HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bradley Manning is a true...

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:54 PM

Bradley Manning is a true American hero.

Bradley Manning is a true American hero. Thousands of soldiers consider themselves heroes just for enlisting and taking a tour overseas, claiming they are protecting Americans when really they are running our name through the mud and murdering thousands of foreigns civilians in an illegal war. Bradley Manning actually earned his "hero" status but doing what was right. He did not "aid the enemy" unless the American people are the enemy because he gave us the knowledge of what was actually going on over there. Good luck man. We are praying for you. My children will know your name.


unfortunately, this is from Russia Today
http://rt.com/usa/manning-sentence-wikileaks-assange-626/

93 replies, 7355 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 93 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bradley Manning is a true American hero. (Original post)
kpete Mar 2013 OP
mike_c Mar 2013 #1
customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #2
morningfog Mar 2013 #4
customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #5
morningfog Mar 2013 #6
MessiahRp Mar 2013 #71
Smilo Mar 2013 #76
datasuspect Mar 2013 #9
customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #12
LTR Mar 2013 #11
Cha Mar 2013 #16
customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #17
white_wolf Mar 2013 #20
brooklynite Mar 2013 #29
white_wolf Mar 2013 #46
brooklynite Mar 2013 #59
white_wolf Mar 2013 #60
brooklynite Mar 2013 #61
alarimer Mar 2013 #72
brooklynite Mar 2013 #74
customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #92
MNBrewer Mar 2013 #22
customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #93
think Mar 2013 #32
doc03 Mar 2013 #37
upi402 Mar 2013 #3
Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #7
Peregrine Mar 2013 #8
datasuspect Mar 2013 #10
Blue Palasky Mar 2013 #18
MNBrewer Mar 2013 #23
think Mar 2013 #38
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #39
cascadiance Mar 2013 #62
bvar22 Mar 2013 #13
MoreGOPoop Mar 2013 #14
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #51
vanlassie Mar 2013 #75
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #79
vanlassie Mar 2013 #84
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #89
vanlassie Mar 2013 #90
reorg Mar 2013 #15
RudynJack Mar 2013 #25
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #40
reorg Mar 2013 #52
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #73
noise Mar 2013 #86
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #88
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #19
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #21
MNBrewer Mar 2013 #24
RudynJack Mar 2013 #27
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #31
RudynJack Mar 2013 #33
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #35
Whats_that Mar 2013 #67
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #41
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #49
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #56
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #64
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #68
RudynJack Mar 2013 #70
think Mar 2013 #43
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #45
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #47
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #48
vanlassie Mar 2013 #77
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #81
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #78
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #80
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #83
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #87
RudynJack Mar 2013 #26
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #28
RudynJack Mar 2013 #34
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply ?
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #36
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #42
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #82
ronnie624 Mar 2013 #85
gulliver Mar 2013 #30
Cha Mar 2013 #57
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #44
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #50
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #54
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #55
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #58
brooklynite Mar 2013 #63
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #66
MNBrewer Mar 2013 #65
Number23 Mar 2013 #91
Ola. Mar 2013 #53
freshwest Mar 2013 #69

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:55 PM

1. agreed, 100 percent....

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:00 PM

2. Would you feel the same way

about someone who gave away a lot of your secrets?

He was tasked with doing a job, and he went against the terms and conditions of his employment. He's not a Daniel Ellsberg 'journalist', he had a duty to keep his employer's business private, no matter what it entailed.

That's not a hero in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:00 PM

4. He recognized a greater duty. And I thank him for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:07 PM

5. In the end, history will be his judge, I guess

Right now, the military (and many Americans) think he's simply a traitor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:08 PM

6. Of course the military thinks he's a traitor. He exposed them for the murderous

corrupt thugs they are.

"Many Americans" doesn't mean much at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 06:34 PM

71. "Many Americans" can be fooled very easily.

The media is complicit and the two decade assault on education is also to blame.

"Many Americans" believed Iraq had WMDs.
"Many Americans" agreed with Bush's illegal wiretapping program.
"Many Americans" voted for Bush and McCain and Romney.

