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

Killing civilians is illegal. Laughing about it is obscene and barbaric, but it seems your position is that such crimes should be kept secret. That is a bad position to be in, IMO.

If you continue to lie about my stated position, we're going to have to stop this discussion. It only makes you seem like you are not even reading the posts... Point out where my position is that such crimes should be kept secret?

We both did our time in the Army. You enlisted, me by way of ROTC. I don't know if you ever realized it, but classification of documents is way out of hand. Everything is classified, and that trend has only increased, according to what I've read.

Probably true, but still not an excuse to mass publish said classified documents.

Keep in mind that the Pentagon Papers of my generation were all TOP SECRET papers.

But from what I read, they were ALWAYS intended for public consumption. It was simply a matter of when and where it would be published.

Manning's material was NOT top secret, merely classified at lower levels.

And yet never intended for public consumption. Anyone that needs these documents should file a Freedom of Information Act application. What Manning did is steal.

But it seems you are forced to post that you actually approve of such witholding and distortion. Bradley Manning was not, and that's the difference between him and you. And of course he's been in jail for years, in DIRECT VIOLATION of the speedy trial rule in UCMJ.

I do believe there are some documents and information that the general public does not need access to. The social security numbers of personnel, the addresses of personnel and so on... Troop movements and deployments.... Covert operative data... Planning documents... many, many documents and data that the national security interests require be kept secret. So, yes, I do approve of keeping some documents out of public hands.

I believe the whole speedy trial thing is what has been going on and probably still is going on... rather whether his treatment and delay is cause to dropping the charges or not. I personnally think he should have plea bargained earlier and he might have got off with only 10 years with time served counting. So, I think you have a point there. But, that is a crime of the military, and still should not excuse Mannings actions.

It seems DC, that you are quite selective about just which laws you support and what kind of order you like? Pity, I say.

Perhaps. And perhaps you do the same??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position here? Manning released the helicopter gunship video, and for doing that, you call him a traitor. That implies that you think that releasing it was a crime.

Please correct me.

Just curious here--what leads you to believe that the Pentagon Papers were intended to be eventually released to the public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position here? Manning released the helicopter gunship video, and for doing that, you call him a traitor. That implies that you think that releasing it was a crime.

Please correct me.

I've actually never said anything about that video. Exposing it was actually a commendable action. That video clearly shows enough for a Whistleblower to expose it. If Manning had sent it to just about any US citizen, I'd have zero problem with it, but he sent it to a foreign national. So, in that case, it was a crime. Otherwise I specifically have not commented on that video because it is a weak point in my end of the debate.

If Manning had stopped there, there would be no issue really. And if he had continued to send out glaringly obvious military errors/crimes, that would have been in his favor too. But he did not. He started to just grab whatever he could, copy it to a DVD and then send it out unread. Those are not the actions of a crime fighter, but the actions of a spy.

Just curious here--what leads you to believe that the Pentagon Papers were intended to be eventually released to the public?

When I was reading about the Pentagon Papers it was McNamara who wanted a history of the Vietnam War with all the details, created so that Historians would record it right. His intent was to eventually give it to his friends among the Kennedys and at the Rand Corporation. Which would inevitibly end up in public publication. It was in a packet labeled Secret, but according to what I read it was not actually a high level classification.

and was classified as "Top Secret - Sensitive". ("Sensitive" is not an official security designation; it meant that the study's publication would be embarrassing.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually never said anything about that video. Exposing it was actually a commendable action. That video clearly shows enough for a Whistleblower to expose it. If Manning had sent it to just about any US citizen, I'd have zero problem with it, but he sent it to a foreign national.

Otherwise known as a journalist - Wikileaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think it is extremely interesting that there is such secrecy surrounding this trial. Makes me highly suspicious of my own government.

Glad that the transcript was leaked. We The People have a right to know, especially since we are paying for this trial and the dubiously murderous antics of our USA government (dones killing a 16 year old boy).

Manning is a hero. The USA government and the US military cannot take the high moral ground on anything these days. I expect better behavior from my government and my country's military.

I am not a part of any organization the USA considers terrorist, unless We The People are now terrorists. But I am not liking the people in the USA government much these days. It is time to clean house and rid our government of criminals.

Get your scat together, USA government, or you WILL go down.

Edited by regeneratia
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yet he does not think that killing these people was a crime with the intent that they did it. So crazy.

We NEED to know what our government is doing on all levels of diplomacy and military actions.

The secrets are because they KNOW we the people would not approve of what they are doing.

National security claims are used to protect the government, not to protect The People.

