Bradley Manning: Traitor?

[MeDeFe]

I'm not saying that they didn't need to know but that's not something that put the American public at danger. Is it against American law to pressure foreigners? Er, is there a treaty we have signed?

I assume this is a reply to me. And no, the example I gave is not something that put any American citizen in danger, but that's irrelevant anyway. The question I was replying to was whether there was anything in the leaked files "had to be told to the world". And yes, I think there was. The public of any country has a right to know why their elected representatives vote for or against certain laws, this is especially true when said representatives are being pressured by a foreign power.

[SirSebstar]

it can be said that the pressure of foreign powers is to be considered by those powers to be an act of war/ act of terrorism / espionage.
oh well, i guess everybody has rights, except americans, they only have rights against the american government on american soil unless they are an embarresment for said government.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Woodruff and/or JB
What was illegal about the orders given?
Are you two talking about the orders requiring embassy and consulate members to collect information on their host countries/particular individuals?

I have specifically and clearly stated that I don't know all of the information, which is why I have used terms such as "alleged" and "if". But that's the problem...because he's not being charged, he's not being tried. And because he's not being tried, nobody fucking knows. And because nobody fucking knows, he's able to be kept in conditions that are unconscionable.

Ah, from what I've read, I thought he was charged and convicted of a crime. I thought that they're holding him in prison and will try him after they're done building the case (but perhaps they f'ed up and are trying to extract a confession from him).

[Symmetry]

@Woodruff and/or JB
What was illegal about the orders given?
Are you two talking about the orders requiring embassy and consulate members to collect information on their host countries/particular individuals?

I have specifically and clearly stated that I don't know all of the information, which is why I have used terms such as "alleged" and "if". But that's the problem...because he's not being charged, he's not being tried. And because he's not being tried, nobody fucking knows. And because nobody fucking knows, he's able to be kept in conditions that are unconscionable.

Ah, from what I've read, I thought he was charged and convicted of a crime. I thought that they're holding him in prison and will try him after they're done building the case (but perhaps they f'ed up and are trying to extract a confession from him).

He's certainly been charged, but conviction comes after a trial. Maybe this was the source of your confusion. Conviction before a trial would make it a show-trial.

[Hannibał]

it can be said that the pressure of foreign powers is to be considered by those powers to be an act of war/ act of terrorism / espionage.
oh well, i guess everybody has rights, except americans, they only have rights against the american government on american soil unless they are an embarresment for said government.

Sorry to break it to you but american soldiers do not have those rights, you sign yourself away as property of USA upon entry processing.. if he didn't agree with what he learned he should have fulfilled his duty and finished his contract then not re enlisted

[Pedronicus]

Bradley Manning


Change you can believe in

“The real measure of civilization in any society can be found in the way it treats its most unfortunate citizens – its prisoners.” – Winston Churchill."

It’s a shame that Julian Assange is fixated solely with refusing to believe a girl wouldn’t want to f*ck him, otherwise maybe he’d devote less time to his self-obsessed preening and more to highlighting that while he ponces around in front of the world’s media, the Obama administration is mentally destroying the man who gave him all that information in the first place.
While still keeping Guantanamo Bay open and re-starting military trials without juries there.


U-S-A! U-S-A!

[Pedronicus]

I would of liked an option in the poll of Fucking hero

[Juan_Bottom]

Flicking through some stuff on wiki, the leaks about DynCorp really stood out.

Wikileaks Embassy Cables-DynCorp

"Employees of DynCorp, a US government contractor funded by US tax dollars, in Afghanistan paid for the services of underage "dancing boys", apparently a euphemistic reference to Bacha bazi, which is considered child prostitution. The boys were auctioned off to be sexually abused by Afghan policemen, with some to be kept as sex slaves and participate in events funded by DynCorp"

This from an organisation 96% federally funded. Kind of puts the NPR, ACORN, and Planned Parenthood stuff in a bit of perspective when it comes to what US tax dollars are paying for. The weird thing is that it wasn't even the first time they've been in trouble for trafficking children into sex slavery:
DynCorp and Child Prostitution in Bosnia

I was very wrong. I hadn't seen this before; this is awful. The last thing big brother's handler's will want is for something like this to be brought out in the trial. This helps to explain why there has been no trial.

