HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Pfc. Bradley Manning offe...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:16 AM

Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case

Source: Christian Science Monitor

The U.S. Army soldier charged with sending reams of government secrets to WikiLeaks is offering to plead guilty to some less serious offenses.

Pfc. Bradley Manning's civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, revealed the offer Wednesday during a pretrial hearing that continues Thursday.

Coombs says Manning isn't pleading guilty to the offenses charged by the government. He's offering to take responsibility for less serious offenses that are encapsulated within the charged crimes.

Even if the court accepts the offer, military prosecutors could still try to prove Manning guilty of the more serious charges. They include aiding the enemy, punishable by life imprisonment.

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1108/Pfc.-Bradley-Manning-offers-guilty-plea-in-Wikileaks-case

190 replies, 21322 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 190 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 OP
avebury Nov 2012 #1
randome Nov 2012 #3
loudsue Nov 2012 #4
randome Nov 2012 #5
cprise Nov 2012 #12
randome Nov 2012 #17
msanthrope Nov 2012 #21
glacierbay Nov 2012 #25
msanthrope Nov 2012 #28
glacierbay Nov 2012 #29
cprise Nov 2012 #84
msanthrope Nov 2012 #88
cprise Nov 2012 #100
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #102
msanthrope Nov 2012 #103
cprise Nov 2012 #57
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #60
randome Nov 2012 #61
demwing Nov 2012 #173
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #183
msanthrope Nov 2012 #16
cprise Nov 2012 #68
msanthrope Nov 2012 #77
cprise Nov 2012 #93
msanthrope Nov 2012 #107
cprise Nov 2012 #172
msanthrope Nov 2012 #175
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #9
glacierbay Nov 2012 #18
msanthrope Nov 2012 #20
glacierbay Nov 2012 #23
msanthrope Nov 2012 #26
glacierbay Nov 2012 #27
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #39
hack89 Nov 2012 #44
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #49
hack89 Nov 2012 #52
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #54
hack89 Nov 2012 #70
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #72
hack89 Nov 2012 #74
msanthrope Nov 2012 #78
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #79
hack89 Nov 2012 #86
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #89
hack89 Nov 2012 #90
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #94
hack89 Nov 2012 #95
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #98
hack89 Nov 2012 #99
hack89 Nov 2012 #97
treestar Nov 2012 #115
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #140
treestar Nov 2012 #145
msanthrope Nov 2012 #48
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #51
msanthrope Nov 2012 #53
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #55
msanthrope Nov 2012 #64
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #71
msanthrope Nov 2012 #75
treestar Nov 2012 #177
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #186
Ash_F Nov 2012 #81
treestar Nov 2012 #178
msanthrope Nov 2012 #19
hack89 Nov 2012 #30
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #35
hack89 Nov 2012 #37
cprise Nov 2012 #63
hack89 Nov 2012 #73
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #188
hack89 Nov 2012 #190
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #184
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #180
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #15
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #32
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #33
navarth Nov 2012 #2
freshwest Nov 2012 #6
wtmusic Nov 2012 #8
msanthrope Nov 2012 #14
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #10
freshwest Nov 2012 #38
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #47
treestar Nov 2012 #116
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #139
treestar Nov 2012 #146
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #151
treestar Nov 2012 #158
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #161
treestar Nov 2012 #179
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #182
msanthrope Nov 2012 #11
freshwest Nov 2012 #41
msanthrope Nov 2012 #45
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #56
msanthrope Nov 2012 #66
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #69
msanthrope Nov 2012 #76
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #80
msanthrope Nov 2012 #91
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #96
msanthrope Nov 2012 #106
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #143
msanthrope Nov 2012 #156
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #160
msanthrope Nov 2012 #164
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #169
msanthrope Nov 2012 #171
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #174
msanthrope Nov 2012 #176
treestar Nov 2012 #117
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #138
treestar Nov 2012 #147
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #148
glacierbay Nov 2012 #150
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #153
glacierbay Nov 2012 #155
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #162
freshwest Nov 2012 #109
freshwest Nov 2012 #58
msanthrope Nov 2012 #67
Ash_F Nov 2012 #83
msanthrope Nov 2012 #92
treestar Nov 2012 #118
Ash_F Nov 2012 #124
treestar Nov 2012 #127
Ash_F Nov 2012 #130
randome Nov 2012 #131
Ash_F Nov 2012 #136
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #7
msanthrope Nov 2012 #13
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #22
msanthrope Nov 2012 #24
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #31
msanthrope Nov 2012 #36
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #82
msanthrope Nov 2012 #85
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #101
msanthrope Nov 2012 #104
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #108
glacierbay Nov 2012 #34
hack89 Nov 2012 #40
msanthrope Nov 2012 #46
demhottie Nov 2012 #42
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #43
msanthrope Nov 2012 #50
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #62
msanthrope Nov 2012 #65
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #110
msanthrope Nov 2012 #113
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #168
msanthrope Nov 2012 #170
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #185
hack89 Nov 2012 #87
glacierbay Nov 2012 #105
Ash_F Nov 2012 #111
glacierbay Nov 2012 #120
Ash_F Nov 2012 #122
glacierbay Nov 2012 #123
Ash_F Nov 2012 #125
glacierbay Nov 2012 #126
Ash_F Nov 2012 #128
glacierbay Nov 2012 #129
Ash_F Nov 2012 #132
randome Nov 2012 #133
glacierbay Nov 2012 #135
msanthrope Nov 2012 #159
glacierbay Nov 2012 #134
Ash_F Nov 2012 #137
glacierbay Nov 2012 #141
Cha Nov 2012 #187
AtomicKitten Nov 2012 #59
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #112
treestar Nov 2012 #119
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #142
treestar Nov 2012 #144
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #189
ronnie624 Nov 2012 #149
randome Nov 2012 #152
ronnie624 Nov 2012 #154
ronnie624 Nov 2012 #157
randome Nov 2012 #163
ronnie624 Nov 2012 #167
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #166
randome Nov 2012 #121
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #165
duhneece Nov 2012 #114
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #181

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:20 AM

1. I wonder if this is all about trying to set up Manning to

testify against Julian Assange if the US can ever get their hands on Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avebury (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:24 AM

3. No, it's about Manning. Period. IMO.

He stole classified military documents and gave them away to a foreign media organization without taking more than a cursory glance at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:28 AM

4. Man. That sounds like a prepared statement.

He hasn't been tried, and may never have a fair trial. "Without taking more than a cursory glance at them". Where did that come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:30 AM

5. The sheer volume of material means he didn't look too closely at them.

Unless he is a speed reader on the scale of Superman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:59 PM

12. What a coincidence, the sheer volume of redacting also means the

government doesn't look too closely either. Documents with all but three words redacted are not unheard-of, and a few years ago they started denying that some documents even exist.

Not only has our government gone on a military rampage abroad, but analysts are taken aback at the sheer scope of material that has been reclassified as secret.

Compared to the actions of the US government, claiming that Manning's actions were rash is stretching things more than a little. A government, BTW, that domestically has taken the position we are to surrender private information to them without warrants. I.E. privacy for government and no one else. They wipe their asses with FOIA and the Fourth Amendment, and they set the standard for rashness.

If you want society to err on the side of government secrecy and the "security" establishment, then what you're really arguing for is a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:08 PM

17. Who the hell is Bradley Manning to be making these decisions?

He's a psychologically disturbed individual with gender identity disorders ("Not that there's anything wrong with that."). He was found in a fetal position on the floor after having carved 'I want' into a chair.

If you want some sort of civilian review board to be in charge of classifying military documents, I get that. What I can't get is why anyone in their right mind would think that someone who is NOT in his right mind should be making national security decisions for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:17 PM

21. I think your post should note that it is Manning's defense attorney that is pushing the gender

identity disorder--it was not the prosecution who brought that up--

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/21/9590399-manning-defenses-focus-on-gender-identity-disorder-alarms-some?lite

Plus, he assaulted a female superior officer, and called her a gay slur--conduct unbecoming, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:28 PM

25. Conduct unbecoming is a pretty serious charge.

 

What was this young man thinking of? Military law is much more severe that civilian law and with good reason, the military is all about discipline and order and this alleged behavior cannot be tolerated to any degree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:33 PM

28. I am of the opinion that you had an unstable young man, who had many

issues going on at once, who fell in with a certain white-haired gentleman who offered him some sense of 'belonging.'