Many Americans are idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #71)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:37 AM

76. Correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:36 PM

9. depends on if what i was doing was evil

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:45 PM

12. No, it just depends

on what that individual thought you were doing was evil. History would be his judge, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:39 PM

11. I thought I was the only one here that thinks Manning is an idiot

Anyone with half a brain knows that if you're working with top secret military data and decide to leak, distribute, steal or sell it,, they will lock you up and throw away the key. That is something that should just not be done. Because of the leaks, there were suddenly foreign sources who had to fear for their lives. It also threatened to harm American soldiers. And undo a lot of diplomatic work that would just make things worse for the U.S.

War is dirty and ugly. No argument there. And it leads to some very horrific acts. Madness begets madness. And every country has secrets. And they have spies. That's a necessary evil. Every cointry gets their hands dirty once in a while.

Manning was wrong to do what he did. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? He knew what was coming, regardless of what kinds of mental issues he has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTR (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:41 PM

16. No, you're not the only one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTR (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 10:11 PM

17. While I was willing to argue the point

that Manning was not an idiot, he did piss off Hillary Clinton. And the way things look, she's about to be our next President. It's not going to go well for him.

Yeah, he's an idiot. But like I said, history will judge. If the African-American side had not won the battles in the 1960's, then MLK would have gone down in history with J. Edgar Hoover's description of him. As they say, it's the victors that write the history books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:03 AM

20. Oh please Hillary will not be president. At least I hope not.

I'm not sure this country can survive 4 more years of right-wing DLC "Centristism."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:13 AM

29. So, Barack Obama is a DLC Centrist?

Out of curiosity, which "real" candidates for President (Alan Grayson won't be running; neither will Elizabeth Warren) will meet your standards for political purity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:45 PM

46. Yes he is.

And Alan Grayson would be great. Dennis Kucinich would have been perfect for the office. Bernie Sanders would be great as well. I want someone who isn't on the side of the wealthy for a change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:49 PM

59. So, then, not voting for anyone in the Democratic Primary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #59)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:50 PM

60. if they don't have anyone who isn't owned by Wall Street, then no.

However, I hope that they will at least have one candidate worth voting for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #60)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:57 PM

61. So, my vote will have more influence than yours...thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 06:44 PM

72. Actually, he's an old-school Republican

Like the type you used to see in New England (and maybe still do in some cases).

He's isn't even DLC; he's worse than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:25 PM

74. President Obama put through tax increase on me and the rest of the 1%...

DEFINITELY "New England Republican".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:00 PM

92. If she announces that she wants the nomination

she clears the field, with the possible exception of Joe Biden, who she beats like a rented mule in Iowa. And while the reich wing, motivated by both eight years of Obama and their deep abiding hate for Hillary will have an incredible incentive to finally unite, right now they don't have anyone who really tickles their fancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 10:48 AM

22. Some secrets need to be revealed.

He did absolutely no damage to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:04 PM

93. I'm certain

that people who have helped the US have been tortured and/or killed over his revalations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:19 AM

32. Some of the secrets should not have been so

When the govt thinks that anything can be a secret democracy suffers.

For that I am glad Manning brought crimes and wrong doings into a public light.

From what I gather he tried to use other channels and the MSM chose to protect the state over the rights of the American people to know what it's govt is doing. Basically the MSM is bought and owned by powerful people who don't give a fuck about the laws ,honesty, the truth, or the American people and will use the powerful media they control to create the propaganda necessary to achieve their goals.

Manning says he first tried to leak to Washington Post and New York Times
Soldier reads 35-page personal statement revealing how he came to leak information to WikiLeaks after failing elsewhere

Ed Pilkington at Fort Meade
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 February 2013 13.12 EST



Bradley Manning steps out of a security vehicle as he is escorted into a courthouse for a pre-trial hearing in Fort Meade, Maryland. Manning is charged with aiding the enemy by causing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to be published on the secret-sharing website WikiLeaks.
Bradley Manning said he only went to WikiLeaks after being rebuffed by US news organisations. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

Bradley Manning has revealed to his court-martial at Fort Meade, Maryland, that he tried to leak US state secrets to the Washington Post, New York Times and Politico before he turned in frustration to the new anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

Manning, the US solider accused of the biggest leak of state secrets in US history, read out a 35-page statement to the court that contained new detail on how he came to download and then transmit a massive trove of secrets to WikiLeaks. It contains the bombshell disclosure that he wanted to go to mainstream American media but found them impenetrable.

