Bradley Manning court testimony leaked

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

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

Not going to argue semantics with you.

Think of it like this:

Congress authorising the use of military force is like them loading the gun.

The president is the guy who decides who gets shot.

[Babe Ruth]

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....

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

Egads what an ignorant statement. It appears highly likely that you did not take the time to read Manning's published statement he read to the court. In it he clearly explained his motivations--exposing the crimes of his government. I thank him for it.

So, obviously, he DID NOT do it to a private company. He did it to a criminal organization that has duped you to the point that 11 years on you are still not aware of having been duped.

[Babe Ruth]

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.

Of course it does not matter to you. That is rather the point--the rule of law and good governance do not matter to you, and about half the electorate, at all. It is illustrative of why we have the government we deserve.

To those who understand what the rule of law actually means, what the Constitution and good citizenship demand, it DOES matter.

[+DieChecker]

Egads what an ignorant statement. It appears highly likely that you did not take the time to read Manning's published statement he read to the court. In it he clearly explained his motivations--exposing the crimes of his government. I thank him for it.

So, obviously, he DID NOT do it to a private company. He did it to a criminal organization that has duped you to the point that 11 years on you are still not aware of having been duped.

I don't need to read Mannings statement. It is irrelivant. Committing 750000 crimes to expose perhaps a couple hundred others should speak for itself. If there was a child mollester teaching in a school is it OK to ruin the careers of All the teachers working there? His actions go far beyond what was necessary. If someone busts into a courtroom and kills a murder, is he absolved of the 12 guards he had to kill to do so? A handful of good deeds should not excuse even one additional criminal act.

[+DieChecker]

Of course it does not matter to you. That is rather the point--the rule of law and good governance do not matter to you, and about half the electorate, at all. It is illustrative of why we have the government we deserve.

To those who understand what the rule of law actually means, what the Constitution and good citizenship demand, it DOES matter.

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.

Where is the good governance? Manning skipped the government entirely...

Edited March 17, 2013 by DieChecker

[ninjadude]

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.

[preacherman76]

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.

[questionmark]

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?

[Babe Ruth]

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?

[preacherman76]

Did not?

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.

[questionmark]

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.

[preacherman76]

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.

[questionmark]

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.

[+DieChecker]

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....

[+DieChecker]

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....

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://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/03/fpf-publishes-leaked-audio-of-bradley-mannings-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??

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?

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...

[Babe Ruth]

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.

[Babe Ruth]

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 March 17, 2013 by Babe Ruth

[+DieChecker]

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 March 18, 2013 by DieChecker

[Silver Surfer]

Maybe this thread needs a poll, hero/zero lol

[Babe Ruth]

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.

[+DieChecker]

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.

So how would you explain reading 750000 documents? If he read one a second, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week that would be 5 weeks of reading. If he took 1 minute for each document (check how long it takes to read this post) then he needs 60 times as long... 300 weeks... 6 years... of doing NOTHING ELSE but reading. Do you really beleive he did that monumental task? If so, then he is superhuman, and.... he would have been unable to perform his military functions, which take 8 hours of his day.

Well sir, I happen to have served in a Brigade level HQ unit in Germany (2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division in Baumholder Germany, with the Engineering Battallon) in the mid 1990s, and the quality of the intellegence enlisted analysts in my opinon seems about the same... poor. Spc Manning did not require a college education to be a intellegence analyst. Indeed, he probably did not analyse anything. He most likely just took reports, collated paperwork and handed off the data to the Officers, who DO THE ANALYSIS. Your insisting that he is super smart and super trained, due to an assumption based on his duty station, is a statement of ignorance. Indeed it is public knowledge he failed out of college his first semester. Who would you want doing your analysis... A hyper emotional, mentally unstable college dropout or an officer with specific analysis training and a Bachelors degree at a minimum? Manning was a driver, coffee boy and secretary... I know because that is what I did in his same Spc position, but working for the Engineers.

So what is the more logical answer, that Manning sent out documents unread, or that he is some kind of savant hyper-reading genius?

