Bradley Manning

[Xemmy]

"Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was charged in July 2010 with the unauthorized disclosure of U.S. classified information. He is being held in "maximum custody" at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia. He is expected to face a pre-trial hearing in May 2011 to determine whether he should be court-martialled." - Wikipedia

Bradley Manning is the classic case of a whistleblower.

"According to the Washington Post, Lamo reported what Manning had told him to federal authorities, because he was concerned that lives were at risk. Lamo told Wired that he had given money to Wikileaks in the past, and that the decision to go to the authorities had not been an easy one: "I wouldn’t have done this if lives weren’t in danger. He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air." Wired writes that Lamo met Army CID investigators and the FBI at a Starbucks near his home in California, where he showed them the chat logs. He met them again on May 27, at which point they told him Manning had been arrested in Iraq the day before."- Wikipedia on his arrest.

These are his known restrictions according to firedoglake.com.

•Detained in his cell for 23 hours a day
•Guards must check on Manning every 5 minutes, and he must reply
•Not allowed to have a pillow or a blanket.
•Not allowed to sleep between 5am and 8pm, with heavy restrictions when he is allowed to sleep.
•Not allowed any substantive exercise.
•No communication allowed beyond a limited list approved by the brig commander. All other letters must be destroyed.
•Not allowed to watch national news.


For those that aren't aware, Wikileaks doesn't post classified information that risks lives. They don't out people undercover, or post other information that would actually endanger lives.

Manning is currently being held in heavy isolation. He is still awaiting trial. Many people have even called for him to be executed. So what are your thoughts?

Do You Agree with what Manning did?

Do you think his punishment is justified?

What is your stance on Wikileaks?

 

[El Rev sXe]

I think we had a similar thread a couple months ago, anyway...

Do You Agree with what Manning did?

Yeah, I agree with the whole wikileaks thing. A wise man once said, a good government doesn't need to keep anything as a secret. What Manning did was a very brave act. If this info could save lifes, I don't see why it could be wrong.

Do you think his punishment is justified?

Of course not,there are crimminals out there who are destroying the fucking planet and they are millionaires. Since Manning is taking something secret to light, unfortunely is something bad that is being done by the government. Obviously, this leaks aren't at all a benefit for the goverment.

What is your stance on Wikileaks?

Wikileaks has done something that not many people has the balls to do it, say the truth. Even if the truth hurts about your government, it is the truth and we have the right to know it. The wikileaks scandal is there because the US government knows that somethings could take away their credibility and therefore are saying horrible things about Julian Assange and his collaborators.

 

[Davi323]

Daniel Manning is guilty of committing treason. You can try to paint this anyway you like, but he stole classified information from the US Government, and distributed that stolen classified information to a foreign national. There is absolutely no getting around the fact that he committed a crime against the country he took an oath to defend when he enlisted. He isn't a hero. He is a traitor.

Calling him a whistleblower is complete bullshit, a pathetic attempt to somehow justify committing treason. He gave classified military intelligence to a foreign national.

 

[Xemmy]

Daniel Manning is guilty of committing treason. You can try to paint this anyway you like, but he stole classified information from the US Government, and distributed that stolen classified information to a foreign national. There is absolutely no getting around the fact that he committed a crime against the country he took an oath to defend when he enlisted. He isn't a hero. He is a traitor.

Calling him a whistleblower is complete bullshit, a pathetic attempt to somehow justify committing treason. He gave classified military intelligence to a foreign national.

Quite the blind patriot I see. Crime is merely the a breach of rules against some governing authority. You make it sound like he's commited pure treason against everyone in the United States. He hasn't. Some of us actually want to see this classified information. He's a traitor only to the United States Goverment. (A government I don't find too respectable at the moment.) If you follow the leadership of the U.S. blindly, then he's betrayed you too, I suppose.

I, on the other hand, want to see this information. I want to know what my government and military are doing behind closed doors. Because I don't trust them to do everything right. And I'm glad Manning did what he did.

 

[Davi323]

Quite the blind patriot I see. Crime is merely the a breach of rules against some governing authority. You make it sound like he's commited pure treason against everyone in the United States. He hasn't. Some of us actually want to see this classified information. He's a traitor only to the United States Goverment. (A government I don't find too respectable at the moment.) If you follow the leadership of the U.S. blindly, then he's betrayed you too, I suppose.

I, on the other hand, want to see this information. I want to know what my government and military are doing behind closed doors. Because I don't trust them to do everything right. And I'm glad Manning did what he did.

Blind Patriot? Hardly. But there is a difference between questioning the Government and committing crimes against it.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

He did commit treason. You are wrong when you stated that the information isn't going to get anybody killed. Among the documents he stole and gave to WikiLeaks were the names of hundreds of Afghan nationals who were helping the US defeat the Taliban. If any member of the Taliban were to see that list, those men and women would become instant targets for execution. He stole documents that directly relate to US military actions in a warzone.

Lets take a closer look at that definition, straight from the Constitution. There is absolutely no way you can argue that at the very least, stealing a quarter of a million classified documents and giving them to a foreign national, knowing they would be made available for public release isn't giving the enemy aid and comfort. I would argue that doing so in an active warzone constitutes levying war against the United States, but even if you refuse to go that far, there is no logical argument that can be made to claim that those documents couldn't be used to aid the enemy. Bradley Manning's actions fall within the US Legal definition of treason.

Further, you want to claim he is some noble whistleblower, and that is bullshit. He was getting revenge for having been demoted in rank, because he struck an officer. He wasn't doing it out of some selfless devotion to "fairness". He wasn't some employee of a company who was leaking damaging information to the legal authorities, that would be a whistleblower. He was a United States soldier who, in an effort to gain revenge for a demotion caused by his own lack of discipline, stole classified information and gave them to a foreign national. That is a big fucking deal. He didn't give the information to an American reporter, he gave it to a citizen of a foreign country whose goal is partially to bring about the destruction of the United States Government.

