Bradley Manning may face death penalty

[Losonti Tokash]

So, basically, you're just pissy because he released the info in a way you didn't like, and he wasn't a very good soldier. Big fucking deal. The real issue here is that the government basically wants to destroy this man for embarrassing them and exposing their mountain of bullshit, just like they try to do every single time this happens. If whistleblower protection laws don't properly protect him, that is a problem with the laws, and not a reason to sentence him to life because the laws are shit. It'll probably work, at least in the short term. In the long term, of course, he'll likely be held up in the same regard as Ellsberg and Sidenhour.

[Lonestar]

So, basically, you're just pissy because he released the info in a way you didn't like, and he wasn't a very good soldier. Big fucking deal. The real issue here is that the government basically wants to destroy this man for embarrassing them and exposing their mountain of bullshit, just like they try to do every single time this happens. If whistleblower protection laws don't properly protect him, that is a problem with the laws, and not a reason to sentence him to life because the laws are shit. It'll probably work, at least in the short term. In the long term, of course, he'll likely be held up in the same regard as Ellsberg and Sidenhour.

The government "destroys that man" all the fucking time, it's called a Bad Conduct Discharge. Crap, on Facebook the other day it sounded like you were asking me to help facilitate just that. He doesn't get a magical pass for breaking the law because it happened to coincide with your worldview.

Let's assume for the moment that he really was doing this "because it was the right thing to do" and not because he was a complete fuckup. Well, tough noogies. Even Thoreau spent time in prison for civil disobeidience.

And by the by, there has been ZERO evidence that Manning had any steps in between "doing nothing" and "handing over classified material to foreign nationals". Cry me a river.

The charge sheet can say whatever bullshit it wants. "reason to believe such information could be used" is not the same thing as intent.

So if he knows it could be used to the advantage of foreign nations, and then passes that information over to an organization that included foreign elected officials, but that doesn't mean he didn't INTEND for it to be used in that manner!

As for "hero of the left" - not really. He's a hero of everyone, really. Or should be. Same as the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Of course, he did that 40 years ago so its ok to lionize him now, given that all the powerful people who were inconvenienced by it are long out of power

Yeah he's a big time hero. Got into fistfights with his coworkers, diagonosed with an "adjustment disorder" so he was getting a discharge, was pissy about being the low man on the Totem Pole(and he got there by his own doing)...since we're talking about INTENT then it is just as clear his INTENT was to put his thumb in the eye of the Army, which were a bunch of big meanies for making him empty the trash in the fucking office.

[Todeswind]

So, basically, you're just pissy because he released the info in a way you didn't like, and he wasn't a very good soldier. Big fucking deal. The real issue here is that the government basically wants to destroy this man for embarrassing them and exposing their mountain of bullshit, just like they try to do every single time this happens. If whistleblower protection laws don't properly protect him, that is a problem with the laws, and not a reason to sentence him to life because the laws are shit. It'll probably work, at least in the short term. In the long term, of course, he'll likely be held up in the same regard as Ellsberg and Sidenhour.

Any laws that could be made wouldn't be made in time to help.

Unfortunately for him the letter of the law is all that matters, not the spirit. This is especially true of military law because of the various contracts signed by soldiers literally nullifying a number of constitutional rights that most citizens enjoy and putting them within a separate legal system.

The framework within which soldiers are legally protected is very limited and intentionally so. It isn't in the government's best interest to allow soldiers to simply run to the press with every piece of information they find questionable within any classified document because they're in a dispute with the military over other issues. Because there is currently no legal protection for Wikileaks as being a form of "free press," and it doesn't fit into this narrow legal range there is no legal protection from prosecution.

Manning's effectiveness as a soldier aside ( how good of a soldier he was and how much people like him personally is pretty much irrelevant for a treason case) the simple fact is that providing an active duty soldier providing an organized group of foreign nationals with a large volume of classified documents is a highly questionable action. Bear in mind that because Wikileaks isn't recognized by the US government as a legitimate form of media that's the only thing it can be classified as. The volume of Data he leaked is astounding even if the content has so far proved to be annoyingly mundane. It's more the status of the security clearance required to access the documents than the documents themselves that is the issue in question. A classified document about the sale of office supplies at Norad is considered the same as a CIA order of assassination in the eyes of the law provided the security clearance levels on the documents are the same.

Now if one bears in mind that under US Military law Wikileaks isn't considered to be a legitimate form of news media and thus isn't legally protected and the content of a classified document is irrelevant because of it's security clearance the Treason Charges make more sense. Is this fair? Perhaps no but what is "just" and what is "legal" are not the same.

I the history of the United States I'm pretty sure there have only been 30(ish) treason cases done.

Yeah he's a big time hero. Got into fistfights with his coworkers, diagonosed with an "adjustment disorder" so he was getting a discharge, was pissy about being the low man on the Totem Pole(and he got there by his own doing)...since we're talking about INTENT then it is just as clear his INTENT was to put his thumb in the eye of the Army, which were a bunch of big meanies for making him empty the trash in the fucking office.

