# US Government accuses Bradley Manning of aiding Al-Qaeda



## Iamasingularity (Dec 23, 2011)

US Government Accuses Bradley Manning of Aiding Al Qaeda | The Dissenter

RIP Democracy.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 23, 2011)

"RIP Democracy?" Because military personel can be tried in military courts for breaking military rules?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 23, 2011)

I'm hoping it's more the fact that the folks we put in charge of defending us appear to be breaking these rules.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 23, 2011)

What?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 23, 2011)

Nevermind...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 23, 2011)

I'm confused...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 23, 2011)

Probably because you asked for an explanation and I didn't give you one...

What I meant is that if the people are supposed to be defending our freedoms are giving away secrets then I suppose we can say goodbye to democracy as we know it in this country. Or perhaps that's what OP was getting at with his statement.

I didn't think my point was that difficult to see... Whether or not you agree with it is another story.

We can look at more than one side of something before freaking out and goin' all Team America as soon as we hear/read something we think we don't agree with. 

The man wasn't even given a chance to explain himself and already people are putting words in his mouth--OP that is.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Dec 23, 2011)

Bradley Manning is a traitor, should be charged for High Treason and shot. 

No ceremony, no nothing. Take him behind the shed, pull the trigger, and dump him in a hole.

His acts put thousands of lives in jeopardy, and it can be said (and I do, regularly) that his actions were responsible for Allied losses. 

RIP Democracy? How so? He's being charged with aiding terrorism by releasing classified documents. CLASSIFIED. He didn't have authorization to release those documents, some of which included troop movements and tactics. 

I don't give a shit what he thought he was going to do; His actions resulted in the deaths of those he swore an oath to protect.

Someone give me the bullet, I'll shoot him myself.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Dec 23, 2011)

Didnt wikileaks end up censoring most of the super sensitive stuff anyways? He should be given some prison time imo but not a lifetime sentence.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 23, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Probably because you asked for an explanation and I didn't give you one...
> 
> What I meant is that if the people are supposed to be defending our freedoms are giving away secrets then I suppose we can say goodbye to democracy as we know it in this country. Or perhaps that's what OP was getting at with his statement.
> 
> ...


 

Take note of the question marks with which I ended my first post in this thread. That's not putting words in his mouth, it's presenting my interpretation of what he said, and giving him a chance to clarify. I hadn't considered that he might have meant that Democracy is in danger because our soldiers are giving away our secrets, and if that's what the OP meant, then fine. I _don't_ think that's what he meant, however, though I'm more than open to being wrong about that.

And if what I said was considered "freaking out and going all Team America," then you don't want to know what I _wanted_ to say after reading it. I don't really appreaciate the insult, though.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Dec 23, 2011)

Don`t escalate my statement of "RIP DEMOCRACY".
Yes he did break the rules, he did leak classified information, but he didn`t fucking hand it over to Al-qaeda on a silver platter! Yes he shouldn`t just be pardoned for what he did, but do you even know what this classified information is? Do you even know what kind of blood drenching stuff it is? Now I don`t think you`ve read the read any of the documents that were leaked, for if you did you wouldn`t be here talking crap about it. Classified, pff. The ignorance of your words are so deep, that I just want to stuff your face in all the documents I`ve read and see your reaction. "His actions resulted in the deaths of those he swore an oath to protect." Oh how patriotic it sounds. I almost want to cry and weep. And who the hell is gonna protect those 500,000+ dead civilans
in the Iraq war? Oh wait..... no one. I`m sorry but maybe you don`t realize how dangerous people`s freedoms are in. No fair trial, abuse of high powers, and no public screening, thats sure sounds like democracy to me. I really don`t know what to say. I think people`s view on what terrorism really is has been distorted by feelings of patriotism by the government.

No I don`t hate America, American`s or anything of such. I really don`t know how records of people killed in brutal manners, corruption in the US government, blackmail and unfairs holding and right depreived prisoners is classified information. Its called lying/hiding. I`ve read only a few pages of the Iraq logs, and am sick to my stomach from the rest of the archives. There`s so much wrong, and I`ve only seen a fragment of the whole truth. Cencorsing and stowing away of such things is not democracy. Charging your own people, in unfair trials with no rights is not democacy. Passing of laws that the citizens have not agreed to/or not given notice of is not democracy. If all this is happening in front of your eyes, how can you be alright with it? Its a reality that the same might happen to other citizens.


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 23, 2011)

^ F you Chickehawk, you beat me to it. 

100% agree with everything you said... 

As someone who has a high level current government clearance and also held one while in the Marines... these documents clearly state right on them that they are for authorized use and dissemination only... they even state the penalty for violating depending on whether it is Sensitive But Unclassified shit (FOUO / SBU) or whether it has a clearance rating (Secret, Top Secret, Compartmentalized, SQL, etc).

So... I*f he is found guilty under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) then he should be executed for traitorous actions during a time of war.*

I can't fathom how anyone is arguing anything different here. Are you shitting me? So are we arguing that it's ok to be a traitor if, in your opinion, you think you're doing the right thing? Huh? e.g. I don't like nukes so then it would be ok if I sold nuclear secrets to Iran because I believed everyone deserves one?! Ummm.... no.

And his lawyer misquoted the fuck out of MLK. Letters From a Birmingham Jail is an EPIC MASTERPIECE. If the lawyer continued reading MLK goes on to say that "It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire." MLK was saying if you believe in what you are doing fine, BUT... don't do the crime if you can't do the time. MLK was great because he was willing to suffer (that whole Birmingham jail thing) to defend his point.

tl;dr This TRAITOR felt morally obligated to release classified data (knowing of the consequences beforehand) and thus should suffer the appropriate consequence... death.


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 23, 2011)

Iamasingularity said:


> Don`t escalate my statement of "RIP DEMOCRACY".
> Yes he did break the rules, he did leak classified information, but he didn`t fucking hand it over to Al-qaeda on a silver platter! Yes he shouldn`t just be pardoned for what he did, but do you even know what this classified information is? Do you even know what kind of blood drenching stuff it is? Now I don`t think you`ve read the read any of the documents that were leaked, for if you did you wouldn`t be here talking crap about it. Classified, pff. The ignorance of your words are so deep, that I just want to stuff your face in all the documents I`ve read and see your reaction. "His actions resulted in the deaths of those he swore an oath to protect." Oh how patriotic it sounds. I almost want to cry and weep. And who the hell is gonna protect those 500,000+ dead civilans
> in the Iraq war? Oh wait..... no one. I`m sorry but maybe you don`t realize how dangerous people`s freedoms are in. No fair trial, abuse of high powers, and no public screening, thats sure sounds like democracy to me. I really don`t know what to say. I think people`s view on what terrorism really is has been distorted by feelings of patriotism by the government.
> 
> No I don`t hate America, American`s or anything of such. I really don`t know how records of people killed in brutal manners, corruption in the US government, blackmail and unfairs holding and right depreived prisoners is classified information. Its called lying/hiding. I`ve read only a few pages of the Iraq logs, and am sick to my stomach from the rest of the archives. There`s so much wrong, and I`ve only seen a fragment of the whole truth. Cencorsing and stowing away of such things is not democracy. Charging your own people, in unfair trials with no rights is not democacy. Passing of laws that the citizens have not agreed to/or not given notice of is not democracy. If all this is happening in front of your eyes, how can you be alright with it? Its a reality that the same might happen to other citizens.


 
huh? A Court Martial is a fair trial. Many lawyers will argue that it is more fair than most civilian criminal trials. You are arguing about democracy? This has NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRACY. He is a TRAITOR. It doesn't matter what he leaked or who he leaked it to. I hold a government clearance. I know that if I were to go home and tell my wife work-related stuff I could be prosecuted, up and to the death penalty. Trust me, this POS traitor was well aware of the penalty... I am 100% sure of this. He knowingly chose to release this info. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter. He is a traitor.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 23, 2011)

Iamasingularity said:


> I`m sorry but maybe you don`t realize how dangerous people`s freedoms are in. No fair trial, abuse of high powers, and no public screening, thats sure sounds like democracy to me.