I think Manning was vulnerable, and I think that was taken advantage of. I do think he is responsible for his actions, but I think that the defense has a serious mitigation factor in sentencing regarding his mental issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:35 PM

29. You may very well be right.

 

We'll just have to wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:34 PM

84. I doubt, however, that he is a condescending hypocrite who selectively ignores his own tagline

Its a very respectable quote that doesn't suggest we maintain an earnest, well-adjusted piety in order for our deeds to be respected. If that is a requirement, then I suggest that someplace affiliated with the Heritage Foundation would be more comfortable for you than DU.

Understanding the motivations of mass murderers would also seem to be a priority, but not against a clearly detectable background of moral apathy. Claims about what Manning's state of mind signifies or the scale of the data he took also strike me as the pot calling the kettle black. There are numerous pro-establishment double-standards at work here.

It would perplex me if anyone would submit their whistleblowing activities to a government that had recently taken to the following activities:
* Quashing civil rights lawsuits against it
* Spying on its citizens without warrants on a massive scale
* Setting out to make anti-war and anti-capitalist groups look like terrorist havens

Manning was correctly suspicious of any purely US institution to justly handle whistleblowing activity involving war crimes. The one time he did trust the American establishment was his demise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #84)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:01 PM

88. Manning had the choice to tell Kucinich, Sanders, or Franken, and he would have been

protected.

He chose Assange. He chose poorly.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #88)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:55 PM

100. Thats your opinion. He took it to the Fourth Estate instead

...and Wikileaks' ledgers and history back up that assertion. They were materially supported by and worked with world-class journalists in the process. The upshot is that the newspapers get Assange to take the heat for what they published (and also the mistakes they made with the data).

The alternative you suggest would have been much less certain against the pattern of atrocities he saw. But go ahead, tell me those Liberal Senators are effective against US war criminals. They can't even get Wall St. banks to answer most of their questions at hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:43 PM

102. Whistleblowing in general is a precarious undertaking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/your-money/for-whistle-blowers-consider-the-risks-wealth-matters.html?ref=whistleblowers

The whistleblower protection laws, in general, don't do what they promise: protect whistleblowers.

And the idea that individual congresspeople would have protected Manning against retaliation by the Defense establishment would be laugh-out-loud funny if so many ( I'll wager they're generationally post VN isn the vast majority of cases) seemingly otherwise intelligent DUers didn't believe it.

Or SAY they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:52 PM

103. Shit. Even I would have taken the Kook over the 4th Estate. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:03 PM

57. That's a great response

and a fine example of the point of view it represents.

You want everyone else to play nice while the military-industrial complex gets to be 'creative' with our civil rights, torture and assassination to serve an authoritarian interpretation of events ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.").

Bureaucratic committee? Sure! Congress can't even get access to the kind of information they were accustomed (and entitled) to getting. But we can have a citizen's review board to judge the aesthetic value of black lines, which could be arranged into pleasing figleaf patterns.

Manning provided information about an out of control enterprise and the atrocities it committed to an agent of the western media -- which is exactly what Wikileaks was at the time: an entity funded (though not created) by organizations like the Associated Press, NY Times and The Guardian to get the dirt they had been too afraid or self-interested to investigate. The NY Times in particular had lost credibility during the Bush years as a war cheerleader and mouthpiece; Later, they had the anti-war movement and its popularity with which to contend. Wikileaks was not an "enemy" of the American people and Manning had every reason to trust them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:22 PM

60. +1. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:27 PM

61. As has been pointed out, he could have used the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act.

He didn't. He made the choice of dumping documents to Wikileaks. I doubt he thought overly much about whistleblowing. He thought it was exciting to be a spy, IMO. Well, he got caught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:14 PM

173. "Not that there's anything wrong with that"

If I had the slightest reason to believe you didn't say that to CYA for the bullshit slur, I wouldn't be putting your ass on ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:53 PM

183. You don't know what you are talking about.

Plain and simple, so I'd stop trying to sound like it, if I were you. It doesn't hold water.

It is, in fact bovine fecal material with all of the stink and presence of a bold faced lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:05 PM

16. Well, the sheer volume, and his written statements to Lamo indicate that he could not

have made a reasonable argument in court as to the 'purity' of his motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:01 PM

68. I have recalibrated my concept of 'sheer volume' to the warrantless wiretapping

and other nefarious habits of data-gorging that DHS commits against American citizens.

Their city-sized data centers continually piling up information they can (and do) use against us on an almost routine basis. They can instantly know everyone who is associated with any private gathering or protest group, replete with psychological profiles suggesting who can be most readily cajoled into committing one of their faux terrorist acts (which are not really faux in the sense that the DHS have used them to make the population fearful of losing life or limb). They know 100x more than they need to sabotage the reputation of any group or movement that presents a serious challenge to their power base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #68)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:25 PM

77. Okay..but that has nothing to do with the fact that Manning could not have possibly read

491k War Logs before their release.

I mean, it's awesome rhetoric, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:24 PM

93. He didn't just dump it out on the Internet, either

Which would have been very easy to do, completely anonymously and without personal consequences using Tor or similar software.

Wikileaks enlisted a team including its own people with journalists from the NY Times and The Guardian to review the information before release. They did this, releasing information in dribs and drabs in successive news stories. The reason it eventually all got out after a few months is that one of the Guardian journalists mistakenly included a decryption key in one of its public downloads.

Initially I also felt that Manning had acted rashly, but the more I observed the facts and the way people treated the issue in debates like this, the more I realized he maintained a pretty high standard by only communicating with Wikileaks, a process that included difficult delays and protocols when he could have simply uploaded the info unprotected to just about anywhere to dozens of places. Manning's critics want us to believe this wasn't in his mind, but Wikileaks had a history of vetting the info it releases and working with the press.

If I weigh the government's recklessness against Manning's, I think Manning comes out way ahead. We'd have to reject the traditional concept of the press acting as the Fourth Estate to say he wasn't trying to be at least somewhat responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #93)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:57 PM

107. All of which he can argue at his sentencing--that he took special care while breaking the law. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #107)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:53 PM

172. Also should mention only Wikileaks had a safe tech infrastructure for whistleblowing

Newspapers and Senate offices do not know what they're doing in that respect. This is something Manning would have also been aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #172)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:19 PM

175. I really should use the sarcasm smilie more often. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:49 PM

9. You know what would be fantastic. If you chose to learn what Manning actually did

and why he did it, before making embarrassing statements like this. It's not hard to do either since he has actually spoken for himself. There is no reason for anyone not to know exactly why Manning chose to do what he did.

But for the benefit of those reading, Manning read and knew what was in the documents he released. He is an exceptionally intelligent individual and in his own words has explained why, after witnessing war crimes, reporting them, then reading the documents (that question was asked of him btw, 'did you read those documents') and finding proof of war crimes, being told to forget what he had seen, he decided to become a whistle blower.

Most of the documents were from before and during the Bush years. I believe that the effort to defend the Bush War criminals is a disgrace. And anyone who condemns what Manning did IS defending Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:08 PM

18. What you say may be true

 

but in a court of law, that's irrelevant, he signed an oath of secrecy, rightly or wrongly, that every service personnel signs when handling sensitive docs., and he allegedly violated it. Whether or not he thought that those docs contained evidence of war crimes makes no difference in the law, he is alleged to have turned over classified docs over to a foreign entity which is highly illegal. And if this young man is convicted of such crimes, he is looking at the rest of his life in a Fed. prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:14 PM

20. He had the option of turning stuff over under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988--

He could not have been prosecuted, and something might have been done about any crimes he found.

Instead, he turned everything over to a commercial entity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:22 PM

23. You are correct

 

and if this young man is convicted of that, he is looking at the rest of his life in a Fed super max prison.
What most don't understand here is that the law doesn't care if that he may have found evidence of crime, that's irrelevant, what the law cares about is the fact that he allegedly violated the secrecy agreement he signed when he got his security clearance and then allegedly turned over classified docs to a foreign entity.
And the UCMJ take these alleged crimes very seriously and the penalties are very harsh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:30 PM

26. Well, sadly, if he had just googled more, he could have used the Military Whistelblowers Protection

Act of 1988, and been completely immune to prosecution. He could have given relevant documents to Kucinich, or Sanders, or Franken, and been okay.

He chose to fall in with Wikileaks, and Assange. I think Julian simply didn't care about Manning, who will take the fall for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:32 PM

27. I agree

 

Julian doesn't give two shits about Manning, he just wanted to embarrass the US govt. and now if Manning is convicted, which I believe is a foregone conclusion, will pay a heavy price for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:04 PM

39. No, he did not. He had already reported war crimes and had been told to shut up about

it. It is laughable to say he would have kindly received in the current atmosphere had he attempted to use Whistle Blower protection. Show me ONE whistle blower over the past number of years who themselves have no ended up being prosecuted.