You act as if he was infantry. And whoever replyed to me and said he volunteered to protect the constitution, I was in the army..its a job, I knew of very few true patriots (being reason they enlisted, through bct and ait school your programmed to have pride) and sure he could have just refused orders and took the reprucusions..he did NOT have to steal classified information and give them for everyone to see.. very ignorant to think that is ok.. everyone knows the goverment is not some holy saint, they have been and are engaged in illegal activities and always will be. The price of doing buissness, I challange you to prove any country that has not done questionable things..and I am against many things the USA does, I'm against our wars, but that dosent make his actions tolerable.

It's odd to me that you have this duality in duty. On the one hand you don't like the illegal things this nation does, but on the other hand you don't think we should stop it. Or at least, anyone who trys to stop it should be left to face the consequences? Myself, If I see something illegal and unconscionable going on then I'm going to remedy it. One way or the other.

I am wondering, how is it that if the information manning gave is not important, how this would undermine the USA government more then the actions they have committed?
After all, if the information is not important then there is no question of undermining the military might of the USA. If the information is relevant, then he breached his confidentiality agreement, but he has a moral duty to do so, and thus should be exonerated.
Secrecy for the sake of secrecy is a very bad idea that can only foster illegal and unconstitutional actions

Though I'll be honest and say that I don't follow quite 100% with what you're saying; I don't believe that most of the secrets that were relieved were important ones. If our Diplomat called some Kiaf a crybaby behind his back it's not really that important that the world needs to see it. That's a secret that should have just been kept. Likewise, most all of the information that I have seen just enforced the world's beliefs of how our government works. We use most-everything at our disposal to influence all kinds of leaders.

I'm not saying that they didn't need to know but that's not something that put the American public at danger. Is it against American law to pressure foreigners? Er, is there a treaty we have signed?

I assume this is a reply to me. And no, the example I gave is not something that put any American citizen in danger, but that's irrelevant anyway. The question I was replying to was whether there was anything in the leaked files "had to be told to the world". And yes, I think there was. The public of any country has a right to know why their elected representatives vote for or against certain laws, this is especially true when said representatives are being pressured by a foreign power.

I agree with you that :

The public of any country has a right to know why their elected representatives vote for or against certain laws, this is especially true when said representatives are being pressured by a foreign power

But! I don't believe that Manning had the obligation to tell them. I don't know of any law or treaty that would get him out of jail for passing that information around after stealing it.

I would of liked an option in the poll of Fucking hero

AGREED

the Obama administration is mentally destroying the man who gave him all that information in the first place.

My respect for Assange has gone down tremendously since his own run-in with the law. He's an opportunist, not a leader-hero whistle blower. manning is the real hero here, and he's a martyr to boot.

[Woodruff]

it can be said that the pressure of foreign powers is to be considered by those powers to be an act of war/ act of terrorism / espionage.
oh well, i guess everybody has rights, except americans, they only have rights against the american government on american soil unless they are an embarresment for said government.

Sorry to break it to you but american soldiers do not have those rights, you sign yourself away as property of USA upon entry processing.. if he didn't agree with what he learned he should have fulfilled his duty and finished his contract then not re enlisted

You mentioned previously that you have served in the military, yet you do seem to have a very limited understanding about what rights members of the military do, in fact, have. There's no question that military members have more limits to their rights than most Americans, but their rights are not at all revoked. If they were, there would be no need at all for the JAG, for instance.