You may think that makes me a blind patriot, but your defense of Manning makes you nothing but a moral relativist. Its a convenient position to take, actually, because it means you don't actually have to have any real beliefs. You can defend any action you want that way can't you? It isn't wrong, I oppose the government, the government is the basis of the law, therefore laws are invalid...

If you want to know what the government and military are doing behind closed doors, get involved. Run for office. Join the military. Work your way up until you get to be one of those behind closed doors. Neither of those are crimes.

You are also incredibly naive if you think Governments have no business keeping secrets. Of course they do. If an Afghan national has information regarding a planned Taliban attack, and choose to give that information to the nearest US military station, do you think they should have the same right to privacy that an informant has to a police detective, or the same privacy that a journalist's source has? Or should that person's name be plastered everywhere for the Taliban to see, and put his life in danger? That is some of the information Manning stole. How is that different than protecting a journalistic source of information? If people can't be given confidentiality, they won't come forward with information.

What about the nuclear launch codes? Those are top secret. Should those be public knowledge as well? Or is it okay for the government to keep that secret, but not okay to keep the names of people who are assisting it?

Further, if WikiLeaks is all about openness, and exposing secrets, why do they spend so much time ensuring that their own secrets stay hidden? Why doesn't WikiLeaks publish a list of all of the people who have given them leaked information? Seems a tad dishonest to me...claiming you are all about exposing secrets, while keeping your own...

 

[Next Jericho]

Interesting thread and good thread here Xemnas.

Do You Agree with what Manning did?

I do not agree with what Manning did as telling on the government and country you swore to protect is a act off treason that deserves punishment. What I think Manning has done by giving this information out is do the one thing he wanted to stop and that is losing life's. Manning has costs life's because the United States Army will either have to read all off the classified information given and not use that or they will have to make a whole new war plan therefore giving the enemy a chance to either recover or attack an army base as a lot more solider's will be stationed their.

Do you think his punishment is justified?

I do kind off agree with his punishment for the simple fact that he has a high chance off costing alot off life's. But his punishment cannot be justified as he is a prisoner off war and needs to be treated with a little less restrictions for example he should be allowed a pillow and blanket at the very lest as prisoners who have done worst crimes then him are allowed these basics.

What is your stance on Wikileaks?

My thoughts on wikileaks are that I think they are just the news paper going after the government instead off what normal newspapers do which is go after celebrities so I personally think they are harmless unless the information is will actually cost life's.

 

[Xemmy]

Blind Patriot? Hardly. But there is a difference between questioning the Government and committing crimes against it.

Goodie Goodie. Love a good debate.

He did commit treason. You are wrong when you stated that the information isn't going to get anybody killed. Among the documents he stole and gave to WikiLeaks were the names of hundreds of Afghan nationals who were helping the US defeat the Taliban. If any member of the Taliban were to see that list, those men and women would become instant targets for execution. He stole documents that directly relate to US military actions in a warzone.

Link please. (I typed "Braddly Manning Afghan Nationals List" and all I get is crap- the second thing that comes up is this thread.)

And assuming this is true, it's a shame he didn't sell it to the Taliban. Could have made some money. Giving it to the enemy would have been great for revenge! Instead he gave it, along with the rest of the documents to Wikileaks, who do not post harmful information. And even if that's not the case, I doubt the Taliban are frequent vistors of Wikileaks. And your right, he did steal documents related to US military actions in a warzone. Some which would would point to war crimes under international law.

Lets take a closer look at that definition, straight from the Constitution. There is absolutely no way you can argue that at the very least, stealing a quarter of a million classified documents and giving them to a foreign national, knowing they would be made available for public release isn't giving the enemy aid and comfort. I would argue that doing so in an active warzone constitutes levying war against the United States, but even if you refuse to go that far, there is no logical argument that can be made to claim that those documents couldn't be used to aid the enemy. Bradley Manning's actions fall within the US Legal definition of treason.

Incase you missed it, I couldn't give less than a shit if what he did was legal or not. I know he falls under the legal definition. He would fall under the legal definition if all he did was take a bunch of war crime evidence.
I CAN and will argue that it isn't giving the enemy aid and comfort.

I have yet to see Wikileaks post anything that would be truly considered dangerous. The only thing Wikileaks AND Braddly Manning have hurt is reputation. Although, in some weird sense I guess you could say that helps the enemy, by making us look bad. Like the video he leaked. Have you seen it?

Further, you want to claim he is some noble whistleblower, and that is bullshit. He was getting revenge for having been demoted in rank, because he struck an officer. He wasn't doing it out of some selfless devotion to "fairness". He wasn't some employee of a company who was leaking damaging information to the legal authorities, that would be a whistleblower. He was a United States soldier who, in an effort to gain revenge for a demotion caused by his own lack of discipline, stole classified information and gave them to a foreign national. That is a big fucking deal. He didn't give the information to an American reporter, he gave it to a citizen of a foreign country whose goal is partially to bring about the destruction of the United States Government.

I don't care if he was noble or not. A whistleblower is a whistleblower. I have also yet to read about his demotion, lack of discipline (lack of conformity), and...Would you stop saying foreign national like it's an argument winner? Wikileaks is alot shorter. And what the fuck are you talking about? Partially to bring about the destruction of the United States? Do you watch Fox News or something?

Here. Watch this and read the top part. Then tell me how it puts the U.S in danger of anything other than loss of reputation.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

You may think that makes me a blind patriot, but your defense of Manning makes you nothing but a moral relativist. Its a convenient position to take, actually, because it means you don't actually have to have any real beliefs. You can defend any action you want that way can't you? It isn't wrong, I oppose the government, the government is the basis of the law, therefore laws are invalid...

