Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Bradley Manning Trial


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#76    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,269 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:18 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 December 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

From where do you get the notion that Manning was violent?

It is public knowledge...

Quote

On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room, damaging a computer that was sitting on it, and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point.

Quote

A few hours later he had an altercation with a female intelligence analyst, Specialist Jihrleah Showman, during which he punched her in the face. The brigade psychiatrist recommended a discharge, referring to an "occupational problem and adjustment disorder." His master sergeant removed the bolt from his weapon, and he was sent to work in the supply office, though at this point his security clearance remained in place. He was demoted from Specialist to Private First Class
http://en.wikipedia....Bradley_Manning

Maybe you should read up on people you are trying to defend? So that you are not defending people who do NOT deserve to be defended.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#77    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,269 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:23 PM

View PostYamato, on 07 December 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

He sounds mentally ill which isn't a crime.

Should the guy, Jared Loughner, who shot Gabrielle Giffords, the Congressional Representative from Arizona, walk free then? Or any "insane" criminal?

His crime is that he committed a crime.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#78    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:01 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 07 December 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:



It is public knowledge...


http://en.wikipedia....Bradley_Manning

Maybe you should read up on people you are trying to defend? So that you are not defending people who do NOT deserve to be defended.

Thank you DC. I was headed into a meeting at work when I posted my info this morning...  I didn't have time to source like I would have liked.


#79    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

I stand corrected gentlemen, and I had forgotten that he overturned a table, slapped a woman and was demoted.  Assuming all that is true, and for the sake of argument I will, he is a vicious man in a vicious organization.  I guess we should be happy that he was not a rapist, in a rapist organization, eh?  Maybe the incidence of rape in the military would be lower if more gays were serving?

Yes, and for his vicious and violent outburst he should be kept in solitary and sleep deprived well beyond his UCMJ Speedy Trial provision of 120 days.

Pallidin might be right--slapping women and overturning tables deserves having one's fingernails pulled out prior to execution.

Rave on gents--your sense of proportion is outstanding.

And even more heinous than overturning a table and slapping a woman is the crime of exposing the crimes of government!  Maybe Pallidin would like to cut off the offending hand that Manning used to download the data?  Heck, cut off both hands.


#80    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:58 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 December 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I stand corrected gentlemen, and I had forgotten that he overturned a table, slapped a woman and was demoted.  Assuming all that is true, and for the sake of argument I will, he is a vicious man in a vicious organization.  I guess we should be happy that he was not a rapist, in a rapist organization, eh?  Maybe the incidence of rape in the military would be lower if more gays were serving?

Yes, and for his vicious and violent outburst he should be kept in solitary and sleep deprived well beyond his UCMJ Speedy Trial provision of 120 days.

Pallidin might be right--slapping women and overturning tables deserves having one's fingernails pulled out prior to execution.

Rave on gents--your sense of proportion is outstanding.

And even more heinous than overturning a table and slapping a woman is the crime of exposing the crimes of government!  Maybe Pallidin would like to cut off the offending hand that Manning used to download the data?  Heck, cut off both hands.

As stated previously... I think you should actually do a little research on Manning... maybe read his own words....  maybe know What you are talking about instead of trying to promote him as a martyr


#81    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

Quote




Quote


Quote


Anti-Suicide measure such as this are used everywhere, from Prisons to Hospitals. I know for a fact that those on suicide watch in hospitals are strapped down to their beds completely in order to keep them from doing harm to themselves or others.


    Manning had ZERO idea as to what he was releasing when he released these documents, that has been proven time and time again. The only reasoning he or anyone else can offer up after listening to his statements and reviewing his files is that he did this because he could not handle being gay in the military. Im in no way  stating that I agree with the military's stance on homosexuality. Thats not what this is about. Manning is on trial for HIS actions. If some one wants to go after any of the information that was released as being criminal, please lawyer up and go for it. This topic is about MANNING and what MANNING did. He is guilty, his plea deal only further proves that. What disgust me so much about this is that he had no idea what he was releasing. For all he knew he could have been releasing information on safe houses, cia operatives, security protocols... etc. If you are paying attention to this case you also know that a majority of what he released was above his clearance level/need to know. Again, im not saying the military isnt at fault and that wrong things have not been done by the US Military... however, they are not on trial here, Manning is. I would love to see some one go after the Military for some things... for me its not a case of defending the home team right now, its a case that Manning became an ememy of the US the moment he released any classified information to a FN. If he had released them to a government official, retired official or some one of that nature I might be less ill about the situation.


#82    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:11 PM

http://tinyurl.com/bgf7ycv

I've been reading the public details about Manning since it started Dredimus, so please blow your spittle another direction, what with your implied claim to perfection in the human species.  I know what he did, and I just admitted my forgetful error in the last post.

You appear to have a hard time establishing what is right and what is wrong.  I can only speculate as to why.

But it's NEVER wrong to expose government crimes.

You would have me believe otherwise, and you're not persuasive.

Glenn Greenwald in the article above is very persuasive, mostly because he argues from a place of moral highground.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 08 December 2012 - 07:13 PM.


#83    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:44 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

http://tinyurl.com/bgf7ycv

I've been reading the public details about Manning since it started Dredimus, so please blow your spittle another direction, what with your implied claim to perfection in the human species.  I know what he did, and I just admitted my forgetful error in the last post.

You appear to have a hard time establishing what is right and what is wrong.  I can only speculate as to why.

But it's NEVER wrong to expose government crimes.

You would have me believe otherwise, and you're not persuasive.

Glenn Greenwald in the article above is very persuasive, mostly because he argues from a place of moral highground.

Your defense for Manning is "the military did something so It's Alright that Manning did this". I would almost be inclined to agree in some respects to that if Manning had any idea as to What he Was actually sending out and if he had actually sent it to a responsible state side organization. But he didn't... he did this because he Was pissed that he signed a contract that said he had to behave in a certain way and he couldn't get out of it. This is not a case of " The people need to know" It's more of a case of " I don't like you so I'm going to do something to hurt you."

Like I said... if It's such a big thing for you... lawyer up and go after the Military instead of trying to use their indiscretions as a defense for Manning. Manning is on trial here... is he guilty of the 20 some odd charges against him? Yes or No? It's as simple as that. I maintain that my answer is Yes. He violated his contract and multiple laws in doing What he did. Period.


#84    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:08 PM

Dredimus

It has been clear from the beginning that Manning acted ONLY out of conscience.  Out of shame that his government was committing all manner of war crimes.  Because he wanted to make a difference, hoping that right would prevail over wrong.

Even the guy who turned him in (can't think of the guy's name) acknowledged that.

I'm assuming you are or were in the military.  What is the official position about following orders to commit crimes?  About keeping knowledge of crimes secret?

I'm standing on it is NEVER a crime to expose the crimes of government.  I have "lawyered up" in the sense that I give financial support to Manning's cause.

From all posts so far on this subject, it appears you have a hard time telling right from wrong.


#85    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,269 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:36 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 December 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

It has been clear from the beginning that Manning acted ONLY out of conscience.  Out of shame that his government was committing all manner of war crimes.  Because he wanted to make a difference, hoping that right would prevail over wrong.

Reading over Manning's chat logs, I can see where Manning might have had that idea/motivation. But his motivation is not against the law here, his actions are. He could have found the evidence of George Bush himself popping live rounds into Iraqi orphans, and unless he sent it to someone who could be responsible for taking action, he did the Wrong thing.

Manning had the opportunity to do the right thing several times, but he was angry at the military and did not trust anyone, and... he was infatuated with Assange. So he did the wrong thing and sent the documents to a foreign national who used them to further his own glory and celebrity. It is not like Assange sent the docs to the JAG, or a Congressman... he put them up for anyone to see. Friends, allys, enemys.....

Edited by DieChecker, 09 December 2012 - 08:37 PM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#86    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 December 2012 - 04:16 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 09 December 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

Reading over Manning's chat logs, I can see where Manning might have had that idea/motivation. But his motivation is not against the law here, his actions are. He could have found the evidence of George Bush himself popping live rounds into Iraqi orphans, and unless he sent it to someone who could be responsible for taking action, he did the Wrong thing.

Manning had the opportunity to do the right thing several times, but he was angry at the military and did not trust anyone, and... he was infatuated with Assange. So he did the wrong thing and sent the documents to a foreign national who used them to further his own glory and celebrity. It is not like Assange sent the docs to the JAG, or a Congressman... he put them up for anyone to see. Friends, allys, enemys.....

Well DC, we are at the heart of the controversy--what is right, and what is wrong?  Everyman must answer that question for himself, and clearly Manning did then, and you and I are attempting to answer it now.

It is wrong to commit war crimes, and I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you and I agree on that point.

The gunship footage showed the commission of war crimes, both by the crew and HQ.  Fog of war?  Sure, but nobody on the ground was firing at the helicopter.  They had cameras, NOT weapons.  The banter overheard on the ship's intercom was the most disgusting part for me.

So now you want me to believe that it is wrong to expose war crimes?  I guess your position then becomes that the Nuremberg Trials were in error?  They were wrong?

No sir, if there is such a thing as justice, and maybe there ain't, then the just thing to do is to reveal said crimes and to punish those responsible for them.

Yeah sure, we could argue about whether Manning should have kept it 'in house', in the chain of command, but at this point in time that is purely academic.


#87    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:39 PM

I'm walking away from this topic.... not because I have been swayed but because some fail to answer the question at hand. Is Manning guilty?  Some people have such  a hatred for the current or past administration that they can't focus on anything else.  There is No point in going through the same statements over and over again only to have 80%  of the information I present ignored off hand.  Bradley Manning is on trial for his actions... his own admitted actions...  actions that are proven by a mountain of evidence. He is guilty of breaking the law. Period.... there is No way around that... you cant let him walk because you think that a tenth of a percentage of the information should have been released by the government to begin with. It doesn't work that way.... you can't scream for justice and then ignore What Manning did. Have a Good day folks.


#88    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:57 PM

View PostDredimus, on 10 December 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

I'm walking away from this topic.... not because I have been swayed but because some fail to answer the question at hand. Is Manning guilty?  Some people have such  a hatred for the current or past administration that they can't focus on anything else.  There is No point in going through the same statements over and over again only to have 80%  of the information I present ignored off hand.  Bradley Manning is on trial for his actions... his own admitted actions...  actions that are proven by a mountain of evidence. He is guilty of breaking the law. Period.... there is No way around that... you cant let him walk because you think that a tenth of a percentage of the information should have been released by the government to begin with. It doesn't work that way.... you can't scream for justice and then ignore What Manning did. Have a Good day folks.

You're walking away from it because it is a most unpleasant topic, especially when one has chosen, essentially, to defend government crimes and torture.  Not to mention violation of UCMJ standards.

He is INDEED guilty of breaking some petty government regulation, NO DOUBT.  I have never claimed otherwise.  Indeed, he has hero status in my book BECAUSE he had the courage and principles to stand up for what is right, no matter if he broke some obscure AR.

The question at hand is who was harmed?  Manning harmed nobody, whereas military aggression has killed many innocents.

Right v. Wrong


#89    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:20 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:



You're walking away from it because it is a most unpleasant topic, especially when one has chosen, essentially, to defend government crimes and torture.  Not to mention violation of UCMJ standards.

He is INDEED guilty of breaking some petty government regulation, NO DOUBT.  I have never claimed otherwise.  Indeed, he has hero status in my book BECAUSE he had the courage and principles to stand up for what is right, no matter if he broke some obscure AR.

The question at hand is who was harmed?  Manning harmed nobody, whereas military aggression has killed many innocents.

Right v. Wrong

You don't know who or what Was hurt because you have No idea What all Was released. Drop your self righteous delusions. I'm done with this thread because you are biased to the point of lunacy and it doesn't even matter because Manning is going to jail... he is going to serve time... No way around it.

Edited by Dredimus, 10 December 2012 - 11:21 PM.


#90    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,269 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:17 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 December 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Well DC, we are at the heart of the controversy--what is right, and what is wrong?  Everyman must answer that question for himself, and clearly Manning did then, and you and I are attempting to answer it now.

It is wrong to commit war crimes, and I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you and I agree on that point.
You are right. War crimes are wrong and should be punished.

Quote

The gunship footage showed the commission of war crimes, both by the crew and HQ.  Fog of war?  Sure, but nobody on the ground was firing at the helicopter.  They had cameras, NOT weapons.  The banter overheard on the ship's intercom was the most disgusting part for me.
One of the fellows on the ground did have an RPG, but once he was down, the cameramen were targeted wrongly. This I will agree with.

Quote

So now you want me to believe that it is wrong to expose war crimes?  I guess your position then becomes that the Nuremberg Trials were in error?  They were wrong?
It is not wrong to expose war crimes. It is wrong tto provide any Secret Confidential Material to those not cleared for such.

The Nuremberg trials tried the war crimes based on the facts, right? What are the facts behind Bradley Manning? He sent 750000 documents of a Secret nature to someone who had no problem with providing this data to Enemies of the US (by posting it publically). So, by the standards of the Nurembert trials, Manning is not a hero.

Quote

No sir, if there is such a thing as justice, and maybe there ain't, then the just thing to do is to reveal said crimes and to punish those responsible for them.
Agreed. And what if even one civilian, or soldier of any nationality was killed Directly from Bradley Mannings document leak? Does that make him a war criminal? Hundreds of operatives worldwide had to be pulled out for Security reasons, because the data released could get them killed. Not sure if any soldiers in Afghanistan died because of his documents, but my suspicion is that the Military Trial will have that data.

Quote

Yeah sure, we could argue about whether Manning should have kept it 'in house', in the chain of command, but at this point in time that is purely academic.
It is not academic, it is the Core of his crimes.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users