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.


* * * * * 1 votes

Bradley Manning court testimony leaked


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#31    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 17 March 2013 - 04:52 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 17 March 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

So where in all this did Manning follow the "Rule of Law"? He stole data and handed it over to someone outside of our government. The exposing of criminal actions that Manning did is not part of the rule of law, it is vigilantism.

Whilst I understand your argument from posts previous to this, and don't agree but, still, these are public employees. I would suggest that much of that information should have been public in the first place. His criminal actions should be ameliorated by what was exposed.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#32    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 17 March 2013 - 12:38 PM

View PostBama13, on 14 March 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Congress authorized the use of force therefore the war was legal. You can claim it was immoral, ill thought out, or just plain wrong, but it was not illegal.

Congress never voted to go to war with Iraq under Bush 2. Later they voted to approve the wars budget, but congress never declared war.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#33    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:00 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 17 March 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Congress never voted to go to war with Iraq under Bush 2. Later they voted to approve the wars budget, but congress never declared war.

Did not?

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#34    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

DC

I do appreciate your being honest enough to admit that you have not read Manning's statement.  So you judge him from a position of relative ignorance.

The rule of law pertains to the government.  If you bother ever to read the US Constitution, you will quickly discover that the document prohibits the government from many actions, and commands the government to act in many specific ways.

The document neither prohibits nor commands ANYTHING of the citizen.

Since when DC, and in which strange world that you seem to live, is it a crime to reveal the crimes of government?


#35    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:21 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 17 March 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:


No they did not. Giving the president the authority to wage war when and where he chooses, is not directly declaring war on a country. Ron Paul told us all about it during the debates, and not one of those neo cons could refute it.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#36    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:29 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 17 March 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

No they did not. Giving the president the authority to wage war when and where he chooses, is not directly declaring war on a country. Ron Paul told us all about it during the debates, and not one of those neo cons could refute it.

They have authorized military action in Iraq, no matter how you spin it. Invading a country is war, no matter how you spin it. If somebody here is at fault it is Congress for failing to declare war before authorizing military action, that was not Dubya's nor his administration's fault because they could not declare war, they just could order military action as authorized.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#37    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:39 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 17 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

They have authorized military action in Iraq, no matter how you spin it. Invading a country is war, no matter how you spin it. If somebody here is at fault it is Congress for failing to declare war before authorizing military action, that was not Dubya's nor his administration's fault because they could not declare war, they just could order military action as authorized.

You are the only one spinning anything. The law is very specific. They did not follow it. Both Congress and Bush's administration were at fault. Bush knew damn well that it was illegal to order military action without a direct declaration of war from congress. Congress doesnt have the authority to grant a military operation, without a declaration. It makes me sick that this kinda violation is completly overlooked by people who would at the same time throw away the key to a mans cell who wanted to do nothing more then expose murderous crime.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#38    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 17 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 17 March 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

You are the only one spinning anything. The law is very specific. They did not follow it. Both Congress and Bush's administration were at fault. Bush knew damn well that it was illegal to order military action without a direct declaration of war from congress. Congress doesnt have the authority to grant a military operation, without a declaration. It makes me sick that this kinda violation is completly overlooked by people who would at the same time throw away the key to a mans cell who wanted to do nothing more then expose murderous crime.

It is not illegal to order military action without declaring war, in fact it has been done innumerable times in history, including by the founding fathers. Military action is then legal when the interests of the USA or the safety of its citizens are at risk. And does not even require a specific authorization by Congress in that case. Only war does. So if Congress authorizes military action it becomes the Congress to also declare war. The administration can execute any authorization of military action against any country as authorized, either by standing laws (i.e. the Barbary Coast war) or authorized by Congress (i.e. the Iraq war). The only ones at fault is Congress for not declaring war as it should have. But that has a long history dating from the US Mexican war in 1846.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#39    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 07:18 PM

I'm going to agree with Questionmark here. It was not on Bush to require the Congress to declare war. It was on Congress to do so before authorizing combat actions. If anyone is to blame it is those 500+ members of Congress. Even those that voted NO should have come forward and demanded a vote for or against War with Iraq.

The President authorizes combat actions all the time... The FBI, and CIA and Homeland security all have combat actions constantly. And there are numerous "humanitarian missions" going on right now that the US is involved with, where we shoot up the locals protecting other locals. We don't have to declare war to fire hellfire missiles in Saudi Arabia, or to protect food shipments in Ethiopia, or as UN peacekeepers in Bosnia....

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

#40    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 07:46 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 March 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

DC

I do appreciate your being honest enough to admit that you have not read Manning's statement.  So you judge him from a position of relative ignorance.
I've read much of his recent testimony, and I don't see much of Why he did it. Mostly it seems about trying to show misconduct by the Army.

Can you provide a link to the testimony you are talking about?

I did find this....

Quote

He explains to the military court in his own cadence and words how and why he gave the Apache helicopter video, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars Logs, and the State Department Diplomatic Cables to WikiLeaks. Manning explains his motives, noting how he believed the documents showed deep wrongdoing by the government and how he hoped that the release would "spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan." In conjunction with the statement, Private First Class Manning also pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges against him.
https://pressfreedom...nings-statement

I just want to know how those 750000 documents all... each and every one... showed government misconduct? Or maybe those are the crimes he already pleaded guilty too??

