Reply #125

In the discussion thread: Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case [View all]

Response to glacierbay (Reply #123)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:40 AM

Ash_F (1,744 posts)

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 OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

190 replies	Author	Time	Post
Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case [View all]	Freddie Stubbs	Nov 2012	OP
I wonder if this is all about trying to set up Manning to	avebury	Nov 2012	#1
No, it's about Manning. Period. IMO.	randome	Nov 2012	#3
Man. That sounds like a prepared statement.	loudsue	Nov 2012	#4
The sheer volume of material means he didn't look too closely at them.	randome	Nov 2012	#5
What a coincidence, the sheer volume of redacting also means the	cprise	Nov 2012	#12
Who the hell is Bradley Manning to be making these decisions?	randome	Nov 2012	#17
I think your post should note that it is Manning's defense attorney that is pushing the gender	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#21
Conduct unbecoming is a pretty serious charge.	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#25
I am of the opinion that you had an unstable young man, who had many	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#28
You may very well be right.	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#29
I doubt, however, that he is a condescending hypocrite who selectively ignores his own tagline	cprise	Nov 2012	#84
Manning had the choice to tell Kucinich, Sanders, or Franken, and he would have been	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#88
Thats your opinion. He took it to the Fourth Estate instead	cprise	Nov 2012	#100
Whistleblowing in general is a precarious undertaking.	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#102
Shit. Even I would have taken the Kook over the 4th Estate. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#103
That's a great response	cprise	Nov 2012	#57
+1. n/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#60
As has been pointed out, he could have used the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act.	randome	Nov 2012	#61
"Not that there's anything wrong with that"	demwing	Nov 2012	#173
You don't know what you are talking about.	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#183
Well, the sheer volume, and his written statements to Lamo indicate that he could not	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#16
I have recalibrated my concept of 'sheer volume' to the warrantless wiretapping	cprise	Nov 2012	#68
Okay..but that has nothing to do with the fact that Manning could not have possibly read	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#77
He didn't just dump it out on the Internet, either	cprise	Nov 2012	#93
All of which he can argue at his sentencing--that he took special care while breaking the law. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#107
Also should mention only Wikileaks had a safe tech infrastructure for whistleblowing	cprise	Nov 2012	#172
I really should use the sarcasm smilie more often. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#175
You know what would be fantastic. If you chose to learn what Manning actually did	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#9
What you say may be true	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#18
He had the option of turning stuff over under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988--	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#20
You are correct	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#23
Well, sadly, if he had just googled more, he could have used the Military Whistelblowers Protection	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#26
I agree	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#27
No, he did not. He had already reported war crimes and had been told to shut up about	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#39
Care to document that assertion?	hack89	Nov 2012	#44
I see you know nothing about this case as I suspected. If you have to ask me what	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#49
So you can't document them? Why not simply say so?	hack89	Nov 2012	#52
Then enlighten us please. What did Manning do before he decided that reporting war	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#54
Nothing as far as I can see - that is why you need to substantiate your assertion	hack89	Nov 2012	#70
He did nothing??	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#72
Yet you seem completely incapable of providing that "public" information.	hack89	Nov 2012	#74
She needs to send it on to Manning's attorneys---they seem to have missed it. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#78
Your tactics are transparent and very, very old and jaded. You clearly have	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#79
So you lied about Manning reporting war crimes to his chain of command?	hack89	Nov 2012	#86
Now you're getting desperate. Lol!	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#89
So you expect me to prove a negative?	hack89	Nov 2012	#90
What I expect is simple. When someone sets themselves up as qualified to	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#94
You make up shit and then claim that as an "expert" you can't be challenged.	hack89	Nov 2012	#95
Please post what 'shit' I made up. And try to calm down. You don't know anything about	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#98
You said that he informed his chain of command about war crimes	hack89	Nov 2012	#99
So his claim that his chain of command ignored him is at the center of his defense .. oh wait.	hack89	Nov 2012	#97
Then educate by linking to something	treestar	Nov 2012	#115
Have you asked your friends to produce something to show that any investigation	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#140
You're unable to link to anything	treestar	Nov 2012	#145
Kindly show us where Manning used the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988, as you claim?	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#48
Kindly read my comment again and show me where I said he did.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#51
So you cannot document the legal steps Manning took? Why not just admit that? nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#53
Strange, did you just copy and paste Hack's comment which I just responded to?	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#55
No, I think great minds think alike. Still waiting for you to document your claim, though. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#64
Exactly what is it that you do not know about this	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#71