We The People = We The Power

DC

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position here? Manning released the helicopter gunship video, and for doing that, you call him a traitor. That implies that you think that releasing it was a crime.

Please correct me.

Just curious here--what leads you to believe that the Pentagon Papers were intended to be eventually released to the public?

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We NEED to know what our government is doing on all levels of diplomacy and military actions.

The secrets are because they KNOW we the people would not approve of what they are doing.

National security claims are used to protect the government, not to protect The People.

We The People = We The Power

So you think, back in May of 1944, the American people should have been told that we were going to invade Europe at Normandy on the 5th/6th of June? Sometimes they are secrets because letting We The People know equates to letting Them The Enemy know also.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So you think, back in May of 1944, the American people should have been told that we were going to invade Europe at Normandy on the 5th/6th of June? Sometimes they are secrets because letting We The People know equates to letting Them The Enemy know also.

Yes. The key is NOT to have enemies. Another key is to know that war is not an aswer for anyone or any country.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. The key is NOT to have enemies. Another key is to know that war is not an aswer for anyone or any country.

So do you think that the allies should have just bowed down to Nazi Germany? You know... since going to war against them is not an answer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So do you think that the allies should have just bowed down to Nazi Germany? You know... since going to war against them is not an answer....

Quite honestly, that era is emotionally super-charged for me. To avoid bad feelings, I generally do not like to think about it at all, unless it is to prevent it from ever happening again. I don 't mean warring to stop it. I mean literally preventing it from happening. It could easily have been prevented and wasn't. Why wasn't it prevented?

We have different perspectives on this. I think prevention, preventing it from happening. You imply stopping it after it happens. I like to think about nipping these things in the bud. You imply that you deal with it after it has blossomed and is seeded in fertile soil.

But again, I have one line of typing from you to assess your thinking. Thus I leave room for my being inaccurate in what I connote from your one line.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite honestly, that era is emotionally super-charged for me. To avoid bad feelings, I generally do not like to think about it at all, unless it is to prevent it from ever happening again. I don 't mean warring to stop it. I mean literally preventing it from happening. It could easily have been prevented and wasn't. Why wasn't it prevented?

We have different perspectives on this. I think prevention, preventing it from happening. You imply stopping it after it happens. I like to think about nipping these things in the bud. You imply that you deal with it after it has blossomed and is seeded in fertile soil.

But again, I have one line of typing from you to assess your thinking. Thus I leave room for my being inaccurate in what I connote from your one line.

Well, it wasn't prevented because Europe didn't want to risk going to war. It didn't work out that way too.

Now, if something is preventable then yes, prevent it --- but sometimes, things aren't preventable, or what people/countries thought was the safest course of action didn't end up working out. At that point, you have no other choice but to deal with the situation that has arose. That's what happened with WWII. Regardless of whether in hindsight WWII could have been prevented, once Hitler started WWII, the only option was to either sit back and be conquered, or fight him. Did they make the wrong choice by fighting him, according to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think, back in May of 1944, the American people should have been told that we were going to invade Europe at Normandy on the 5th/6th of June? Sometimes they are secrets because letting We The People know equates to letting Them The Enemy know also.

Keep in mind that in WWII we were involved in a war declared in accordance with Constitutional provisions.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are involved in 2 cases of military aggression, illegal under international law.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually never said anything about that video. Exposing it was actually a commendable action. That video clearly shows enough for a Whistleblower to expose it. If Manning had sent it to just about any US citizen, I'd have zero problem with it, but he sent it to a foreign national. So, in that case, it was a crime. Otherwise I specifically have not commented on that video because it is a weak point in my end of the debate.

If Manning had stopped there, there would be no issue really. And if he had continued to send out glaringly obvious military errors/crimes, that would have been in his favor too. But he did not. He started to just grab whatever he could, copy it to a DVD and then send it out unread. Those are not the actions of a crime fighter, but the actions of a spy.

When I was reading about the Pentagon Papers it was McNamara who wanted a history of the Vietnam War with all the details, created so that Historians would record it right. His intent was to eventually give it to his friends among the Kennedys and at the Rand Corporation. Which would inevitibly end up in public publication. It was in a packet labeled Secret, but according to what I read it was not actually a high level classification.

http://en.wikipedia....Pentagon_Papers

MacNamara's autobiography "Fog Of War" was most interesting. I'll bet my last dollar that the papers released by Ellsberg would NEVER have been included in his little memento for historians and the Kennedy's. We will never know.

