest of the region. Abdullah is as big of an ally as you can find in the ME.

 

[BobD]

Our support for Israel ensures we'll never be very high on anyone's friends list in the ME.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Our support for Israel ensures we'll never be very high on anyone's friends list in the ME.

Except that Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt have been very very friendly at one time or another after Israel's founding. Letting Israel **** on Palestine isn't doing us favors though.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What the Hell? Where were we even talking about that? From where did that come?

More on the "they hate us for being us!" Mentality than what I quoted I guess. Simply saying, even if they hated Christians, it's not the same as wanting to take the war to the other side of the ocean.

 

[BobD]

Except that Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt have been very very friendly at one time or another after Israel's founding. Letting Israel **** on Palestine isn't doing us favors though.

Yeah it's amazing what people will say or do for money and weapons.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

From TE Laurence to Americans teaching the Mujahidin to blow up Soviets in Afghanistan, the west has stirred things in the Middle East from shortly after the start of the 20th Century.

Our treatment (wholesale sell-out) of the Kurds in Iraq was a definite low point.

Nice to have a civil discussion.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

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.

Agreed!

As long as we cover both sides of the street.

I don't think Manning disagreed that he pay, (that would be the source of him having any honor in this). I think he just disagreed about the nature of what he released. But I think he went into it knowing he may pay, but the release of some of it was worth it. So we are there.

I think the guy is basically honorable, but mistaken. I can live with guys like that. Better thank I can live with those that lack human empathy.

Do I think it was right that he was tortured as he was held? Or that it was on the basis of trumped up suicide procedures? Probably not.

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.

I want to be careful here a la Catch 22! For fifty plus years the drumbeats have caused a buildup of incredible proportions. We spend more on war than the Roosevelt administration did, (I don't even believe that there is hyperbole in this, but inflation is a tricky bastard). I am not sure there have been as many threats to us as some would like to believe, or more accurately, if we had the mentality of some other first world countries, that rely on smaller forces and more objective intelligence views, the we couldn't do more with less. A good example is we had people ID'ing the Cole killers right away. We could have sent a relatively small force after them and killed them all, including you know who, ben *****.

 

[sparkyND]

Keeping my personal opinions aside, I've come across an interesting argument in The Guardian newspaper today:

Bradley Manning leak did not result in deaths by enemy forces, court hears | World news | theguardian.com

The key quotes are:

"The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases."

"Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said.

The main accusations against Bradley Manning were that the disclosure of classified material would potentially harm both US personnel and allies. Now to date this has not been the case. The accusations might be true in a future date but the sentencing seems to be a bit harsh from how I see it. I am certainly not a lawyer and the logic is not falsified but still remains weak from how I see it.

 

[kmoose]

Keeping my personal opinions aside, I've come across an interesting argument in The Guardian newspaper today:

Bradley Manning leak did not result in deaths by enemy forces, court hears | World news | theguardian.com

The key quotes are:

"The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases."

"Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said.

The main accusations against Bradley Manning were that the disclosure of classified material would potentially harm both US personnel and allies. Now to date this has not been the case. The accusations might be true in a future date but the sentencing seems to be a bit harsh from how I see it. I am certainly not a lawyer and the logic is not falsified but still remains weak from how I see it.

It's not a matter of who he got killed, or didn't get killed. So, this time, someone leaked information and no one died. It's still against the law, and reprehensible, to knowingly expose those who collaborate with us in a time of war. If they allow him to skate, this time, then it makes it easier for others to justify exposing the same info, in the future. It also discourages collaboration, if the collaborators know that their name could easily end up out in the open.

 

[sparkyND]

It's not a matter of who he got killed, or didn't get killed. So, this time, someone leaked information and no one died. It's still against the law, and reprehensible, to knowingly expose those who collaborate with us in a time of war. If they allow him to skate, this time, then it makes it easier for others to justify exposing the same info, in the future. It also discourages collaboration, if the collaborators know that their name could easily end up out in the open.

Like I originally said, the arguments made in the newspaper by the counter-intelligence officer does not necessarily falsify the arguments that it could hypothetically harm the armed men and collaborators in the field. I did say that it certainly weakens the argument though as the assumed actions (hurting others) has not happened as of yet. Consequently, I thought the sentencing could be slightly harsh. You don't merely sentence someone to set a precedent for future violators of the law. Perhaps this is something that has secondary impact though.

Again, my clarification and just my two cents on this sensitive issue.

 

[ND NYC]

i get a kick out of some of you on here who complain about and cite our "middle east entanglemets" (iraq-afghan war, us boots on the ground all over middle east etc) as the reasons they want to kill us...and yet you applaud and call hero a guy (Snowden) who is exposing the methods and ways we can hope to achieve the same result against those who would harm us thru intel, covert ops, no "US footprint" whch is the way the "war on terror" should have been fought int he first place.

 

[Buster Bluth]

i get a kick out of some of you on here who complain about and cite our "middle east entanglemets" (iraq-afghan war, us boots on the ground all over middle east etc) as the reasons they want to kill us...and yet you applaud and call hero a guy (Snowden) who is exposing the methods and ways we can hope to achieve the same result against those who would harm us thru intel, covert ops, no "US footprint" whch is the way the "war on terror" should have been fought int he first place.

Snowden revealed spying on Americans and in the US. It was already public knowledge that the NSA spies on foreigners. It has sense been revealed that countries are essentially contracting with the US to spy on their citizens for them.

 

[ND NYC]

Snowden revealed spying on Americans and in the US. It was already public knowledge that the NSA spies on foreigners. It has sense been revealed that countries are essentially contracting with the US to spy on their citizens for them.

if analyzing metadata on phone numbers in the US that call/recieve calls from phone numbers linked to and documented to be from known terrosists around the world is "spying on americans" i say "spy away".

They (NSA) take a 16 digit number (no names just numbers at this point) and correlate it to known 16 digit numbers tied to terrorism in their database.

If your 16 digit number is linked to any of those numbers, the data is then collected and taken to the courts to request release for the authority to retrieve your records from the phone companies to see how long and to whom you are talking. it is at this point where they are able to find out your name (after the court has reviewed the NSA request)

if your not calling and chit-chatting with terrorists you have nothing to worry about as afar as anyone spying on you.

sad thing is, the people crying about NSA and CIA will be the first ones in line complaining about how/why we didnt/couldnt prevent the next terrorist attack.

 

[adsnorri]

Somewhat related:
New Snowden leak: NSA program taps all you do online - CNN.com

 

[Irishnuke]

Wants to serve his time as a woman. He's already a bitch. Maybe this will help him avoid rapes.

LA Times

According to the testimony, Manning and a boyfriend broke up in late 2009 and early 2010. The event proved so traumatic, lawyers said, that Manning soon began downloading hundreds of thousands of classified files and transmitting them to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, which later posted them on the Internet.

What a crock of shits. He was so sad from being dumped that he shared government secrets. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

[irishpat183]

Wants to serve his time as a woman. He's already a bitch. Maybe this will help him avoid rapes.

LA Times



What a crock of shits. He was so sad from being dumped that he shared government secrets. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

And wants the taxpayers to pay for the operation as well......sheesh. Only in America would we entertain that insanity.