Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
146. And yet you chose to defend the cover-up of child sex trafficking
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 07:58 PM
Mar 2013

And Besmirch the good deeds of a military man who was doing his job

Can you explain yourself?

How is this not like the Pentagon Papers? Ash_F Jan 2013 #1
The Pentagon Papers were a single high-level study leaked by a civilian to the NYT Recursion Jan 2013 #4
Look at the summary of the material he is being charged on Ash_F Jan 2013 #5
To Explain: naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #6
Everyone is entitled to justice. Ash_F Jan 2013 #9
look, I'm 100% on manning's side, naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #11
Yes but, there are mitigating circumstances and there is the spirit of the law. Ash_F Jan 2013 #13
No dice. He would have had to have known what he was leaking Recursion Jan 2013 #14
See post 15. I beg to differ. /nt Ash_F Jan 2013 #16
Yes--and he can bring up the mitigating circumstances at sentencing. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #28
He should not have been held for this long PERIOD Ash_F Jan 2013 #58
Manning opted for no jury. Further, most of the trial delay has been due to the defense, which is a msanthrope Jan 2013 #86
And what should happen if the US military begins operating against the civilian US government jberryhill Mar 2013 #155
State Department is very intertwined with military in its functionality. Ash_F Mar 2013 #157
Do you want to address the question or not? jberryhill Mar 2013 #161
Good luck with that. That person loves their logical fallacies, as well as moving the goalposts and stevenleser Mar 2013 #163
I suppose jberryhill Mar 2013 #164
I did Ash_F Mar 2013 #165
It's not a "hypothetical coup" jberryhill Mar 2013 #167
He exposes rape and murder and you accuse him of starting a coup Ash_F Mar 2013 #168
I don't think you understand what a State Department cable is Recursion Jan 2013 #7
I know exactly what a State Department Cable is defined as Ash_F Jan 2013 #8
If you read that you read more of it than Manning did (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #10
Citation for this claim? Ash_F Jan 2013 #15
Didnt Manning have the legal option though to report that cstanleytech Jan 2013 #23
The legal duty in fact. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #29
Yes, which is why it was right to keep him in solitary for years. Ash_F Jan 2013 #59
Actually I suspect the whole solitary thing has more to do with him cstanleytech Jan 2013 #65
It is ridiculous that pedophilia and rape apologia has a place on DU. Ash_F Jan 2013 #66
To bad though the case isnt about him just leaking that though because cstanleytech Jan 2013 #68
That alone makes him a hero and worthy of a full pardon. Ash_F Jan 2013 #74
If this was only an issue of him being charged with leaking cstanleytech Jan 2013 #81
That is like claiming if I go outside with an uzi and indiscriminantly mow down 5000 people that I stevenleser Mar 2013 #140
Read some of the info in this thread. You don't know what you are talking about. /nt Ash_F Mar 2013 #144
I know a lot more than you. I've read the details and am former military. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #145
And yet you chose to defend the cover-up of child sex trafficking Ash_F Mar 2013 #146
No, that is your straw man. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #147
Your argument is the straw man. Ash_F Mar 2013 #148
You do not know what a straw man is. You should learn. Using logical fallacies like you do stevenleser Mar 2013 #149
Why don't you stick to the facts of the case? Ash_F Mar 2013 #150
Every time someone has responded to you with facts, you throw a logical fallacy at them stevenleser Mar 2013 #151
I challenge you to dispute any of the facts I've put forth. /nt Ash_F Mar 2013 #152
Like what? What 'facts' have you put forth? nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #153
This thread is here for you to read. Ash_F Mar 2013 #156
Let me get this straight... stevenleser Mar 2013 #158
You sound like you watch too many James Bond / Tom Clancy movies Ash_F Mar 2013 #159
Which means nothing coming from you because you know nothing about it stevenleser Mar 2013 #162
You have still not provided evidence of the Rush/Hannity talking points you espoused previously... Ash_F Mar 2013 #166
You just issued yet another logical fallacy by trying to suggest I espoused Rush /Hannity talking stevenleser Mar 2013 #170
"distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented..." Ash_F Mar 2013 #173
No. Its not. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #174
so your singular contribution to the problem of child abuse BainsBane Jan 2013 #111
If you've followed this at all, you'd know that Manning has serious emotional problems. randome Jan 2013 #70
That has nothing to do with how he was treated Ash_F Jan 2013 #75
Putting him in solitary DOES have to do with being a suicide risk. randome Jan 2013 #82
