Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

Bradley Manning court testimony leaked

109 posts in this topic

A leaked recording of Bradley Manning's testimony in a military court has given the public its first chance to hear the young soldier justifying his decision to leak hundreds of thousands of secret documents to WikiLeaks.

In the one-hour seven-minute recording from a court hearing in late February, Private First Class Manning describes how he wanted to expose the "bloodlust" of US forces fighting in the Middle East and how he had a "clear conscience" after helping to engineer the largest intelligence leak in American history.

The tape was released by the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), a transparency group that said it wanted to counter the "extreme government secrecy" surrounding Pfc Manning's court martial.

Read more

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning provided a great service to his country by revealing the crimes of its government.

By risking his life to expose such crimes, he joins the company of other brave men over the years. His treatment is the best indicator of what an immoral and unprincipled hypocrite Obama is.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shorter exerp no DL required

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning provided a great service to his country by revealing the crimes of its government.

By risking his life to expose such crimes, he joins the company of other brave men over the years. His treatment is the best indicator of what an immoral and unprincipled hypocrite Obama is.

^^^ This, this this, one-thousand times THIS!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If his disclosure of documents and video had been limited to what could be verified as wrongful actions, I would agree. But he downloaded and handed over so many documents that it would have taken him well over a year of full time reading with 8 hour days to know what it was that he was sending out.

If he read one document a second for a week straight, doing nothing but reading one a second, (no sleep, on eating, no restroom, etc...) that would be 600,000 of the 750000 documents he sent out. If you figure 8 hour days and 5 day weeks, with one document per second, then it would be 144,000 documents per week he could read, and do nothing else during that time. If you figure a minute per document (not too unreasonable, as he is trying to determine if the document is Evil or not), then we can figure 2400 documents a week and 312 weeks to finish, or.... 6 years (at one document a minute full time during work hours)...

So you tell me that he knew what he was sending out??

The man is a traitor. I don't see it any other way. The facts are clear. He did not just go and find documents that showed guilt and wrongdoing by the government, he just copy and pasted everything. And then handed them all over to a Foreign National. If a man shoots 1000 people he is bound to shoot at least a few criminals, but that should not be an excuse for shooting the other 995 people. He's a criminal traitor to his Oath of Service and extremely stupid too. His actions were motivated by the emotions of anger and fear, overreaction, desperation and frustration. But those should not excuse even the smallest civilian crime, so I don't see why it would excuse a federal emplyee crime. It is only in desperation now that he trys to justify his idiot actions by trying to be a whistleblower.

The fact he sent the documents to a Foreign National of dubious security is even just more damning. If he'd sent them to a uber-liberal judge, or senator, or a state governor, or even just to a FBI, or CIA branch office or a US Consolate, he'd be covered by the Whisteblower Act and be a free man now. But he wanted to be a big shot and deal with WikiLeaks. And so now he will rot in prison till he is too old to do much beyond collect social security.

He's a Traitor.

I dare anyone to defend him by telling me how those 750000 documents were justified to download and hand over to WikiLeaks. How did Bradley know those all needed to be published online??

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a perverse sense, worse than the killing was the conversation on the intercom between the front seat and the back seat, as they shot up those attempting rescue. :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His defense is easy Die. The entire war was illegal to begin with. The only people who should be defending themselfs are those who decided to go to war killing at least hundreds of thousands of innocents. Every single thing done in this illegal military conflict should be exposed.

In a perverse sense, worse than the killing was the conversation on the intercom between the front seat and the back seat, as they shot up those attempting rescue. :td:

With a child in the van no less.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a Traitor.

I dare anyone to defend him by telling me how those 750000 documents were justified to download and hand over to WikiLeaks. How did Bradley know those all needed to be published online??

Well said and he's just that, "...a Traitor."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His defense is easy Die. The entire war was illegal to begin with. The only people who should be defending themselfs are those who decided to go to war killing at least hundreds of thousands of innocents. Every single thing done in this illegal military conflict should be exposed.