Yes. I do think of you that way. My defense of Manning doesn't make me a moral relatvist.(Though I am to a degree).
My defense of Manning just means I don't believe everything I'm told. Any "real" beliefs? So I just have fake ones? Ok. Whatever you say.
The government is simply the highest standing of authority. But it isn't perfect, and it's laws aren't invalid because they effect people's lives. But that's the only thing that makes them valid. I don't look to my government for my morals, therefore, I consider their laws to be invalid, unless they agree with mine. It's a really weird and a little complicated. I like to be able to have my own world view.

If you want to know what the government and military are doing behind closed doors, get involved. Run for office. Join the military. Work your way up until you get to be one of those behind closed doors. Neither of those are crimes.

So if I want to inform myself I have to become apart of the bullshit? No thanks. Reading about it is much more easier. Lets me stay informed AND do what I want with my life. I get have my cake and eat it too. It's awesome!

You are also incredibly naive if you think Governments have no business keeping secrets. Of course they do. If an Afghan national has information regarding a planned Taliban attack, and choose to give that information to the nearest US military station, do you think they should have the same right to privacy that an informant has to a police detective, or the same privacy that a journalist's source has? Or should that person's name be plastered everywhere for the Taliban to see, and put his life in danger? That is some of the information Manning stole. How is that different than protecting a journalistic source of information? If people can't be given confidentiality, they won't come forward with information.

You're incredibly naive to think we can trust the government with keeping the right secrets.
Once again, Manning stole this information and gave it away to Wikileaks. And yet it isn't public! Why? Because Wikileaks themselves didn't release it. They're the middle man for more than just one reason you know. And I'd still like a link.

What about the nuclear launch codes? Those are top secret. Should those be public knowledge as well? Or is it okay for the government to keep that secret, but not okay to keep the names of people who are assisting it?

So you've got it in your head that I think that there should be no secrets? Ok. Whatever.

Further, if WikiLeaks is all about openness, and exposing secrets, why do they spend so much time ensuring that their own secrets stay hidden? Why doesn't WikiLeaks publish a list of all of the people who have given them leaked information? Seems a tad dishonest to me...claiming you are all about exposing secrets, while keeping your own...

Um, because they'll end up like Manning? It's not about exposing ALL secrets. It's about keeping the governments wrong doings in check. They're not perfect, and when they do something most people would consider wrong, it's probably not a good idea to let the just keep it amongst themselves.

Certain information shouldn't be withheld, but it is. Which is why you get things like this current war, or the Vietnam War.

 

[Davi323]

Goodie Goodie. Love a good debate.

Me too. Let me know when you are ready to have one.

Incase you missed it, I couldn't give less than a shit if what he did was legal or not. I know he falls under the legal definition. He would fall under the legal definition if all he did was take a bunch of war crime evidence.
I CAN and will argue that it isn't giving the enemy aid and comfort.

Which is it? You admit he falls into the legal definition, then deny that he fits one of the standards required to meet that same definition. Make up your mind.

And assuming this is true, it's a shame he didn't sell it to the Taliban. Could have made some money. Giving it to the enemy would have been great for revenge! Instead he gave it, along with the rest of the documents to Wikileaks, who do not post harmful information. And even if that's not the case, I doubt the Taliban are frequent vistors of Wikileaks. And your right, he did steal documents related to US military actions in a warzone. Some which would would point to war crimes under international law.

So now you advocate selling state secrets? You might want to rethink your claim that WikiLeaks doesn't post harmful information...see link later on in this post. Interesting though, that you claim they don't, then allow for it...as if you were caught in a corner, and trying to hedge your bets. If you truly believed that WikiLeaks doesn't post harmful information, you would not have needed to add the "And even if that's not the case", because you know they don't. Only reason to include that second half is if you aren't actually confident about what you are saying. The Taliban bit will be handy in the Newsweek link too...just keep reading.

You're incredibly naive to think we can trust the government with keeping the right secrets.

Who gets to decide which secrets are the "right" secrets to keep though? You? Don't make me laugh. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you, an 18 year old, who doesn't know shit from shinola, is a better judge of what secrets are necessary to ensure national security is maintained than the people who actually put themselves on the line? Your entire political experience probably comes from a single year's worth of civics classes you were forced to take in High School...but you know so much more about national security than they do.

Here is a link that mentions his demotion for striking an officer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060906170.html

You want a link about the Afghan nationals? This one not only establishes that he did leak the information I said he did, but also that the Taliban has begun its retaliation, kinda fucking up your "I doubt the Taliban even reads this" bullshit. Plus its from Newsweek, not exactly a haven of right wing blind loyalty.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html

Manning stole this information and gave it away to Wikileaks. And yet it isn't public! Why? Because Wikileaks themselves didn't release it. They're the middle man for more than just one reason you know.

You know why WikiLeaks didn't release it? I will tell you. Because they are attempting to use that information as blackmail against the US Government to force them to release Assange. Since I know you will want a link, I am happy to oblige...In addition to the links I provide, feel free to google "Assange poison pill" at your leisure.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-08/...ian-assange-wikileaks-key-encryption?_s=PM:US
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/intern...will_release_encrypted_TMdRdOm0JfvW4Z9rjWwLQO
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html

Would you stop saying foreign national like it's an argument winner?

I use the phrase "foreign national" because Julian Assange is an Australian operating in Sweden, not an American. He has never been an American citizen. He is a citizen of a foreign country. Why are you so disturbed that I use the proper adjective to describe him?

Um, because they'll end up like Manning?

Wait, so you are worried that they might end up being prosecuted for committing crimes against their country of citizenship? Where is the worry about the Afghani informants who are being threatened with their lives by the Taliban? At least Manning will be given a trial, in accordance with United States law. Will the Taliban show the same courtesy?

Certain information shouldn't be withheld, but it is. Which is why you get things like this current war, or the Vietnam War.