Being a nice person wouldn't make him any less guilty of treason had he leaked the documents and been well liked by his peers. The Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were, by all accounts, lovely neighbors and were well liked within the community. It didn't make them any less guilty of leaking secrets to the KGB.

Manning's guilt or innocence hangs upon the distinction of Wikileaks falling under or not falling under the whistleblower laws. As much of a shame as it is, it seems unlikely that it will.

[Lonestar]

So question for all you poor suffering Martyrs out there, if the "aiding the enemy" charge was removed and you only had the other 20 or so charges that included the phrase "with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" would you still be wringing you hands in anger?

Being a nice person wouldn't make him any less guilty of treason had he leaked the documents and been well liked by his peers. The Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were, by all accounts, lovely neighbors and were well liked within the community. It didn't make them any less guilty of leaking secrets to the KGB.

Fair enough, but I actually think the "aiding the enemy" charge won't stick, it'll be impossible to prove.

(Of course, unlike Vympel when I read about the career of a complete shitbird I don't immediately think him breaking the law was born of noble intentions)

The several other charges that use the phrase "with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" will stick.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Lonestar, I want to give you a gift

We have a sovereign right as a people to know that our soldiers fighting our illegal war deserve to be present at the grand re-opening of the courthouse at Nuremberg. It is that simple. There is no real recourse here that was viable. Going up the chain of command? You mean in the military that intentionally allows and covers up this shit, only bringing people up on charges when the documents get leaked? Going to the same congress that allows this shit to occur, and from which no documents will ever be released?

You seem to forget that our government is, as of the last few years, about as corrupt and Evil as the Roman government under Emperor Commodus.

So fucking what if this shit "gets used to the advantage of a foreign national"? You mean the foreign nations we are currently raping, beating, holding without charge and waterboarding? Great! Sign me up!

[PainRack]

So in other words, prosecutors throwing multiple charges at someone in the hopes that one will stick is now wrong, despite the adversial manner of US legal justice?

While one may say Bradley did an objective good, one also can't deny that he did violate any number of military laws and regulations. Furthermore, unlike the Pentagon Papers, just how MUCH of the information he released was related to a specific moral goal?

Seriously. Despite what he says, what he essentially did was copy a huge swath of information from the Afghanistan war and State Department and etc, then release it out to Wikileaks.

[Lonestar]

Lonestar, I want to give you a gift

We have a sovereign right as a people to know that our soldiers fighting our illegal war deserve to be present at the grand re-opening of the courthouse at Nuremberg. It is that simple. There is no real recourse here that was viable. Going up the chain of command? You mean in the military that intentionally allows and covers up this shit, only bringing people up on charges when the documents get leaked? Going to the same congress that allows this shit to occur, and from which no documents will ever be released?

You seem to forget that our government is, as of the last few years, about as corrupt and Evil as the Roman government under Emperor Commodus.

So fucking what if this shit "gets used to the advantage of a foreign national"? You mean the foreign nations we are currently raping, beating, holding without charge and waterboarding? Great! Sign me up!

Ben:

I would love for you to point out where I stated I was against whistle blowing on principle, which is what you seem to be implying. There is the right way and the wrong way to do it, and handing classified material over to foreign nationals without trying elected officials and the media first is the wrong way.

Unless, like some of the others in this thread, you are seriously arguing that handing diplomatic cables over to a organization with foreign elected officials in its leadership could NOT be construed as passing on information that could be used for the advantage of a foreign nation, which is what a not-insignifigant chunk of the charges state.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Unless, like some of the others in this thread, you are seriously arguing that handing diplomatic cables over to a organization with foreign elected officials in its leadership could NOT be construed as passing on information that could be used for the advantage of a foreign nation, which is what a not-insignifigant chunk of the charges state.

No Matt, that is not what I was suggesting. What I am arguing is that in our socio-political climate, with the military such as it is, no reasonable person could expect that those documents, or the warcrimes etc contained therein would have ever seen the light of day had he gone through proper channels. Had he gone directly to say, MSNBC and they faithfully released the documents, that data would still have gotten in the hands of foreign nationals, just being released at all would have that effect.

So he was faced with a choice. He could either go through proper channels and never see the information released, a violation of our rights as citizens in a democracy to know what shady shit our government is up to that we are ultimately responsible for (popular sovereignty and all that), or he could have broken the law.

As far as I am concerned, we the people have a moral responsibility to the guardian of our sovereign rights--the one who risked himself when the others who took the same oath he did, and who were directly responsible for the crimes he was reporting did nothing--and that responsibility is to stand up and protect him from the horrendous abuses that he is being subjected to, and to make sure that even if he spends the rest of his life in prison, that he will be be lionized as a patriotic saint while he is still alive.

We have failed, because they have started to make him stand naked in his cell and in the yard... I wonder when they are going to rape him with batons.

