Army general officially orders court-martial on Bradley Manning

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] If you read my first post that you quoted I said that I still think the Military should punish soldiers for their crimes or get them psychological help. I just don't think the crimes should be public. You seem to be arguing against something I never said. SF_KiLLaMaN

And how do you know the soldiers are getting help if you keep it from the public? You don't, it's at the discretion of the military. In fact, that's part of what Bradley Manning leaked, that not only did military commanders know that some of their soldiers were exhibiting dangerous behavior and did nothing about it, but that they were encouraging that behavior. Covering these things up is not a solution. Military answers to the citizens of this country, its actions need to be known to the citizens of this country. There is no good reason to cover this up.

It doesn't matter if you can't personally take it or not, if you can't then you look away. That doesn't change the fact that the citizens of this country have a right to know about what their military is doing. The government doesn't exist to spoonfeed the citizens of this country what they want to hear, if that's become part of its existence then it doesn't deserve to exist. Our government is supposed to be transparent, by the people and for the people.

If the government doesn't go public with all civilians deaths then how can we discern which ones were honset mistakes and which ones could have been prevented? Civilians die, but what Bradley Manning exposed was a situation in which opening fire at all should be called into question, in which the troops doing the firing were behiaving in a sociopathic manner, and in which military officers were hiding and encouraging such behavior. When you hide the actions of war from the people then military commanders can order their troops to kill civilians under dubious pretenses, troops can start whooping, hollering, and celebrating about gunning a bunch of civilians down, and soldiers who should be getting help aren't all because the military doesn't want to be transparent. THere are consequences for a lack of transparency, what happens to Bradley Manning will be one of many.

Manning leaked documents simply because he was trying to show off to some dude onlien that he was trying to hook up with. Dude is an attention whore who got the attention he wanted. He isn't some "hero" who was out there trying to spread the truth. I wish people would stop portraying him as some sort of hero when he's nothing more than an idiot and the way he's been acting during this case is proof of that.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Bradley Manning violated his oath. It's as simple as that. And if one found something wrong you work within the system....not hand out classified documents to the world. There is no justification for what he did.LJS9502_basic

The truth is justification enough. People who care about accountability care about the truth, people who care about democracy care about accountability, people who care about democracy care about the truth. The people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about the truth, the people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about democracy.

I'm glad you see transparency as naivite, next time I hear you complain about someone in power doing something untoward I'll be more than happy to call you naive. When you give government the justification to act without the consent of its citizens, to keep the truth from them, you give up democracy. I only hope you live long enough to witness the consequences of that.

theone86

One of the main reasons Manning is being punished isn't because of what he actually exposed, but what he COULD have exposed.

The documents he leaked to Wikileaks for the most part embarrassed the US and it's allies. That in itself doesn't seem so bad.

However, he gave Wikileaks over 700,000 documents. There is no way in hell anybody can say one man took the time to scrub every last one of them to make sure there were no battle plans, no military armor weaknesses, or no names of informants in those documents.

All it would have took was one document that exposed troops or other allies to their deaths and he would have been done. We got lucky and it didn't (or there was something and Assange kept it off the website out of the kindness of his heart).

Since he didn't take the time to scrub those documents to ensure nothing in there would have got troops killed that is why he can't reasonably be called a hero. I understand other people think otherwise but when you look at it from a strategic point it will make sense.

Of course, if he really found something in there he felt needed to get out he could have called his Congressman. Congressmen, especially the ones who aren't very military-friendly, love to make heads roll in the Army. Plus, he wouldn't be facing life in prison right now.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

ad1x2

One of the main reasons Manning is being punished isn't because of what he actually exposed, but what he COULD have exposed.

The documents he leaked to Wikileaks for the most part embarrassed the US and it's allies. That in itself doesn't seem so bad.

However, he gave Wikileaks over 700,000 documents. There is no way in hell anybody can say one man took the time to scrub every last one of them to make sure there were no battle plans, no military armor weaknesses, or no names of informants in those documents.

All it would have took was one document that exposed troops or other allies to their deaths and he would have been done. We got lucky and it didn't (or there was something and Assange kept it off the website out of the kindness of his heart).

Since he didn't take the time to scrub those documents to ensure nothing in there would have got troops killed that is why he can't reasonably be called a hero. I understand other people think otherwise but when you look at it from a strategic point it will make sense.

Of course, if he really found something in there he felt needed to get out he could have called his Congressman. Congressmen, especially the ones who aren't very military-friendly, love to make heads roll in the Army. Plus, he wouldn't be facing life in prison right now.

Assange guarantees that he doesn't release information that would result in the deaths of troops, he and the newspapers that he collaborates with exclude sensitive information. If the government is worried about information that could endanger the troops getting out alongside information that should be available to the public then perhaps they should just release the latter information. They're the ones who created that dillemma.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

theone86

One of the main reasons Manning is being punished isn't because of what he actually exposed, but what he COULD have exposed.

The documents he leaked to Wikileaks for the most part embarrassed the US and it's allies. That in itself doesn't seem so bad.

However, he gave Wikileaks over 700,000 documents. There is no way in hell anybody can say one man took the time to scrub every last one of them to make sure there were no battle plans, no military armor weaknesses, or no names of informants in those documents.

All it would have took was one document that exposed troops or other allies to their deaths and he would have been done. We got lucky and it didn't (or there was something and Assange kept it off the website out of the kindness of his heart).

Since he didn't take the time to scrub those documents to ensure nothing in there would have got troops killed that is why he can't reasonably be called a hero. I understand other people think otherwise but when you look at it from a strategic point it will make sense.

Of course, if he really found something in there he felt needed to get out he could have called his Congressman. Congressmen, especially the ones who aren't very military-friendly, love to make heads roll in the Army. Plus, he wouldn't be facing life in prison right now.

Assange guarantees that he doesn't release information that would result in the deaths of troops, he and the newspapers that he collaborates with exclude sensitive information. If the government is worried about information that could endanger the troops getting out alongside information that should be available to the public then perhaps they should just release the latter information. They're the ones who created that dillemma.

Assange doesn't work for the US government or have a Top Secret clearance. That's why he isn't privileged to have what was leaked to him. There are things he posted that even I'm not allowed to look at with the Secret clearance I have as a US citizen, so if I can't look at it then there's no way a foreign national can legally.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

One of the main reasons Manning is being punished isn't because of what he actually exposed, but what he COULD have exposed.

The documents he leaked to Wikileaks for the most part embarrassed the US and it's allies. That in itself doesn't seem so bad.

However, he gave Wikileaks over 700,000 documents. There is no way in hell anybody can say one man took the time to scrub every last one of them to make sure there were no battle plans, no military armor weaknesses, or no names of informants in those documents.

All it would have took was one document that exposed troops or other allies to their deaths and he would have been done. We got lucky and it didn't (or there was something and Assange kept it off the website out of the kindness of his heart).

Since he didn't take the time to scrub those documents to ensure nothing in there would have got troops killed that is why he can't reasonably be called a hero. I understand other people think otherwise but when you look at it from a strategic point it will make sense.

Of course, if he really found something in there he felt needed to get out he could have called his Congressman. Congressmen, especially the ones who aren't very military-friendly, love to make heads roll in the Army. Plus, he wouldn't be facing life in prison right now.

ad1x2

Assange guarantees that he doesn't release information that would result in the deaths of troops, he and the newspapers that he collaborates with exclude sensitive information. If the government is worried about information that could endanger the troops getting out alongside information that should be available to the public then perhaps they should just release the latter information. They're the ones who created that dillemma.

Assange doesn't work for the US government or have a Top Secret clearance. That's why he isn't privileged to have what was leaked to him. There are things he posted that even I'm not allowed to look at with the Secret clearance I have as a US citizen, so if I can't look at it then there's no way a foreign national can legally.

Then it's just another sad commentary on the state of affairs when a foreign national is more concerned about U.S. government accountability than most U.S. citizens.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Assange guarantees that he doesn't release information that would result in the deaths of troops, he and the newspapers that he collaborates with exclude sensitive information. If the government is worried about information that could endanger the troops getting out alongside information that should be available to the public then perhaps they should just release the latter information. They're the ones who created that dillemma.

theone86

Assange doesn't work for the US government or have a Top Secret clearance. That's why he isn't privileged to have what was leaked to him. There are things he posted that even I'm not allowed to look at with the Secret clearance I have as a US citizen, so if I can't look at it then there's no way a foreign national can legally.

Then it's just another sad commentary on the state of affairs when a foreign national is more concerned about U.S. government accountability than most U.S. citizens.

Then it's just another sad commentary on the state of affairs when a foreign national is more concerned about U.S. government accountability than most U.S. citizens.

theone86

It still doesn't change the fact that Manning broke policy.

An example of how UCMJ works for troops is this:

If a Soldier has sex with a married woman that isn't his wife he's getting charged with adultery even if he's single. The married woman he slept with will face no charges if she isn't in the military.

Same thing with Manning and Assange. Assange isn't in the military or even a US citizen, so he isn't facing charges for receiving the documents. Manning, on the other hand, is facing charges for giving documents to an unauthorized recipient.

