Army general officially orders court-martial on Bradley Manning

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Neither you nor I are privy to quite all the info they are. There's a reason they're not charging him with treason and I doubt it has anything to do with who the sitting president is. If you can prove otherwise please do so. If not you're just talking out of your ass.

airshocker

And it's not implausible to think politics may have something to do with the lesser charges being sought against Manning.

Unless you have some evidence it's nothing more than speculation.

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

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not when you understand countries have a vested self interest. As for law....Manning broke his oath which he was bound to uphold. Liu was a Chinese civilian working for human rights but not bound by an oath to the Chinese government. Poor analogy.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You are comparing a citizen to a soldier which is two different laws. People break laws every day in the US and are NOT considered traitors. Poor analogy.LJS9502_basic

How can people possibly think Manning is a hero? He leaked the information because he was about to be kicked out of the Army for being an idiot. He had a little temper tantrum. He's like a 10 year old who's mad he got grounded for fighting at school. He had no idea what the information he released was. For all he knew, he could have released information that might have gotten people killed. Doesn't matter if it didn't happen, the possibility was still their due to his negligence and immature behavior.

:lol:At the people thinking he did this because he thought it was the "right" think to do.

Unless you have some evidence it's nothing more than speculation.

worlock77

So? 90% of what we do on this forum is "speculation". I'm giving my opinion on the matter.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]My mistake. I only glanced real quick at your link. But from your source he was charged with treason for aiding an enemy of the US which is what treason means.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] According to who's definition of treason? Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour. So many nations define treason as what Liu did. Also Manning's behavior doesn't fall within the first definition of treason but does within the Chinese definition of treason. So what definition of treason do we use and why? If we use the one you just said then Manning is not a traitor nor is Liu.kuraimen

Not a hypocrite for feeling human rights are not the same as releasing cIassified documents. No.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Giving a human rights activist a Nobel Peach Prize in no way tells the Chinese government anything. Last I checked the US wasn't the deciding factor on that award either. Again...your bias is showing.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What the US would become angry? I think giving Manning that award is a slap in the face for all those fighting a virtuous fight and not acting like a ten year old sent to bed early.....not to mention that incredibly homophobic defense plan.LJS9502_basic

Yeah sure he didn't "uncover" anything

Because pimping boys in Afghanistan and consealing it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys) is not against the law, asking the Uganda government to tell the US when they are going to use their intelligence to commit warcrimes as a heads up only (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-uganda-war-crimes?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08) is not against the law, pressuring governments backstage to spare soldiers that have commited murder (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/How/US/worked/to/get/three/soldiers/off/the/hook/for/cameraman/elpepueng/20101201elpeng_14/Ten) is not against the law, US oil companies infiltrating people in foreign nations to control internal politics in their favor (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying) is not against the law, kidnapping an innocent man and then pressuring a foreign government to not pursue the kidnappers (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,733860,00.html) is not against the law, a US pharmaceutical company making illegal experimentation with drugs on children and then blackmailing foreign government officials (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-nigeria?CMP=twt_gu) to dismiss the case is not against the law.

Yeah sure he didn't "uncover" anything

Because pimping boys in Afghanistan and consealing it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys) is not against the law, asking the Uganda government to tell the US when they are going to use their intelligence to commit warcrimes as a heads up only (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-uganda-war-crimes?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08) is not against the law, pressuring governments backstage to spare soldiers that have commited murder (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/How/US/worked/to/get/three/soldiers/off/the/hook/for/cameraman/elpepueng/20101201elpeng_14/Ten) is not against the law, US oil companies infiltrating people in foreign nations to control internal politics in their favor (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying) is not against the law, kidnapping an innocent man and then pressuring a foreign government to not pursue the kidnappers (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,733860,00.html) is not against the law, a US pharmaceutical company making illegal experimentation with drugs on children and then blackmailing foreign government officials (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-nigeria?CMP=twt_gu) to dismiss the case is not against the law.

kuraimen

Two....quote...But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the [Ugandan army] intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government [sic] by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship." /quote....Did you read your source?