War criminals are a protected entity in this country at the moment.

Why did Ellsberg not do what you suggest, why did HE choose also, like Manning, to 'use a commercial entity' to tell the truth about Vietnam?

Ellsberg fully supports Manning, and I think I will accept his analysis of this case rather than those who still cling to the notion that Whistle Blowers are protected in this country especially when it comes to our Commercial, For Profit Wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:17 PM

44. Care to document that assertion?

who did he tell about war crimes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:32 PM

49. I see you know nothing about this case as I suspected. If you have to ask me what

Manning did about the war crimes he witnessed, at this late stage, then I do not understand why you are contributing to this discussion at all.

Are you really unaware of the steps taken by Manning to report the war crimes he witnessed? If you know so little about this case, why are you not taking the trouble, as many of us did, to learn something about it before making statements that have zero basis in fact? Democrats generally educate themselves about the issues they decide to expound with any authority on them.

It's stunning that you would even ask that question AFTER having made up your mind, apparently with no knowledge at all of this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #49)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:35 PM

52. So you can't document them? Why not simply say so?

I posted a detailed timeline from Firedoglake - I understand what happened. Hence my question to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #52)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:54 PM

54. Then enlighten us please. What did Manning do before he decided that reporting war

crimes up the chain of command did not work and it was therefore necessary to become a whistle blower.

And do not put words in my mouth. I am confident in the ability of people here to read what I said and your deliberate and disingenuous attempt to try to change what I said, is apparent for all to read and only reflects badly on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #54)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:11 PM

70. Nothing as far as I can see - that is why you need to substantiate your assertion

instead of evading the question. You might be right for all we know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:14 PM

72. He did nothing??

Amazing anyone would make such a statement on DU, considering how public that information has been.

But, it does explain your amazingly uninformed comments on this case. I will give them all the credibility they deserve from now on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #72)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:15 PM

74. Yet you seem completely incapable of providing that "public" information.

you need to stop bluffing and provide a link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:29 PM

78. She needs to send it on to Manning's attorneys---they seem to have missed it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:48 PM

79. Your tactics are transparent and very, very old and jaded. You clearly have

demonstrated you have no knowledge of this case yet are perfectly prepared to expound on something you have now demonstrated you know nothing about.

I am perfectly willing to continue to play this game you are resorting to in an effort to hide the fact that you don't even know the basic facts of this case and each time you ask for information you expected people to assume you had, it only further proves my point.

If you ever get around to learning what almost everyone else knows regarding the steps taken by Manning before he became a Whistle Blower, we can start all over again. But when you lack even basic knowledge, so easily available, and then resort to these childish games, there is no place to even begin a discussion with you.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #79)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:58 PM

86. So you lied about Manning reporting war crimes to his chain of command?

certainly the impression you are leaving. You made an assertion - you need to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:01 PM

89. Now you're getting desperate. Lol!

What Manning did is public knowledge. It would be impossible to lie about it. And to even think that would be possible further demonstrates how little you know about this case, and worse, how unwilling you are to do even basic research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:05 PM

90. So you expect me to prove a negative?

in the real world people are expected to back up their arguments. You have been consistently sloppy in your "facts" - this is not the first time you have resorted to bluster and hand waving when challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #90)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:29 PM

94. What I expect is simple. When someone sets themselves up as qualified to

speak about an issue, they should have at least a basic knowledge of the subject. Sorry if that bar is too high. It's not my job to educate people about what is by now common knowledge, who refuse to educate themselves and who generally ignore facts even when presented with them.

Thanks for keeping the thread kicked btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #94)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:32 PM

95. You make up shit and then claim that as an "expert" you can't be challenged.

common knowledge my ass - notice how no one has jumped in to back you up. You were caught in a lie - please be honest with yourself even if you refuse to be honest with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:48 PM

98. Please post what 'shit' I made up. And try to calm down. You don't know anything about

this case and every comment you made so far just emphasizes that.

As far as people 'jumping in to back me up'. Lol, If only you knew. Let me give you a hint, I am one of the few left here who even bothers to enter into any discussion with you as I have been told by many other DUers. The advice I have received is to 'ignore' your comments.

But I like to give everyone a chance regardless of how 'rude, over-the-top' or uninformed they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #98)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:51 PM

99. You said that he informed his chain of command about war crimes

and was ignored. I am merely asking you to prove it. Instead you launch into this huge song and dance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #94)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:47 PM

97. So his claim that his chain of command ignored him is at the center of his defense .. oh wait.

you need to talk to his lawyer - you appear to have facts he doesn't have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #79)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:08 AM

115. Then educate by linking to something

Your tactic here is unpersuasive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #115)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:37 AM

140. Have you asked your friends to produce something to show that any investigation

was done to verify Manning's statement re reporting his superiors to whom he reported war crimes?

I don't think you get what your friends are trying to do. Doesn't matter, most everyone else watching does.

I don't play their games, they are well known for these games which is why I am among the few who even bother to respond to them.

Ask them for evidence of what they are attempting to imply, unless you don't understand what they are doing of course and actually believe they are serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #140)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:58 AM

145. You're unable to link to anything

so you dump it back on the debate opponent to prove your negative, calling them ignorant. Both fallacious tactics in a debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:26 PM

48. Kindly show us where Manning used the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988, as you claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:33 PM

51. Kindly read my comment again and show me where I said he did.

In fact I believe I said the exact opposite and gave the reasons why. Which of course should be obvious to anyone watching what has been happening to Whistle Blowers in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:51 PM

53. So you cannot document the legal steps Manning took? Why not just admit that? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #53)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:56 PM

55. Strange, did you just copy and paste Hack's comment which I just responded to?

It is almost the exact same attempt to place words in my comments which are not there. Weird to say the least. Read my response to your and Hack's almost identical disingenuous deliberate misinterpretation of my words for the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:35 PM

64. No, I think great minds think alike. Still waiting for you to document your claim, though. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #64)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:12 PM

71. Exactly what is it that you do not know about this

case??

I have had the impression from your own claims that you are an expert on the Manning case, yet you do not know the steps Manning took to report the crimes he witnessed before he became a Whistle Blower?

No wonder I have found your comments to be very lacking in facts regarding this case. I actually did give you credit, apparently wrongly, for at least having that very public information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #71)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:19 PM

75. Again, you aren't documenting your claim, but are expecting others to do it for you.

Hack89 even gave you a very helpful link. Go ahead, show us what you mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #71)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:41 PM

177. Here is information on it

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

Had he used it, surely it would be in the news. It's a high profile news case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #177)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:00 PM

186. This is getting ridiculous. Please read the thread as you clearly have not, nor have you

read the comments I directed to YOU to show you how wrong you are.

Since you are still erroneously implying that I ever said Manning used the Act, despite my detailed comment to you which you have refused to acknowledge, I am asking you again:

Please post a comment of mine where I said that Manning used the Whistle Blower Act.

I have asked you to do this already, I have told you I never said that, yet you continue to pretend I did.

It is very disturbing frankly when someone becomes so biased against posters they are willing to do what you are doing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:05 PM

81. Right and wrong mean nothing in today's DU

Manning exposed many human rights violations, such as child sex-trafficking by US contractors, with ISAFs foreknowledge and decided lack of action, among many other things. Out of thousands of documents, he is a hero to me for exposing just that one thing. He many have broken some written law but he is certainly a whistleblower. He did the right thing and that should be mitigating to an America(and a court system) with morals.

Meanwhile the DoJ has still not gone after those contractors with no comment given when pressed by reporters. I'm glad we have priorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #81)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:43 PM

178. Please link to the revelations of child sex trafficking

Does anything in it prove child sex trafficking? Or just suggest it? Anyone can make an accusation.

And was any US law violated? We can't control the fact that other countries may fail to prosecute it. Which of our laws was violated and do we have jurisdiction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:12 PM

19. There's no way he read 491,000 War Logs. That's not even the hundreds of thousands of cables.

There is simply no way--


January 5-ēCDNE Afghanistan (91,000 approx) and CDNE Iraq reports (400,000 approx) are put on an SD card


http://firedoglake.com/bradley-manning-wikileaks-timeline/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:36 PM

30. Horse shit. Condemning Manning is not supporting Bush

Manning could have selectively released a few documents to make his point and to trigger a larger investigation. That is defensible because he can honestly say he read and understood each document.

Manning release over 500,000 documents. There is no way he read them all. He simply down loaded reams of classified information and sent it unread to a foreign news agency. That is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:42 PM

35. Of course it is. Protecting our war criminals is of primary importance in this society

and the only way that will stop is when the American people support those who have the courage to expose them. So whether it is inadvertant or not, when you condemn the whistle blowers, you support the War Criminals. At least face the facts.