Again, your failure to have actually read Manning's recent statement to the court puts you at a disadvantage in this discussion. It turns out that Manning ATTEMPTED to release his material to Washington Post, but they were not interested. Further, WikiLeaks is very much an international organization. Your point there is absurd. You and Barack make this out to be an espionage case, and that is completely wrong.

Considering that you and I both took the same oath--to protect and defend the USC from enemies both foreign and domestic--you're in a real pickle here, having to defend the actions of a government committing blatant criminal acts. I do not envy you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Europe wanted to prevent the rise of HItler. But there were powerful world factions that supported Hitlet. I think these factions should be eliminated from world events, ... completely,... entirely,... and forever.

Well, it wasn't prevented because Europe didn't want to risk going to war. It didn't work out that way too.

Now, if something is preventable then yes, prevent it --- but sometimes, things aren't preventable, or what people/countries thought was the safest course of action didn't end up working out. At that point, you have no other choice but to deal with the situation that has arose. That's what happened with WWII. Regardless of whether in hindsight WWII could have been prevented, once Hitler started WWII, the only option was to either sit back and be conquered, or fight him. Did they make the wrong choice by fighting him, according to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Keep in mind that in WWII we were involved in a war declared in accordance with Constitutional provisions.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are involved in 2 cases of military aggression, illegal under international law.

Meanwhile, we recently learned that Pearl Harbor lost lives could have been prevented. The public should have been informed about the threat and allowed to react accordingly.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

MacNamara's autobiography "Fog Of War" was most interesting. I'll bet my last dollar that the papers released by Ellsberg would NEVER have been included in his little memento for historians and the Kennedy's. We will never know.

Again, your failure to have actually read Manning's recent statement to the court puts you at a disadvantage in this discussion. It turns out that Manning ATTEMPTED to release his material to Washington Post, but they were not interested. Further, WikiLeaks is very much an international organization. Your point there is absurd. You and Barack make this out to be an espionage case, and that is completely wrong.

Considering that you and I both took the same oath--to protect and defend the USC from enemies both foreign and domestic--you're in a real pickle here, having to defend the actions of a government committing blatant criminal acts. I do not envy you.

The only thing I've defended is the Right of the Government to keep secret documents that are of a damaging nature to our (non-criminal) interests. I've never defended a single criminal action. You on the other hand are defending an admitted criminal who has confessed to several crimes already. You are simply claiming that the Higher Ideals are more important then any national or military laws. That is not the Rule of Law, that is anarchy. The classic modern use of term Rule of Law is... No one is above the law. It does not mean... Only the US Constitution matters.

Thus, making a special case for Manning actually BREAKS the Rule of Law, as he would be getting special treatment outside the law. Thus, suggesting that Manning IS ABOVE THE LAW, because he was exposing some other crime.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Many Whistleblowers are going to prison these days while the crooks walk free. Thats the point. And its one not well received.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Whistleblowers are going to prison these days while the crooks walk free. Thats the point. And its one not well received.

Probably people who want to blow the Whistle, need to study the Whistleblower Law before the blow the Whistle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I've defended is the Right of the Government to keep secret documents that are of a damaging nature to our (non-criminal) interests. I've never defended a single criminal action. You on the other hand are defending an admitted criminal who has confessed to several crimes already. You are simply claiming that the Higher Ideals are more important then any national or military laws. That is not the Rule of Law, that is anarchy. The classic modern use of term Rule of Law is... No one is above the law. It does not mean... Only the US Constitution matters.

Thus, making a special case for Manning actually BREAKS the Rule of Law, as he would be getting special treatment outside the law. Thus, suggesting that Manning IS ABOVE THE LAW, because he was exposing some other crime.

I completely agree that the government has the right, and duty, to keep certain things secret, especially during war. No problem with that. But we are not at war, AND government greatly abuses that right. Reynolds v. U.S. is perhaps the most notorious and well documented example of government abusing that right, brazenly lying to the court and the public when it was not necessary. There are many thousands of examples of that.

Indeed, the documents released by Manning demonstrated that principle IN SPADES. The "classified" material was ridiculous. No need for that silliness to be classified, and that was pretty much the point of Robert Gates' comments on the Manning case.

In many attempts now, you have not been able to answer my simple question: Since when has it become a crime to expose the crimes of government? That is, how can it be wrong or illegal to expose government crimes?

As we both know DC, an honest answer to those questions means Manning should be decorated, not tortured and imprisoned.

Sad to say, our government has become the wicked evil empire that we used to call Russia and China and others. It's very sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In many attempts now, you have not been able to answer my simple question: Since when has it become a crime to expose the crimes of government? That is, how can it be wrong or illegal to expose government crimes?