~Snip~

We were obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and ignoring goals and missions. I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general as it applied to Iraq and Afghanistan. It might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counter terrorism while ignoring the human situation of the people we engaged with every day."...

~Snip~

Full article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/manning-washington-post-new-york-times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:27 AM

37. I agree, he is no hero in my book n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:00 PM

3. He lifted the rock and the creepy crawlies are pissed and scampering

The "journalistic" rags that used his stuff need to step up and defend this truth-teller.

Cowards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:29 PM

7. Russia Today and Iran's PressTV get off on telling the truth about America's problems.

 

I've heard sometimes PressTV lie but I've only followed their Occupy coverage, which has been both truthful and superb. In tremendous, stark comparison to "our" media's "coverage".

American media are owned by some six corporations. Romney's Bain Capital is involved in Clear Channel. I'd prefer the truth from RT than lies from "our" korporate media.



Amber Lyon reveals CNN lies and war propaganda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:34 PM

8. He is a vile little piece of

shit that violated the position of trust that he was given. He violated several federal laws as well as the UCMJ and provided nothing. I hope they just take his deal and get on with life, but wouldn't be sad in the bit if he gets life. Some day I hope to be visiting the Ft. Leavenworth Commissary and see this piece of shit bagging groceries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:37 PM

10. do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

 

naughty, naughty!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 10:13 PM

18. awww

 

do you like soup?

yes, i know i ask this alot, but seriously man. calm down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 10:50 AM

23. He's a true patriot who deserves a medal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:28 AM

38. So we all should just shut the hell up and ignore shit like this?:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100406-leaked-video-shows-us-military-killing-civilians-reuters-staff



Maybe the US military and our govt officials should follow the fucking laws and quit hiding behind the immoral and undemocratic secrecy laws they created so they can do whatever the fuck they please.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:35 AM

39. Whislte blowers generally do violate some laws, but here in this democracy

we supposedly have Whistle Blower protection laws, although you'd never know it lately.

What's so interesting about the anti-Bradley Manning posts here is that most of what he revealed, other than a few cables in early, were BUSH WAR CRIMES.

Why do you object to anyone revealing the crimes of the criminal Bush Administration?

He is a hero. Airc, we Democrats railed and railed about the fact that no one had the guts to expose those war criminals for eight years. Now someone did just that so I am puzzled by the sudden change of heart from a few people here. Care to explain it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 04:04 PM

62. So... was Daniel Ellsberg also a "vile little piece of sh.." for the Pentagon Papers?...

... which in my book is very much in the same category of the actions that Manning is being hung (or could be hung) for.

If it weren't for the efforts of people like Ellsberg and Manning, our country wouldn't be learning about what it is to "be a Democracy" now, as it would have been thrown out a long time ago if there weren't these checks and balances, whether or not they are classified as "illegal" or not. Many things that the PTB do today to maintain their power in things like bribery, etc. would have been considered crimes before the times they've been "legalized" by their buying our government and justice system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 08:04 PM

13. Bradley Manning is fighting for ME, my constitutional civil liberties,

and MY RIGHT to know what MY government is doing with MY money
in MY name.

Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (and every other shit hole in the 3rd World)
are fighting for the right of the 1%, the IMF, and the Global Corporations to loot the
resources of the 3rd World.

EXXON & the Global Corporations got the OIL and Privatization of Iraq.
The American people got ZERO,
and the Iraqis got WORSE than ZERO.

Follow the Money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:22 PM

14. This!

The bare bones, guts, core of the problems we face.

