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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution ... [View all]sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)70. And the same elements that got Ellsberg's case dismissed exist here and, according
to Ellsberg himself, even more so.
Ellsberg was indicted and faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. The reason he got off was because of gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering - the FBI was illegally wiretapping him.
Manning was discovered due to an FBI sting operation. What is different about that and what happened to Ellsberg?
The real reason why the charges were dropped was because of the revelations of how corruptly the whole war, which was extremely unpopular by then, was conducted, the lies, the profiteering etc. To put someone in jail who was trying to expose the lies and corruption doesn't make sense in any civilized society especially when the real criminals remain free.
Only in extremely oppressive societies do people like Manning who tried to right some egregious wrongs done by his Government, even go on trial. Some 'laws' need to be broken when it becomes clear that War Criminals, eg, will not be subjected to any law.
If we are to stick to the law so rigidly that we turn away from crimes then we need to reassess what was done to those who refused to break the law in Germany. We did not accept that excuse. We still despise those who ignored the war crimes and refused to speak out against them.
And don't bother with the Godwin's law nonsense. WW11 was the reason for the International laws, most of them can be credited to the US and its allies, that we now claim to respect. Those laws do not permit any excuses for participating in war crimes, either by action or silence.
But if bad laws are more important than honor and integrity in this country now, then we are truly lost, as other nations have been in the past where 'the law' was the argument for every atrocity committed. It was 'legal' and it was 'illegal' to expose the crimes.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution ... [View all]
tk2kewl
Jun 2013
OP
You're begging the question which was whether Ellsberg releasing more than
CharlesInCharge
Jun 2013
#25
Manning did not have a TS clearance. He didn't have access to TS information. (nt)
jeff47
Jun 2013
#21
Oh, Manning most certainly did have TS clearance. Manning CHOSE to release
CharlesInCharge
Jun 2013
#28
Then the question would be 'why did he not go to Congress'. I believe he explained
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#37
And the same elements that got Ellsberg's case dismissed exist here and, according
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#70
He had an obligation to abide by his oath which he tried to do. Why didn't Ellsberg
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#42
Technical note: Ellsberg did go to Congress first but was blown off. Likewise, Manning did
CharlesInCharge
Jun 2013
#48
And if this was only about that Collateral Damage video he probably would not be charged now however
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#59
Then he made a principled choice and is willing to pay the price of this actions.
hack89
Jun 2013
#38
Funny how we ignore the 'legal obligations' of our elected officials in this country. Can you
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#46
Please provide a link to the supposed Wikileaks pointing to "the guy with an AK-47". Otherwise,
CharlesInCharge
Jun 2013
#32
Wikileaks pointed out CAMERA EQUIPMENT. If what was revealed in that video was
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#51
The military probably classified it I bet because they knew they screwed up and they were
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#62
Well, killing people isn't a mistake. And once it is known that two of the people killed
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#76
No one is arguing that Manning was required to obey a law to coverup a war crime though.
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#77
If he'd handed the documents to the Government of China, would he have been as honorable?
brooklynite
Jun 2013
#61