He was in solitary for 9 months, not years. hack89 Jan 2013 #91
This is correct. Ash_F Jan 2013 #101
The issue is the secrecy itself. Ken Burch Mar 2013 #137
I see it as different BainsBane Jan 2013 #99
You think child sex-trafficking by US contractors should be protected? Ash_F Jan 2013 #100
If it has been a series of cables on that topic specifically BainsBane Jan 2013 #104
There is no proof that the cables resulted in the loss of life Ash_F Jan 2013 #105
that is not what the NYTimes reported BainsBane Jan 2013 #108
I guess we'll see what the prosecution presents at trial. /nt Ash_F Jan 2013 #114
I could believe the NY Times report BainsBane Jan 2013 #110
Rape apology deserves insult and more Ash_F Jan 2013 #113
by the way BainsBane Jan 2013 #116
The posts are what they are. Ash_F Jan 2013 #123
it isn't a position BainsBane Jan 2013 #125
uh-huh Ash_F Jan 2013 #130
Reporting it to the inspector general of the army would have gotten the ball rolling on that. I used stevenleser Mar 2013 #142
i got pulled into the jury on this post :) TeamPooka Jan 2013 #109
I hope you were #3 Ash_F Jan 2013 #115
Indeed. Approving the use of a sexist term on the thread where you accuse others of rape apologia msanthrope Jan 2013 #119
I would have thought that would be obvious BainsBane Jan 2013 #120
Good to see you equate using the word "bitches" with covering up child rape. Ash_F Jan 2013 #124
Those raped little girls grow up BainsBane Jan 2013 #126
They were boys in this incident Ash_F Jan 2013 #131
Oh, now I understand BainsBane Mar 2013 #132
Wow, you waited a loooooooong time to reply. Ash_F Mar 2013 #135
And you've used it again. Which undercuts your argument even more. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #128
The difference is the leaker is known. jeff47 Mar 2013 #133
I meant more in the sense that Manning is being made out as the bad guy. Ash_F Mar 2013 #136
Oh and you are thinking of watergate Ash_F Mar 2013 #138
Ah yes, my mistake. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2013 #139
does manning boost al queda membership by using drones? nt msongs Jan 2013 #2
Military justice is to justice, Hissyspit Jan 2013 #3
Perhaps, but you are adequately warned in basic training about how strict things are. stevenleser Mar 2013 #141
No justification for telling the truth! nt Deep13 Jan 2013 #12
Military and "justice" don't go together. go west young man Jan 2013 #17
Manning had NO motive, other than seeking attention. railsback Jan 2013 #18
Is he not charged with leaking the "Collateral Murder" video? snot Jan 2013 #19
That's the gunship video? Recursion Jan 2013 #21
No, it's video from a helicopter clearly documenting snot Jan 2013 #121
Helicopter = gunship. That's one of the charges Recursion Jan 2013 #122
This message was self-deleted by its author snot Jan 2013 #129
The video from which this frame is taken, yes? jberryhill Mar 2013 #169
I thought the basis of his argument was that he was following the military's code of honor... freshwest Jan 2013 #20
If that were true, then he'd have my full support. railsback Jan 2013 #56
His defenders focus on an aerial video, not that other material. freshwest Jan 2013 #57
You paint with a very broad brush... AntiFascist Jan 2013 #106
Here's how it went for Col. Lakin... jberryhill Jan 2013 #102
Yes, that group is scary. I'll get back with you. freshwest Jan 2013 #107
This man has been punished enough. Go after the management who didn't notice what was downloaded. Sunlei Jan 2013 #22
He exposed war-crimes, as he is legally oblieged to do. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #24
Agreed newfie11 Jan 2013 #25
And the gigabytes of State Department cables, that he didn't even read before uploading? Recursion Jan 2013 #39
I'm sort of at a loss how he managed to do all of this stuff on his shift, I guess. freshwest Jan 2013 #79
and this is worse than what we have done to innocence by the thousands? newfie11 Jan 2013 #83
As someone pointed out, some of this information ended up on Big Laden's laptop. randome Jan 2013 #84
What war crimes? randome Jan 2013 #26
Murder of civilians. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #27
YOu mean the video where Assange describes a guy carrying an RPG, after curfew, that was fired on? msanthrope Jan 2013 #30
Yeah. That one. randome Jan 2013 #31
I know it's unfair to quote Assange when talking about Assange--but it's rather relevatory when msanthrope Jan 2013 #32
So you defend a militarized police state. CE5 Jan 2013 #33
Uh...huh? randome Jan 2013 #34
You are wrong. By the standards of Nuremberg soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #36
The international community has, regrettably, supported the Iraq war. randome Jan 2013 #37
And even if the video did show a crime, there's the cables that he leaked without reading Recursion Jan 2013 #41
Are you saying enforcing a curfew is an illegal order? Recursion Jan 2013 #40
If you are an illegal invader, then yes, enforcing a curfew is illegal. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #43