EDIT: I read this kind of slow and it took me 1:26. Probably reading fast this post could be read in about a minute...

http://www.online-stopwatch.com/

Edited March 18, 2013 by DieChecker

[Babe Ruth]

So how would you explain reading 750000 documents? If he read one a second, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week that would be 5 weeks of reading. If he took 1 minute for each document (check how long it takes to read this post) then he needs 60 times as long... 300 weeks... 6 years... of doing NOTHING ELSE but reading. Do you really beleive he did that monumental task? If so, then he is superhuman, and.... he would have been unable to perform his military functions, which take 8 hours of his day.

Well sir, I happen to have served in a Brigade level HQ unit in Germany (2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division in Baumholder Germany, with the Engineering Battallon) in the mid 1990s, and the quality of the intellegence enlisted analysts in my opinon seems about the same... poor. Spc Manning did not require a college education to be a intellegence analyst. Indeed, he probably did not analyse anything. He most likely just took reports, collated paperwork and handed off the data to the Officers, who DO THE ANALYSIS. Your insisting that he is super smart and super trained, due to an assumption based on his duty station, is a statement of ignorance. Indeed it is public knowledge he failed out of college his first semester. Who would you want doing your analysis... A hyper emotional, mentally unstable college dropout or an officer with specific analysis training and a Bachelors degree at a minimum? Manning was a driver, coffee boy and secretary... I know because that is what I did in his same Spc position, but working for the Engineers.

So what is the more logical answer, that Manning sent out documents unread, or that he is some kind of savant hyper-reading genius?

EDIT: I read this kind of slow and it took me 1:26. Probably reading fast this post could be read in about a minute...

http://www.online-stopwatch.com/

Point well taken DC. No sir, Manning did not read, could not have read everything he released. So what is your point, exactly?

Gates, SecDef, already stated in public that whatever Manning released harmed nobody. Nobody died from what was released, but a whole lotta people had egg on their faces, and crimes and hypocrisy were revealed.

You go ahead and take the government side DC, I'm ashamed of my government.

[+DieChecker]

Just saying, in my opinion, he is not a hero, but a traitor. Just my opinion though.

Point well taken DC. No sir, Manning did not read, could not have read everything he released. So what is your point, exactly?

Gates, SecDef, already stated in public that whatever Manning released harmed nobody. Nobody died from what was released, but a whole lotta people had egg on their faces, and crimes and hypocrisy were revealed.

You go ahead and take the government side DC, I'm ashamed of my government.

To my point of view, I am supporting Law and Order. He broke the law, in many ways, and there is a lot of evidence of that, so he will now have to do the time. I just feel he had many, many other options then the way he chose to go, all options that would have not landed him in 20 years of jail. Maybe a discharge, or maybe time served, or maybe nothing, but a lot less then 20 years (20 years being the estimate of what he has already pled guilty to).

The fact that little of any worth was released actually speaks to the fact he had no idea what he was sending out, don't you think? If he'd sent out real "super criminal activity" stuff, don't you think there would have been some real, international repercussions?

What exactly did he seek to expose with the 250000 documents of Cablegate? What did he plan to expose with Iraq War Logsand Afghan War Logs? Did he have any Plan? Did he have any targets? Or, was he just tossing out documents willy nilly, and hoping that some stuck and exonerated him to history?

Actually Wikileaks has said that they have not published all the Afghan and Iraq documents, because there are many (15,000 from Afghanistan) that even they deemed too sensitive to publish right now. That speaks to Manning actually sending out much. much worse material then has been published.

As of 28 July 2010, only 75,000 of the documents (of 91,731) have been released to the public, a move which Wikileaks says is "part of a harm minimization process demanded by [the] source".

Edited March 19, 2013 by DieChecker

[AsteroidX]

................

Edited March 19, 2013 by AsteroidX

[Babe Ruth]

DC

With all due respect sir, you don't have a clue what law and order is.

Among other things, law and order means that the government and its agents obey the law. For example, they uphold their oath of office, and govern in accordance with the law.

Both invasions, Afghan and Iraq, were brought under fraud. They are, by definition, military aggression. That is illegal.

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.

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.

Keep in mind that the Pentagon Papers of my generation were all TOP SECRET papers. And after all the smoke cleared, Congress found that those papers revealed, among other things, "the purposeful witholding and distortion of facts." I was not comfortable with that then, and I'm sure not comfortable with it now.

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

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.

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

Edited March 19, 2013 by Babe Ruth