Iamasingularity said:


> Charging your own people, in unfair trials with no rights is not democacy. Passing of laws that the citizens have not agreed to/or not given notice of is not democracy. If all this is happening in front of your eyes, how can you be alright with it? Its a reality that the same might happen to other citizens.


 
I'm sorry, but _you_ don't realize how in danger people's freedom's _aren't_. Manning isn't a civilian, he's in the military. Military personnel aren't judged or sentenced by the same courts as civilian personnel. Nothing about how this trial is taking place is any different than any other military trial, it hasn't changed anything, and it isn't going to change anything. He broke military laws (that civilians aren't beholden to, mind you), and he's going to be tried and sentenced by the military for it. Simple as. It has no bearing whatsoever on the freedoms or trials of any non-military personnel _anywhere._


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 23, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> I hold a government clearance. I know that if I were to go home and tell my wife work-related stuff I could be prosecuted, up and to the death penalty. Trust me, this POS traitor was well aware of the penalty... I am 100% sure of this. He knowingly chose to release this info. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter. He is a traitor.


 
Word. I was a spook in the Navy, so I know first hand that you have to sign the Mother of All Non-Disclosure Agreements before they'll let you anywhere near your first classified document. They made no bones about it whatsoever.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Dec 23, 2011)

Iamasingularity said:


> Your post



Dude, seriously, you MUST be a troll. Just because you read some of the documents, does not mean you know anything about the UCMJ. 

He VOLUNTARILY signed his name on the line. 

/thread.

EDIT:

No, I did not read the documents. Want to know why? I didn't have clearance. 

I used to hold a Top Secret clearance...but that didn't give me the right to read documents that were not intended for my eyes. Insult 'honor' or 'Patriotism' all you want, kid. It's something you'll never understand.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 23, 2011)

I only have 2 issues with this. 
One is that classified rarely means secret with our country. Bureaucracy makes sure of that. 
And two I agree with the original article that this case being fulfilled would end bad for government/military journalism.

We don't know what was said and I don't honestly give a shit our government is pretty damn shady when it comes down to it and a lot of people in the military serve without question it least he stood up for something he believed in.

This is my opinion so do not try and sway me of it because you can't nor am i asking anyone to accept my opinion. 

Happy Holidays


----------



## Iamasingularity (Dec 23, 2011)

You know I guess there is not much of a point me arguing by myself. Everyone had different stances on this, and some are just never going to change. Didn`t the US fight communism/oppresion of free speech/rights/unfair trials/genocide/dictatorship/censorship to achieve democracy? Wasn`t that the reason soldiers went to war? To protect their loved ones and help those who were deprived of their lives? If not then, I`m afraid I`m the one who is blundered in this debate. 

I don`t know, I guess these day`s one`s right to life is not democracy...

Tim and Usmarine, I know the points you guys are making. And as I said I know he broke the rules he was bound to, and by breaking those rules he is a traitor and he did so knowing that he could be hanged for it. You might call it stupidity, but the fact that we take our lives for granted, can`t be said for others. We have weighed oursleves too much to think about other`s freedom.


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 23, 2011)

flint757 said:


> I only have 2 issues with this.
> One is that classified rarely means secret with our country. Bureaucracy makes sure of that.


 
huh? I dont even know what this means. Reread my first post above. You sound like you know nothing about government clearances. Secret is one level of classification. Even unclassified docs can be listed as SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified. These are FOUO - For Official Use Only. Even the improper dissemination of these is illegal and punishable. Classified docs have clearance levels such as secret, top secret, Compartmentalized, SQL, etc...

Most importantly, even if you have a TS doesnt mean you have access to all TS docs. "Need to Know" overides all clearances. If you don't have a need to know it is illegal for you to access the doc even if you have the proper clearance. 

All docs are clearly marked. Hell, my email has a clearance reminder in the sig line!

He knowingly violated the law. And he knew the punishment beforehand and still chose to violate it. Morally was he right? It doesnt matter. You can't lable traitors based on intentions. And individuals dont get to decide whether they're right and can go off violating orders. What kind of military would you have if you had 250,000 troops all doing whatever the fuck they thought was right at any given time? Chaos. Anyone who argues differently has never been to boot camp... or seen Full Metal Jacket lol.

And Singularity... we may disagree about his morality, but I think you get what I'm saying. Because I'm not arguing if our govt is shady or if he was right or not, just that he is guilty of the crime he's being charged with (i.e. traitor). Plenty of people died for what they believed in (insert Jesus comment here).


----------



## Iamasingularity (Dec 23, 2011)

Yes I do agree with you on that. If he dies, so be it. His death as a traitor is not heroic, but for some has opened doors.


----------



## eaeolian (Dec 23, 2011)

Let's keep it civil in here, or I'll ban the entire lot of you on general principle. Iamsingularity, if I have to wade into another thread you stir up by not being able to be civil, you're going to get a long nap...


----------



## Iamasingularity (Dec 23, 2011)

eaeolian said:


> Let's keep it civil in here, or I'll ban the entire lot of you on general principle. Iamsingularity, if I have to wade into another thread you stir up by not being able to be civil, you're going to get a long nap...


 
I understood.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 23, 2011)

So... Burn the traitor? I personally don't appreciate him sharing any secrets regardless of their official classification.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 23, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> huh? I dont even know what this means. Reread my first post above. You sound like you know nothing about government clearances. Secret is one level of classification. Even unclassified docs can be listed as SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified. These are FOUO - For Official Use Only. Even the improper dissemination of these is illegal and punishable. Classified docs have clearance levels such as secret, top secret, Compartmentalized, SQL, etc...
> 
> Most importantly, even if you have a TS doesnt mean you have access to all TS docs. "Need to Know" overides all clearances. If you don't have a need to know it is illegal for you to access the doc even if you have the proper clearance.
> 
> ...



I wasn't referring to you or the legality I was half tempted to post one of these "^^This" after your post before mine but was too lazy too edit my post since it popped up after I finished posting.

I agree what he did is illegal and what not and yes I realize what chaos would ensue if people did whatever the fuck they wanted. I was more or less referring to the issues that seem to arise after trials like this. The government has no issue heading down a slippery slope.

In reference to secret I was not referring to the literal military label terminology, but in more generic terms.


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 27, 2011)

flint757 said:


> In reference to secret I was not referring to the literal military label terminology, but in more generic terms.


 
OK... but the terminology I was discussing is the *only* official terminology in usage by the US Government and Military. It's very clear about its infringement and penalties. And since it's precisely what he is being accused of violating is why I believe it is relevant to the discussion...
That's all I'm saying here. I'm not arguing on either side, because I understand that sometimes an individual can make the decision that the powers in charge are wrong and something needs to be done (see quote below)... hence my MLK reference. But, you still have to pay the price for your treason regardless of motive. IMO if he is guilty of treason then he should be shot regardless of motive. I guess this is just really really crystal clear to me and maybe not someone that hasnt worked in this industry. It's not like we shoot people that are guilty of insider trading or ripping off other people's musical ideas... but when it comes to classified docs then yeah... it's really that simple. 