It is wrong because... It is illegal. Simple. It may be heroic to expose miltary crimes, but if it is illegal be prepared to do the Time that comes with exposure of the crime.

As we both know DC, an honest answer to those questions means Manning should be decorated, not tortured and imprisoned.

Sad to say, our government has become the wicked evil empire that we used to call Russia and China and others. It's very sad.

I say we punish the various military criminals. But, Manning did not just publish documents that showed military or government crimes, now did he? What percentage of those documents showed criminal actions? 1%, 3%, 50%??? The answer is that it is a tremendously small number compared to what was stolen. That is that actions of a criminal, not someone interested in exposing crimes.

I've posted over and over that there is no way Manning could have read all those documents, so he had no way to know what he was sending out.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trial of Bradley Manning has begun...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57587330/bradley-manning-dumped-info-into-enemy-hands-prosecutor-says/

Manning, 25, has admitted turning over hundreds of thousands of documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, pleading guilty earlier this year to charges that could bring 20 years behind bars. But the military pressed ahead with a court-martial on more serious charges, including aiding the enemy, which carries a potential life sentence.

Prosecutors said they will present evidence that bin Laden requested and obtained from another al Qaeda member Afghanistan battlefield reports and State Department cables published by WikiLeaks.

"This is a case about a soldier who systematically harvested hundreds of thousands of documents from classified databases and then dumped that information onto the Internet into the hands of the enemy," prosecutor Capt. Joe Morrow said.

Manning's lawyers countered by arguing that he was a "young, naive but good-intentioned" soldier whose struggle to fit in as a gay man in the military made him feel he "needed to do something to make a difference in this world."

I think the military must have some evidence that is conclusive, otherwise they would have taken the 20 year guilty plea from earlier in the year and locked Manning up in Leavenworth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is wrong because... It is illegal. Simple. It may be heroic to expose miltary crimes, but if it is illegal be prepared to do the Time that comes with exposure of the crime.

I say we punish the various military criminals. But, Manning did not just publish documents that showed military or government crimes, now did he? What percentage of those documents showed criminal actions? 1%, 3%, 50%??? The answer is that it is a tremendously small number compared to what was stolen. That is that actions of a criminal, not someone interested in exposing crimes.

I've posted over and over that there is no way Manning could have read all those documents, so he had no way to know what he was sending out.

Your first claim--wrong because it's illegal--is incorrect.

But one example in US history is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That made it illegal to assist a slave in escaping from slavery.

Illegal, but wrong? No, not wrong.

With tortured reasoning like that, it's no wonder you don't understand what's at stake with Manning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope he has a comfy jail cell.

The man betrayed his position in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first claim--wrong because it's illegal--is incorrect.

But one example in US history is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That made it illegal to assist a slave in escaping from slavery.

Illegal, but wrong? No, not wrong.

With tortured reasoning like that, it's no wonder you don't understand what's at stake with Manning.

Well, I will admit that if ALL Manning did was expose criminal activity, they he would be a hero. But the FACT is that he sent out stuff that he had not screened, and had no idea what it was.

If you help an old lady across the street, that is honorable and to be commended, but even if you help that old lady across the street 20 times, if you push her into traffic even once, you are still a criminal. The "good" Manning did does not Automatically overide all the stupid he also did. And being stupid is no excuse as far as the Law is concerned.

One thing at stake with Manning is that every idiot with a grudge against the military will be able to cut and paste basically whatever they want and send it where ever they want. Which is no way to run a military or government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Europe wanted to prevent the rise of HItler. But there were powerful world factions that supported Hitlet. I think these factions should be eliminated from world events, ... completely,... entirely,... and forever.

Hitler was brought to power because he was a great public speaker. He was a brilliant Politician. He was able to convince nearly an entire population of a country that all their problems where not their fault but the fault of a specific group of people. He managed to brain wash the population of Germany in the 1930's. He turned Germany from one of the poorest nations into one of the richest nations in a matter of years during the great Depression. If it wasn't for the whole holocaust thing, and the second world war. He could of gone down as one of the greatest leaders in modern history. Luckily brave men and women where ready to do terrible things to stop him.

Now back on topic, I really hope that this man spends the majority of his life behind bars. A lot of you civilian's think that what he did wasn't that bad at all. From a military perspective what he did was put men and women's lives in harms way. Had he leaked just the Apache Video, or other evidence of illegal activity I can see showing him mercy. But what he did was leak hundreds of thousands of protected and classified files. Because he did it with out any care or worry for those in harms way that is why I believe he needs to be made an example of.

~Thanato

1 person likes this

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.