Thank you for proving you know jack shit about the causes of the Vietnam War. I majored in US History in college, and I took a semester long class specifically relating to the Vietnam War. The causes of the Vietnam War had nothing to do with bad information, and everything to do with two things: The French getting their asses handed to them by what was known as the Viet Minh, a Communist rebel group led by Ho Chi Minh, at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, combined with a two pronged strategy to deal with the Soviets, Containment and the Domino theory. That western countries felt they had to ensure that Communism could not spread beyond where it already was, (containment) and that if they took over one country in southern Asia, more would follow (Domino theory).

The US had allied with Ho Chi Minh during World War II, as he led a guerilla war against Japan, but after the war ended, he decided he wanted the French out too. As such, the US began providing military advisors to the French to help combat Ho Chi Minh. Then, after Vietnam had been split into two nations, Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the North began to wage war on the South, in an effort to unite them into one country, under Communist rule.

The causes of the Vietnam War are well known...if you insist on claiming that it was because of withheld information, I suggest you back it up with evidence. Because frankly, I suspect you were talking out of your ass, because you don't actually know a damned thing about the Vietnam War, and just wrote it because you thought it sounded good. What books about Vietnam have you read? What research have you done? I can tell you already. Zero. I could go on, but it is clear that you don't have the necessary background to even begin to form a counter argument, and its off topic anyway.

I find it really interesting though, that while you bitch about not trusting the government, you want to know what they are doing, that you are spending so much time concerning yourself with information that you claim is harmless. Shouldn't you be pursuing the really juicy stuff? If its harmless, then who gives a shit? Why are you so focused on learning harmless data?

 

[Xemmy]

Me too. Let me know when you are ready to have one.

No sportsmanship?

Which is it? You admit he falls into the legal definition, then deny that he fits one of the standards required to meet that same definition. Make up your mind.

Didn't bother reading your legal definition. My bad.
Reading it now, I'd say he doesn't fall under that defintion.

So now you advocate selling state secrets? You might want to rethink your claim that WikiLeaks doesn't post harmful information...see link later on in this post. Interesting though, that you claim they don't, then allow for it...as if you were caught in a corner, and trying to hedge your bets. If you truly believed that WikiLeaks doesn't post harmful information, you would not have needed to add the "And even if that's not the case", because you know they don't. Only reason to include that second half is if you aren't actually confident about what you are saying. The Taliban bit will be handy in the Newsweek link too...just keep reading.

No, I'm not advocating selling state secrets. I'm sarcastically pointing out that if he was really out for revenge, he'd be giving it actual enemies.
And I allow for it, because I know I'm not perfect and I could be wrong. It's my way of saying I'm not perfect. It's my way of making sure I don't make a total ass of myself. That's hardly a bad thing.

Who gets to decide which secrets are the "right" secrets to keep though? You? Don't make me laugh. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you, an 18 year old, who doesn't know shit from shinola, is a better judge of what secrets are necessary to ensure national security is maintained than the people who actually put themselves on the line? Your entire political experience probably comes from a single year's worth of civics classes you were forced to take in High School...but you know so much more about national security than they do.

I'm arrogant? While you're sitting on a mountain telling me that because I'm young, I shouldn't know certain things. The "right" secrets are pretty fucking obvious. It's not a hard line to draw. Don't out people undercover, or give away military codes. Things like killing innocent civilians are things that should be tossed out in the open.....and since you want to throw the question at me, Who the fuck are you to say that the Government should be left to it's own devices and be trusted to keep some secrets and release others?

Here is a link that mentions his demotion for striking an officer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060906170.html

Thank you. Although this really shits on your "revenge" theory. From the quotes, the young man he was "going to change things." XD

You want a link about the Afghan nationals? This one not only establishes that he did leak the information I said he did, but also that the Taliban has begun its retaliation, kinda fucking up your "I doubt the Taliban even reads this" bullshit. Plus its from Newsweek, not exactly a haven of right wing blind loyalty.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html

Fair enough. I'll submit on that. On one hand the information has gotten villages in Afghanistan in hot shit with the Taliban. On the other hand information was being withheld about the U.S's own crimes that Wikileaks released as well.
Ofcourse the article doesn't cite shit. "While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government." Doesn't help it either.

You know why WikiLeaks didn't release it? I will tell you. Because they are attempting to use that information as blackmail against the US Government to force them to release Assange. Since I know you will want a link, I am happy to oblige...In addition to the links I provide, feel free to google "Assange poison pill" at your leisure.

Ah. I was unaware the two were connected. I don't have a problem with it. It's an insurance policy.

I use the phrase "foreign national" because Julian Assange is an Australian operating in Sweden, not an American. He has never been an American citizen. He is a citizen of a foreign country. Why are you so disturbed that I use the proper adjective to describe him?

Because you're just using bullshit rhetoric. We both know what and who you're talking about so saying "foreign national" is pointless. The word "foreign" is used to give it that "us vs them" metality. We're talking about Wikileaks, and we're talking about Assange. Nuf' said.

Wait, so you are worried that they might end up being prosecuted for committing crimes against their country of citizenship? Where is the worry about the Afghani informants who are being threatened with their lives by the Taliban? At least Manning will be given a trial, in accordance with United States law. Will the Taliban show the same courtesy?

Yes. I'm worried. I want my classified information train to keep on rollin'. XD
Where is the worry about the Afghani informants? No where. No one's worried about them. Not even you. You care about your own country's people. Which is why you didn't bother with my link or even address it. But at least I'm being honest about it.

Thank you for proving you know jack shit about the causes of the Vietnam War.

I deleted the rest of that because it's a waste of space. Think before you jump on something. I didn't say that withheld information was the cause of the Vietnam war. I was refering the the Petagon papers and the controversy surrounding the war.

I find it really interesting though, that while you bitch about not trusting the government, you want to know what they are doing, that you are spending so much time concerning yourself with information that you claim is harmless. Shouldn't you be pursuing the really juicy stuff? If its harmless, then who gives a shit? Why are you so focused on learning harmless data?