With a child in the van no less.

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad he finally seems willing to take responsibility for his actions. I will respect him a bit more if he pleads out and does his time without acting like he's a victim. I think he's a traitor to his uniform, his country and his soldiers. As to the "bloodlust" of the helo crew, maybe they were savages or maybe they'd seen one too many of their friends mangled or slaughtered by insurgents. There was a firefight a few minutes earlier only a few blocks from where the gundown happened. It is reasonable to assume that they genuinely felt these were bad guys. People who volunteer for a combat arms MOS don't tend to be choir boys either. It takes a certain mindset to do such a job and we need them just as much as we need medics or doctors or IT specialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a Traitor.

he's my hero. A true American.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's my hero. A true American.

He can be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The hell it wasn't. "Authorizing the use of force" isn't declaring war. The Congress wasn't given any power in the Constitution to "authorize the use of force" at the President's pleasure, it has the authority to declare war. When war is declared, that is the start of the war. Only the Congress has that power. The President only has the power to wage it. What the Congress did, whether you use that wording I put in quotes or not, is give the President the power to declare war by himself, if he wanted to, why he wanted to, and when he wanted to. The Congress has no power to delegate its own authority to the President like that. That was a gross violation of Constitutional authority. That authorization to use force wasn't even remotely a declaration of war. I would have voted for the dumb thing. You might as well call any one of these acts against Iran stating that "all options are on the table" a declaration of war on Iran too so Obama can play King and do what Bush did. Ridiculous.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die Checker

If Manning is a traitor, how do you describe a person or persons who take the country to war under fraud?

How do you describe persons who plunder the treasury under fraud, or who pass legislation that assaults the US Constitution?

Recall that the ONLY crime defined in the US Constitution is treason. Article III Section 3

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hell it wasn't. "Authorizing the use of force" isn't declaring war. The Congress wasn't given any power in the Constitution to "authorize the use of force" at the President's pleasure, it has the authority to declare war. When war is declared, that is the start of the war. Only the Congress has that power. The President only has the power to wage it. What the Congress did, whether you use that wording I put in quotes or not, is give the President the power to declare war by himself, if he wanted to, why he wanted to, and when he wanted to. The Congress has no power to delegate its own authority to the President like that. That was a gross violation of Constitutional authority. That authorization to use force wasn't even remotely a declaration of war. I would have voted for the dumb thing. You might as well call any one of these acts against Iran stating that "all options are on the table" a declaration of war on Iran too so Obama can play King and do what Bush did. Ridiculous.

Authoritizing the use military force is, to me, the same thing as declaring war.

Not going to argue semantics with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authoritizing the use military force is, to me, the same thing as declaring war.

Not going to argue semantics with you.

Unfortunately, by your post you have reduced it to semantics.

AUMF is pure sophistry, meant to fool the gullible. Tiggs and I are discussing it on another thread.

The Congress has the Power to Declare War.

The President has the power to wage war. FDR knew the difference. It appears you do not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's my hero. A true American.

If he did this to a private business or non-profit... Say, Planned Parenthood, and exposed all the dirty secrets... but, also exposed every woman who secretly had an abortion for the last 10 years, and put it on the internet, would that be the actions of a hero?

He had no idea what he was sending. If acting out like a child... in ignorance and out of blind rage and hatred is the mark of a Hero to you, fine.... :td:

He never grew up. They should charge him as a child, because he is clearly still a little boy.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die Checker

If Manning is a traitor, how do you describe a person or persons who take the country to war under fraud?

Like with Manning... it would depends on the intent and what the fraud was. But basically, Yes, I would call that a Traitor too.

How do you describe persons who plunder the treasury under fraud, or who pass legislation that assaults the US Constitution?

You mean like every single President of the 20th and 21st century? Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama all fit that description to one degree or another.

