Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Manning give wikileaks restricted material, and is this illegal?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 08:52 PM
Original message
Poll question: Did Manning give wikileaks restricted material, and is this illegal?
This poll is about your opinion.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. If Manning did what he is charged with, he broke the law
And should pay his debt in a military prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Manning did what Ellsburg 40 years before him did. Nixon's
administration prosecuted Ellsburg too, but without torturing and abusing him in captivity like the outrages our current Prez has presided over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. "Being in jail" is not the same thing as being tortured.
If you seriously believe that being on suicide watch is "torture," you have a really REALLY fucked up definition, which undermines the entire legitimate grievances of people who HAVE been tortured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. Ok, right, he hasn't been tortured. Just forced to stand naked, kept
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 10:22 PM by coalition_unwilling
in solitary, placed on a highly dubious 'suicide watch,' ad infinitum.

Whatever you've got to tell yourself.

On edit: Your opinion is at odds with that of a lot of very learned people, among them Ellsburg and probably 50% of people following the issue on DU. So please don't call my definitions 'fucked up' and so on without acknowledging that you take issue with far more than merely my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #25
41. My opinion is based on facts.
The claims that his treatment is equal to torture is, simply put, based on either completely false statements, or ridiculous exaggerations--such as equating one night spent sleeping naked as being "forcibly stripped," or that a guard checking on him every five minutes during the 14 hours a day he's not allowed to sleep is "sleep deprivation."

Solitary confinement, and only having one pillow, is not the same as waterboarding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. No, Manning did something quite different
Ellsberg stole a report that he knew what it contained since he'd worked on it himself which revealed illegalities and corruption concerning the Vietnam war. Manning stole a bunch of stuff most of which doesn't reveal any illegalities or corruption, and he has no idea what the vast majority of it contained at all, therefore, he could not have taken it for the purpose of revealing illegalities or corruption. Ellsberg knew that what he did was illegal and was willing to face the music for stealing it... Manning, not so much.

I have no idea what Ellsberg dealt with in prison or even if he was held in prison at all. What Manning is dealing with in prison is NOT unique to him as there are plenty of other prisoners throughout the US suffering similar or worse circumstances, and is certainly far better than what prisoners in Gitmo have and still deal with in prison and for far less or even no crime at all with no charges or counsel. This is not a problem only one individual is suffering, it's epidemic in this country, and THAT is the real problem.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
40. You're stretching ingenuity to its limits. Both Ellsburg and Manning
'leaked' classified material to journalistic organizations. Ellsburg was not tortured while awaiting trial. Manning has been, based on what I've read, and only massive public outcry has forced the Pentagon to move him from Quantico's Torture Central to Leavenworth.

One principal difference between Ellsburg and Manning is that I'm convinced the government was torturing Manning to try to get him to turn state's evidence against Julian Assange and others at Wikileaks. There was comparatively little to be gained by torturing Ellsburg and, as monstrous as Nixon and his junta were (including, among others, that neo-fascist G. Gordon Liddy), they never sank to the level of torturing American citizens, as far as I know. As bad as Nixon and his junta were, they had nothing to gain from torturing Ellsburg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Yeah, that horrible torture of only having one pillow, and only one hot shower a day! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmmettKelly Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. My understanding is that Manning is charged with accessing AND
copying restricted material. Whether he passed that information to wikileaks or anyone else is immaterial and would be a whole other set of crimes if he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Assuming Manning is the leaker, what he did was restricted by US law, BUT that law is superseded
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 09:15 PM by snot
by the treaties to which the US is party that REQUIRE those who become aware of war crimes to reveal them.

So Manning, if he is the leaker, is a hero, not a criminal -- legally as well as morally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Those words don't mean what you think they mean...
... That might be what you wish they meant... but they don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Uh, no. You fail con law 101 forever.
There is no such defense for violations of both military service oaths and federal law on classified information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phlem Donating Member (580 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Just keep moving on folks
no grey matter in this thread.

Just black and whites.

"Sigh"

-p
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I think your post is only describing itself. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phlem Donating Member (580 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. ooh
good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Come on. You know your post contains no real information.
It is an insult without an analysis. It's masturbation without the orgasm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phlem Donating Member (580 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. right
and you just keep opening your mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I don't know how you type, but I keep my mouth closed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. Do you have a link to the trial transcripts so we can decide?
oh, wait...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I like gallows humor. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. There's always his own admission
May 21
This initial, brief chat with Lamo occurred after Manning had already sent the ex-hacker an e-mail. Manning very quickly identified his job in the military and his access to classified documents.