Three....vague. Tank shelling doesn't tell us why. It could have been a legitimate target. Can't say from that but.....quote....US soldiers had perhaps thought that Couso, who was videotaping from the balcony, was in fact a sniper. And.....But after new evidence surfaced, Pedraz again reopened the case on May 21, 2009. There are only a few cables released by Wikileaks that touch on the Couso investigation from that date onwards. /quotes So it seems there was some question initially as to why. They were not dropping the charges due to famliy pressure....which may or may not have been correct to do. However, it seems not much came of it after new evidence surfaced and the US stopped asking. Did you read your source?

Four....Anglo Dutch firm....really? Did you read your source?

Five....okay the US considered someone a threat and talked with a foreign government about the actions. They in no way stopped the foreign government from doing what they thought best. Mostly just business as ususal which happens all the time between government agencies of any country. You just don't have someone find that out. So what? Quote....The details that have recently emerged illustrate that Germany was engaged in a bit of double-dealing when it came to the el-Masri case /quote. Business as usual and Germany had their own agenda as well. Did you read your source?

Six......quote...While many thousands fell ill during the Kano epidemic, Pfizer's doctors treated 200 children, half with Trovan and half with the best meningitis drug used in the US at the time, ceftriaxone. Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone, which for the company was a good result. /quote Private company doing what they want is NOT the US government. Second.....hyperbole much? That's not exactly as damaging as you make it considering out of 200 children only 11 did not survive and that was two different medicines. 189 did survive....just as likely those children and more would have died without medication. Did you read your source? Plus....quote...it had been suggested that Pfizer owed the favourable outcome of the federal cases to former Nigerian head of state Yakubu Gowon. Again did you read your source?

I don't really see much damaging in those articles particularly as those articles cannot show the US breaking any laws. Requests are not laws. Private companies are not government.

And next time please link or use the paragraph.

How many people has Wikileaks killed and what intel has the enemy gained from Mannings leaked info? My guess is next to nothing, if none at all.

What good and bad things did these documents actually reveal?

How many people has Wikileaks killed and what intel has the enemy gained from Mannings leaked info? My guess is next to nothing, if none at all.

Invisible_Kid2

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Yeah sure he didn't "uncover" anything

LJS9502_basic

Two....quote...But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the {Ugandan army} intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government {sic} by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship." /quote....Did you read your source?

Three....vague. Tank shelling doesn't tell us why. It could have been a legitimate target. Can't say from that but.....quote....US soldiers had perhaps thought that Couso, who was videotaping from the balcony, was in fact a sniper. And.....But after new evidence surfaced, Pedraz again reopened the case on May 21, 2009. There are only a few cables released by Wikileaks that touch on the Couso investigation from that date onwards. /quotes So it seems there was some question initially as to why. They were not dropping the charges due to famliy pressure....which may or may not have been correct to do. However, it seems not much came of it after new evidence surfaced and the US stopped asking. Did you read your source?

Four....Anglo Dutch firm....really? Did you read your source?

Five....okay the US considered someone a threat and talked with a foreign government about the actions. They in no way stopped the foreign government from doing what they thought best. Mostly just business as ususal which happens all the time between government agencies of any country. You just don't have someone find that out. So what? Quote....The details that have recently emerged illustrate that Germany was engaged in a bit of double-dealing when it came to the el-Masri case /quote. Business as usual and Germany had their own agenda as well. Did you read your source?

Six......quote...While many thousands fell ill during the Kano epidemic, Pfizer's doctors treated 200 children, half with Trovan and half with the best meningitis drug used in the US at the time, ceftriaxone. Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone, which for the company was a good result. /quote Private company doing what they want is NOT the US government. Second.....hyperbole much? That's not exactly as damaging as you make it considering out of 200 children only 11 did not survive and that was two different medicines. 189 did survive....just as likely those children and more would have died without medication. Did you read your source? Plus....quote...it had been suggested that Pfizer owed the favourable outcome of the federal cases to former Nigerian head of state Yakubu Gowon. Again did you read your source?