*tl;dr He was told if he put his hand in the cookie jar he'd loose it... so why balk now?*


[SIZE=-1]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  *That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness*." - T.Jefferson[/SIZE]


----------



## AK DRAGON (Dec 27, 2011)

Chickenhawk spot on!
He is a TRAITOR, plain and simple!

Save the bullet and string him up as a pinata behind the shed.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Dec 27, 2011)

If anyone has anything else to discuss/share/comment feel free to do so. I want to know everyone`s view and then rethink my
thesis and statements.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 27, 2011)

Personally I feel like they coulda just killed him and not told us about it. 

They're just making more out of it than needs to be at this point. There are a great many trials I never witness. At the same time, though I do like that the idea of being told about this so that this guy can serve as an example for anyone else w/ bright ideas about sharing secrets.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Dec 27, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Personally I feel like they coulda just killed him and not told us about it.



Would have saved the taxpayers loads of money with a .22 to the back of the head before we caught wind of it


----------



## ralphy1976 (Dec 27, 2011)

i read "manning" and my mind said "quaterback"...which got me confused..then i read the article, and my mind said "oh yeah..mhy Pfc. in front of a quaterback...."

yeah, i live on the other side of the pond...


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2011)

AK DRAGON said:


> Would have saved the taxpayers loads of money with a .22 to the back of the head before we caught wind of it



Disagree with what the guy did all you want but nobody benefits from 'frontier justice' in the long run.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 27, 2011)

What do you mean?


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2011)

'We shoulda' just shot the guy'


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 27, 2011)

No I get that, but I was hoping you'd expand more on what you felt the long term effects of that type of thing is. 

On the one hand it seems obvious that the people should be told about it and that he should still get his trial and all, but in cases like this I can't help but think the jury's mind is already made up.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Dec 27, 2011)

Yeah. I`m open to other people`s view on this. But something like 'We shoulda' just shot the guy' makes me think that people who say this are not well informed on this topic. I really want to hear some in depth stuff, with credible statements as to why he Manning should be (insert statement here) and so on.


----------



## Tones (Dec 27, 2011)

The US government is merciless to whistle blowers. His contribution to wikileaks was to show how unjust the war is. The Iraq war logs and videos including of jarheads in an Apache attack helicopter laying waste to a van full of civilians. Children were in the van as well. Iraqi laws do not apply to American troops, so they take it to their advantage. I believe one of the reasons why we are leaving Iraq is because of the proof Bradley Manning posted. Civilians and the government must be fed up. We are hated there. Bradley Manning is a freedom fighter. Not a terrorist, not a jarhead.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Dec 27, 2011)

Tones said:


> The US government is merciless to whistle blowers. His contribution to wikileaks was to show how unjust the war is. The Iraq war logs and videos including of jarheads in an Apache attack helicopter laying waste to a van full of civilians. Children were in the van as well. Iraqi laws do not apply to American troops, so they take it to their advantage. I believe one of the reasons why we are leaving Iraq is because of the proof Bradley Manning posted. Civilians and the government must be fed up. We are hated there. Bradley Manning is a freedom fighter. Not a terrorist, not a jarhead.


 
Yeah, I was very sick when I saw the logs, especially the videos. In Japan, Okinawa, there is a similar problem concerning laws for troops. A group of drunk soldiers hit and run, leaving dead; and then rushed back to base thus avoiding prosecution as the base is considered American soil (different laws as well) We`ve had a quite a few of these cases, but I honestly think its just a few people who break the law like that. Other than that I really appreciate the troops stationed here. The video was totally different and I can`t help but not being able to defend the troops when stuff like that happens. I think we should work more on peace keeping, rescue misions and protecting civilians. Thats what I wanted to do when I tried enrolling for the SDF Japan. Unfortunately my kanji level is not advanced, and thats a minus. Otherwise they really wanted me to join and teach/give instructions is english and help translate. (I speak Hindi as well) Bummer...


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> No I get that, but I was hoping you'd expand more on what you felt the long term effects of that type of thing is.



Of arbitrarily executing anybody the military accuses of a crime w/o a trial? The list is pretty long and probably fairly obvious. 

I don't necessarily think it's a big deal whether or no the general public learns "all the details" about this because I understand the 'he's military personnel handling sensitive information' aspect. I'm far from a conspiracy theorist but there's a long enough history of the government/military doing illegal/unsavory things away from the public eye that ultimately *did not* benefit the general public (Iran&#8211;Contra affair , Bay of Pigs Invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I assume the majority of what we _don't know_ is for the best but that doesn't mean I'm on board with executing people just because 'somebody knows they did something'.

I love how as soon as somebody gets their panties in a bunch over something, they just assume that 'trials are flawed and a waste of time, and we should just kill them all'. As a fellow tax payer, I'm fine with paying a few extra dollars in the interest of ensuring everybody's getting a fair trial thankyouverymuch.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Dec 27, 2011)

Tones said:


> . I believe one of the reasons why we are leaving Iraq is because of the proof Bradley Manning posted. Civilians and the government must be fed up. We are hated there. Bradley Manning is a freedom fighter. Not a terrorist, not a jarhead.



Absolutely, 100% incorrect.


----------



## Dan (Dec 27, 2011)

Speaking from the perspective of an English chap with no security clearence whatsoever who didn't pay attention to wikileaks because the cricket was on...

i think we should all sit down for some afternoon tea and chill the fuck out! 

Chickenhawk, USMarine75. Totally agree with your opinions on this one. At the end of the day he distributed clasified materials and he should face harsh penalties because of it.

HOWEVER.

The US likes to exacerbate headlines all the time and include Al Quaeda because it adds the shock factor. Whilst those documents obviously did some harm i do think they did a lot of good as well. It doesn't change what the guy did and i totally agree that he should face the harsh penalties that come with it, but i do think the US government should learn to put things as they are and not ham up their words for the public to make him sound like Hitler. Theres a time and a place for propaganda, and whilst its sometimes necessary to make an example of someone for the benefit of society i think theyre going about this the wrong way.

...now, back to my tea


----------



## Chickenhawk (Dec 27, 2011)

deleted.


----------



## Dan (Dec 27, 2011)

Chickenhawk said:


> deleted.



huh?


----------



## Chickenhawk (Dec 27, 2011)

Dan said:


> huh?



Couldn't think of a better way to say what I was going to, so I just said fuck it. 

Wasn't anything negative directed at you, Plug.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2011)

But it should've been.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Dec 27, 2011)

Randy said:


> But it should've been.



How so?


----------



## AySay (Dec 27, 2011)

I have some questions.

Why wasn't Reagan convicted of treason for Iran-Contra?
Why weren't the Koch Brothers shot for dealing with Iran illegally?

Doesn't' directly selling weapons (in Reagan's case) to your "enemy" count as treason? Doesn't that contribute to the (possible) deaths of Americans?

Didn't funding Al Qaeda when they were useful against the Russians lead to thousands of American deaths later on down the road?

Why is it that Manning is the one singled out as helping Al Qaeda, and the one to face the punishment for it? The US government has done more for Al Qaeda than Manning ever could.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2011)

Chickenhawk said:


> How so?



Because it's Dan. Fuck him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 27, 2011)

Randy said:


> But it should've been.



You can suck my left one Randall 

I wasn't expecting it to be anything negative dude , just wondering what you were going to say, im nosey like that


----------



## Chickenhawk (Dec 27, 2011)

AySay said:


> I have some questions.
> 
> Why wasn't Reagan convicted of treason for Iran-Contra?
> Why weren't the Koch Brothers shot for dealing with Iran illegally?
> ...



Oliver North WAS charged with High Treason, because he did what his President told him. Different subject.

The U.S. Government helped the Mujahideen. Look it up and educate yourself before you say "The government helped Al Qaeda!!" It wasn't like that.