(1:41:12 PM) Bradley Manning: hi
(1:44:04 PM) Manning: how are you?
(1:47:01 PM) Manning: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for adjustment disorder <. . .>
(1:56:24 PM) Manning: im sure youre pretty busy
(1:58:31 PM) Manning: if you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?
(1:58:31 PM) Adrian Lamo : Tired of being tired
(2:17:29 PM) Manning: ?
(6:07:29 PM) Lamo: Whats your MOS?
(3:16:24 AM) Manning: re: Whats your MOS? Intelligence Analyst (35F)

May 22
Manning told Lamo that he had provided Wikileaks with 260,000 classified State Department diplomatic cables. Lamo asked him for details on what scandals the cables might expose. Manning didnt provide a lot of detail, but he pointed to one cable (a test) that Wikileaks already published. He didnt elaborate on what he meant by test.

(1:39:03 PM) Manning: i cant believe what im confessing to you :(
(1:40:20 PM) Manning: ive been so isolated so long i just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life but events kept forcing me to figure out ways to survive smart enough to know whats going on, but helpless to do anything no-one took any notice of me
(1:40:43 PM) Manning: :(
(1:43:51 PM) Lamo: back
(1:43:59 PM) Manning: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)
(1:44:11 PM) Manning: you missed a lot
(1:45:00 PM) Lamo: what kind of scandal?
(1:45:16 PM) Manning: hundreds of them
(1:45:40 PM) Lamo: like what? Im genuinely curious about details.
(1:46:01 PM) Manning: i dont know theres so many i dont have the original material anymore
(1:46:18 PM) Manning: uhmm the Holy See and its position on the Vatican sex scandals
(1:46:26 PM) Lamo: play it by ear
(1:46:29 PM) Manning: the broiling one in Germany
(1:47:36 PM) Manning: im sorry, theres so many its impossible for any one human to read all quarter-million and not feel overwhelmed and possibly desensitized
(1:48:20 PM) Manning: the scope is so broad and yet the depth so rich
(1:48:50 PM) Lamo: give me some bona fides yanno? any specifics.
(1:49:40 PM) Manning: this one was a test: Classified cable from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave dated 13 Jan 2010
(1:50:30 PM) Manning: the result of that one was that the icelandic ambassador to the US was recalled, and fired
(1:51:02 PM) Manning: thats just one cable
(1:51:14 PM) Lamo: Anything unreleased?
(1:51:25 PM) Manning: id have to ask assange
(1:51:53 PM) Manning: i zerofilled the original
(1:51:54 PM) Lamo: why do you answer to him?
(1:52:29 PM) Manning: i dont i just want the material out there i dont want to be a part of it


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this chat, Manning discussed his role as a source for Wikileaks and his interactions with its enigmatic founder, Julian Assange. He also talked about two videos he claimed he provided Wikileaks one of an airstrike in Iraq in 2007, which he said he gave Wikileaks in February and which Wikileaks said it spent three months decrypting before publishing it this last April; and another video taken during an air strike in Afghanistan in 2009, which Wikileaks has acknowledged it possesses but has not yet published.

(2:04:29 PM) Manning: im a source, not quite a volunteer
(2:05:38 PM) Manning: i mean, im a high profile source and ive developed a relationship with assange but i dont know much more than what he tells me, which is very little
(2:05:58 PM) Manning: it took me four months to confirm that the person i was communicating was in fact assange
(2:10:01 PM) Lamo: howd you do that?
(2:12:45 PM) Manning: I gathered more info when i questioned him whenever he was being tailed in Sweden by State Department officials i was trying to figure out who was following him and why and he was telling me stories of other times hes been followed and they matched up with the ones hes said publicly
(2:14:28 PM) Lamo: did that bear out? the surveillance?
(2:14:46 PM) Manning: based on the description he gave me, I assessed it was the Northern Europe Diplomatic Security Team trying to figure out how he got the Reykjavik cable
(2:15:57 PM) Manning: they also caught wind that he had a video of the Gharani airstrike in afghanistan, which he has, but hasnt decrypted yet the production team was actually working on the Baghdad strike though, which was never really encrypted
(2:16:22 PM) Manning: hes got the whole 15-6 for that incident so it wont just be video with no context
(2:16:55 PM) Manning: but its not nearly as damning it was an awful incident, but nothing like the baghdad one
(2:17:59 PM) Manning: the investigating officers left the material unprotected, sitting in a directory on a centcom.smil.mil
(2:18:03 PM) Manning: server
(2:18:56 PM) Manning: but they did zip up the files, aes-256, with an excellent password so afaik it hasnt been broken yet
(2:19:12 PM) Manning: 14+ chars
(2:19:37 PM) Manning: i cant believe what im telling you =L

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. That's from the trial?
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. It will be soon
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. How soon? Has a trial date been set? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Ask mannings lawyer, he is the one who requested the delay N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. He may have requested a delay at some point (link please - I do believe that one
was requested but I've never found the text of the request and for how long of a delay he was asking for) but I do know that Coombs filed for a speedy trial in January.