Thanks, Kpete & bvar22.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:19 PM

51. A soldier undermines the civilian government's diplomacy! What could be better?

In what other aspects of the civilian government would you like military folk to intervene?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:36 AM

75. WHAT diplomacy??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:50 AM

79. If you actually have something to say, why not say it?

There's no point for anybody to try to guess what your actual analysis is or what facts you think support your views

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #79)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:28 AM

84. My point is that thanks to the actions of the Bush Administration, diplomacy is not

something I can assume, as apparently you do, that is in my best interests. Especially "secret" diplomacy. From what I can glean, for example, diplomacy got Tony Blair to put in with Bush even though he was bald faced lying about the dangers Saddam was supposed to represent. And our secret diplomacy was great for getting Egypt and orhers to do our torturing for us.

Regardless of past expectations of secrecy for high level communications, lying us into war and denying secret torture tend to put a damper on my willingness to glorify secrecy in diplomacy. And then of course, we could talk about Kissinger...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #84)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:15 AM

89. Well, of course, no one who has a lick of sense imagines that governments of any kind

invariably operate on behalf of the public good: powerful organized interests always exist, and they always exert a very definite pressure on their own behalf; blowhards and complete idiots and demagogues and wacko ideologues are not unknown in politics either; and there are also always more than enough people who are entirely sure that they alone are good and that they alone possess Eternal Truth

The Iraq war has been a shameful disgrace IMO, in dozens of ways, from the very beginning: it is true that the Bush administration with great cynicism lied us into a war, which they then tried to convert into a general conflation in the region, beating their wardrums against Iran and Syria and other countries as well, and for what? well, probably to increase Bush's power as President, for one thing, but also to hand wads of cash to their friends in the defense industry

None of this is surprising. I do not say you must accept it, because I hope you do not accept it. But to me, not accepting it means approaching the world with steely-eyed realism: it is critically important to have an accurate and detailed analysis of what happens, based on actual verifiable fact, in order to plan responses with even limited chance of success. In particular, our responses to the status quo cannot be based simply on our emotional reactions: they must be based on efforts to understand and to communicate with people whom we do not understand and who do not understand us and with whom our communication is arduous and strained. This is true at the level of popular politics in the US, and it is also true in international relations

I screamed with rage when Kissinger, who had made his reputation as a strategist of nuclear war, was awarded the Nobel Peace prize; he is IMO a criminal who belongs behind bars; but I grit my teeth and consider the possibility that those who awarded him the prize were as opposed to the Vietnam war as I was and that they might have been shrewder political thinkers than I ever was

You are welcome to support Mr Manning if you so choose. I will not, because he seems to have no coherent analysis and because the justifications I hear of his behavior never seem to me to be supported by actual facts. An fact-based analysis of the world as-it-is, accurate enough to begin to suggest definite tactics and strategies to move us towards the world as-we-hope-it-will-be, is not particularly easy to construct: instinct and economic interest and social pressure and media propaganda all militant against clear thinking. But without a coherent fact-based analysis, we hardly ever win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #89)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:55 AM

90. OK...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:23 PM

15. He will go down in history, like the White Rose

as someone who followed his conscience and tried to wake up his compatriots, while fully aware that this would mean a life behind bars or death once he got caught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:01 AM

25. Just like

Col. Lakin.

The belief that you know best is not license to break the law.

As posted elsewhere in this thread, Manning was not exposing a particular violation of law. And if he did, there are avenues to do that, which he did not pursue.

I like the idea of government transparency. I also understand the need for confidentiality in certain government transactions. Manning made no distinction, and he broke the law, as evidenced by his guilty plea.

I appreciate that he thought he was doing right. He knew he was breaking the law doing so. He didn't do what he did under the whistleblower laws... thus, as any conscientious objector, he must accept the punishment given to him.

I wish he had done it differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:40 AM

40. Manning did expose particular war crimes, I guess you haven't been reading

what the rest of the world has read. Mostly he exposed the Bush War Crimes, something we here begged for someone to have the guts to do for eight long years. The revelations in the leaks from the War Logs were from the Bush Era. Did you want Bush's war crimes protected during that administration or have you since changed your mind for some reason?