I have zero doubt that if the timing of these leaked documents exposing Bush War crimes had been different, had it occurred in 2007, the entire 'Left' would have made a hero out of Manning and would have been reading them and publishing them all over the place.

What all of this has revealed other than Bush War Crimes, is how hypocritical some on the Left in the US really are. And how little many of them ever cared about Bush War Crimes, but used them only for political purposes.

I guess we were all naive enough to believe otherwise. And I am encouraged by those who continue to stick with the facts, to oppose War Crimes as they always did, and to support Whistle Blowers. But it sure has been an awakening to find oneself having the same arguments with some on the Left re Bush war crimes, that we used to think we would only have to engage in with the Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:54 PM

37. Manning should have followed US whistleblower laws

he had legal options - he ignored them.

Secondly, read what I said. What is indefensible is downloading classified documents and sending them to Wikileaks without knowing their contents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:30 PM

63. Sabrina has an excellent point about war criminals that YOU ignore

You would much rather give benefit of the doubt to people who torture and kill than to those who wield a mouse and keyboard. With no apparent impetus to go after the war criminals at all (much less make them a priority) your take on this issue exemplifies the culture of protecting them. You cannot successfully debate this issue from such a steep one-sidedness.

BTW, a few gigabytes of data is tiny compared to the private info the US government and its captains of industry compile about us year in and year out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:14 PM

73. I have no problem with him whistleblowing war crimes

if he had simply released the helicopter video we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But he did ignore the laws that would have provided him immunity from prosecution. Now if he had followed the law and was ignored then Manning would have a stronger defense. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he attempted to follow the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:46 PM

188. What a ridiculous suggestion. Name ONE just ONE Whistle Blower who was protected by

by the Whistle Blowers Act over the past several decades and you will, unless of course you don't want to, understand why someone as intelligent as he is, knew what would happen had he chosen that route.

He chose the only legal option open to him. He reported the war crimes he became aware of to his superiors. Why did THEY not choose the LEGAL OPTIONS open to THEM and do what was right, which would have made it unnecessary for him to take any further action?? Please explain why they ignored reports of War Crimes?

I don't expect an answer, the question if really for those who have a genuine interest in the actual facts of this case.

You have been told many times that he knew what was in the documents. And he himself answered that question btw. Again demonstrating how little you know about this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #188)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:21 PM

190. If he choose the path he is on then he understood the consequences.

he knowingly broke the law. And accomplished exactly nothing.

He is not intelligent. He is an emotionally screwed up young man who made a mistake he will regret for the rest of his life. Hopefully Assange, the man that used and discarded manning like a kleenex, will feel some remorse. But I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:54 PM

184. Indeed...

YES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:50 PM

180. Said the poster who can demonstrate no knowledge of this...

... and doesn't distinguish whistle blowing from crimes against humanity.

Maybe I should accuse you of defamation of character. Then, of spreading rumors and inciting mischief.

Oh, by the way, if fair is fair, you shouldn't be able to speak or have a lawyer after getting cuffed, jailed, stripped naked and made to stand in stress poses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avebury (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:04 PM

15. Partly that but it's mostly to protect the Bush war criminals who were exposed in the

released documents. We have learned one thing about this country. No war criminal will ever be prosecuted here, not until we evolve as a nation. But anyone who exposes them as Manning did, and Wikileaks, will be pursued and punished, ensuring that no other person will reveal what they know.

He knew he was violating laws and was willing to take that chance in order to expose war crimes, as he said himself. But he thought that there would be a reaction from the people when they learned what he had learned and that his government would do what is right. I imagine his biggest disappointment is not going to prison, but the realization that war crimes ARE acceptable in this country and that he was very naive to think otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:39 PM

32. Catch 22

"No war criminal will ever be prosecuted here, not until we evolve as a nation"

Unless we are allowed to face what our nation is doing, I don't know how we'll ever evolve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:39 PM

33. Many of the world's worst criminals are here in the US

not in some back-hills in Pakistan getting blown to bits by our drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:21 AM

2. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:53 AM

6. Hopefully his willingness to admit to lesser charges will get dismissals on the others.

He's been locked up for a long time and probably would have finished his volunteer military service by now if he hadn't got caught up in this. I wish him well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:08 PM

8. +1

and hopefully it doesn't include some agreement to testify against Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:02 PM

14. Any accepted plea will. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:52 PM

10. He exposed Bush war crimes. Too bad just about everyone has covered up for Cheney,

Bush and all the other war criminals who made torture acceptable in this country. Manning actually believed we were better than that. He also knew he would most likely be in trouble if he became a whistle blower, but like most people who expose the crimes of the powerful, he was willing to take that chance.

It really is a disgrace that it is the messengers who are being pursued, while the criminals not only walk free but are treated as if they deserved respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:00 PM

38. The only way to bring Bush and Cheney to trial would be to have certain conditions on the ground.

Such as were imposed on Germany by the Allied occupiers. It's not a matter of covering up and making it right. We've taken a different course because the solution is the collapse of the federal government itself. That is why it's been hands off and is impracticable within any one country. Many Germans helped with bringing them to justice, but that was not a function of the government of Hitler.

It had to be vanquished, disappeared, destroyed or in other terms, made defunct. Consider that for a moment, and the many aspirations to justice that the Founders wrote about. Think of the Bill of Rights and Constitution being tossed aside in totality, rewritten by a foreign occupier and the government that so many people count on, being gone. What then would we be defending, when it's gone, what charter of human rights would replace it at that juncture, I don't know nor trust. I'm just speaking the history, not mocking the passion, but there are reasons not to do this, even though it leaves our country with a blood debt, that can only be paid by the forgiveness of those harmed, if they are willing.

There is no easy solution to such crimes in the satisfying, Biblical tone of justice meted out at Nuremberg, that have been committed by this country. That was the stuff of movie lore, quite dramatic. To hold those trials and imprison required the German people to be under the boot of the Allies.

We may talk of the boot in the face, but we have never seen it as the people of Europe did, or Asia, under the Axis powers. Nor did we live through an occupation such as Iraq suffered. The good do not always win in revolutions and wars. Spain was not freed from Franco for many years after a horrendous civil war and slaughter with the help of the Axis. That was one context in which the rebels lost and should have won.

The outcome of wars and revolutions are uncertain, and in many instances have replaced better system with dictatorships. The Weimar Republic was replaced by those who were angry and impatient for change at any cost.

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

We may want to think that the Allied occupation was handled in a just and humane fashion as our national media says. But in accounts I have read and with people I have discussed who lived through it over there, it was nothing like the civil order we have here, no matter how quickly reconstructed or the best intentions which did work out in the end.

The lived through a war and an aftermath we cannot imagine. They could be herded to fit the occupiers for work and their legal protections could have all been eliminated. This is just as any defeated country's people are. The only way to bring actors such as Bush, et al, to that situation would be from the outside. Most people have not considered the amount of force required to punish this cabal, or how enmeshed we are with our government, good and bad. If we look back through history, every POTUS could be convicted of crimes against humanity if we go for pure justice for all the native peoples and everyone who was slaughtered in every other cause.

The price of civil disobedience is not an easy one to bear in any part of history. As I have said before, I think Manning did what he thought was right, but I'm not so generous to those who are not in his position and made their names off of his sacrifice. He joined up and took an oath with an organization that does tolerate that.

He is the one suffering for his act of conscience. But there are those in that organization who will never feel the sympathy for him that I do, because I am not part of that organization and have not lived by their code. I still wish him the best and hope he will discharge whatever they demand of him and get to go home as soon as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:25 PM

47. Good post. I have only relatively recently discovered the lack of justice for many

who were victims of Germany's Government. And the last thing any American would want would be to have any outside entity do what we ourselves ought to be doing as it is obvious how disastrous that would be.

But we do have laws here, many of which were violated. And if you are correct that every US President could be convicted of war crimes, then we are clearly on the wrong path.

The only way to change a country's direction is for the people to refuse to close their eyes and continue to demand that we live up to what we claim to be. It certainly won't change if the people either defend those policies for whatever reason, or remain ignorant of them. Knowledge is power and far too many people here, no different from any other country, find it hard to face the reality that their own leaders may not be what they think they are.

Prosecuting criminals serves as a deterrent for future criminals. But when we not only refuse to prosecute them, but protect them, refuse to even acknowledge the crimes, and then go further and persecute Whistle Blowers and the Press, there is little hope of ever resolving these issues and every reason to believe things will become even worse.

At the very least there should have been hearings after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and steps taken to condemn and ban the practices that led to those crimes. The hearings we did have, did not include those most responsible.