[Lonestar]

No Matt, that is not what I was suggesting. What I am arguing is that in our socio-political climate, with the military such as it is, no reasonable person could expect that those documents, or the warcrimes etc contained therein would have ever seen the light of day had he gone through proper channels. Had he gone directly to say, MSNBC and they faithfully released the documents, that data would still have gotten in the hands of foreign nationals, just being released at all would have that effect.

So he was faced with a choice. He could either go through proper channels and never see the information released, a violation of our rights as citizens in a democracy to know what shady shit our government is up to that we are ultimately responsible for (popular sovereignty and all that), or he could have broken the law.

Here's the deal, PFC Manning had 4 options when faced with these documents. For the sake of argument let's say he is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, and not because he is a dysfunctional fuckup:

(1)Go either through the chain of command or to a/many Chaplains(preferably a Catholic one rather than a protestant one).

(2)Go to a sympathetic congresscritter, such as Peter DeFazio.

(3)Go to a domestic news organization, such as Mother Jones.

(4)Go directly to a foreign organization that has elected foreign officials in it's leadership, that at the time was posting stuff on the internets willy-nilly.

Of those 4 choices Manning chose the absolute worse for him.


Now, here's the joke of it, Manning is not a whistleblower in the sense that you seem to think he is. Hell, the sheer volume of the documents handed over argues against it. Most of the stuff doesn't particularly reflect poorly on the US. If he was really a "whistleblower" he would have shifted out all the gems like State contracting out child molesters and not bothered with turning over the stuff that said "On MMDDYY Easy Company moved from point A to point B and noticed no IEDs". That wikileaks is sitting on (apperently) 98% of the diplomatic cables handed over makes me suspect that the vast majority are of the STATE BANQUET XXYYZZ BUDGET or variations of. Aaron said this elsewhere, but I like the imagery: It really was as if he walked along, found an open crypto vault, and just grabbed whatever the fuck he could to turn over to spite the big mean army that made him empty the garbage cans in the office.

As far as I am concerned, we the people have a moral responsibility to the guardian of our sovereign rights--the one who risked himself when the others who took the same oath he did, and who were directly responsible for the crimes he was reporting did nothing--and that responsibility is to stand up and protect him from the horrendous abuses that he is being subjected to, and to make sure that even if he spends the rest of his life in prison, that he will be be lionized as a patriotic saint while he is still alive.

Don't kid yourself, he did it to spite the big mean army, not to "report the crimes".

[Lonestar]

FWIW, I said this to Thanas in a PM so I'll repeat it here:

If it comes out in the trial that PFC Manning seriously tried options 1-3, I will be eating a lot of words.

[Eleas]

In other words "I can't be arsed to do some research, so the guy breaking all kinds of regulations shouldn't have to be either."

Bullshit. What I was saying was plain enough, and Alyrium helpfully restated it below: he had no reason to believe he would reach said congresscritter, or that the person in question would be able to get the info out. Wikileaks already did that once.

Meaning... nothing. Serving in a war of aggression he's a war criminal, yes, and probably with a conduct to match. But that doesn't magically turn him into a "bad guy" whose motivations for choosing Wikileaks over the supposedly liberal US media must be rooted in darkness.

Sure it does. It establishes a baseline that we know this guy is a shitbird to begin with, so lots stop pretending that he did this out of some kind of "moral fortitude" on his part.

It is as I said. You want to classify him as something not worth listening to because you need him to be morally suspect.

And oh yeah, thanks for implying I'm a war criminal. Fuckstick.

No. I'm implying nothing. If you serve in a war of aggression, then you are that. You aided and abetted an act that your own country have long considered greater than any other ("the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.")

Following precedents set by the USA itself, if you went there to participate in the oil grab voluntarily, you became party to this self-same crime. Assuming that happened, you're now self-righteously howling for me to retract my statement because it insults you. Tell me, why the fuck should that bother me in the first place? To have to face reality without squirming is the least you deserve.

Take some responsibility for your actions. Also, cheer up! It's highly unlikely you'll ever see court, because the US has a vested interest in preventing that.

For better or worse, Lonestar, you have to realize that when they did their first release, wikileaks managed to actually get the message out in spades, in a way that made everyone sit up and notice. That's not a trivial thing. Maybe the guy didn't want the information carefully doled out and softened "for the sake of the Country" but actually disseminated.

As I said, we already know he was a complete fuckup by dint of being an E3 4 years in, so he wasn't do this out of some kind of moral fortitude, it was because he was a disgruntled employee.

And as I said, and others say, this is not going to be your silver bullet to dismiss his motivations because he's "a fuckup".

[Alyrium Denryle]

(1)Go either through the chain of command or to a/many Chaplains(preferably a Catholic one rather than a protestant one).

Are chaplains still subject to the USMJ? Because if they are, he goes there and it becomes impossible for those documents to see the light of day.

(2)Go to a sympathetic congresscritter, such as Peter DeFazio.

Are said congresscritters allowed to leak classified material or release it to the news, even if so inclined? I think not, though could be wrong.