I find it really interesting that you've picked some of the dumbest things to argue about. So far you've questioned my morality, brought up a couple of useless paragraphs on the Vietnam War, criticized Wikileaks, but ignored any and all faults with your own government implying that it should decided what information should and shouldn't be kept secret, and ignored several of my responses.

I've admited to being wrong on certain things. And I wish you would have to, but you won't. You questioned my morality in this debate and you're not acting like you're having fun. What's the point if we're not having fun?

 

[El Rev sXe]

Blind Patriot? Hardly. But there is a difference between questioning the Government and committing crimes against it.


He did commit treason. You are wrong when you stated that the information isn't going to get anybody killed. Among the documents he stole and gave to WikiLeaks were the names of hundreds of Afghan nationals who were helping the US defeat the Taliban. If any member of the Taliban were to see that list, those men and women would become instant targets for execution. He stole documents that directly relate to US military actions in a warzone.

Lets take a closer look at that definition, straight from the Constitution. There is absolutely no way you can argue that at the very least, stealing a quarter of a million classified documents and giving them to a foreign national, knowing they would be made available for public release isn't giving the enemy aid and comfort. I would argue that doing so in an active warzone constitutes levying war against the United States, but even if you refuse to go that far, there is no logical argument that can be made to claim that those documents couldn't be used to aid the enemy. Bradley Manning's actions fall within the US Legal definition of treason.

Further, you want to claim he is some noble whistleblower, and that is bullshit. He was getting revenge for having been demoted in rank, because he struck an officer. He wasn't doing it out of some selfless devotion to "fairness". He wasn't some employee of a company who was leaking damaging information to the legal authorities, that would be a whistleblower. He was a United States soldier who, in an effort to gain revenge for a demotion caused by his own lack of discipline, stole classified information and gave them to a foreign national. That is a big fucking deal. He didn't give the information to an American reporter, he gave it to a citizen of a foreign country whose goal is partially to bring about the destruction of the United States Government.

You may think that makes me a blind patriot, but your defense of Manning makes you nothing but a moral relativist. Its a convenient position to take, actually, because it means you don't actually have to have any real beliefs. You can defend any action you want that way can't you? It isn't wrong, I oppose the government, the government is the basis of the law, therefore laws are invalid...

If you want to know what the government and military are doing behind closed doors, get involved. Run for office. Join the military. Work your way up until you get to be one of those behind closed doors. Neither of those are crimes.

You are also incredibly naive if you think Governments have no business keeping secrets. Of course they do. If an Afghan national has information regarding a planned Taliban attack, and choose to give that information to the nearest US military station, do you think they should have the same right to privacy that an informant has to a police detective, or the same privacy that a journalist's source has? Or should that person's name be plastered everywhere for the Taliban to see, and put his life in danger? That is some of the information Manning stole. How is that different than protecting a journalistic source of information? If people can't be given confidentiality, they won't come forward with information.

What about the nuclear launch codes? Those are top secret. Should those be public knowledge as well? Or is it okay for the government to keep that secret, but not okay to keep the names of people who are assisting it?

Further, if WikiLeaks is all about openness, and exposing secrets, why do they spend so much time ensuring that their own secrets stay hidden? Why doesn't WikiLeaks publish a list of all of the people who have given them leaked information? Seems a tad dishonest to me...claiming you are all about exposing secrets, while keeping your own...

Ok, let me get this straight, if a government isn't perfect then you wouldn't say what is wrong because it's "illegal" or a "treason"?

Like I said before, a good government doesn't NEED to keep secrets to his people.

Who gets to decide which secrets are the "right" secrets to keep though? You? Don't make me laugh. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you, an 18 year old, who doesn't know shit from shinola, is a better judge of what secrets are necessary to ensure national security is maintained than the people who actually put themselves on the line? Your entire political experience probably comes from a single year's worth of civics classes you were forced to take in High School...but you know so much more about national security than they do.

I saw the last part and it got me angry. Look, there aren't good secrets. If it's a secret it's because there's something wrong, that's why you hide it. Secondly, Xemnas might be 18 years old, but that doesn't mean shit. I am 19 and I been in politics for many years, I see everyday people over 40's that are completely ignorants and thinks that everything a government does is completely right or wrong and follow everything a papernews says. In my country there are secrets that must be known about dictatorships but the goverment "for the sake of national security" doesn't do it.

It's unbelievable how there are people that thinks everything that their government does is right. There has been protest of the rest of the world in favor of Wikileaks. I've only saw anglo saxons against Wikileaks. Blind patriots. If someone prooves that my country is doing something wrong, I don't give a fuck if it's legal or "treason". We have the right to know.

 

[Davi323]

where have I stated that governments are infallible? Both you and Xemnas have accused me of it...so prove it. If you can prove that I stated that the government does no wrong, I will quit Wrestlezone forever. If you can't, You quit. Sound fair?

I actually can be extremely critical of the government, and have demonstrated that in numerous threads in the cigar lounge.

Anyone who thinks secrets aren't necessary is a political lightweight. Take that as an insult, or a statement of fact, I don't care. If you don't understand that basic principle, your view on how things really work is incredibly simplistic and childlike. When you join the real world, get a job, move out of mommy and daddy's, and all that, maybe you will understand. I am not advocating a shadow government, but stealing classified documents and then providing them to members of another country is not the right way to expose anything. And again, a 19 year old has all the answers? Knows exactly what good secrets and bad secrets are? Well, then maybe you should really become a politician, because you know better than everyone else! We should just listen to you, instead of anyone else, ever. Go to college, take some real political science classes, actually learn about some of this stuff, and then try to tell me that states shouldn't keep secrets.

 

[Davi323]

Apparently, the 30 minute edit window only lasts 20 minutes...

If we revealed all of our intelligence sources, such as Afghanis who are reporting the locations of insurgents, then they wouldn't be valuable intelligence sources any more...they would be dead. Yet, Xemnas claims outing people who are undercover shouldn't be done, while celebrating Bradley Manning's theft of documents that do exactly that!