For the record, we also put Saddam in power. I'm a firm believer that we should probably end all of our 'Foreign Aid", since it's bit us in the ass a few too many times.

And, on that note: I'm leaving this discussion. I waited for someone to arrogantly spew half-truths, and it's already happened a few times 

My closing statement: Bradley Manning VOLUNTARILY joined the Military. He VOLUNTARILY acquired a clearance, and VOLUNTARILY agreed to the responsibilities. He broke the rules, he should be punished accordingly.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2011)

The US government can't even get politics right at home. They shouldn't be attempting to control politics abroad.


----------



## AySay (Dec 27, 2011)

Chickenhawk said:


> The U.S. Government helped the Mujahideen. Look it up and educate yourself before you say "The government helped Al Qaeda!!" It wasn't like that.



I know that. However, that same Mujahideen is what makes up most of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan today...



> For the record, we also put Saddam in power. I'm a firm believer that we should probably end all of our 'Foreign Aid", since it's bit us in the ass a few too many times.



We agree! Sadly, the US has created most of it's own enemies through it's own actions.



> And, on that note: I'm leaving this discussion. I waited for someone to arrogantly spew half-truths, and it's already happened a few times



Not being arrogant. Not spewing half truths.



> My closing statement: Bradley Manning VOLUNTARILY joined the Military. He VOLUNTARILY acquired a clearance, and VOLUNTARILY agreed to the responsibilities. He broke the rules, he should be punished accordingly.



He should be punished. With death though? I disagree there.

I feel that his breaking of the rules shouldn't be so much the focus as the things he uncovered. The leaks show far greater crimes being committed that deserve their own investigations/punishment. However, the focus is overwhelmingly on him, and what he did to reveal the information.

It's like if I broke into your house, and found out that you're a murderer. While I do deserve to be punished for B&E, shouldn't there be greater focus be on what I found, a far worse crime than the one I commited?


----------



## Explorer (Dec 28, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> Morally was he right? It doesnt matter. You can't lable traitors based on intentions. And individuals dont get to decide whether they're right and can go off violating orders.



Sorry, this is my first time reading through this thread, but one fact wasn't really raised yet.

He didn't do this as a whistle-blower. He did this for the same reason he punched a female soldier in the face, to hurt someone. He succeeded. 

I just thought it was worth mentioning that a lot of the contemporaneous material regarding his frame of mind indicates that this wasn't some noble cause. It was to cause hurt. 

----



Dan said:


> The US likes to exacerbate headlines all the time and include Al Quaeda because it adds the shock factor. ...i do think the US government should learn to put things as they are and not ham up their words for the public to make him sound like Hitler. Theres a time and a place for propaganda... .



Dude, I think you didn't realize that article from the Dissenter, which is linked in the first post and which kicked off this discussion, isn't associated with the US government. I can understand you thinking this might be US propaganda:



> An Al Qaeda propaganda video was shown. Subtitled, the video featured a figurehead of the organization discussing the released information, like the State Department cables. The figurehead said the cables revealed &#8220;foreign dependencies.&#8221; He said something about relying on Allah for actions against the US and then said before taking actions jihadists should rely on the &#8220;wide range of resources on the Internet&#8221; now.


But no, it was an Al Qaeda vid being talked about. 

You might be making the case that noting a fact is propaganda, but I'd disagree. I'll just chalk up your propaganda argument to not understanding the article.



Chickenhawk said:


> For the record, we also put Saddam in power. I'm a firm believer that we should probably end all of our 'Foreign Aid", since it's bit us in the ass a few too many times.





BTW, if you're going to play the loyalty-to-your-President card, then don't be willing to make all kinds of statements after you fight to get immunity. North made me sick when he put on his uniform and was constantly thanked for his service while rolling on the guy by making constant insinuations. 

I disagree with what Liddy did, but Liddy didn't talk, and walked the walk. Of the two, I'd rather have Liddy at my back than North, because North already proved himself a rat who would jettison loyalty for self-interest. I wouldn't be able to trust such a guy in matters of life and death.

My dad always said, the only thing which will buy true loyalty is loyalty in return. 

Okay, I think I have to bail on this topic now. *laugh*


----------



## Dan (Dec 28, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Dude, I think you didn't realize that article from the Dissenter, which is linked in the first post and which kicked off this discussion, isn't associated with the US government. I can understand you thinking this might be US propaganda:
> 
> But no, it was an Al Qaeda vid being talked about.
> 
> You might be making the case that noting a fact is propaganda, but I'd disagree. I'll just chalk up your propaganda argument to not understanding the article.



I meant that statement in ther most general of terms. I did read the article and i did comprehend its statement but from over the pond the impression we are getting through the media is that you guys are going to court marshall and kill this guy for being a terrorist and helping Al-Quaeda, which isnt completely true.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Dec 28, 2011)

We are getting a bit off topic 
It doesn't matter what Bradley leaked to wiki 
It's the fact he leaked documents to wiki that he had no authorization to do so
That makes him, in my book, a traitor


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 28, 2011)

Deleted.


----------



## Dan (Dec 28, 2011)

djinn314 said:


> When you AID the ENEMY you are a traitor. Or what I would rather say "ALI BAH-BAH" (BAD GUY IN ARABIC).
> 
> Whether people chose to believe it or not: People out there are still trying to kill us. And I'm tired of the US GOV'T aided the Muj. And blah blah blah.
> 
> ...



So.... what are you trying to get at that was different to his opinion there? 

He wasn't trying to AID any enemy so to speak, not a singular opposition anyway. Why bring up a Quran reference that in all honest has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

Also a Wiki link doesnt count for anything. Look at past history in textbooks and general common knowledge.  Just a heads up, some of us on the forum here are a little older and we know a thing or two.


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 28, 2011)

Edit: Deleted. 

But " Just a heads up, some of us on the forum here are a little older and we know a thing or two." doesn't seem very necessary.
I am more then willing to explain, but if you're going to use words to try to belittle or intimidate me go ahead. I am actually an Iraq War Veteran. I do know a thing or two also. But I don't understand the need to explain for pleasure of someone who uses hostility/aggressiveness & who clearly does not want me here.


----------



## Dan (Dec 28, 2011)

No offence was intended at all dude. Just the way you worded your previous statement made you sound a little like you were expressing an opinion with phrases and words that were trying to condescend AK Dragon, but you agreed with him at the same time.

We get a lot of people on the forum who talk the talk but have no idea what they are on about when it comes to the nitty gritty. I guess i was generalising. Once again i apologise if i came across a little conceitful.


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 28, 2011)

Well, if it means anything, I qualified as a British Para and trained with II and III Para. I spent a lot of time in New Castle and "Spade-Adam" training grounds, and most of it drunk. I'm extremely terrified of midgies. 

But I wasn't intending to be condescending towards anyone. That's not what I'm about. But I'm not going to go and rephrase what I said now and try to explain it. I'm done with it. I really think I'll be wasting my time.


----------



## Dan (Dec 28, 2011)

I thought you said you hate midgets there 

Honestly dont get the wrong idea of this forum by my actions earlier. We are all nice dudes, just we get a lot of asshats here (not saying that you are one at all) and when someone quotes wikipeida and a religious text it sets alarm bells ringing. Please dont take it to heart, if you stick around you'll totally understand what im going on about. I think im just turning into a grumpy old man 

Please, do share your opinion


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 28, 2011)

I believe they're are ass hats out there. I actually saw them on Sharper Image I think (jk).

What I meant to infer was that Al Qaeda = Wahabism: a "version" of Islam which is what they use to motivate people to do bad things against innocent people.