(3)Go to a domestic news organization, such as Mother Jones.

Which could just as easily make it into the hands of foreign nationals and thus he could still be brought up on these charges. It is not as if germans do not read the NYT

Now, here's the joke of it, Manning is not a whistleblower in the sense that you seem to think he is. Hell, the sheer volume of the documents handed over argues against it. Most of the stuff doesn't particularly reflect poorly on the US. If he was really a "whistleblower" he would have shifted out all the gems like State contracting out child molesters and not bothered with turning over the stuff that said "On MMDDYY Easy Company moved from point A to point B and noticed no IEDs". That wikileaks is sitting on (apperently) 98% of the diplomatic cables handed over makes me suspect that the vast majority are of the STATE BANQUET XXYYZZ BUDGET or variations of. Aaron said this elsewhere, but I like the imagery: It really was as if he walked along, found an open crypto vault, and just grabbed whatever the fuck he could to turn over to spite the big mean army that made him empty the garbage cans in the office.

I am perfectly fine with the signal to noise ratio being a bit low. He had hundreds of thousands of documents. Who cares if it was a crypto-vault. It is not as if one person can go through hundreds of thousands of documents and sort them all on his own.

Don't kid yourself, he did it to spite the big mean army, not to "report the crimes".

And you base this on what exactly? Because his own word to the guy who reported him in the chat says otherwise. He may be a fuckup, or a bad soldier. Shit, I am not exactly a shitstain (I dont think anyway) and would probably (definitely) make an absolutely terrible soldier. Not being cut out for the armed services does not make one a spiteful shitstain, and if his rank and time served are your only evidence, I think you may want to re-evaluate your thought process.

[Lonestar]

Bullshit. What I was saying was plain enough, and Alyrium helpfully restated it below: he had no reason to believe he would reach said congresscritter, or that the person in question would be able to get the info out. Wikileaks already did that once.

There is NOTHING to indicate that Manning was interesting in whistleblowing so much as to stick it to the big mean army that made him empty the trashcans in the office. You on the other hand said "Well how do we know he's sympathetic? We can do any research ahead of time!"

It is as I said. You want to classify him as something not worth listening to because you need him to be morally suspect.

That's what we do around here, didn't you go after FOX in another thread?

So fine, I'll make it simplier for you: In the US military there are several "tells" that someone is either a complete fuckup, doesn't have the brains of a signpost, or a combination of the two. There is no greater "Tell" than "E3 at the 4 year mark". In my *completely* unscientific survey of my coworkers(all of whom are prior military or active) I asked around what their opinion would be of a person who they hadn't met, knew nothing about the person, but did know that the person in question had been in the US Military for 4 years and was only an E3. The answer was unaminiously a variation on "shitbag".

By the by, this is also a uniform reponse when something like this is discussed in the Mess. Not to toot my own horn, but it occurs to me that several subjective sources from the military based upon their experiences could result in an objective conclusion: That if you are an E3 4 years in the army, there is something seriously wrong with you.

No. I'm implying nothing. If you serve in a war of aggression, then you are that. You aided and abetted an act that your own country have long considered greater than any other ("the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.")

Following precedents set by the USA itself, if you went there to participate in the oil grab voluntarily, you became party to this self-same crime. Assuming that happened, you're now self-righteously howling for me to retract my statement because it insults you. Tell me, why the fuck should that bother me in the first place? To have to face reality without squirming is the least you deserve.

I didn't, I joined over a year before OIF. But Manning joined well after the start(and for that matter, well after the Abu Gharib photos leaked out). Which of us was more of the war criminal?

Take some responsibility for your actions. Also, cheer up! It's highly unlikely you'll ever see court, because the US has a vested interest in preventing that.

Why do you think I should take responsibility for my actions? You don't think Manning should!

And as I said, and others say, this is not going to be your silver bullet to dismiss his motivations because he's "a fuckup".

Why not?

Fine, then to repeat what I said to Alyium:

The sheer volume of material he passed on argues against[i/] him passing the information along to be a whistleblower, especially when so much of it doesn't particularly reflect poorly on the US. Rather than shifting through and pulling out the gems and handing them over, he left it to others to wade through several thousands of routine AARs, and who knows how many diplomatic cables of "switch at Embassy XYZ crapped out, we need a spare back-loaded". He was totally doing this to just spite the big mean army that made him empty trash cans in the office.

[Lonestar]

Are chaplains still subject to the USMJ? Because if they are, he goes there and it becomes impossible for those documents to see the light of day.

Part of the purpose of Chaplains is so that you have someone to report these things to. Not all of them are Klingenschmitts. Hell, the Chaplain at Boot Camp said that to all of us that we were expected to inform the Chaplains if something like this occured.

Are said congresscritters allowed to leak classified material or release it to the news, even if so inclined? I think not, though could be wrong.

The answer to that becomes murky, with a lot of "no, buts". Congresscritters leak classified material all the time and they don't get in trouble. They possibly are not permitted to do so, but it does happen. If nothing else, the sympathetic congressperson could find out what investigation was done on the incident, if any, and then go from there.

