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

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
51. Kindly read my comment again and show me where I said he did.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:33 PM
Nov 2012

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.

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
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pfc. Bradley Manning offe...»Reply #51