If the person in question is aiding Wahabism, I view them as a traitor. Because of the religious quote I had posted. It is THE only contradiction to combat Wahabism/Al Qaeda and their wannabe's (Ansar Al Islam, etc). If he is trying to help Al Qaeda I think he would be Gitmo and/or it would be all over the headlines.

I'd like people though to continue the conversation. How I get my start here is sorta going the wrong direction. So I'd rather someone skip over what I have to say if it really is a distraction. I apologize if my "history" in the military some how makes this seem to some people as unnecessary; I view it as: I met these guys face to face. Actually using that quote from Quran earlier with Peshmerga who were against the P.U.K. while in the Sargat Valley near Sulaymania.

off topic Question to Dan: Is Buffalo Joe's or whatever it is still open in New Castle? I only remember the train station, that place, and Mega-Bar. And when my buddy thought Mega-Pub was a gay-bar and freaked out drunk out of his mind. Mega-Bar was awesome though.


----------



## slowro (Dec 28, 2011)

It wasn't for him to decide what information should be in the public domain and he broke serious rules. It seems pretty black and white to me. Anyone could have used/obtained this information for whatever they wanted to achieve. 

I am British but excuse me for commenting on this. There have been secrets as long as there has been humans.


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 28, 2011)

^ exactly this. 

The debate shouldn't be over WHO he aided or WHY. Everything he dealt with was at a minimum U/FOUO (unclassified/for official use only). Where I work, every email I send has the same warning at the bottom. I probably see that stupid message a hundred times every day. When I handle sensitive/classified info it has its own warnings. So, how can I claim any ignorance of the law? If I violate it, it is with full knowledge of the consequences. And the most important point is that it doesn't matter who I give it to or why. All that matters is I violated the law BY GIVING IT. I agree with Slowro... who am I to decide what should be released.

Of course I also believe Armitage, Libby, Novak et al should have been shot for outing CIA Agent Valerie Plame... To me nothing is more important than loyalty and integrity... so shoot them all.

[And please lets not get into the silly we created and aided Al-Qaeda BS. That's simply untrue and demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the history of the middle east... or a willingness to troll. I'm a subject matter expert in the area so I'd love to discuss it with anyone if they care... but it might be boring to some (most) so I don't want to ramble on here if no one cares...]


----------



## flint757 (Dec 29, 2011)

I agree wholeheartedly that he deserves punishment for what he did, but y'all sound like a bunch of rednecks with the "string him up" and "shoot em all" comments, have some class people.

Handling documents and getting the death penalty while serial killers, rapists and child molester get a couple years seems unfair, albeit 2 different court systems (although I think they should get the death penalty). I think this is where some of the disagreement lays, more so than how sensitive the info is, who's guilty and whatever else everyone is saying.

Agree about who started what business being pointless though. It is all hindsight and it is also all speculative at best even if true.


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 29, 2011)

Treat him as others before him

I'm pretty sure if some dude in any military broke the rules that he or she signed should face the consequences.

He made the choice to betray comrades by doing that: Let him lay in his bed, even if it ends up with a firing squad.


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 29, 2011)

Bradley Manning Trial Could End In Plea Deal


----------



## Explorer (Dec 29, 2011)

Dan said:


> I meant that statement ("Al Qaeda" being aided is propaganda? - Explorer) in ther most general of terms. I did read the article and i did comprehend its statement but from over the pond the impression we are getting through the media is that you guys are going to court marshall and kill this guy for being a terrorist and helping Al-Quaeda, which isnt completely true.



What was funny about that article was that it seemed to be putting the facts out there, but then putting the worst spin on the proceedings, but completely dismissing any negative aspects of Manning's actions.

Unfortunately, that kind of spin reflects on the other things which such websites choose to promote. In this case, it appears the site supports that group which was demanding that laws be passed due to pressure, rather than through the democratic rule of law. (Is that Occupy thing still going on? Did they ever decide what they actually wanted? I know there's another topic for this somewhere, but either nothing current is being posted to it... or there's nothing going on.)

Anyway, I suspect it's more about what news sources one chooses to rely on. Most of the news sources I rely on don't have a "Kill Bradley Manning!" drumbeat in the background.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 29, 2011)

This debate kind of reminds me of something that happened to me when I was very young. Roughly 4 or 5 years old, which would have been roughly 1984/85.

I was hanging out with my Mom in the kitchen on a weekend morning. She was at the stove making breakfast, and she had just removed a fresh pot of coffee from the coffee maker. My eyes suddenly fixated on the empty burner on that coffee maker. To this day I don't really know why, but I was completely powerless to resist its charms.

My Mom could tell I was interested in the burner. "DON'T touch that," she said. "It's VERY hot."

I reached my hand up over the counter, and my Mom got more insistent.

"CARL, DON'T TOUCH THAT. HOT. VERY HOT."

I looked at her, then I looked back at the burner. I just couldn't help myself.

I reached my hand out again, and placed it directly on the burner. Full contact of palm and all finger pads. Within nano-seconds, I realized my folly. That was the moment I learned that human skin (my skin, coincidentally) can bubble/blister when burned.

My point, here? You guys can debate all day about whether or not I deserved to have second degree burns on my hand at the age of 4/5. The fact is I was well warned of the consequences before I put my hand on that burner, and I have nobody to blame but myself for the result of having done so despite the warnings I was given.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 29, 2011)

Very true. I don't know how many times I was briefed on the importance of classified material before arriving on site and I was told several times again after arriving on site. I've heard of interns getting in ridiculous amounts of trouble for doing things less severe than what this guy did.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Dec 29, 2011)

Explorer said:


> What was funny about that article was that it seemed to be putting the facts out there, but then putting the worst spin on the proceedings, but completely dismissing any negative aspects of Manning's actions.
> 
> Unfortunately, that kind of spin reflects on the other things which such websites choose to promote. In this case, it appears the site supports that group which was demanding that laws be passed due to pressure, rather than through the democratic rule of law. (Is that Occupy thing still going on? Did they ever decide what they actually wanted? I know there's another topic for this somewhere, but either nothing current is being posted to it... or there's nothing going on.)
> 
> Anyway, I suspect it's more about what news sources one chooses to rely on. Most of the news sources I rely on don't have a "Kill Bradley Manning!" drumbeat in the background.



Agreed

That has got to be one of the worst spins I have seen those liberal journalists put on a story.

EDIT: Now if we can only charge the media with 'giving aide and comfort to the enemy' for their spin...


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 29, 2011)

But Synrgy, at least you were 5, not 25. 

My favorite part is that the defense (Coombs) is arguing from both sides. On one hand, he invokes MLK and says that Manning was doing the right thing by providing the public with the truth and that he is a hero not a traitor. But, on the other hand... if you think that he's guilty of treason, well... that's because he has Gender Identity Disorder and shouldn't have been put in a position to safeguard classified data (i.e. it's his command's fault). He's playing the old 'if the bra doesn't fit, then this tranny you must acquit' defense. Classic. Well played, sir. 





Oh and on the other _other_ hand, if you don't think he did the right thing and you do think it's his fault, well then... it's not like he gave it directly to Al-Qaeda anyways (plus we have to sift through it and see if any of it was actually of value to Al-Qaeda). 

Reminds me of how an old professor of mine just sent me a link to buy the book he just wrote... and said I might like it, but if I didn't then it's probably his editor's fault.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 29, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> But Synrgy, at least you were 5, not 25.


 
Perhaps an indication of the type of mind set required to be told something that many times, understand the importance and still not do what you're told.


----------



## renzoip (Dec 29, 2011)

This looks like a desperate attempt by the government to keep people ignorant of the war crimes that are committed behind our backs. By associating the term "terrorist" to any individual or organization who dares to challenge the credibility of the government, they effectively end the conversation there. I mean, how do you defend a terrorist/or a terrorist collaborator? Exactly... you'll be called traitor anti-american blah blah blah.

