Bradley Manning court testimony leaked

[+DieChecker]

And his 'crime' is not really a 'crime'. It is never wrong to expose the criminal actions of government. When there is such a huge disparity between what's right and what's legal or illegal, we have problems.

I've never argued that what Manning did in the Helicopter leak was unjustified. The only real beef I have with his leaking is that I don't belive for a second that he read every single document he sent out. And it only takes one document to kill a US citizen who is working overseas.

If he had limited his documents to actual "Criminal" documents, I'd feel a lot different about him.

Edited July 15, 2013 by DieChecker

[Babe Ruth]

I've never argued that what Manning did in the Helicopter leak was unjustified. The only real beef I have with his leaking is that I don't belive for a second that he read every single document he sent out. And it only takes one document to kill a US citizen who is working overseas.

If he had limited his documents to actual "Criminal" documents, I'd feel a lot different about him.

You're splitting hairs when hair-splitting is not needed. The record clearly shows, 3 years after the fact, that no US citizen or soldier was killed by Manning's release of documents. INdeed, the Sec Def Gates went on the record concerning that at about the 1 year after the fact mark.

Revealing the crimes of government is never wrong.

[+DieChecker]

You're splitting hairs when hair-splitting is not needed. The record clearly shows, 3 years after the fact, that no US citizen or soldier was killed by Manning's release of documents. INdeed, the Sec Def Gates went on the record concerning that at about the 1 year after the fact mark.

Revealing the crimes of government is never wrong.

So if I drove 200 mph down a highway in Montana and no one got killed, I'd not be committing a crime?

If I shot a bullet into the sky in central park NYC and no one reported being hit, there is not crime?

The point is not that no one has been affected by the leaks, but that Manning gave data he had no idea what it was. That he did not give over a major state secret is Luck rather then intent.

Edited July 16, 2013 by DieChecker

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So if I drove 200 mph down a highway in Montana and no one got killed, I'd not be committing a crime?

If I shot a bullet into the sky in central park NYC and no one reported being hit, there is not crime?

The point is not that no one has been affected by the leaks, but that Manning gave data he had no idea what it was. That he did not give over a major state secret is Luck rather then intent.

The point is, to be guilty (in the eyes of the law) of giving material aid to the enemy, the enemy needs to be seen to be given an advantage - there is no evidence of that happening.

So in the eyes of the law, he's not guilty (in much the same way Zimmerman is not guilty of murdering Martin, despite being the one to pull the trigger and end a life).

[+DieChecker]

I agree that to be convicted of giving Aid to the Enemy there has to be a demonstration of Aid. And I'd agree that there is little to no evidence of that. But as with my example of speeding and shooting into the air, because someone was not hurt does not eliminate a crime. Manning should have been charged with Aiding the Enemy, and then the lack of evidence would cause him to be found innocent of that charge. That is how it should work IMHO.

Just as Zimmerman was charged with murder (I think it should have been Manslaughter myself), though there was little evidence of that.

[+DieChecker]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/bradley-manning-defense-_n_3601277.html

Running down the entirely circumstantial case the government has produced to put Manning away for life on the aiding the enemy charge, Coombs said the prosecution had presented "no evidence" that his client actually knew that the files he sent to WikiLeaks would wind up in al Qaeda's hands.

Showing that Manning knew his leaks would wind up in al Qaeda's possession is a crucial element of the government's charge against him. But there is no smoking gun where Manning admits he wants the information he gave to WikiLeaks to wind up in Osama bin Laden's hiding spot.

I have to agree with this. That Manning did not INTEND to give information to the "Enemy". And that is why he'll probably get off on the greater charges. But he's still going to be 50 years old when he gets out, even if the "aiding the enemy" charge is dismissed.

All I have to say to Manning is.... I hope it was worth it.

[Babe Ruth]

Oh it was worth it.

To paraphrase Jefferson, from time to time the 'tree of liberty' must be fertilized with both the blood of tyrants, and the blood of patriots.

Though today that figurative tree of liberty is but a dead stump in this country, at least brave men like Manning and Snowden and quite a few others are willing to make the sacrifice.

I, for one, thank them very much.

[+DieChecker]

I'll wait to hear that it was worth it out of the mouths of Manning and Snowden themselves, thank you.

[Babe Ruth]

Sorry I can't provide a link DC, but Snowden just made exactly that remark just in the past few days. Maybe it was in his email response to the only US Senator with enough principles to congratulate him for what he's done.

I think Manning has made similar statements, even to the informant who turned him in, early in the proceedings. Martyrs have felt that way ever since. Ellsberg has made similar statements during his ordeal.