I thought treason was punishable by death? I don\'t care if what he was was right or not, it is against the law and he was acting against his country.SF_KiLLaMaN

Haha, when I started reading this thread I was wondering how long it would take before some hipsters came in trying to defend wikileaks. Didn't take long....

Anyways, guy deserves the punishment. Not like those idiots were even accomplishing anything. Oh Lord soldiers did bad **** in a war? What a ******* shocker!!!

None of what they did was for some greater good. They are attention whores trying to play themselves off as heroes by "fighting the man".

Maybe other people might learn from this not to be stupid with confidential information.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="theone86"]

The truth is justification enough. People who care about accountability care about the truth, people who care about democracy care about accountability, people who care about democracy care about the truth. The people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about the truth, the people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about democracy.

theone86

I'm glad you see transparency as naivite, next time I hear you complain about someone in power doing something untoward I'll be more than happy to call you naive. When you give government the justification to act without the consent of its citizens, to keep the truth from them, you give up democracy. I only hope you live long enough to witness the consequences of that.

They probably are retaliating. But it's never good if you are in a position like the military to leak information. I can understand that you may think you are doing the right thing, but you dont know how that information will be used or what people it could compromise. I think he should be punished, but I dont think he deserves life. However, the price for spying is pretty high and in some sense, that's kind of what he did.

Manning had no clue what the majority of the information he leaked was, considering the amount he leaked. It would be one thing to make a moral argument pertaining to the leak a few cases of cover-ups. That isn't what happened, however.

It's not that I don't believe in greater transparency, I'm somewhat amused by what Manning did, but his actions are legally indefensible regardless of motive. He signed the contract and took the oath. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

If we had the communication technology we have now back in WWII, there would have been a different outcome. Much of what people are hailing Manning for has been going on for centuries by governments and their armies. Some things are definitely better left unsaid.

Manning broke his oath when he gave secret and top secret material that he was entrusted with to someone else. It matters not why he did it, but the fact that he did do it is why he is up on the charges he if facing. If you are backing him up for breaking his oath, I am glad that you haven't been placed in such a position with our governments secrets as I know you would be no better than that idiot.

What a BS defense. And I think death should still be on the table.

What a BS defense. And I think death should still be on the table.

airshocker

a bit too much no? all he did was expose some dirt. Theres no evidence that he put anyone at riskBossPerson

He committed treason and could have put U.S. personnel at risk.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]a bit too much no? all he did was expose some dirt. Theres no evidence that he put anyone at riskairshocker

He committed treason and could have put U.S. personnel at risk.

key word....*could,* Just admit it, Iraqi lives are negligible to you guys BossPerson

Don't strawman, it's pathetic. He still committed treason, there's no way around that.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]key word....*could,* Just admit it, Iraqi lives are negligible to you guys airshocker

Don't strawman, it's pathetic. He still committed treason, there's no way around that.

alright fine, but death is way too farBossPerson

I disagree.

When one takes the oath of enlistment they are swearing allegiance to this country. Manning broke that oath. He spit on it. To me, there aren't many things that are worse than an oathbreaker.

He's a traitor and should be executed.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]alright fine, but death is way too farairshocker

I disagree.

When one takes the oath of enlistment they are swearing allegiance to this country. Manning broke that oath. He spit on it. To me, there aren't many things that are worse than an oathbreaker.

He's a traitor and should be executed.

Its pretty sad this guy will be in prison for life when he caused negligible damage to U.S relations or any body for that matter, while soldiers who execute civilians get off scot free or at most 3 months in confinement.Person0

so what if a Nazi helped Jews escape? should he too be executed? there are things more important to people than military oaths. people like the guys at the haditha massacre should be executed, but not ManningBossPerson

Not the same situation at all. When you can show that the files leaked by Manning were covering up crimes like the Holocaust(good luck :lol:), maybe your reasoning can stand.

Those people shouldn't be joining the military, then.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]key word....*could,* Just admit it, Iraqi lives are negligible to you guys airshocker

Don't strawman, it's pathetic. He still committed treason, there's no way around that.

He didn't commit treason. He broke his oaths, and aired the US's dirty laundry, but he didn't commit treason as he did not actively aid any enemy of the United States.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]so what if a Nazi helped Jews escape? should he too be executed? there are things more important to people than military oaths. people like the guys at the haditha massacre should be executed, but not Manningairshocker

Not the same situation at all. When you can show that the files leaked by Manning were covering up crimes like the Holocaust(good luck :lol:), maybe your reasoning can stand.

Those people shouldn't be joining the military, then.