Obviously, that has not happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Coombs did file for speedy trial in January
As for the request for delay, it is mentioned in his blog here: http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/09/pfc-man...

"Q: What is the next step?

A: The next step in this process will be to conduct what is called a Rule for Court-Martial 706 board. The board is comprised of three Army mental health professionals. Their task will be to conduct a thorough mental examination of PFC Manning to determine if at the time of the alleged conduct he suffered from a severe mental disease or defect, whether he was able to appreciate the nature and quality of his conduct, and whether he is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect. After we have the determination by the 706 board then we will know if an Article 32 and perhaps a trial will be appropriate."

The 706 board reportedly was completed this month (last week sometime I believe).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. That is one fucking long review process, it's been 8 months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Hence the speedy trial request in January N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Definitely not the worst evidence I have seen.
Though I suppose someone could have stolen Manning's identity and then post this "confession." I don't really know anything, I am just throwing out ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. It won't be difficult to prove this was him.
Especially when it's matched up with other events (computer logs, access records, etc.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
37. I read
that Manning claimed to have zerofilled the system that would have contained proof, but unless he was a network security officer, or admin, he did not have access to firewall logs. He certainly didn't have access to proxy logs at the NOC. Logging goes deeper than just the local network.

I also say that some of the information disclosed in his charge sheet had no previous disclosure through his contact with Lamo. Those items most likely have forensic evidence that will be presented to convict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. Amazing how the Manning cheerleaders can't admit he did something wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I am amazed more people don't think the first season of Heroes is better than the other seasons. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. I admit that, allegedly, he committed and illegal act. I also think it was, allegedly, a just
illegal act.

A lot of my liberal heroes committed "illegal" acts in the name of justice.

Tubman
Debs
Flynn
Ellsberg
Parks
King
Sheehan

And scores of their compatriots and supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
35. I am amazed that there are people on the left who can't admit that
doing something illegal is not always wrong. In fact sometimes it is wrong NOT to do something, even if it is illegal.

I am also amazed that there are actually people on the left who do not understand that reporting torture and other war crimes is the duty of a US soldier, and if his superiors tell him to stfu about war crimes, he has a duty to find a way to stop those crimes.

Whistle-blowing was the choice he made, and since when did people on the left oppose the exposure of war crimes? That is what I am amazed by. The sudden lack of concern for war crimes since Bush left office.

I am willing to bet that if Bush were president when this happened, Manning would be a hero to those who now call him a criminal. And that has been a very rude awakening for me. I thought I was on the side of what is moral and right.

I am also amazed that the same people who are so concerned about the 'illegality' of Mannings actions, appear to have zero concern for the illegality of slaughtering innocent civilians from a helicopter including two Reuters journalists and several other civilians. Also wounding and nearly killing two innocent children. Has anyone gone to jail for that? Are Iraqis NOT human in the eyes of Party Loyalists and therefore murdering them is not a crime? I struggle to understand these things and can't ever seem to get an answer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #35
43. I am amazed there are some people who still don't understand he wasn't "reporting war crimes."
He blindly copied massive databases and handed them to an organization that would leak them. He had no idea the total contents of those databases--he couldn't possibly have known, since he couldn't have read them all. What he did was not about exposing something specific, it was about randomly exposing anything and everything. That's not whistle-blowing, it's a poor attempt at some kind of hacker "information wants to be free" pseudo-ethos poorly suited for the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. I am amazed that you still are not aware of the war crimes
that the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs contained. If he had just released the video of the murder of those two journalists and the civilians, that alone should have triggered an investigation. But the War Logs, assuming he did release them, contain information that corresponds with his concerns about what he saw, so to say he did not know what he was releasing, is simply wrong.

Unless you are assuming he also released the Diplomatic Cables, which we do not know. Those may have been released by someone else.

It is the War Logs that contain the war crimes information. But then, our media has never covered an of this so I'm not surprised you are unaware of the crimes that he tried to stop by reporting them, and then, if he is the leaker, passed on proof of them to Wikileaks in the War Logs.

Of course this government is not concerned so much with the crimes evident in the War Logs. These crimes are now US policy and no one cares about them, as Manning found out. This government was far more concerned about the Embassy Cables because they exposed so much that we SHOULD know, such as our government's tolerance and support for dictators, our invovlement in every single country on the planet, the corruption that was rampant in many of these countries and the US tolerance, and sometimes involvement in it.

They also exposed this government's attempts to protect war criminals, by pressuring other countries NOT to prosecute them. They exposed our hatred for Human Rights groups and for the highly respected European Court of Human Rights. They exposed the fact that a change in administration did nothing to change these egregious policies of supporting torturers both domestic and foreign, or our support for some of the world's most oppressive regimes.