I don't really see much damaging in those articles particularly as those articles cannot show the US breaking any laws. Requests are not laws. Private companies are not government.

And next time please link or use the paragraph.

LJ, we both know that Kurimen has an anti-US bias. As he has no dog in the fight in what happens in China or the US, he is in no position to second guess what either country has done or why they did such. He cannot grasp the differences between taking an oath by a person in uniform to someone who isn't or has taken an oath.

As seen, he will use what ever he can to try and prove his point, even if he hasn't read it all and then tries to spin it to fit his view. The one thing anyone can give him is his consistency in his attacks against the US.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Yeah sure he didn't "uncover" anything

WhiteKnight77

Two....quote...But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the {Ugandan army} intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government {sic} by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship." /quote....Did you read your source?

Three....vague. Tank shelling doesn't tell us why. It could have been a legitimate target. Can't say from that but.....quote....US soldiers had perhaps thought that Couso, who was videotaping from the balcony, was in fact a sniper. And.....But after new evidence surfaced, Pedraz again reopened the case on May 21, 2009. There are only a few cables released by Wikileaks that touch on the Couso investigation from that date onwards. /quotes So it seems there was some question initially as to why. They were not dropping the charges due to famliy pressure....which may or may not have been correct to do. However, it seems not much came of it after new evidence surfaced and the US stopped asking. Did you read your source?

Four....Anglo Dutch firm....really? Did you read your source?

Five....okay the US considered someone a threat and talked with a foreign government about the actions. They in no way stopped the foreign government from doing what they thought best. Mostly just business as ususal which happens all the time between government agencies of any country. You just don't have someone find that out. So what? Quote....The details that have recently emerged illustrate that Germany was engaged in a bit of double-dealing when it came to the el-Masri case /quote. Business as usual and Germany had their own agenda as well. Did you read your source?

Six......quote...While many thousands fell ill during the Kano epidemic, Pfizer's doctors treated 200 children, half with Trovan and half with the best meningitis drug used in the US at the time, ceftriaxone. Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone, which for the company was a good result. /quote Private company doing what they want is NOT the US government. Second.....hyperbole much? That's not exactly as damaging as you make it considering out of 200 children only 11 did not survive and that was two different medicines. 189 did survive....just as likely those children and more would have died without medication. Did you read your source? Plus....quote...it had been suggested that Pfizer owed the favourable outcome of the federal cases to former Nigerian head of state Yakubu Gowon. Again did you read your source?

I don't really see much damaging in those articles particularly as those articles cannot show the US breaking any laws. Requests are not laws. Private companies are not government.

And next time please link or use the paragraph.

LJ, we both know that Kurimen has an anti-US bias. As he has no dog in the fight in what happens in China or the US, he is in no position to second guess what either country has done or why they did such. He cannot grasp the differences between taking an oath by a person in uniform to someone who isn't or has taken an oath.

As seen, he will use what ever he can to try and prove his point, even if he hasn't read it all and then tries to spin it to fit his view. The one thing anyone can give him is his consistency in his attacks against the US.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Yeah sure he didn't "uncover" anything

WhiteKnight77

Two....quote...But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the {Ugandan army} intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government {sic} by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship." /quote....Did you read your source?

Three....vague. Tank shelling doesn't tell us why. It could have been a legitimate target. Can't say from that but.....quote....US soldiers had perhaps thought that Couso, who was videotaping from the balcony, was in fact a sniper. And.....But after new evidence surfaced, Pedraz again reopened the case on May 21, 2009. There are only a few cables released by Wikileaks that touch on the Couso investigation from that date onwards. /quotes So it seems there was some question initially as to why. They were not dropping the charges due to famliy pressure....which may or may not have been correct to do. However, it seems not much came of it after new evidence surfaced and the US stopped asking. Did you read your source?

Four....Anglo Dutch firm....really? Did you read your source?