I really am curious. Is it that you did not know what the leaks contained or did you always believe Bush's crimes should be protected, or have you had a change of heart about the subject? I really am curious as to why democrat above all, would not fully support the exposure of the crimes of the Bush Administration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:31 PM

52. Like the students of the White Rose, he risked his life

and the liars and murderers he exposed are already in the process of destroying it.

He had assumed that his compatriots, once they were exposed to what he had seen, would listen to the call of conscience, like he did.

He didn't want to be part of a murder machine. He wanted to contribute as much as he could to change it. He stands by what he did, that's why he is hero. A true hero as opposed to those who just willingly execute their orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #52)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:18 PM

73. Nothing obliges you to like Mr Obama or his administration, but comparing them all to Nazis

falls well outside the realm of sane and sober political conversation

The first group of White Rose members were tried four days after their arrest, in a court where they were not permitted to mount any defense, before a judge who (it is known from films) had a habit of shouting at defendants so loudly and constantly that defendants could not be heard, and they were executed on the day of their trial, for their pamphleteering

Bradley Manning was not executed four days after his arrest, and (in fact) he does not face the death penalty: he will receive a trial, after which he will be allowed appeals. To judge from his offering guilty pleas this last week, the likely upshot will be that he will convicted and will serve a lengthy sentence

There will never be mass support for Mr Manning, because no one (including Mr Manning) has ever offered any coherent explanation of his actions, and there seems to be no prospect of a coherent explanation forthcoming. In his statement this last week, Mr Manning indicated that he released hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables in order to stir public debate, and his statement also made it entirely clear that Mr Manning could not have been aware of the actual content of the vast amounts of diplomatic material he dumped

You are, of course, entirely free to hold that view that diplomats ought never converse secretly with their home governments, and you are entirely free to persuade the international community to adopt whatever openness standards seem appropriate to you -- but that would be a long uphill fight, because every single government in the world uses accepted privileges (such as the diplomatic pouch) in order to converse in secret with their diplomats. As an alternative, you could try persuading your Congressman that the US should never converse in secret with its diplomats, and you could ask your Congressman to demand the US publish all its diplomatic correspondence in realtime, as the correspondence occurs: however, I expect most Congressman would thereafter regard you as nuts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #73)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:41 AM

86. The hypocrisy is sickening

All of a sudden "the rule of law" is sacrosanct.

If President Obama was consistent he would pardon Manning and then say "We need to move on. While Mr. Manning's conduct was illegal he was clearly acting in good faith and thus while I can't condone it I think pursuing this course of legal action is too divisive."

Except Manning's conduct was for the public's benefit and made some special interests look bad. Thus he is not worthy of lenience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #86)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:17 AM

88. You're welcome to take the PoV that soldiers are entitled to ignore constraints imposed on them

by the civilian government, or (say) that soldiers are entitled to decide how the civilian government should conduct its diplomatic affairs -- and, in fact, if you really hold such beliefs I'd much prefer that you express your views in public, so I know exactly with whom I am dealing

However, I am unlikely to adopt your views, because I consider a military not under civilian control dangerous to whatever democracy we might actually have

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:44 AM

19. Claims that he was a principled whistleblower might have had some credibility,

had Manning's releases been organized around a few definite issues. But his statement this week makes clear that he downloaded and released hundreds of thousands of documents indiscriminately, and he laid out a timeline that proves he cannot possibly have known what he was releasing. He didn't know what he was releasing in his five minute chat with a WaPo reporter, and that's why he didn't tell her anything definite. He didn't know what he was releasing when he chatted with Lamo, and that's why he merely told Lamo he expected Wikileaks to release a searchable database of cables, rather than providing any specific information. That Wikileaks did release the cables as a searchable database, and made efforts to enroll major newspapers in a search through the cables for headline-grabbing stories, without any prior unifying malfeasance narrative, shows the same thing: Wikileaks had no idea exactly what Manning had handed to them, because Manning himself really didn't know what his data-dump contained

His position, under the law, will be uncomfortable, as he has seriously abused his security access. The idea, that we should look sympathetically upon him as a whistle-blower, might have been more attractive to some of us, had his releases focused on specific instances of evident malfeasance. But following Manning's statement, that idea cannot be entertained any longer

