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

#91    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,128 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:24 PM

View PostJeremiah65, on 09 July 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

I have not read this entire thread yet but I wanted to mention a clip I just saw on "The Young Turks" concerning Manning, Snowden and Elsberg (who released the Pentagon papers back in the 70's).

Elsberg apparently has an Op-Ed on the situation online somewhere...I will try to find it.  But TYT was talking about how things are different today than when whistleblowers came forth in the 70's.

Elsberg was able to make public appearances and attend rallies.  The media interviewed him and allowed him to get his message out.

Not happening for Manning and Snowden.

Manning was detained and silenced and his trial is off limits.  The same thing would happen to Snowden.  Rather than the Media being interested in informing the public...they are now the Propaganda machine for the Government.  The question came up should Snowden return to the states and martyr himself so the media would cover it...

Cenk Uygur looked into the camera and said "Snowden...don't come home...run...just run...we are a Police State now and the media is their mouthpiece"...

How does all that sound?

I occasionally watch The Young Turks (when Cenk is there)...it about the most balanced news I can find on the boob tube...it's not perfect, but it beats all the other hands down.

Edit to add:

Here is Danial Elsberg's website and the article is front page.
http://www.ellsberg.net/

here's the Washinton Post article
http://www.washingto...b080_story.html

Clip from wash Post article lead in:



Daniel Ellsberg is the author of “Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.” He was charged in 1971 under the Espionage Act as well as for theft and conspiracy for copying the Pentagon Papers. The trial was dismissed in 1973 after evidence of government misconduct, including illegal wiretapping, was introduced in court.
Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.

There is no comparison, first before Elsberg there were not all kinds of oaths you had to swear to not disclose and second Manning was active duty... which puts him under a completely different jurisdiction. While I agree that the Manning case was mishandled, and that most probably the reason why Snowden decided to run with the goods, both have signed papers, standard since Elsberg, in which they agreed to a lengthy term in Leavenworth were they to shoot off their mouth. In the case of Manning it all could have gone silently without much circus going the article 15 route (military extrajudicial punishment). They decided to make a circus of it.

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

#92    Thanato

Thanato

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,240 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2004

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:32 PM

They decided to make an example of him.

"Your toast has been burnt, and no amount of scrapping will remove the black parts!" ~Caboose

"I will eat your unhappyness!" ~Caboose

****
"Freedom isn't bought in stores, it is bought on battlefields." ~Thanato
****

#93    Jeremiah65

Jeremiah65

    Seeker of knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,078 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The mists at the edge of your dreams...

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Posted 10 July 2013 - 05:11 PM

I understand what you're saying there Q-mark...but I do not accept that precedence.  That is the same basic idea as the private gunning down jews at a trench edge and proclaiming..."I was only following orders"....if the orders are wrong...you do not have to follow them.

Crime is crime....violations of the Constitution are violations...I do not care what edict or spec you try to hide behind.  Snowden and Manning did what the Code of conduct says you are supposed to do when confronting orders that violate the base rules....follow what you believe to be correct.

In a correct world...they would be vindicated...violating the Constitution...by order of anyone...is treason...in my mind anyway....these men are not criminals...or traitors...

"Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."  George Bernard Shaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Thomas Jefferson

Posted Image

#94    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 11 July 2013 - 01:43 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Quote

DieChecker, on 09 July 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I don't think it should matter if he was PFC Elmo, or PFC Bigbird, or PFC Barney, if he committed crimes against the US government, he needs to be punished to the extent the evidence supports. Being lovable has nothing to do with if you deserve justice or not.

Would you hold the C-in-C to those same standards, or do you make an exception for him?

That is, if the C-in-C committed crimes against the United State of America, its people and its founding document, should he be punished in accordance with the law?

Or should the law be suspended for the President?  What about any congressman who did  the same thing?
Nope. If evidence can be secured, then even the President can be brought up on charges. The problem being securing the evidence. The top brass are not going take the fall for anything, as loyal minions below them will take the bullet for them... RE: Oliver North - Iran/Contra.

Plus, the people at the top provide standards and direction, but they can easily claim that they have zero involvement in the fine details. Such as with that helicopter attack Manning published. No one above Colonel is going to be punished for that. Because though direction to patrol that area probably came down from a general, it was a local unit commander that gave those guys their flying orders, and he will ultimately take the hit for what they did. The upper brass will be safe behind a wall of blamelessness.\

Anyway, my whole point was that dispite Manning's seeming innocence and his seeming naivity and his gay pop image, he committed a well evidenced crime against the military and the government in a war zone that gave information to the enemy. He's going away for a long time.

Edited by DieChecker, 11 July 2013 - 01:45 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

#95    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 11 July 2013 - 01:49 AM

View PostJeremiah65, on 10 July 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

I understand what you're saying there Q-mark...but I do not accept that precedence.  That is the same basic idea as the private gunning down jews at a trench edge and proclaiming..."I was only following orders"....if the orders are wrong...you do not have to follow them.