Five....okay the US considered someone a threat and talked with a foreign government about the actions. They in no way stopped the foreign government from doing what they thought best. Mostly just business as ususal which happens all the time between government agencies of any country. You just don't have someone find that out. So what? Quote....The details that have recently emerged illustrate that Germany was engaged in a bit of double-dealing when it came to the el-Masri case /quote. Business as usual and Germany had their own agenda as well. Did you read your source?

Six......quote...While many thousands fell ill during the Kano epidemic, Pfizer's doctors treated 200 children, half with Trovan and half with the best meningitis drug used in the US at the time, ceftriaxone. Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone, which for the company was a good result. /quote Private company doing what they want is NOT the US government. Second.....hyperbole much? That's not exactly as damaging as you make it considering out of 200 children only 11 did not survive and that was two different medicines. 189 did survive....just as likely those children and more would have died without medication. Did you read your source? Plus....quote...it had been suggested that Pfizer owed the favourable outcome of the federal cases to former Nigerian head of state Yakubu Gowon. Again did you read your source?

I don't really see much damaging in those articles particularly as those articles cannot show the US breaking any laws. Requests are not laws. Private companies are not government.

And next time please link or use the paragraph.

LJ, we both know that Kurimen has an anti-US bias. As he has no dog in the fight in what happens in China or the US, he is in no position to second guess what either country has done or why they did such. He cannot grasp the differences between taking an oath by a person in uniform to someone who isn't or has taken an oath.

As seen, he will use what ever he can to try and prove his point, even if he hasn't read it all and then tries to spin it to fit his view. The one thing anyone can give him is his consistency in his attacks against the US.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]1. Foreign contrators......long time tradition. Quote....Two Afghan policemen and nine other Afghans were arrested as part of investigations. Quote...US diplomats cautioned against an "overreaction" and said that approaching the journalist involved would only make the story worse. /quote. Did you read your source?

Two....quote...But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the {Ugandan army} intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government {sic} by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship." /quote....Did you read your source?

Three....vague. Tank shelling doesn't tell us why. It could have been a legitimate target. Can't say from that but.....quote....US soldiers had perhaps thought that Couso, who was videotaping from the balcony, was in fact a sniper. And.....But after new evidence surfaced, Pedraz again reopened the case on May 21, 2009. There are only a few cables released by Wikileaks that touch on the Couso investigation from that date onwards. /quotes So it seems there was some question initially as to why. They were not dropping the charges due to famliy pressure....which may or may not have been correct to do. However, it seems not much came of it after new evidence surfaced and the US stopped asking. Did you read your source?

Four....Anglo Dutch firm....really? Did you read your source?

Five....okay the US considered someone a threat and talked with a foreign government about the actions. They in no way stopped the foreign government from doing what they thought best. Mostly just business as ususal which happens all the time between government agencies of any country. You just don't have someone find that out. So what? Quote....The details that have recently emerged illustrate that Germany was engaged in a bit of double-dealing when it came to the el-Masri case /quote. Business as usual and Germany had their own agenda as well. Did you read your source?

Six......quote...While many thousands fell ill during the Kano epidemic, Pfizer's doctors treated 200 children, half with Trovan and half with the best meningitis drug used in the US at the time, ceftriaxone. Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone, which for the company was a good result. /quote Private company doing what they want is NOT the US government. Second.....hyperbole much? That's not exactly as damaging as you make it considering out of 200 children only 11 did not survive and that was two different medicines. 189 did survive....just as likely those children and more would have died without medication. Did you read your source? Plus....quote...it had been suggested that Pfizer owed the favourable outcome of the federal cases to former Nigerian head of state Yakubu Gowon. Again did you read your source?

I don't really see much damaging in those articles particularly as those articles cannot show the US breaking any laws. Requests are not laws. Private companies are not government.

And next time please link or use the paragraph.

kuraimen

LJ, we both know that Kurimen has an anti-US bias. As he has no dog in the fight in what happens in China or the US, he is in no position to second guess what either country has done or why they did such. He cannot grasp the differences between taking an oath by a person in uniform to someone who isn't or has taken an oath.