Which could just as easily make it into the hands of foreign nationals and thus he could still be brought up on these charges. It is not as if germans do not read the NYT

Are you intentionally being dense? Mother Jones doesn't have a fucking Icelandic parliamentarian on the editorial board. Ironically, this is what makes a lot of that remaining 98% cables important, someone could have concealed something so he or she could use it to the advantage of their hoem country.

I am perfectly fine with the signal to noise ratio being a bit low. He had hundreds of thousands of documents. Who cares if it was a crypto-vault. It is not as if one person can go through hundreds of thousands of documents and sort them all on his own.

So in other words you agree he just cast a wide net without looking too closely at them.

And you base this on what exactly? Because his own word to the guy who reported him in the chat says otherwise. He may be a fuckup, or a bad soldier. Shit, I am not exactly a shitstain (I dont think anyway) and would probably (definitely) make an absolutely terrible soldier. Not being cut out for the armed services does not make one a spiteful shitstain, and if his rank and time served are your only evidence, I think you may want to re-evaluate your thought process.

Hey Ben,

Guess what? I was not the best sailor. Certainly not "Joe Navy" who ate, drank, and breathed the navy. I even went to Captains Mast once. Guess what? I left the USN as a E5 at the 4 year mark. There is a WORLD of difference between "not cut out for it" and "being such a fuckup I was a E3 at the 4 year mark". It actually is very hard to be an E3 at the 4 year mark in any of the services other than the USCG. It is something that you have to work at. This is not some unique train of thought on my part, it's a universal response when I ask my coworkers, old shipmates, and a more or less uniform response when talking about it in the Mess(obviously different with conscript veterans).

[Eleas]

Bullshit. What I was saying was plain enough, and Alyrium helpfully restated it below: he had no reason to believe he would reach said congresscritter, or that the person in question would be able to get the info out. Wikileaks already did that once.

There is NOTHING to indicate that Manning was interesting in whistleblowing so much as to stick it to the big mean army that made him empty the trashcans in the office. You on the other hand said "Well how do we know he's sympathetic? We can do any research ahead of time!"

I did not say that at all. In fact, I struggle to understand what the fuck those words would even mean in the context.

It is as I said. You want to classify him as something not worth listening to because you need him to be morally suspect.

That's what we do around here, didn't you go after FOX in another thread?

No, that's not what we do. I went after FOX because for a long time, and previously established, they have lied in a consistent fashion. They have in fact refused the classification of being an actual news broadcast, meaning it's perfectly fine to attack them on said grounds. You, however, are hastily scrambling to build Manning up as someone not worth listening to, because you need his motives to be as low as you can get.

So fine, I'll make it simplier for you: In the US military there are several "tells" that someone is either a complete fuckup, doesn't have the brains of a signpost, or a combination of the two. There is no greater "Tell" than "E3 at the 4 year mark". In my *completely* unscientific survey of my coworkers(all of whom are prior military or active) I asked around what their opinion would be of a person who they hadn't met, knew nothing about the person, but did know that the person in question had been in the US Military for 4 years and was only an E3. The answer was unaminiously a variation on "shitbag".

It could be "tapeworm" and it still wouldn't automatically mean he's a bad person, or that he wasn't absolutely correct about which channels he could use. Maybe he was a shirker. Maybe he was insubordinate at a low level so as to not have to go out and fuck up the country you invaded. Maybe he was stroking his mustachios out in the desert while plotting how to destroy the US by attacking its good name. We don't know. But you've already decided which interpretation you'd favor.

By the by, this is also a uniform reponse when something like this is discussed in the Mess. Not to toot my own horn, but it occurs to me that several subjective sources from the military based upon their experiences could result in an objective conclusion: That if you are an E3 4 years in the army, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Possibly. That still doesn't matter, because even though "something is wrong" with you, that doesn't equate to it meaning you're a bad person in deserving of punishment... which is what you want it to mean, I note.

I didn't, I joined over a year before OIF. But Manning joined well after the start(and for that matter, well after the Abu Gharib photos leaked out). Which of us was more of the war criminal?

Firstly: did you serve that one year, or did you fact go over to Iraq to partake in that war of aggression? Yes, Manning is a war criminal as well, and his motives may be even more fucked. Starting to see the picture yet?

Secondly, it's Abu Ghraib. I would think the actual spelling of your country's secondmost famous torture pit would be worthy of enough attention to get right.

Take some responsibility for your actions. Also, cheer up! It's highly unlikely you'll ever see court, because the US has a vested interest in preventing that.

Why do you think I should take responsibility for my actions? You don't think Manning should!

That's not a very convincing lie. I absolutely think he should take responsibility for his actions. I just don't think "responsibility" entails suffering torture at the hands of the powerhouse organization he accused of war crimes, which is apparently what is currently happening.

And as I said, and others say, this is not going to be your silver bullet to dismiss his motivations because he's "a fuckup".