Quote

The rule of law pertains to the government.  If you bother ever to read the US Constitution, you will quickly discover that the document prohibits the government from many actions, and commands the government to act in many specific ways.

The document neither prohibits nor commands ANYTHING of the citizen.
That is right, it provides for the Congress to do that. And guess what, Congress says what Manning did is illegal. Where in the Constitution does it allow for vigilante justice?

Quote

Since when DC, and in which strange world that you seem to live, is it a crime to reveal the crimes of government?
When 5 crimes need to be committed to expose the one crime. Stupidly... Manning had thousands of options on who to send the documents to, but chose the one that would put him in jail for 20+ years instead. Exposing the government crimes is not the issue here. Doing that is to be commended... if done Right. But, Manning did it Wrong...

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

#41    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:12 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 17 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

They have authorized military action in Iraq, no matter how you spin it. Invading a country is war, no matter how you spin it. If somebody here is at fault it is Congress for failing to declare war before authorizing military action, that was not Dubya's nor his administration's fault because they could not declare war, they just could order military action as authorized.

Precisely, and everything you describe is a symptom of the deception.  The public was deceived by invoking something that looked like law, but really wasn't.  Sleight-of-hand you might say.  Certainly the presstitute media treated it as if it was law.


#42    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:18 PM

DC

That's not much of an answer to the question of "since when is it illegal to reveal government mischief?"  No answer at all, really.

It is the government that has broken the law DC, and you are now in the position where you are defending the criminal actions of government officials.  Not an envious position, IMO.

Yes, that quotation you offered from Manning was the heart of the matter.  He was motivated by noble goals.  One of which is to achieve the rule of law.  If it's really illegal to kill civilians, then somebody needs to be punished for it.

And of course the bigger point is that the wars themselves were illegal.  Some soldiers understand that, others pretend it's not true.

He acted with the same motivations that Daniel Ellsberg did.  They both are genuine patriots and heros because they put their own lives on the line to let the truth be known.  Ellsberg won, Manning has lost, within the system of justice.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 17 March 2013 - 09:20 PM.


#43    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:25 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

DC

That's not much of an answer to the question of "since when is it illegal to reveal government mischief?"  No answer at all, really.

It is the government that has broken the law DC, and you are now in the position where you are defending the criminal actions of government officials.  Not an envious position, IMO.

Yes, that quotation you offered from Manning was the heart of the matter.  He was motivated by noble goals.  One of which is to achieve the rule of law.  If it's really illegal to kill civilians, then somebody needs to be punished for it.

And of course the bigger point is that the wars themselves were illegal.  Some soldiers understand that, others pretend it's not true.

He acted with the same motivations that Daniel Ellsberg did.  They both are genuine patriots and heros because they put their own lives on the line to let the truth be known.  Ellsberg won, Manning has lost, within the system of justice.
The answer is it Depends... Would you hand over a military plan of attack to the opposing forces? Would you publish the identities and home addressess of CIA operatives operating overseas?

The point being Manning had no idea what he was sending out. He could have been doing exactly that, informing the Afghan or Iraqi insurgents of what was going to happen... killing hundreds of thousands of US troops. Or he might have revealed information sources or policy changes that would ignite the region and again... end in the deaths of thousands of US soldiers. Is that a hero to you?

What criminal actions have I defended, out of curiousity? None. I said that exposing criminal activity in the government is to be commended. It is the exposing of OTHER sensitive materials that is damning to Manning. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts??

Noble motivation by itself is not an excuse for dishonerable, illegal, criminal actions.

The difference between Daniel Ellsberg and Manning is that Ellsberg first went to the very top to try to get the government to publically come clean. And he also published only the relevant material. He did not publish random emails, phone calls, cables and other documents. Ellsberg KNEW what he was reading and what he was publishing. Manning did not. He could not have read or understood everything he sent. He did not have the time to have done that . One was noble, the other simply stupid.

If you look at what Manning did. He released about 5 packages of information. Each one bigger then the last. Because.... he was getting a rush out of sending it. He was just stupid.

There is no logical defense for stupid.

Edited by DieChecker, 18 March 2013 - 12:27 AM.

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

#44    Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 226 posts
  • Joined:07 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:51 AM

Maybe this thread needs a poll, hero/zero lol


#45    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:15 PM

DC

Manning DID KNOW what he was sending out sir.  Recall that he was an intelligence analyst, and his job description involved poring over all manner of communications.  Again, had you bothered to read or follow this case, you would already know that.  It's old news.

It's also NOT rational public dialogue to make statements about things you've already admitted to not reading.

As to your post #39 above, under Article II of the US Constitution, the President ALREADY is C-in-C of our military.  As FDR put it nearly a century ago, the President can WAGE war, but he cannot DECLARE war.

That means that the AUMF is pure political theater and sophistry.  It is superfluous, and anybody who has studied the USC knows that.

You are correct that Congress' abdication of authority and responsibility in writing the AUMF is equal to Bush's blame.  They are both to blame.  But this really isn't about blame, it's only about a rational examination of historical events.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users