If Xemnas truly believed what he was saying, he would be praising the video, while at the same time condemning Manning for the Afghan informant information. Yet, Xemnas has not done that. Even by Xemnas's own rules, Bradley Manning violated that code by providing the names of informants, but you won't see Xemnas admit that Manning shouldn't have released it. If Xemnas admits that Manning crossed the line between his mythical good/bad secrets boundary, then he has to admit that the Government is right in putting him on trial.

Good governments DO keep secrets. They have to. Its called national security. The FBI knows of a terrorist plot to detonate a nuclear device in a major city. They know they do not have the time to evacuate the city before the device is set to go off. While they have multiple teams searching for the device, there is no guarantee that they will get there in time. So, your choices are

1: Keep it secret, hope your guys find the device and can disarm it, while the public is kept ignorant, and continues about their daily lifes peacefully.

OR

2: you inform the public that a nuclear device might go off before they have a chance to get to safety, information that will no doubt cause panic, rioting, lead to violence, and even if your bomb crews can find the device and disarm it, the public has already been whipped into a panicked frenzy.

Which is the better option? Clearly, choice 1 is. You would choose not to tell the public about the nuclear device, because even with that knowledge, there is nothing they can do about it. You kept a secret to maintain law and order, because it was in the best interests of the citizens. Isn't that being a good government? It certainly is the better choice over a government causing mass hysteria, violence, rioting, etc. by revealing the truth. In principle, its the same thing as telling a 4 year old that the dog ran away, instead of telling them that you had it euthanized while they were at preschool because it was old and had cancer.

 

[falconsault]

I speak as someone in the military and I have to say that I would have turned Bradley in as well, while I might want to know what my government is up to, I realize that there is time for all things. Now while having the right to know is utterly important what Bradley Manning did was wrong and illegal for a few reasons really.

First, how did he get that information to Wikileaks? If it was electronically, he had to of done this through personal means. If somehow he did this on a government server there is a chance that the Taliban already knows exactly what it says. This also raises another question for me, how did the military not catch this if in fact he did it from a government server? Our servers are monitored for key words and such, I just don't see how classified documents could make it through the server without someone noticing, let alone an unclassified server. This would say to me that he did it through personal means or people in the Communication section should be held accountable as well. If it wasn't electronically then I've got nothing really.

Second, it's classified information for a reason, war crimes or not, now is not the time to be releasing classified information to any mass media network. The smart thing to have done would have been to wait until the troops were pulled out of the territory to release said information. It seems more often than not that our government and military will sleep on war crimes until said war is over. I'd like to think that once this war ends (which I know is a joke in its own right) that the people who have committed these crimes will be punished. It might not be something the general population ever hears about, people may think that it'll just be swept under the rug and some of it probably will be. By that I mean that people will be forced into retirement. However not everyone will be that lucky and some will be even luckier and not be tried at all. This kind of information has a time and a place, I feel that right now is not that time and place.

Third, there is a ban on Wikileaks with the U.S. military it is blocked to government computers and it has been made illegal to submit anything to Wikileaks as a member of the U.S. military. We have received numerous notifications that Wikileaks is off limits to U.S. military personnel, if Bradley isn't tried for treason he will be tried for disobeying a commanding officer and will more than likely face a dishonorable discharge after being removed of rank, fined, and imprisoned for however long they see fit.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) what he has done is considered an act of treason and during times of war, such as we're currently in, he can be punished by death. Do I think it will go that far? Not at all, but he is no prisoner of war as I saw someone say in this thread, and the military will treat him unfortunately however they see fit. Though I'm fairly certain that the no pillow and blanket thing is so that Bradley won't attempt suicide, which is probably why the guards have to check on him every five minutes as well.

I don't agree with what Bradley did, I don't agree with the way the military treats anyone to be honest, and I don't give two shits about wikileaks. I've never visited the site nor have I ever had any desire to do so, and this was well before the military banned it.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

I feel the problem here is the government keeps too many secrets from the general public to begin with. I don't know about some of you, but I sure as hell don't want to be a blind sheep in the grand scheme of things.

While I don't know enough about the situation to delve too deep into it, I'm sure most/none of you guys do either; because, believe it or not, I bet the government is keeping what they are really doing a secret from the general public.

The conditions he's being kept in sound like torture to me, and if that's the information they are releasing that I'm sure it's actually a far worse situation for Bradly, and while I may not agree with the way he went about releasing the secrets, I'm not really opposed to them being released. I feel the government has FAR to much power to begin with, and have no problem ABUSING that power when ever they see fit.

Davi brought up the "Nuke" situation, now I understand where he is coming from with the whose mass panic/mass hysteria, and no doubt that's a probable outcome; but I don't want to be left in the dark, I don't want some dude in the Pentagon knowing that I'm going to die in ten minutes, when I'm being left in the dark. I want time to say goodbye to family and friends, If I'm going to die, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW. Most likely the information would leak anyways (ironic, I know), especially with an event that could in theory, end the world.

All in all, the government needs to be shaken up every once in a while, to let them know that they're not the all powerful beings they seem to think they are, and even a little military pon can turn your system upside down. This is the people county, not the governments, and that's something they need to remember; and if a situation like this is what it takes, then so be it - at the end of the day though, do these wiki leaks actually make a difference, does or has anything changed? Will anything change? These are the questions I'm waiting to see answered.

 

[Xemmy]

where have I stated that governments are infallible? Both you and Xemnas have accused me of it...so prove it. If you can prove that I stated that the government does no wrong, I will quit Wrestlezone forever. If you can't, You quit. Sound fair?

I actually can be extremely critical of the government, and have demonstrated that in numerous threads in the cigar lounge.

Anyone who thinks secrets aren't necessary is a political lightweight. Take that as an insult, or a statement of fact, I don't care. If you don't understand that basic principle, your view on how things really work is incredibly simplistic and childlike. When you join the real world, get a job, move out of mommy and daddy's, and all that, maybe you will understand. I am not advocating a shadow government, but stealing classified documents and then providing them to members of another country is not the right way to expose anything. And again, a 19 year old has all the answers? Knows exactly what good secrets and bad secrets are? Well, then maybe you should really become a politician, because you know better than everyone else! We should just listen to you, instead of anyone else, ever. Go to college, take some real political science classes, actually learn about some of this stuff, and then try to tell me that states shouldn't keep secrets.

I don't know about Rev, but I never stated that you directly said that government was infallible. I did say that your position implied it. I will agree with you that secrets do need to be kept. Anyone who thinks that they shouldn't is kind of stupid.

However, I am sick of you attacking our age like it's an argument. I'm in college and I've got a job. I think I deserve a little more respect than your giving me. And when you're done insulting me and making an ass of yourself because you think you know better because you're in your 30s or something, I'll continue this conversation. You criticize me for drawing a line at which secrets are good and which are bad, but you'd draw the same fucking line. You think you know better than we do. So with that in mind, fuck off hypocrite.

 

[LSN80]

I'm going to come to Manning's defense here.

The majority of those that see Manning as a traitor live under the assumption that our government must keep extensive secrets. This doesnt just apply to things such as troop locations or the manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction. There's also the idea that there should be broad discretion in government secrecy over information. This ranges from trivial, mundane details, to intentional, governmental acts of evil and wrongdoing.

Many of these people, at least in theory, forget the government works for the people who pay them. It's the taxpayer's money that's being used to fund the things our government is taking part. As such, we have the right to know what said funds are being used for. We would not accept a business deal or transaction in which we hand over our money to a handyman, a banker, or a wedding planner for services, who took the money, did whatever they felt like with it, with no guarantee of doing a good job, would we? Would we allow them to refuse to inform us of what precisely they were spending our funds on? Neither should we accept such a deal from the government.

Let's not forget what he leaked, either. Basically, his "wikileak" was that of exposing gruesome government atrocities. Manning leaked a video depicting American soldiers in a helicopter executing journalists and Iraqi civilians video game-style. In the video, the shooters spot a small group of journalists and Iraqis walking casually, unaware they are being watched, and execute them. I feel he was mostly justified here. Rather then viewing his actions as traitorous, I think they should be viewed as necessary, honestly.

Regarding his punishment, it's hard for me to justify how anyone could find justification in it. Last time I checked, the eighth amendment to the US constitution prohibits the government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments. Why? Because excessive punishments or cruelty of this nature is immoral, and degrades human dignity.

As for Wikileaks, it all depends on the situation. It is one thing to blow the whistle if an injustice has happened(such as in Manning's case). It is quite another case to leak confidential materials that involves strategy, diplomacy, war tactics and on-the-ground actions of our troops, unless they are cruel and inhumane. Brave young American men and women are dying in Afghanistan and other countries, so in those cases, their parents, spouses, and siblings have the right to know whether their sacrifices are in vain. In the case of Wikileaks, you have to take it on a case to case basis, as there is no true "answer" by which you can shoebox these into. But in Manning's case, I find what he did to be justified, and his punishment to be monstrous.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

How can you quote that section of the Constitution in YOUR OWN post and then claim that what he did falls under the definition of treason? He didn't levy war against the United Stated, he didn't adhere to his enemies, nor did he give them aid and comfort, there aren't any witnesses willing to testify in court, and he didn't confess.

Nothing he did even remotely falls under the crime of treason.

He may have released classified documents to the general public via Wikileaks, but the punishment for that shouldn't even come NEAR complete isolation and the possibility of the death penalty.

 

[Davi323]

Mozz, as a soldier who sworw an oath to his country, he knowingly gave classified information during a time of war, that directly related to that war, to a person who he knew would make that classified information available to those at war with the United States. How is that not providing aid the enemy?

Xemnas, its not your age directly, its the fact that at your age you couldn't possibly have enough experience about the real world. I have a Bachelors degree specifically in US History, and I minored in Political Science. I have studied far more about the Government, the causes of specific wars etc than you could possibly match. That doesn't mean you are stupid, it just means you don't have the same level of experience in it.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Mozz, as a soldier who sworw an oath to his country, he knowingly gave classified information during a time of war, that directly related to that war, to a person who he knew would make that classified information available to those at war with the United States. How is that not providing aid the enemy?

Except any court could prove that his intention was to provide the American people with information they should have known from the get-go. It doesn't matter what YOU personally believe constitutes treason. The fact of the matter is, nothing he did legally constitutes that charge.

Xemnas, its not your age directly, its the fact that at your age you couldn't possibly have enough experience about the real world. I have a Bachelors degree specifically in US History, and I minored in Political Science. I have studied far more about the Government, the causes of specific wars etc than you could possibly match. That doesn't mean you are stupid, it just means you don't have the same level of experience in it.

Xemnas, I'll go ahead and take this one.

You could have a Doctorate in History and Political Science, but your arguments on this forum prove your complete and utter lack of understanding of the workings of this government, its laws, and international affairs.

 

[Davi323]

If his intention was to inform the AMERICAN public, why didn't he contact an AMERICAN journalist? Surely the amount of American citizens who read the newspaper or watch American news programs (well, except those on MSNBC) dwarfs the number of people who follow WikiLeaks. And you can't pretend it isn't treason just because you don't want it to be either. The Law is the law. He swore an oath, he violated that oath, he broke not only American civil law but military law, and that won't change just because you want to pretend otherwise.

You could have a Doctorate in History and Political Science, but your arguments on this forum prove your complete and utter lack of understanding of the workings of this government, its laws, and international affairs.