AS, a civilian, I'm glad that someone was able to uncover the things that the government is doing behind my back. I'm not glad to see this happening but it's better than living in a dreamland and be spoon fed by pro government mainstream media. Which, interestingly are acting against the flow of information.

Another thing, it's pretty obvious that Manning knew what he was getting into. He was told not to do something and he did it anyways. So i'm sure he is not irrational. I think that he, like many others, found something so essential wrong with the info those documents contained that he decided to take the risk of putting it out there for people to know what the government is up to. So, it's not just about him being a "traitor terrorist collaborator" and "just shooting him" for me. I think the problem is much deeper than that.


Now, labeling whistle blowers as terrorist while trying to keep people ignorant of state terrorism is pretty undemocratic to me, so in that sense, I can see what the OP is saying. I want to believe in our government and that we are doing the right things for the right reasons, but when the government makes such desperate attempt to hide the truth, then that definitely hurts their credibility and the legitimacy of their actions. 

I have had the opportunity to talk to many people who work(ed) for the armed forces, and they do not speak in a unison voice about these issues, some have actually have the guts to condemn the actions of the government. So I think it is unfair that our service men here are trying to put down the opinions of those who disagree with them just because they are civilians.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 29, 2011)

Well looks like he is in line for a lesser charge that seems more appropriate so I'm on board now.

To the above poster it just depends on how you look at it. If you think the law is the law no matter what then there is no question of his guiltiness. 

If you believe cases should be subjective and taken case by case or that despite the specifics of the law involved aren't worthy of a charge you may feel another way.

I think most people are a mixed bag of both. What I can say is that I think they went overboard with the terrorist accusation, that his intention may (or may not) have been under the best of intentions, and that in reference to the MLK thing he deserves what is coming to him because if his intent was selfless then he knew what could happen.

I bounce back and forth on the issue, but I think he just thought he could get away with it the more I think about it similar to people who torrent and then get caught and find the penalty harsh.

[EDIT]
and I'm a civilian


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 30, 2011)

You can have an opinion on the matter and be civilian, who said you can't?

I don't know about War Crimes on the US, British or any NATO forces other than FFL in the Congo. Sure dudes make bad calls outside the wire but until you've been there you can't really talk it. It'd be like some drummer on here telling all of the guys on this forum how to REALLY play the guitar.

The best group of individuals one can call as a friend is the one that serves with you willing to shed the holy coin of blood that only Veterans only know the weight of. If that is why "civilians" don't understand or think that Veterans are being arses about it...All I can say is you can't talk it before you walked it. I walked it: If a veterans facts are hagwash from real life experiences than the civilian who reads the news paper really knows what is going on, I'm ready to leave this planet! Veterans are the only ones who CARE enough to try and explain. If you really think any veteran is about downgrading or downing anyone: They aren't a Veteran.

Fact is Bradley Manning doesn't care about the guys looking down the iron sights or the optics of their weapon wondering if they're gonna make it home. He doesn't have the liberty or the *pleasure.* But *the pleasure for fighting for people you care about is something that no words can replace.* What does he care about? Head line news? Being infamous? Looks to me like he wanted everyone to know his name, by doing the wrong things. He's a Chair-Borne Pogue that had nothing better to do IMO.

You can think all you want but his actions are his alone. He'll face the consequences in this life or the next.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 30, 2011)

Chickenhawk said:


> Insult 'honor' or 'Patriotism' all you want, kid. It's something you'll never understand.



Hands up for the most embarrassingly jingoistic, condescending post in a thread of top contenders.


He did commit treason and should expect to be charged accordingly (whether the level of punishment is right is a different issue). But sometimes commiting treason is morally just. He did expose fucking appalling things that the allied forces were doing, that's a good thing.\


EDIT: Someone has neg repped me asking "treason is morally just? Are you kidding me?"

If your government is doing something wrong, then yes. It can't be very hard to think of a plethora of examples through history to that effect, surely?


----------



## Explorer (Dec 30, 2011)

chronocide said:


> But sometimes commiting treason is morally just. He did expose fucking appalling things that the allied forces were doing, that's a good thing.\



But again, it seems like that was not at the forefront of his mind, according to his other actions, and even his own words (at least the ones which I've run across in various published accounts). There might have been some positive consequences from his actions, but his intent was, just as his punching a female soldier in the face, to cause hurt. 

I know you've acknowledged that, if accounts are accurate, he did commit treason and should pay the penalty. However, it also seems like you're arguing that this particular incident should spark soul searching regarding some of the good things which come about from treason, none of which are related to the motives of this particular actor. 

"He wanted to hurt! He wanted to embarrass! But we should consider that people sometimes do these things for good reasons... and therefore should ignore his bad reasons!"

I suspect that the reason you're experiencing some criticism is that a lot of people are rejecting arguing to the specific from the general. Sure, there are particular reasons why someone might blow the whistle out of good intentions, and who are brave enough to pay the price for standing up for their principles. That's not this guy.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 30, 2011)

djinn314 said:


> You can have an opinion on the matter and be civilian, who said you can't?
> 
> I don't know about War Crimes on the US, British or any NATO forces other than FFL in the Congo. Sure dudes make bad calls outside the wire but until you've been there you can't really talk it. It'd be like some drummer on here telling all of the guys on this forum how to REALLY play the guitar.
> 
> ...



If my drummer gave me good advice why not? I hate people with that mentality (not directly referring to you) but it is narrow minded to say the least.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 31, 2011)

Explorer said:


> But again, it seems like that was not at the forefront of his mind, according to his other actions, and even his own words (at least the ones which I've run across in various published accounts). There might have been some positive consequences from his actions, but his intent was, just as his punching a female soldier in the face, to cause hurt.
> 
> I know you've acknowledged that, if accounts are accurate, he did commit treason and should pay the penalty. However, it also seems like you're arguing that this particular incident should spark soul searching regarding some of the good things which come about from treason, none of which are related to the motives of this particular actor.
> 
> ...



Having read your earlier post I wondered if you might respond like that. I'm aware of the fact that his intentions don't seem to have been any moral high-horsing. I don't think the intention is relevant (and I made no intimation whatsoever that he should receive any different treatment because of the for-the-public nature of the result). Someone doing a good thing for the wrong reason has the same end result as someone doing the right thing for the right reasons.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 31, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I don't think the intention is relevant (and I made no intimation whatsoever that he should receive any different treatment because of the for-the-public nature of the result). Someone doing a good thing for the wrong reason has the same end result as someone doing the right thing for the right reasons.



I think you aren't aware that extenuating circumstances often come into play when considering someone's culpability under US law, including military law. 

So, although you might argue that someone doing the right thing for whatever reason has the same end result, intent counts a great deal when being tried for doing the wrong thing. The result is the same, but one's intentions have a huge bearing.

Hmm... let me think of a simple example...

Okay, so there are various charges which can come about by causing someone's death. In the first place, the death can be ruled completely accidental. There is involuntary manslaughter. Death through reckless endangerment. Murder without premeditation. Murder with premeditation. You might view them as completely the same, but the American system of justice does not, just as the majority of US citizens do not. 

In this case, it sounds like you want this to be about the good result (bad things coming to light) as opposed to what the actual trial is about (treason committed to intentionally cause hurt/injury). There was a great deal of hurt which resulted from the leaks. I believe around 90 assets were exposed. Wikileaks founder Julian Assande had claimed that the documents on his site had led to the deaths of 1300 people, but later reversed himself when he realized that was not exactly the most endearing claim. 