Every single country in the world expects its ambassadors to be able to communicate secretly with the home government, and international law respects and supports such expectations of diplomatic privilege. Manning lacked all the experience, training, and skills to make any specific decisions whatsoever about the appropriateness of various diplomatic secrets -- and, in fact, the record today shows that he made no such specific decisions: he simply downloaded whatever diplomatic materials he could easily download (numbering hundreds of thousands of cables) and then released them to Wikileaks. He did this deliberately, despite earlier warnings from higher level officials about his failure to follow security protocols, and despite additional training on security. The principle, that the US military answers to civilian government, implies (among other things) that members of the military (at any level) are not allowed to subvert the international diplomatic work of the civilian government: PFC Manning, however, apparently believed he was entitled to do just that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 10:47 AM

21. Yes, every government expects to be able to operate in secrecy,

so that citizens are completely unaware of their crimes. That's a given.

A lot of people get upset when their government's corruption and duplicity are put on display, but it's time for a major paradigm shift in the way human affairs are conducted. That can't happen unless we know how the system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 10:52 AM

24. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:06 AM

27. Which particular crme

was Manning trying to expose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:17 AM

31. All of the crimes that the US government commits

in its maintenance of global empire, of course.

Aggressive war is a violation of the UN Charter, and thus a violation of the US Constitution, which requires our government to honor all of its agreements with other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #31)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:21 AM

33. You misunderstood my question.

Which PARTICULAR crime was he exposing? And why didn't he go through the routes prescribed by law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #33)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:26 AM

35. No, I understood your question.

It is utterly meaningless to someone who is familiar with US history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:50 PM

67. So which crime, specifically, are you referring to?

 

It's convenient to speak in general terms but to have a meaningful conversation, you'll need to provide something concrete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:44 AM

41. War crimes, none of which have been investigated btw in case you had not noticed.

Manning's leaks were mostly from the Bush era. Is there some reason why you believe that the Bush Gang should be protected from exposure? Since most of us here on DU spent the entire eight years of the Bush administration demanding they be held accountable, I don't get those few who now seem to feel otherwise. I have asked for an explanation and would truly like to know 'why the change of heart' re protecting Bush et al from exposure? That IS what the War Logs were about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #41)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:09 PM

49. You have no objection to military personnel undermining the diplomatic corps?

That would a strange stance for a progressive to take

Exactly how far does your tolerance for military personnel meddling in civilian government extend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:14 PM

56. You're not making any sense at all.

Facts are all that matter, and that is what Manning released. Information that should never have been classified in a Democracy in the first place. No wonder they tried to hide the facts, they revealed some very inconvenient truths about both parties.

Not much we didn't know on the Left, we KNEW the Bush gang lied, were war criminals and that nothing has been done about it. But we learned a few things from the few more recent cables, we learned that while we thought Democrats would never condone, let alone protect war criminals, that we were very, very wrong. I remember how we once thought there was hope of investigations, of prosecutions, of the truth about the Bush War Criminals coming to light once we elected Democrats, but now we know better. And it's far better not to have expectations and be disappointed than to have the facts.

Now that we have that valuable information which we are entitled to, we can make better decisions as citizens.

So thank you Bradley Manning for helping us understand what seemed to be a mystery, inexplicable, for a while. We know know the truth. And that enhances the power of the people as it should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #56)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:28 PM

64. You do not understand this notion of civilian control of the military? It is not a difficult notion,

nor is it controversial, except perhaps in some extremist circles. The notion is simply this: ultimate government decisions rest with elected civilians, not with military personnel, whatever rank they hold and whether they be four star generals or colonels or privates. Both domestic and foreign policy are determined by civilians, not by military personnel

Mr Manning is, of course, entitled to his views. In particular, he is entitled to believe that US diplomatic correspondence ought not be secret. But members of the military, including Mr Manning, are not authorized to make decisions overriding the laws of the civilian government. Whether or not Mr Manning thinks diplomacy would better be conducted, if everyone everywhere could read all diplomatic cables, as a member of the military with access to classified documents, Mr Manning is not entitled to release hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables to the world: the decision, about how diplomatic cables are handled rests with the civilian government, and is to be determined by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the civilian government, not by soldiers of any rank

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #64)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:50 PM

68. Is torture Constiutional? Are you aware of the oath taken by members of the US

military? Did you know that they do not swear to protect the US Military or even the US Government? Do you know WHAT they swear to protect and defend?