That must be why the US Government IS holding him then, as I believe they should. Really, if my understanding of the workings of US government is so far out of whack, and yours are so far in step, why are they doing what I believe they should be doing, instead of doing what you think they should be doing? If breaking federal laws because your "conscience" tells you to is a valid excuse, why is he being held?

Manning took an oath, violated that oath, broke the law, is being detained because he broke the law, and I stated that the Government was within its rights to do so, and they are doing it. How is that displaying a lack of understanding about how the government works, exactly? Seems to me that it demonstrates a better understanding of the government...since that is exactly what they are doing. How does agreeing with the government that he broke the law displaying my ignorance at the law? Is the government ignorant of its own laws on stealing classified information, and this is all some misunderstanding? Do you know the laws pertaining to classified documents more than the US military that is in charge of those classified documents? We have a bunch of legal scholars here! You guys should fucking run this country, you have all the answers!

Sorry. When it comes to knowing the federal and military laws regarding the theft of classified information, I am gonna believe that the federal government and military know their own laws a little more deeply than you do. Who is going to know more about whether military rules get broken than the military? Not you.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

If his intention was to inform the AMERICAN public, why didn't he contact an AMERICAN journalist? Surely the amount of American citizens who read the newspaper or watch American news programs (well, except those on MSNBC) dwarfs the number of people who follow WikiLeaks. And you can't pretend it isn't treason just because you don't want it to be either. The Law is the law. He swore an oath, he violated that oath, he broke not only American civil law but military law, and that won't change just because you want to pretend otherwise.

Okay, you're clearly not reading anything I'm writing. I didn't call it not treason because I wanted to. I called it not-treason, and laid out valid reasoning as to why I believe that -- something you've yet to do.

Also, he contacted a source that was known for publicizing classified documents. Nobody in the media would have published any of the leaks. The fact that Assange isn't American is completely irrelevant.

That must be why the US Government IS holding him then, as I believe they should. Really, if my understanding of the workings of US government is so far out of whack, and yours are so far in step, why are they doing what I believe they should be doing, instead of doing what you think they should be doing? If breaking federal laws because your "conscience" tells you to is a valid excuse, why is he being held?

Well, I'm inclined to believe that YOU think it's right BECAUSE they're doing it, not the other way around. I also believe that the American government is grasping at straws to charge this kid with something simply because some of their crimes have been revealed to the public, and they want a scapegoat.

Manning took an oath, violated that oath, broke the law, is being detained because he broke the law, and I stated that the Government was within its rights to do so, and they are doing it. How is that displaying a lack of understanding about how the government works, exactly? Seems to me that it demonstrates a better understanding of the government...since that is exactly what they are doing. How does agreeing with the government that he broke the law displaying my ignorance at the law? Is the government ignorant of its own laws on stealing classified information, and this is all some misunderstanding? Do you know the laws pertaining to classified documents more than the US military that is in charge of those classified documents? We have a bunch of legal scholars here! You guys should fucking run this country, you have all the answers!

I never said he shouldn't be punished for breaking his oath. I said he shouldn't be charged with Treason, which has a far more cruel punishment than anything he SHOULD be charged with.

Sorry. When it comes to knowing the federal and military laws regarding the theft of classified information, I am gonna believe that the federal government and military know their own laws a little more deeply than you do. Who is going to know more about whether military rules get broken than the military? Not you.

Okay? I'm sure they do. But I know for a fact that what he did wasn't treason. Period.

 

[Davi323]

Something I have yet to do? Seriously? Now you are just fucking lying. I have not only explained why it should be considered treason, provided the exact wording in the US Constitution that relates to it, but I actually provided a link to a Newsweek article detailing how it aided the enemy, by providing them with the names of Afghanis who gave information to the US government...Seriously, Mozz. If you are going to claim I haven't proved anything to back up my claims, make sure I haven't. Because otherwise, I am going to continue to call you out for the bullshit. Go on. Keep accusing me of not providing any evidence, because all I have to do is refer back to my previous posts to prove you wrong.

Yeah, I am only agreeing with the Government because they are doing it, because I am a sheep, who won't criticize the government for anything...certainly not for the myriad of things I do criticize the government for...the evidence of which is contained in other cigar lounge threads. I guess I was conservative for the 8 years Bush was in office, and a liberal now, since I only believe what the Government tells me to. Since Obama is President, I must agree with him, right? Because I can't think for myself?

Grasping at straws? Okay, I was going to humor you, but this is getting fucking ridiculous. Only in your fucked up little world view is charging someone with the theft of 250,000 classified documents "grasping at straws". Manning fucking BRAGGED about it. He did it, I don't see anyone arguing that he didn't, and he got caught doing it. Grasping at straws?

You know for a fact? No. You think as an opinion. It is quite ironic, that I provide actual evidence, yet you claim I have not, then you present nothing more than opinion as stone cold fact.

 

[falconsault]

Except any court could prove that his intention was to provide the American people with information they should have known from the get-go.

Just a quick little post here. A military court doesn't care about what his intention was. He's not going to be facing civilian charges more than likely until he's been released from the military charges. Not saying I know everything about what's going on with Mr. Manning but what I stated before that he's going to end up locked up for a while before being dishonorably discharged is what will more than likely happen. I can see the U.S. military trying to make an example out of him, it isn't right, but unfortunately it's what will most likely happen.

What he did falls under the UCMJ and it would actually fall under Article 106a Espionage if they are going to try to charge him with anything other than Article 92 Failure to obey order or regulation. Then again I've not read anything about what the court-martial is going to try him for but giving the circumstances I feel very doubtful that he'll actually receive a fair trail and will be made an example of.

 

[Arkham Noir]

I can see the U.S. military trying to make an example out of him

Finally someone said it.

Whether or not the documents he released will have any significant effect on the country as a whole is irelevant. If they only give him a slap on the wrist, who is to say that next time he doesn't release something that could endanger the entire country? He released classified information and the government needs to make it clear that this kind of shit is unacceptable.