Short version: You're making the false argument that intent doesn't matter in the US legal system. Don't do that.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 31, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I think you aren't aware that extenuating circumstances often come into play when considering someone's culpability under US law, including military law.
> 
> So, although you might argue that someone doing the right thing for whatever reason has the same end result, intent counts a great deal when being tried for doing the wrong thing. The result is the same, but one's intentions have a huge bearing.



I think you're maybe still missing my point. I'm not saying the end result's just-ness should have any impact on the outcome of his courtcase whatsoever.



Explorer said:


> In this case, it sounds like you want this to be about the good result (bad things coming to light) as opposed to what the actual trial is about (treason committed to intentionally cause hurt/injury).



Well, I think this IS about the good result, but I don't think the trial is, nor should be.



Explorer said:


> Short version: You're making the false argument that intent doesn't matter in the US legal system. Don't do that.



I did no such thing. 

I'd encourage you to try and be less condescending about something you've misinterpreted and making presumptions as to what people know.


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 31, 2011)

Flint I'm not saying the drummer wouldn't know anything I'm trying to place perspective to the topic at hand. The drummer might not know everything is what I'm saying. There is something unique to someone who lived something rather than someone who saw it from the news media, who in my opinion: told an ass backwards story of what went on and is going on.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 31, 2011)

djinn314 said:


> Flint I'm not saying the drummer wouldn't know anything I'm trying to place perspective to the topic at hand. The drummer might not know everything is what I'm saying. There is something unique to someone who lived something rather than someone who saw it from the news media, who in my opinion: told an ass backwards story of what went on and is going on.



Ya I know I was just poking fun because I here that argument about a lot of things and it isn't "always" true, but obviously can be. 

I here that argument about work experience, politics, music and anything else people can think of its too easy of a knee jerk reaction to discount someones perspective/thoughts/advice because they haven't had the experience or been in said position. 

While it is easy to do because most of the time it would be a correct accusation, it does not immediately indicate that the person is wrong or couldn't know what he is talking about.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 31, 2011)

@Chronocide: I was just trying to explain why you might be getting some pushback on your viewpoints. I was under the impression that you had no idea why that might be.

You admitted that this person violated the law, but for whatever reason brought up the non sequitur that in some cases that some cases doing a bad thing with a good intention may bring about good results... and then seem to be wanting to use that logic in this particular case. If not... it seems as foolish to bring it up in this particular case as it would to bring up killing in self defense when one is talking about, say, the crimes of Ted Bundy. 

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was really assuming the best in terms of you genuinely not understanding. 

I'll readily admit that I have no clue why you started arguing that if there is a good result from an action, regardless of motive, then there are no consequences. Why use a non-crime as an argument about what should happen with a crime? 

Oh, well. Insight.


----------



## djinn314 (Dec 31, 2011)

flint757 said:


> Ya I know I was just poking fun because I here that argument about a lot of things and it isn't "always" true, but obviously can be.
> 
> I here that argument about work experience, politics, music and anything else people can think of its too easy of a knee jerk reaction to discount someones perspective/thoughts/advice because they haven't had the experience or been in said position.
> 
> While it is easy to do because most of the time it would be a correct accusation, it does not immediately indicate that the person is wrong or couldn't know what he is talking about.



No it wouldn't. But it would be equally foolish. What I said in that original post is that as a Veteran I'd be highly pissed off if someone said you didn't have the right to say what you think or feel.


----------



## chronocide (Jan 2, 2012)

Explorer said:


> @Chronocide: I was just trying to explain why you might be getting some pushback on your viewpoints. I was under the impression that you had no idea why that might be.
> 
> You admitted that this person violated the law, but for whatever reason brought up the non sequitur that in some cases that some cases doing a bad thing with a good intention may bring about good results... and then seem to be wanting to use that logic in this particular case. If not... it seems as foolish to bring it up in this particular case as it would to bring up killing in self defense when one is talking about, say, the crimes of Ted Bundy.



What on earth are you talking about? I'm using that logic in this case because it is applicable. 

I'm not sure you understand what a non sequitur is - I've stated no conclusion.



> I'll readily admit that I have no clue why you started arguing that if there is a good result from an action, regardless of motive, then there are no consequences.



I didn't remotely argue that.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 2, 2012)

I don't think there is a reason to down other people over the internet.


----------



## Randy (Jan 2, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> I don't think there is a reason to down other people over the internet.



Sad Trombone



As for the rest of you, please maintain civility or this one's getting locked.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 3, 2012)

you best watch out I thought at first you said Rusty Trombone! lol!


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 3, 2012)

I find it really hard to believe that Mr. Manning would go all the way to collect all this appaling evidence to "hurt". It seems that he only took cable archives, a few videos of the army abusing their power by killing inoccent civilians, and the iraq war logs. No where do I find any army plans, codes, security related stuff, anything that would help Alqaeda or any other terrorist organization at all. All the evidence he collected just shows the corruption and hideous secrets the government has kept. Now I`m not going to tell people to go though the documents, but really even the judge is gonna have to agree that the documents were of no importance to terrorist organizations. As for the gender-identity crisis stuff, I feel it is irrelevant to what he did. Using that as a supporting thesis is the weakest form of evidence against him. 

*May 23, 1:11:54 PM Manning*: and ... its important that it gets out ... i feel, for some bizarre reason *1:12:02 PM Manning*: it might actually change something
*1:13:10 PM Manning*: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn&#8217;t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn&#8217;t for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ...
*1:39:03 PM, Manning*: i cant believe what im confessing to you :&#8217;(

*02:22:47 PM, Manning*: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
*02:23:25 PM, Manning*: i could&#8217;ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?
*02:23:36 PM, Lamo*: why didn&#8217;t you?
*02:23:58 PM, Manning*: because it&#8217;s public data ...
*02:24:46 PM, Manning*: it belongs in the public domain ...


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 4, 2012)

I will gladly take the charge of "war crime" any day, any week. Show me, when where and how. Because I am highly doubtful that an E4 who spent about as much time in the Army as my socks did on ONE tour of Duty knows something everyone else doesn't. I will also take the corruption charge (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/) <- stolen from that one Marine on this board. (hope you don't mind, jar jar binx)

With *full respect:* I was in the Army, I served with Multi-National Units and other branches of the U.S., U.K. and AUS. Do you really think out of all of those people, that that person who signed the UCMJ, is going to stumble onto this big secret? That the US was moving its fingers like Mr. Smithers from the Simpsons actually thinking "we can make money off of this" aka (the Iraq War). I would take the time and find out about Sargat Iraq and put the 5 W's there.. You might find a whole lot more information than what was "leaked". I feel this more related to the claims of "The Gov't was behind 911, the Kennedy assassination, etc" then politically related other than if someone wants to argue about legal/political system at hand. That has much more relevance and weight to it than anything he "uncovered".


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 4, 2012)

Explorer said:


> So, although you might argue that someone doing the right thing for whatever reason has the same end result, intent counts a great deal when being tried for doing the wrong thing.



It makes a shit load of difference in a murder trial sometimes. And that's a crime punishable by death in some places.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 4, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> As for the gender-identity crisis stuff, I feel it is irrelevant to what he did. Using that as a supporting thesis is the weakest form of evidence against him.


 
The gender identity stuff is being used by his defense (Coombs), not the military. 

Soldier&rsquo;s gender identity issues raised in WikiLeaks case - The Washington Post

Defense cites Bradley Manning?s emotional, gender issues at Wikileaks hearing - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com


----------



## flint757 (Jan 4, 2012)

USMarine75 said:


> The gender identity stuff is being used by his defense (Coombs), not the military.
> 
> Soldier&rsquo;s gender identity issues raised in WikiLeaks case - The Washington Post
> 
> Defense cites Bradley Manning?s emotional, gender issues at Wikileaks hearing - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com



I think that is what he meant because that indeed is a terrible excuse.