Manning took HIS oath seriously, and acted accordingly knowing what the consequences would be. Too bad our civilian leadership and military leadership have forgotten THEIR oaths, which are not very different from the one Manning took and lived up to.

I don't think I am the one 'who doesn't understand'. Nor do I think Manning didn't understand. The sad thing is how posts like yours demonstrate how far we have strayed from the principles he felt obliged to uphold. To his credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #68)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 06:17 PM

70. You defend Manning's oath

the same way the right wing defends Col. Lakin's oath.

No matter how right you think he is, he broke the law. You pretend there was no other possible recourse, which is untrue. Just like the Freepers think Lakin was "upholding his oath". He wasn't - he was a cowardly jerk-off, who thought he was above the law.

Manning is not above the law. Nobody has shown that he was trying to uncover a PARTICULAR crime. It's been asked a few times here, and nobody will answer honestly. You wanna yell "WAR CRIMES!"? Well, which particular war crime? And can you argue that every single document he released was related to a particular crime?

No, you cannot. I understand that you agree with his notion that government should be transparent. I don't understand why you think a single private in the military should decide for himself what the government should release.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:48 AM

43. ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:36 PM

45. You are free to dislike diplomats and to oppose diplomacy if you like, but then you should be

up-front about your position

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:57 PM

47. Diplomacy?

You mean like that which supports and even facilitates the overthrow of other governments, or the murder of journalists and civilians in other countries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #47)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:05 PM

48. Let's see a link for your claim US diplomats are assassinating journalists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:46 AM

77. And "WE don't torture" either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:08 AM

81. This particular subthread concerns ronnie's claim that US diplomats assassinate journalists

I am unaware of any evidence that US diplomats assassinate journalists

Attention is detail is essential to any sort of effective political action: if you jumble together things that happened in different times, and in different places, under different administrations, you will obtain no clear and exact view of underlying political dynamics, and so you will be reduced to incoherent howling that almost nobody will understand

Are you, for example, claiming that US diplomats are engaged in torturing people? I myself am unaware of any evidence of that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:49 AM

78. Sometimes your posts are rather strange.

Diplomats, of course, do and say what they are told to. They function on behalf of the system that employs them. If they are told to speak and act in a manner that facilitates a coup d'etat in Honduras, then typically, that is what they will do. It makes much more sense to hold the corrupt system responsible, and work to reform it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #78)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:59 AM

80. Your prior post indicated you believe US diplomats are murdering journalists:

I merely asked for some evidence for your belief

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #80)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:15 AM

83. I think you're mistaken. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #83)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:06 AM

87. OK. You were free to clarify what you were actually saying, if you really wanted to be understood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:05 AM

26. Thank you.

There's no way to vote on posts here, but you said it extremely well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:11 AM

28. It was a long-winded way of saying, 'I like the status quo, and I hate anyone who undermines it'. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #28)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:22 AM

34. Only to those

who can't think in terms other than black/white, good/bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:27 AM

36. ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:46 AM

42. It's a long of saying 'don't expose Bush's war crimes' considering that

the War Logs released by Manning were from the Bush era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:12 AM

82. That's a cheap shot and a cop out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #82)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:31 AM

85. I didn't intend for it to be.

Only a little dry commentary on the fear of millions of Americans, of the deep and meaningful change that our civilization is in dire need of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:16 AM

30. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:16 PM

57. Well done, struggle4progress

thank you!

"true amercian hero".. no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:00 PM

44. Why 'unfortunate'?? RT is one of the best most fact filled international news outlets

available to US viewers today. It epitomizes the 'truth has a liberal bias' meme, because they actually for the most part, do report news that the rest of the Corporate Media does not. It also gives a voice to many Progressives like Thom Hartman and many others like him who are not allowed on the Corporate Media.