Recall that the ONLY crime defined in the US Constitution is treason. Article III Section 3

Providing "aid and comfort:" to the Enemy in todays world seems like a Anything Goes definition to me. Did Manning provide "aid and comfort"? Surely he did. If even one dollar of damages was done to the US government by anyone out there considered an Enemy of the US, due to what Manning released to Wikileaks... then he provided aid, and thus Treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, by your post you have reduced it to semantics.

AUMF is pure sophistry, meant to fool the gullible. Tiggs and I are discussing it on another thread.

The Congress has the Power to Declare War.

The President has the power to wage war. FDR knew the difference. It appears you do not.

Does not really matter. Is anyone going to bring in the 100 Senators and 435 (or whatever the number was in 2001) of Representatives, to have them face Trial for the same actions. No.....

They may as well as just declaired war. The difference is semantics alone.

Presidents have been entering engagements on their own authority for over 100 years. Depending on if you include covert, and "cold" wars as engagements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authoritizing the use military force is, to me, the same thing as declaring war.

Not going to argue semantics with you.

Declaring war means the start of hostilities. You've been duped into thinking the President has that power. Read the Constitution and stop calling it semantics.

Congress has repeatedly authorized the use of force against Iran so by your standards, we're already at war with Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, by your post you have reduced it to semantics.

AUMF is pure sophistry, meant to fool the gullible. Tiggs and I are discussing it on another thread.

The Congress has the Power to Declare War.

The President has the power to wage war. FDR knew the difference. It appears you do not.

That last declaration of war is another good case in point demonstrating one thing I love about our government in the first half of the 20th century, the signs that they still took the Constitution seriously. They realized that to ban alcohol it would take amending the Constitution to push it through. Now they just ban whatever they want and don't even notice the rule of law above them.

The authorization to use force, citing all the UN mumbo jumbo Saddam wasn't in compliance with, was no substitute for Constitutional authority. Deferring to global bureaucracy like the UN was no excuse to subvert the authority Congress actually has.

I still remember the newspaper headlines on September 12, 2001. "AN ACT OF WAR!" I remember immediately wondering, "A war on who?" If the President needed to deploy into Afghanistan immediately without waiting for Congress, they had a limited time to either declare the war or pull the forces back in per the War Powers Resolution but that marked the beginning of this systemic abuse of power in this unconstitutional (and yes, illegal) government that Obama is now enjoying and that all future Presidents will too, at the peril of our rule of law, our security, and our liberty. I can't believe bama13 of all people bought that soap.

The War Powers Resolution was the first documented shirk of the rule of law, making exceptions to the clearest language in the Constitution. That is unconstitutional itself some would say and I tend to agree. But we can't even follow that anymore. Even that gets thrown out the window so our Presidents can play like Kings. We've lost our senses with what the role of government ought to be in this country and it's time for the people to take the power back.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did this to a private business or non-profit... Say, Planned Parenthood, and exposed all the dirty secrets... but, also exposed every woman who secretly had an abortion for the last 10 years, and put it on the internet, would that be the actions of a hero?

That's where your example breaks down. Abortion is not illegal. They were PUBLIC employees. And what they were doing was.

for example

The leaked cables revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in apparent violation of international treaties prohibiting spying at the UN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Im agreeing with you ND...I should probably take my meds. :st

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's where your example breaks down. Abortion is not illegal. They were PUBLIC employees. And what they were doing was.

for example

https://en.wikipedia...tic_cables_leak

As I pointed out already in this thread, if Spec Manning had read what he found, and digested it, and reported the atrocities and crimes ONLY, and if he had done so to any Public offical in the entire US government.... I'd say let him go. But he did not. He sent in whatever he could find regardless of what was in the documents. That is his crime, not exposing crimes. Exposing crimes is commendable, and could have made him a hero. But he ruined it by just being plain stupid. 100 or 1000 criiminal documents does not excuse handing over 750,000 documents to possibly aid the enemies of our nation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress has repeatedly authorized the use of force against Iran so by your standards, we're already at war with Iran.

Not yet but we undoubtedly will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.