One thing that won't work is to continue to defend them. And the Press, Wikileaks, are the only way for people to learn what is going on. I am not sure what you mean by 'taking advantage' of Manning. Wikileaks was a functioning media organization which had received awards for exposing corruption in other governments, long before Manning decided to use them. They have never revealed the identities of any of their sources despite many threats from dictators and other corrupt entities. They did not reveal Manning's identity either.

During the Bush years, the Left was thrilled to see new media like Wikileaks begin to step into the void left by our own media which had become nothing but a propaganda machine for the very people they should have been exposing. But the timing of the Wikileaks documents, which mostly dealt with Bush war crimes, seems to have either silenced some on the Left, or caused them to change their minds about having a truly free press, something they so loudly advocated for during the Bush years.

So long as we allow politics to guide our principles regarding what is right and what is wrong, I think there is zero hope of anything changing, and worse, we can only look forward to things getting worse. Eg, the next time a Republican President is in office, can the 'left' now credibly criticize them anymore? Some maybe, but what we have learned is that even though most of the Wikileaks documents are from the Bush years, the Left has done a complete about turn regarding the very crimes they were so vocal about back then. How beautifully this works for those who start illegal wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:12 AM

116. He could have exposed them legally

under the Whistleblower Act.

And the sheer volume is what undermines the idea he was doing it in good faith. And who he exposed it to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #116)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:32 AM

139. He did expose them legally. He was ignored. Then became a Whistle Blower which he

knew had consequences as he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #139)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:59 AM

146. If he exposed them under the Whistle Blower Act

Then link to that information. If he did, then we can examine that act to see what happened with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #146)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:17 PM

151. Okay, I'll play, again.

I've been through this with your friends already. But, I always give people the benefit of the doubt and will assume you did not read the thread before jumping in and launching your ad hom attacks on me and are seriously interested in facts.

So, let's do this all over again. Maybe I'll get an answer rather than game playing this time.

Please link me to one Whistle Blower who has been protected by the US Government/Military or any other Government entity under the Whistle Blower Act over the past several decades?

If you read the thread before attacking me you would see this game has been played already and no answer has been provided.

But maybe you can provide an answer to this question. I look forward to an honest answer rather than the boring games being played already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #151)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:55 PM

158. You just claimed flat out that Manning used the WB act

So back it up. You're not playing according to the rules.

I don't have to prove anyone else ever used that act - it has nothing to do with whether Manning used it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #158)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:16 PM

161. Um, no, I did no such thing, I said he used what was legally available to him, he

reported the crimes to his superiors. Now post a link to my comment that said he used the Whistle Blower Protection Act. Even your friends appear to know that, being that it is they who are asking ME why he did not.

Totally contrary to your false assertion here, I have explained why HE DID NOT use that and have asked for info on any Whistle Blower who successfully has over the past number of decades.

How about you read the thread before jumping in and making embarrassing assertions like this?

I will await the link to my comment claiming he used the Whistle Blower Act. You surely didn't make this false assertion with nothing to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #161)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:45 PM

179. Did he use the Military Whistle Blower Protection Act?

If not, he should have. He had that avenue available. So our country provides for that rather than being so darned evil. He could have thus gotten the bad guys without getting some good guys too and giving a foreign nutcase a lot of his own country's classified documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #179)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:52 PM

182. What, no apology for being so wrong? And the question as to why has been

answered.

I asked you the same question I asked msanthrope. Name ONE whistle blower who has been protected by the Whistle Blower Protection Act over the past several decades and you will have your answer.

An answer already provided, inadvertently I am sure, by msanthrope.

You really shouldn't jump into threads before you read them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:59 PM

11. Well, his defense was correct to delay trial, time after time---

Once he was out of Quantico, he was moved to a medium level security pod in Leavenworth. When (and if) he gets conviction of the most serious crimes against him, he goes across the street to fed max. Tha's not pretty.

So, his defense probably told him that it was in his interest to do as much time in this med sec, because that will be counted against any future sentence.

Which means that pretty early on in the process, Manning and lawyer knew he had left enough evidence to convict him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:06 PM

41. The oath he took convicted him. No way to get that job without promising to NOT do what he did.

I still maintain that he is/was an idealistic young man, and for that reason I feel great sympathy for him. If I recall correctly, even his own father who was military, was not kind about it.

When one gets into such an organization, it is not the same as we who live in civilian life or even with corporate rules, but a tougher standard. I feel no sympathy for those who have used his plight to advance themselves. They are not the ones facing this. I want him to get this behind him and to heal from all that has befallen him, hopefully with his family or friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:23 PM

45. He could have used the Military Whistleblwoers Protection Act of 1988--but that would not have

brought him the acceptance and adulation I think he craved. For a brief time, I think he found acceptance with the Wikileaks crowd, and that's what pushed him to do wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:00 PM

56. Please post a link to information on just ONE whistle blower who 'received the

acceptance and adulation' (a complete distortion of Manning's own stated reasons for what he did btw) they craved over the past number of years?

I would seriously love to know that Whistle Blowers have been protected for telling the truth but I personally do not know of a single case. It's entirely possible that you know of such cases, and I will be seriously thrilled if such cases, even one, exist. Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #56)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:54 PM

66. Ellsburg. I think Manning thought he was going to be the next Ellsburg.

That you unaware of a single case of the use of the Military Whistleblower's act is unsurprising---you once defended Anwar Awlaki as a "non-violent" cleric and insisted he had been in the US as recently as two years before his death....

Do some googling, and familiarize yourself with what you are debating about.

FYI--still waiting for you to document, upthread, what legal steps Manning took. There's an excellent timeline of Manning's adventures on FireDogLake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:09 PM

69. Lol, thanks, I had a feeling you have to go way back in history to find one.

Your statement, just to review: He could have used the Military Whistleblwoers Protection Act

I guess Manning knew our history of protecting Whistle Blowers also.

Thanks for making my point.

I rest my case!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #69)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:23 PM

76. (Facepalm) Sabrina, that you don't know that Ellsburg couldn't have used the

MWPA of 1988 isn't surprising to me.

That you know nothing about the MWPA cases arising from the Mississippi Guard doesn't surprise me.

That you think you made a point? Well, okay then, you made a point. But not the one you think you did.

FYI--Hack89 and I are still waiting for you to disclose the "public" information that proves Mr. Manning took legal steps to whistleblow. I hope you also send it on to his attorneys--they seem to have missed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:52 PM

80. I'm having a hard time distinguishing you and Hack from each other frankly. Sorry

about that.

Now you are attempting to back away from the facts you finally admitted.

As I said, I rest my case.

Manning chose the only option open to him after reporting the crimes he personally witnessed to his commanding officers and finding out that they had no intention of doing anything about those crimes. And once again, thank you for proving my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:06 PM

91. Manning could have gone to Kucinich, Sanders, Franken...he went to Assange. That

was a poor choice.

Still waiting for you to document the legal steps you assert Manning took. Make sure you let his attorneys know, since they haven't found them.












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #91)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:41 PM

96. Yawn!

Seriously I think you should try to develop some more effective debating skills.

Credibility is important. When someone is obviously playing games, they lose credibility. And this is something you do all the time when you are trying to defend the indefensible.

The fact is there is NO protection for Whistle Blowers in this country.

The fact is that Manning reported the crimes he witnessed to his superior officers and was ignored and the crimes continued.

The fact is he then had no other option but to become a Whistle Blower which is what he did.

The proof that he was correct to make that choice is that not one of those who committed war crimes has even had a slap on the wrist while the messengers have all been persecuted for telling the truth.

I notice that the critics of Manning and Wikileaks (and by extension (see Lieberman, Palin et al) the NYT, The Guardian, La Monde and all of the other press who published material leaked to Wikileaks), never discuss the truths that were revealed, they struggle so hard NOT to discuss the crimes that have been revealed. And they never accuse Wikileaks or Manning or the Press who reported on the crimes, of LYING.

So what we are left with are some more facts. No one denies the truth told by Manning, yet they condemn those who published the facts.

And those same critics will never be found discussing the facts themselves. Interesting and disturbing at the same time in what it says about this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #96)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:54 PM

106. Again, kindly cite when and where Manning reported crimes to his superior officers. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #106)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:50 AM

143. You know the answer to that perfectly well.

So let's move on from what is common knowledge and why don't you post something that proves he was lying, a link to an investigation of his superior officers would do, the results of such an investigation, even a denial that he was telling the truth??