----------



## Randy (Jan 4, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I think that is what he meant because that indeed is a terrible excuse.



I dunno, dude. Chicks can't help but gossip.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 5, 2012)

New cables released: Leaked cables confirm U.S. role in Somalia war

: /


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 5, 2012)

Of course the U.S. has a role in the Somalian War...Al-Shabaab?


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 5, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> Of course the U.S. has a role in the Somalian War...Al-Shabaab?



It translates to something like kids/boys.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 5, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> It translates to something like kids/boys.









Yeah, they recruit kids to kill other people. Sure man, they sound like awesome people.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 5, 2012)

I stumbled on this again from another thread:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/death-zone-20110327/0443520

The vid is sickening....


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 5, 2012)

freedom comes with a price and sometimes that means people have to die.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 5, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> freedom comes with a price and sometimes that means people have to die.



True. But don`t you think that in a way we deprive of other`s freedom for our sake? I just can`t help but to think of the iraq war as a perfect example. Although I do admire you guys doing your job, the toll of deaths don`t reflect good things.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 5, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> True. But don`t you think that in a way we deprive of other`s freedom for our sake? I just can`t help but to think of the iraq war as a perfect example. Although I do admire you guys doing your job, the toll of deaths don`t reflect good things.



If you want a more perfect example of the Iraq War I would gladly share it, but your version of the Iraq War is a version have to disagree with. I fought there, my best friend was killed there. And I watched a lot more people be killed by the hands of people I have to loath. They were trying to kill us too. There are things in war that will happen that you just can't understand. Even I still can't. But if you believe we were depriving people of their freedoms, you should take look at what they had. The cause was Iraqi Freedom. Not just for the Sunni Minority, or the Shi'ite majority, but even the Assyrian Christians who weren't allowed to even admit their faith. Or the women who were not allowed to have an education, and they were killed for merely trying. And I know my friends and I didn't fight for Bush, any CEO's or for money. We did it because we believed in it, and still do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt8cqBDSbD0


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 5, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> If you want a more perfect example of the Iraq War I would gladly share it, but your version of the Iraq War is a version have to disagree with. I fought there, my best friend was killed there. And I watched a lot more people be killed by the hands of people I have to loath. They were trying to kill us too. There are things in war that will happen that you just can't understand. Even I still can't. But if you believe we were depriving people of their freedoms, you should take look at what they had. The cause was Iraqi Freedom. Not just for the Sunni Minority, or the Shi'ite majority, but even the Assyrian Christians who weren't allowed to even admit their faith. Or the women who were not allowed to have an education, and they were killed for merely trying. And I know my friends and I didn't fight for Bush, any CEO's or for money. We did it because we believed in it, and still do.



Ahh I think you misunderstood me, or I didn`t phrase it correctly. I meant the lives of innocent civilians and soldiers. Other than that I totally agree with you. I just hope there will be alternatives to such situations in the future. Thank you and your friends for fighting for freedom on behalf of those who can`t. Shukran.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 5, 2012)

It's cool but you were making a point about this PFC or SPC and what he did and these cases of "depriving people of their freedoms" or malicious acts by soldiers in a war zone. I understand they were talking points or examples to provide validity to what that person did. That point is what I'm talking about.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 5, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> freedom comes with a price and sometimes that means people have to die.



Sorry, but I can't help myself. That post totally reminded me of this:


----------



## Randy (Jan 5, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> freedom comes with a price and sometimes that means people have to die.



Firstly, I appreciate your services and I'm sorry to hear about your loss. I have family and friends who've served in Iraq as well, all of which made it back alive but most of which didn't come back the same. My sympathies. 

That said, the quote I have above is exactly the attitude that I don't appreciate and does your message and the actions of "us" over there no justice. This is what you post as a reply to people videoing the mowing down of other people and the photographing of their corpses, synced to heavy metal music as a "fuck yeah! look what we did" tribute? If it's your job or your responsibility to fight, maybe to kill and prevent your friends from being killed, then so be it but there's no justifying taking pride in who you killed, like it's a bloodsport. And, I'm sorry, but you have some fucking nerve replying to that like you did.

How would you respond to the same videotaping of Americans being killed, their bodies being photographed, set to music and circulated among the enemy? How would you feel if, to that same video or to the death of your friends or fellow servicemen, we replied "freedom comes with a price and sometimes that means people have to die"? Pretty shitty, right?

Once again, I appreciate and understand YOUR actions and what had to be done to survive over there but that doesn't need to happen at the expense of justifying what EVERYONE did over there in our name.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 5, 2012)

Randy, I`m gonna have to ask you to keep it civil in here or else you will be... wait a sec...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 5, 2012)

Not to mention you shouldnt be overly surprised they were trying to kill you. After all you guys did kind of invade them and bomb the shit out of them, chances are that took out someone close to them too. I think a big part of the resistance came from people who probably wanted some revenge and werent initially radicals...


----------



## renzoip (Jan 5, 2012)

Randy said:


> Firstly, I appreciate your services and I'm sorry to hear about your loss. I have family and friends who've served in Iraq as well, all of which made it back alive but most of which didn't come back the same. My sympathies.
> 
> That said, the quote I have above is exactly the attitude that I don't appreciate and does your message and the actions of "us" over there no justice. This is what you post as a reply to people videoing the mowing down of other people and the photographing of their corpses, synced to heavy metal music as a "fuck yeah! look what we did" tribute? If it's your job or your responsibility to fight, maybe to kill and prevent your friends from being killed, then so be it but there's no justifying taking pride in who you killed, like it's a bloodsport. And, I'm sorry, but you have some fucking nerve replying to that like you did.
> 
> ...




Your post kinda reminds me of this add:




* Ignore the overly dramatic tone tone of the add, and Ron Paul for that matter. I think the add definitely has a point that makes sense to a lot of people.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 5, 2012)

Randy said:


> Firstly, I appreciate your services and I'm sorry to hear about your loss. I have family and friends who've served in Iraq as well, all of which made it back alive but most of which didn't come back the same. My sympathies.
> 
> That said, the quote I have above is exactly the attitude that I don't appreciate and does your message and the actions of "us" over there no justice. This is what you post as a reply to people videoing the mowing down of other people and the photographing of their corpses, synced to heavy metal music as a "fuck yeah! look what we did" tribute? If it's your job or your responsibility to fight, maybe to kill and prevent your friends from being killed, then so be it but there's no justifying taking pride in who you killed, like it's a bloodsport. And, I'm sorry, but you have some fucking nerve replying to that like you did.
> 
> ...



While I'm totally cool with what you have to say. I think it's pretty fucked that I am getting negative rep for this reason...
*
01-05-2012 02:05 PM I'm sure the Iraqis must have said the same thing when your friend died...*

I'm probably just gonna stay off the political forum from now on. If people are that sick and twisted then I know my place isn't here. No offense Randy I think you're cool shit and quite hilarious, but that kind of talk makes me incredibly sick to my stomach. I seriously want to reply to everything you have to say because you do have points and I am in by no means saying that there is a reason to use someone elses body as a trophy.

And to the person who made the comment: I wish you the best honestly. It always makes me smile to know that there are people who are THAT way. 

I'm done, I'm out. I'll stick to the ERG forums. I think it would be best for me because I actually give a damn. Watch I'll get negative rep for this too.


----------



## Randy (Jan 5, 2012)

On second thought, this thread's been patently harsh and uncivil from the start, so it's staying locked down for good.


----------