He didn't commit treason. He broke his oaths, and aired the US's dirty laundry, but he didn't commit treason as he did not actively aid any enemy of the United States.

worlock77

Releasing classified documents that can be downloaded and read by our enemies fits the very definition of aiding an enemy of the United States.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]alright fine, but death is way too farBossPerson

I disagree.

When one takes the oath of enlistment they are swearing allegiance to this country. Manning broke that oath. He spit on it. To me, there aren't many things that are worse than an oathbreaker.

He's a traitor and should be executed.

Should or shouldn't got's nothing to do with it. A Nazi helping Jews escape knew exactly what kind of sh*t he faced should he get caught. He accepted this risk and still acted. Hed he been caught he would have accepted his fate as well.

the files he leaked covered up crimes that led to innocent civilians being killed. Its a smaller scale, but the significance is the same. So you admit, that sometimes personal morals should come before your military oath (like some Nazis in ww2), then why not in this case?BossPerson

I'm waiting on proof for your first statement. You have to convince me that it was justifiable to release those classified documents. You haven't done so.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

He didn't commit treason. He broke his oaths, and aired the US's dirty laundry, but he didn't commit treason as he did not actively aid any enemy of the United States.

airshocker

Releasing classified documents that can be downloaded and read by our enemies fits the very definition of aiding an enemy of the United States.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

He didn't commit treason. He broke his oaths, and aired the US's dirty laundry, but he didn't commit treason as he did not actively aid any enemy of the United States.

airshocker

Releasing classified documents that can be downloaded and read by our enemies fits the very definition of aiding an enemy of the United States.

Evident not. Elsewise he would have been charge with treason don't you think?

did the documents reveal any secret locations or secret future operations? Until you can prove that, you have no case for your position.BossPerson

Not really. Any information at all that was gained by our enemies helps them. Thus they were aided. It's as simple as that.

Evident not. Elsewise he would have been charge with treason don't you think?

worlock77

Under a Republican president I would agree with you. Under Obama, I'm not so sure.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]the files he leaked covered up crimes that led to innocent civilians being killed. Its a smaller scale, but the significance is the same. So you admit, that sometimes personal morals should come before your military oath (like some Nazis in ww2), then why not in this case?airshocker

I'm waiting on proof for your first statement. You have to convince me that it was justifiable to release those classified documents. You haven't done so.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]did the documents reveal any secret locations or secret future operations? Until you can prove that, you have no case for your position.airshocker

Not really. Any information at all that was gained by our enemies helps them. Thus they were aided. It's as simple as that.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Evident not. Elsewise he would have been charge with treason don't you think?

airshocker

Under a Republican president I would agree with you. Under Obama, I'm not so sure.

Ah, of course. Never pass up a chance to be partisan huh?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]the files he leaked covered up crimes that led to innocent civilians being killed. Its a smaller scale, but the significance is the same. So you admit, that sometimes personal morals should come before your military oath (like some Nazis in ww2), then why not in this case?BossPerson

I'm waiting on proof for your first statement. You have to convince me that it was justifiable to release those classified documents. You haven't done so.

well thats depends on personal beliefs, but I think it is a good thing to expose crimes and injustice. If you dont think so, then well now we know what kind of person you areBossPerson

You still haven't proven that any crimes or injustices were released. Certainly some shocking videos were released, but I can justify almost every single thing a servicemember does in the line of duty because I've been through a lot of the same sh*t.

Ah, of course. Never pass up a chance to be partisan huh?

worlock77

I'm not the one who had a chief of staff that basically said never waste any crisis. The Obama admin. likes to politicize things.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'm waiting on proof for your first statement. You have to convince me that it was justifiable to release those ****fied documents. You haven't done so.

hadoken

c'mon.......seriously......technically watching CNN can aid the enemy as well thenBossPerson

CNN doesn't release classified information. They can also be prevented from doing so by US law, I believe.

And the fact that you used hadoken as any kind of authority on what it means to be owned is fvcking HILARIOUS. :lol:

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]well thats depends on personal beliefs, but I think it is a good thing to expose crimes and injustice. If you dont think so, then well now we know what kind of person you areairshocker

You still haven't proven that any crimes or injustices were released. Certainly some shocking videos were released, but I can justify almost every single thing a servicemember does in the line of duty because I've been through a lot of the same sh*t.

And the fact that you used hadoken as any kind of authority on what it means to be owned is fvcking HILARIOUS. :lol:

airshocker

well im sure Nazis can justify the holocaust as well. this has descended into an argument on whether or not the helicopter killings he exposed is a crime or not.......are you seriously going to defend the soldiers who were in that helicopter now?BossPerson

Ah another strawman.

The helicopter crew was justified because it was shown that the people they engaged were holding weapons and RPGs.