As seen, he will use what ever he can to try and prove his point, even if he hasn't read it all and then tries to spin it to fit his view. The one thing anyone can give him is his consistency in his attacks against the US.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

LJ, we both know that Kurimen has an anti-US bias. As he has no dog in the fight in what happens in China or the US, he is in no position to second guess what either country has done or why they did such. He cannot grasp the differences between taking an oath by a person in uniform to someone who isn't or has taken an oath.

As seen, he will use what ever he can to try and prove his point, even if he hasn't read it all and then tries to spin it to fit his view. The one thing anyone can give him is his consistency in his attacks against the US.

LJS9502_basic

I think it is your own bias who prevents you seeing they are basically equivalent.

I'll admit I am heavily biased.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Again the two incidents are not remotely the same thing. But either you are incapable of grasping that or your bias is in the way of doing so. I'd bet it's a bit of both judging from other comments I've seen you make. The only reason why you don't see me going against China here is because no one in their right mind will dare to defend China over what they did with Liu but apparently many americans think it is justifiable when their country does it. Maybe if I go to a chinese website I'll find the same level of absurdity.kuraimen

I think it is your own bias who prevents you seeing they are basically equivalent.

There are good and bad things that happen from airing your dirty laundry. The good is that awareness can be raised about certain indiscretions. It's always good to have a more open and self-critical society. The bad is that other nations and outsiders may view you disfavorably. Not because you are any worse, but because it can be taken out of context to make you look worse. Simply because your nation is more public about those things.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]LJS9502_basic

I think it is your own bias who prevents you seeing they are basically equivalent.

Dishonest? lol just because you don't agree with it or you nit pick quotes doesn't make them less real.

Also there are much more where those came from.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I think it is your own bias who prevents you seeing they are basically equivalent.

kuraimen

Dishonest? lol just because you don't agree with it or you nit pick quotes doesn't make them less real.

Also there are much more where those came from.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not at all. I read each and every one of your links and found out you presented a dishonest position with each and every one of them.LJS9502_basic

Dishonest? lol just because you don't agree with it or you nit pick quotes doesn't make them less real.

Also there are much more where those came from.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Dishonest? lol just because you don't agree with it or you nit pick quotes doesn't make them less real.

Also there are much more where those came from.

kuraimen

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

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.

worlock77

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.

Awful analogy is awful. And for the record, Nazi comparisons are auto-fail.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes dishonest. What you stated the links said was NOT what the links said. Nothing to do with my opinion. I read them all. You either did not....or you twisted them to suit your bias. Either way....major fail.LJS9502_basic

I haven't been following this argument but this post sort of makes you come across as someone who seems to think realising that things are bad before anyone else makes you better and you think that the fact that this doesn't suprise you in the slightest makes you superiour somehow.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes dishonest. What you stated the links said was NOT what the links said. Nothing to do with my opinion. I read them all. You either did not....or you twisted them to suit your bias. Either way....major fail.LJS9502_basic

I haven't been following this argument but this post sort of makes you come across as someone who seems to think realising that things are bad before anyone else makes you better and you think that the fact that this doesn't suprise you in the slightest makes you superiour somehow.firefluff3

I'm going to back the conversation up to this point...

How is it a poor analogy? He broke chinese law and was regarded as a traitor. If a common US citizen releases classified data to enemies wouldn't he be considered a traitor too?kuraimen

The Chinese dissident put his own life on the line to change human rights violations. Manning put other people's lives on the line with his hissy-fit.

He sat back at his computer, calmly (and safely) downloading the documents and uploading them to Assholio Assange, sipping his coffee and knowing that the worst he'll get in the midst of an unpopular conflict from a pacifist president is some time in jail to eat on the taxpayers' dime, have a roof over his head, make new boyfriends and receive a dishonorable discharge.

He should be grateful that he's not being tried for treason, even if he is a greaseball ratf*** traitor.