Why not?

Fine, then to repeat what I said to Alyium:

The sheer volume of material he passed on argues against him passing the information along to be a whistleblower, especially when so much of it doesn't particularly reflect poorly on the US. Rather than shifting through and pulling out the gems and handing them over, he left it to others to wade through several thousands of routine AARs, and who knows how many diplomatic cables of "switch at Embassy XYZ crapped out, we need a spare back-loaded". He was totally doing this to just spite the big mean army that made him empty trash cans in the office.

Which is ridiculous on the face of it. Sifting through all that shit would take an enormous amount of time. Once the information is safe and protected from destruction, then you have the leisure to go through it. Or are you saying he should have spent weeks at home with the incriminating material spread out across the living room?

[Aaron]

Wait..wait, your a war criminal just by being in the military when the war happens? Are we including people who never deployed? Are we including people who never deployed but were engaged in support of overseas operations?

[Eleas]

Wait..wait, your a war criminal just by being in the military when the war happens? Are we including people who never deployed? Are we including people who never deployed but were engaged in support of overseas operations?

Primarily, we're including people who, when ordered to go there, say "yes Sir" (or "Ja, Hauptmann").

Look, I'm not saying this is because I want it to be this way. This is not me gleefully shouting "you go to hell an' DIE" in the style of Mr Garrisson. This is simply the Nuremberg precedent applied: partake in a war of aggression, and you shoulder the blame just as the Wehrmacht did.

I do, however, feel a measure of contempt for the people who would claim extenuating circumstances because of "freedom," "we were fooled," and so on. If those people are present on this board/in this thread, then that would sadly not change matters. I, too, have been fooled, but I didn't nod my head to the suggestion to go bash someone's head in.

EDIT: ...and if I did, I would be guilty of that. I have been guilty of errors before. I've done stuff myself to people who have been hurt by my errors. Refusing to ever consider that angle is, I'd argue, to worsen it immeasurably.

[Winston Blake]

Lonestar's view of Manning's intent and motives:

And by the by, if you are an E3 4 years into the army, you are a huge shitbag to start with.
---
As it is he is an E3 4 years into the Army(a dog whistle for being a shitbag if there ever was one) who just decided to turn over information to a foreign national.
---
Sure it does. It establishes a baseline that we know this guy is a shitbird to begin with, so lots stop pretending that he did this out of some kind of "moral fortitude" on his part.
---
As I said, we already know he was a complete fuckup by dint of being an E3 4 years in, so he wasn't do this out of some kind of moral fortitude, it was because he was a disgruntled employee.
---
I'm actually mgoing to make the prediction, and you all can read it now, that if and when PFC Manning testifies about the matter it'll include him bitchin' about how much it sucks being the low man on the totem pole and while he would never admit to having freely dissiminated information to those not cleared for it, it should be noted that the US Army are big meanies and deserve some payback for being big meanies.
---
Let's assume for the moment that he really was doing this "because it was the right thing to do" and not because he was a complete fuckup. Well, tough noogies. Even Thoreau spent time in prison for civil disobeidience.
---
Yeah he's a big time hero. Got into fistfights with his coworkers, diagonosed with an "adjustment disorder" so he was getting a discharge, was pissy about being the low man on the Totem Pole(and he got there by his own doing)...since we're talking about INTENT then it is just as clear his INTENT was to put his thumb in the eye of the Army, which were a bunch of big meanies for making him empty the trash in the fucking office.---

Aaron said this elsewhere, but I like the imagery: It really was as if he walked along, found an open crypto vault, and just grabbed whatever the fuck he could to turn over to spite the big mean army that made him empty the garbage cans in the office.
---
There is NOTHING to indicate that Manning was interesting in whistleblowing so much as to stick it to the big mean army that made him empty the trashcans in the office.
---
So fine, I'll make it simplier for you: In the US military there are several "tells" that someone is either a complete fuckup, doesn't have the brains of a signpost, or a combination of the two. There is no greater "Tell" than "E3 at the 4 year mark". In my *completely* unscientific survey of my coworkers(all of whom are prior military or active) I asked around what their opinion would be of a person who they hadn't met, knew nothing about the person, but did know that the person in question had been in the US Military for 4 years and was only an E3. The answer was unaminiously a variation on "shitbag".

By the by, this is also a uniform reponse when something like this is discussed in the Mess. Not to toot my own horn, but it occurs to me that several subjective sources from the military based upon their experiences could result in an objective conclusion: That if you are an E3 4 years in the army, there is something seriously wrong with you.
---
He was totally doing this to just spite the big mean army that made him empty trash cans in the office.

There is NOTHING to indicate that Manning was interesting in whistleblowing so much as to stick it to the big mean army that made him empty the trashcans in the office.

This point isn't actually correct. Two posts before you entered this thread (that is, before all of your posts in this thread), Vympel posted a link here.