Not to mention their excellent discussion programs featuring actual Democrats and their documentaries are also excellent. Surprised to see anyone on DU apologize for RT frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:15 PM

50. When do you expect RT will start publishing Russia's diplomatic cables?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:06 PM

54. As soon as they publish any of the others. You don't watch it, do you? But you

are not deterred by that from commenting on it. Lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #54)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:09 PM

55. It's a propaganda outlet owned by the Russian state

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:18 PM

58. Just as I thought, you are simply reacting to the old, historical Cold War rhetoric

when you see the word 'Russian' and have no clue at all about what RT does. As I said, it is the only International News Network worth watching in the US which may be why its audience has grown so much in such a short time. People want facts when they watch the news..

What's funny about your comment is that the whole world views the US Media as nothing BUT propaganda, including most of us Democrats who watched how they enabled the lies of the Bush War Criminals eg despite knowing they were lies, contributing to those crimes themselves.

RT otoh, has way more credibility both here among people who value facts and certainly around the world where people are no longer stuck back in the '50s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #58)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 04:14 PM

63. Has nothing to do with the Cold War...

...Russia is still not a paragon of Free Speech, and any outlet attached to the Government should be viewed as suspiciously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #63)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:42 PM

66. Well having observed the brutal crackdown of peaceful OWS protesters, the near

killing of at least two war veterans, the brutal treatment of those falsely arrested while in detention where they never should have been, the arrests of journalists covering the story, and even the arrests and abuse of elected officials who dared to support them here in the US, not to mention that all of it, we now know for sure, was coordinated at a Federal level, Russia seems way ahead of us at this point in terms of respect for free speechj.

Since ince the world watched in shock those brutal attacks on peaceful, unarmed protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights, we really are not taken seriously anywhere when it comes to the issue of free speech. Not to mention the lies told by the Corporate Media, the distortions with the goal of protecting Wall St?? Please, we have zero credibility on issues such as torture, free speech, war crimes etc.

By contrast, when Russians went out to protest Putin, no blood was shed, yes there were arrests, but there was no comparison to the brutality and the destruction of basic human rights demonstrated against Americans doing the same thing, enough that the UN Rappateur appealed to the US to intervene. An ironic request, considering it WAS the US government that attacked those American citizens.

Get back to me when people can protest injustices here in the US without ending up with their heads bashed in or their kidneys ruptured or when Jouranlists are allowed to cover a story without being brutalized and arrested for doing so.

Free speech in the US? Yes, so long as you don't dare to question the policies of this government. It is shameful, also shameful is the silence of members of Congress as they watched those they represent being abused and injured and jailed, illegally. We are in no position to criticize anyone else as we are now being repeatedly told.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #58)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:30 PM

65. al Jazeera is good too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #55)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:38 PM

91. This sub-thread is amazing. The fact that you even have to make this point

It's a propaganda outlet owned by the Russian state

is nothing short of astonishing. The same government that threw Pussy Riot under the bus and continues to openly assassinate its human rights activists suddenly becomes "truthful" because they get their propaganda arm to say something nice about Bradley Manning. No motives there, right?? If the folks making these moronic comments had anything resembling credibility, I'd be concerned. But for some, if they have to use the most laughable and discredited sources in an effort to continue to slam the American government, they are more than happy to do so.

The Russian group MEMORIAL is up for a Nobel Peace Prize. Their job is to document the numerous atrocities against the Russian people by the Russian government and to stay alive in the process. Both jobs are incredibly difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:03 PM

53. amen.

who even knew people like bradley manning still existed?

we need more bradley mannings in this world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 06:17 PM

69. No matter what one's opinion of him, he is right here:

Earlier, during this week’s pre-trial hearing, those in the Ft. Meade, Maryland, courtroom were told that Manning hoped releasing intelligence to WikiLeaks would “spark a domestic debate on the role of our military and foreign policy in general.”

I think it has, and all the way to the top of governments world wide. We have Hagel and Kerry, FWIW, and this may change the direction this country has been going for over half a century. It's about time. This is a great time to be alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread