News Bradley Manning guilty of most charges but cleared of 'aiding the enemy'

While I personally do disagree strongly with you I have no issue with you discussing the topic and would be happy for you to start a thread in the general discussion forum (assuming things remains civilised). However, this is a thread about the article to which it links. The in-depth discussion of the truth or not of the holocaust is just a little too far off topic.

 

So what, he wouldn't be the first person wrongly prosecuted because a government wanted them prosecuted, especially when the government considers the offenses an act of treason and they know that a lot of Americans will agree with them, that's why I am surprised he was not prosecuted for aiding the enemy, because the US government tried to prosecute him on that count and failed.

As for the definition of strategy and tactics I think any government can make those up as they wish in the name of national security.
Besides, strategy and tactics are not the only info that may give terrorists an advantage in fact I would say the release of info that shows the infidel committing war crimes is of a much higher value to the terrorist as it is the foundation and justification for the acts of terror they commit.

I understand the difference perfectly well, so sorry if I didn't explain it better, I'm probably one of those "stupid" people that you like to so often remind us the world is full of.

 

Ah, I get you (I'm a fellow stupid human being).

I suspect that the government simply could not push 'aiding the enemy' through. Manning has many supporters also in the US and there are international political repercussions as well (he also holds UK nationality, for instance). The US is not flavour of the month in the rest of the world since PRISM and it is learning the hard way that just throwing your weight around does not always work.

 

Whistle blowers can be a good thing often they bring unacceptable behavior to light, but the way Manning divulged the information was rash. There are laws in place to protect whistle blowers in the military so why he didn't he follow procedures ?

 

Have you actually read the court transcripts, such as David Coombs main argument that his client was selective in not releasing documents that would have had intelligence value to the enemy?

The judge agreed that he was, indeed, selective, and the verdict on that charge - of aiding the enemy - was 'Not Guilty'. Happy reading - https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/bradley-manning-transcripts

So the justification for covering up war crimes is that they may possibly perpetuate other war crimes? What about the war crimes that would have perpetuated by not releasing the evidence? Are some war crimes more equal than others?

 

war is about missions , objectives and body counts - not the soft and sweet movie versions.


edit:


look at what the Christians did to Jerusalem when they stormed the city....

 

Agree. But as you can see from the mix of opinions... some are conditioned to accept whatever labels the corrupt governments/military choose to create.

People can be conformist sheep through fear or through ignorance/stupidity.

It's all very George Orwell and those buying the official label of "traitor" and "anti-american" are just licking the ass of big brother.

A crime against criminals is no crime at all.

 

Yes it is.

 

Excellent post. Manning acted in a amazingly reckless way. He deserves a long time inside.

 

xrain already answered this point very well: Trying to compare the lifting of three quarters of a million government and military documents to lifting the hardware section of a computer website is beyond daft. Like xrain said, there's not going to be a folder that says 'human rights abuses'. By sheer volume of what he took he was statistically bound to unearth wrongdoing, that doesn't make what he did (or the way he did it) right.

 

I'll answer that with a post that was put up before you and you didn't seem to understand:

I, and the vast majority of people, have no problem with whistler blowers. Whistler blowers are often a very, very good thing. That's why our 'corrupt governments' have put laws in place to protect them. But Bradley Manning did not so much blow a whistle as throw the entire philharmonic orchestra out of the 50th floor window. And not just the American philharmonic orchestra, but the instruments of a couple of hundred other nations orchestras as well.

There was almost no selectivity to what he did - he was literally physically incapable of knowing the contents or nature of the vast majority of what he was releasing. That, by default, means he was also incapable of knowing the damages his actions might have, or indeed who might be damaged.

That is not whistle blowing, that is something else.

 

Well if the system wasn't corrupt in the first place it wouldn't have been a problem.

We live in a world of lies and conspiracy.

I actually don't give a **** the method bradley manning chose to reveal the lies and deception.

 

as has been said already, there are protections for whistle-blowers, and he should have followed the procedures for that. no way should he have released 750000 documents into the public domain, he won't have read them all, and could have caused many problems, including risking the lives of any named individuals in the documents. classified material is just that, classified, not for general consumption.

 

I guess he should have requested a whistle blower document and gone to the correct government department. The one marked "non-corrupt government officials for whistle blowing affairs"

They probably even have such a department in the military.

 

Busy day today...but I'm sure Nexxo wouldn't mind explaining how Philip Zimbardo's work pertains to both the issue at hand, and some of the arguments presented in this thread

 

This was a disaster of the military's own making, sorry. First off, their security measures for classified data suck. There is almost no encryption, no different layers of access to different materials. Manning could just download stuff on a memory stick and walk out.

Second, it was quite obvious for a long time that Manning had mental health issues going on and struggled with the nature of the job. He was nonetheless put into this morally ambiguous situation becausr his superiors clearly did not recognise the moral ambiguity of the situation.

Third, there is no real protection for whistleblowers. It's all lip service. The fate of whistleblowers shows us time and again that they get screwed.

Vipersgratitude makes a good point. I'll come back to it later (busy now).

 

Whistle blowers may well get screwed, but there are procedures that he should have at least attempted before resorting to releasing the information into the public domain.

If he didn't get any results from the inspector general or any of the members of congress, then maybe he could have just said to hell with the consequences and released this information. Without giving the relevant authorities and/or process to take its course he didn't give the organisation a chance to address these issues without compromising security.

 

Erhmm, why is this on Bit-tech...?

 

@John T - This is just false, he didn't just release all the information into the wind, it was checked to make sure it did not hold information that could endanger the lives of undercover aagents and such but that is not the story the mainstream media is telling.

Also Senator Diane Feinstein released information that was considered Top Secret, A higher level than anything Manning released. This was also done by a General whose name escapes me right now but when I find it I will amend this.

Why are these people not in jail, in solitude, stripped naked and kept awake for hours on end? Leaks are OK when the US governement wants things leaked, things that make them look good, but if you are a whistleblower then god help you. It is sad to say but if you do even the tiniest bit of research you will quickly see that Obama is even worse on whistleblowers and civil liberties than Bush was. And Bush was horrible.

There are very few places you can get unbiased political news nowadays and none of those places are on your television or printed media.

I hate to do a Nazi or Stalinist analogy but I think in this case it is required. When people read history books about those two regimes they often think or say, "Oh my God how could people belive what they were being told and do such things, I would never have gone along with it". Well, propoganda is far more advanced now and we are going along with a similar regimes but this time it is a regimes of corporate power over people and governements

This may come off as a bit conspiritorial but if you want to see for yourself just follow the money.

 

Although I understand your point of view: it seems that without the leaks, no one would ever have listened to these concerns.

He must now face the consequences of the actions he took in the face of a moral dilemma. The ramifications of which will be, in 25, 50 or 100 years time, taught to children in Schools and studied by historians. Which side do you think they will err on?

Edit: I think looking back these cases will be huge social dilemmas. I can't help but think that, in the end, history will favour the actions of Manning.