I know you will not respond to this request and I know the reason why. I know you will continue to play these childish games. But, it's always instructive to see where people stand on the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #143)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:50 PM

156. You made the assertion Sabrina; it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to the rest of us

to prove a negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #156)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:11 PM

160. Made what assertion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #160)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:29 PM

164. You make me laugh Sabrina....truly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #164)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:56 PM

169. So once again you make an assertion and when you can't back it up, you

resort once again to not responding.

Talk about laughing.

For the record and for those reading, which doesn't include Treestar who apparently doesn't read my comments, just the handle:

I love DU!

A recap of the actual discussion in this thread: (psst, Treestar this is for you also)

In response to an assertion that Manning did not choose a legal route to report war crimes, I pointed out that he most definitely did do so.

He took his oath of office seriously and after becoming aware of War Crimes he reported them to his Superior Officers. They ignored him. Leading him to the decision he finally made.

With that out of the way, msanthrope apparently wanted us to believe that 'legal' meant using the Whistle Blowers Protection Act. That did make me, and I'm sure many others, laugh considering how Whistle Blowers are treated in this country.

So I requested an example of how many Whistle Blowers had been protected under that Act over the past few decades basically to point out why no intelligent person, such as Manning, would choose that route.

As expected the only example, and a poor one at that, msanthrope could come up with was from decades ago, she named Ellsberg (who I believe would disagree as he has stated that he was persecuted like Manning). That caused me to rest MY case as it demonstrated why Manning did not take msanthrope's 'advice'.

Treestar apparently not having read the thread, in an ironic ad hom attack, 'accused' ME of having claimed that Manning DID use the Whistle Blowers Act proving without a doubt that he did not read even the comment I directed to him. Since I actually argued as to why he DID NOT use it.

So that is where we are other than the mysterious claim by msanthrope above about some assertion she claims I made, aside from the ones I actually I did make I am assuming, but has refused to tell me what it is.

The games people play when the facts are inconvenient. It is always instructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #169)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:17 PM

171. Again, no documentation of your claim. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #171)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:17 PM

174. What claim? What are you talking about? I stated the facts of this case as they are known

If you dispute those facts, then say so openly rather than playing these games. I will respond to you when I know what you are talking about.

So far you are making vague references to 'claims' that you have refused to make clear.

There are known facts about this case. Those are the only 'claims' I have made.

Manning reported war crimes to his superiors. They ignored him. That, absent any denial from anyone else, absent any documentation of any investigation into those claims, remains one of the most commonly known facts about this case.

If you have something that disputes that fact, then then please just produce it rather than running around in circles implying you know something no one else knows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #174)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:25 PM

176. "Manning reported war crimes to his superiors." Document that.

Treestar, Hack89, and I have all asked you the same thing--simply document that claim.

And let Manning's attorneys know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #96)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:14 AM

117. No, your debating skills are poor

You keep sidestepping the issue and that's why posters are saying the same thing over and over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #117)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:31 AM

138. You mean 'that's why two of the usual posters are playing the same old games'. I am having

a lof of fun watching them do what they always do when they want to avoid discussing facts. It's always the very same two people also which most everyone is aware of.

I am very accustomed to their game, a game played only by those who refuse to acknowledge facts that are inconvenient, and I know it frustrates them terribly when people refuse to play.

Very bad tactic as a majority of those reading know exactly what they are trying to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #138)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:01 PM

147. You've gone to ad hominem

Talking about the posters who posted what, but not addressing the issue. You made a statement, back it up. Attacking posters instead is zero debate points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #147)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:08 PM

148. Irony is not dead. Lol! Maybe you can give a direct response to the question they, and you

btw, have been avoiding. Why were those who refused to respond to Manning's reports of war crimes not held accountable? Were they even investigated? Have any of the crimes exposed been investigated? Has anyone other than the messengers been held accountable for the crimes revealed?

I see you did not address any of the issues I raised in all of the comments you responded to but went Ad Hom instead which is why I laughed at your 'ad hom' comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #148)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:15 PM

150. How do you know that the allegations aren't being investigated?

 

Not trying to be an ass, but you nor I know if there is or isn't an active investigation going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #150)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:29 PM

153. You are asking the wrong person.

Ask those who are trying so hard to avoid admitting that Manning did report the war crimes he witnessed to his superiors. The game being played here is to claim there is no proof of what Manning said. They are waiting to play 'gotcha' with that response, which I have refused to allow.

So, skip the game and the 'gotcha' moment which is not going to happen, and YOU ask them that question. I have made no claims that such an investigation happened or did not.

But here is what we do know. Manning in his own words has stated he reported those crimes. I have never seen a denial from the Military that this happened. I HAVE seen excuses as to why his superiors ignored his reports.

So with no public denial or any known investigation from my pov, he was telling the truth.

The next step in the game being played is that he should have sought protection under the Whistle Blower's Act. Lol, and the question from me, post the name of one whistle blower who has received protection under that act over the past number of decades. They could not and that of course answers the question why he chose the Press to reveal those crimes.

Maybe you can explain why a very intelligent man which Manning is, decided he would get nowhere and maybe even prosecuted if he used the Whistle Blower Act. Could it be because our Government DOES NOT protect Whistle Blowers, they prosecute them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #153)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:35 PM

155. Fair enough

 

and all good questions.

Here's what I do know, Pvt. Manning allegedly released classified docs, which is clearly against military law as outlined in the UCMJ, he stands accused of violating the secrecy act he signed and that is a pretty serious offense. Whether or not he felt that's what he had to do is, in the eyes of the law, irrelevant to the law. I sympathize with the young man, but, if he did this, and right now he only stands accused, not convicted, then he knew what was going to happen to him regardless of what was in the doc. he released.

I will defer to those that know more about this case than I do. I'll try to get up to speed on this over the weekend and hopefully get back next week.
In the meantime, you have a wonderful weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #155)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:18 PM

162. Thank you, you have a great weekend also!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #91)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:32 PM

109. I met Ellsberg at Rice University where he met with students, inspired us to go to D.C.

We got more involved with politics than we before, helping mobilize student anti-war actions across the USA. From Wikipedia entry on the Pentagon Papers:

In February 1971 Ellsberg discussed the study with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The name "Pentagon Papers" for the study arose during the resulting media publicity. Street protests, political controversy and lawsuits followed.

To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision Gravel v. United States.


I suppose this is why we can't get at Daryl Issa for his stunts, releasing information. Many arguments do not take these factors into account, nor do they take into account how the majority in the Congress of Senate is essential to bring things to the public, to investigate, to change things.

We had a brief window around the time Obama was elected, with many investigations by John Conyers and others, and those who deny it was brief or what the issues of Democratic Party control of doing things, I no longer cite the proof. They just want to bash Democrats without learning the basics or the numbers. They consider these details beneath them as they talk about great causes, but those details, like the state races, are what makes what happens in D.C. happen. It's boring until it all comes together to do something good or bad. and there is really no surprise what apathy leads to - plutocrats winning.

Ellsberg, Kerry, MLK and the Kennedys shaped my life and those who I knew, mid-sixties thorugh the mid-seventies. Our focus varied from civil rights, voting rights, women's and gay rights, anti-war, to environmental, immigrants and unions. There is never a lack of things to work toward, the work is multi-generational.

I have never forgotten when I saw Mike Gravel's tearful testimony as he entered the words into the Congressional Record to preserve them for the public. Nixon was hot after everyone to get the disclosure stopped, but this was the way to get it done.

You are right. I feel certain Kucinich or Sanders would have done the same as Gravel with this information. It was the reason I supported Gravel in the 2008 primaries. When he did not get the nomination, I checked out Obama and I have no regretted my choice as being the best man for the job.

As Gravel and Ellsberg said, Presidents are not in the same position as they were. When I met with a group of Democrats and listened Kucinich in a Q & A session and people were furious at Obama for the war not ending fast enough, he said the same thing, that Obama's job is not the same as that of a Representative and he supported Obama as a progressive.

In case you never saw the unedited Gravel video, here it is:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:03 PM

58. I hope he didn't crave adulation; I feel he was caught up. I remember when all of these great

Disclosures were dumped on the web. By people who profited by getting donations for the cause. The noble cause being transparency at any cost, like Issa dumping the names of Libyans for poliitcal purpose.

As much as I was inspired and felt a sense of liberation from Wikileaks, the governments they toppled in some places, were not replaced by democratic ones, but by more authoritarian ones. This has been a source of disllusionment of some of the Arab spring protestors. I feel many of us have been decieved about how to gain power to change these institutions, thinking a few days, weeks in the streets will do it, without electoral victories or hands on work with people.

