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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning's motives are no defence, judge rules [View all]randome
(34,845 posts)84. As someone pointed out, some of this information ended up on Big Laden's laptop.
If no one died because of it, he definitely put the lives of his fellow soldiers at risk. Manning's superiors are culpable in this, as well, by letting him have access to that much material and by deploying him to Iraq when they were warned not to.
He should be shown leniency because of that and because of his emotional problems.
But a message does need to be sent to other members of the armed forces -you do NOT hand over classified information to a foreign national. Ever.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
176 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
The Pentagon Papers were a single high-level study leaked by a civilian to the NYT
Recursion
Jan 2013
#4
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
Good luck with that. That person loves their logical fallacies, as well as moving the goalposts and
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#163
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
You do not know what a straw man is. You should learn. Using logical fallacies like you do
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#149
Every time someone has responded to you with facts, you throw a logical fallacy at them
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#151
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
If you've followed this at all, you'd know that Manning has serious emotional problems.
randome
Jan 2013
#70
Reporting it to the inspector general of the army would have gotten the ball rolling on that. I used
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#142
Indeed. Approving the use of a sexist term on the thread where you accuse others of rape apologia
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#119
Perhaps, but you are adequately warned in basic training about how strict things are.
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#141
I thought the basis of his argument was that he was following the military's code of honor...
freshwest
Jan 2013
#20
This man has been punished enough. Go after the management who didn't notice what was downloaded.
Sunlei
Jan 2013
#22
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
As someone pointed out, some of this information ended up on Big Laden's laptop.
randome
Jan 2013
#84
YOu mean the video where Assange describes a guy carrying an RPG, after curfew, that was fired on?
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#30
I know it's unfair to quote Assange when talking about Assange--but it's rather relevatory when
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#32
You are wrong. By the standards of Nuremberg soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders.
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#36
And even if the video did show a crime, there's the cables that he leaked without reading
Recursion
Jan 2013
#41
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
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
Since the US had no right to impose a curfew in Iraq or fire on people, RPG or not, yes ...
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#35
Um--this was an Iraqi-imposed curfew, enforced by Iraqis and the US military, jointly:
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#51
Child sex slave trafficking by US contractors, and the attempted cover up by US diplomats
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#60
It happened in Afghanistan(so yes war crime), and no contractors or diplomats have been charged.
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#62
Military works in conjunction with the State Department to be the law of the land
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#64
The Guardian? That is a direct link to the cable with the Diplos own words and self incrimination
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#94
and the information that was not related to war crimes that he 'exposed'
Bodhi BloodWave
Jan 2013
#87
a nice 'essay' but it did not answer the question of the info he released that had nothing to
Bodhi BloodWave
Jan 2013
#89
I think that if damages resulted to a person from the release of this info...
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#98
The judge is applying the law correctly. What matters in determining guilt or innocence is
24601
Jan 2013
#71
Because making fun of gay men by giving them female names is funny. Enjoy your stay.
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#143
Having studied the Third Reich my whole life, I would say that they dont have anything in common
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#171