Again, you aren't documenting your claim, but are expecting others to do it for you.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#75
Here is information on it	treestar	Nov 2012	#177
This is getting ridiculous. Please read the thread as you clearly have not, nor have you	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#186
Right and wrong mean nothing in today's DU	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#81
Please link to the revelations of child sex trafficking	treestar	Nov 2012	#178
There's no way he read 491,000 War Logs. That's not even the hundreds of thousands of cables.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#19
Horse shit. Condemning Manning is not supporting Bush	hack89	Nov 2012	#30
Of course it is. Protecting our war criminals is of primary importance in this society	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#35
Manning should have followed US whistleblower laws	hack89	Nov 2012	#37
Sabrina has an excellent point about war criminals that YOU ignore	cprise	Nov 2012	#63
I have no problem with him whistleblowing war crimes	hack89	Nov 2012	#73
What a ridiculous suggestion. Name ONE just ONE Whistle Blower who was protected by	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#188
If he choose the path he is on then he understood the consequences.	hack89	Nov 2012	#190
Indeed...	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#184
Said the poster who can demonstrate no knowledge of this...	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#180
Partly that but it's mostly to protect the Bush war criminals who were exposed in the	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#15
Catch 22	FiveGoodMen	Nov 2012	#32
Many of the world's worst criminals are here in the US	cpwm17	Nov 2012	#33
kick	navarth	Nov 2012	#2
Hopefully his willingness to admit to lesser charges will get dismissals on the others.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#6
+1	wtmusic	Nov 2012	#8
Any accepted plea will. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#14
He exposed Bush war crimes. Too bad just about everyone has covered up for Cheney,	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#10
The only way to bring Bush and Cheney to trial would be to have certain conditions on the ground.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#38
Good post. I have only relatively recently discovered the lack of justice for many	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#47
He could have exposed them legally	treestar	Nov 2012	#116
He did expose them legally. He was ignored. Then became a Whistle Blower which he	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#139
If he exposed them under the Whistle Blower Act	treestar	Nov 2012	#146
Okay, I'll play, again.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#151
You just claimed flat out that Manning used the WB act	treestar	Nov 2012	#158
Um, no, I did no such thing, I said he used what was legally available to him, he	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#161
Did he use the Military Whistle Blower Protection Act?	treestar	Nov 2012	#179
What, no apology for being so wrong? And the question as to why has been	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#182
Well, his defense was correct to delay trial, time after time---	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#11
The oath he took convicted him. No way to get that job without promising to NOT do what he did.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#41
He could have used the Military Whistleblwoers Protection Act of 1988--but that would not have	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#45
Please post a link to information on just ONE whistle blower who 'received the	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#56
Ellsburg. I think Manning thought he was going to be the next Ellsburg.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#66
Lol, thanks, I had a feeling you have to go way back in history to find one.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#69
(Facepalm) Sabrina, that you don't know that Ellsburg couldn't have used the	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#76
I'm having a hard time distinguishing you and Hack from each other frankly. Sorry	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#80
Manning could have gone to Kucinich, Sanders, Franken...he went to Assange. That	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#91
Yawn!	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#96
Again, kindly cite when and where Manning reported crimes to his superior officers. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#106
You know the answer to that perfectly well.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#143
You made the assertion Sabrina; it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to the rest of us	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#156
Made what assertion?	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#160
You make me laugh Sabrina....truly. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#164
So once again you make an assertion and when you can't back it up, you	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#169
Again, no documentation of your claim. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#171
What claim? What are you talking about? I stated the facts of this case as they are known	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#174
"Manning reported war crimes to his superiors." Document that.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#176
No, your debating skills are poor	treestar	Nov 2012	#117
You mean 'that's why two of the usual posters are playing the same old games'. I am having	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#138
You've gone to ad hominem	treestar	Nov 2012	#147
Irony is not dead. Lol! Maybe you can give a direct response to the question they, and you	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#148
How do you know that the allegations aren't being investigated?	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#150
You are asking the wrong person.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#153
Fair enough	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#155
Thank you, you have a great weekend also!	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#162
I met Ellsberg at Rice University where he met with students, inspired us to go to D.C.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#109
I hope he didn't crave adulation; I feel he was caught up. I remember when all of these great	freshwest	Nov 2012	#58
I think your post is just fine--I wouldn't edit it.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#67
You sure that was why he didn't use the act?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#83
He had the option of going to Kucinich, Sanders, Franken.....	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#92
Wait a minute	treestar	Nov 2012	#118
I'm sorry, the adults in this story were too busy protecting pedophiles	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#124
I don't know how pedophiles come into this	treestar	Nov 2012	#127
You are right that he should have talked to a lawyer	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#130
I can't watch a video at work and I can't find much information on this.	randome	Nov 2012	#131
US citizens were doing this	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#136
I always wondered who "the enemy" was in Iraq.	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#7
Al-Qaeda, which the prosecution presented evidence of at the Article 32.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#13
So..... Manning was an al-Qaeda agent?	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#22
Well, an active, recruited agent? No....	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#24
Indeed. In exactly the same way that Ellsberg's treachery aided the NVA and NLF. n/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#31
And Ellsburg would have been convicted--had the FBI refrained from wiretapping him. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#36
Only if the gov't chose to prosecute him.	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#82
Um...smarmie. They did prosecute him. like in a courtroom. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#85
You're getting peevish. I'll let you go. n/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#101
I apologize. I am peevish this evening. Please forgive me. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#104
Done. You've been at a while. Thanks. N/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#108
He was, as Joesph Stalin liked to say	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#34
Excellent timeline of the entire affair from Firedoglake	hack89	Nov 2012	#40
Indeed--a very good one. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#46
Poor guy	demhottie	Nov 2012	#42
He's not admitting he was wrong...and he WASN'T wrong.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#43
Um--that's what a guilty plea is. Admitting you were wrong. Think there won't be allocution?	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#50
No, it's admitting that you did something...not that you were wrong TO do it.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#62
I have clients who think that way, and they have the rap sheets to prove it.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#65
What Manning did has nothing in common with assault or ANY violent crime	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#110
Mr. Manning chose the UCMJ, and what he did was a crime under that code.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#113
The UCMJ cannot be privileged above conscience.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#168
Of course you have the right to put conscience before law. What you don't have is right to avoid	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#170
Very funny how the law worked here...	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#185
The sad part is that what he did had no impact	hack89	Nov 2012	#87
In the eyes of the law	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#105
The US military works for the United States of America	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#111
What makes you think that the UCMJ can't find real justice?	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#120
Manning has done 2 years for outing child sex-traffickers	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#122
Those were civilian contractors if I remember right.	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#123
Why do you even visit a political forum?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#125
Show one post where I said that the people shouldn't discuss what the Govt. does?	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#126
What do you think we are doing here?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#128
I'll ask again	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#129
Fair enough. But he still wasn't wrong.	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#132
I think he should receive leniency just for his unstable frame of mind.	randome	Nov 2012	#133
Maybe	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#135
I agree with you--he's got lots of mitigating factors to be considered in his sentencing. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#159
I have a difference of opinion on this	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#134
An opinion you won't(or can't) defend?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#137
Fair enough	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#141
Thanks for your post, glacierbay. It's a clear explanation	Cha	Nov 2012	#187
I doubt a plea bargain will be accepted.	AtomicKitten	Nov 2012	#59
If you really WANT Manning to be punished, that's depressing.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#112
It's more depressing to want the law to apply	treestar	Nov 2012	#119
Oh you're so right about that. 'It's more depressing to want the law to apply	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#142
Can one oppose the war without having to resort to this?	treestar	Nov 2012	#144
You actually doubt that war crimes were committed?	AntiFascist	Nov 2012	#189
The 'law' already favors those in power.	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#149
'Every element of state power'?	randome	Nov 2012	#152
I don't know. Do they? n/t	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#154
State power may refer to:	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#157
I get you.	randome	Nov 2012	#163
The will of the people, should be the basis for all state power. n/t	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#167
So you'd have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act?	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#166
You are conflating war in general with what Manning did.	randome	Nov 2012	#121
As I see it, Manning saw the truth AFTER he joined.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#165
Manning revealed war crimes	duhneece	Nov 2012	#114
"anyone who reveals war crimes is a hero in my book."	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#181

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.