Are you under the impression that a war not sanctioned by the Security Council is "illegal"? Recursion Jan 2013 #45
To my knowledge, the UN charta forbids attacking other countries. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #46
Unfortunately, it was the international community -i.e. the U.N.- that invaded Iraq. randome Jan 2013 #48
Congress authorized the war on terror, and reauthorized it 3 times. Therefore it is not illegal. graham4anything Jan 2013 #76
What does congress have to do with international law? redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #77
Since the US had no right to impose a curfew in Iraq or fire on people, RPG or not, yes ... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #35
No. "War crime" means something, and that's not it. Recursion Jan 2013 #38
Easy: redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #42
That's also not true. Neither of those is true. Recursion Jan 2013 #44
.... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #47
Are we reading the same link? cstanleytech Jan 2013 #52
Here: redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #53
Thanks but the problem of that first part I quotes still exists in that cstanleytech Jan 2013 #55
The US government has no right to restrict RPGs? ok. msanthrope Jan 2013 #49
The US governments has the right to restrict RPGs. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #50
Um--this was an Iraqi-imposed curfew, enforced by Iraqis and the US military, jointly: msanthrope Jan 2013 #51
Yeah. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #54
The salient point in all of this... jberryhill Mar 2013 #154
Child sex slave trafficking by US contractors, and the attempted cover up by US diplomats Ash_F Jan 2013 #60
Throw the book at them! No question! But is that a war crime? randome Jan 2013 #61
It happened in Afghanistan(so yes war crime), and no contractors or diplomats have been charged. Ash_F Jan 2013 #62
Not the Military 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #63
Military works in conjunction with the State Department to be the law of the land Ash_F Jan 2013 #64
Congressmen are Better 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #67
The information has been out for years and congress has done nothing Ash_F Jan 2013 #73
Maybe they did look into it and Found Nothing 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #80
I don't need blind faith in politicians, I can read Ash_F Jan 2013 #92
You are right 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #93
The Guardian? That is a direct link to the cable with the Diplos own words and self incrimination Ash_F Jan 2013 #94
Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #95
Yes they are the Diplomat is referring US members of Dyncorp Ash_F Jan 2013 #96
This message was self-deleted by its author newfie11 Jan 2013 #85
and the information that was not related to war crimes that he 'exposed' Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #87
In my view... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #88
a nice 'essay' but it did not answer the question of the info he released that had nothing to Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #89
The essential charge against him is "aiding the enemy". redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #90
i'm not arguing for or against that as its a seperate matter Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #97
I think that if damages resulted to a person from the release of this info... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #98
That's what the "Oath Keepers" are all about jberryhill Jan 2013 #103
But the president is a US citizen. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #112
We are talking about a "motive" defense in this thread jberryhill Jan 2013 #117
I wonder how many of our intelligence assets died I love weed Jan 2013 #69
That was my first concern about the 'data dump' as it seemed sloppy. freshwest Jan 2013 #78
Using it as part of the charges reveals additional classified information jeff47 Mar 2013 #134
The judge is applying the law correctly. What matters in determining guilt or innocence is 24601 Jan 2013 #71
Salute for the distinction between intent and motive Recursion Jan 2013 #72
+1 Supply Side Jesus Jan 2013 #118
not a lawyer, but here motive and intent are pretty much the same wordpix Mar 2013 #176
Isn't it Brenda Manning? SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #127
Because making fun of gay men by giving them female names is funny. Enjoy your stay. stevenleser Mar 2013 #143
I recommend that everyone interested in the Bradley Manning JDPriestly Mar 2013 #160
Having studied the Third Reich my whole life, I would say that they dont have anything in common stevenleser Mar 2013 #171
You should watch the film. JDPriestly Mar 2013 #172
I thought a defendant's motive was a legitimate factor in judgments wordpix Mar 2013 #175
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»WikiLeaks: Bradley Mannin...»Reply #146