Certainly, those who call for not voting as making one part of the evil government, can point to individual helping. If they fail to get involved with elections which is what does change government, they have missed the mark. I have friends of different religions who do soup lines and gathering up things for the poor. It is part of their religion, but I urge them to continue to support the tenet of the New Deal which enriched their own lives, by voting and supporting those who do.

I kindly remind my friends, that refusing to vote or get involved politically to change the bigger picture, for those people they will never meet, might never tolerate helping, is passing the buck. It is feel good giving, although often it is hard on the personal level, and for that I thank them. What is harder, though, is to make the government do these things and elminate the problem en masse.

That is the role of the government, but some want it reduced to nothing because they only see the bad that government does, which is exactly the Koch family position in the long run. As if the private sector and business will, take care of it. That is not intellectually honest, since it is not the purpose of a corporation or private interest. As far as philantrophy by the ultra wealthy or others, that is a shiny object dangled in front of people as a magical solution that costs them nothing:

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

The anti-government crowd want a libertarian paradise, with only charity and church helping out the poor. So the rich continue to not be taxed, so that it is voluntary and they consider themselves if not of that number now, soon to be. That is the end result of their philosophy. For the success of this model, we can look to those countries of Latin America and Asia and Africa, where the rich don't pay taxes, and the poorest live in prison labor type situation or eke out their living in garbage dumps.

Why not address the cause, by having the government enforce laws on equal opportunity, wages and working conditions, providing housing, food and healthcare to the millions of people they will never meet?

These are the people Democrats vote to support, called weak, compromisers and 'statists' or part of the evil government. It requires a strong government to overcome those who in the private sector who want to discriminate and force others to bow their religious extremism, and/or live at the permission of the rich.

Oh good grief. I think I'm on the wrong thread with this. I'll come back and edit and delete later because I'm on my way out the door in a few minutes.

But I don't see any venality in Manning. I may be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #58)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:57 PM

67. I think your post is just fine--I wouldn't edit it.

After reading his chat logs with Lamo, I do think Manning was an immature, and arrogant person. This does not make him bad, but he does seem to crave adulation. At least that's my take. Perhaps it was only that he felt he needed to belong--and I don't fault him for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:17 PM

83. You sure that was why he didn't use the act?

Sure it wasn't because he was some 20 year old private and not a lawyer? Also what congressman do you suggest he should have gone too. Who do you think has the brass? The leaks have been out in public for five years but I have not seen any debate in congress over prosecuting those war crimes. Because that would be un-American you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #83)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:21 PM

92. He had the option of going to Kucinich, Sanders, Franken.....

In jan of 2010 he was in VA visiting his aunt. He chose to give info to some Boston affiliates of Wikileaks rather than take the Metro. And all servicemembers know what their duty is.

Kucinich was chairperson of a subcommittee under Government Oversight and Reform. Franken's on Judiciary. They have the chops.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #83)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:16 AM

118. Wait a minute

He's going to be OK'd for releasing classified information but is just a kid too immature to live with the consequences? He can release classified information as an uninformed kid? Is he kid or adult? If a kid, he should leave Whistleblowing to adults and informed ones at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #118)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:38 AM

124. I'm sorry, the adults in this story were too busy protecting pedophiles

I never said he was a kid. I said the was 20 year old private. So don't expect him to be a lawyer or particularly erudite. The only reason he had access to what he did was due to his superiors organizational ineptitude and hubris that there would be consequences if those crimes got out. I guess it wasn't so much hubris since 2 years has passed and only Manning has been punished.


And no I don't think anyone in congress would have had the brass to do what was right. We are talking about putting US contractors, State Department personnel and military servicemen on trial for crimes against foreigners. That's un-American you know. Won't get you re-elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #124)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:47 AM

127. I don't know how pedophiles come into this

However, if one is going to undertake something serious like whistle-blowing, which will involve illegal activity, is it too much to talk to a lawyer first?

Then again my question has to be now - why did the military give access like this to a 20-year-old?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #127)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:57 AM

130. You are right that he should have talked to a lawyer

I am not saying he didn't do anything wrong but keeping him locked up for 2 years is horrific considering the leak did not really endanger anyone. Never mind life.

By the way, if you don't know how pedophiles come into this then I suggest you watch this episode of front line.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/

Some of Manning's leaks exposed that US contractors were involved in the trafficking(and 'use') of these children and that ISAF was aware of this. And yet they chose to do nothing for the past 2 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #130)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:01 AM

131. I can't watch a video at work and I can't find much information on this.

Did Manning know about this or was it something that just happened to be in the hundreds of thousands of documents he gave to Wikileaks.

And is this about what Afghanistanis do in their own country? As horrendous as it is, that hardly sounds like whistle-blowing to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #131)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:19 AM

136. US citizens were doing this

I guess I wasn't clear about that in my post but here is some additional reading on it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
^^^The US diplo's response was to try to hush up the story rather than get the DoJ on it. I guess it would have been 'embarrassing for the organization' to pursue it. Kind of like Penn State.

I don't know if Manning specifically read these leaks. He did say that he was disturbed by many things that he had read in the cables. But there were many things in the cables to be disturbed by and this was just one. Maybe it will come up in trial.

The company in Question was Dyncorp and this is not their first brush with sex trafficking. They did it in Bosnia too.
http://www.salon.com/2002/08/06/dyncorp/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:02 PM

7. I always *wondered* who "the enemy" was in Iraq.

>>>They include aiding the enemy, punishable by life imprisonment.>>>

Now I know. It was *us*.

The taboo info aided *us*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:02 PM

13. Al-Qaeda, which the prosecution presented evidence of at the Article 32.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:20 PM

22. So..... Manning was an al-Qaeda agent?

I'm getting goosebumps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:28 PM

24. Well, an active, recruited agent? No....

But, in basic conspiracy, the left hand doesn't have to know what the right hand is doing, nor does there have to be direct knowledge or communication with an eventual wrongdoer.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:37 PM

31. Indeed. In exactly the same way that Ellsberg's treachery aided the NVA and NLF. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:52 PM

36. And Ellsburg would have been convicted--had the FBI refrained from wiretapping him. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:11 PM

82. Only if the gov't chose to prosecute him.

Disregarding for the moment fact that the case was thrown out... it would have been a moral , ethical , and political mistake of MONUMENTAL proportion if the gov't had proceeded to successfully prosecute Dr. Ellsberg.

Even Nixon's justice dept... notwithstanding its ethically retarded character ... would likely have awakened to that fact in time.

If not, Carter would surely have pardoned him in late Jan. , 1977.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:57 PM

85. Um...smarmie. They did prosecute him. like in a courtroom. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #85)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:53 PM

101. You're getting peevish. I'll let you go. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #101)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:52 PM

104. I apologize. I am peevish this evening. Please forgive me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #104)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:59 PM

108. Done. You've been at a while. Thanks. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:42 PM

34. He was, as Joesph Stalin liked to say

 

a useful idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:05 PM

40. Excellent timeline of the entire affair from Firedoglake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:24 PM

46. Indeed--a very good one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:07 PM

42. Poor guy



I feel so sorry for him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:08 PM

43. He's not admitting he was wrong...and he WASN'T wrong.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:32 PM

50. Um--that's what a guilty plea is. Admitting you were wrong. Think there won't be allocution?

He will go into detail. And the prosecution won't take the deal without testimony before the grand jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:28 PM

62. No, it's admitting that you did something...not that you were wrong TO do it.

Clearly, Bradley Manning never deserved the barbaric suffering that was inflicted on him. He did what he did to help us all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:37 PM

65. I have clients who think that way, and they have the rap sheets to prove it.

Seriously--I've had clients who think that just because they pled guilty to assault, it doesn't mean they did something wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #65)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:55 AM

110. What Manning did has nothing in common with assault or ANY violent crime

It was about ending violence. There was no reason to even consider what he did a crime. Secret operations are only going to have right-wing consequences...they can't ever lead to anything progressive or positive anymore.

It's ugly that you're defending the national security state, when that state does nothing but repress you(and the rest of us).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #110)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:44 AM

113. Mr. Manning chose the UCMJ, and what he did was a crime under that code.

That's a fact.

I am sorry you feel repressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #113)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:53 PM

168. The UCMJ cannot be privileged above conscience.

Why would any non-reactionary EVER take an absolute "the law is the law" position? The law is not neutral and it will never treat the poor, the powerless, and the victims of brutality as equals with the rich, the powerful, and the brutalizers.

We have to retain the right to put conscience first...a law-first world will be a world of savagery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #168)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:09 PM

170. Of course you have the right to put conscience before law. What you don't have is right to avoid

the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #170)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:57 PM

185. Very funny how the law worked here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:01 PM

87. The sad part is that what he did had no impact

Assange used him and threw him away like a kleenex. What a waste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:54 PM

105. In the eyes of the law

 

yes he allegedly was, it doesn't matter one whit what anyone here thinks as far as whether he was right or wrong, what matters is what the UCMJ says, and the UCMJ classifies what he is accused of as a crime.
All the hand wringing isn't going to change that. If this young man is convicted, he's going to spend the rest of his life in a Fed. Supermax prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #105)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:58 AM

111. The US military works for the United States of America

If the UCMJ can not find real justice then it needs to be reformed by congress. A congress elected by Americans. So yes it does matter what Americans think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #111)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:14 AM

120. What makes you think that the UCMJ can't find real justice?

 

It's been doing just that since it's inception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #120)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:24 AM

122. Manning has done 2 years for outing child sex-traffickers

So no. No it hasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #122)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:37 AM

123. Those were civilian contractors if I remember right.

 

If so, then the UCMJ doesn't apply, that would be the civilian court system.
You can argue all you want, but the bottom line is that if this young man is convicted of the crimes he's accused of, and my personal opinion is that he will be, then he's going to spend the rest of his life in Fed. prison.

That's the law and all the dithering and hand wringing here on DU don't mean diddly squat. Do you honestly think that anyone in the JAG gives two shits about what's said here?
Yeah, it's nice for all the naysayers to have a place to come to to whine and moan about what they see as a travesty of justice for prosecuting Manning, but in the final analysis, the US govt. could care less about what's said on a chat board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #123)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:40 AM

125. Why do you even visit a political forum?

If you don't think citizens should talk about what the government does?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #125)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:43 AM

126. Show one post where I said that the people shouldn't discuss what the Govt. does?

 

I never once said that so take your little snark and place it where the sun, well, you get the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #126)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:48 AM

128. What do you think we are doing here?

You are the one who is being snarky by not defending your position and hiding behind "it's the LAW"

It's the law because citizens make it the law. If the law is not just or is not being executed justly(I argue the latter) then it should be discussed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #128)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:53 AM

129. I'll ask again

 

show one post where I said that this shouldn't be discussed? All I said was that the govt. doesn't care what's said about Manning on DU.
Discuss all you want, I'm not trying to stop anyone.
How am I hiding behind the law when I'm just pointing out the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #129)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:02 AM

132. Fair enough. But he still wasn't wrong.

Yes if he had gone to a congressman first then we would not be having this convo but life in prison for not doing that(or knowing about it) is horrendously excessive. An unjust execution of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #132)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:04 AM

133. I think he should receive leniency just for his unstable frame of mind.

And I would not have any problem with Obama pardoning him after he's come to terms with violating his military oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #133)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:11 AM

135. Maybe

 

but the military is going to make an example of him to discourage others from doing the same thing and I highly doubt that Pres. Obama will pardon him.
Just my opinion of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #133)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:59 PM

159. I agree with you--he's got lots of mitigating factors to be considered in his sentencing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #132)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:06 AM

134. I have a difference of opinion on this

 

but if you believe that the law is unjust, then I honestly urge you to try to get the Congress to change it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #134)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:21 AM

137. An opinion you won't(or can't) defend?

..alright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #137)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:38 AM

141. Fair enough

 

Here's my defense of the law, the military is a highly organized entity, discipline and order are the bedrock of the military, Manning knew what the penalties were when he signed the secrecy agreement, yet he released those classified doc. to a foreign entity w/o, IMO, reviewing what he was releasing. He had other avenues he could have utilized but chose not to.

The US govt. cannot tolerate that. What happens if the next time, someone else took it upon themselves to release classified docs because they think it's their solemn duty to do so and it truly damages national security? The govt. cannot allow someone in a trusted position to get away with this.

The bottom line is that Manning unlawfully released classified docs., violating the secrecy oath he took and now, if convicted, he's going to pay a very heavy price for his unlawful action.
And until the law is changed or amended, I support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #141)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:27 PM

187. Thanks for your post, glacierbay. It's a clear explanation

of Pfc Bradley Manning's involvement in releasing classified documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:22 PM

59. I doubt a plea bargain will be accepted.

Cult of personality aside, he won't be able to walk away from some of the more serious charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:05 AM

112. If you really WANT Manning to be punished, that's depressing.

He was acting morally, to save us all from the reactionary shit the national security state is doing in secret. None of those secret operations are good for the American people...they're all about the old bullshit of defending corporate power globally and keeping us in the Middle East when we have no non-imperialist reasons to be there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #112)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:19 AM

119. It's more depressing to want the law to apply

only as people choose it to apply. Exceptions to be made for people we like and who we want to excuse. Who is going to be the Decider in all that? Who gets to evade the law and who doesn't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #119)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:44 AM

142. Oh you're so right about that. 'It's more depressing to want the law to apply

only as people choose it to apply'. So how many of the crimes and the criminals responsible for them revealed by the leaks, has the law been applied to?

Manning was an intelligence analyst, a speed reader, an extremely intelligent person who using his skills, saved the lives of many of his fellow troops.

Since you are commenting here I assume you are aware of the crimes that were committed. Have you advocated for the law to be applied to war criminals, or only to those who report them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #142)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:55 AM

144. Can one oppose the war without having to resort to this?

War is hell. I have no idea if there were "war crimes" committed - I actually doubt it. The Hague would start a prosecution if there were any real evidence. I don't agree that in order to oppose the war in Iraq, you have to insist it involved "war crimes." I opposed the war because it was not necessary and was only for motives of enriching the likes of Halliburton. I can do that without having to prove "war crimes."

I think you are using that term loosely, too, without really understanding if there is proof of such things, and if the only way to prove it is to dump classified information without regard to what it includes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #144)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:40 PM

189. You actually doubt that war crimes were committed?


I actually think you have your head buried in the sand.

Bush and Cheney were formally convicted of war crimes by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Foundation, a foundation created by those with power to persuade the ICC. Unfortunately it doesn't help when not a single mainstream news agency would cover the story:

http://technorati.com/politics/article/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes/

One of the most revealing things about this development, however, is that the mainstream press in the US and UK have not touched it. At all. Not one spillage of ink, kb of information or second of airtime. CNN, the BBC, Newsweek, ABC, the London Times. The list could be as long as this article. The only major news source to touch it has been The Real News Network. I would rush to say that this display is some bizarre double-standard or moral evasion by the mainstream press, but itís not as if these stations have been quiet about news that criticizes the war previously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #119)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:10 PM

149. The 'law' already favors those in power.

It is they, for whom exceptions are provided. The elites who are protected by our government's secrets, already control every element of state power. They finance our political campaigns, 'sponsor' legislation and establish policy via their 'revolving door'. They also own the banking system, establish our monetary and economic policies and own the media establishment. Clearly, it is they who are the 'deciders'. The People have little recourse, especially when they are ignorant of their government's conduct and methods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #149)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:22 PM

152. 'Every element of state power'?

Damn. Do they control what kind of car I buy? Where I take my daughters for dinner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #152)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:33 PM

154. I don't know. Do they? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #152)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:54 PM

157. State power may refer to:

* Police power, the capacity of a state to regulate behaviours and enforce order within its territory
* The extroverted concept of power in international relations
* The introverted concept of political power within a society.

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

Yes, the elites of our society control every element of state power, including our policies of militarism, and then use the 'law' to hide their crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #157)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:27 PM

163. I get you.

But I don't know who should control state power other than state officials. That doesn't necessarily make them elites and is possibly straying from the OP.

Political power was exercised 3 days ago. If you believe the 'elites' control our society (I do not, at least not to an all-encompassing extent), then we upset their apple cart, didn't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #163)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:52 PM

167. The will of the people, should be the basis for all state power. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #119)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:51 PM

166. So you'd have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act?

Or the laws that banned labor unions or required people to turn in their friends to the government for their political allegiances? Or the Neutrality Act of the 1930's that was passed solely to make sure that nobody in the U.S. did anything to stop the victory of fascism in Spain?

You can't privilege the law above conscience. Doing so leads to a reactionary, heartless, soulless world. The law is not higher than "the better angels of our nature".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #112)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:27 AM

121. You are conflating war in general with what Manning did.

Do you really think Manning is an anti-war activist? Funny profession for him to choose, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #121)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:48 PM

165. As I see it, Manning saw the truth AFTER he joined.

You might just as well attack Daniel Ellsberg's choice of profession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:23 AM

114. Manning revealed war crimes

No matter what else he did or why he did it, anyone who reveals war crimes is a hero in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duhneece (Reply #114)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:51 PM

181. "anyone who reveals war crimes is a hero in my book."

... and is also in MINE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread