103 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Dredimus, on 10 December 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

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.

He has already served time sir.  Under conditions that certain civilized countries describe as "torturous".  And in violation of the Speedy Trial rule under UCMJ.  Jeez, such a clear cut case of wrongdoing, and the government can't even get together a coherent case against him.

Yes, I am biased.  And in Orwell's context of "in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is considered a radical act", I guess I am biased in a radical fashion.

That's OK by me, but it is sad how far my fellow citizens and soldiers have strayed from the principles encoded in the US Constitution.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 11 December 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

You are right. War crimes are wrong and should be punished.


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.


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.


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.


It is not academic, it is the Core of his crimes.

I appreciate the outstanding post and discussion.

We agree that it is not wrong to expose war crimes.

We DISagree on whether it is wrong, in and of itself, to release classified documents.  Yes, it is a violation of the law, but it is not wrong in and of itself.  There is a latin term for it that the lawyers use, but I can't remember it right now.  Malum ipsos, or something like that.

That was very much the issue with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, and the Supreme Court did rule in favor of justice and government accountability.  Those papers and the legal actions around them revealed "purposeful witholding and distortion of facts", and that is rather the case here too.  You may recall that Ellsberg released reams of "Top Secret" documents that were considered by many, and were in fact, far more damaging to the government than anything Manning released.

Anyway, Manning has been imprisoned now for several years, without any sort of conviction.  So, looking ahead, we must find a way to deliver justice in the case and put it all behind us.

[ninjadude]

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited. https://en.wikipedia...iki/Malum_in_se

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks for that Ninja!

[and then]

Yamato, on 07 December 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Violent outbursts don't make him innocent or guilty in this case.  The good and bad his actions caused stay the same.   Character assassinations about all manner of irrelevancy are quite effective at swaying the court of popular opinion though.

He sounds mentally ill which isn't a crime.

I agree that he sounds as though he has mental issues that could stand to be treated -JMO! - but even those with such issues still are to be held accountable for crimes.  I've said it before and will repeat - if he had done this without being in the uniform on active duty I'd have had little or no problem with him.  He was using the uniform to besmirch the service he was sworn to be a part of.  If he was so of a mind to be a whistleblower he should have taken it up the chain and even threatened to do what he eventually DID do.  But to do that would have taken real integrity and a willingness to be held responsible for his actions.  And his physical size or limitations is no more important than his sexuality.  I'm sure there are some gay infantry types that could beat the crap out of me on my best day - it doesn't make him less liable for his actions.  In fact he should have known that his actions would reflect poorly on all gay people in the service.  If he gets away from the consequences of his actions then it will set a very bad precedent.

[Babe Ruth]

and then, on 11 December 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I agree that he sounds as though he has mental issues that could stand to be treated -JMO! - but even those with such issues still are to be held accountable for crimes.  I've said it before and will repeat - if he had done this without being in the uniform on active duty I'd have had little or no problem with him.  He was using the uniform to besmirch the service he was sworn to be a part of.  If he was so of a mind to be a whistleblower he should have taken it up the chain and even threatened to do what he eventually DID do.  But to do that would have taken real integrity and a willingness to be held responsible for his actions.  And his physical size or limitations is no more important than his sexuality.  I'm sure there are some gay infantry types that could beat the crap out of me on my best day - it doesn't make him less liable for his actions.  In fact he should have known that his actions would reflect poorly on all gay people in the service.  If he gets away from the consequences of his actions then it will set a very bad precedent.

But if the government gets away from the consequences of its actions, or the gunship pilots and HQ, well, that's quite OK, eh?

Yes, it's no wonder at all we have the government we deserve.

[and then]

Babe Ruth, on 11 December 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

But if the government gets away from the consequences of its actions, or the gunship pilots and HQ, well, that's quite OK, eh?

Yes, it's no wonder at all we have the government we deserve.

BR you really have a real hatred for government don't you.   Those pilots were aware that a firefight had taken place MINUTES before and only a few blocks away from the group they shot up.  They acted in the heat of battle and you are more than willing to believe they are inherently evil and wanted to murder people (including children) just for their fun and grins.  I think that says as much bad about your thought processes as it does theirs.

Edited by and then, 11 December 2012 - 09:08 PM.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 11 December 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

I appreciate the outstanding post and discussion.

We agree that it is not wrong to expose war crimes.

We DISagree on whether it is wrong, in and of itself, to release classified documents.  Yes, it is a violation of the law, but it is not wrong in and of itself.  There is a latin term for it that the lawyers use, but I can't remember it right now.  Malum ipsos, or something like that.

That was very much the issue with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, and the Supreme Court did rule in favor of justice and government accountability.  Those papers and the legal actions around them revealed "purposeful witholding and distortion of facts", and that is rather the case here too.  You may recall that Ellsberg released reams of "Top Secret" documents that were considered by many, and were in fact, far more damaging to the government than anything Manning released.

Anyway, Manning has been imprisoned now for several years, without any sort of conviction.  So, looking ahead, we must find a way to deliver justice in the case and put it all behind us.

Regardless of if 1%, 10%, 33%, or 90% of what Manning gave out was legit whistleblowing, he still sent out documents that had absolutely nothing to do with anything other then the workings of government. If what you are proposing, that Manning did no wrong, is true, then ANY government document can be released as whistleblowing.

And as I said before, there is no way he actually read all those documents. He would have needed over a year to read and understand all 750000+ of them. Unless he is a Mentat genius with a photographic memory and instantaneous comprehension. Which I don't think he has those abilities.

And that is asside from his sending the material to a foreign national with shady purposes. Even if 100% of the material was whistleblowing he could easily be found guilty of crimnal action there.

EDIT: The helicopter incident that itself is a good example. The pilots fired legally on a enemy combatant and then fired illegally on non-combatants right? Well Bradley "fired" the helicopter event and other worthy targets to WikiLeaks... and that could have been excused, but he continued to "Fire" off documents and sent out hundreds of thousands of "non-combatant" documents. Manning did the same exact act as the helicopter pilots, only on a cyber scale, not a physical scale.

Edited by DieChecker, 11 December 2012 - 09:49 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

and then, on 11 December 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

BR you really have a real hatred for government don't you.   Those pilots were aware that a firefight had taken place MINUTES before and only a few blocks away from the group they shot up.  They acted in the heat of battle and you are more than willing to believe they are inherently evil and wanted to murder people (including children) just for their fun and grins.  I think that says as much bad about your thought processes as it does theirs.

No sir, I do not hate government.  I greatly mistrust government.  Get out your dictionary and read the definitions.

I heard and watched the entire tape, and I assume you did too.  They were not "in the heat of battle", and the tape made that perfectly clear.  Cripes a'mighty, they were JOKING AROUND, as pilots do when they are getting a bit bored.

There was alot of grinning going on in that cockpit, and laughter.  Deny reality in your own mind sir, but I know what I heard and saw.  It was the same sort of "ugly american" behavior I witnessed personally in the Mekong Delta in 1970.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 11 December 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Regardless of if 1%, 10%, 33%, or 90% of what Manning gave out was legit whistleblowing, he still sent out documents that had absolutely nothing to do with anything other then the workings of government. If what you are proposing, that Manning did no wrong, is true, then ANY government document can be released as whistleblowing.

And as I said before, there is no way he actually read all those documents. He would have needed over a year to read and understand all 750000+ of them. Unless he is a Mentat genius with a photographic memory and instantaneous comprehension. Which I don't think he has those abilities.

And that is asside from his sending the material to a foreign national with shady purposes. Even if 100% of the material was whistleblowing he could easily be found guilty of crimnal action there.

EDIT: The helicopter incident that itself is a good example. The pilots fired legally on a enemy combatant and then fired illegally on non-combatants right? Well Bradley "fired" the helicopter event and other worthy targets to WikiLeaks... and that could have been excused, but he continued to "Fire" off documents and sent out hundreds of thousands of "non-combatant" documents. Manning did the same exact act as the helicopter pilots, only on a cyber scale, not a physical scale.

Oh gosh, he "fired off" documents that might have had nothing to do with war crimes.  What a terrible crime.

No sir, releasing just ANY government document is not necessarily releasing evidence of a crime by government, and therefore is NOT necessarily whistleblowing.  You offer a poor example there.  And Manning is clearly guilty of that.

Today, as judge, what would YOU sentence him to for that heinous crime?  Considering that Gates and others have stated that no person was harmed by Manning's actions?

[DieChecker]

I would try him for his crimes, yes. Just as any other criminal. It seems likely that if all that could be done is charging him with breaching security that he would get off with only a little time... maybe time served. Or maybe he would get 20+ years.

I still think he should take the plea bargin.

[Babe Ruth]

Just curious as to how you might have treated Daniel Ellsberg?

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Just curious as to how you might have treated Daniel Ellsberg?

I probably would have done it the way it played out. He did right by first going to various Senators, and then other political figures, and when they would not act he gave it to the NY Times. That forced the Senate's hand and they put the documents on the record.

Ellsberg was tried as he should have been, and was Mistrialed because of the illegal evidence gathering of the government. If the government had simply presented their case, Ellsberg would have went to jail for a decade. It was probably his giving it to the NY Times that put him in criminal standing. I suppose he felt strongly enough he was willing to go to prison to bring forward this information.

Since Manning was a Federal Employee, he can't whistleblow legally by going outside the Federal government system. Going to public media, and especially foreign public media aborts his protections.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 13 December 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

I probably would have done it the way it played out. He did right by first going to various Senators, and then other political figures, and when they would not act he gave it to the NY Times. That forced the Senate's hand and they put the documents on the record.

Ellsberg was tried as he should have been, and was Mistrialed because of the illegal evidence gathering of the government. If the government had simply presented their case, Ellsberg would have went to jail for a decade. It was probably his giving it to the NY Times that put him in criminal standing. I suppose he felt strongly enough he was willing to go to prison to bring forward this information.

Since Manning was a Federal Employee, he can't whistleblow legally by going outside the Federal government system. Going to public media, and especially foreign public media aborts his protections.

Could it be that Ellsberg as a young officer working in the Pentagon knew the same thing that Manning knew--keeping it in the chain of command would have been tantamount to its not getting out at all?