[Hannibał]

You can't stop it. Tell me, what did he remedy? What have we learned. Better, what has CHANGED since his theft? Fact is he signed up for it, he volunteered for a position with a classified clearance. He filed paperwork, sat through interviews and went through background checks to learn this information. Not to mention I promise he knew of very fked up things before leaving training. During BCT I had NCOs in transport, infantry and a sniper (some of the most active MOS's) and they made it clear what you were training for and what you were getting into. Not this hoo rah commercial BS, you heard it straight out the horses mouth no punchs held. And the things they experianced and relayed would make you sick to your stomach, he was well aware what he'd find out when he went digging for intel. I would find it hard to believe this wasn't his intention the entire time. I find him (assuming guilt) no better then John Walker Lindh "The american taliban", maybe worse because Johnny took no such oath of allegiance.

[Woodruff]

You can't stop it. Tell me, what did he remedy? What have we learned. Better, what has CHANGED since his theft? Fact is he signed up for it, he volunteered for a position with a classified clearance. He filed paperwork, sat through interviews and went through background checks to learn this information. Not to mention I promise he knew of very fked up things before leaving training. During BCT I had NCOs in transport, infantry and a sniper (some of the most active MOS's) and they made it clear what you were training for and what you were getting into. Not this hoo rah commercial BS, you heard it straight out the horses mouth no punchs held. And the things they experianced and relayed would make you sick to your stomach, he was well aware what he'd find out when he went digging for intel. I would find it hard to believe this wasn't his intention the entire time. I find him (assuming guilt) no better then John Walker Lindh "The american taliban", maybe worse because Johnny took no such oath of allegiance.

Nothing you have covered in this paragraph of rant has anything at all to do with the issue.

[Hannibał]

Woodruff...duh. if he had zero rights, say a chinese soldier, he'd have been executed and you'd never know his story.. Yes, he had the right to not participate in war crimes, but he was a desk jockey, he did not have the right to release those documents regardless of what they contained. And being the vast variety of info, and most of it useless. He didn't read through it and pick and choose what needed told, which I could understand the hero stance. He frantically copy and pasted everything he could get his hands on. He had no idea who's names, or info he could be releasing, that's very reckless..

I'm not saying I disagree with the glasshouse idea of transparent goverment. I understand our country is criminal. But everyone knows that. I'm just saying I don't believe someone who volunteered to serve should benedict arnold. He wasn't asked to do horrific things, he went out of his way to expose documents. He's a thief, nothing less. I'm sorry if you don't agree with his situation currently, but he's no dumbass he knew what he was doing and he knew the consequences. He should be happy they took him back to us soil..I could think of far worse outcomes

[Hannibał]

I'm just saying he's not some shellshocked grunt angrey with the govt because of what he saw..he went out of his way to find information on a computer to send off.

Maybe I'm too hard stance, but you are wayyyy too liberal..he's a criminal, nothing less. End of rant.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... Hannibal has an interesting take. I'm tending towards agreeing with him.

[Woodruff]

Yes, he had the right to not participate in war crimes, but he was a desk jockey, he did not have the right to release those documents regardless of what they contained.

Well of COURSE he didn't have the right to release those documents. I don't believe I've ever hinted that he did.

And being the vast variety of info, and most of it useless. He didn't read through it and pick and choose what needed told, which I could understand the hero stance. He frantically copy and pasted everything he could get his hands on. He had no idea who's names, or info he could be releasing, that's very reckless.

I agree. This doesn't contradict what I've been saying at all.

I'm not saying I disagree with the glasshouse idea of transparent goverment. I understand our country is criminal. But everyone knows that. I'm just saying I don't believe someone who volunteered to serve should benedict arnold.

Let me ask you this...given that our military forces are 100% voluntary, then WHO SHOULD have "benedict arnold'd" the information? Let me give you the answer...there wouldn't have been anyone else who COULD.

He wasn't asked to do horrific things, he went out of his way to expose documents. He's a thief, nothing less. I'm sorry if you don't agree with his situation currently, but he's no dumbass he knew what he was doing and he knew the consequences. He should be happy they took him back to us soil..I could think of far worse outcomes

He should be happy to be back on U.S. soil being tortured? Really?

Hmm... Hannibal has an interesting take. I'm tending towards agreeing with him.

Which part? The part where Manning should be thanking his captors for the torture or the part where without Manning and other whistleblowers from the millitary, we wouldn't know about some of the criminal activities of our government?

[Hannibał]

Wood, we are not the enemy. This is a discussion, Greek is allowed to agree with whoever. I don't think your wrong on many points, I just disagree?

No he shouldn't be thanking them for "torture" (feeding him and housing him..not sure I call that torture..speak to John mccain and other POWs for a look at torture. But he knew what he was doing, he's competent, obviously he believed in what he did, so the risk must be worth the cost to him. Therefore he deserves segregation 23hours a day. Just because he has acne and has gained a little weight and looks sad instead of happy I don't believe that's torture. Should they provide him proactiv? Feed him less?

And many people could reveal documents. I don't have a problem with his stealing important documents, like the child molestation. I have a issue with him revealing documents about peoples in the arab world who are sided with us and have been, until he unthoughtfully let the world know their names (including the enemy, despite what they pretend that they are cavemen animals they have access to intel we do) what about their safety? Their familys? The future arabs who believe they should help us but would not like their heads sawed off? if he took the time to pick and choose articals to release, not revealing the names of confidental informants who were promised to not be revealed? Because they are in danger of REAL torture.

[Symmetry]

Wood, we are not the enemy. This is a discussion, Greek is allowed to agree with whoever. I don't think your wrong on many points, I just disagree?

No he shouldn't be thanking them for "torture" (feeding him and housing him..not sure I call that torture..speak to John mccain and other POWs for a look at torture. But he knew what he was doing, he's competent, obviously he believed in what he did, so the risk must be worth the cost to him. Therefore he deserves segregation 23hours a day. Just because he has acne and has gained a little weight and looks sad instead of happy I don't believe that's torture. Should they provide him proactiv? Feed him less?

And many people could reveal documents. I don't have a problem with his stealing important documents, like the child molestation. I have a issue with him revealing documents about peoples in the arab world who are sided with us and have been, until he unthoughtfully let the world know their names (including the enemy, despite what they pretend that they are cavemen animals they have access to intel we do) what about their safety? Their familys? The future arabs who believe they should help us but would not like their heads sawed off? if he took the time to pick and choose articals to release, not revealing the names of confidental informants who were promised to not be revealed? Because they are in danger of REAL torture.

I kind of agree that the act was reckless, but I've heard this line a lot and I've yet to see it pan out in any real sense. Have you seen any evidence of reprisals? Or are you worried more about what theoretically could have happened?

Wikileaks and the news organisations that received the cables have been extremely careful about this.

[spurgistan]

Wikileaks took care not to burn any actual spies, Arab or otherwise. They did actually redact some stuff. Unless there's some incredible super-Bond named XXXXXXXXXXXX. In which case, he's in some shit, and I feel wildly inferior.

Also, I'm guessing that seeing as your belittling the effect being completely shut off from the outside world (he's in complete solitary 21 hours a day, with a three-hour visiting window that almost nobody comes to) for no real purpose, that you don't know the effect that has on a person? It's torture. That's not even counting the shit his guards put him through, which is both documented and also not part of any prisoner-control manual. The fact that he's yet to be convicted or even put on trial for this is a black eye for America. Whether or not he's a traitor is really not even part of the equation at this point. Doesn't it matter if America betrayed him?

[Symmetry]

As for John McCain and other POW's Hannibal, you might want to look at this article:
Is Long Term Solitary Confinement Torture?

From the article:

"“It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam—more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” And this comes from a man who was beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of having an arm broken again. A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam, many of whom were treated even worse than McCain, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."

[BigBallinStalin]

@Woodruff and/or JB
What was illegal about the orders given?
Are you two talking about the orders requiring embassy and consulate members to collect information on their host countries/particular individuals?

I have specifically and clearly stated that I don't know all of the information, which is why I have used terms such as "alleged" and "if". But that's the problem...because he's not being charged, he's not being tried. And because he's not being tried, nobody fucking knows. And because nobody fucking knows, he's able to be kept in conditions that are unconscionable.

Ah, from what I've read, I thought he was charged and convicted of a crime. I thought that they're holding him in prison and will try him after they're done building the case (but perhaps they f'ed up and are trying to extract a confession from him).

He's certainly been charged, but conviction comes after a trial. Maybe this was the source of your confusion. Conviction before a trial would make it a show-trial.

Well, if that's the case, then it makes sense to imprison him before they convict him, so that he doesn't escape, since the gravity of this crime is so high. They won't take that risk of letting him escape before the trial because it would make the US government look extremely foolish.

Does everyone agree with that reasoning?

[BigBallinStalin]

Bradley Manning


Change you can believe in

“The real measure of civilization in any society can be found in the way it treats its most unfortunate citizens – its prisoners.” – Winston Churchill."

It’s a shame that Julian Assange is fixated solely with refusing to believe a girl wouldn’t want to f*ck him, otherwise maybe he’d devote less time to his self-obsessed preening and more to highlighting that while he ponces around in front of the world’s media, the Obama administration is mentally destroying the man who gave him all that information in the first place.
While still keeping Guantanamo Bay open and re-starting military trials without juries there.


U-S-A! U-S-A!

I look like that in mornings too!

[Symmetry]

@Woodruff and/or JB
What was illegal about the orders given?
Are you two talking about the orders requiring embassy and consulate members to collect information on their host countries/particular individuals?

I have specifically and clearly stated that I don't know all of the information, which is why I have used terms such as "alleged" and "if". But that's the problem...because he's not being charged, he's not being tried. And because he's not being tried, nobody fucking knows. And because nobody fucking knows, he's able to be kept in conditions that are unconscionable.

Ah, from what I've read, I thought he was charged and convicted of a crime. I thought that they're holding him in prison and will try him after they're done building the case (but perhaps they f'ed up and are trying to extract a confession from him).

He's certainly been charged, but conviction comes after a trial. Maybe this was the source of your confusion. Conviction before a trial would make it a show-trial.

Well, if that's the case, then it makes sense to imprison him before they convict him, so that he doesn't escape, since the gravity of this crime is so high. They won't take that risk of letting him escape before the trial because it would make the US government look extremely foolish.

Does everyone agree with that reasoning?

Sure, why not, happens all the time. I think people are objecting to the way he's being held. A bit of a strawman to suggest otherwise, no?

As it stands it looks like he's being punished and arguably tortured without having been convicted of a crime. However much you personally think he's guilty, you should at least admit that his treatment is wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

[SirSebstar]

Yes, people are an inconveniance, so lets just shoot them so they will not bother us.. yea!!!

it can never be morally right to use unconstitutional means to reach an supposed end. It can be deemed neccecary, but great care should be given that those powers are not abused. With respect to spying on their allies and other nations. It can be a convenient way to get information, maybe even a neccecity, but in any case it is illigal in the country you are doing this too. So each of those orders is liable for criminal actions in that respect.

the guy is just a plain hero.

[MeDeFe]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

Is that all it's about? Getting a confession? Not finding out whether he's truly guilty or not, and if he is, of what, but just getting a confession?



What's next? Electroshocks to speed up the process? Regular beatings?

The USA have imposed rules on themselves regarding the treatment of people, its own citizens, humans in general, prisoners and suspects. The USA like to hold up other countries to their rules criticising human-rights abuses, promoting democracy, fighting for civil rights, and so on and so forth. Here we have another case (besides Guantanamo and the "detention facilities" overseas) where these self-imposed rules are being disregarded completely, that is the sense in which it is wrong. For you as a US resident, and I assume citizen, it should be doubly worrying that even US citizens no longer are treated in accordance with the laws you still have.

Of course, if you disagree with such things as suspects receiving a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, or think that human and civil rights in general are overrated I can see why you would be of the opinion that Manning is being treated as he should. But even then the fact remains that he is not being treated according to the rules.