Crime is crime....violations of the Constitution are violations...I do not care what edict or spec you try to hide behind.  Snowden and Manning did what the Code of conduct says you are supposed to do when confronting orders that violate the base rules....follow what you believe to be correct.

In a correct world...they would be vindicated...violating the Constitution...by order of anyone...is treason...in my mind anyway....these men are not criminals...or traitors...

As a former soldier, I do NOT believe that is correct. A military man has the right to disregard an unlawful order, but he has no right to decide his own actions... Create his OWN law. He is basically owned by the military while serving. You can't decide to just leave camp and go give some Afghan villages a jeep, even if you paid for it. You can only act, or not act, on what you are told to do. There is no deciding what to do for yourself and then doing it. That will almost always result (lawfully) in punishment.

Edited by DieChecker, 11 July 2013 - 01:51 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

#96    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 11 July 2013 - 01:55 AM

View PostThanato, on 10 July 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

They decided to make an example of him.
Isn't that what punishment is at least in part, about?

If the Army fries Manning like a potatoe chip, the thinking is that other leakers will think twice. And logically that would seem to be true. Except for the fact that a lot of these leakers are unbalanced or have severe issues. Manning should not have been in a position where he could have caused such damage/problems. He should have been in the States in a military mental hospital long before he got to where he ended up at.

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

#97    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,678 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:29 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 July 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

Nope. If evidence can be secured, then even the President can be brought up on charges. The problem being securing the evidence. The top brass are not going take the fall for anything, as loyal minions below them will take the bullet for them... RE: Oliver North - Iran/Contra.

Plus, the people at the top provide standards and direction, but they can easily claim that they have zero involvement in the fine details. Such as with that helicopter attack Manning published. No one above Colonel is going to be punished for that. Because though direction to patrol that area probably came down from a general, it was a local unit commander that gave those guys their flying orders, and he will ultimately take the hit for what they did. The upper brass will be safe behind a wall of blamelessness.\

Anyway, my whole point was that dispite Manning's seeming innocence and his seeming naivity and his gay pop image, he committed a well evidenced crime against the military and the government in a war zone that gave information to the enemy. He's going away for a long time.

Glad to hear that you would hold the C-in-C to the same standards.  I probably missed them along the line, but I don't remember any of your posts advocating such charges be brought.  Recall that Dubya admitted to the crime of warrantless searches by way of NSA (which is a crime violating Amendment 4) and that B'rack has happily admitted executive assassinations.  What to do?


#98    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:37 AM

Defense Rests.... I guess we'll hear from the judge either tomorrow, or Monday.

Quote

His lawyers are fighting to have the more serious charges of aiding the enemy dropped. For this they must prove Manning did not knowingly give intelligence to America's enemy by leaking to Wikileaks. Which hinges on them proving that Wikileaks is a legitimate news organization that Manning believed would help him inform the public—not a terrorist information portal.
http://gawker.com/st...-wiki-737270871

I think this may be what keeps Manning from being in a military prison for the rest of his life... He did not "knowingly" give Wikileaks intelligence, because he had no idea what was in those files.

Whether Wikileaks is a new organization..... I got to think about. That is a maybe to me.

Regardless Manning is going to prison for everything he already admitted to, and if they assign them consecutively, he still might not get out till he's too old to have kids. (Though still not too old for sex-reassignment surgery/treatments.)

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

#99    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:39 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 July 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Glad to hear that you would hold the C-in-C to the same standards.  I probably missed them along the line, but I don't remember any of your posts advocating such charges be brought.  Recall that Dubya admitted to the crime of warrantless searches by way of NSA (which is a crime violating Amendment 4) and that B'rack has happily admitted executive assassinations.  What to do?
What would you advocate? Sending an email to my Senator every day calling for Obama to be brought up on charges? Maybe hire myself a lawyer to file the case? I just don't see it happening. It is a Fact of Life that the High-and-Mighty get away with... Murder....

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

#100    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,678 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:04 PM

No, you're right that there is nothing at all you or I can do about the situation.

One can call or write one's elected representatives, but considering that the congress is as corrupt as it is, that accomplishes precious little.  And I am one cynical SOB, no doubt.

But I guess you could realize that Manning's "crimes" are indeed nothing but crimes against the state.  He crime must be seen in perspective as being trivial, especially compared to the crimes of his superiors.  I guess that's the main point--the men who are prosecuting him have committed far more serious crimes than he has.

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.


#101    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:00 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 July 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

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 by DieChecker, 15 July 2013 - 07:01 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

#102    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,678 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 July 2013 - 06:27 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 15 July 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

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.


#103    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:03 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 July 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

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 by DieChecker, 16 July 2013 - 09:05 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

#104    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 11,418 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 16 July 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

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).

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#105    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,475 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:44 PM

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.

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