Quotes from IM chat logs between Manning and Adrian Lamo, prior to the leaks:

Indeed, in the purported chat logs between Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo, Lamo asked Manning why he didn't sell this information to a foreign government and get rich off it, and this is how Manning replied:

because it's public data. . . . it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open . . . it should be a public good

Critically, if one believes the authenticity of the purported Manning/Lamo chat log snippets selectively released by Wired, then Manning was very clear about why he decided to leak these materials: he sought to trigger worldwide reforms of government wrongdoing exposed by these documents:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the [Baghdad Apache attack] video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

This leaves little doubt about Manning's motives. And there is also little doubt that Manning has achieved those ambitious and noble goals on multiple levels. Although the extent is reasonably in dispute, even WikiLeaks' most embittered antagonists -- such as New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller -- acknowledge that the release of the diplomatic cables played some role in the uprising in Tunisia, which in turn sparked similar uprisings of historic significance throughout the Middle East.

By the by, this is also a uniform reponse when something like this is discussed in the Mess. Not to toot my own horn, but it occurs to me that several subjective sources from the military based upon their experiences could result in an objective conclusion: That if you are an E3 4 years in the army, there is something seriously wrong with you.

I've never served in the military. Is it possible, at least in theory, that Manning was promoted and demoted an unknown number of times? Possibly for going against the military establishment in ways that don't imply all the accusations at the start of this post? If so, then this 'airtight' evidence of yours which you have repeated strenuously and ad nauseam isn't exactly strong.

[Aaron]

Primarily, we're including people who, when ordered to go there, say "yes Sir" (or "Ja, Hauptmann").

Look, I'm not saying this is because I want it to be this way. This is not me gleefully shouting "you go to hell an' DIE" in the style of Mr Garrisson. This is simply the Nuremberg precedent applied: partake in a war of aggression, and you shoulder the blame just as the Wehrmacht did.

I do, however, feel a measure of contempt for the people who would claim extenuating circumstances because of "freedom," "we were fooled," and so on. If those people are present on this board/in this thread, then that would sadly not change matters. I, too, have been fooled, but I didn't nod my head to the suggestion to go bash someone's head in.

EDIT: ...and if I did, I would be guilty of that. I have been guilty of errors before. I've done stuff myself to people who have been hurt by my errors. Refusing to ever consider that angle is, I'd argue, to worsen it immeasurably.

I'm just going to ask this directly: do you consider me a war criminal for being in the military when Afghanistan was invaded, even though I was medically discharged six months later and spent the entire war on base in Canada, fixing PC's?

Do you also consider my comrades who deployed for the invasion war criminals?

[Thanas]

The war in Afghanistan was not an illegal war, not by any definition of the word. The war in Iraq however was a blatant war of aggression and may have been illegal.

[Eleas]

I'm just going to ask this directly: do you consider me a war criminal for being in the military when Afghanistan was invaded, even though I was medically discharged six months later and spent the entire war on base in Canada, fixing PC's?

Do you also consider my comrades who deployed for the invasion war criminals?

It's a fair question, but I have to qualify my answer. That's not in order to weasel out of it, but because I think you're falling into a trap I created that I didn't intend to be there. The qualifier is this: in my view, the name of the charge is absolute, but the degree differs.

The attack on Afghanistan was less clear-cut; it was still as absurd as if Russia had gotten hit by a terrorist resident of Norway and, upon not immediately being given all they wanted from the Norwegian government, invading Norway and occupying it. I personally consider it unjustified, and participation in it was also, yes, unwise. But it is not an illegal war, and it certainly pales in comparison to Iraq.

Your injury does not absolve you of that responsibility, but it's still deserving of sympathy. Your work on the base in Canada may have helped the war effort, or not. Which is why I think you may have to decide for yourself the degree to which you're culpable in an unjustified war, and I don't envy you that.

But whether I think you, and your friends, are guilty of sin? Given the qualifiers above, I think I've answered as well as I'm able: my personal approval or disapproval is and should be immaterial.

[Aaron]

It's a fair question, but I have to qualify my answer. That's not in order to weasel out of it, but because I think you're falling into a trap I created that I didn't intend to be there. The qualifier is this: in my view, the name of the charge is absolute, but the degree differs.

The attack on Afghanistan was less clear-cut; it was still as absurd as if Russia had gotten hit by a terrorist resident of Norway and, upon not immediately being given all they wanted from the Norwegian government, invading Norway and occupying it. I personally consider it unjustified, and participation in it was also, yes, unwise. But it is not an illegal war, and it certainly pales in comparison to Iraq.

Your injury does not absolve you of that responsibility, but it's still deserving of sympathy. Your work on the base in Canada may have helped the war effort, or not. Which is why I think you may have to decide for yourself the degree to which you're culpable in an unjustified war, and I don't envy you that.

But whether I think you, and your friends, are guilty of sin? Given the qualifiers above, I think I've answered as well as I'm able: my personal approval or disapproval is and should be immaterial.

Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

And just for the record, Afghanistan was and is a pointless exercise in my opinion. I'm certainly none to happy with my government for getting us into it nor with the endless clusterfucks it's created here at home and in the country itself.

[Eleas]

Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

And just for the record, Afghanistan was and is a pointless exercise in my opinion. I'm certainly none to happy with my government for getting us into it nor with the endless clusterfucks it's created here at home and in the country itself.

No problem. I myself am deeply uncomfortable with the Swedish presence in Afghanistan, particularly since idolization of the US is common in Swedish youths. I wonder which of the attitudes they're picking up have seeped in from the Iraq theatre, and how they're acting on those impulses.

[Aaron]

I think I've mentioned before on the board that I didn't sign up to play colonial asshole, and that's basically what this has turned into. We're supposed to be out of there this year, provided President No Plan doesn't succeed in his begging us to stay.

[Lonestar]

I did not say that at all. In fact, I struggle to understand what the fuck those words would even mean in the context.

No, you just indicated that no Americna should try to get the support of a sympathetic elected official because Obama didn't turn out the way you wanted.

No, that's not what we do. I went after FOX because for a long time, and previously established, they have lied in a consistent fashion. They have in fact refused the classification of being an actual news broadcast, meaning it's perfectly fine to attack them on said grounds. You, however, are hastily scrambling to build Manning up as someone not worth listening to, because you need his motives to be as low as you can get.

There's nothing "Hasty" about it, as soon as I heard he was an E3 4 years in, lo those many months ago, I knew he was a shitbird. Reading his career path of getting into fights with coworkers and whining about getting the shit details because he was the low man on the totem pole(and he arrived at that spot through actions of his own making) certainly lent credence to my immediate first impression.

It could be "tapeworm" and it still wouldn't automatically mean he's a bad person, or that he wasn't absolutely correct about which channels he could use. Maybe he was a shirker. Maybe he was insubordinate at a low level so as to not have to go out and fuck up the country you invaded. Maybe he was stroking his mustachios out in the desert while plotting how to destroy the US by attacking its good name. We don't know. But you've already decided which interpretation you'd favor.

Maybe he got into fights with his coworkers. Maybe he hated the army because he got shit details. Maybe he didn't like that he was going to get discharged with the "I'm fucking crazy" tag appended to the DD214. All of these paint a picture of someone with a Vendetta rather than someone who is out to be a good guy, a "lionized patriot" or a "hero of everyone".

Possibly. That still doesn't matter, because even though "something is wrong" with you, that doesn't equate to it meaning you're a bad person in deserving of punishment... which is what you want it to mean, I note.

Wrong again. This is me expressing frustration that so many board members are lionizing this broken individual.

Firstly: did you serve that one year, or did you fact go over to Iraq to partake in that war of aggression? Yes, Manning is a war criminal as well, and his motives may be even more fucked. Starting to see the picture yet?

I never served in Iraq in uniform, Manning did. I might add that, unlike Manning, I joined up WELL BEFORE Iraq was invaded, or even sufficient stores and personnel were prestaged for the invasion.

Secondly, it's Abu Ghraib. I would think the actual spelling of your country's secondmost famous torture pit would be worthy of enough attention to get right.

Fine, next time I get two characters in a word mixed up I'll flay myself with the Cat-o-nines.

That's not a very convincing lie. I absolutely think he should take responsibility for his actions. I just don't think "responsibility" entails suffering torture at the hands of the powerhouse organization he accused of war crimes, which is apparently what is currently happening.

Believe it or not...I am not advocating torturing Manning, which you seem to be implying I am.

Which is ridiculous on the face of it. Sifting through all that shit would take an enormous amount of time. Once the information is safe and protected from destruction, then you have the leisure to go through it. Or are you saying he should have spent weeks at home with the incriminating material spread out across the living room?

Why not?

To follow those chat logs(that I was aware of), if we're to take them at face value, he was already in the process of getting a discharge, and it's hard to tell if he was gathering info before he was informed of the discharge, or after he was. Either way he had a lot of time, especially as he was literally just burning them to DVDs and mailing them home(IIRC all the breaches occurred while he was stationed in Iraq).

This point isn't actually correct. Two posts before you entered this thread (that is, before all of your posts in this thread), Vympel posted a link here.

Quotes from IM chat logs between Manning and Adrian Lamo, prior to the leaks:

Yeah, I had read those logs before. Honestly, it sounds like he's reaching out to a "fellow hacker", whilst boasting about weak security(true enough), talking about how he is going to get a "I'm crazy" discharge, and then say that the information deserves to be free.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..............Obviously the chat logs of a squared away individual.

I've never served in the military. Is it possible, at least in theory, that Manning was promoted and demoted an unknown number of times? Possibly for going against the military establishment in ways that don't imply all the accusations at the start of this post? If so, then this 'airtight' evidence of yours which you have repeated strenuously and ad nauseam isn't exactly strong.

He got demoted once for getting into fistfights with his coworkers. In fact, that is exactly WHY I've been saying "getting into fistfights with his coworkers".