IF he released the cables, which we do not know, he did this country a great service IF we do something about the revelations. But the fact that NOTHING has been done here to try to corrrect the wrongs revealed, leaves only one conclusion, and that is what the world has concluded, the US is not a country of laws, it is the opposite. We are NOT the 'good guys', we support the bad guys. And we kill the messenger, just like every other brutal, oppressive regime we hypocritically criticize. A fact pointed out this year by China.

Anyone who cares about this country, will view WHO released these documents as a minor issue. The real shock should have been what they revealed about this country's foreign policy because if we do not do something about what we now know, this country will continue to decline. Manning is the focus after all that has been revealed??? How tragic that is, seriously, for this country's future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. So has the accused
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
micraphone Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. So whistleblowers
shouldn't be protected for exposing torture?

Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. I didn't realize he filed a complaint
in accordance with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Whistleblower_Pro...

"But the communications must be made to one of the following:

(1) A member of Congress, an Inspector General, or a member of a Department of Defense audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization, or

(2) Any other person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command) designated under Component regulations or other established administrative procedures to receive such complaints."

It could be argued that he complied with (2) above, provided the "supervisor" he went to was the appropriate authority to file the complaint. He still had the option once declined by his CoC to report his complaint in accordance with (1) above. Did he do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
micraphone Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. Irrelevant
He qualifies anyway because of WHAT he disclosed (though no trial has yet established that).

Besides, who in his chain of command would have the guts to take on the military PTB? Or should that be the MIC..

Manning is fucked unless, or until, someone with real clout calls out the PTB for the obscene stuff he has (allegedly) exposed.

And it is obscene.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Not Irrelevant.
Edited on Tue Apr-26-11 01:41 AM by NavyDem
Had he made any attempt to report, and then went public I might have some sympathy for his plight as whistleblower. Since he did not report the wrong doing in accordance with regulations, he is not eligible for the protections IMO.

Edit to add: He did not have to report to his immediate chain of command. He could have established communications with a congressman, or someone outside his chain of command.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
micraphone Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Sympathy for his plight?
What about WHAT HE EXPOSED?

Which was, as has been pointed out so many times here, TORTURE.. and worse, extrajudicial murder by US Armed forces. You must have seen the videos - the ultimate proof of obscenities.

You are arguing the technicalities of his lack of proper whistleblower application for protections while the ramifications of what he (alledgedly!) exposed does not seem to matter one whit to you.

BTW, does it not worry anyone the amount of times he says "I don't believe I'm saying this"(to paraphrase)? Does this sound like a normal person.. or one that has been denied sleep, clothes and normal human interaction for months? THAT sounds like torture to me (and to the UN as well). And confessions obtained by torture are rubbish. And irrelevant at trial.

Another kill the messenger poster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. What about the classified information he released that was not
indicative of war crimes? Personally, I think that is what he will ultimately be convicted of. Not the wrongdoing he did expose. At least with Ellsberg, the information released was not indescriminate. Can you honestly tell me that Manning read and analyzed over a quarter million documents, and release only those that showed wrongdoing?

You can call me what you will, I don't belive I'm killing any messenger. I'm only challenging their point of view.

"BTW, does it not worry anyone the amount of times he says "I don't believe I'm saying this"(to paraphrase)? Does this sound like a normal person.. or one that has been denied sleep, clothes and normal human interaction for months? THAT sounds like torture to me (and to the UN as well). And confessions obtained by torture are rubbish. And irrelevant at trial."

If you are reading the Lamo transcript, I have bad news for you. That came BEFORE his arrest so it is NOT a coerced confession, or the result of being tortured (at least not by military officials). If it comes from another source could you cite it so that I can make an objective evaluation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
micraphone Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. Jeez I give up
Navydem. Whistleblowers who give up info at huge risk to themselves give themselves up, again, to your really high standards of accountability. Even if their bosses are quite happy to kill and maim - and screw those below them. (Abu Ghraib anyone?)

Sorry. Gotta go to bed. I'm tired of arguing with quirty keyboard lawyers.

BTW you still did not answer my questions. Goodnight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I agree perception is more important than reality in this situation.
At least as far as Manning's fate is concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainlion55 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
38. terrible poll
Manning is a hero! All this defense of torture by people is just wrong IMO. Have a nice day :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #38
51. How does the poll justify anything? It asks two simple questions about you.
Perhaps you have invented additional meaning for the poll in your mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-11 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
53. Can you justify your claim about the poll? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
46. Other: DO AMERICANS DESERVE A REAL TRIAL OR DO WEB FORUMS COUNT NOW?
Other: HOW FAR WILL SOME PEOPLE GO TO JUSTIFY OBAMA'S BULLSHIT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. I really doubt the military court is going to use DU opinion as evidence.
I don't see any harm caused by DUers typing out their perspective on the subject. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC